Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I shall come on to some of the recommendations that we believe are necessary to make it more than just a reset in name only.

Let me start with the reality in my constituency. In 2024, West Dorset recorded 4,200 sewage spills and the discharging of raw sewage for nearly 49,000 hours from 90 storm overflows. I have no doubt that other Members can cite similar, if not worse, statistics for their constituency. Only 11% of our monitored river sites reach “good” ecological status. The River Lim is categorised as ecologically dead. Rare chalk streams such as the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream are under severe pressure, as are Atlantic salmon populations.

Tourism in West Dorset, worth over £322 million a year and supporting more than 5,000 jobs, is threatened by our poor water quality. My constituents, their children, the visitors who support our communities, and families, including my own, love our beautiful world-famous waterways, but no one should have to check an app on their phone to see whether it is safe to swim that day. The final report continually underlines the lack of public trust. To change this, reforms must be visible, transparent and public facing. If people are to believe that things are changing, they need to see progress, understand the standards and know that failure has consequences.

We need blue flag-style standards for rivers and chalk streams. Clear standards, mandatory testing and visible ratings would help rebuild trust. Where standards are met, confidence grows. Where they are not, communities can hold companies and regulators to account. Recommendation 3 of the report proposes a comprehensive systems planning framework, with regional water authorities responsible for integrated planning, funding, setting objectives, monitoring and convening stakeholders. That approach recognises that water does not respect administrative boundaries and neither should planning. Housing growth, agriculture, flood risk, river health and water supply must be considered together across Government Departments. The bodies must be statutory, democratically accountable and empowered to make binding decisions. Without that authority, we would risk repeating the mistakes of the past: endless consultation without delivery.

When I have previously argued that water companies should be made statutory consultees in the planning system, the Government have resisted that change. The water White Paper now states that Ministers

“will also consider the role of water and sewerage companies in relation to planning applications”

as part of the reforms to statutory consultees. That is a welcome change, but simply considering it is no longer enough. Making water companies and national landscapes statutory consultees for major developments would be a preventive, low-cost reform that aligns planning decisions with environmental reality, reducing flood risk.

The commission is also right to highlight the importance of pre-pipe solutions. Recommendation 10 calls for legislative changes to expand pre-pipe solutions, so that we can stop pollutants and rainwater entering the system in the first place. In too many places, combined sewers are overwhelmed by rainfall that mixes with raw sewage and triggers spills. That is not sustainable in a changing climate.

We need a long-term national rainwater management strategy, with sustainable drainage systems being mandatory in all new developments, and a serious programme of retrofitting in existing communities. Rainwater harvesting should become the norm. We must bring ourselves in line with modern housing standards and our European neighbours, just as minimum solar requirements are being made mandatory, thanks to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Those are low-carbon, cost-effective and resilient solutions. They would reduce pressure on sewers, lower flood risk and protect rivers, but the White Paper only gestures vaguely in that direction. Without clear, consistent standards and funding, progress will remain slow.

On regulation, the commission calls to replace Ofwat with a new integrated regulator, which is welcome and overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for exactly that since 2022. Ofwat’s primary duty to ensure reasonable returns has shaped a culture that has tolerated pollution, debt loading and under-investment. A regulator with explicit duties to protect public health and the environment is a step forward.

I am glad that the White Paper has stated that the Government will commit to a new regulator by abolishing Ofwat and bringing together the relevant water system functions from existing regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England—into one new body. But again, that alone is not enough. That body must have teeth: it must be properly resourced, independent and willing to enforce the law.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The Public Accounts Committee recently had a hearing on environmental regulation with the Environment Agency and Natural England. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transition to a new regulator is a huge undertaking and that there is a risk while it is being set up? We must not take our eyes off the enforcement and regulation of water companies to ensure that we reduce the amount of their pollution in the meantime.

[Edward Morello]

I 100% share the hon. Lady’s concerns that water companies will exploit this moment in time. The public are calling out for firmer action, so the speed of the transition is vital.

Existing legislation already requires sewage to be treated effectively, and allows storm overflows only in exceptional circumstances, but the Government have admitted that overflows are being used far beyond their original purpose. Investigations have shown illegal discharge even on dry days. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that regulators have failed to comply with existing environmental law. The first task of the new regulator must be to enforce what is already on the statute book and to review permits across the system.

The commission also highlights the need for stronger customer protection. Recommendation 41 proposes strengthening the C-MeX—customer measure of experience—incentive and moving to a supervisory approach. That reflects the reality that customer experience has not improved, despite financial incentives. People paying their bills expect reliable service, timely responses and basic competence—not call centres that do not answer and complaints that disappear into the void.

That brings me to the question of accountability and ownership. The White Paper recognises the unsustainable debt levels created by the current model, and talks about attracting long-term, low-risk investors. It also introduces new performance improvement regimes. But there is a real risk of tinkering around the edges while leaving a fundamentally broken model intact. As long as water companies exist primarily to generate profit, decisions will be shaped by that motive alone.

Alternative models across Europe deliver lower bills, higher investment relative to debt, and fewer discharges. Both the commission and the White Paper fail to engage seriously with those models. In West Dorset, we are served by Wessex Water and in a small part by South West Water. My constituents see a pattern of rewarding failure across the water system that is impossible to justify during a cost of living crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate.

My constituents in Shipley, with the lovely River Wharfe and River Aire flowing through, have been outraged at the levels of water pollution in them. They face high bills, while leaking infrastructure causes damage to roads and homes. Companies such as Yorkshire Water have been failing us for years now. We suffered last year from a failure to invest in new reservoirs, with an almost year-long drought starting in the spring.

I very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have come in with a determination to tackle those issues. I was pleased to vote for and support the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which made sure we took immediate action to clamp down on the obscene bosses’ bonuses, including those that the chief exec of Yorkshire Water was receiving. Very sadly, the Kelda holdings company, which owns Yorkshire Water, also paid her a sort of behind-the-scenes £1.3 million extra payment, which I and others have been urging her to donate or give back. I hope that in future the companies meet the spirit of the legislation.

I welcome the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe in bringing forward the Independent Water Commission. I put in a submission to the review, setting out some actions that I felt were necessary for fundamental reform of the water industry, so that it works better in the interests of customers and the public by clamping down on the illegal discharges of sewage, which are all too frequent. I am pleased to see that the Government have addressed quite a number of those issues in the water White Paper. I put on record my thanks to the People’s Water Commission, a group of campaigners, researchers and experts who came together to engage the public on their views about water. I particularly thank Becky Malby, a local resident who is involved in the Ilkley Clean River Group.

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee; I do not know whether that is part of my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Committee has recently undertaken two reports, the first on water regulation and the second, not yet published, on environmental regulation. I will briefly quote findings from the first report:

“Ofwat has failed to prevent companies taking excessive dividends, increasing levels of debt and setting up complex company structures, all of which have reduced their financial resilience. The sector’s risk profile has risen and customers must now pay investors higher returns as a result.”

To illustrate the point, my own Yorkshire Water bill shows that 23% is just to finance debt, while 17% is spent on infrastructure investment. How can that be? Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for the bill payers being made to pay that debt. I urge the Minister to say how she will change the gearing of those companies that are so indebted. Despite the figures of £104 billion in investment and, for Yorkshire Water, £8.3 billion, it does not seem as if the shareholders are actually putting their hands in their pocket. It is the customers who will have to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and for the past failure of companies to invest.

I would like to draw attention to a couple of other points on which I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance. I warmly welcome the creation of a new regulator, as the Public Accounts Committee has recommended. How will we ensure that it has the right skills and resources? The previous Government cut funding to the Environment Agency, which meant that it failed to do its job of prosecuting some incidents; I am pleased that under this Government we now have many cases in hand. The regulator needs skills to take action on the finances, given the complex structures.

How will we ensure that customers’ money is going where they want? How will the regulator take action on pollution and work with the Environment Agency on how farmers, who face many regulations, can play their part in cleaning up our rivers and seas? I urge the Minister to take all the actions in the water White Paper to make sure that companies such as Yorkshire Water are properly held to account in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate, which is timely and very important. The Cunliffe report is seriously flawed, in that it did not consider public ownership of the industry or agriculture, which is a major polluter, as other colleagues have already pointed out.

Privatisation of water has been an absolute disaster from the very beginning, when many of us at the time warned against it. It has resulted in £72 billion being taken out of the industry in dividends and profits, and fantastic levels of executive pay. It has left behind pollution and flooding, with the cost of the pollution, flooding and foul water being borne by the public—our constituents—who are increasingly angry about it.

By any standard, river quality is appalling right across the country and is one of the worst anywhere in Europe. That is caused by the mixing of rainwater with sewage waste, and by agricultural run-offs that have a devastating effect. The River Wye is just one example of how awful the rivers can become, because of agricultural waste run-offs—hon. Members who drew attention to that are absolutely right. The waste of water from leaks is a huge problem, and I think I am right that the totality of leaks across the whole country would fill the whole of Loch Ness every year.

Therefore, instead of calling for new reservoirs to be built, should we not look at much better water management, rainwater retention and water distribution across the country? In England, the biggest water consumers are in London and the south-east, which is, broadly speaking, the driest part of the country. The wettest part of the country is the midlands and the north-west. Clearly, moving water from one part to the other makes a lot of sense. Can we not have some sense surrounding the organisation of water distribution?

[Anna Dixon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that under the previous Government, light-touch regulation left our infrastructure crumbling? It is right that there will be asset mapping under the new proposals, so that we can finally know the state of the infrastructure and whether these investments are actually fixing the leaks.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. The state of the infrastructure does need to be examined. Like many Members, my constituents have endless complaints about that. Thames Water is one of the most frequent visitors to my constituency; it digs up the roads frequently. With the resulting road closures—which are absurd—Thames Water is much better at traffic management than Transport for London, actually.

I would also ask that we look much more seriously at river basin management. I remember visiting York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the flooding at that time. We had a long discussion with the Environment Agency about planning for flooding, which would involve restoring peatlands, upland planting, reintroducing beavers and others into rivers—that has an effect on a small scale, with lots of rivers and streams—and restoring floodplains. Those sorts of things are some of the most important things we can do.

Water should be taken back into public ownership—not old-style public ownership, with a board of governors or directors appointed by the Government, but a popular form of public ownership that would involve the brilliant workforce in all those companies, and their knowledge. The directors would come from them, and from local communities, businesses, local authorities and unions, so we would have a locally and popular-based water industry in our society. We could do it. Why don’t we try that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

Will the Minister assure the House that the regional planning for water catchments will have a strong citizen voice embedded in it, as well as drawing on evidence and expertise?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely—evidence and expertise. We are yet to work this out. As I said, the composition will depend on the catchment. In the White Paper, we referred to “community voices”, which we want to represent.

Water White Paper

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Like him, I am really frustrated with the levels of pollution in our waterways, and with some of the poor consumer service we see. I do not think the right answer is to embark on a hugely expensive and legally complicated nationalisation, because it would detract from the good work we are doing to get a grip on regulation and to set up a new regulator. He may think it is the right answer, but where would the money come from? Does he want less spending on schools and hospitals as a result?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

There is much to welcome in the White Paper, including the MOT for assets, the increase in funding for community and catchment partnerships, and the greater say for communities in regional planning. However, my Shipley constituents have been let down by Yorkshire Water over many decades, through its blatant profiteering at the expense of customers, leveraging debt of some £6.2 billion. I may have missed it, but will the Secretary of State please assure me that the regulator will have powers to step in when companies such as Yorkshire Water, and more importantly its owner Kelda Holdings, have consistently failed customers?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest, and indeed for her submission to the Independent Water Commission. On the financial management of our water companies, we have set out in the White Paper that the new regulator will have the power to step in to ensure that unmanageable levels of debt are not taken on by water companies. We have seen some very poor financial dealings in the past, which have led to poor performance and poor maintenance of water assets.

Rural Communities

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

We have had a bitterly cold start to 2026, but as always, farmers up and down the country have been out in all weathers, and at all hours, to help their neighbours and clear vital routes. I am delighted that just a fortnight ago we had the news that the threshold for agricultural property relief and business property relief, which is due to come into force in April, has been raised considerably to a total of £5 million for a couple, even if one of them has already passed away.

I very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have listened to the farming community. I pay tribute to my fellow Back-Bench Labour MPs who raised this issue privately and constructively for many months before feeling that they had to voice their concerns publicly, as well as to farmers’ unions in all four nations and many others for their steadfast and constructive campaigning. Above all, I thank the farmers in my constituency, who sat down with me and opened up about their very private family matters, as well as their businesses—two things that are uniquely intertwined in farming. I know the changes are a huge relief to them.

One issue on our roads that farmers cannot solve is a lack of bus services. The fact that the services on which people rely are further away is often part of rural life, but when public transport is non-existent or inadequate, that physical distance becomes deprivation. Most of our villages in Cannock Chase have just an hourly service and, as I have mentioned many times in the House, Slitting Mill has none at all. I am very proud that the Bus Services Act 2025—I served on the Bill Committee—allows local transport authorities to seize the opportunities of franchising and of publicly owned bus companies.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Villages in my Shipley constituency, such as Eldwick, Gilstead, Cullingworth, Harden and Wilsden, suffer from the same problems due to the decline in rural bus services under the Tory Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Labour Government’s announcements on the rural transport accelerator fund will restore vital connections to our rural villages?

[Josh Newbury]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I must confess that I am a little envious of her, because she has the Mayor of West Yorkshire backing up the Labour Government and using that investment wisely—and, I hope, making use of the powers introduced by that Act—whereas the Conservatives on Staffordshire county council took absolutely no interest in doing so during their time in power. The recent news of Reform UK’s cost-cutting review suggests that our bus services will continue to be neglected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the towns, farms and coastal villages of South East Cornwall. Our rolling hills and dramatic coastline attract visitors from across the country, but they also support our livelihoods, our daily lives and the wellbeing of local residents. A local economy that works for local people year-round means protecting our natural environment, which is vital to our key tourism sector. It also means supporting new industries such as critical minerals via the new Kernow industrial growth fund and providing a voice for traditional industries.

As a keen wild swimmer, I care deeply about our Cornish rivers and beaches, so last year I challenged the former chief executive officer of South West Water on the company’s actions. I look forward to seeing stronger accountability and better outcomes for local residents as a result of the new measures on water put forward by this Government.

Poor connectivity has held back rural communities for far too long, and I welcome the work in that area. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to tackle rural internet deserts, which I experience frequently in my village?

Transport also remains a major challenge for rural life, and in South East Cornwall residents often travel long distances just to reach essential services, work or education. Rural communities value our space and our close-knit society, but no one should feel cut off or face extra financial barriers simply because of where they live, so I welcome the £20 million allocated by the Government to Cornwall to improve our bus services and I am determined to ensure that local people feel the benefit of that investment. Under the last Government, rail fares from Liskeard to Paddington rose by 65%, placing yet another burden on rural households. We have put an end to that increase.

Healthcare access has been another real problem for my residents, and many residents travel long distances for care, often crossing the Tamar and paying a toll only to face staff shortages, stretched services and long waits. Labour is already bringing down those waiting lists, but rural access requires specific attention, so will the Minister set out how the Government are working to ensure that geography never becomes a barrier to care?

Rural communities remember who stands up for them and who delivers the essential services that they need, and in rural areas we have seen the legacy left by the Conservatives. Their mismanagement fed directly into stagnant growth and broken public services, with rural areas paying the price through long hospital waiting times, crumbling school buildings and a public transport network that simply did not work. I and other Cornish Labour MPs have made sure that Cornish rural voices are heard here in Westminster. I have spent time directly speaking with farmers and industry experts, listening to their concerns and building the case for change, and I am pleased to see the increase in the agriculture and business property relief thresholds. Farmers work tirelessly to produce food for our tables, yet their fields are too often used as dumping grounds for waste, so I ask the Minister to outline what further action is under way to tackle the waste crimes that blight our rural community.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I understand and empathise with the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. A global glut of milk is driving prices down; prices had gone up because there was an undersupply, so there are market corrections going on. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 now apply to all dairy supply contracts. If her constituent feels that he is being unfairly dealt with, he can contact the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who was appointed to carry out enforcement of the fair dealing obligation regulations. He can now do so because those regulations have been in place since July of this year.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your fantastic staff, Mr Speaker.

I note that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) obviously has better things to do than turn up and speak for farmers. I want to speak up for dairy tenant farmers. Tenant farmers manage a third of all farmland in England. As well as running her dairy farm, Rachel at Low Springs farm in Baildon also runs Baildon farmers market and is the director of the Great Yorkshire show. Will the Minister set out how this Labour Government are implementing the recommendations of Baroness Rock’s review to help tenant dairy farmers such as Rachel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend raises the important point that a third of all farmland in England is managed by tenant farmers, so a fair and sustainable tenant farming sector relies on positive landlord, tenant and adviser relationships. To help deliver that, we have appointed Alan Laidlaw as England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector. We will continue to look particularly at how tenant farming agreements are working, to see whether there is any need for reform in the future.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

As the hon. Member will probably know, that is a joint responsibility with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which leads on it. We are working closely with DSIT. It released a strategy recently that ensures we can use alternatives more quickly to phase out animal testing. I would be happy to discuss it with him, but it is led by DSIT rather than DEFRA. It is seen as an animal welfare issue, but it sits with DSIT.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I hope that you, Mr Speaker, like me and my family have already got your turkey ordered from the local butcher for Christmas. Like many of my constituents, I really care about animal welfare, so I look forward to the strategy being published next week. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that there is really clear labelling and communication, so that we can all be confident when we go and buy our Christmas turkey of the welfare of the animal we are eating?

[Emma Reynolds]

I have ordered my meat from my local butcher already. It is a bit late in the day, but I thank my hon. Friend for the reminder to those who may not have done so already. We want to make sure that there is transparency, and we are working on labelling. It will not be part of this strategy, but we are looking at it separately.

Water Scarcity

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It really is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this timely debate. I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue of huge importance for my Hazel Grove constituents, namely the impact of water scarcity on the UK’s canal network.

The UK is unique in having a network of more than 2,700 miles of waterways, much of it 250 years old and still supporting many businesses. My constituency, the finest in the land, is lucky enough to contain stretches of both the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals, including the famous and beautiful Marple lock flight, which is an especially beautiful part of my patch—a green vein running through High Lane, Marple, over the Marple aqueduct, and through Romiley and Woodley on to Tameside. Earlier this year, I launched a campaign to make Marple locks, one of the steepest and longest flights in the country, a UNESCO world heritage site.

Marple is one of the best examples of industrial waterways in the UK. Our canal heritage makes it one of a kind, and it is our own local slice of great British history. I am a proud and long-standing trustee of the Stockport Canal Boat Trust for disabled people and their carers—I refer all colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not only are our waterways of cultural and historical significance to our communities, but they provide crucial habitats for wildlife and serve as a natural green corridor. Our canals are vital to our nature and our wellbeing, and they contribute hugely to combating climate change. They are vital for water management, and we should do everything we can to protect and preserve them for future generations.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The Leeds and Liverpool canal runs through my constituency of Shipley, and on it is the very famous Bingley Five Rise locks. Because of water scarcity, that lock, and passage through it, has been shut for some time. Does the hon. Member agree with me that as part of managing our water system, it is essential that we keep our canals moving?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I agree strongly that keeping our canals moving is hugely important when we are thinking about how we manage our waterways, how we manage traffic on them, and how we keep them and preserve them for future generations.

Similarly to what the hon. Lady has described, because of a combination of drought and work that the Canal and River Trust had to conduct on some of their large raised reservoirs in line with the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975, many reservoirs in my area were drawn down last winter to permit legally required works to take place. As a result, the reservoirs started the year with a lower volume of water. This year, as the CRT told me, we experienced the driest spring in England for 132 years, the driest February to August in England since 1976, and the third driest March to August period on record overall for England, followed by the hottest summer since records began in 1884, according to the Met Office.

During dry seasons, low water levels can cause the canal banks to become unstable, leading to structural damage, erosion and, if left unaddressed, the eventual collapse of the canal. Therefore, it is essential that water levels are managed and maintained to ensure the stability and functionality of canals. When drought conditions are faced, restrictions are placed on boat movements to make the existing water in the canal system go as far as possible. This year, the CRT deemed that restrictions in my area, like in the area covered by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), did not go far enough to conserve water, so it stopped boat movements on the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals over the summer.

As well as the challenges of a changing climate, there is an increasingly demanding regulatory framework, ageing and deteriorating infrastructure, inflation, higher construction costs and a reduction in Government funding. Without funding changes, I fear that such closures are sadly likely to occur more often. That will have a dire effect on not only the people who live and work on the waterways, but those who visit the canals for their benefits for physical and mental health. For many in my constituency, the canals are an escape from traffic pollution and noise. They provide a sanctuary of peace amid a busy world.

The principal reservoir that feeds the Peak Forest canal is Toddbrook. As a result of damage to the reservoir back in 2019, a key source of water for the canals has not been available of late. The CRT is currently working on a project to restore the reservoir, but without support from the Government, and increased funding to ensure that reservoirs are kept in good working condition, the water scarcity that we have experienced this year could result in more closures of canals and waterways in the future.

I join others, including campaigners from Fund Britain’s Waterways and the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs, in urging the Government to put real consideration into our canals when allocating funding to ensure that water scarcity does not have negative ramifications for our waterways, and that we can protect these vital national assets for future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the chief exec of Yorkshire Water, while publicly not taking her bonus, took quite a large sum of money from the Kelda Holdings company. Given that lack of transparency at Yorkshire Water, does the hon. Gentleman agree that companies such as Kelda Holdings should not be involved in water, leveraging debt and handing out large secret bonuses to their chief execs?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I know the Minister is equally concerned about that, and I am hoping that the Minister’s response will give reassurance to the hon. Lady, and indeed to all of us, in relation to that. I think there is something obscene and immoral about these executives getting large sums of money—whatever Department it comes out of and whatever way it is manipulated to get that through—and it is good to know that the Government will be taking some measures to address that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a joy to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Stuart. I plan to be here for the next two debates, so we will have a lovely afternoon together as we have apparently just rejoined the EU on a tied vote. The tie means that we win on the away-goals rule, which is good to hear. All legislation should be settled like that in future.

I give massive thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), who not only secured the debate but led it superbly. All contributions from parties present have been excellent, focused on their communities and on trying to solve the issue. It was great to hear the affinity between the DUP and the Liberal Democrats; after all, we are both very fond of the colour orange. It is great to get a perspective from one of the devolved nations.

The amount of water available at any time depends not only on natural supply—rainfall, rivers, aquifers—but on the capacity of the infrastructure maintained since privatisation by the water companies. Demands from households, industry and agriculture also play a significant part. In Cumbria, we have 20 million visitors a year. Those people are very welcome but that is a lot of drinking water, showers and flushed lavatories, and we need the infrastructure to provide that. On top of that, we provide fresh drinking water for millions of people in the north-west of England. Again, we are proud to do so but we are under pressure.

The Environment Agency has projected national and regional deficits in water supply. Deficits will only worsen over the next 25 years as matters are scheduled. By 2050, the shortfall could reach nearly 5 million litres per day—equivalent to more than a third of the water that we currently rely on for public consumption. Outrageous water shortages have been experienced by South East Water customers, who have been referenced by hon. Friends and championed by our hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). Those water shortages could become the experience of people across the country, not just in the south-east region, if we do not radically reform our water industry urgently to ensure that we stop the leaking of billions of pounds of billpayers’ money into the pockets of shareholders and senior executives, when that money should be reinvested in a water infrastructure fit for the British people.

[Anna Dixon]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—

[Tim Farron]

Not yet.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman—sorry. As he said, Yorkshire has also experienced water shortages. From July this year, we have had a hosepipe ban and reservoirs remain at critically low levels, given what we should expect this season. It was at about 31% of capacity in September. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Yorkshire Water, like some of the others he mentioned, has failed to invest in the necessary infrastructure to deal with the impact of climate change, as well as rising demand?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. All this afternoon’s interventions have been good and on the money. Talking about money, this is money leaking out of the industry and not being invested in it. Bonuses and dividends should reward success; clearly, Yorkshire Water and others have failed in their basic task, which is to provide clean water for their communities.

To focus on the scale of the problem, since privatisation the water companies have amassed £70 billion of debt. Adjusted for inflation, they have paid out £83 billion in dividends. That means that on average 30p out of every pound that people pay on their water bills is to service the debt of the water companies, which was racked up to pay dividends. That is a moral outrage.

The main drivers of this impending crisis are clear: climate change; population growth; increased housing demand; business expansion; the demands, which have been mentioned, for huge additional energy and water usage given the growth in AI; pressures on the natural environment; and the growing need to prepare for drought. Those drivers are compounded by historical underinvestment in infrastructure and insufficient demand management.

Successive Governments have comprehensively failed to take climate adaptation measures seriously, guaranteeing misery for communities affected by flooding, wildfires and heat stress. If we are to build new infrastructure, including new homes and data centres—and we must—we must also ensure that water infrastructure keeps pace. That means sustainable drainage, new supply capacity and integration of water resilience into planning from the start. For instance, we should ensure that data centres are built predominantly at coastal locations and that desalination plants are an integral part of their design and key to their gaining of planning consent. Otherwise, we simply will not have the capacity to both provide clean water for our people and be the AI superpower that we desire to be.

The Liberal Democrats have long backed an infrastructure-first approach to development. We cannot allow water infrastructure to remain an afterthought. It is not right that water companies that have failed to invest in adequate sewerage, drainage and water supply infrastructure are able to get away with telling the local planning authority that there is no need for further investment and, at the same time, gain the financial benefit of the extra water bills from new households, while not laying out the extra investment needed to provide for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing a really important debate on water security and resilience—a topic that has not had as much focus as it deserves for a long time. Water is a vital resource, but one that has over the last half century, unfortunately, received nowhere near enough attention. We are now reaping the consequences of that inaction. In simple terms, our population is 10 million people greater than it was 30 years ago and we have not constructed any new reservoirs in that period; that is why we have ended up with the challenges that we have heard about.

The Environment Agency estimates that, driven by population growth and climate change, there will be a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water a day in this country by 2055—the equivalent of a third of current public consumption. Water scarcity is of course important when we consider drinking water, but there are also dangerous knock-on effects for the environment and for food production, as has rightly been said. Over-abstraction of stretched water sources is having a huge impact on vital habitats such as chalk streams; this year alone, record-breaking droughts have cost arable farmers approximately £800 million in lost production. This was the second-worst harvest on record, and our horticultural industry has been severely impacted.

The hon. Member for Horsham rightly talked about the challenges facing chalk streams and infrastructure, and about the lack of strategy planning for water security and resilience. He talked about the implications for his farming community, where there are water-leakage issues with water companies. Indeed, Yorkshire Water represents my constituency, and we have had hosepipe bans consistently for months now. Given that in September we were at 31% capacity, it is not good enough for water companies across the country, including Yorkshire Water, not to put the level of investment into dealing with not only leakages but water storage capacity-related issues. That is not acceptable for many of our constituents.

[Anna Dixon]

As neighbouring MPs, the hon. Gentleman and I have a shared interest in Yorkshire Water’s performance. As he set out, this is not a recent problem; it has been going on for decades. Given his previous role in the last Government, would he take some responsibility for the consequences of the lack of funding for the infrastructure of our water system?

[Robbie Moore]

As the hon. Member will know, it is down to the regulator to set how much a water company is able to spend on infrastructure projects. Ofwat has not provided water companies with the flexibility they need to provide the correct level of investment. There is significant frustration about that, and that is coupled with frustrations about our planning system that have prevented large water storage schemes from progressing through the system. It is really disappointing that this Labour Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is progressing through the House, does not address any of the issues associated with the challenges of increasing water storage and water resilience in this country. That is a real missed opportunity by this Labour Government.

We all know that the last Government took some steps to address the risks of water scarcity. We set a clear direction through the Environment Act 2021 to reduce water consumption by 20% per person by 2038. Although the target will ease demand, we should still be planning to address the larger challenges around increasing water storage. I was proud to help develop the last Government’s plan for water, which set clear objectives to improve efficiency, reduce leaks and plan for increased supply. It is encouraging to see that the Government have announced a further 670 million litres of daily water supply through the proposed new reservoirs, but I challenge the Government on the speed of delivering them, including the Fens reservoir, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). It is frustrating that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a key piece of legislation—has not addressed those challenges on the speed of delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I commit to taking that to the farming Minister to have a thorough look at it. I am acutely aware of how difficult farmers have had it this year. The flooding in the winter and the drought in the summer have been devastating for them, so I am really keen to see what we can do.

There was a call for a campaign on the preciousness of water, but one already exists: the water efficiency fund campaign, the chair of which will be announced in the new year. It is a fund by Ofwat looking into the communications we need around water and how precious it is.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), keeps wanting me to give him spoilers, but I will continue to refuse to give spoilers on exactly what will and will not be in the White Paper. As has been announced—he knows this already—we are going to look at having one powerful regulator and a joined-up, comprehensive approach to regulation across the whole of the industry.

I completely agree with the point that was made about fragmentation; there are so many different plans involved in how much water we need. We need to look at how we can streamline this, make it more straightforward and hold people to account for who is delivering what and when. There is much more to come in the White Paper, as well as the legislation following it.

[Anna Dixon]

I commend the Minister for all she has done so far to address the problems in the water sector, and look forward to the forthcoming water White Paper. I realise she cannot give away too much, but I urge her to look again at some of the recommendations of the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, particularly the idea of a SAGE for water—having an expert advisory panel—and stronger democratic oversight, particularly of catchments. I urge her to look at those ideas again before she finalises her paper.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done on the People’s Commission. I have read it, and thought there were some interesting suggestions in it. There is so much consensus on this issue; everyone fundamentally wants the same thing—enough water, including for farmers, growth and the general public. Furthermore, everyone wants to do that in a way that does not damage the environment or too expensive for customers. There is so much consensus on which we can all build when we tackle this issue.

On the issue of performance-related pay, in a report on 5 November, Ofwat highlighted the broader issue of a lack of transparency when it comes to executive remuneration across the water sector. It noted in particular the examples of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water, which made retention payments from the parent company. Due to that, Ofcom will consult on requiring companies to publicly report in full the details of all executive remunerations, including explanations of what the remuneration relates to. This is intended to apply to company accounts in 2025-26. In a nutshell, it will get a better grip on the situation.

Lots of Members mentioned canals. I spoke with the Canal and River Trust and I hear the difficulties it has had, mainly because of the drought. When water becomes more scarce, of course that creates a problem for canals. I acknowledge that it has been a particularly difficult year. Many Members talked about chalk streams. One of the best things we can do to support chalk streams is to reduce over-abstraction.

There were lots of comments about how we will deal with future water use and make sure that we have all the water we need. There is some good news that I think everyone here might become very excited about, as I have. It is the building regulations consultation, which is happening at the moment and lasts until 16 December. If any hon. Member has not responded to that consultation, I encourage them to do so. It is considering how we can make homes more water-efficient, including the use of grey water, water reuse and what potential future standards could be. The outline proposal is for the minimum standard to be reduced from 125 to 105 litres per day and there are even options for a tighter standard, which range from 110 to 100 litres a day.

The consultation is also looking at evidence on water reuse systems in new developments, so there is quite a lot in it. That is really exciting, because these ideas will enable customers to save money on their water bills and on their energy bills, because they will not have to use as much energy to heat their water. They also support the environment and our house building targets. As I say, the consultation is quite exciting, and it closes on 16 December.

We also intend to introduce mandatory water efficiency labelling to help customers to make informed choices about different appliances when they buy products for their home. We believe that intervention alone will save 23 billion litres of water over 10 years. Building new houses to the highest potential for water efficiency leaves room for further growth in the future. There are quite a lot of exciting things happening in this sector. [Interruption.] I am now being coughed at, which I think means that I should shush.

I again thank the hon. Member for Horsham for securing this debate. I am sure it will not be the last time that we talk about the importance of water scarcity. We all have a role to carry the message that water is a precious resource, which is necessary not just for us but for farmers and the environment. I look forward to continuing the debate on this subject in future conversations about water after Christmas. Merry Christmas.

Independent Water Commission

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I know the River Ver very well because I used to walk over a bridge across it every day on my way to school while I was growing up. I would be very happy to make sure that the hon. Member has an appropriate meeting with a Minister to discuss her concerns.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I was pleased to see today’s report. I believe it has a picture of the Bingley five rise locks in my constituency on the front cover, so I thank the Minister for that. The creaking and leaking water infrastructure, the current drought restrictions and the dumping of sewage in our rivers, including the Aire and the Wharfe, are evidence of a failing industry and of the failures of previous Tory Water Ministers, one of whom is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

I welcome today’s report and also give credit to campaign groups like the Ilkley Clean River Group and the people’s water commission. It is right that the Secretary of State has said that he will abolish Ofwat and strengthen oversight and regulation, but Yorkshire Water has a labyrinth of holding companies that have built up debt, taken out dividends and interest payments, put up customer bills and failed to invest in upgrades. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for radical action, not only to merge the regulators but to restructure failing companies like Yorkshire Water?

[Steve Reed]

I cannot take credit for the picture—that was Sir Jon—but I can join my hon. Friend in crediting the campaign groups who have done such a fantastic job at keeping this issue at the top of the political agenda. Sir Jon makes proposals in his report about those labyrinthine structures that she is talking about. We need clarity and transparency, and that is what we will now work towards.

Sewage

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, particularly given the experience she has in her constituency. She rightly fights very forcefully for her communities and to clean up her waterways. She will have seen, like all of us, that the principal problem is a failure of regulation. There has to be an answer to that and the Liberal Democrat proposal, which I will come to in a moment, would certainly make it more likely that this would be dealt with effectively—and if it solved the problem, that would be great.

The water industry regulatory framework is fragmented and weak. The regulators lack the resource, the power and the culture, it would appear, to make a serious difference. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose a new clean water authority so that water companies stop running rings around multiple regulators and begin to act in the interests of the British people and of the waterways that we love.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I represent a very beautiful part of the Yorkshire dales, in Wharfedale, and Yorkshire Water has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage spills into the rivers. It was fined £47 million by Ofwat for its poor performance in 2023, only for that to be repeated in 2024. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the action that the Government have already taken through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—which is more than the previous Government ever did to tackle this disgusting problem—and also recognise that we do see the problems with regulation and the fact that we need stronger regulation of the water industry to protect the environment and public health, and that is the role of the Cunliffe review?

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely welcome the Act, as I said at the beginning of the debate. It is a step in the right direction; I just do not think that it is enough, and the hon. Lady makes the case as to why it is not enough. Her water company, Yorkshire Water, is one of four water companies that between them owe Ofwat £164 million in fines because of their failure, and Ofwat has so far claimed zero—none of that. There seems to be an awareness among water companies that Ofwat is not a regulator to be feared and therefore not one to be responded to. That is among the reasons why we need a new, much more powerful regulator that has the power, and uses it, to refuse to sign off on spending plans that prioritise the investor over the consumer and the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful case for why reform is so desperately needed. My condolences to the owner of the dog—that is a terrible thing to happen to anybody.

[Anna Dixon]

Bill payers in my constituency of Shipley are facing an 18% hike in their bills. By 2030, the increase could be as high as 35%. About 19% of those bills already goes towards servicing the debt of the holding company that owns Yorkshire Water. Is it not the case that our customers are paying the price for the failure of the Opposition parties—plural—to address the problems in the water industry during their time in government?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am angry about the bill rises, as she is. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are angry about them, but in a very real sense, people are being forced to pay the price for 14 years of Conservative failure.

Previous Governments let the sewage scandal spread; this Government will end it once and for all. That work began as soon as we came into office. Within one week of the general election, I invited the water company chief executives into my office, and I ringfenced money earmarked for investment in water infrastructure so that it can never again be diverted for the payment of bonuses or dividends.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion and love for chalk streams—the rainforests of the United Kingdom. Part of this Bill will drive the performance change in the industry that we want to see and reduce sewage discharges, which are doing such damage to such precious habitat.

Although some Members have called for the Government to go even further on monitoring, I reassure the House that we have carefully considered how best to increase transparency without driving unmanageable increases in customers’ bills. As promised in Committee, I have provided a factsheet on this issue, and I can make it available in the House of Commons Library. Rolling out event duration monitors over two price review periods will provide the best value for money for customers and the environment, and does not risk compromising water companies’ ability to deliver other vital improvements to our sewage system.

It is important that we direct investment at improving the sewage network to decrease overflow charges, and not just at monitoring, particularly where it does not provide valuable insight into the harms associated with discharge. There is a balance to be struck, and I believe we have got it right. The public know that there is too much sewage in our waterways. Whichever way we look at it—be it through volume or duration—they know there is too much. The focus must be on reducing it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about the importance of water quality. Will she join me in commending campaigns such as the Ilkley Clean River Group and other citizen scientists across the country? In the absence of data collected under the Conservatives and the work of the Environment Agency, they had to do the work themselves to expose the sewage scandal.

[Emma Hardy]

I wholeheartedly pay tribute to the Ilkley Clean River Group and to the work that my hon. Friend does in championing it in this House.

Climate and Nature Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I will make progress, because I know more Members wish to speak. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we simply do not have the technology available—we do not have enough clean power from batteries or long-duration electricity storage—to meet demand. That speaks to the major contradiction in the Bill: it talks about protecting the British countryside from development, but it would require an incredible roll-out—at pace and scale unprecedented—of renewable technologies, pylons, substations and battery storage facilities.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the investment in and setting up of GB Energy, the location of which is not far from his constituency, will ensure that the transition to clean, green energy generation happens quickly, and that the failure to invest happened on the Conservatives’ watch?

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Member is drawing me into setting out what a great record the previous Conservative Government had on investment in new technologies. I would love to believe that Great British Energy will make a positive difference to the direction this country takes on investing in technologies, creating new jobs and driving the transition, but we have seen no evidence that that will actually be the case. Indeed, every time we ask the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero what it expects GB Energy to do, it singularly fails to come up with a response. Far from GB Energy being welcomed in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, it is that part of the country that is being decimated more than any other by her party’s position on oil and gas and our industry in the North sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper]

I will not, because a lot of Members are trying to get in, and I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to speak.

I am convinced that to tackle this challenge, we must commit to a just transition, with ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that not only put us on track to meet our global commitments but pave the way for a cleaner, greener future for generations to come. We must protect our precious natural ecosystems. The biodiversity crisis is a pressing issue, with species declining at an unprecedented rate. The World Wildlife Fund reported in October that between 1970 and 2020, there was a catastrophic 73% decline in wildlife populations. It is essential that we not only seek to halt that decline but prioritise the restoration and preservation of habitats.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Cooper]

I would rather not, as so many Members are looking to speak.

By safeguarding our ecosystems, we not only protect wildlife but enhance our own quality of life. Healthy ecosystems provide clean air, safe water and fertile land, which are essential resources for our communities and economy. We must seize this opportunity to drive innovation and create green jobs.

As we transition to a low-carbon economy, we can harness the power of renewable energy, sustainable agriculture and cutting-edge technology. This transition will not only help us meet our climate goals but stimulate economic growth and employment opportunities in sectors that are vital for our future. Investing in a sustainable economy is not merely an environmental imperative; it is an immense economic opportunity. Too often, we hear opponents of tackling the climate crisis present this as all cost. I ask them, “Why would you leave this fantastic opportunity to be a global leader in these technologies and to sell our expertise all over the world to someone else?”

I know that the Government recognise this, and I welcome the action that has already been taken not only to get us back on track to meeting our climate commitments, but to create hundreds of thousands of good jobs and drive investment throughout our country. Removing the ban on onshore wind in England, committing £21.7 billion for carbon capture, approving solar projects offering almost 2 GW of power, launching Great British Energy and delivering record-breaking renewables auctions are vital steps in delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero.

Moreover, we know that the public back action on climate, nature and the environment, with Oxford University estimating support at about 80% globally. Indeed, I have heard people across Mid Cheshire express their concerns on these matters. Prior to the general election, I participated in a dedicated climate and nature hustings organised jointly by Sustainable Northwich and Winsford Sustainability Partners, which have done a tremendous amount locally to raise awareness of these issues, provide forums for discussing topics such as carbon capture and storage, work with local schools on air quality projects, and much more. I take this opportunity to thank them for the work that they have done and continue to do.

Along with people across the country, those organisations are increasingly aware of the urgency of the situation and are calling for bold action. By listening to the voices of the people we serve, we can foster collaboration between Government, businesses and local communities to ensure that we create a collective response to climate change that is inclusive, effective and decisive.

According to the Local Government Association, more than 300 local authorities have declared a climate emergency, and nearly two thirds of councils in England aim to be carbon neutral by 2030. I am particularly proud that our first act as an administration after the local elections in 2019 was to declare a climate emergency in Cheshire West and Chester.

Perhaps there is a stereotype of Cheshire as a rural county full of cheese, cats and “Real Housewives” but, at the time of the declaration, Cheshire West was the fourth highest polluting borough for carbon dioxide emissions, with only Neath Port Talbot, North Lincolnshire and Birmingham ranking higher. The borough’s climate emergency response plan notes:

“Cheshire West and Chester is, in many ways, a microcosm of the UK. Few places can claim to have such a variety of key emitters and sectors located in one area.”

There is a heavy concentration of industry in the north of the borough in Ellesmere Port.

There are some who would have us deindustrialise and roll back on manufacturing or any carbon-intensive process. We have seen the consequences of such action. We have seen what happens when the rug is pulled from under communities with nothing to replace it, and how long it can take for a place to recover. And yet, time is of the essence. By providing strategic leadership, we have seen growth in the hydrogen cluster, investment in sustainable aviation fuel production and the approval of a first-of-its-kind carbon capture and storage facility that will have an effect equivalent to taking nearly 200,000 cars off the road each year. The latter was made possible by this Government’s commitment to providing certainty for business and investing in this energy cluster and the industries of the future.

Of course, this is not entirely down to the actions of the Government or the council, but if we set the challenge, lead on it and show businesses that we are prepared to back them, they will respond, as we have seen with industry-led initiatives such as Net Zero North West.

In my constituency, Tata is in the process of developing another world first. For a long time, Northwich has been synonymous with the chemistry of salt, and Tata, following completion of its EcoKarb carbon capture and utilisation plant, has announced that it will build a world-first facility to make the first sodium bicarbonate with net zero carbon emissions. Let us all move forward together on this fantastic work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with my hon. Friend and will come to that in a few minutes.

Wetter winters and drier summers mean that our farmers cannot plant when they plan to, and sometimes they miss a whole crop round. The crops do not fully ripen, so they have reduced harvests. The Ouse Washes flood earlier each winter and the floods last longer, which closes roads and cuts people off from schools and hospitals. Wildlife is hatching at the time it always has, but the food that it relies on is not there, or it cannot get access to water, so a generation dies.

The climate is changing for the worse, and we are already seeing the impacts around us. If we do not take action soon, many parts of the world will become uninhabitable for people, most animals, birds, insects, plants and even most aquatic life. My beautiful constituency will also be largely under water, and as if that was not bad enough, that water will probably be salt water, causing tremendous damage to people and wildlife.

Our fens have been the breadbasket of Britain since at least Roman times. They are also an amazing carbon sink. The Fenland soils group is meeting next week in its fifth annual conference to bring together farmers, academics, wildlife charities, national and local government and various other groups to consider how they can continue feeding the nation while keeping that carbon in our soils and making our soils healthier.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Lady talks about protecting a unique habitat. In my Shipley constituency we have peat bogs, the restoration of which is essential for limiting climate change. It is estimated that the Great North bog stores 400 million tonnes of carbon. The council is doing a lot to rewet those areas. Will she join me in commending these restoration projects?

[Charlotte Cane]

I absolutely commend those restoration projects in the right place. As I say, in the fens we need the food as well as the wetlands, so we have to do the right thing in the right places. Something I like about this Bill is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) said, it provides support for farmers, so that when they come up with ideas for changing their farming practices, they have the funds to deliver them.

In the interest of time, I will just touch on one other aspect of the Bill that I think is particularly important, which is how addressing climate change and the transition has to take full consideration of the poorest in our communities. These are the people who live next to the most polluting roads; who live in flooding areas and cannot afford the insurance to help them after a flood; and who cannot afford to heat their houses because their homes are badly insulated and they still depend directly or indirectly on fossil fuels, which is very costly. It is so important to have these people at the centre of the Bill, because addressing climate change will help them to have a better life. We must ensure that the transition is fair, that it delivers jobs across the country and that it does not just keep putting financial burdens on people.