REFORM UK’s spending commitments would cause “twice the amount of damage” to the economy than the Liz Truss mini-budget, Environment Secretary Steve Reed has said.
Outlining the government’s plans to reform the water sector, he claimed that Nigel Farage’s proposal to part-nationalise the industry would cost £50 billion.
Speaking to GB News, he said: “The water system is completely broken. We’ve got, as you were saying, we’ve got record levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. But we’ve also got record bill hikes. So customers feel like they’re paying more and getting less.
“So what this government is doing is leading a complete overhaul of the entire water sector. And that is why I’m calling it a revolution. There are three building blocks to that change.
“The first is resetting the system, bringing in tougher criminal sentences for water bosses who are breaking the law over water pollution, banning the payment of unfair multi-million pound bonuses to those individuals, but also rebuilding the system by bringing in the biggest amount of private sector investment in history to upgrade those broken pipes that are under our feet and under our rivers.
“£104 billion, that allows me to say that over five years, we can cut water pollution in half. Now that money is already being spent. It started to be spent in April this year. So change is already happening and people will start to see that as we move forward through the coming months and years
“And by changing the rules that govern water companies, which is what today’s announcements were about, that becomes the third building block for change, because it means that tougher regulations with a tough new regulator, a super regulator bringing together four different regulators who existed in the past, they will be able to make sure that the water companies are investing properly in keeping the pipes in a good state of repair, so we never again have the level of disrepair that led to those massive bill rises that people were forced to pay last year.”
Asked why the government had not considered nationalisation, he said: “The problem is the previous government let the water companies get away with that. They weakened regulation. They said they wanted it to be light touch. That was a deliberate policy.
“Well, actually, we needed to get a tight grip on what was going on, and they stripped people out of the regulators so there were no longer people around to carry out the enforcement work. By tightening regulation and making sure that they’ve got the resources they need, by making the polluter pay for those additional resources in the regulators, we can get tough on what the water companies are doing.
“But when it comes to nationalisation, the problem there would be it would cost £100 billion of public money to pay to buy out the existing owners. That would mean taking money out of the National Health Service, out of education, and handing it to the owners of the companies who have polluted our waterways in the first place.
“Secondly, it would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, endless legal wrangles and during that time there would be no investment in upgrading our sewage pipes. We’d see a rising level of pollution in our waterways, and we would see no benefit to customers from lowering the bills, because the damage would get worse and bills would have to go up even higher. None of it makes any sense.”
He criticised Reform UK’s plan for the water sector: “So what Nigel Farage has suggested, if full nationalisation costs £100 billion, half nationalisation would cost £50 billion. Where’s he going to get that £50 billion from? He’s refused to tell us.
“Now, Nigel Farage has already made £80 billion of unfunded spending commitments. If you add this additional £50 billion, that comes to £130 billion. That’s twice as much as Liz Truss committed to when she crashed the economy, sent everybody’s mortgages and rents spiralling and sent prices in the shop skyrocketing.
“Nigel Farage is looking back at what Liz Truss did and wants to give us twice the amount of damage. I don’t think the public wants to see that.”
Asked if Labour could deliver on its water promises by the next election, he said: “We’ll see what happens at the next general election in four years’ time. What I’m saying today is we’ve secured £104 billion of private sector investment that started to be spent in April of this year. So it’s being spent now.
“That will lead to reductions in sewage year on year, over five years we’ll cut sewage pollution in half. It also means that we’ll be maintaining the sewage and water pipes in a better state of repair. So there’s no longer the need for the huge bill rises.
“That happened because the previous government didn’t do what I’m now doing. So by the time we get to the next election, people will see more moderate bill increases and sewage in our waterways clearing up. They can take a decision based on us doing what we’ve said we will do.”
He added: “I’m going to be held to account for my job. And I think politicians come out and we say we’re going to do things. Frankly, my job should be on the line if I don’t meet my promises. So I’m absolutely committed to making this work. That’s why I’m taking such big, bold measures today to completely overhaul the system for the first time in a generation.”
On whether the government would U-turn on inheritance tax changes for farmers, he said: “This government has set the biggest budget in history for sustainable farming. It’s a comfort to farmers to know that there is now more money in the hands of more farmers under the sustainable farming schemes than at any point under the previous government. This government is supporting farmers with more investment.
“We’re working and we’re working with farmers to make their farm businesses more profitable. Because unprofitable businesses can’t attract investment, and they can’t attract young people to come in and work in the sector and they don’t have a future. I want to see farming have a bright future.
“We need to make it more profitable and the government is investing more money into farming than at any point under the previous government.”
He ruled out the prospect of change of plan: “The budget has been set. The government had some very difficult choices to make because of the black hole in the public finances, but people will see that we’ve been able to offer now 4 million more appointments in the National Health Service, which has led to a dramatic cut in waiting lists because we got that money into invest in the National Health Service.
“Now, farmers are interested too in having a health service where they can get to see a doctor when they feel ill, so farmers will benefit from that. But as I say, they’re also benefiting from the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history.”
