Bathing Water Regulations

Debate between Tim Farron and John Hayes

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

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

Accessibility of Radiotherapy

Debate between Tim Farron and John Hayes

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

I am extraordinarily fond of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which he represents well. He makes an important point about travel times. In some parts of my constituency, people need to take a ferry to get from one place to another, but it is not quite as common as in his constituency.

At the heart of the radical, lifesaving transformation that we need through the cancer plan must be the elevation of the unsung hero, the Cinderella of our cancer services: radiotherapy. Lord Darzi found that 30% of patients are waiting more than 31 days for radical radiotherapy. As the incidence of cancer grows, the urgent need for quicker and more efficient treatments such as radiotherapy is only increasing.

As things stand, the replacement and updating of linear accelerators is left to the 52 separate cancer units in England—52 separate procurement operations, 52 different finance officers trying to balance the books and 52 different heads of service all trying to meet increasing demand, often without the time and space to look beyond the horizon. It is time, then, to centralise the commissioning of the technology to ensure a constant focus on updating and expanding radiotherapy. That would immediately start saving lives everywhere.

Radiotherapy UK estimates that simply replacing all the out-of-date LINACs could free up 87,000 additional appointments every single year. Modern radiotherapy is quicker and more accurate than other treatment. It is also by far the cheapest, costing between £3,000 and £7,000 per patient—several times less expensive than equivalent cancer treatments. The Government’s £70 million commitment to radiotherapy services was welcome, but in reality, as the Minister says, that money would cover the cost of only 26 LINAC machines, fewer than half the number that are currently operating beyond their sell-by date. Erratic one-off rounds of funding do not address the need for a sustainable rolling programme of machine replacement to enable planning, support procurement and improve access for patients. Even the new machines are often old technology. What a terrible waste.

In my years of campaigning on this matter, I have found that radiotherapy lacks funding and prominence. Britain therefore lags behind our neighbours, so people tragically die when they do not need to—all because of a lack of leadership and drive from the centre. On more than one occasion, I have almost seen the penny drop on the faces of Ministers of all parties when it comes to our failure on radiotherapy, but every time so far, I have seen that zeal founder on the rocks of bureaucratic sluggishness, indifference and resistance to change within the NHS. If they show the leadership that we desperately need, the Minister and the Secretary of State will have the enthusiastic and active support of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, and of the army of outstanding clinicians who are out there saving lives.

Professor Mike Richards is a name that many people remember. He was the cancer tsar in the early noughties, under the previous Labour Government; he did great work and his achievements were tangible. If the Government will forgive me for using shorthand, we basically need a Mike Richards for radiotherapy, and we need them, like, yesterday. Failing that, tomorrow morning would just about do. Every day we delay, my constituents—as well as yours, Sir John, and those of the Minister and of all Members present—are dying unnecessarily.

We need new technology as we plan treatments, too. Last May, £15.5 million was announced for AI technology that would save clinicians time and reduce radiotherapy waiting lists. However, we have heard from cancer units around the country that this funding may be withdrawn or diverted, which would be a hammer blow to trusts in the face of the ongoing workforce crisis. Will the Minister take the chance today to reassure our cancer units and confirm that this funding will go, as promised, to radiotherapy departments in full? I hope the Minister will also act swiftly to tackle the perversities of the tariff payments for radiotherapy, which effectively punish trusts for treating cancer patients in the most effective and modern ways.

I ask the Minister to guarantee that radiotherapy will be at the centre of the NHS 10-year cancer plan, and that that plan will be led by people empowered and determined to deliver it. The technology is vital, but the people matter just as much. Our specialist and highly skilled radiotherapy workforce numbers only 6,400 people, yet the survey conducted by Radiotherapy UK shows that one in five cancer doctors may leave the profession in the next five years. We have a 15% shortage in clinical oncologists—set to rise to 21% by the end of this Parliament—and 30% of oncologist training posts were vacant last year. On top of that, 50% of clinical technologists are over 50 years old, and 84% of heads of cancer services reported that they were concerned that workforce shortages affected the quality of patient care.

I ask the Minister to agree that the 10-year cancer plan will include a renewed investment in workforce and infrastructure. A 10-year vision already exists, by the way—drawn up by the experts, via Radiotherapy UK. I simply urge the Minister to consider their findings and borrow the proposals detailed by leading oncologists and cancer experts.

I have asked for two separate meetings today. The first is on the need for a satellite radiotherapy unit at Kendal; the second is a first meeting for the Minister with the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, to look at the national picture. I hope he will grant me both.

The radiotherapy lobby is tiny: 6,400 dedicated professionals within our health service; a compact but awesome group of charities and volunteers; a handful of companies building the technology, many of which are based in the United Kingdom; England’s captain fantastic, Bryan Robson; and a small band of MPs of all parties, seeking to be a voice not just for the radiotherapy sector, but for the thousands and thousands of people living with cancer in our country, who deserve the best treatment that we can give them. For the last generation or more, the UK has let those people down, and so often with tragic consequences. Yet radiotherapy is a cost-effective, easily deliverable technology that will save lives in every community in this country.

We are way behind where we need to be, yet it would be so easy, with the right leadership from Ministers, to catch up with and go beyond our neighbours. Cancer no longer needs to be seen as a death sentence; it is a disease that can be treated and cured, but we cannot do that if our systems and practices prevent us from deploying the best treatments available. Please save lives, Minister, and become our radiotherapy champion.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

This is a short debate. I intend to call the first Front-Bench speaker at 5.08 pm.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Tim Farron and John Hayes

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

There is something in that, and I will come to that in a moment when I talk about poverty in our countryside, when it just does not look the way people in urban communities think it ought to look.

There is no doubt that family farms are under attack, but this did not start on 4 July, and I want to go through why we have ended up where we are now. The botched transition from the old farm payment scheme to the new one is the principal source of hardship among our farmers. Let us start with the fact that the environmental land management scheme—ELMS—budget saw a £350 million underspend under the last Government, and that was not an accident. It was blindingly obvious that that was going to happen. One hill farmer I spoke to just last month told me that, as a consequence of the transition, he will lose £40,000 a year in basic payment. To replace it, he will gain £14,000 under the sustainable farming incentive. By the way, it cost him £6,000 to go through a land agent in order to get in in the first place.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a profoundly important point. Not for the first time he is speaking as a Liberal Democrat, but also in a way that belies the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat, because he is genuinely committed to the countryside. He has made a point about family farms; the important thing about them is not only the arguments that he has already advanced, but the sense that they represent a continuum—an investment for the future. The reason this policy is so detrimental is because it impacts on that sense that farmers are investing now for generations to come.

[Tim Farron]

I am going to get to that, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to tolerate me accurately pinning blame on his side before I do so.

We were told by the last Government that they would maintain the amount of funding that we used to spend when we were in the European Union. In England, that was £2.4 billion. In one sense, and one sense only, they kind of kept that promise because it was £2.4 billion throughout that five years. However, they did not spend it, because they phased out the old scheme very rapidly, causing a great hardship, particularly to small family farms, and they brought in the new schemes far too slowly and made it very difficult for people to get into them. By the way, the people who were able to get into the new schemes were the big farmers. They were the landowners who had land agents to help them get into the schemes. So the large landowners with the bigger estates managed to get into those schemes. They are all right, broadly speaking. It is the smaller family farms—the farmers who own their own farms and the tenants—who have struggled.

It is also worth bearing in mind that there has been a little bit of inflation since 2019. The cost of running a farm has gone through the roof when it comes to feed, energy, fuel and all sorts of input costs. So the fact that we are at just £2.4 billion now, as we were five and a bit years ago, is absolute nonsense. It is important also to recognise that the grants that were available under the last Government, and now, are in reality often only available to those who have the cash flow to be able to get them in the first place.