Waste Incinerators

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this debate.

Waste management is a huge issue, which requires the attention of us all in this House. We Liberal Democrats are committed to strengthening incentives to reduce waste and our country’s reliance on incinerators. Although incineration of residual waste might be the least bad option available at the moment to handle our unrecycled and unseparated waste, it is far from the long-term solution that we need. Let us be absolutely clear: incinerators are currently an unavoidable solution for many local councils. They are a deeply imperfect solution to a much bigger problem, though. When we get to the point where all of our commercial and domestic waste is avoided, reduced, reused, recycled and composted with no residual waste remaining, I will be at the front of the march to shut down our energy-from-waste facilities, for they will have served their purpose.

As several Members have correctly observed, incineration sits at the very bottom of the waste hierarchy. The energy that incinerators produce for local heat networks will ideally have been switched to air source and ground source heat pumps or perhaps waste heat from server farms, leaving these towering structures finally silent, but we are a long way from that point. Today, well-managed and well-maintained incinerators are an effective and safe method for disposing of our residual waste.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the parliamentary position of the Liberal Democrats is pro-incinerator? Can he tell me how many incinerators there are in Liberal Democrat constituencies?

[Luke Taylor]

I am happy to clarify. Incineration and ERFs are the least worst available option for disposing of our residual waste. The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the ping-pong in approaches to incineration between different Administrations and different political parties. On his question about where the incinerators are, well, my constituency, Sutton and Cheam, is next to Carshalton and Wallington. Our borough, Sutton, has an incinerator in Beddington. It was initially given planning permission by the local council because of legal advice, but it was called in by a fella called Boris Johnson, and what political party did he represent? He was the Conservative Mayor of London, and he reviewed the plans and approved the incinerator in Sutton. We have an incinerator operating in our constituency because it was approved by a Conservative London Mayor.

In his 2022 report, chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty wrote:

“The ERF is preferred over the use of landfill due to the opportunity to recover valuable and sustainable power.”

But they are not all well maintained and not all well managed. We know that we must move beyond them as soon as possible, but we can do that only by speeding up the changes in the ecosystem of waste management in this country that would enable their extinction.

Let us begin with plastic and packaging. We support the strengthening of incentives to reduce packaging and waste sent to landfill and incineration. In the coalition Government, we pioneered the plastic bag levy, which was exactly the kind of successful societal change that we need. It is almost impossible to remember a time when we were not charged for a plastic bag or did not give a second thought to our need to take one.

The reuse of bags and the growing market for stronger reusable bags is fully normalised—we do not bat an eyelid. It is akin to the removal of lead from petrol. Something that once seemed pervasive and impossible to imagine an alternative for was phased out entirely in such a way that whole generations have no recollection of it ever being any other way. That did not happen overnight. It took a mission-driven Government to step in and lead the way, incentivising the right kind of behaviour in waste management to light a path forward for society to take. I accept that that is already happening in some areas, but we need to go further and faster.

To meaningfully tackle plastic pollution and waste and get Britain as close as possible to full recycling, we have called for a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers, working with the devolved Administrations to ensure consistency across the UK. We must learn lessons from the difficulties with the Scottish scheme.

To further reduce residual waste, we have been calling on the Government to expedite the complete elimination of non-recyclable single-use plastics within three years and their replacement with affordable, reusable, recyclable or compostable alternatives. That would enable us to set an ambition of ending all plastic waste exports by 2030. The separation of plastic waste for reprocessing is critical to reduce the amount of recyclable plastic that is unnecessarily burned in incinerators. We know that peer group pressure and normalisation of behaviour is critical to that.

The comments made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) remind me of the former leader of the Sutton Conservatives, who told residents recently that

“most of your recycling goes up the chimney”

at the local ERF—untrue claims that undermine efforts to increase recycling. If there are efforts to improve recycling and our diversion of plastics from incineration, perhaps he can remind his colleagues of the importance of recycling as often as they possibly can.

Turning to food waste, in this age of food banks, according to the company Waste Managed, the UK throws away 9.5 million tonnes of food every year. That is nearly 24 million loaves of bread. In Sutton borough in my constituency, we recently had a campaign to improve the participation in the recycling of food waste that targeted about 15,000 households. That campaign saw an increase of 17% by tonnage of food waste recycling in the areas targeted and a 10% increase in the number of households participating in the programme. The evidence is clear: targeted programmes can be effective at improving participation rates and getting food waste down.

The previous Conservative Government failed to take the measures needed to support businesses in becoming more efficient and to support communities in moving beyond the throwaway culture. Many private sector enterprises, such as Too Good To Go, are opening up in this space and, frankly, doing a far better job than the Government. That is welcome, but a reminder that there is room for the Government to take steps of their own.

The Government have to look again at the enormous mistake that is their family farms tax, which will undermine any last vestiges of localism in the food chain that remain in this country. If we do not incentivise local produce being sold to local people through local businesses, we stand no chance of getting our emissions down, minimising food waste, encouraging healthier eating or moving beyond incineration.

On air pollution, let us be clear that we do not have to accept that the way incinerators currently operate is the only way in this final phase of their history. A significant amount of the concern around the use and potential misuse of incineration stems from mismanagement and the fact that our regulator, the Environment Agency, is prevented from doing the pervasive monitoring that it should be able to.

In my borough of Sutton, the Beddington ERF, on occasion, exceeds the pollution levels set out in its facilities permit. Although those breaches are minor and often for a very short period, and are often caused by nitrous oxide canisters getting into the waste stream, they are not investigated very often by the Environment Agency. The local council and waste authority lack the powers to compel the operator to address problems in their sorting and filtration systems. We can move towards the managed extinction of this form of waste management and wean ourselves off incineration altogether only if we make sure that existing sites are properly managed and meaningfully regulated.

The Liberal Democrats want the UK to be world-leading in its efforts to improve air quality. We have called for a £20 billion emergency fund for local authorities to tackle the clean air crisis, and a £150 billion green recovery plan. We need to pass a new Clean Air Act based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, to codify in law that nobody should be subject to consistently awful levels of air pollution. Not passing those measures makes a mockery of the Government’s already opaque plans for meaningful climate action. We were deeply concerned by the finding of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget that the UK has deliverable plans for only a third of the emissions reductions needed to meet climate goals. If the Government want to rectify that then they should get a grip, with a beefed-up approach to managing waste and dealing with air pollution. We can do a lot more to prevent waste going to incineration in the first place, and better regulate the existing stock of incinerators.

The recent progress report of the Office for Environmental Protection noted that waste generation and incineration rates have continued to increase, but recycling rates have stalled. That is not the case in my borough of Sutton, where we have seen reductions in the tonnage of waste sent to the ERF from residents, but elsewhere more effort must be made. We need an active Government to step up to the plate and reverse that worrying trend. We must take meaningful action to regulate existing incinerators and look more closely at proposed new incinerators, such as at Canford Magna in the south-west of England, where data suggests that 95% of the required capacity already exists. We must implement a better food waste strategy, eradicate plastic waste and speed up the energy transition to alternative technologies that would hasten the end of residual waste. That would allow us to move away from incineration, and finally consign incinerators to the oblivion of history, to sit in engineering museums alongside Victorian technology as a reminder of how important waste reduction is, and how critical it is at the top of the waste hierarchy.

Thames Water: Government Support

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who were eagle-eyed enough to spot that my name has changed. The nameplate in front of me is correct and accurate.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for Thames Water.

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this important and extremely topical debate. I also thank hon. Members from across the House for joining me this afternoon. I hope that we are all of the same opinion on the problem, although we might well differ slightly on the solution.

Sixteen million Britons are gaslit daily by Thames Water. The company has unleashed filth in our waterways and homes, while cutting deeper and deeper into our personal finances. When I think about the performance of Thames Water, I imagine the very excrement it fails to manage. Despite all the years of historic under-investment in favour of profit, the business has been run into the ground. It now finds itself on the brink of collapse, counting down its days of cash remaining, as we all saw in the recent documentary. It makes an absolute mockery of the water utility industry that fat-cat shareholders are enjoying obscene payouts and company executives rake in sky-high salaries and bonuses, all while our rivers and our wallets suffer. River ecosystems are dying, and our children are denied the joy of swimming in nature because of the threat of swallowing human waste.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. It is beyond clear that my Slough constituents are not happy with Thames Water—in fact, recent figures demonstrate that this company is one of the worst scoring for customer satisfaction for the fourth year in a row. We all know that the last Conservative Government had a rotten record on water companies: they were laden with debt and there were ridiculous executive bonuses and sky-high bills. That is not a sustainable future. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must ensure that customers and our environment are at the heart of future reform and regulation in the sector?

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree that customers and residents, our constituents, must be put at the heart of any solution. We must find a way to ensure that people do not have to endure this anymore. As the hon. Member correctly says, there customer satisfaction ratings have been absolutely awful, which alone gives us a credible excuse to raise their concerns in this place.

To go beautifully back on to the script, just this Tuesday Thames Water customers were slammed with a 31% hike in their bills, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, to pay for this utterly appalling service. I say “customers”, but those of us unlucky enough to call Thames Water our provider are more like prisoners. I say that because choice in this market is an illusion. In this country, taxpayers cannot choose their water utility company. They are trapped. This afternoon I shall argue that the only way this Government can support Thames Water is by saving it from itself.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock are fed up of Thames Water providing a poor service yet continually hiking the charges for it. I am thinking of constituents like Martin, who lives in Bladon, whose toilet floods regularly because of a collapsed sewer and who now has a tanker parked outside his house 24/7 because Thames Water has so delayed making the repairs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a reset at Thames Water after years of financial and operational failure? Does he further agree that the Government are quite wrong to be resisting special administration, which would be the best way to ensure that the financial mismanagement of the past sits rightly with the vulture funds and bondholders and not with future bill payers?

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the burden must lie on the vulture funds, and his comments are as wise as the residents of his Bicester and Woodstock constituency.

We Liberal Democrats have long called for action to reform this lousy company. It has been clear to us for a very long time that the current position is untenable. Recognising that it is fundamentally broken, we have no fear in stating exactly what we need: to rip it up and restructure it, so that it can finally work for our constituents.

To make my argument, I will begin by touching on the sheer mess that the company is in. Naturally, many of the points I make will come as no shock to the hon. Members across this House whose residents are flooding their inboxes as Thames Water floods our rivers with sewage. I will then outline why the Government must, with the utmost urgency, put this failing water company into special administration. Finally, I will argue that the only way that this Government can support Thames Water is by scrapping Ofwat and finally getting a regulator that uses its teeth.

Thames Water is knee-deep in a nightmare of its own making. In 2024, it set a new record by pumping 50% more untreated sewage into our waterways. In 2023, the company was named the worst performer in England and completely failed to meet its own performance metrics. In 2022, it made an extra £500 million in profit despite pipe bursts during a heatwave that caused a regional drought and a hosepipe ban. Untreated sewage now pumps through waterways in southern England like it is part of the furniture.

I fear that, were it not for the new Thames Tideway tunnel, which I was fortunate enough to visit recently, our river would be destined for the unmanageable decline that turns waterways into open sewers, like something straight out of a Dickens novel. Humans can choose not to go in the water, but flora and fauna have no such luxury. We are advised not to let our dogs swim in the river, because they may die from the pollution. Rare chalk stream habitats are being decimated by floods of untreated waste. These precious ecosystems are dying. They have no choice but to endure the toxic chemicals from Thames Water’s outflow pipes.

Thames Water’s sewage problems stem from a systemic failure to update its outdated, mostly Victorian infrastructure. High-risk infrastructure is given ad hoc fixes, with zero communication to customers. The company’s approach to fixing water facilities in Southwark, in London, is a prime example of this reckless approach. Last year, the chief executive had the audacity to blame excess storm overflows on climate change. Yes, climate change is real, and it is causing more intense rainfall and more regular storms, but let me ask Thames Water this question: how long have we known about this, and why did Thames Water not invest annually in its crumbling infrastructure to handle this well-known challenge?

Instead of prioritising the environment and local communities, Thames Water chose to line the pockets of its executives, its shareholders and the vulture funds that owned it. In 2023, the company paid £196 million in dividends, and over the past four years £62 million has been paid out to company executives in bonuses. This has been done at a time when the company is drowning in debt, which currently stands at a whopping £19 billion. Startlingly, more than 25% of customer water bill payments are spent on paying interest on the company’s debt. That is our money paying for the company’s mistakes.

Now, we are told not to worry; everything is in hand because US private equity group KKR—Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.—has been selected as the preferred bidder to take control of Thames Water. This is not a British company, and it has no stake in British communities. We have no reason to believe that a private equity group based in the United States will act as though it has any obligation other than to itself. Northumbrian Water, in which KKR has a significant stake, was responsible for more than 40,000 sewage spills in 2024. What will change if it takes over Thames Water? Enough is enough. The Government must step up.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Member is making a hard-hitting speech. The scale of the water bill increases has left many of my more vulnerable Slough constituents very anxious about how they will pay their bills. As he rightly points out, in recent years, while customers struggle, water companies including Thames Water have pumped record amounts of sewage into our rivers, paid their bosses millions in bonuses and failed to invest adequately in vital infrastructure. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must take firm steps to stop this exploitation of the environment and of our people, and that water companies must now step up to the plate to protect their most vulnerable customers?

[Luke Taylor]

I absolutely agree, but I fear Thames Water’s lack of ability to do that, simply due to the debt pile and the situation in which the company finds itself. The hon. Member’s words on behalf of his vulnerable residents clearly come from a deep wish to serve them.

The Government must step up. They must not support Thames Water—the motion is somewhat misleading—but they must support customers throughout the south by finally doing what has long been necessary. Indeed, the first draft of the debate title I submitted to the Backbench Business Committee was, “10 things I hate about Thames Water”—my researcher will appreciate me getting that in—but alas, we were not able to bring it forward.

The Government must place Thames Water under special administration. I do not lay all the blame at the feet of the current Government. We all know that for far too long the Conservative Government stood idly by while Thames Water poisoned our waterways. But with each passing day this Government must surely recognise the growing urgency of action; if they do not, it will become their fault.

Under special administration the state can temporarily take control of this collapsing company. The day-to-day operations would carry on as normal, but the board that has bled the business dry would be gone—restructured and replaced. The greedy executives who have pocketed millions in bonuses while running the company into the ground would be stripped of their bonuses. There can be no more fat pay cheques while they fail customers. Taxpayers would no longer be forced to watch helplessly as their bills rise like the water level, slowly drowning them just to cover the company’s massive and foolish debt.

With new leadership there is a chance for a new direction. Under special administration the company could finally implement a meaningful plan to tackle the sewage crisis that has plagued our waterways for far too long. No longer would our streams, rivers and lakes be seen as expendable. The £3 billion debt lifeline that Thames Water has just secured will not last forever. All it serves to do is to preserve a broken status quo. The company has proven time and again that it is not fit for purpose. If this Government do not act now, how much more of our constituents’ money will be flushed down the drain? I am begging the Government—literally begging —to listen to our anger, save us from Thames Water’s incompetence, and take steps to ensure that the next iteration of Thames Water, and other water companies across the UK, cannot get away with this kind of behaviour.

It all starts with setting up a proper water company regulator that actually does its job. Ofwat is an utter disgrace. It is asleep at the wheel and complicit in the chaos caused by the company. The regulator has sleepwalked through the mess that is Thames Water, now greenlighting a 35% hike in bills over the next five years. It has turned a blind eye to the outrageous profits and bonuses pocketed by Thames Water shareholders. It has sat leisurely by as the water companies refused to properly update their crumbling infrastructure. It has repeatedly refused to set meaningful environmental targets for water companies to improve the quality of our water. The regulator is, through its inaction, helping Thames Water to fleece the taxpayer and carry out its dirty work.

It is time to scrap Ofwat and replace it with a new regulator, one with real teeth that, in the great tradition of anti-trust and community-first capitalism, is not afraid of a fight and will square up firmly to those who benefit most from a broken system. We need a regulator that is not afraid to be bold and ambitious in fighting for the best for the British people. We expect nothing less from the Government, so why should we shrink from demanding it from the regulatory arms of the state? Indeed, if the Government hold themselves to that standard, why should they hold their agencies to anything less?

The fact is that our constituents are being utterly let down. We cannot go on like this. Across the board, the water industry needs wholesale reform, but right at the heart of the scandal, wallowing in a stinking mess of its own making, is Thames Water—a company that was set up to serve the public but has instead become a paragon of failure, debt and daylight robbery. The Government do not have long. They must act swiftly to rescue the idea at the heart of the company—the idea, which I hope has not been fully eroded or caked in sludge, that a utility company, working in collaboration with Government, can be a force for good governance.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Member is wondering why a Scottish MP is speaking in a debate about Thames Water. I absolutely agree with his concerns about Thames Water, but the model he seems to be proposing is very close to what we have with Scottish Water, which I am sure he has done a lot of research on. He will know that sewage was dumped into Scotland’s rivers and lochs for over 600 hours a day in 2023, and we do not monitor our water discharges anywhere near as closely as England. I therefore urge caution. The model he is proposing does not work in Scotland. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, despite having the powers, does not use them in the way he might want.

[Luke Taylor]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It highlights that there is no silver bullet. The solutions that we propose are complex and difficult; they require monitoring and oversight of infrastructure plans, and properly phased, long-term planning and investment to prevent the discharges that we see under the current system. Only through the proper process—upgrading holding tanks, for example, or upgrading the technologies used to filter and clean the water before the effluence is put back into the river—can we see improvement. His challenge is fair and welcome; the solution not a silver bullet.

To conclude, a utility company, working in collaboration with Government, can be a force for good governance and good management of our environment, and give good value to bill payers. Imagine looking at a water bill and thinking, “This is good value!” I promise that there is a future like that, but that is what is at stake. The Government must act now to sort out the mess and establish that in this country, utility companies can thrive only when they take seriously their responsibilities to the environment and to us, rather than solely the pursuit of profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate on Government support for Thames Water. What does Government support for Thames Water look like? Our current Government support Thames Water by letting it breach the terms of its operating licence, letting Ofwat ignore its own rules, letting consumers take the pain of higher bills for no gain, letting financiers make out like bandits and letting our rivers continue to be filled with sewage. What is shocking about that is that a Labour Government are doing it. This Government are turning out to be every bit as bad as the Conservatives were at protecting our rivers. They are completely ducking their responsibilities. It is within the Minister’s powers to take action: she is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding at DEFRA, DEFRA oversees Ofwat, and Ofwat issues operating licences to water companies.

Here are some of the key requirements that Thames Water needs to comply with, per its Ofwat-issued operating licence. First, there is an operational requirement to comply with environmental and health standards. Thames Water is failing that requirement. As per Environment Agency data, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, in 2024 Thames Water discharged nearly 300,000 hours of sewage, which is 50% up on 2023. It is illegal to dump sewage in dry conditions, but it is happening repeatedly. Professor Peter Hammond, who lives in my constituency, monitored the Stanton Harcourt sewage treatment works in my constituency, and found that there had been 266 illegal spills in just a single sewage treatment works in a four- year period. That is a complete failure of that operating requirement.

Secondly, Thames Water is failing the financial viability requirement, under which it is required to have two licences of investment-grade credit ratings. Currently, it has no credit ratings that are investment grade. Standard & Poor’s has the company’s debt 12 notches below investment grade, and Moody’s has it nine notches below. That is as far deep into junk bond territory as one can get. In the last financial year to March 2024, Thames Water had £19 billion of debt but only £1.2 billion of cash in. Everybody knows that that is not a sensible way to run a company.

By allowing Thames Water to breach that rule, we introduce moral hazard into the water sector and all other regulated sectors. Other water companies take note that there has been no material sanction of Thames Water and realise that they can also likely get away with it. Of the nearly £1.4 billion of funding due to come into the company, £900 million is going straight out in interest expenses, sweet financial goodies for hedge funds, and advisory fees. That is not fair on our bill payers. Customers are being royally stuffed, and Ofwat and the Minister’s DEFRA team are standing by.

Thirdly, there is a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers—the fair pricing requirement—and Thames Water is failing at that too. Bills have gone up by a headline of 31%. Many Witney constituents have written to me with increases of 50% and 70%—in one case, it was even 93%. On top of that, to add insult to injury, Thames Water has an application to the Competition and Markets Authority to increase bills even higher, by 59%.

Fourthly, there is the ownership requirement. This one really gets my goat. Thames Water must inform Ofwat of any change to control. Ultimate controllers are defined in Ofwat’s papers as being

“in a position to control or in a position to materially influence the company”.

Thames Water’s own advisers have publicly stated that the company is de facto controlled by its creditors. Ofwat is ignoring this. Extraordinarily, Ofwat, wrote to me in the last month to say that, despite it being publicly stated in the press that Omers, a shareholder in Thames Water, had written its stake down to zero and pulled its board representation off last May, it is still actually controlling the company. Why is this going on? What could be going on here? It smells—

[Luke Taylor]

It smells like—

[Charlie Maynard]

Yes, it does. I think Ofwat is doing exactly what the company’s creditors want it to do, and I wonder why that is happening, because it should not be.

Finally, there is a failure to innovate. There are a host of technologies out there, and far too often we hear the same old lines about Victorian sewers, cameras and how impossible it all is. There is a huge range of leak detection, pipeline monitoring, protective maintenance, trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. I hear from Oxfordshire firms that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions into the US and Europe than into the UK, so something is going seriously wrong. We could start by looking at whether the incentives are effectively aligned; I do not believe they are.

What are the consequences of this failure to act? It is easy to lay a lot of the blame at the last Government, but the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was more window dressing than action. I am new to Parliament, but I was particularly dismayed that not a single word of a single proposed amendment from any party was accepted by the Minister. I wish that in Parliament we all had enough confidence to accept good ideas where we found them—I live in hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am pleased by what I believe I have heard: that no reference was made to Ruth Kelly with regard to Thames Water; instead, the comment was solely about her representing Water UK.

Further to my point about people who are not here and unable to defend themselves, as a trade unionist I want to talk about the people who work for water companies, including those who work for Thames Water and go out to fix the broken pipes, clean up sewage and deal with the sewage overspills. I have had reports from some unions that those people often face abuse for doing so. They are often on the frontline facing people angry with the company. I would like to say—and I hope we have unity on this point—that the people going out, cleaning up the mess and dealing with the difficulties are not responsible. They are not Thames Water; they are people who work for it. I thank them for the work that they do in incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Luke Taylor]

I think we would all agree on that. It was interesting to see, in the BBC documentary, that the people who work at Thames Water clearly wanted to do a good job. They wanted to improve things for residents—their neighbours, family and friends—but just did not have the chance to do so because of the structure of the company and the difficulties that it is in. This debate is about the need to help not only the customers—our residents—but the workers who want to be doing so much better and find it so dispiriting to be part of that failing organisation.

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree. They are trying to do a good job. I add that it is a good industry to work in; the people in it have long careers and, I might add, excellent trade union representation. I am not sure that I will have complete support from everyone in the room on that point—just when I was doing so well—but I want to echo that it is not those people’s responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, was right to say that customers and the environment should be at the heart of reforms. As I mentioned, we changed the articles of association to put customers on to the boards. My hon. Friend is always incredibly caring about his residents, so I wanted to mention to him and to all the other hon. Members that we are holding the water companies to account to end water poverty by 2030. We are just about to consult—we have to wait for purdah—on changing the rules around WaterSure to extend eligibility for it.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) enjoyed her three years in Yorkshire. It is a fine and wonderful part of the country, and she is always welcome to come back. She is an incredible champion for her community. I am sure that she will never need my assistance in standing up for that community, but I am always happy to give it if she does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) highlighted the role that MPs can play. He showed what a good choice was made in the last election to send him here as a representative for his community. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act and for the further work that we are doing on regulators.

The hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about the Teddington abstraction scheme. Without going into loads of detail, there will be a consultation, and they will be able to feed in the concerns of their residents and environmental concerns. But if either of the hon. Members feel that their concerns, or those of their residents, are not being listened to, I am happy to make arrangements for us to sit and have a longer conversation about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned a family of four struggling with their water bill. I again highlight WaterSure. We are looking to expand eligibility for it, but at the moment, if a family has three or more children under the age of 18 living at the property and they claim child benefit, they will be eligible for WaterSure, so I urge my hon. Friend to pass that information on to his constituents. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act, the commission and our desire to introduce change.

Before turning to Thames Water, I want to emphasise that as a Government we recognise that the water sector is facing many challenges, and we have set out ambitious plans to tackle those challenges head-on, but it is important also to emphasise that resolving them will require long-term and transformative change. One thing mentioned here—I think by the loyal Opposition—is that there is no silver bullet or quick fix for some of the problems that we face.

We recently took the Water (Special Measures) Act through Parliament; it was amended in the other place. It will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and act as a first step in enabling wider and transformative change across the water sector. The Act delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments by blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, enabling the bringing of criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and ensuring monitoring of every sewage outlet.

In October we launched, in collaboration with the Welsh Government, an independent commission on the water sector regulatory system. This is the largest review of the water industry since privatisation. The commission will report in the middle of this year and make recommendations on how to tackle systemic issues in the water sector to help restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, meet the challenges of the future and contribute to economic growth. Those recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to attract long-term investment and clean up our waters for good.

I now turn to Thames Water specifically before moving on to the sector as a whole. I will say as much as I am able to about Thames Water, bearing in mind that it is going through a confidential process. I completely understand what has been said. Let me say at the beginning that I am not here as the hon. Member for Thames Water, and I am not here to defend the actions of Thames Water. I want to reassure and, I hope, send a message to the general public that we are monitoring the situation and the company remains stable. In the event of special administration, the taps will still function and the sewage will still be taken—I want that message to be heard by the general public—so there is no need for alarm. The people working for the company will continue to be paid in the event of special administration. As a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality. However, at the moment the company remains stable.

I think it is incorrect to say that we are “resisting” special administration. That would be a total mischaracterisation of what special administration is and the process of entering the special administration regime. It is not that we are resisting anything. A special administration order is a well-established mechanism to ensure that the company continues to operate and that customers continue to receive their water and wastewater services, so customers need not be concerned about any disruption to their water supply or wastewater services because of the financial position of their water company. The provision of water and wastewater services will continue.

Special administration is the ultimate enforcement tool in the regulatory toolkit, and as such, the bar is set high. The law is clear—this obviously links to insolvency legislation—and states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or seriously breaches an enforcement order. Only in that scenario does the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or Ofwat—crucially, with the consent of the Secretary of State—have the power to request the court to place a company in a special administration regime. If that situation arises, the court must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the water company in question is insolvent, can no longer seriously fulfil its primary statutory duties, or has seriously breached an enforcement order. It will then make a special administration order, appointing a special administrator.

That is a hypothetical situation. It is not, I stress, the situation that we are talking about now, but let us say that somebody said, “We want to put this company into special administration”; the decision then would be made by the court, and the court would need to be satisfied that there is the evidence to put that company into special administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

At a Sutton council meeting before the 2024 election, I made it clear that if two Liberal Democrat MPs were elected in Sutton, we would hold Thames Water to account for its mockery of our residents. I am proud to stand here today to start delivering on that promise.

I thank all hon. Members around the Chamber for their contributions. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is not in his place, but his interventions about the worries of his constituents show how hard he is working for them. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont); he invites me to make a suggestion about the Administration in Scotland, and how nationalising and giving a toy to the SNP might not be the best idea in any circumstances—a change of Administration might be beneficial for all of us. I thank the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for her reports on the regular leaks and disruptions, and share her anger at the shareholders and financial chicanery used to extract money from our most important utility—although I will try to scrub my mind of the image of the cherry on the sewage cake.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and agree that special administration is needed, as Thames Water is understaffed and utterly demoralised. I also thank the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) and agree that the company is failing on every level. That highlights the area that Thames Water covers, all the way from my constituency in south-west London to Swindon North. The destruction of natural habitats under Thames Water is heartbreaking, and the story of his intervention for his constituents shows how comprehensive the failures are.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who mentioned how public trust has been undermined as residents see an increase in bills. I note her comments about the Teddington direct river abstraction site, and am also glad to learn that the Ham Lands are safely under Liberal Democrat control once again. I also note her frustration and worry about the failed infrastructure projects under Thames Water, and I worry about any investment in infrastructure plans that are not doing what they are supposed to.

I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and share his frustration at his town centre being blocked and closed for months due to the water leaks; I can only imagine the incredible disruption to his residents and his frustration on their behalf. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and agree that further support would be breaching Ofwat guidance and rules, and that Thames Water is failing on all accounts. I thank him for his hard work on holding Thames Water to account and revealing its astonishing financial situation—it is truly terrifying. I am heartbroken that I am only the second person to get into Hansard a “shambopoly”, which I hope will become a new byword for the situation that Thames Water enjoys.

I thank my old friend, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for his contribution, and acknowledge the efforts of the last Government to monitor sewage outflows. Understanding and quantifying the problem is the first step to resolving it. Once again, I note the discrepancy with the Administration north of the border. I also thank the hon. Member for his welcome words on the Teddington direct river abstraction project.

I welcome the Minister, and thank her for coming to this place and taking part in the discussion. I admire her ability to find 10 things that the Labour Government have achieved with the water industry, but a common refrain on this side of the House will be “We need to do more, and we need to do it faster.” It is good to hear about the consultation on the Teddington project, which will reassure many of my colleagues. I also welcome her reassurance for residents that, whatever happens, their water will continue to flow, as will their sewage.

However, none of the measures implemented fundamentally changes the status quo with Thames Water or puts a permanent fix in place. I recognise that the Government and the Minister are limited in what they can do, but special administration is surely the last throw of the dice to save Thames Water. I repeat the query from around the Chamber: if not now, when?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for Thames Water.

River Wandle Pollution

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he makes the same point that others have made, namely that the polluter must pay. That is a core principle that I hope this Government will implement in the strongest possible terms, including bans on bonuses for water bosses.

Let me finish my point about the Environment Agency. As I have already said, its response to me was quick and I hope that it has acted with all the resources that it can deploy. However, there are some concerns that it has played down the impact of this incident. The email that I received from the agency on the day talked about how the pollution will wash away once it reaches the Thames. The latest update that I have received says that the diesel is clearly dispersing around the river and that reports about it are declining in number. However, as I have just explained, the fact that the number of reports is declining does not necessarily mean that the damage has gone away. A key point is that I do not understand what baseline monitoring the Environment Agency was conducting in the first place in order for it to make the assessment that this incident has caused very little damage to the river.

I have some specific questions for the Minister about the diesel spill; I appreciate that some of them might need to be followed up in writing. Can she advise us on how we can co-ordinate the investigations by multiple stakeholders into a single independent inquiry? If there is such an inquiry, will the Government ensure that it establishes a clear timeline of events and accountability at every stage? Will she enforce the principle that the polluter pays, which so many Members have discussed today, and ensure that any fines will go directly towards improving the River Wandle, rather than into a general fund?

This incident has been truly shocking, not only to me and the local community but to the region as a whole, mostly because of its scale—that is what has caught the public’s attention. However, this kind of pollution happens every single day, not by accident but by design. The combined sewerage system has become high profile as a result of the campaigning against sewage that has been happening over the last year. However, we have heard less about the road run-off network, which makes an urban river like the Wandle especially vulnerable to such incidents. What goes down the drains can end up in our river, and when we think about a massive diesel spill such as this one, we should also think about all the types of pollutants that are running off our road network into our rivers every single day.

At the moment, there is a lack of monitoring, so we do not really know what damage that pollution is having. We have a poor understanding of what the sewerage network looks like. Which drains connect directly into the river? Which ones go via the sewage treatment works? We do not really know the answers to those questions. There are also very limited mitigation measures. I know that fixing the entire infrastructure of this network would be difficult, but there are also measures that we can take further downstream.

We have inadequate resilience, which could be addressed by the nature restoration projects that I referred to earlier. All the industrial adaptation that I also spoke about earlier—basically, how the river been canalised over the years—is choking off the river’s capacity to heal itself. We can see that the Wandle does not have much of a chance when there are 1 million inhabitants and a road network surrounding it.

I am glad that the Government recognise that chalk streams need special protection, but I would love it if they recognised that urban chalk streams, such as the River Wandle, deserve even greater protection.

The renewed attention on water quality in all of our waterways nationwide is extremely welcome. I know there are concerns that progress may be too slow: for example, in my area the major upgrades planned by Thames Water are not due to begin until 2035.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I am the constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend, and my residents enjoy the River Wandle just as much as his do. I am glad he has taken time off from walking along the river with his wife and his dog to speak about this in the Chamber.

When Sutton is building new homes, to try to keep up with the demand for the homes our residents so badly need, the sewage processing capacity at the Beddington treatment works which feed into the Wandle is a concern to all. It is often commented upon at the planning committee on which I frequently sit. In consideration of the infrastructure needed to support these new homes, does he agree we need to make sure that Thames Water ensures we do not end up with more frequent discharges into the river? These would put all the incredible hard work of the groups that have been looking after the Wandle at risk.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad to see another of my constituency neighbours in the room today. New housing developments are a massive opportunity for the industry to implement new infrastructure that we need, and to understand what connects where. If we get it right, and companies work with the Environment Agency and other authorities, this should result in a net improvement in sewage discharges.

Coming back to the major infrastructure question we have, and the point that some of that work will be too slow. I understand why. The Institute for Civil Engineers has estimated it could cost over £100 billion to fix this issue over the long term. There is more we can do now, however. Someone who is sitting behind me, Dr Jack Hogan from the South East Rivers Trust, has said,

“There can be a rainbow at the end of this disaster that is not the sheen of diesel.”

I agree with him.

South East Rivers Trust is running a crowdfunder to get increased monitoring along the Wandle. That has got off to a fantastic start, with over £20,000 raised already. Increased monitoring would be a good thing. I have already spoken about restoration projects happening up and down the Wandle, but they could get so much bigger in scope. We are not talking about billions of pounds here; we are talking about millions. There are things called downstream defenders, which are an excellent innovation. We will not be able to fix the entire infrastructure overnight but we do know where the outfalls are and where the sewage network meets the river. If we put interventions in those spaces we can clean up the quality of water before it reaches the river itself. Ultimately, we have the potential to reconfigure parks, wetlands, fish barriers and overall access to the public and to make the River Wandle an internationally significant river park if we put our minds to it.

In addition to answering my specific questions on the diesel spill inquiry, can the Minister outline what support there is to make these improvements to the River Wandle? More broadly, can she explain the fundamental infrastructure problem of combined sewage systems and run-off from roadside drains will be addressed? Will the Department look again at the formalisation of the Water Restoration Fund? This is important for the principle of polluter pays. I know the Government recently did not back an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 on this, but it is important to campaigners, who want to ensure all polluters pay—not just the water companies—and that those payments go directly into affected areas, such as the River Wandle.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech. I hope it is clear that I love the Wandle just as much as many of my constituents do. This has been a horrible moment for it, but we also hope it is the start of fresh hope.

Climate and Nature Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the words “as rapidly as possible”? It is that language, and the measures and pressures included in the Bill, that will provide the incentive to British industry and to great British minds—the inventors, researchers and developers—to create the technologies and produce them at scale. It will also resolve the issue that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) spoke about: the bottlenecks that mean we do not produce and only assemble. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording of the Bill is deliberately intended to spur that innovation and take advantage of the opportunities?

[Andrew Bowie]

My problem is that the Government’s position on oil and gas, and their position on the support of our domestic industry in the UK, is having a detrimental impact. The advancements and the technologies that the hon. Member speaks about are being developed by the very companies involved in that extraction in the North sea right now. Of course, everybody believes we need to invest in transition, and many say that we should be speeding that transition up. The accelerated decline of the North sea basin will see a lot of that skilled workforce and investment leave the United Kingdom and go overseas. That is something I am incredibly worried about.

I have much to say on the Conservatives’ record on the environment: we had the Environment Act 2021, the 25-year environmental strategy, the creation of new national parks, 34 new landscape recovery projects and 13 offshore marine protected areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

All too often in this place and in politics at large, what divides us is not necessarily the end result—in this case reducing emissions, halting the decline of nature and supporting nature’s recovery—but the means by which we get there.

I have some serious issues with the Bill. I say clearly and categorically for the record that I spend most of my time in this place and in my constituency arguing against the very things that cause nature’s decline in the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside. I spend most of my time arguing against the unnecessary greenfield housing developments that concrete over our countryside and destroy nature. I argue against the massive industrial solar installations, battery storage facilities and substation upgrades that take away the farms next door and have fencing around them that disrupts the deer runs and is harmful and dangerous to nature. So many in this House have argued that those things are the solution to some of the challenges we face, but I do not accept that at all, and I do not accept that the Bill will help us get to the end goal that I think the vast majority of people want to see.

I am grateful to constituents who have lobbied me in favour of the Bill, such as the Speen Environmental Action Group. I sat down with them over the summer and we had a good discussion. I do not think we agreed on everything, but we absolutely agreed on the need for the right sort of action and measures that will get us to where we want to go.

From a legislative perspective, I would argue, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), did in his excellent speech, that we already have a legislative framework in which we can work. We have the Environment Act 2021. Almost five years ago to this day, in the previous Parliament, I stood somewhere on the other side of the Chamber and delivered my maiden speech on the Environment Bill. It is now an Act of Parliament, and it has a section explicitly about halting the decline in species populations by 2030 and increasing populations by at least 10% to exceed current levels by 2042.

We have the legislative framework. We now have to allow our great innovators to come up with the real solutions—ones that do not bring about the destruction of our countryside and nature. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who has left his place, give an impassioned defence of an ancient woodland. It is, in fact, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but it was a good defence none the less. I thought to myself, “It’s quite rare that I agree with him, but I agree with him on this point.” But then I thought about my own constituency, and I thought, “Hang on.” There is a project that has destroyed many ancient woodlands, not just in Buckinghamshire but up and down the entirety of phase 1: High Speed 2. The vast majority of Members of the 2017 Parliament—the Labour Members, the Liberal Democrat Members, although there were not so many of them then, and the Members of other parties—all went through the voting Lobby to vote for the destruction of ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. It is a position that we all have to reflect upon. As I said at the start, we can disagree with the means of getting somewhere, but I invite every right hon. and hon. Member to reflect on what they themselves have proposed or supported in the past, and the impact that has had on the nature challenges we face.

I will touch briefly on some of the issues with the targets in the Bill, which would have severe unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister set out many of them in detail, but it is worth double underlining that if British industry is forced too far, too fast towards targets it cannot meet, that will simply drive those businesses, those jobs and those innovators overseas. It will not combat any global challenge; it will just move it somewhere else in the world. I cannot believe that the sponsors of the Bill, or anyone else, actually want to see that happen.

Fossil fuels will be needed for decades to come. I have been a vocal advocate of de-fossilisation, both in my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament and in this Parliament. My argument is that we have the technology out there, but Government regulation, not just in our own country but worldwide, is preventing us from enabling it to grow. We will need fossil fuels. We will need something to power the 1.4 billion internal combustion engine vehicles that will still be on the roads worldwide after the ban on new petrol and diesel engines in this country. I put it to the House that the solution is the synthetic fuel industry: making fuel literally out of air and water, using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of Liberal Democrats in this place; I think that we were a very effective method of de-fossilisation on 4 July. On the point about synthetic fuels, does he agree that the measures in the Bill, particularly the ones to encourage sustainable aviation fuels and alternatives for internal combustion engines, will spur investment in those technologies exactly as he wants to see?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On his first point, all I will say is: not in Mid Buckinghamshire. They tried, but they got 25% of the vote.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s serious point, I do not see anything in the Bill that challenges the zero emission vehicle mandate. The ZEV mandate is obsessed with testing at tailpipe rather than whole-system analysis, which gets in the way of developing synthetic fuels and greenlighting the great innovators in this country and worldwide to get on with developing that technology. If we put a synthetic fuel through an internal combustion engine, there is still carbon at tailpipe, but it is the same volume of carbon that will be recaptured through atmospheric carbon capture to make the next lot of fuel. It is carbon neutral. It is one volume of carbon in a perpetual circle, yet I see nothing in the Bill that will enable those great innovators to move ahead and get—as some of them claim they can—cost parity with the fossil fuel equivalent within a decade.

Farming and Food Security

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. It is a pleasure to follow the fine speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), whose recollection of the three newspapers in his constituency is incredibly impressive—I encourage him to tell us all about his achievements in those pages over the next few years; from the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who described Dovedale and Chatsworth House, which I remember fondly from holidays in my youth and from playing rugby in Matlock and Ashbourne; and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), whose description of farming as standing in the fields in all sorts of weathers made me recall my experiences of playing rugby in the Derbyshire dales all those years ago.

I do not exaggerate when I say that it is the honour of my life to serve as the Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam. I am so grateful to the thousands of residents who put their trust in me just a few months ago. I promise them: I will always do my very best for you and our communities, from Sutton to Worcester Park, Cheam to Belmont and everywhere in between. I hope I am already going some way to repaying the trust they have put in me by voting to end the two-child benefit cap, voting to save the winter fuel payment, and already helping hundreds of them with issues and concerns through my office. To the people who did not vote for me, or did not vote at all, who have lost all faith in politics and its servants, please allow me the opportunity to restore some of that trust.

To my predecessor, Paul Scully, I say thank you for his nine years of service to Sutton and Cheam. Politically, we agreed on very little, but I know he did what he thought was best for our residents. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat predecessor Paul Burstow, who served for 18 years and whose name is still fondly remembered by so many residents on the doorstep. And to my loved ones—my wife and children, my mum and dad—I say that I would not be here without your support.

As the Father of the House may remember, my dad stood against him in Gainsborough in 1992 and ’97. Therefore I must thank him, too, for helping to ensure that I am the first member of my family to find themselves in this place, rather than my old man.

Sutton and Cheam is small, but it is perfectly formed. It is the smallest of all 72 Liberal Democrat constituencies. Our boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 80 years, which alone must prove that Sutton and Cheam is the greatest constituency in the country. They got it right in 1945 and they have not felt the need to change it ever since.

I could give Members a guided tour of our beautiful constituency but, for me, it is the people who make up our community and make Sutton and Cheam what it is. We have recyclers, repairers and reusers improving sustainability and protecting our planet. We have litter pickers, bulb planters and neighbourhood watchers making our area safer, cleaner and better to live in. We have Sutton fans, Dons fans, Palace fans, Chelsea fans and even the odd long-suffering Spurs supporter. We have had recent arrivals of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghanis who have come to Sutton to find a new home. We have long-established communities of Tamils, Ahmadiyyas, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. We have Anglicans and atheists, Catholics and Methodists—all building the unique mosaic of our communities.

Our local football team, Sutton United FC, play at Gander Green Lane, in my council ward, where their fight to rejoin the football league continues. A recent point apiece from Eastleigh and Yeovil—other Lib Dem constituencies—will help us get there, but the generous people of Woking gave us three points only two weeks ago, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for that. With its fantastic community outreach work, the club proves every year the value of our local football clubs. In politics and football, the people of Sutton know that their colour truly is amber. That is why they have had a Liberal Democrat-run council for almost 40 years—our longest-running local administration in the country.

As many of my colleagues will know, however, there is only so much that councils and councillors can do to tackle the biggest problems that Governments have failed to solve for years. That is why I decided to run for election to this House: to tackle the national issues that people in my constituency face.

For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to fix things. I went from building Lego as a child to rebuilding gearboxes as a teenager. I attended my local comprehensive school in rural Lincolnshire, and many of my friends and classmates growing up were involved in the critical work that farmers do to keep food on our tables and act as stewards for our environment—vital tasks that this debate correctly highlights. At school, I served as a prefect, alongside the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Our political paths have diverged since we last worked together—more than 20 years ago, arranging the De Aston school sixth-form leavers’ ball—but I am proud that we are part of the largest cohort of state-educated MPs in history.

My passion for fixing things led me to London and to Imperial College, where I studied engineering, which led to many years working in the transport industry around the world, but there is so much more that needs fixing in our country than planes, trains and automobiles. Raising my family in Sutton and Cheam with my wonderful wife, I have seen at first hand the broken cogs and blown fuses across our public services, from the NHS and social care to education and policing.

In today’s Britain, the social contract has been broken. In our politics, cynicism and self-interest have replaced service and duty, and many feel that it is simply no longer true that if they work hard and play by the rules, they will enjoy the security and opportunity that everyone deserves. A fair deal no longer exists between the British state and the people, and that is evident across every policy area. As an engineer, I feel confident in saying that the very foundations of our country are broken. It is time that we picked up our tools to fix them.

As the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson for our capital, I will hold the Government to account for all Londoners—fixing London’s creaking infrastructure and never-ending housing crisis, and pushing for reform of and proper funding for the Met. If people have been listening to the Lib Dems for the last few years, they will know exactly what the River Thames is full of.

There is much to be said on all those topics, but I will finish by highlighting one that is dear to me and my constituents: hospices. One of the first emails I received after being elected was from our local hospice, St Raph’s, which is searching for help to stop £1 million-worth of funding cuts that would see staff made redundant and clinical services slashed. The cuts would put Sutton’s GPs, hospitals and district nurses under huge and unmanageable pressure, and leave families abandoned, unsupported and in genuine distress at a time when they need kindness and support the most. For patients, the cuts could tragically hasten their passing and deny them their dignity.

In this Parliament, we have an opportunity to build a better plan, so that people have somewhere to spend their final days in the comfort and care that we all deserve as human beings. I look forward to working with Members from across the House. If they will pick up their tools with this engineer, who knows a thing or two about fixing things, together we can fix our country, restore trust and deliver hope.