← Back to House of Commons Debates
Environmental Protection
18 July 2023
Lead MP
Therese Coffey
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
ClimateAgriculture & Rural Affairs
Other Contributors: 14
At a Glance
Therese Coffey raised concerns about environmental protection in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The motion to approve the draft Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023 and related regulations was moved, aiming to enhance regulatory measures for environmental protection.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Welcomed the Government's measures aimed at strengthening penalties for water companies that pollute. Mentioned the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's emergency session with Thames Water regarding regulatory improvements.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Stressed the effectiveness of the current Conservative Government in tackling pollution compared to previous administrations, particularly highlighting the Liberal Democrats' lack of action during their time in office.
Asked for assurance that Anglian Water would face severe penalties for repeated use of storm overflows leading to sewage discharges in Southend West and Leigh-on-Sea.
Inquired about the use of fines received from water companies for improving local water infrastructure.
George Eustice
Con
Constituency Not Given
Asked how the Government would protect farmers from heavy-handed enforcement by the Environment Agency and inquired about removing blockages at Knapp Mill to prevent flooding in his constituency.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Emphasised the need for Ofwat to ensure that water bill increases are justified and as low as practically possible. Also asked about the retrieval of dividends from chief executives of polluting companies.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Asked whether fines could be used to retrieve dividends paid to chief executives for the betterment of customers and the environment.
Welcomed the regulations but asked if fines levied against polluting water companies like Southern Water could be redirected to support local angling societies in restoring fish stocks.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Critiqued the Government's handling of sewage pollution issues over the past 13 years, highlighting millions of hours of raw sewage dumping into natural water bodies. Asked for an assessment of the economic impact on coastal businesses.
Counter-argued that there is scaremongering from Opposition MPs about the level of sewage being discharged and highlighted significant investment in bathing waters quality, noting less than 5% contamination from combined sewer overflows.
Natalie Elphicke
Con
Dover and Deal
Elphicke criticises the statutory instruments for not addressing the reform of Natural England and the Environment Agency. She highlights that additional powers should be coupled with fundamental reforms in water regulation. The purpose of these regulations is to shift the cost burden for pollution from fines to infrastructure investment by incentivising compliance through market pressures. Elphicke expresses concern over the ineffective regulatory approach, citing her experience with sewage flooding issues where good intentions did not translate into effective delivery due to bureaucratic and technical obstacles. She advocates for a more technical and collaborative approach involving water companies and local authorities, as exemplified in Deal's pathfinder project tackling long-standing flooding problems through innovative engineering solutions and nature-based measures. Elphicke also critiques the overreach of Natural England on housing development issues, pointing out that its moratorium has blocked thousands of homes from being built, while allowing agricultural pollution to persist unaddressed. She calls for an overhaul of quangos like Natural England to ensure accountability in decision-making related to communities and economic matters.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
The speaker raised concerns about 'remit creep' among environmental regulators, requesting a review of their remits. He also questioned why certain statutory instruments were not cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI). He highlighted public concern over sewage discharges and mentioned that Labour had abstained from voting on an Opposition day motion despite briefing the press.
The Minister emphasised that these regulations aim to end pollution and make polluters pay. She criticised the Labour party for misleading the public, noting that beaches are cleaner now compared to under previous Labour governments due to their inaction. The Minister also defended civil servants against accusations of bad behaviour from the opposition and mentioned that the Government had already voted in favour of Labour's motion on sewage discharges. Finally, she stated that these regulations align with what regulators have requested and will help restore the environment.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West
In a brief intervention, Ruth Jones confirmed that Labour had abstained from voting on its own motion due to internal disagreements within the party. She did not provide additional context or details beyond this confirmation.
Government Response
The Minister emphasised that these regulations aim to end pollution and make polluters pay. She criticised the Labour party for misleading the public, noting that beaches are cleaner now compared to under previous Labour governments due to their inaction. The Minister also defended civil servants against accusations of bad behaviour from the opposition and mentioned that the Government had already voted in favour of Labour's motion on sewage discharges. Finally, she stated that these regulations align with what regulators have requested and will help restore the environment.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.