Sewage

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the persistent scandal of raw sewage being dumped by water companies into rivers, lakes and coastal areas; notes with deep concern that just 14% of rivers and lakes in England are in good ecological health; condemns the previous Government for letting water company bosses get away with the scandal while paying themselves millions of pounds in bonuses; further notes the potential benefits of Blue Flag status in improving responsibility and accountability from water companies, through compliance checks and stringent environmental standards; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to end the sewage scandal, including the introduction of a new Blue Flag status for rivers and chalk streams, to give them greater protection against sewage dumping and ensure the public knows when rivers are clean and safe.

It is an honour to open this debate. For me, serving the people of Westmoreland also means defending its natural beauty and purity, which are important to our national heritage, farming industry and tourism and hospitality economy. Our proposal aims to highlight the scandal of the pollution of our waterways and calls for practical solutions that will make a difference.

The Government’s recent Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was a step in the right direction after the failure of the last Conservative Government to take meaningful action, yet it was surely also a missed opportunity to bring in the radical transformation of regulation and ownership that is essential if we are to clean up our waterways and clean up the water industry as a whole. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review gives us hope that a second, more ambitious water Bill might be coming, but there is no guarantee of that, so our job as the constructive Opposition in this place is to hold the Government to account and urge them to make the big changes that Britain voted for last July.

The need for radical action was made all the more clear recently when the figures for sewage spills in 2024 were released. Those figures were horrific: a 106% increase in the duration of spills in our lakes, rivers and seas in just two short years.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Over Easter in Torbay, we had five sewage spills according to the Surfers Against Sewage app. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely disappointing to say the least that, rather than colleagues just getting their cossie and towel to go swimming at their favourite swimming spot, they must now also check the sewage leak app? It is outrageous.

[Tim Farron]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a really good point about his own communities. That is what we are trying to address today by bringing practical solutions to prevent this outrage.

That 106% increase in the duration of sewage spills in just two years has been explained away on the record by water industry bosses as the consequence of climate change, because it rains more than it used to. Yes, that is absolutely true, but it did not rain 106% more in 2024 than it did in 2022—not even in the Lake district. The reality is that the failure of water companies to invest in their infrastructure and the failure of Ofwat to force them to do so mean that the scandal is set to continue despite the Government’s new legislation.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

There were 754 spills in my constituency last year alone. We do not want to see those numbers anywhere, but in a constituency that does not have a major waterway, that is absurdly high. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to start genuinely holding these water companies to account, a great place to start would be replacing Ofwat?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend anticipates where I am going next, but yes, it takes some doing to have such figures in a constituency lacking in water—certainly lacking in it compared to my neck of the woods.

I confess that I am doing this job not just because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) asked me; I would volunteer for all this stuff, because for me and my communities water is seriously personal. We are home to much of the English Lake district —Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston water, Grasmere, Rydal water and many more—and to a beautiful stretch of Morecambe bay and some of the most ecologically significant rivers in the UK, including the Kent, the Eden and the Leven. Yet the data for 2024 shows that we are the third hardest hit constituency in England when it comes to the duration of sewage spills, with 55,000-plus hours of spills and 5,500 individual incidents.

The catchment of the River Eden going through Appleby, Kirkby Stephen and many beautiful villages saw over 7,000 hours of spills on 705 occasions. The River Kent catchment saw 5,300 hours of spills on 455 occasions. Windermere alone had 38 spills over 123 hours.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The “constructive Opposition” spokesperson—I do not know what that makes the Conservatives—is making a powerful speech. I look forward to having an opportunity to visit his constituency, because it sounds beautiful. Does he agree that it is disgraceful that while this sewage is being leaked, the chief executive officers of water companies are still paying themselves exorbitant bonuses?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member would, of course, be enormously welcome to visit the lakes and the dales. He makes a key point, which I will seek to address, about the injustice of people being paid huge bonuses for failure at the top of these organisations. That is also money leaving the system and the industry that could have been invested in putting some of this right.

I have talked about my patch, but colleagues across the House, from every party and from every corner of the United Kingdom, will have seen the data for their communities too, and they should rightly be outraged.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

I am sure my hon. Friend is outraged.

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend talks, quite correctly, about a beautiful part of England. I, too, represent a very beautiful part of the world. Here is an unbelievable fact for him—I have written it on my hand: in 2023, there were no fewer than 1,439 sewage spills in the highlands. What a disgrace that none of the Scottish nationalists, the governing party of Scotland, are here today.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an important observation from a constituency vast and rural—my constituency is the second largest in England, but it is bijou and compact compared with his. He makes a good point about the Administration in Scotland.

As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) alluded to, sewage spills are not the only things that have increased; so too has the money leaking out of the system. Water company bosses received a total combined pay last year of £20 million and more, and the water companies responsible for these failures paid out £1.2 billion in dividends. Surfers Against Sewage, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), has led the way on this issue for many years, since before many others were even talking about it.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Talking about dividends, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is completely wrong that tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, also leak out on high interest on the internal shareholder loans of those who own the water companies?

[Tim Farron]

I will talk later about why privatisation of the water industry was such a colossal mistake, and that is one of the consequences—a predictable consequence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.

Recent research by Surfers Against Sewage covers all the water companies, but I am bound to pick out United Utilities as an example. United Utilities paid out £320 million to investors last year, while its customers—my constituents—will pay 32% more in bills. By the way, 11% of every one of my constituents’ water bills is going to service that company’s debts—debts racked up in part by borrowing money in order to give huge, undeserved paydays to their investors.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In South Devon last year, we had an astonishing 49,904 hours of sewage leaks, or 5.69 years-worth of sewage pouring into the glorious Dart and Avon and into the sea around South Devon. Meanwhile, my constituents write to me about bills that have gone up by as much as 50%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an outrage that the privatised water companies are able to carry on increasing bills, increasing dividends to shareholders and paying multimillion-pound salaries to CEOs while this obscenity of sewage pouring into our rivers, seas and lakes continues?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend represents an utterly beautiful part of the country and she fights for it admirably; her constituents are lucky to have her. She makes an important point. I mentioned that 11% of the bills paid by my constituents in the north-west of England goes to service United Utilities’ debt, but that is one of the lowest levels. For many other colleagues on both sides of the House, their local water companies will be using up to 30% of the bills charged just to service their debt. The sewage scandal is an environmental scandal, but it is also a financial one—an affront to justice and fairness, as well as to our ecology.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is also a health scandal. What water companies are doing by allowing sewage to seep into our coastal waters and rivers means that many people who enjoy that environment for swimming and so on fall ill, and many of them lose days at work. As well as covering the cost to the taxpayer of cleaning up the environment, the water companies should really be making a contribution to the Exchequer to cover sick pay and the costs to the NHS.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his coastal and island communities in the far south-west. They are also very lucky to have him speaking up for them.

The Windrush Against Sewage Pollution and Save Windermere campaigns worked together on a recent report showing that the use of funds for capital projects by water companies around the country was at best wasteful and negligent and at worst, dare I say it, deeply suspect. They focused on the proposal by, again, United Utilities to spend almost £13 million of local bill payers’ money on an extension to a sewage outfall pipe into Windermere. WASP found this to be “excessive” and said it seemed unreasonable that 43 three-bedroom houses could be built for the price of putting a mere 150-metre sewage pipe into a lake. The report shines a light on what WASP considers to be inflated capital spending costs at water companies around the country, and it rightly asks what Ofwat is doing by signing this stuff off—signing off huge bill increases when water companies are not spending that money wisely.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has outlined the outrage and the scandal of sewage leaking into our rivers, lakes and seas. It is also the case that sewage is spilling out on to our streets, and groundwater infiltration causes much of the problem. Thames Water in my area has so far refused to do anything about “Poo Corner” in the parish of Berrick Salome. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another issue we need to address?

[Tim Farron]

Until now, I always thought “The House at Pooh Corner” was a good thing; obviously that would not be so in this case. I have seen the same thing in my own patch. In the village of Burneside we are finally, after 20 years of campaigning, getting some additional new sewage infrastructure, which will hopefully prevent poop literally coming up on to the pavements in light rainfall where the local kids catch the bus to go into Kendal to school, which is an absolute outrage. My hon. Friend is right to campaign, as he does very well, for his communities on this issue.

We should already know not to take water companies at their word, I am afraid, given their shoddy record on data transparency. For example, the chief executive of United Utilities, Louise Beardmore, among others admitted at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee not very long ago that they had refused to release spill data until WASP appealed to the Information Commissioner. Furthermore, in 2022 United Utilities was listed as the best performing water company in England, for which it was allowed to raise its bills as a reward. However, the BBC reported whistleblowers at the Environment Agency claiming that United Utilities had been wrongly downgrading dozens of pollution incidents. So we can surely be forgiven for being a little cynical when those water companies propose huge sums for projects like the one I have just mentioned.

That is why our key criticism of the Government’s new water Act is not of anything that is in that legislation, but of what is missing from it. The situation whereby water companies can be responsible for record levels of sewage pollution and be shown to make bad use of bill payers’ money, with inflated capital costs and inflated dividends, could not happen if they were regulated properly, but they are not.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

In my constituency in March, phosphate levels in the River Mole surged by 50% and nitrates doubled. This is pollution that can cause algal blooms and suffocate wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that we urgently need a clean water authority with real enforcement powers to protect our rivers, before it is simply too late?

[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.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for bringing the motion. It is important that we improve the quality of our rivers and seas. Does he share my concern that in the Water (Special Measures) Act the Government refused to allow local areas to retain the money fined from water companies to improve the environment in that area? Were they able to do that, that would lead to a real improvement in the quality of our environment.

[Tim Farron]

I agree, and the hon. Member can check the record and see us voting with the Conservatives in Committee. He makes a good point: the communities most damaged by pollution should be the ones that receive investment from the fines—if, indeed, Ofwat ever bothers to collect them.

Alongside the need for regulatory reform, we propose a radical transformation of the ownership model. Privatisation of the water industry has been an expensive failure—35 years of huge debts and payouts to investors, 35 years of inadequate investment in our infrastructure. The Conservative promise of Britain becoming a shareowning democracy has turned into the predictable nightmare reality of British public utilities owned by billionaires and foreign powers—what an absolute disgrace. The end result is the rivers, lakes and seas in which we swim, fish, canoe, sail, work and play polluted by an industry now owned by those who took but would not give. Water companies need new models of ownership, transitioning to public benefit companies that are focused on environmental good, not profiteering, with funds from customers’ bills pumped back into upgrading and repairing infrastructure, not draining away in dividends.

We welcome the independent water commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, though we remain impatient given the time it will take to publish the commission’s findings, the further period of time it may take for the Government to do anything about them, followed by a legislative process and implementation period—we will be at the end of the Parliament before we know it. To be fair, with the commission the Government provide themselves with a second chance to bring in the ambitious changes that are needed, and we urge them not to miss this chance.

Ministers will remember with deep joy the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats proposed to the water Bill. In our submission to Sir Jon, I have sought to turn those amendments into a single set of proposals to restore our water industry to environmental and financial health, and to harness the amazing power of citizen scientists and volunteers up and down the country. It is why we called for the inclusion of water campaigners, such as WASP, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Eden Rivers Trust and South Cumbria Rivers Trust, on water company boards. It is why we call for the Government’s welcome new sewage spills database to be a searchable tool, including retrospectively, so that we do not hamstring those brilliant volunteers who seek to hold the water industry and its regulators to account. Tens of thousands of people are giving their expertise, time and passion to clean up our waterways. Let us let them off the leash, equip them and empower them. I was sad to see Conservative and Labour colleagues refuse to support these measures during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but I hope that they will have a change of heart today.

In the motion before us, we specifically urge the establishment of a new system of blue flag status for rivers and chalk streams as a practical way to force water companies to be more accountable for the safety of the swimmers who use them and for the ongoing protection and flourishing of precious habitats and ecosystems.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Tim Farron]

I will give way first to the hon. Gentleman—and then to several others.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

Voting for the recent Water (Special Measures) Act and serving in Committee with the hon. Gentleman was one of the highlights of my first six months in this place. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] For constituents in my coastal community, it is so important that we get this right, so it is right that we take a long-term transformative approach. Does he agree that it is not just the safety of residents and tourists that will benefit from the Government’s changes to clean up our water, but the selfless volunteers from organisations such as the RNLI in places like Weston-super-Mare, who deserve to do their vital lifesaving work in the cleanest and safest water possible?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree—and the feeling is mutual. I appreciate that I am going on a bit and that a few Members wish to intervene. We will have to go by hands up. [Interruption.]

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a typically good speech. Does he agree that water from areas where one cannot swim still ends up in areas where one can? The Roden and Perry rivers in my constituency suffered over 2,000 hours of sewage spills in the past year—the Perry is affected by a spill into the Common brook near Oswestry. Not only does that water go past farmers’ fields, but it ends up in Shrewsbury, where there is a designated swimming area. I want to swim in it. Does he agree that the blue flag status would clear up the whole catchment, not just the places where people go swimming?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before you get back to your feet, Mr Farron, I remind you that you can speak as long as you want, but the longer you speak, the less likely it is that colleagues will be able to contribute.

[Tim Farron]

I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will allow maybe only two more interventions. I am coming towards the end of my remarks. I am trying to be not selfish but generous by getting the balance right. I do not want to squeeze people out altogether.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I give my hon. Friend one of the last two berths.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Last week, I joined constituents involved in citizen science projects testing water quality in the River Stour. The findings were deeply concerning: the very high levels of phosphates and nitrates in the water are clear evidence of the ongoing damage to our waterways. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the important work of volunteers in citizen science projects, and does he agree that the Environment Agency must be properly resourced to monitor water quality in our rivers, brooks, streams and seas?

[Tim Farron]

I agree. The Ministers are really lucky in so many ways. They are in the best the Department and—like few others in government—they have an army of volunteers to call upon who will be their arms and legs out in the community. We ask the Government to empower those volunteers even more. If there is one more intervention, I will take it. [Interruption.] No? Then I will now plough on to the bitter end, which is not too far off, I promise.

People have talked about blue flag status. That is one of the key proposals in the motion. The point of blue flag status for rivers, chalk streams and lakes is that it is a practical way of forcing water companies to be more accountable for the safety of swimmers and for the ongoing protection of precious habitats and ecosystems. We call on the Government to introduce a blue corridor programme for rivers, chalk streams and lakes to ensure clean and healthy water through the creation of a new blue flag status.

Many rivers and lakes have sites with bathing water status, including near Coniston and Windermere in my own patch, but what will surprise many people is the fact that having bathing water status means just that a location will be tested more frequently; it does not automatically mean that it is any cleaner. There were over 24,000 sewage spills last year into our bathing waters alone, for a duration of over 179,000 hours. Surfers Against Sewage found that the Government’s new bathing water feasibility test lacking. It said:

“This step could mean that sites that are deemed too polluted risk being immediately denied this designation, and therefore unable to receive the monitoring and investment needed to make blue spaces cleaner and safer”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) pointed out recently, that gives water companies a loophole to get away without cleaning up a bathing site that people use regularly because it is too polluted anyway. If it is a popular swimming site, it must be cleaned up.

In contrast, blue flag status would be granted only at those sites where the data showed that the water is clean and safe. We would give swimmers and other river users proper evidence-based confidence in the safety of the water. If evidence were needed that our proposals are desperately needed, Surfers Against Sewage received 1,853 sickness reports from contact with our waterways in 2024 alone—that is nine years of sick days.

As a brief aside, because it is so important and central to what we are trying to achieve, we want to provide special protection for our chalk streams. They are rare, ecologically unique habitats that are often referred to as England’s rainforests, yet even they have come under threat from sewage dumping in recent years. Blue flag status for chalk streams would drive their recovery after years of abuse.

To conclude, to represent the precious lakes and dales of Westmorland and Lonsdale is a massive privilege, and it is also a huge responsibility. We know in our community that it is our collective calling to steward the epic slice of creation that surrounds us, including the stunning waters, meres and tarns of the Lake district, our coasts and our rivers. They are not ours to keep; they are ours to preserve for the people of these islands and beyond, and for the people of this generation and the generations that we shall never meet.

Politics is also a great calling. In this case, it allows us to establish the structures that will enable that stewardship of our waterways to be effective, to be more than just words and to mean practical change for the better. Our motion today gives the House the opportunity to do practical good, and to do so now, without further dither or delay. Residents in every community of our country want us to listen to them and to act to end the sewage scandal. We must not let them down.

Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Vaz. Likewise, I am very supportive of the draft regulations. The UK pig industry is something that we should all be proud of. It is instrumental to our rural communities right across the country and an important exporter, but it also maintains the highest quality of produce and animal welfare standards. That is important in an era in which we are seeking potential deals with countries whose animal welfare standards may not be quite so high. The industry is vital to our rural economy and our food security. John Maynard Keynes said, among many other wise things:

“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”

The reality is that the market is ambivalent, at best, on whether we have a strong pig sector. Without safety, security and fairness in the sector, we stand the chance of losing it all together.

It is right that the intervention happened, as other Members have talked about. Post Brexit, we saw a terrible crisis, particularly in staffing of the sector, which saw the culling of tens of thousands of healthy animals, as we have heard. That was appalling for those animals, and appalling and heartbreaking for the families involved. A devastation lingers, which has driven us in no small part to this stage. It is right to give credit to the previous Government. The consultation began in 2022, following that crisis. I have also paid tribute to all who were involved in that consultation, providing the feedback that was instrumental in leading us to where we are now.

The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, talked about the other threats that farming faces, and that is absolutely true. People talk about the impact of the inheritance tax changes on family farms, which will be a massive blow for hundreds in my constituency. We will wait and see. I have tabled plenty of parliamentary questions to try and find that out, but the University of Cumbria’s research tends to conclude that the underspend on the current departmental budget for the environmental land management scheme will be in the region of £400 million. That money is not in farmers’ pockets, and that undermines our ability to have a food security. As I mentioned, a fair market is crucial to food security. If we lose pig producers and pig farmers, we simply offshore the industry and end up in a situation where our ability to secure pig products becomes more difficult, more expensive and, importantly, less secure. These regulations will build in transparency, security, clarity and fairness in the pig sector, in particular for the producers themselves.

Let me say a word about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In no small part, the draft regulations are necessary because we do not allow the Groceries Code Adjudicator to intervene in arrangements where there is not a direct link between the producer, the farmer and the retailer. Yet, a massive majority of deals are with pig farmers, or indeed other farmers, and a processor of some kind or another. I am proud that one of the things that came from the Liberal Democrats manifesto and went into the coalition agreement was the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was frustrated, though, that we ended that Government with it not having the powers that we wanted it to have.

To protect farmers of all kinds, I would love the Minister and the Government in general to consider very seriously ensuring that the Groceries Code Adjudicator can accept referrals on the fairness or otherwise of deals between farmers and processors, not just farmers and supermarkets. Anonymity should be kept within the system. We can see why a farmer would not want to refer their deal, because it might be the only one they have, even though it is not a fair one. Third parties such as those present, the National Farmers’ Union and other organisations should be permitted to make referrals anonymously on behalf of those farmers who are being ripped off.

On top of that, the referee—the Groceries Code Adjudicator—should simply be given yellow and red cards to mean something, to hold those more powerful parts of the industry to account. There are thousands of producers, but only a handful of processors and supermarkets, so of course it is an imbalanced and unfair market. A referee has to have cards—otherwise, what is the point? My final point about the Groceries Code Adjudicator is that, last time I checked, it had five staff—what is that up against an industry that is massively better supported? Let us support our farmers by ensuring that the market is fair and that it is refereed fairly and strongly. The draft regulations go a small way to achieve that in the pig sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

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

Is the Minister aware that some of the farmers who will be worst hit by the APR changes are those who farm in severely disadvantaged areas in the uplands around our country, where typically property values are high and incomes are extremely low? When the change was made just last week with people being excluded from the sustainable farming incentive, 6,100 people had entered the SFI in this session, and only 40 of them were hill farmers. Is he also aware that his own Department’s figures show that at the end of the transition, the average hill farm income will be 55% of the national minimum wage? Does he not understand that his changes are bringing harm to the poorest farmers in the prettiest places, such as mine? Will he undertake to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to bring in an uplands reward so that we do not plunge into poverty those people who care for our precious landscapes?

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The closure of the SFI from 6 o’clock last night came without warning or consultation, and it constitutes the breaking of the Government’s word to farmers. Farmers are already losing their basic payment this year, but they are now excluded from the very scheme designed to replace that. Has the Minister not broken his word to farmers and to all who care about nature? Will he clarify how much money he will save from the BPS cuts this year and say that it is not true that SFI is overspent? Is it not true that when the BPS cut is taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent? A bigger budget is pointless if we do not spend it. This money was supposed to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production. Does this not damage both?

There are 6,100 new entrants to SFI this year, yet only a mere 40 of them are hill farms. Because of the failure of the Conservatives in the previous Administration, the big landowners and the corporates are already comfortably inside the tent, but the farmers who are outside and now locked out without warning are Britain’s poorest farmers in beautiful places, such as mine in the lakes and the dales. As the Tories oversaw a 41% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years, is this not a bitter and unbearable blow for our upland farmers?

This betrayal will outrage everyone who cares for our environment, our upland nature and landscapes and it will outrage everyone who cares about food security and it will outrage everyone who cares about our tourism economy. It will also outrage everyone who clings to that old-fashioned expectation that Governments should keep their word. On Monday, the Secretary of State came to my beautiful constituency to pose for pictures by Windermere. I wonder whether he might come back tomorrow and face up to the farmers who steward the stunning landscapes around our beautiful lakes, and who he has abandoned so shamefully. Will he reopen SFI and honour his promises, or turn his back on the very people who feed us?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Again, I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is a thoughtful person, and he and I have debated these issues many times. I am sorry that he did not welcome the uplift in higher level stewardship payments, which he and many others have been asking to see for a long, long time and which will benefit upland farmers. I take him back to the many discussions that we have had about the importance of getting the farm budget out to farmers. That is what has happened. The full budget is actually being spent and that should be celebrated.

Bathing Water Regulations

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I will not take that personally, Sir John, although I am sure it is intended. It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon and to speak in a long line of Liberal Democrats, as you might expect when water is mentioned.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate and for the eloquence with which he spoke on behalf of his communities. I know how active he is, not just as a bather but as a campaigner for clean water swimming in his constituency, recognising and amplifying the importance of bathing water status for the people who use the rivers in his communities and in all our communities. He also recognises that it is an important way of upping the ante and improving the standards that all those responsible for the quality of our waterways are held to.

I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about de-designation and how that will not help people or keep them safe; we will simply be in a situation where people will carry on swimming in those places and will no longer have the protections they had beforehand. He rightly talked about an issue I am deeply concerned about, which is the potential for flexibility over fixed season dates. The minimum must be the May to September window, but many people who are enthusiastic about open water swimming do so at other times of the year. I have swum in Windermere in February, but I know people who have swum in Grasmere and Rydal in January and December and marvel at their hardiness. They tell me it is good for their mental health, and I believe them. That falls without that window, and it seems a nonsense to not have year-round testing.

I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington made about what it is we are testing. There is much good in the Government’s new Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Nevertheless, the insistence on only testing for the duration of spills in our waterways, lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas means that we do not get the full picture. There could easily be a brief deluge or a lengthy trickle. The reality is that not testing for volume and content does not give a full picture of what is happening in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about the public health and ecological aspects of maintaining bathing water designations and how important it is to extend those designations in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about bathing water status in his communities and his active campaign to extend access in his constituency. He also talked about the topsy-turvy nature of the bathing water status, which can create all sorts of perverse outcomes.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who is no longer in his place, made a really important point about the economic value. There is a clear case in my communities in the lakes and the dales, because people do not visit the Lake district not to see the lakes. The value to our communities is something like £4 billion every year in tourism revenue. Any threat to the cleanliness of our bathing water sites or the rest of our waterways could be catastrophic for our economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) made incredibly important points about the biodiversity of our waterways and how it is important to protect them and stand by the wonderful citizen scientists who underpin the work of trying to maintain them and their cleanliness. It is also about recognising that, as with all aspects of nature, our job is to preserve our waterways for those who come after us. Caring for our neighbour means caring for the environment for those we will never meet. That is vastly important.

In my communities in the lakes and the dales, there are seven designated bathing water areas, on Windermere and Coniston. One of the sites on Coniston was recently designated as poor, which is deeply concerning. However, it has been pleasing to see the local parish council work very successfully with the national park, Councillor Suzanne Pender, the business forum and others, and United Utilities has agreed a significant package of investment to help deal with that problem.

The current bathing water regulations have not been sufficient to protect our waterways from egregious offences. For example, in the north-west alone in 2023, United Utilities spilled 10,467 times for 76,259 hours into bathing waters alone. That does not include all the other times that it has spilled in other parts of our region. Indeed, United Utilities is the worst offender of all the water companies, despite the fact that there are other serious offenders across the country.

The Liberal Democrats take the view that water is precious. It is important to our economy, our ecology, our heritage, leisure and human health, as well as biodiversity. It is of such significance that we have made it one of the key issues that we continue to campaign on, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), is so dedicated to our waterways that he spent much of the election in them.

Much of what the Government have done in the first part of this Parliament, including the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, has been commendable. We wait now for the Cunliffe review to see whether there will be the advances that have been promised or hinted at. There are three things that we need to make sure we do better. First, monitoring must be much more comprehensive. We welcome the fact that the Government are engaging citizen scientists in the process, including the Clean River Kent campaign, Save Windermere in my own constituency, and the Rivers Trusts up and down the country. But we are not helping them if we do not ask for them to be given a place on water company boards. Nor are we helping them, although they are very useful to a degree, if the monitoring sites available for those people to look at do not have historical data. We depend on our brave water campaigners around the country committing their time to never, ever go to bed or go to work or look after their children. They cannot look backwards. If they blink, they may well miss egregious offences in our bathing waters and in other parts of our waterways. Monitoring is important.

Secondly, regulation is all important. I always try to be careful not to castigate the individuals working for Ofwat or the Environment Agency, or any of the water companies for that matter, but I recognise the system is broken and we have a diluted regulatory framework in this country. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and other water regulators should be merged into a much stronger regulator that the water companies would actually fear, rather than running rings around them all the time.

Finally, there is ownership. We could have an organisation called the clean water authority. It would replace and advance on Ofwat and create real powers. It would have real teeth that the current regulatory system does not have. Ownership matters. It is an outrage that between 11% and 40% of the water bills of every person in this country are going to pay off the debt of the water companies. That is a disgrace. And it is time that we moved those water companies into a not-for-profit status. We do not want to call for nationalisation, but we do call for public-benefit companies to be incorporated to make sure that those who look after our waterways do so in the interests of our water quality, and of meeting the needs of the consumer, not racking up huge profits.

Finally, because bathing water status does give communities more power over the cleanliness and the standards of the waterways that they care about so much, particularly in my part of the world in the lakes, it is clear that very often DEFRA does not grant clean bathing water status when it really should. So I want to say on behalf of my own communities—communities up the River Kent, north of Kendal through Burneside and Staveley—that the river desperately needs to be given bathing water status in several places. That would allow the communities who campaigned so vigorously for the cleanliness of that river to be able to hold United Utilities and other polluters fully to account.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

My remarks about brevity were neither targeted at nor limited to Mr Farron. I call the shadow Minister, Robbie Moore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Forty-four.

[Emma Hardy]

Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality.

There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tim Farron Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to be back talking about the Bill again. In Committee and on Report, the Liberal Democrats put down a grand total of 56 amendments. What is two more? We believe, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, that this Bill is a good thing, and we wish to see it on the statute book, but we do not feel it goes far enough, and the two amendments before us today give us the opportunity to consider it a little more.

Through amendment (a) the Government want to introduce financial reporting requirements for water companies. The report, to be required once a year, should be a concise, intelligible and up-to-date overview of the financial position of each undertaker—a water company—including information on share capital and debt, and any significant changes that may have happened in the past 12 months or expected changes in the 12 months to come. We very much welcome the amendment. We tabled many similar amendments that contained aspects of those proposals, both in Committee and on Report. We are bound to say that they were better amendments—more ambitious and far reaching—but as with much of this Bill, these proposals are a decent start and we do not want to stand in their way.

To clarify, we have proposed a variety of amendments to the Bill up to this point, including calling for Ofwat to be made responsible for the financial stability duty on water companies. We called for the banning of bonuses for water company bosses whose companies were performing poorly, and not just on environmental duties but on financial stability and water quality. On the Floor of the House we pushed to a vote, with the permission of the Chair, a ban on water companies making customers pay for their debt at the point of bankruptcy, and instead for investors, who have taken risks, to pay for them. That was right, and we were disappointed that the Government voted against it and the Conservatives sat on their hands and did not support bill payers. This is an important and live issue. In Westmorland in the north-west of England, 11% of bills paid only service the debt of United Utilities, yet in other parts of the country such as the areas served by Thames Water, that figure is around 35% or potentially even more.

We have called for scrutiny not just of the finances of water companies but of other areas. The Bill has moved things in the right direction, but not radically enough. In Committee, we sought to encourage and persuade Labour and Conservative Front Benchers—without success—that it would be wise to have environmental experts on the boards of water companies.

On the Government’s laudable and positive move towards a live database that citizen scientists can scrutinise, we asked that it also be a historical database that is searchable in retrospect. Wonderful organisations in my constituency, which are replicated around the country, such as the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Clean River Kent campaign and Save Windermere, would monitor that database, but unless they look at it 24/7 and do nothing else in their lives, some things may get past them. For example, between 2021 and 2023, 120 million litres of sewage were pumped into Windermere lake without United Utilities reporting it. We are reliant on citizen scientists knowing about this stuff, and a great database will do the job only if it is searchable in retrospect. Scrutiny and transparency on finances and environmental matters are vital. We are satisfied that amendment (a) provides increased transparency on water company finances, and therefore we will not make a nuisance of ourselves today.

I turn to the second of the amendments in front of us. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) rightly highlights and reminds Members of my distaste for not having stuff in the Bill, and how statutory instruments are not the best way of doing things. Despite that, I am even more of a fan of ensuring that we in this place can properly scrutinise those who are meant to be scrutinising our water companies, namely Ofwat.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, Liberal Democrats have made good, radical, environmentally minded proposals that are in the interests of our constituents and our waterways. Although the Government have understandably stuck to their guns and voted against us, the official Opposition have, oddly enough, abstained on pretty much everything—including, it would appear, on their own amendment today, for which we want to vote, notwithstanding all our reticence about not having important matters in the Bill.

This amendment was proposed in the other place by my former neighbour but one—not the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who is also my former neighbour—the right hon. Lord Blencathra, a former Member for Penrith and the Border, and a very accomplished parliamentarian. In this amendment, he is seeking to require increased parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat when signing off on water company bonuses. That issue is of huge concern to me, and, I think, to most people around this country—certainly in my constituency—because record bonuses are being paid to senior executives around the country.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman put forward a veritable smorgasbord of amendments in the Bill Committee, and all those issues were discussed. It is so important that Ofwat retains its independence. It is extremely relevant to point out, however, that during the coalition years and the 14 years the Conservatives were in government, no Bills were passed to ban water company bonuses, and this Bill will do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag.

Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate.

[Dr Hudson]

I am slightly curious as to why, at the eleventh hour, the third party is now changing its position. In the other place, when this amendment was pushed to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained on two occasions, but now they are playing political games and actually risking the progress of the Bill. The amendment, as it stated, was to introduce a statutory instrument to increase parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government have moved some way—although not as far as we would like—but the third party is now playing political games, and risks the progress of a Bill that is trying to improve the state of our waters.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter.

I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies.

That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer.

[Dr Hudson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He talks about a number of fantastic amendments the third party made in Committee, many of which were so poorly worded that they were not actually worth voting on. His particular amendment about abolishing Ofwat actually contained no suggestion as to what the third party would replace it with, or how much it would cost—

[Tim Farron]

It did.

[Dr Hudson]

It did not. It did not set out how much it would cost or how long it would take. While we want Ofwat to have the teeth to hold water companies to account, the third party proposes getting rid of it. Again, is it the party of protest that is not offering any credible solutions.

[Tim Farron]

Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency.

I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not.

My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called.

We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.

[Emma Hardy]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that.

I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tim Farron Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are in the Chamber, as well as to all my colleagues who sat on the Committee for what was a genuinely enjoyable and collegiate experience. I hope they will forgive me for making a few criticisms in the next few minutes.

We tabled 44 amendments in Committee, but only 34 today, you will be delighted to know Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I know—I am failing. I will not speak to all of them for blindingly obvious reasons. We tabled those amendments because we in the Liberal Democrats, humbly yet enthusiastically, have taken on the mantle in this place and beyond of being the voice for many thousands of campaigners, volunteers and citizen scientists who continue to lead the way in exposing the failures and injustices in the water industry, and fighting for meaningful change. We are immensely grateful to those people all across the country.

Our water industry has become a money-making vessel for speculators, who appear to care little for the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas—something I can tell the House is a source of great fury in England’s precious Lake district. The water companies have accumulated £70 billion in debt since privatisation, while still managing to pay out £83 billion in dividends. That is more than a third of the total spent on infrastructure during that time. In the last year, water companies paid out £9.3 million in executive bonuses, and Thames Water’s bonuses doubled to £1.3 million that year. Money leaks out of the industry, infrastructure is failing, and it is our constituents who pay the price.

Meanwhile the regulatory framework has failed utterly and is not fit for purpose. As I speak, £164 million in fines has been levied against water companies by Ofwat, following an investigation that began four years ago, of which it has so far failed to collect a single penny.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Thames Water has had an increase in the number of pollution incidents, which went up 40% in six months last year. It has been issued with fines, but that has not changed anything. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need regulation with proper teeth, and that new clause 25 would do exactly that by putting water companies into special measures when they fail our constituents?

[Tim Farron]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies simply do not fear Ofwat, or indeed any other part of our fragmented regulatory system. They dwarf Ofwat in terms of resources, they flout the limited regulations that they face, and they run rings around the regulators and obviously get away with it. There was the outrage of the water companies being permitted, just before Christmas, to increase water bills by 36% by 2030, and what makes it even worse is that a third of customers’ bills are being spent just on servicing the debt—a debt that was in part run up to fund excessive dividends.

Water companies are already passing on the consequences of their complete financial mismanagement to our constituents—their customers—but this Bill could enable that to go further and to be even worse. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,

“following the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State to a company in special administration”,

clause 12 of the Bill, as drafted, would

“require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers, and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall”.

In other words, when a water company goes into special administration, there is a cost to the Government of ensuring that supply is maintained, and the Government need to recoup that cost. That sounds reasonable at first glimpse, but it does not seem reasonable that bill payers should have to pick up the tab, despite bearing none of the blame for the financial mess a water company finds itself in.

My hon. Friends and I are keen to press amendment 9, which would make it explicit that it should be the creditors of the companies—the big financial investors that have loaded debt on to the water companies—that cover those costs instead. The amendment would strike out the Government’s provision in the Bill that opens up bill payers to carrying the cost of paying off company debt, even in the event of bankruptcy.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I fear that the Government’s drive for growth has meant that they have become fearful of the tough regulation that my hon. Friend suggests. They see it only as an impediment, instead of the basis for a stable economy. Does he agree that weak regulation is not only bad for consumers and for the environment, but also for investment over the long run?

[Tim Farron]

Somebody representing the water industry will say that the water industry, as structured, is deeply unappealing to investors. There is a case for changing the model of how we structure those companies. When a company goes into special administration, we do not think it is right that innocent customers should have to foot the bill. The management of those companies, and their investors and creditors, are responsible for the mess the company is in. They took the risks and speculated in order to make money, so it is only right that they should have to cover the costs of the risks that they took, not our constituents.

One of the positive aspects of the Bill is the Government’s decision to deploy volunteers, citizen scientists and campaigners to ensure scrutiny of the water industry. Only last week, I spent time speaking with the leaders of the Save Windermere campaign and the Clean River Kent Campaign. I also enjoyed getting my hands dirty and my legs very wet alongside the Eden Rivers Trust in the River Eden not long ago. We are lucky across the whole country to have passionate, committed, expert volunteers who are dedicated to cleaning up and protecting our precious waterways, yet we are saddened that the Government have failed to provide those volunteers with the resources they need or the power they deserve.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one kind of support that such community groups need is water restoration grants? Those are vital and will flow from the water restoration fund, which is the subject of one of his amendments. Those funds are vital to cleaning up bathing waters across the country.

[Tim Farron]

Those funds are vital. Bathing water status is important. We hope that DEFRA will come out with new criteria soon so that places such as the River Kent can bid to be included.

We have tabled new clauses 4, 10, 13 and 15, which between them would strengthen the hand of those wonderful volunteers, including by ensuring that the Government’s proposed live database, which we support, retains comprehensive historical data. If it does not, the Government are expecting campaigners to be watching that database 24/7. If they have the temerity to go to sleep, look after their kids or go to work, they may miss something. If we are to back campaigners and volunteers, the least we can do is give them the tools to scrutinise water companies’ performance. Knowledge is power, and our amendments would give those campaigners knowledge and power.

New clause 11 and amendment 14 address monitoring. Event duration monitors tell us how long a spill took place over. For instance, they tell us that last February, United Utilities spilled into Windermere for 10 hours in one go, but those monitors do not tell us anything about volume. As a result, they do not tell us enough about the impact of sewage spills on the ecology and wildlife of our waterways. It is equally possible to have a long duration trickle or a short duration deluge of sewage into our lakes, rivers and seas. New clause 11 would insist that water companies have to measure and report on the volume of discharges and that regulators hold them to it.

New clause 25 would put into law concrete pollution targets and proper penalties when companies fail to meet them. Companies who fail to meet those targets would be put into what we are calling special measures, meaning that they would be subject to financial penalties and/or be made to undertake a specific improvement project. No water company chief executive will quake in their boots if they are not held to targets that are ambitious and enforceable with penalties, and which actually mean something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all the hard work she and her team have been doing on the Bill. It is very important to my constituents.

To go back to the very basics, we are talking about something that everybody in North East Derbyshire uses every day—water. I believe that everybody in my constituency, and in the whole country, has a right to know that the water in our rivers and streams is clean, clear and free from pollution. The reason I have to state that now in this House is that we have not had the action we should have had over the past 14 years. That is a huge failure of the previous Government to get action taken and completed on this important issue. Instead, in 2023 water was polluted over 2,000 times in North East Derbyshire—and that is in just one constituency.

Last week, I met local residents in Ashover, which is situated on the River Amber, in my constituency. They impressed on me their concerns about pollution in that very picturesque part of the river. We have had good news, in that Severn Trent Water has improved treatment tank capacity in the area, but my residents are worried that that will not be enough, and indeed that we will not know whether it is enough. They are already concerned that the water they see does not live up to the standards they wish to see. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill is bringing in independent monitoring of water quality. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). What I think is important is not that we get carried away with volume, but the impact on water quality. That is what matters most.

[Tim Farron]

They are not mutually exclusive, are they? Knowing the duration of a spill is important, but knowing what went into it and how much also helps to know the impact so we can regulate it. Is that not true?

[Louise Jones]

The Bill looks at the result—the impact. I do not understand why we need to look at the volume if we are looking at the impact.

A huge amount has been spent on bosses’ bonuses: over £9 million in 2023-24. To put that into perspective, the average salary in my constituency is just over £30,000. If bonuses are received, we expect it to be for work well done and not just as a matter of course for the failings those bosses are responsible for.

Time and time again, we heard from the former Government that the water industry would change. Unfortunately, it did not under the previous measures, and that is why I welcome the action to ensure results as soon as possible. The Bill will mean cleaner rivers, which is my hope for the River Amber and what my constituents deserve; better infrastructure; better protection for those who use our waters for leisure activities; and better protection for the nature in our beautiful constituency. That is why it has my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I echo my hon. Friend’s commendation for the citizen scientists and the work they have done to highlight the scale of the problem.

The support for the Bill across the House and among the public demonstrates our collective desire to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. I am proud of the progress we have made through the Bill, but it is not the extent of our ambition.

In October, I announced the biggest review of the water sector in a generation. Sir Jon Cunliffe has appointed an expert advisory group with leading voices representing the environment sector, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economists, and is preparing to launch a public call for evidence within weeks.

[Tim Farron]

The Secretary of State talks about Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, and we are obviously interested in engaging with that. Does he think, though, that today’s appointment of a former Thames Water executive to the commission will fill the public with confidence that it will be independent in any way?

[Steve Reed]

Of course, it is an independent commission; it is up to Sir Jon to appoint to the board whom he likes. However, it is a very balanced board, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that voices from many stakeholder groups are represented, as indeed they should be.

The commission will report to the UK and Welsh Governments this summer, after which both Governments will respond and consult on Sir Jon’s recommendations, including on further legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I do love being mansplained to by Labour Back Benchers. I suppose it is part of the Labour party’s women problem. The hon. Gentleman is now throwing his thumbs up at me—goodness me!

What I will say is that throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said, “We have made some progress, but there is more to do.” That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill tonight, although we will try to improve it and strengthen it.

[Tim Farron]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will not, because I want to allow others to speak.

The Government have also sadly failed to recognise the importance of chalk streams, refusing to confirm the continuation of protections put in place by us Conservatives. I am afraid that warm words about rainforests, much as we agree with them, will not protect these vital habitats. We want to see improved water quality, and I urge the Government to take stock and seek to adopt a more rounded approach that cleans up our rivers and seas, treats bill payers and taxpayers properly, and builds on our work to construct the water systems of the future.

[Tim Farron]

Let me say, without going through all the flowery stuff that we did earlier, that I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for what has been a broadly collegiate debate. However, the shadow Secretary of State said something that is worth reflecting on. I think she was talking about what I am about to mention, namely the fines of £164 million that Ofwat had indeed proposed should be levied against the very three water companies to which she referred. For what it is worth—and I am not here to defend the Treasury—this was not a Treasury decision at all. It was because of Ofwat’s weakness, and a culture of timidity that is evident when it comes to gathering money from the water companies, that the money was not collected. That information is 100% correct, because it was given to me in response to one of my Freedom of Information Act requests.

In any event, the key feature is my disappointment in the Bill. I will certainly support it should it come to a vote, and I support it anyway, but its weakness lies in the fact that it is not radical enough. It does not go far enough, and it does not tackle the weakness in regulation to which, in a roundabout, accidental way, the Secretary of State has referred .

We will engage with the Cunliffe water review and recognise it as independent. My reflection is simply this. The Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. They were a well-funded Opposition through short money—we could only dream of such things—and surely had the capability to come up with a set of plans that meant they could get on with it straightaway, rather than kicking it to halfway into the Parliament. This is an unambitious Bill, but it is good enough, and it will have our support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need some assistance in understanding how the House can express its displeasure at the Government’s manipulation of the business of the House to stop proper consideration of this Bill. Water was at the heart of the last general election—it is really important to our constituents—and yet the Bill’s Report stage was limited to less than one and a half hours, and not a single Back Bencher has been able to contribute on Third Reading. Is there a way that we can express our disapprobation of the Government putting forward two non-urgent statements today on Gaza and on Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—both of them important in their own right but, I suspect, designed to eat up time?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

At the risk of having the same debate over and over, I refer the hon. Member to the last page of our fact sheet. I am not sure how much clearer we can make it:

“Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR?

No. The shortfall recovery mechanism could only ever be used to recover a Government shortfall in the unlikely event of a SAR.”

Once again, I welcome everybody to the last day of this Committee. As I may not have the opportunity to do so later, may I thank all Members for their contributions and for taking part? I especially thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling another new clause.

As I have said, a special administration regime enables a company that provides vital public services, such as water, energy or rail, to be put into administration in certain circumstances. During a SAR, a special administrator appointed by and answerable to the court takes over the affairs of the business.

The court-appointed special administrator’s statutory objectives, which are set out in legislation, are twofold: to continue the running of the company to meet its statutory functions until it is possible to rescue the company, for example via a debt restructure, or to transfer the company to new owners, for example by selling it. There is nothing to prevent the company, or parts of it, from being transferred as a going concern to mutual ownership by a company’s customers, should the special administrator deem that appropriate. Although in an insolvency scenario the special administrator’s primary purpose is to rescue the company as a going concern, mutual ownership could be an option following a SAR, provided that the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue properly to carry out its activities relating to water.

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

We pushed the Minister earlier on the Cunliffe review. I thought it had been explicitly stated that ownership was off the table for that review. By talking about mutuals being a potential outcome, is the Minister saying that what is actually off the table is full-scale nationalisation, but that mutualisation, public benefit companies and not-for-profit companies could be a serious option in the Cunliffe review and in whatever legislation might follow?

[Emma Hardy]

Yes. We have ruled out nationalisation, but all other forms of ownership are in the scope of the Cunliffe review. I stress, however, that in a scenario in which a company was exiting special administration, it could go into mutual ownership if the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue to properly carry out its activities related to water. Of course, no one would want, in any situation, to transfer to a company incapable of operating and providing water.

It is important to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the terms of exit from a SAR, as that would interfere with the conduct of the court-appointed administrator and their statutory objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In my first speech of what I suspect will be our last sitting—we will see—let me thank you, Dr Huq, and every member of the Committee. It is no fault of anyone here, but I think these Committees are something of a charade. There was a brief time under the Theresa May Government when Committees were genuinely balanced, but I have never known a Committee to accept any Opposition amendment. I am sure it is not always because the Opposition’s ideas are bad—that is just how it works. We know that it is a bit of a charade. Having said that, 16 or 17 of us have been through the process of looking at the Bill in some detail, and that in itself has value.

Despite that frustration, which I have had for nearly 20 years, I am grateful to have been in the good company of courteous, decent people and to have had a robust but polite debate over the past few days. I am especially grateful to the Minister and her team for their engagement, which is genuinely appreciated; to the Conservative Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Broadland and Fakenham; and to my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley. They have all been very courteous and constructive.

I will seek to be brief, which does not always happen—whether I merely seek it, or whether it happens, let’s find out. We think that new clause 30 is very important. As we said in the previous sitting, the Government have chosen to underpin an awful lot of the scrutiny of the water industry on volunteers, citizen scientists and the like, which we strongly approve of. Groups such as Clean River Kent, and the Rivers Trust in Eden, south lakes and Windermere are great examples in my own communities, and around Staveley and Burneside, Staveley parish council has done a great job holding United Utilities to account. What they do is of immense value.

Underpinning the ability of those groups to scrutinise in the future is this interesting live database, which will demonstrate the performance of various water company assets around the country. We want to clarify in the Bill that the database will be publicly and freely accessible and updated in live time, but critically, that it will contain not just current but historical data—that is probably the key bit of the new clause. If we are going to depend on volunteers, we cannot assume that they are going to be on it 24/7; they have lives to lead. We must clarify in the Bill that historical data will be available and searchable, so that if we blink, we do not miss it.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairmanship; it is a pleasure to serve under you today. The Bill already introduces a duty on water companies to produce and publish pollution targets and a reduction plan. We can also get data fairly straightforwardly on how water companies are performing overall. However, what my residents in North West Leicestershire want to know is how their water company is performing week in, week out on the sewage outlets that they are interested in. I believe we already have plenty of ways to monitor performance, and this addition is unnecessary.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. What we are talking about, though, is a toolkit that is being provided for the voluntary sector and for activists up and down the country, including ourselves. It is a great addition—this is a good new thing that the Government are proposing.

I have some examples of why this toolkit is necessary. About 10 months ago, at the Glebe Road pumping station water treatment works at Windermere, we had a significant deluge of untreated sewage going into the lake, and we found out only because a whistleblower told us. The Environment Agency was notified 13 hours after the incident took place. The good thing about what the Government are proposing is that there will be a live database so that we can see what is happening there and then, and we can be on it.

However, unless we include the new clause—I would be happy to accept clarification from the Minister if something similar is going to happen anyway—the assumption will be that there is someone on it. Matt Staniek, who leads Save Windermere, works every hour God sends, but he is allowed to sleep sometimes, and what if something happens at 3 o’clock in the morning and he is tucked up? Do we miss it? I am simply saying that we should put in the Bill that this very good toolkit, which I commend the Government for, should be historically searchable, so that we can really hold the water companies to account.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to quite a lot of the intention behind the new clause, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Proposed new section 272B(2)(d)(ii)(a) contains a duty to publish the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has already been a duty to publish that information for some time? All undertakers have a duty to publish information from event duration monitors within—from memory—60 minutes of an event being triggered. Will the hon. Gentleman give a bit more detail on what he has in mind for the authority to publish? Proposed new subsection (2)(c) says that the database must

“contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary”.

Such a bland statement will be open to challenge and interpretation, with all sorts of committed parties deciding that their “independently collected and analysed information” should be in the database, and other people saying it should not. Is this not just a charter for judicial review of the authority?

[Tim Farron]

I will not rehash the debates we have had in Committee already, but we are talking about more than just event duration monitoring, as set out in proposed new section 27ZB(2)(d)(ii)(a); we are talking about flow and volume, and it is right to specify those things.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That may be the hon. Member’s intention, but the drafting does not say that. Part of the problem is that (ii)(a) deals the with start time, end time and duration, not flow. Does that particular sub-paragraph not duplicate the existing legal requirements for publication within 60 minutes?

[Tim Farron]

We dealt with that with other amendments; even though they are not part of the Bill, that would be covered by the suite of things we have proposed. Fundamentally, all we are asking for is that the information and the evidence that is put out there will be searchable historically. That cannot be beyond the wit and capability of the very clever IT specialists who I am sure are already working for the water companies. This is important, and it is part of what those of us in this corner of the Committee Room are trying to do, which is to take the Government at their word when it comes to the elevation—and we support that elevation—of the role of volunteers and citizen scientists, equipping them to do their job properly and not expecting them to be at their computers 24/7 without sleep.

[Emma Hardy]

Very briefly, to return to the SAR—our favourite subject—it might be best if we take the conversation out of Committee and sit down with officials to make sure we are both having the same conversation about the same thing and we can clarify that. We will follow up on that, and of course I extend that offer to the shadow Minister.

New clause 30 would require Ofwat to establish a public database on the performance of sewerage undertakers. I understand and acknowledge the intent behind the new clause, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to all the environmental campaign groups that have been working in this area to make information available. It is vital that the public are able to access and scrutinise information on the performance of water companies.

To support this, the Government are focusing our efforts on ensuring that the most salient information is published in a transparent way and is publicly accessible. That is why clause 3 already requires water companies to publish information on discharges from emergency overflows in a way that is readily accessible and understandable to the public. As mentioned, this matches the pre-existing duty for storm overflows. To support the storm overflow duty, Water UK has published a centralised map of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies on one website. A similar approach is intended for emergency overflows.

We have also requested that water companies begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows in the 2024 price review. This will provide useful information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality, and we will be working with water companies to consider how best to publish the information in near-real time. That is in addition to the duty to publish information on pollution incidents in clause 2, as well as existing regulatory requirements for the Environment Agency to publish water company environmental performance data. This data includes the annual environmental performance assessment of the water sector, which provides information on the performance of waste water treatment works.

Information from flow monitors, as we have discussed previously, is very technical and does not relate to the impact of the discharge, unlike continuous water quality monitoring data. Therefore, we do not think there is sufficient additional value in requiring this data to be published. As the industry is already centralising data on sewage discharges from storm overflows on one website, and given the existing environmental performance reporting, the Government do not believe that an amendment to require further publications by Ofwet—Ofwat—to do the same thing is necessary. I therefore hope that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw his new clause.

[Tim Farron]

We are not going to push this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and I look forward to his support in some of the votes at some point. In the meantime, if he has recommendations on the wording that he would like to put forward, I ask that he please do so. These new clauses are already in place, so maybe that is impossible, but let us by all means try to improve them.

[Tim Farron]

I will say a brief word on the new clause. This is important, and I would like to add to the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has set out. Essentially, we have two problems here, one of which is that water companies are not statutory consultees, and they should be. I take the point that it could be more clearly stated, but the new clause does say “When participating” more than once, not “If participating”.

Without pointing fingers—well, maybe a bit at water companies in certain parts of the country, including mine—the key thing is that there is an incentive for a water company, when giving its advice to a planning committee, whether it be in the national parks, the dales, the lakes or a local council, basically to say that everything is fine, and why would it not? If a water company says, “We have no capacity issues. You can build those 200 houses on the edge of Kendal and it won’t cause any problems for our sewer capacity,” two things happen, do they not? First, the water company is not conceding the need to spend any money on upgrading the sewerage network. Secondly, it is guaranteeing itself 200 households that pay water bills, in addition to the ones it already has, so it has a built-in incentive—maybe not to be dishonest, but to not really give the fullest and broadest assessment of the situation.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I would like to give the hon. Member a practical example of where the absolute opposite has happened in Wales. In my constituency of Monmouthshire, Welsh Water was very clear that, because of the phosphate levels in the River Wye, there could be no development whatsoever in my area of the constituency—Monmouth—for several years. It absolutely stopped all development and seemed to be very honest in doing so. Now the problems have cleared up somewhat, and Monmouthshire county council has put forward a proposal in the local development plan to build houses. We also have a sustainable drainage systems regime, which means that absolutely nothing will be built without those systems. By the way, 50% of the homes will be affordable and they will be 100% net zero, so I commend Monmouthshire county council for putting that forward. I just wanted to say that there are examples where the opposite has happened to what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is saying.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention; I am sure that is the case, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I want to see houses built. The great frustration in our communities in the lakes and dales and just outside is that we desperately need homes that are affordable, and we want homes to be zero carbon. We want to be in a situation where the local community is able to hold developers to account. The danger is that developers who are going to build stuff on the cheap that is not affordable to potential buyers or renters are able to get themselves off the hook because the water companies will not really test the resilience of the existing infrastructure.

It is true that both things can happen. We feel that this is about giving planning authorities the power to say, “The developer is seeking to do this, but the community as a whole does not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with 200 extra bathrooms; so what resources will the developer or the water company put in to ensure that the facilities are upgraded to make that possible?” This is about ensuring that planning does its job.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire for her excellent point. It is very interesting that a mutually owned water company is taking that very sensible decision and approach. It highlights that that is a benefit. They are not trying to make money hand over fist. They are trying to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have conferred, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that we have two proposed new clauses to go and we will not press either to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and I may disagree, but I think we have confirmed that that is our view.

I have little to say on new clause 34. We had the substance of this debate on amendment 19, but the new clause is significant all the same. The point is simply that among the things that deeply undermine the public’s confidence in the water companies, and in the industry in general, is the very obvious revolving door between the regulator and the water companies themselves.

I will reiterate some points and add to some things that were said the other day. In its analysis in 2023, The Observer found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the water industry that they had previously regulated.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentioned directors. I think we all agree that the strength of this Bill is its clarity, but in his new clause, he has chosen to write “any individual”. Does he agree that it is the directors, not the catering team, the cleaning staff, the admin people, the accountants and so on, who have sought to swindle customers or flim-flam the taxpayer? That is where we should focus the attention, and that vagueness does not add to the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

That is an excellent point, and if I was pushing the new clause to a vote, that might make me think twice. I am not the only person who has done this, but I have spoken at length on this issue, not just during this Committee, to make the point that we understand that this is a heated debate, which at times has become quite fiery out there in communities and in this place. But the people who work for the water companies, the regulators and so on are human beings doing a job, and we need to value them. That even includes the directors.

Having said all that, it is clearly wrong that directors are switching from one to the other. I add that our research found that the director for regulatory strategy at Thames Water had previously been a senior Ofwat employee. We had a senior principal at Ofwat moving directly from Thames, where they had worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors and those who work on regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful for that well-informed and thoughtful intervention. The hon. Member is absolutely right: that is what we should do. To be reasonable, we want people who understand the industry working for the regulators. We understand why there could be a benign reason for what is happening, but nevertheless, we trace it to some of the reluctance in the culture of Ofwat towards taking action. I talked about the £168 million-worth of fines still not collected by Ofwat from three transgressing water companies. Some of the reluctance comes not from corruption but cosiness, and we need to make sure we address that, as the new clause seeks to do. We dealt with this issue on amendment 19 and it was pushed to a vote. I do not want to trouble the Committee again, so I will be happy to withdraw the new clause.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Again, we recognise the intent behind new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. However, it would be disproportionate to prevent all water company employees from being able to accept employment in Ofwat.

Ofwat seriously considers the handling of actual and potential conflicts of interest. Staff in Ofwat are bound by the civil service business appointment rules, which do not apply to every agency, but they do in terms of Ofwat, and by the duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act. Any new employees in Ofwat, regardless of their previous employment, would be bound by those rules. Compliance is mandatory and any breach may result in disciplinary action being taken.

Individuals with experience working in the water sector have a wealth of knowledge—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—that might be a valuable asset to Ofwat and could support better policymaking. I hope that this reassures him on his concern about the potential conflicts of interest in Ofwat, and that the new clause, as drafted, is therefore unnecessary.

[Tim Farron]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—

‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—

(a) annual, and

(b) rolling five-year average

pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.

(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.

(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—

(a) a 25% reduction within five years;

(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;

(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and

(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.

(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—

(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and

(b) financial penalties.’”—(Charlie Maynard.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Charlie Maynard]

This is a big one: companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets. I will read out the key bits:

“(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish…annual, and…rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.”

On the five-year average, obviously we have wet years and dry years. We cannot just have flat numbers. We have to take an average. The new clause also states:

“A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline…a 25% reduction within five years;…a 60% reduction within ten years;…an 85% reduction within fifteen years…and…a 99% reduction within twenty years.”

What are we trying to get at? Clause 2 is about pollution incident reduction plans. That is about specific events, so it is at a micro level. We have a national problem and need to think about things at a national level. We have a lot of data already. I think it was Peter Drucker who said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” We have been advocating for measuring it; we have had that debate. The good news is that we already have one metric of measurement—event duration monitors—that tells us how many hours of sewage are spilled per year. EDMs are a long way from perfect in two respects. First, we do not know the volumes going out or how much of that is actually sewage, as we have discussed at length. Secondly, a lot of EDMs are sub-par. I will give a shout-out to Professor Peter Hammond, who has highlighted some essential messages about that. However, that is still the best dataset we have, and we should all take the view that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As soon as we put in flow monitors and quality monitors—I know the Government do not support that—we will advocate using those as a metric, but we do not have those now. However, we do have EDM data, so I am advocating that we use that metric. We already know how many hours are spilled by operator. We can take the five-year average and start setting out targets.

Businesses like knowing where they stand. I am a naive politician who is only six months into the job, so there is an awful lot I do not know. I probably committed a key error here by putting in numbers, so some smart politician could come along and say, “That is an incredibly generous number. We’ll go lower than that.” Fine—I do not really care if someone wants to play that game. I want our rivers fixed, and we get our rivers fixed by setting targets, telling the water companies that we want them to meet those targets and giving them sticks, and possibly carrots, to meet them.

We are missing an opportunity—respectfully, I feel that we have missed a lot of opportunities. We did not have to have this Bill now, but we do have it. We ought to be going for the wins now, but every single amendment has been rejected regardless of which party tabled it. That is a loss for our rivers as much as for hon. Members present. However, this new clause provides an opportunity to set some targets. Whether it is today—although this new clause will almost certainly fail because we will not push it to a vote—or in the future, I encourage the Government to take the metric they have, which is hours of sewage spilled, set benchmarks against which to measure water companies and set out bad news or good news depending on whether they miss or hit them. If we hit those targets, we are seriously getting closer to fixing our rivers. Without them, we are not.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in saying that I have really enjoyed most of the three days of this Committee. I appreciate the courtesy and generosity in the answers. I thank the Chair, the team of Clerks, who have been so helpful, and the DEFRA team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

It is a great pleasure to again serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. May I first, on behalf of the Opposition and, I hope, colleagues from across the Committee, give a vote of thanks to everyone involved in this process? I have a list here, and please shout out if I miss anyone out.

First, I thank the Chairs—Dr Huq and Mr Vickers—for guiding us through the process. I thank all the Bill Committee staff—the Clerks and officials—for their assiduous, thorough work, which keeps us on message as Members of Parliament scrutinising this legislation. We thank them for that. Dr Huq, thank you—I will use the word “you” for you. I thank the DEFRA officials for all their hard work on this and for engaging with the Opposition as well. I very much appreciate the Minister allowing the officials to do that.

I thank the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I do not think I have missed anyone in the room except the public. This gives me the chance to thank the members of the public who have come in and watched our proceedings, as well as people who have watched online from afar. There are also, as the Minister said, the stakeholders: the environmental groups, the volunteers and the experts who have fed into this Bill and the water debate that we are having and who are helping legislators across the House to improve and refine legislation. We thank the public very much as well.

We have had a very interesting few days. It has shown us that there is a lot of cross-party consensus on what we are trying to do to improve our water quality. There is some disagreement about how best we do that, but this Committee has shown the House that, actually, there is a lot of agreement about the scale of the problem and the fact that we need to address it.

I respectfully say that I am disappointed with the comments from the third-party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, about the Bill Committee stage being a charade. I do not think that line-by-line scrutiny of Bills is a charade. Yes, there is a process as to how Committees are populated, but that is democracy. I would have thought that that particular party, given its title, would respect election results. That is how democracy works. We have seen that they have had some disagreement among themselves about some of their votes as well, but I will leave that point there.

We have had some interesting discussions, and it would be remiss of me not to talk about teeth. We have had dental analogies aplenty: we are wanting to give more teeth to the various regulators. Finally, I think I did detect—we will have to check Hansard—the Minister using the word “Ofwet”. When this matter goes to the commission, “Ofwet” might be an interesting term for a new body that might be set up, but I will leave that with the Minister.

[Tim Farron]

Thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Vickers, in his absence, for brilliantly chairing our five Committee sittings. I will not list everyone that the hon. Member for Epping Forest just did, but I endorse what he said. I thank the Clerks, the DEFRA officials, the Minister’s team and colleagues on both sides of the House for their courtesy and the seriousness with which they have engaged with the Opposition, the members of the public who attended the Committee in person and those who have followed it from afar.

There is no doubt that the voluntary sector and the public have been ahead of politicians on this issue for many years. I would argue that the UK leaving the European Union was a key moment, because we had to go back and look under the bonnet to see what was already accepted and already permitted. We could argue about whether the previous Government gave us regulations and standards that were as good as what we had before we left the European Union. That might be an additional issue, but none the less, the likes of Surfers Against Sewage, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign and so many others in all our communities have led the debate on this and created great scrutiny. That is why we strongly approve of a significant part of the Government’s ethos in the Bill, which is to put an awful lot of power in the hands of those who care so much in our communities.

I do not mean to offend people by referring to this as a charade, but the reality is that we spent five years in Government, and I am pretty confident that the Government that I was part of never allowed a single Opposition amendment to pass in Committee. There is a little bit of pretence in this. All the same, it is an enjoyable pretence. Having gone through the Bill line by line, we all understand it better, which means that, on Report, a dozen and a half of us can speak about this Bill in the Commons with a greater awareness than beforehand.

We support the Bill. If anybody was to call a Division on it, we would go into the Aye Lobby. Our frustration is that we feel that the Government have missed an opportunity. Their answer is obviously, “Here comes the Cunliffe review, and we will see what happens next.” Are we going to get an undertaking that there will be another Bill in the next King’s Speech? If there is, that is exciting and interesting, and that could answer many of our concerns.

The Bill could have been much clearer about limiting bonuses and about recognising that a fundamental problem with the water industry is the fragmentation and the weakness of regulation. It could have recognised that the financials are clearly all wrong, unfair and wasteful. We are looking at duration, but not volume, content or impact, and we are not supporting the citizens behind the citizen science enough by giving them the information, the resource and the place on the water company boards that they need. There are many areas where we think the Bill could be so much better, and where we do not need to wait for Sir Jon to do those things.

Having said that, what is wrong with this Bill is what is not in it, not what is in it. We are therefore happy to support it and are very grateful for the constructive nature of the debate throughout.

[The Chair]

Anyone else? In that case, for the last tearful time, I call Minister Emma Hardy to respond.

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), who made a great speech, and has introduced this important issue to this place this morning. I pay tribute to all Members who made remarks during this debate, including, of course, the references they made to the issues that they face in their communities. This is a nationwide issue, which the Liberal Democrats have chosen to champion—we are so committed to cleaning up our waters that our leader refuses to stop falling into our waterways until this matter is resolved.

We are talking about lakes, rivers and seas, and I have them all in my patch—well, not all of them, but a large chunk of them, as the Member of Parliament for the English lake district. I will not list off all the lakes and rivers, as I have been known to in the past, because we only have so much time. We are all proud of our constituencies, and it is a huge privilege to represent mine, but we recognise that in our communities we are there to be stewards of, and to preserve, the lakes, rivers, becks and tarns, and Morecambe bay in my constituency —not just for us, but for everybody else.

Those are national parks, and the lake district is even a world heritage site, so while what happens in our waterways is deeply personal to us, we also recognise it is of great significance to the future of our country and indeed even of our planet. The impact on our ecology, biodiversity and water quality is important, but let us not forget—as has been mentioned by other Members—the importance to our tourism economy. Some 20 million people visit the lakes every year and they deserve to visit a place that is as pristine as it should be.

I will run through some of the issues affecting our communities. Just last year, the Shap pumping station released sewage for 1,000 hours into Docker beck and sewage was dumped into the river Lowther at Askham water treatment works for 414 hours. In November last year, we found that the number of poor bathing waters had risen to the highest level since the introduction of the four-tier classification system. That shamefully included Coniston Water. Windermere had sewage dumped into it 345 times, totalling 5,259 hours over the course of 2023.

I will say a quick word about pollution in lakes. A drop of water that enters Windermere at the north end takes nine months to work its way through, so the impact of sewage on bodies of water such as lakes and tarns is even greater than it is on our rivers and seas. The impact on Morecambe bay is hugely significant as well. We saw 757 sewage dumps there just in 2023. One of the things that is so grievous is the impunity with which those things take place. In 2021, there were 500,000 sewage dumps across the United Kingdom, and a grand total of 16 of them were deemed liable for prosecution. Of those, eight attracted fines of less than £50,000. In other words, it was worth the water company’s while to dump that sewage, because there was no way of holding it to account.

I have said this before, and it is so important: we speak with such passion on all sides about this issue, yet thousands of people are working in our water industries—for the water companies, for Ofwat, for the Environment Agency and for various other bodies—and I pay tribute to them. The temperature of this debate can often be high, and I want them to know that they are valued, and that we do not blame them; we blame the system within which they work. Radical change is needed.

It is a privilege to serve alongside the Minister and others in this place on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), we have tabled 44 amendments to that Bill; not one of them has been accepted so far, but we have one more day to go, so here’s hoping. That demonstrates our commitment to trying to engage proactively with this issue. We think it seriously matters. The issues we have sought to highlight through that Committee include the need to create a new clean water authority, to have special priority for waterways in national parks and for chalk streams, to protect our rivers and drinking water from forever chemicals and to put environmental experts on the boards of water companies.

The Government—I praise them for this—are rightly putting citizen science at the heart of monitoring. They need to do two things if they are serious about that, and one is to make sure that they equip, support and resource those citizen scientists. I pay tribute to Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent campaign, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Eden Rivers Trust and many others in our communities, but those people need to be on the boards and committees so that they can influence decisions, as well as being equipped to hold people to account. We need radical change, and I fear that this Government are not quite proposing it.

We have a real problem when it comes to regulation. In the end, we have a fragmented regulatory framework. Ofwat, the EA and other bodies are under-resourced and underpowered and the system is fragmented, so the water companies simply run rings around them. The evidence of that is that Ofwat levied £168 million of fines nearly four years ago against three water companies, and it has collected a precise total of zero pounds and zero pence from them, because it simply does not have the culture and powers it needs. Before Christmas, it sanctioned a more than 30% increase in our water bills. In the north-west alone, 11% of all our water bills is going to service the £8.9 billion debt of United Utilities, and it is far worse with Thames Water and in other parts of our country.

People have mentioned farmers and farm run-off. One of the major problems with the agricultural impact on pollution is the past Government’s and this Government’s botching of the transition to the new farm payment scheme. This Government taking 76% out of the basic payment this year will push a load of farmers to move away from environmental action altogether. It will be massively counterproductive. Back our farmers and they will help us to clean up our environment.

In short, we in the Liberal Democrat corner of the Chamber—well represented this morning, as always—are impatient for change. We welcome and support the Bill. As a bit of an old-timer, I neutrally observe that Labour Governments tend to fall into one particular trap: they always assume they will be in power for longer than they actually will be, and they drag their feet and do not do the radical things they should. I say to them: “You’re already at least 10% of the way through this Parliament—get on with it!”

Foot and Mouth Disease

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I confess that all of us in Westmorland and across rural Britain feel a sense of terror at this news, as we recall the devastation and horror of the 2001 outbreak. I will never forget the looming sense of dread and threat as the disease got closer to our farms, or the dread when the disease was diagnosed and whole herds and flocks were slaughtered by those who had cared for them; nor will I forget the burning fires on the hillsides of the bodies of slaughtered animals, or the deep trauma that affected all our communities, but especially our children. We must do everything to avoid a repeat.

Can the Minister explain why this outbreak was notified on Friday, yet DEFRA issued instructions to prevent imports from the affected areas only yesterday, when countries such as Mexico and South Korea were able to act over the weekend? Does he now acknowledge the urgent need to invest in the APHA and the new laboratory, and undo the delay of the previous Government? Does he accept that the failure of the previous Government—and, so far, of his Government—to sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU increases the risks to biosecurity and to British farmers, and will he act swiftly to put that right? Finally, will he meet urgently the noble Lord Curry, who headed the inquiry after the 2001 outbreak, so that we are ready and have learned all the lessons of previous failures, and so that our farms, rural communities and animal welfare are protected at all costs?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This matter is very important. My area had the first case of foot and mouth detected in that year, so I know all about it. However, we must stick to the times that have been allocated.