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

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We shall now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list show the order of debates. The decision on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, is taken when we come to the relevant clause.

A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance. I am sure that is clear to everyone.

Clause 1

Rules about remuneration and governance

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

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require—

(a) the interests of customers, and

(b) the environment,

to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—

(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;

(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;

(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and

(iv) environmental interest groups.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(e) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”

Government amendment 2.

Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 4, line 35, leave out from “force” to the end of line 40.

Clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

Happy new year to all colleagues. It is good to be in this place and it is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance as Chair, Mr Vickers. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement, and to the Committee Clerks and the Minister’s team for being immensely constructive throughout this process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney will speak to amendment 22, and I will make remarks on amendment 18, which, with your permission, Mr Vickers, I will press to a vote if the Government are not minded to accept it. I will also voice my concerns about amendment 2 and I give notice that we will vote against it.

Among the challenges that we face is the complete and utterly justified lack of trust in the water sector—water companies in particular, but also the regulatory framework. Amendment 18 was tabled to ensure that some of the people appointed to the boards of water companies, whatever their structure otherwise, have a connection to the benefit and interests of the consumers within the region; will benefit the residents within the areas in which the undertaker—the water company—is operational; and are experts and campaigners on environmental and sewage policy matters.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have people in their communities equivalent to the ones I will briefly mention. People from groups such as the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, in addition to citizen scientists and others who represent local interests and have great expertise, ought to be on the boards of the outfits that run our waterways in future, and that should be in the Bill.

The amendment would bring the expertise and accountability that we are seriously lacking, and it would build trust, which our water companies are also lacking. We think that the case for it is self-evident, because those bodies and others around the country self-evidently have the expertise, authority and tenacity to add huge value and to ensure that our water companies deliver for the communities they are meant to serve, not just their shareholders.

Government amendment 1 seeks to undo an amendment added by my hon. Friends in the other place. Our concern is that if the Government insist on it and we do not have a much tighter timescale, that will basically undermine the regulation and leave it open-ended so that we cannot be certain that we would be able to enforce the things that the Bill seeks to do in a timely fashion. To ensure that the Bill does what it is supposed to do, we should not cut the water companies any slack.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I rise to explain amendment 22. On 11 July, the Environment Secretary issued a press release on the reform of the water industry that stated:

“Water companies will place customers and the environment at the heart of their objectives. Companies have agreed to change their ‘Articles of Association’—the rules governing each company—to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective.”

However, that commitment is not currently in the Bill. The amendment simply seeks to bring that commitment into this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helena Dollimore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I will make some progress, if I may.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me—

[Dr Hudson]

I was referring to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague.

It is therefore worrying that although the previous Administration went to great lengths to ensure that water companies were financially resilient, this Government are doing quite the opposite with Government amendment 1. That amendment, which will leave out lines 4 to 8 of clause 1, would amend the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under the clause to specifically include rules on financial reporting. That could not more clearly delineate the Conservative approach that the Labour party so derided—it promised the British people that it would do things differently—from the actual approach that Labour has taken in power.

Government amendment 1 undermines not only the hard efforts of the previous Conservative Government in taking the issue seriously, but the efforts of the cross-party consensus that secured the commitment to having financial reporting rules made by Ofwat in the Bill. That cross-party coalition, which included my Conservative colleagues in the other place, forced the Government to ensure that the original commitment would be in place in the Bill. Labour voted against the commitment and is simply seeking to overturn a clear cross-party consensus for Ofwat to be given powers to set rules on financial reporting.

Ensuring that Ofwat can view a water company’s financial structuring will help it to scrutinise and have an understanding of how the company is operating. It will also ensure that the consumers who have been let down by the water industry for far too long are protected. With close financial monitoring, water companies will face the necessary scrutiny to reduce the risk that ordinary consumers are left without a supplier. Financial mismanagement poses great risks, so every sinew must be strained to prevent it; financial reporting is key to ensuring that that takes place. The financial resilience of the water companies is not a hypothetical issue, but a paramount concern right now.

As recently as November, Ofwat’s monitoring financial responsibility report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Seven of those companies were placed in the elevated concern category, meaning that some concerns or potential concerns with their financial resilience have been identified. Three companies were placed in the highest category of action required, meaning that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen the company’s challenges with financial resilience, and therefore they need to publish additional information and report on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I will just have a quick canter through three things that I should have talked about earlier. My apologies, Mr Vickers, and thank you for your indulgence. I will speak to amendments 21 and 19 and new clause 26 briefly.

I reiterate the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney about amendment 21. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I think he has misunderstood. As my hon. Friend said, our amendment seeks to ensure that we do not run the risk of kicking into the long grass the taking of action against bonuses by sticking that provision anywhere other than in the Bill. We were not planning to divide on it, but we will be happy to be the ones voting in favour of immediate action rather than kicking it into the long grass, if that is what he wishes to do.

I do not want to bore anybody about the coalition, but it has been mentioned—give me 20 seconds on it, Mr Vickers. The privatisation of the water industry was where all this went wrong. All the parties that have been in government in the 35 years since then share some responsibility. Just for the record, it is worth stating that DEFRA had no Liberal Democrat Minister in it at all for the majority of the coalition period. For 18 months, my great friend Dan Rogerson served in that position. That was the time during the coalition, by the way, in which we undid some of the foolish capital costs that were made at the beginning of the coalition. It is the opposite of the truth to say that we did nothing; we actually did the only thing that did happen during that time. It is also worth bearing in mind—people might remember—that we were in the EU then and properly regulated, and things were different. That is the end of that defence.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

Oh, go on.

[Dr Hudson]

His recollection is perhaps different from many people and the public at large regarding the Liberal Democrat record on water. His party seemed to jump on this bandwagon once the Conservatives were the party that actually started measuring the scale of the problem.

Returning to amendment 21, the hon. Gentleman has the word “Democrat” in the name of his party. I do not know why they are so scared of having democratic and ministerial accountability by having a very simple clause in the Bill that would provide for a statutory instrument being laid so that the Secretary of State for DEFRA would have some accountability for that. I take on board the point about the first part of paragraph 5 in terms of the first six months of the Bill, but with the amendment would remove two thirds of that clause, which was put in with cross-party consensus in the other place. I am surprised that they are scared of democratic accountability.

[Tim Farron]

Well, that is bizarre. With total respect for the hon. Gentleman, he completely misunderstands. We are seeking to put this on the face of the Bill and not kick it off to a statutory instrument. That seems the opposite of anti-democratic—or, indeed, democratic.

Let us move on to the other issues I would like to briefly mention. New clause 26, which is in this group—

[The Chair]

Order. We have agreed to discuss new clause 26 separately.

[Tim Farron]

In that case, I will speak to amendment 19, which is about revolving doors. Amendment 19 seeks to prevent a revolving door between water companies and the regulator. In July 2023, the chief executive of Ofwat stepped down to very swiftly pick up the role of interim chief executive of Thames Water. An analysis by The Observer in 2023 found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate until shortly beforehand, with about half of them in very senior posts.

Some work that the Liberal Democrats did in the last 18 months found that the director for regulatory strategy at the country’s largest water firm, Thames Water, was previously an Ofwat employee. Meanwhile, a senior principal at Ofwat moved directly from Thames Water, where they worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors who work on regulation. The amendment tries to prevent that revolving door, which clearly brings in a potential conflict of interest. It also builds the quite justified absence of trust. I can feel an intervention brewing—go for it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not against the principle of this—in fact, I am strongly in favour of it—but I have some practical questions. I wonder whether this would bump up against individuals’ human rights and restraint of trade arguments in the courts. I must confess that I was previously a barrister. That was a long time ago, so I have dangerously little knowledge now, but it was certainly the case that the courts would habitually not enforce a restraint of trade clause on a contractual basis that was in excess of 12 months. I know that this would be legislation, but to have such a wide-ranging blanket prohibition for such a long period against all employees, irrespective of the role they undertook and the role that they might in future undertake with a water company, might be challenged successfully under human rights legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered that in his drafting.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that interventions should be short—much shorter than the last two. I have been very generous.

[Tim Farron]

I appreciate that, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful for the helpful and constructive intervention the hon. Gentleman just made. Look, this is not an amendment we are seeking to press to a vote, but it is an issue that is clearly very serious in terms of the quality and safety of regulation. We are perfectly happy for the Government to use all the legal might they have available to find a way of amending the Bill on Report to deal with the issue in a way that builds confidence and prevents obvious conflicts of interest.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important topic and Committee, but before I talk about that, I wish gently to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the Conservative party was in power for 14 years. I know the general election defeat was historic—quite enormous—but I do not think the bump to the head should have caused such an enormous loss of memory about what was achieved, or not achieved, over the past 14 years. Residents of Bournemouth East are incandescent about the state of water infrastructure and the sewage that they are enduring as a seaside town. It is no surprise that as a consequence, when I was campaigning in the general election and knocking on doors since, people raised this hot topic with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful question. Yes, we obviously have regular conversations with Ofwat to ensure that it is capable of delivering everything here. There is an impact assessment on the table in the room, if the hon. Member would like to look at exactly how that all works out.

Amendment 18, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, speaks to the representation of customer views and those of wider groups. The Government are clear on the importance of elevating the voice of consumers in water company governance and decision making. That is why—as I have mentioned—under the Bill, Ofwat will set rules requiring water companies to have arrangements in place for including consumers in company decision making.

In October last year, Ofwat published a public consultation on the rules on remuneration and governance and how they will apply. The proposed options put forward by Ofwat include giving a non-executive director the responsibility for oversight of consumer interests on the board and providing opportunities for consumer panel representatives to meet with the CEO on a regular basis. Furthermore, companies already have a range of environmental obligations that they should be meeting, and experts in water and sewage policy should already be considering those obligations to inform board-level decision making. I trust the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is therefore reassured by the Government and Ofwat’s approach and is content that amendment 18 is not needed.

I will now take a little time to discuss clause 1 itself and the importance of it standing part of the Bill. As hon. Members know, clause 1 provides Ofwat with new powers to set rules on pay and governance in the water sector and requires that Ofwat make rules on four topics. I have already spoken about one of these, consumer representation. The legislation also provides Ofwat with new powers to issue rules on remuneration and governance, and requires that Ofwat set rules that make the payment of bonuses contingent on companies achieving high environmental standards. As the independent regulator, it is more appropriate for Ofwat to determine the performance metrics to be applied when setting the rules for performance-related pay.

In addition, Ofwat must also make rules covering the fitness and propriety of chief executives and directors. That means that it will be required to set standards of fitness and propriety that chief executives and directors must meet in order to be appointed by water companies or stay in post. People holding those senior roles will be held accountable against those standards and, if they fail to meet them, companies may need to take corrective action or ultimately remove executives from post if necessary. Ofwat’s initial policy consultation outlined some proposed standards of fitness and propriety that included ensuring that individuals have sufficient knowledge of the duties of water companies, are financially sound and have not been the subject of regulatory investigation. Collectively, those rules on remuneration and governance will help to drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and form a central part of the Bill.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye about whether the rules go further than the previous Government’s, the short answer is yes. The legislation will provide Ofwat with legal powers to ban bonuses, whereas currently it can only set expectations, and it will require Ofwat to set rules prohibiting the payment of bonuses in certain circumstances. Executives will no longer be able to take home eye-watering bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability. We will go further by requiring Ofwat to set rules requiring water companies to ensure that directors and executives meet the highest standards of fitness and propriety, and that customers are involved in company decision making that impacts consumers.

Finally, turning to amendment 19, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I would like to reassure the hon. Member that both the Government and Ofwat take the handling of actual or potential conflicts of interest very seriously. Ofwat employees are already bound by a range of robust rules and processes that support the management of conflicts of interest, including when leaving the organisation. Failure to comply can result in disciplinary action. That includes the civil service business appointment rules, duties of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Acts.

[Tim Farron]

The underlying issue here is a cultural one—I do not think I am alleging corruption. For example, one can look at fines outstanding. Ofwat set fines for, I think, four water companies; at the last check just before Christmas, many months later on, not a penny of the fines had actually been collected. There is a sense of a lack of urgency and a lack of understanding of the anger felt towards the water industry. When we have this revolving door, there may be no corruption at all, but there is a kind of watering down—no pun intended—of the culture of being a watchdog. There is a level of compliance, and it is apparent.

[Emma Hardy]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention, which fits within the bigger picture of how we change the culture and improve trust in the industry. On these specific points, there is already legislation in place. However, I take his wider point that there is no trust and a lot of anger, and we need to do something around the culture of how these organisations work.

Given that existing measures are already place and Ofwat’s forthcoming fit and proper person rules should encompass conflicts of interest, the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s amendments and that all members of the Committee are satisfied that clause 1 should stand part.

[Tim Farron]

We would be content not to press any of the amendments bar amendment 18, which we will seek to push to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—

(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;

(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;

(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and

(iv) environmental interest groups.”.—(Tim Farron.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Pollution incident reduction plans

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 5, line 9, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”

Clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

I will speak to amendments 23 and 25 first, as they are connected, then amendment 24, and then amendments 9 and 6, which were tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I think amendments 9 and 6 are both fine and helpful, and we would be supportive of them.

In amendments 23 and 25, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, we are referring to impact. There is reference in the Bill to an incident reduction plan, to reduce occurrences and to have reports about occurrences. Our concern is about much more than occurrences; it is about impacts. We know, for example, that a spillage into the River Kent, River Eden, Windermere or Coniston may last a certain amount of time, but we do not know about the volume. We may have a trickle over a day or a deluge over a half-hour period.

It is important to understand the impact not only on marine life, fish stocks and biodiversity, but on things such as leisure activities. As an occasional wild swimmer myself, and as somebody who knows a lot of anglers, canoeists and sailors in my constituency, it seems wrong that we should not put front and centre, not just a greater awareness of and action on incidents, but a look at the impact—the measured impacts on biodiversity, wildlife, livestock, farmers and the tourism economy in places like the Lakes, which is the biggest visitor destination in the country after London. I would be very grateful if amendments 23 and 25 were taken on board by the Government.

Amendment 24 relates to nature-based solutions and looks at incident reduction plans. As the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management put it:

“Nature-based solutions…can help address many of the water sector’s challenges while also providing significant benefits for people and planet, such as water quality improvement, flood risk reduction, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity enhancement, community engagement, and public health and wellbeing.”

Indeed, nature-based solutions are also a vital source of funding and income for farmers. Examples include natural flood management techniques, such as wetland restoration, tree planting across catchments of areas of unproductive land—not of productive agricultural land, I hasten to add—and building resilience to flooding; the construction of treatment wetlands and reed beds to treat waste water and improve water quality; the creation and restoration of ponds and pondscapes; climate mitigation and adaptation; and the building of resilience to drought.

Finally, the multiple benefits delivered by working with nature also create opportunities for blended finance by drawing in private investors or gaining income from buyers and ecosystem services. That further increases taxpayer value for money at a time when the delivery burden on the water industry, and therefore customer bills, is at a record high. Investment in nature-based solutions will help to ensure that water industry spending supports the delivery of the maximum environmental and social benefits.

Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are about assessing the damaging impact of pollution incidents in our lakes, coastal areas and rivers in my communities and across the country. Through amendment 24, they also try to provide practical solutions that will help to address those issues. They are meant to be helpful amendments and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

[Dr Hudson]

I rise to speak about amendments 6 and 9, proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that they are self-explanatory amendments that are quite simply about the core concept of accountability, which was at the heart of the previous Government’s mission to improve our water system. We must remember that at the heart of every failure that damages our waterways, it is the Great British public—those who rely on our waterways as consumers and as members of communities served by them—who are let down and denied the rights to pollution-free water systems to which they are entitled.

Amendment 6, which would require water companies to publish their implementation reports accessibly online, gives the public a tangible and visible sign by which water companies can be held to account for the promises they make and the actions they say they will take. It is a vital step in trying to restore the trust that water companies may be seen to have lost in recent years with the public through their inadequate actions to deal with this issue, as people have seen and as hon. Members have articulated today on both sides of the House. It is very much about having not just words and promises but explicit standards to judge water companies by, and it would form a kind of contract between the companies and their consumers, who would then know what to expect from their individual company.

His Majesty’s Opposition have no objections to the principle of clause 2 and its requirement that water companies publish an implementation report, nor in the specific details that companies would be expected to produce in proposed new section 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991. In fact, we welcome the Government’s willingness to listen to the concerns from Conservative peers, including Lord Roborough, and peers from other parties in the other place to strengthen clause 2, including the requirement for implementation reports to be drafted by water companies in the first place and ensuring that the requirements for pollution incident reduction plans also include water supply system-related incidents, not just sewage-related incidents.

However, we believe that amendment 6 would go even further to strengthen that proposal and advance the accountability that we all want water companies to have. Requiring implementation reports to be published online in an accessible way sets out an explicit and clear definition to water companies of how they are expected to publish any such plans, as the clause requires, and demonstrates how water companies must comply with the law in unequivocal terms.

In stressing accessibility, amendment 6 would end the ambiguity that can sometimes exist for the public, which means that it is often too easy for companies to hide away behind protocol and procedure. By making such information available to consumers, we would ensure that there could be no hiding in murky waters on this vital issue and the concrete commitments to improving our waterways.

Water companies can also benefit from the chance to make reflections on their progress available in full sight of the public. In all walks of life, sometimes people’s efforts to make good on promises cannot come to full fruition for reasons beyond their control. If genuine reasons arise for not meeting targets, there can be full transparency for the public as to why, so they can understand more about the nature of the industry and the issues involved in protecting the quality of our water system. In other words, full transparency is in everyone’s interests.

A 2023 review commissioned by Ofwat about the importance of open data was clear that open data provide great benefits in a range of areas when it comes to the water industry. In terms of the environment, it highlighted that open data from sewage overflow monitoring were beneficial to the creation of the predictive analytics tools used in Wessex Water’s intelligent sewers competition, which helped to identify sewage blockages much earlier than they otherwise would have been. That demonstrates an explicit link between the work of recent years to require data monitoring in the water industry, such as on storm overflows—I reiterate that 100% are monitored thanks to the work of the previous Conservative Government—and improvements in the water industry’s tackling of pollution. That is in addition to the improved accountability and the responsibility that data publication places on water companies to get the issue right.

The report highlighted, however, that at the time there was a trend towards companies sharing data with their key partners, rather than making information completely and clearly available for unrestricted public access. The report therefore explicitly recommended that companies in the water sector should look at the data they had been sharing only with specific groups and partners, and take steps to make available those data where they can.

Amendment 6 would solve the problem of information reports before it could even arise—upstream—by unequivocally stating that water companies must publish implementation reports on their websites that would be accessible to all members of the public, not just those with the time and influence to ask for such data. We talked about citizen science: this will give those data to the people to analyse and hold water companies to account. The Conservatives will therefore be pressing amendment 6 to a Division.

I am conscious of time, Mr Vickers. Are you going to call stumps in about 20 seconds?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all here and beyond.

Farmers in my communities and across the country are genuinely devastated by the Government’s family farm tax, which will affect many in my patch who are on less than the minimum wage, and by the 76% cut in the basic payment next year. Perhaps what dismays farmers across our country and in Westmorland even more is that the overall agricultural policy of this Government and their Conservative predecessors is to actively disincentivise farmers from producing food, despite the fact that this country produces only 55% of the food we need. That is a dereliction of duty by both main parties, and a threat to national security. What plans does the Secretary of State have to change his policy and back our farmers to produce food?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. I will repeat my earlier comments about agricultural property relief: the last year for which we have data available shows that the vast majority of claimants will not pay anything. Unlike the previous Government, who thought that farmers were not in it for the money, we want them to succeed, so we are embarking on a farming road map and a new deal for farming that will consider supply chain fairness and stop farmers being undercut in trade deals such as the one the Conservatives agreed with Australia and New Zealand. Our intention is to make farming profitable for the future; the Conservatives’ record is the 12,000 farming businesses that went bust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I am a great admirer of the Allerton project and have been meaning to visit it for a long time. My officials are working on a visit, and I am really looking forward to engaging with those people, because they do great work.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Presumably it is related to the questions.

[Tim Farron]

It is related to the questions we just had. Thank you for granting the point of order, Mr Speaker. At 7 o’clock this morning, entirely foreseeably, Ofwat announced bill rises of 36% for water bill payers around the country, which is an increase 14 times larger than current inflation. We know that a large proportion of that rise will be spent on paying off the debt of water companies: a debt incurred simply by paying dividends that were unearned and bonuses that were undeserved. Is it in order for the Government to have known that was coming but not to have come to the House to make a statement, which would have allowed us to hold them to account for their failure to ensure that Ofwat has the teeth it needs to hold the water companies to account?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I have received no notification from the Government of such a statement, but he has certainly put his point on the record and I am sure that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great privilege to speak on this Bill on behalf of my party, and a still greater privilege, I dare say, to speak as the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which includes Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston Water, Haweswater, Rydal Water, Grasmere, Elterwater, Esthwaitewater, Brotherswater, the River Kent, the River Eden and much of Morecambe bay. We are a stunningly beautiful part of the country, and also one of the wettest. For us, water is unavoidable and precious. It is precious to our biodiversity, our heritage and our tourism economy.

As the House may have noticed, the Liberal Democrats chose to make water the centrepiece of our election campaign. So much so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) spent much of the campaign in the stuff. We continue to champion a radical restructuring of our water industry, because water is the most vital of resources and because we cannot allow a continuation of the poor regulation, wanton pollution and abuse of power that became hallmarks of the water industry under the Conservative Government.

There is much to welcome in this Bill, including criminal liability for chief executives who are responsible for severe environmental failure—a measure that I remind colleagues was proposed by the Liberal Democrats before the last election, and that Labour refused to support at the time because it believed the measure to be unnecessary. We are pleased that Labour now agrees with us.

We are also encouraged by the proposals to increase some of Ofwat’s powers, to introduce a fit-and-proper-person test for chief executives, to institute an automatic fining system that makes sense, to install real-time monitors, and to create greater data transparency. All these measures are welcome, and they will all help, but they do not yet amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed.

The recent announcement of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review is welcome, but it is also kind of frustrating. It suggests that the Government might well be up for a more radical change, just not yet. The review will not conclude until next summer, of course, after which many people, including in the Treasury, will need to go over its proposals before it hopefully makes it into a King’s Speech, running the risk that the more ambitious part 2 might not find its way on to the legislative timetable in this Parliament.

Of course, fixing the entire water industry and sewerage system is not an overnight job, but this feels like an especially ponderous way to solve such an urgent and pressing issue.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the perils of acting too slowly, but given that a Liberal Democrat was in charge of the water industry when it was privatised, does he not think that we might all be paying the price for the error of acting too quickly in that instance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Unless, to my absolute surprise, the Liberal Democrats were in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, I do not think that could have been the case. I was at university with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) when it happened, and neither of us was in government at the time.

The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan than the one in the Bill, and they believe that they voted for it to be delivered urgently. The biggest mistake that Labour Governments tend to make is not being ambitious enough, presumably under the impression that they will be in power for longer than they perhaps might be, so my friendly advice to the Government is to seize the day and seize the moment. The millions who voted Liberal Democrat at the election absolutely did vote for ambitious and urgent change.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the water companies need to be regulated, to protect not profits but the environment? Does he also believe that bathing waters, like the wonderful Tone bathing water in which I was swimming the day before yesterday, should not automatically be de-designated?

[Tim Farron]

I commend my hon. Friend for his swimming activities, and I agree with him. The regulatory framework should be used to improve our waterways, not to strip them of their vital designations. We take the view that it is our job to campaign with energy and passion for a radical clean-up. We are determined to keep our word to the voters by fighting for that action.

I will take a quick moment to say something that I feel is most important. The people who work on the frontline in our water industry, and those who work for the Environment Agency and Ofwat, deserve our thanks and admiration—yet, because of the failings of the system, they end up taking the blame that ought to land here in this place. The legions of people running our water system do a vital job, so I want us to get the tone of this debate right. We can be rightly outraged about how our water industry is allowed to operate, and at the same time be hugely grateful to those who, despite the system, do outstanding work to serve our communities. I want those people to know, and to hear, that we really value them. They are a blessing to us. They are not the problem; the system is. We are determined to fight for a better system for all those people to work in.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

In a previous life, I drafted many of the amendments to the Environment Act 2021. I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State would not let me intervene on her, and I am further sorry that she and most of her colleagues voted against every single one of those amendments. The hon. Gentleman was very kind and wisely voted for them. Although Conservative Members now talk about regulation, all the previous Government did was cut the regulator off at its knees, and we are now dealing with the consequences of their inaction and decisions.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in a previous life, as well as in this one. He makes a very important point, to which I will turn in a moment. There is no point having great regulatory powers if we do not have a regulator with the resources to do the job that it needs to do. Nevertheless, regulation could be made better.

Water industry regulation is split between the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and that plainly does not work. We have two inadequately resourced regulators, with inadequate powers, being played off against each other by very powerful water companies that are far better resourced and able to run rings around the very good, but very harassed people whose job it is to hold them to account. I welcome the concession made in the Bill requiring Ofwat to contribute towards meeting the targets of the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. That is a step in the right direction because I believe it will be the first time that Ofwat will have proper environmental obligations, alongside its business obligations.

We have received promises, as the Secretary of State set out from the Dispatch Box earlier, that this Government will strengthen Ofwat’s powers in ways that we do not see on the face of the Bill. For instance, Liberal Democrat peers asked the Minister to confirm that the Government would ban water company bosses getting bonuses when their company had had a major category 1 or category 2 sewage incident the year before, and the Minister in the other place said:

“These are the type of circumstances in which it would be highly inappropriate for a bonus to be awarded.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 247.]

That is very welcome, but it is not on the face of the Bill.

I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, who forensically engaged with the Bill to make it much better. I also pay tribute to the collegiate and constructive manner in which the Minister, Baroness Hayman, worked with them. To be clear, though, the Liberal Democrats would go even further and create a unified and much more powerful regulator, the clean water authority, absorbing the regulatory powers of Ofwat and the Environment Agency, but with many additional powers, including revoking the licence of poorly performing water companies swiftly, forcing water companies to publish the full scale of their sewage spills, reforming water companies to put local environmental experts on their boards, and putting robust, legally binding targets on sewage discharges.

On the issue of discharges, we welcome the change to require data from emergency overflows to be published within an hour of a discharge. That will require companies to monitor all emergency sewage overflows and to ensure that data is reported to the Environment Agency within the hour. To pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), my concern is that the Environment Agency is already massively overwhelmed. In my constituency, I see good people working very hard, but with Coniston, Windermere, the River Eden and the River Kent competing for time, attention and resource, as well as the ongoing work of building flood defences in Kendal, it is hard for them to be able to focus.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Environment Agency being under-powered and under-resourced. With rivers like the River Wharfe, it has clearly failed to address illegal discharges and to enforce the law. Does he, like me, welcome the fact that the Bill will introduce more support for enforcement by allowing the Environment Agency to recover the cost of any enforcement from the offending water companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Yes, to a degree. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; it is very welcome, as is the investment that is promised and the way in which it will be provided, but—and I am happy to be put right on this—I think the figure used by the Government is an additional 500 members of staff for the Environment Agency. That is one per constituency in England and Wales. That will not make a noticeable difference. In practice, the Bill could well permit a continuation of the current situation, where water companies will be setting and marking their own homework, with an Environment Agency without the capacity to even manage its current workload, let alone the new duties the Bill will give it to monitor masses of important overflow data. The regulator must be much better funded to do that well. Even then, the regulation rules must be watertight for the Environment Agency to ensure that the water companies cannot pick and choose which information they release or retain.

The Minister indicated that the data will be made publicly available and easy to access. I look forward to hearing more detail about how that will be done. That could be a positive move, allowing citizen scientists and campaign groups—such as the wonderful Clean River Kent Campaign group, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, as well as many others from other communities —to be able to hold the water companies to account to a greater degree. After all, knowledge is power. We are keen to encourage the Government to move forward with that.

We would also like to see water companies publish the volume and concentration of discharge from all emergency overflows, not just their duration and frequency. Will the Minister consider including that duty? And should we really have water companies installing and maintaining their own monitoring equipment? We believe that the Environment Agency or its successor should be doing that, with the full cost of that work paid for by the water companies.

The Bill makes almost no attempt to address the structure of finances and ownership of the water industry. The Minister has indicated that the Bill will seek to change the culture of the industry, which would be welcome, but cultural change will only come with a change to the reckless profiteering that has been the norm. As right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have said, Lord Cromwell in the other place tabled an amendment requiring annual updates from water companies on any financial restructuring that they have done or plan to do. It cannot go unacknowledged that financial stability and good governance seriously affect the environmental standards that any water company is able to reach. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) who made those points in relation to Thames Water.

I am grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell for tabling a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Bill in the Lords to create special status, with special protections, for Windermere as an exemplar of the standards we will expect in our waterways across the whole country. The Campaign for National Parks’ health check report, which was released earlier this year, found that only five out of the 880 bodies of water in the national parks of England and Wales met the highest ecological standards, and that every single one was polluted to some degree. Windermere itself received 140 million litres of pollution in the last two years. Amendments tabled in the Lords, which we will table here also, will seek to tackle that. Water industry leaders must be forced to take responsibility for the care of these world class lakes and waterways, and our amendments to the Bill would ensure that they do so.

Although the privatisation of the water industry was an incredibly bad decision and definitely did not happen on our watch, I am not convinced that renationalisation would be necessary or a good use of public money. I fear it would mean that we would have to buy the assets back, putting taxpayers’ money into the pockets of those who have already made so much money out of them, without a single penny of that money going into improving infrastructure. Instead, it seems wiser to move away from the current model and to ensure that water companies should be community benefit corporations, so that all revenue goes into keeping environmental standards higher and solving the long-term problems of our networks. None of our constituents should have to pay for company debt. These were business decisions, taken by those who took risks to make money, rather than to invest in our sewage systems; they should bear the consequences of those risks.

The current regulatory framework seems to leave water companies immune from the highest penalties, despite their repeated failure to meet their basic obligation to prevent sewage from being dumped in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas. The current rules mean that, under special administration procedures, to remove a water company’s licence to operator would mean the regulator serving a 25-year notice on them. That is why we are disappointed that the Bill does not go as far as we want, or as far as so many water campaigners have asked for it to go.

The Cunliffe review gives us hope of a more radical set of proposals to come later in this Parliament, but our communities are impatient for change—a change more radical than this Government are so far willing to offer us. Although we see nothing in the Bill to disagree with and much in it to commend, we are left frustrated that any radical transformation will be at best delayed until a second instalment, after Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The hon. Gentleman references Sir Jon Cunliffe, and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning the review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Jon’s review should look across the United Kingdom, because Northern Ireland Water is both a Government-owned company and a non-departmental public body and I assure the House that the water quality in Northern Ireland, especially in Lough Neagh, is nothing to be celebrated either. Should not Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review look at how all bodies regulate their water systems, so they serve the public?

[Tim Farron]

I think two things. I respect the devolution settlement and think it is important that we do not overstep what we are called to do today. I also, however, agree that the waterways of all corners of our United Kingdom are precious and must be protected. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

To conclude, the job of the Liberal Democrats is to be the constructive opposition in this place, and to now use Committee stage to inject into the Bill the ambition and urgency that we feel is currently lacking. To millions of people out there who care deeply about our waterways, the problems are obvious and so are many of the solutions. We call on the Government to accept the amendments that we will table in Committee in good faith, to act ambitiously and comprehensively, and to do so without delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Helena Dollimore, a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Storm Bert

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The financial cost of the devastation caused by Storm Bert will run into many millions, yet that is nothing compared with the heartbreaking loss of life. My prayers are for the loved ones of those who have died and for the communities so horrifically affected. I, too, am grateful to the emergency services of all kinds, council workers, the Environment Agency and the communities who have pulled together and been wonderful neighbours up and down the country. Indeed, I am grateful to the many Members who have got their hands dirty serving their constituencies. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) who, in the absence of any trains, hired a car this morning and left Parliament to get back to her communities to be with those who have been devastated by the flooding.

This storm highlights the foolishness of the Government’s real-terms reduction of 1.9% to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ budget. That is a potential threat to flood-affected communities through its impact on flood management schemes, natural flood management and specific projects such as those in Kendal and Appleby. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he may seek to reverse those cuts?

Disruption to rail services has been significant, too. Less than a year after the terrifying derailment at Grange-over-Sands, the whole of the Furness line in my constituency is out of action until later this week. Will Ministers put extra resources into ensuring that that vital line and others are upgraded and made more robust?

Storm events also have an impact on our sewerage networks. Research by the Save Windermere campaign estimates that storm overflows discharging untreated sewage into our lake began at 3.21 this morning and by midday could have reached a volume of 7 million litres. Will the Government speed up action to prevent egregious storm overflows like that across our country? Finally, does the Secretary of State understand that given the crucial role that farmers play in natural flood management, his decision to cut 76% of the basic payment scheme from next year could push farmers away from such schemes altogether? Will he revisit that decision?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Britain’s farmers, who feed us and care for our environment, deserve better than the betrayal they received under the last Conservative Government, and better than the attacks in this Government’s recent Budget. In Cumbria alone some 1,400 family farmers, many of whom live on less than the minimum wage, will be hit by this tax, but the more immediate threat to farming is the Government’s rash decision to cut the basic payment by 76% next year. That will hit livestock farmers, upland farmers and dairy farmers, and destabilise the whole industry. Will the Minister think again?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The changes we have made this year are the biggest boost to sustainable farming that this country has seen—that is the agricultural transition. The Liberal Democrats have always been flaky on this issue, and they have never been able to make up their minds what they think about it. We are determined to tackle the extreme climate crisis globally; they seem to think it is not happening.

Rural Affairs

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is traditional to say nice things about somebody who has just given a maiden speech, but that was a genuinely outstanding maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on the grace that he showed to his predecessor, and his clear and obvious expertise on, and passion for, his constituency. I will pass on the offer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who I am sure will jump at the chance to go on a zipwire anywhere, but especially in the hon. Member’s patch. I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s diary secretary will be delighted with the commitment that I have just made on his behalf.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase claimed to have the most beautiful constituency in the country. We will let that pass for the moment. I represent Westmorland and Lonsdale, which covers the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales—a vast area of the United Kingdom that is utterly beautiful. We are now the second largest constituency in England. I know that it pales into insignificance besides some of my highland colleagues’, but all the same, is it a place that I am very proud to represent.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for leading this really important debate. I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), to her position. I was thrilled and excited by the awesome picture painted of life in rural communities before 4 July, but just to bring us all back down to earth, I will remind us of what life was really like. Over the last five years, livestock farmers in my constituency and elsewhere have seen a 41% drop in their income. Look at our rural communities, and the evaporation of the long-term private rented sector, replaced by Airbnbs—unregulated, unintervened on, and unprevented. Second home ownership is gobbling up our villages and killing off rural communities. It is no surprise that at the last general election, the Rural Services Network calculated that if rural England was a separate region, it would be the poorest in England.

The Secretary of State will seek to be less disastrous for rural communities than the Tories who went before him. That is not a very high bar to clear, but looking at the Budget, I am concerned that he may not find that as easy as he thought. Let me say a thing or two about the Budget, in particular APR, BPR and the changes to inheritance tax. Some 440 farmers in my constituency will be affected by the APR and inheritance tax change. It is important to remember that very large numbers of people live on significantly less than the minimum wage, yet have a property that, on paper, is worth enough for them to be clobbered by the change.

While 440 farmers will be directly affected, hundreds of tenants will be indirectly affected, because when a landlord has to rearrange their business, perhaps to try to avoid paying inheritance tax, it will be tenants who end up losing out, however the landlord restructures their estate. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs confirm at the Hexham northern farming conference last week that the Government will bring in a tenant farming commissioner. I congratulate and thank them for doing that, but the position will not be up and running before the policy has been introduced. Tenants will be evicted from their land. In our communities, we will see lakeland clearances as a result.

The policy has been sold as one that attacks the wealthy. No—the wealthy will find ways around it, just as we are finding with business property relief. I cite the case of the owner of a family-run, very famous, wonderful holiday park in the central lakes in my constituency. He is a father in his 90s. The business is not worth millions in terms of cash flow or profits, but to pay the death duties, the family will have to sell out to another big corporate. Big corporates and big equity houses will buy up farming and non-agricultural family businesses. When it comes to farming, land will pass into non-agricultural use, and the house will be turned into yet another second home. That will be devastating for not just family farms but rural communities as a whole.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Family farms are a key part of the fabric of our countryside, as farmers in my rural constituency tell me every day. They have spent all weekend trying to get my attention just to tell me that. What really worries me about the changes to inheritance tax in the Budget is that they will directly and disproportionately affect small family farms. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will have a devastating effect on small farms, and on our food security?

[Tim Farron]

I think it will. Many farmers earn less than the minimum wage, and although they own property worth an awful lot of money, it is worth nothing to them, really, because it is their business. As a consequence of the changes, someone will own that farm, but it will no longer be a family; it will be some huge estate, or a private equity firm. The Government must listen on that issue.

I will turn my thoughts to funding elements in the Budget. I have found a very rare creature: a Brexit benefit. Leaving the common agricultural policy, and moving towards environmental land management schemes—set up by the previous Government, adopted by this one, and supported in principle by the Liberal Democrats—was an opportunity to make things better for farmers and our countryside. However, the previous Government botched things completely by failing to fund the projects properly, and by taking away basic payments at a regular and dependable rate, and not replacing them quickly enough with a new payment under the environmental schemes. That has massively reduced our ability to feed ourselves. The agricultural policy of the last Conservative Government, which has, so far, been adopted by the current Government, is absolutely insane, in that it disincentivises the production of food. That is ridiculous, and I hope that the new Government look actively at putting it right.

The effect of the £350 million underspend by the previous Government was not felt in the pockets of the big landlords, who were able to get into the schemes relatively easily; it was smaller family farms that suffered, yet the Budget speeds up the rate at which we are getting rid of the basic payment, which is deeply troubling. A reduction of at least 76% in the basic payment for those still in the system will be devastating for their businesses. People do not know what to do next; they may end up backing out of environmental schemes and farming intensively in order to pay the rent and keep a roof over their family’s heads.

It is worth bearing in mind the impact that the measures will have on the mental health of farmers. Let us put ourselves in their position. A fifth or sixth-generation tenant farmer or owner-occupier might see that they could lose the family farm because of the Conservatives botching the system and the Labour Government’s cliff edge. Do not put people in that position. Give them time to move into new schemes, rather than kicking the legs of the old system from underneath them.

Let me say a word about trade deals before I talk about other important rural issues. The previous Government absolutely threw British farmers under the bus in the deals that they cut with New Zealand and Australia. We must of course be pragmatic about relationships with the incoming Administration in the United States, but in any deal with the US, I urge the Secretary of State not to do what the Conservatives did in their deals with Australia and New Zealand. Protect British farmers and protect our values, please.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman and I shared very similar concerns about the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. We feared that imports would swamp the market, but fortunately that has not come to pass; it has all been swallowed up by an ever-voracious Chinese and south-east Asian market. New Zealand lamb producers have actually reduced the size of the flock per capita. What we worried about has not come to pass, and we should be grateful for that.

[Tim Farron]

Well, I think it has come to pass, to a degree, in the sense that we allow equal access to our markets to those producing animal products—meat and other food products—who have lower standards than British farmers. That is just not fair; it is not a level playing field. The American market is far bigger, and my great fear is that doing a similar deal with Donald Trump will do much more harm to British farmers. I hope that the Secretary of State will be mindful of that.

Let me move on to other issues that affect our rural communities. In a constituency such as mine, the average house price is 14 times the average household income. We have a 7,000 household-strong waiting list for social rented housing. I mentioned earlier the collapse of the long-term private rented sector into Airbnb, which has a huge consequent impact on lives. I can think of a particular couple—she was a teaching assistant; he was a chef—who were kicked out by the landlord, who wanted to go with Airbnb. As a result, they had to take their two kids out of school, give up their jobs and leave the area completely. There were hundreds and hundreds of such cases, and the previous Government did not intervene until it was far, far too late.

The impact of the housing crisis in rural communities across our country is not just deeply upsetting and devastating for families, but damaging to our workforce. Sixty-six per cent of lakes and dales hospitality and tourism businesses are operating below capacity because they cannot find enough staff. One in five care jobs in Cumbria is unfilled because of a lack of permanent workforce.

Another matter that the previous Government refused explicitly to tackle, and which I hope this Government will tackle, is the scourge of excessive second home ownership in Britain’s rural communities. People own those bolthole homes but barely live in them. The excessive number of second homes in our communities means that we lose our schools, our bus services and the very heart of those communities. Will the Secretary of State consider doing what the Liberal Democrats have proposed for years by making second home ownership a separate category of planning use, so that planners have the opportunity to protect their communities?

On health, so many of the issues that we face in rural communities relate to distance from care and people’s ability to get where they need to be in time. That also means that we have efficiency issues. A GP serving a huge acreage may not be very efficient with their relatively small list, but we desperately need them. Will the Government consider our proposal for a strategic small surgeries fund to keep vital GP surgeries open in rural communities?

We must also bear in mind that some of the longest and most unacceptable waiting times for cancer treatment are in rural communities. We very much welcome the £70 million for radiotherapy that was announced just before the Budget—much to Mr Speaker’s chagrin—but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that 3.5 million people in the country, most of them in rural communities, live in radiotherapy deserts? Half of us will have cancer at some point in our lives, and half of those people should receive radiotherapy treatment, yet barely a quarter of them do. One reason for that is that communities such as mine are just too far from that treatment. Will the Government ensure that some of that money goes towards providing satellite units in Kendal and other parts of rural Britain.

On public transport, it is right to say that the Government have made a poor decision in increasing the bus fare cap. That will have a huge impact on low-wage workers, particularly in rural parts of the country. Frankly, a £3 cap—or even a £2 cap—is a fat lot of good if there is no bus to use it on. I encourage the Secretary of State to devolve to local authorities the power to run their own bus services, and not to enforce local government reorganisation in order to achieve it—just give them those powers now.

I am coming to the end of my remarks, I promise. On broadband, the new Government—and the previous Government—have made good progress on Project Gigabit, and we ought to be grateful for that, but they must be aware that there will always be places that the project will not reach, including four in my constituency: Warcop, Hilton, Murton and Ormside. Those places are in deferred scope and, currently, are likely to get no service whatsoever. Will the Government consider de-scoping those places so that they can access vouchers? That would allow B4RN, our wonderful local not-for-profit broadband company, to step in and do the job.

You will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is my final point. It is worth pointing out that under the Conservatives, 45% of water bill payers’ money went into the pockets of shareholders in dividends, into bonuses or into debt financing. Meanwhile, half a million instances of sewage dumping in our lakes and rivers happened each year. We welcome some of the Government’s proposals to clean that up, but without radical reform of the industry—which they are not proposing—that problem will not be solved in a long-term way.

In conclusion, our rural communities have been taken for granted and deeply damaged by a Conservative Government; our memories in rural Britain are very long, and they will not be excused that failure. We also see a Labour Government whose early start is not promising for our rural communities. As such, we in the Liberal Democrats have made a deliberate choice to be the voice of rural communities. We will take up that mantle with humility and passion, because a Britain that cannot feed itself is a Britain that will fail.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Kane to make his maiden speech.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Farmers across the United Kingdom are coping with the lingering legacy of betrayal—betrayal from the trade deals that happened under the last Government, which threw them under a bus; and betrayal from the transition from the old payment scheme to the new one, which saw many of them going bust or forced into making business decisions that they would never, ever have chosen. That legacy of betrayal is one that hangs heavy, and it is why farmers in my constituency and elsewhere feel so utterly disappointed by this Government’s Budget last week.

Let us look first at the agricultural property relief changes. There are 1,500 farms in Cumbria and 440 in my constituency affected by this. Has the Minister done an investigation into the number of farmers who are living on less than the minimum wage each year in terms of income, but who have a property that will be affected by these changes, particularly given the 41% decrease in farm incomes under the Conservative Government over the last five years? Will he also assess the impact on tenant farmers? Some 50% of my farmers are tenants and will be affected by the disruption that this change will create. Would it not be wise for him to implement the Rock review of tenant protections before introducing something like this? Will he also look again at the £2.4 billion budget and increase it by £1 billion, just as the Liberal Democrats suggest? If we do not feed ourselves, we are a failing country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is a well-informed, thoughtful person, and I listen closely to what he has to say on these issues, but I do wonder sometimes about the Liberal Democrats’ approach to economics, because that £1 billion would have to come from somewhere. I am afraid that the difference between Labour and the Opposition side of the House is that we are determined to get the public finances in order, because it is upon that basis that future prosperity in the farming sector will come.

In terms of farm incomes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many farms are very marginal. We know that, and it is complicated, but I would say to everyone in this House that the entire inheritance tax system is complicated; I must say I have read a lot over the weekend that was perhaps a little short on accuracy. He is also right about tenant farmers, and we are in close conversation with the Tenant Farmers Association about how the changes can perhaps be used to good effect, because another element which has not been raised so far, interestingly, by the Conservative party is the generational challenge we face in farming. I will not be telling farmers how to run their lives, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that sometimes it is difficult to make that transition and we need to get more younger people into farming.

Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation and financial stability of water companies.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. It is a real honour and privilege to have secured this debate on a matter of enormous importance to my constituents in Westmorland and Lonsdale and, quite clearly, to many around the room and beyond.

I wonder whether, in the aftermath of the 2019 general election, many pundits or politicians would have predicted that by the 2024 election water quality would be one of the top three doorstep issues, and a subject of discussion here and in the main Chamber within an hour or two of each other, and indeed within the same week as in the other place. That is exactly what has happened, and there are a number of reasons why.

First, leaving the EU meant that we needed to introduce our own legislation to replace what went before. In doing so, people, including MPs, looked under the bonnet, so to speak, for the first time and were horrified to see what was there: the sewage outflows into our rivers, lakes and coastal areas that had been long permitted.

Secondly, the last Government failed to take effective action to limit those outflows, allowing excessive dividends and bonuses on the one hand and inadequate infrastructure investment on the other.

Thirdly, the situation is objectively getting worse. Climate change, higher rainfall, inadequate regulation and failure to invest in infrastructure renewal means that 2023 saw a 54% increase in sewage spills compared to the year before.

Fourthly, and just as importantly, this issue has emerged because community campaigners across the country have resolved that they will not accept this appalling situation and have led the way in holding water companies, regulators and the Government to account. Organisations in our Westmorland communities, such as the Clean River Kent Campaign, Save Windermere and the Eden Rivers Trust—and many more, both in my communities and around the whole UK—have engaged in citizen science, heightened awareness and galvanised public opinion.

The Liberal Democrats have made this issue a priority, too. Water is so important to us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) spent most of the general election campaigning about it—and, indeed, spent quite a lot of time in it! Having led my party through a previous general election, I know exactly how it feels to spend one’s campaign in deep water, and even, on occasions, up to one’s neck in poop.

I have the immense privilege of serving Westmorland and Lonsdale and being MP for, among others, Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston Water, Haweswater, Rydal Water, Grasmere, Brothers Water, the River Kent, the River Eden, the River Lune, many other rivers, and much of Morecambe bay. For us, water is deeply personal; it is precious to our biodiversity, our heritage and our tourism economy.

Failure to tackle the issue rightly raises passions, but the fault lies in the system. We have an industry financing model and a regulatory framework that are simply not fit for purpose. However, I do not want to demonise the people who work for water companies. Good, competent and decent people work for United Utilities in my community and for other companies across the rest of the country, on the ground and indeed underground. The same applies for those who work for the Environment Agency and Ofwat. They are good, hard-working and professional people working within a system that is badly broken, and that broken system has an appalling impact on communities in the lakes and dales of Westmorland.

I have a few figures to demonstrate the situation, courtesy of the Rivers Trust. Last year in Appleby, combined sewer outflows into the River Eden saw 46 spills. At Kirkby Stephen on the River Eden, there were 135 spills. At Staveley on the River Kent, there were 283 spills. At Tebay on the River Lune, there were 124 spills.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Farron]

In one second. At Greystoke on the River North Petteril, there were 146 spills. I could go on, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sarah Dyke]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. Data from Thames Water shows that Glastonbury and Somerton was the 16th worst constituency in England and Wales for sewage overflows. Does my hon. Friend agree that the commission should consider establishing pollution baselines and reduction targets?

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely agree. That reminds us that, of the over 464,000-plus spills that took place in 2023, most were legal and permitted—and most of them should not have been. We juxtapose this failure with the reality of money leaking out of the sector in the form of dividends and bonuses. Since privatisation, £78 billion has been paid out in dividends and, in the last four years, we saw £62 million paid out to company executives in bonuses.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He has a very beautiful constituency in the Lake district and has campaigned strongly on this issue. Would he therefore welcome this Government’s commitment to cleaning up the water industry and that they called in the water bosses within the first week of the Labour Government to say that investment must be ringfenced for infrastructure and not spent on bonuses, and will he be supporting the Water (Special Measures) Bill?

[Tim Farron]

First of all, I am merely, and happily, an honourable Member, although it is very kind of the hon. Lady to call me “right honourable”. Secondly, we welcome many proposals in the Bill. We have already tabled many amendments in the House of Lords because although we think that the Bill is a step in the right direction, a lot more could be done. I will make more of that in a moment.

It is worth saying, as we are talking about bonuses, that although there was a 54% increase in spills between 2022 and 2023, it did not rain 54% more in 2023 than in 2022; there was no justification for that increase— and yet, the bonuses happen. I have never worked in an industry where bonuses were the norm, but my understanding is that they are paid for success, not as a commiseration for statistically proven and repeated failures.

It is easy to be angry about all this—I am, and maybe it is essential to be so—but it is just as important to be constructive and seek solutions. The depth, seriousness and complexity of this crisis means that the only answers that will work need to be radical and ambitious. Today’s announcement of a water commission, which will consider these things, is welcome, but also a little frustrating. Do we really need to spend the best part of a year stroking our chins and pondering, when what is needed is radical action now? With respect, most of us pretty much predicted the likelihood of a Labour Government two years ago. Did the victory strike them as a surprise? Why were they not ready with a plan to deliver much sooner than this?

I have a similar view, as I have just suggested, about the Water (Special Measures) Bill. It contains many positives, including criminal liability for CEOs responsible for severe environmental failure, but it does not amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed. The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan to be urgently delivered. Indeed, those who voted Liberal Democrat absolutely did vote for that, so we are determined to keep our word and fight for that action.

It seems obvious how regulation could be made better. Water industry regulation is fragmented, with environmental regulation done by the Environment Agency and business regulation done by Ofwat. That just does not work.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To my hon. Friend’s point about the need for a regulator with teeth, West Dorset saw 45,000 hours of sewage released into our rivers and beaches last year. The River Lim last year was declared “ecologically dead”. Does my hon. Friend have a view on whether the regulator should be able to impose fines on the water companies that reflect the damage they are doing to our natural environment?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree, and I will answer that point more fully in a moment.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conflicting regulatory directives, which sit across all the different agencies that he has just referred to, are part of the problem and should be urgently addressed, without necessarily waiting for the long-awaited review?

[Tim Farron]

I thank hon. Members for both interventions. First, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello). One problem is that Ofwat has fined three—or maybe four—water companies in the last year or so to the tune of about £170 million, and has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence of those fines.

Secondly, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths): absolutely—having regulators with conflicting responsibilities and rules is part of the problem. We have two inadequately resourced regulators with inadequate powers being played off against each other by a water industry that is far better resourced and able to run rings around very good people—but very harassed people—with the job of holding them to account.

The Liberal Democrats propose a unified and much more powerful regulator that we would call the clean water authority. That new authority would end the practice of monitoring being done by the water companies themselves—in other words, setting and marking their own homework. Let us put that right. Water companies should be charged the full cost of monitoring, but the monitoring itself should be carried out by an independent regulator so we can be sure that we are seeing the whole picture. Successive Conservative Ministers committed to changing that, but none actually did, so will the Minister commit the new Government to making that necessary change?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock are deeply concerned that Thames Water wants to hike its prices by more than 50% over the next five years. Just a month ago, I stood in the front rooms of constituents whose homes had been flooded with sewage because of the backing up of foul water drainage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulator he proposes, and which the Liberal Democrats support, should insist on and compel water companies to put performance before profit in their operations?

[Tim Farron]

Absolutely. That would be exactly the case at the heart of our community benefit model, which would be governed by a clean water authority. Profit would not be the overriding motive, and having the right people on board, including environmental campaigners in each area we are talking about, would keep the water companies honest and prevent the outrageous things mentioned by my hon. Friend.

The issue with the lack of reliability of data is key. It leaves us suspicious that the scandal could be even worse than we think. Just last week the BBC reporter that between 2021 and 2023, United Utilities illegally dumped sewage into Windermere for 165 hours, of which 118 hours were not reported to the Environment Agency. According to Environment Agency figures, United Utilities was the best-performing water authority in England in 2022 and, as a reward, it was allowed to raise £5.1 million extra by increasing bills, but—as we saw have now seen from last week’s revelations—United Utilities did not report hours and hours of illegal spill decisions made on the basis of inaccurate information.

When water companies mark their own homework, there are consequences; indeed, there are deep consequences for my communities in Westmorland. Some 7 million people visit Windermere every year, alongside the other 20 million who go to the lakes as a whole. I will state for the record that I happily swim in Windermere and have confidence in its safety in most places and at most times, but on behalf of our local community and especially our local hospitality and tourism businesses, I am deeply angry that the failure of the water company and its regulators to identify and solve these problems is not only beginning to damage our environment, but doing damage to the precious brand of the Lake district. That is why we need urgent, comprehensive, tangible and ambitious action, and why I am very grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell, who has tabled a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the Lords to create a special status, with special protections, for Windermere.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames borders our constituency, and the River Mole, which is a chalk stream, runs through it. The River Mole is one of the most polluted rivers in the country, and a quarter of the sewage poured into is from my constituency. This amounts to a failure that impacts on our health, our environment and our democracy. Why our democracy? Because it means the public believe that our Government turn a blind eye to this outrage and the ransacking of our public utility, therefore neither representing them nor serving their interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that this must not be allowed to happen again, and that we—and the new Government in particular—must deliver clean rivers and get this right?

[Tim Farron]

I very much agree. Regulation is the key. Welsh Water is not for profit and Scottish Water is publicly owned, yet they both still face major problems with sewage discharges. As my hon. Friend is getting at, there is evidence that although ownership and finances matter, effective regulation is the key, and we simply do not have that at present.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that as well as regulation, commissions and the initiative proposed by his party, there is a massive breakdown of trust within the industry? I spoke to one of the major investors in Thames Water and asked them to tell me the last time that the regulator, the Government and the company’s investors were in a room together, and that had never happened. Among all these initiatives, does the hon. Gentleman agree that getting people together to talk about their different equities and priorities, and how they deliver for the consumer, is also key?

[Tim Farron]

I agree. Although I also think an urgency is needed that many people who own water companies do not demonstrate, and that is why the Government need to lead—but I do think it is right that we get people together to make things significantly better.

Over the past 33 years, for every pound that water companies have spent on infrastructure and doing their job, 80p has drained away to finance debt and pay dividends. That is an appalling waste of billpayers’ money and water company assets. The separation of operating companies from parent companies, where the regulated operating company racks up huge debts to allow the unregulated parent company to pay huge dividends, has been a disgraceful scam. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) will say more about how that model has done such damage to the customers of Thames Water; suffice it for me to say that that model of ownership must cease. For the regulator to have stood idly by while that has happened is unacceptable, and for it not to step in as similar asset-stripping begins in other water companies is an abysmal dereliction of duty by it and the Government.

What is to be done? I just want our waterways to work and to be clean and safe. I am not convinced that renationalisation would be a good use of public money. It could mean putting taxpayers’ money into the pockets of those who have already made so much money out of them without a single extra penny going to improving infrastructure. We propose a radical move away from the current model: water companies should be community benefit corporations, ensuring that all revenue goes into keeping environmental standards higher and solving the long-term problems of our network. Given that 45% of all water company expenditure has gone on debt financing and dividends, that kind of ownership and governance reform should mean that there is more money available for infrastructure renewal.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Farron]

I will give way one final time, because I am running out of time.

[Mr Amos]

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Friends of French Weir Park in Taunton for helping to get bathing water status for the River Tone? Is it not a scandal that after £4.25 billion was paid by Wessex Water in dividends, the situation may arise whereby that status is removed because the Environment Agency and the water company will not have enough money to invest in improving river quality over the next few years?

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely endorse the work of the campaigners in my hon. Friend’s community. Those on the banks of Coniston Water have done the same in our area, raising the bar and the standards under the current regulatory framework, inadequate though that is.

It is clear that Thames Water has more than met the threshold to be taken into special administration, and I suspect that we will hear more about that later. As for the other water companies, the current regulatory framework seems to leave them immune, despite their repeated failure to meet basic obligations to prevent sewage from being dumped in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas, and even on the streets of many of the villages in my communities.

Under the current rules, to remove the licences to operate of the other companies, the regulator would need to serve a 25-year notice. I am grateful to my noble Friend the Earl Russell for proposing a Liberal Democrat amendment in the Lords that would take that ludicrous notice period down to just six months for an environmental failure. I hope the Government will accept that amendment; if they do not, I will table it in the Commons. Our vision is that the new, more powerful clean water authority would have the power to strip all water companies of their licence to operate within six months and then migrate them to the community benefit model. We believe that it is time for the British people to get a clean water system under which they get what they paid for, their hard-earned money is not siphoned off by overseas merchant banks, and their precious waterways are not infected, outrageously, with untreated sewage.

I represent what I would argue is the most beautiful part of England. One of the reasons it is beautiful is that it is also the wettest bit of England. The failure of Governments of different kinds, and the regulators and water companies, to tackle storm overflows was always going to hit hardest in the places with the most storms. That is why we are frustrated that the Conservative Government, who denied that the problem existed, seem to have been replaced by a Government who have acknowledged the problem but have announced that they are going to ponder it very hard for a bit. It seems to me that the problem is very obvious, and therefore so are the solutions. I call on the Government to act ambitiously and comprehensively, and to do so now, without delay.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I see I have seven minutes—I will do my best not to use them all.

I first want to reiterate something I said at the very beginning of my opening remarks: I genuinely pay tribute to the people who work on the ground for the water companies—it is United Utilities in my neck of the woods—Ofwat and the EA. I think these debates can sometimes sound quite toxic to them. They work hard doing an important job, and they are victims of a system that it is vital we change. I am delighted that others have said the same thing today. I just want to put that on the record—particularly in relation to my local community.

I thank colleagues from all sides for their excellent contributions. They are people who are passionate about their own communities, the waterways in their communities and the voluntary groups working within their communities that are helping to highlight these issues.

I also thank the Front-Bench speakers—the Minister and the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but especially my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who made an absolutely fantastic contribution. His expertise is something we very much value; the people of Witney are lucky to have him and we are lucky to have him, too.

I will just reflect briefly on the Minister’s comments. I count her as a friend and respect her very much indeed. What she said about collaboration is absolutely right. However, I will make the observation—a relatively neutral observation—that the Labour manifesto was pretty thin across the board. I understand why that was. Maybe for the last two or three years they felt it was their election to lose and therefore the more information they put out there, the more chance they had of maybe throwing it all away. I do understand the politics. However, that does not really justify waiting several months to begin the process of taking action. So, a Government can be collaborative and consult, and take radical action early on. Nevertheless, I took her point and she defended the Government’s position and process on this issue very well.

Our view is simply that we will be and should be a constructive Opposition; we will challenge and we will seek to be constructive as we do so. But I will also say that we are encouraged—at least cautiously—by what we have heard today from both the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister herself.

Since I have time left, I will ask one extra thing. It is important that we tackle this issue from a national perspective, but there is also an issue in my local area that I think we can fix. Windermere receives an awful lot of coverage and rightly so. A fifth of the pollution in Windermere comes from septic tanks, including 89 package treatment works around the lakes, all of which could be relatively easily connected to the mains. I wonder whether the Minister would agree to meet me, United Utilities and representatives of the tourism and hospitality industry to see whether we could make that migration, up the standards and do something genuinely useful at the bottom level to improve the water quality of Windermere.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

If the Minister wants to say, “Yes”, she will meet me, I will be delighted to give way to her.

[Emma Hardy]

In the spirit of collaboration, which I have just spoken so much about, of course I will meet the hon. Member.

[Tim Farron]

Mr Pritchard, she’s a good ‘un. I thank the Minister very much indeed; I appreciate that.

Finally, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, but I also thank you, Mr Pritchard. That might sound a bit smarmy, but you and I go back a long way. I wish that when I first started here I had a Chair of Westminster Hall debates who talked us through the process as well as you have today. I am very grateful to you, and indeed to everybody else who has been here for this debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You will definitely be called first in the next debate, that’s for sure. [Laughter.] You have been here a long time; you know how to work the system. So, there we are. No—there is no system to work; we are neutral in the Chair. But thank you for your kind comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the regulation and financial stability of water companies.

Independent Water Commission

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. To a large degree, I welcome it—or at least the intention behind it—but water companies dumped 54% more sewage into our lakes, rivers and coastal areas in 2023 than in the previous year. That amounts to 464,000 spills, including many in the lakes and rivers of Westmorland. My constituency is the most beautiful part of England and also the wettest, so water is deeply personal to us.

Does the Secretary of State understand my worry that we might have gone from having a Conservative Government who would not face up to this outrage or tackle it, to having a new Labour Administration who have acknowledged this outrage and decisively resolved to have a jolly good think about it? While Thames Water crumbles as we speak and water companies seek bill increases of 40%, despite such poor performance across the country, does he really think that having a commission is necessary, given the urgent need for action? We have a fragmented, under-resourced and under-powered regulatory system, which allows powerful water companies to play regulators off against each other while our constituents pay the price. Is the solution not obvious? As the Liberal Democrats propose, we should create a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority.

Does the Secretary of State share my deep concern that the current regulator has to give 25 years’ notice in order to strip a water company of its licence for environmental failure? Will he ensure that this ludicrous protection for failing companies should be replaced by a six-month period of notice instead? We are already more than 5% of the way through this Parliament, and this issue is one of our constituents’ most pressing concerns. Do we have to drag our heels like this?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right to point out that last year we saw the highest levels of sewage ever recorded in our rivers, lakes and seas. No wonder the public are so angry, including in his constituency. Tragically, Lake Windermere, an iconic and beautiful site, has been polluted with sewage and agricultural run-off because of the failures of the previous Government.

I have taken action already. We had a reset moment just seven days after the general election, when we carried out within a week things that the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years in power. The Water (Special Measures) Bill is going through the Houses of Parliament right now to ban the payment of unfair bonuses to water bosses. The commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, will look at the entire sector—root and branch—including governance and regulation, which the hon. Gentleman points to. It will look specifically at the point that he has raised, so that we end up with a system of regulation that is fit to clean up our waterways and then to protect them for the decades to come.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Twigg. It is a tremendous honour to follow so many great speeches, most of all that by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)—the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) gave us a masterclass in how to pronounce Newport West and Islwyn. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn made a really great opening speech and we ought to be very grateful to her for securing this debate.

It is incredibly important that we mark the RSPCA’s 200th anniversary. It was the first charity of its kind and it is still the leading one, as the largest animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom. There are no two ways about it: how we treat animals—wildlife, livestock, pets or whatever—is a mark of the kind of culture and society we are. Are we a people who are kind? Are we a people who are considerate? Are we a people who consider those who are more vulnerable than us, whether they be humans or animals? That is a measure of whether we truly are a civilised society, and we have to thank and praise the RSPCA for being one of the cornerstones of what it is to live in a civilised country today.

From a local perspective, we have so much to be grateful to the RSPCA for. I represent 1,500 farms, and the RSPCA inspectors help farmers and support animal welfare right across our huge and beautiful communities of Westmorland and Lonsdale, and specifically at the annual Appleby horse fair. We are very grateful for the RSPCA’s focus on that event and in the towns and villages around Appleby, such as Kirkby Stephen, where there is great need for its intervention. RSPCA Westmorland is a wonderful branch, and we praise the inspectors, the volunteers and all the people who make that outfit so very successful, from their base in Kendal to the shops in Bowness and Kendal itself.

As we have heard from many Members today, the RSPCA relies on donations—0.1% of its income comes from a Government source, leaving the rest of it to be raised by hard-working volunteers. That funding is spent incredibly effectively: 82p out of every pound that it raises goes on direct interventions to preserve animal welfare; 1p out of every pound goes on governance; and the other 17p is invested in raising the next pound. It is so important to remember that a really significant part of what the RSPCA does is raise money to be able to do its fantastic work. That is both practical and political, and it is important to reflect on that and to praise the RSPCA for both.

This has been a really great debate, and I will not cover everything that has been said, because of time constrictions, but let us start with the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. She talked rightly about the lack of breeding regulations and the immense suffering that can be caused by specific bred characteristics. I had the pleasure—although it was a very sobering experience in many ways—of visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home last year, and I saw the tiny fraction of animals, including a dog, that have been lucky enough to have medical interventions to undo the consequences of such breeding—respiratory problems, great suffering and shorter lives.

That was a reminder of why it is important that we look to regulate ownership as well as breeding. When I were a lad, we had the dog licence, and I am not convinced that it is not a good idea to go back to such a system. We often talk about dangerous breeds, but we are generally talking about poor owners. We need to ensure that we have a licencing system that regulates these things, so that our animals are cared for and well reared.

The hon. Member made a wonderful point setting out the advances and reminding us of the many great things Parliament has done, both recently and over a longer period, including on animal sentience and preventing primates being kept as pets. Many if not all of those things happened because of RSPCA pressure, and we are grateful for that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about a number of issues, but specifically about how much the RSPCA does with so little. He also rightly focused on the RSPCA’s educational work, ensuring that young people know from an early age how important it is to value animals and to treat them with kindness. I am the opposite of the hon. Member in that I was the one brought up with cats and my wife was the one brought up with dogs—and she won. We had a wonderful couple of ginger toms called Eric and Ernie when we were first married; they were terrorised by my toddler, who is now 23. They moved next door and lived long and prosperous lives as a result—there was no need for RSPCA intervention. Sadly, they were the last cats that I owned.

The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) made a brilliant speech, and I welcome her to this place and to the Westminster Hall family. She talked about the importance of rescue centres and how many of them are full. There are too few resources available and so many healthy and otherwise happy animals are tragically put down. She talked about the importance of microchipping and of tackling puppy and kitten smuggling and farming, something that the last Government were shaping to do but did not. There was an animal welfare Bill in the 2019 Conservative manifesto that was good and ready to go, but they took it to bits and did some of it. That was a terrible waste, because there was absolutely a majority in the last Parliament to pass that Bill. I hope the new Government will now finish the job and go further. The hon. Member also made some other excellent alongside that.

I was pleased to hear the excellent and impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay). He talked about the hard side of what the RSPCA does and the importance of bringing prosecutions. There must be justice: when people treat animals unfairly and cruelly we should do more than just wring our hands. We are grateful to the RSPCA and its inspectors and officers for ensuring that justice is done and prosecutions happen.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to say that people who have been violent to others start here, but there is a lot of research that indicates that cruelty to animals is often a precursor of cruelty to people. The RSPCA is well placed in its work to identify people who are capable of doing the most dreadful things to animals and who might then go on to offend against other people.

[Tim Farron]

Tragically, my hon. Friend is correct. There is much evidence to back up the idea that many people who abuse human beings started off or learned their trade with how they treated animals. That is shocking, but as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, in dealing with prosecutions the RSPCA may end up protecting humans in the long run by tackling those who abuse animals. He also spoke about the impact of animal welfare issues on pollution, and in particular the huge industrial-style chicken sheds and what they mean for water quality. He spoke of the importance of the welfare of farmed animals, which I will come back to in my conclusion if I have a minute.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about many things, including the RSPCA’s commitment to rehoming and ensuring good homes for those animals that have been abandoned. We need to support it to do that because in many cases, as the hon. Member for Clwyd East said, not enough of those animals are being rehomed because of a lack of space in shelters.

In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the clear and attested benefits of pet ownership for our mental health—there are no two ways about it. Having lost to my wife, we now have dogs. We have a chocolate Lab called Ted, who is my running companion. I have a running lead and he pulls me up the hills—it is awesome. We also have an elderly and decrepit springer spaniel, Jasper, who used to be my running companion. He improves my mental health by reminding me that I am not the most decrepit member of our household— bless him, but put him in water and you would think he was a seal.

[Tessa Munt]

I would like to offer some balance, because it comes to me that the RSPCA was involved in an amazing project working with young offenders on the south coast. Young people who had often effectively ended up in the prison system, who had never been loved or had anything to love, had the opportunity to work with horses—big, powerful animals that could hurt them more than the other way round. It was an amazing project that allowed the recovery of those young people, which gives a bit of balance to my previous point.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is absolutely true. Animals are good for us, so we should be good to them. The RSPCA has been great at encouraging both sides of that.

We have rightly paid tribute to the RSPCA for its practical and political work lobbying to make this place and our society kinder to animals. It has a list of ambitions, and we have gone through many of them, but I will name a handful: to stop illegal puppy and kitten trading, to improve farmed animal welfare, to end the severe suffering of animals used in science, to secure legal protection for animals and establish an animal protection commission, to achieve statutory powers in England and Wales for RSPCA inspectors and, internationally, to secure a UN declaration for animals. To go further and meet the high standards that the RSPCA sets us, we in this place should be banning puppy and kitten farming and smuggling; ending the use of inhumane cages on an industrial scale, particularly when it comes to laying hens; and moving away from animal testing for medical and other forms of science where it is safe to do so.

There are broader things as well. In the last Parliament, we had a Government who did trade deals with countries with poorer animal welfare standards than our own, effectively exporting problems to other countries and, in the process, undermining our farmers, who have relatively high animal welfare standards. They rewarded those overseas producers with poorer welfare standards and penalised our farmers with higher welfare standards. That was wrong, and I hope this Government will do something about it.

For all the problems with the new farm payment scheme, I will praise the last Government for the farming in protected landscapes programme—FiPL—which provides grant support to farmers in places such as the lakes, the dales and other protected landscapes. It allows farmers to move towards accommodation and other capital kit that allows them to keep their animals at a higher welfare standard. That money runs out at the end of March; I would love the Minister to address that. FiPL has been one of the few good things so far to come out of the botched transition from the old farm payment scheme to the new one, and it is good for animal welfare and farmers.

More generally, let us remember that one reason we in this country have higher animal welfare standards in farming than in other places such as Australia and the US is because we have a tradition of family farming and close husbandry. Put bluntly, the first time an Australian or American farmer knows their livestock is unwell is when they find its sun-bleached bones the next year. The reality in the United Kingdom is that we have a closeness and therefore a tenderness and a practical way of being able to care for our animals.

We need to ensure in the farm transition that huge landlords are not the ones who benefit, as is currently happening thanks to the mistakes of the last Government, and instead that we support smaller farmers, who currently cannot get into those schemes. In yesterday’s debate, I mentioned a hill farmer I spoke to recently who has lost £40,000 in farm payments; he has gained £14,000 under the sustainable farming incentive to replace those payments, and even that cost him £6,000 for a land agent to try to get him through the hoops. People like him will potentially go out of business, and we will end up with ranch farming, rather than the family farming we need if we really care about animal welfare in farming in the UK.

In short, 200 years is absolutely something we should celebrate, but the RSPCA lacks resources, and we need to support it to have more. There are many laws that do not support animal welfare as we would like them to, including Government policy that advantages those who mistreat animals both at home and abroad. The RSPCA has done so much and wants to do so much more; it is our job as a Parliament to support it.