Water White Paper

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I commend my hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue. I know that she was putting pressure on Southern Water on Christmas eve. She was concerned about the previous outages, but also about those that were likely to occur. She is absolutely right to say that we need more emphasis on ensuring that companies such as Southern Water are investing in the infrastructure that is needed to prevent these outages in the first place. We are moving from a system of “fix on failure” to one of prevention. That is what this White Paper is all about.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome what is in the White Paper, and it should lead to more effective regulation, but I have just a couple of words of caution. First, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is the only part of the set-up that works well, so folding it into a new regulator should not involve it losing that ability. On agricultural pollution, can the Secretary of State work with the farmers to ensure that this does not just become another stick with which to beat them? She has referred to a whole-system failure, and she is right about that. She will have seen from her recent welcome engagement with South East Water, however, that what we have there is corporate failure, not just of management but of non-executive directors and shareholders. As the Select Committee said, this is an industry that has a real problem with its culture, and what we have in the White Paper, welcome as it is, is not going to shift that. When will we hear from the Government about what they are going to do to change the culture in the industry?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the EFRA Committee Chair for his thoughtful reflections. I agree with him on the Drinking Water Inspectorate—it does a magnificent job—and we will ensure that we transfer its strengths into the new single water regulator, as he suggests. I also agree with him that we will work, and we are working, in partnership with farmers to make sure we get this right. We are looking at what we can do with the ELM schemes to ensure that we give them the support they need to tackle the pollution of our waterways from agriculture. He talks about culture. He has a point, but I would say that the leadership of some of these companies is very varied, and we see good leadership in some of the companies. For example, I have visited Severn Trent, and it has a terrific apprenticeship programme. We need to ensure that we see better performance in the water industry across the board, sharing that best practice from those companies that are actually doing the right thing.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Martin]

My gangsters are worse than my hon. Friend’s. She makes a powerful point.

[Mr Carmichael]

All this talk of gangsters makes me think my hon. Friend must be styling himself as the Eliot Ness of the water industry. His point about the Drinking Water Inspectorate is particularly important today, as we hear about the changes proposed in the White Paper. The DWI does exceptionally high quality work. Does he agree that we must not lose that output when we fold it into the new super regulator?

[Mike Martin]

I am well over my time, and I need to get to the point of my speech, but I get incredibly passionate when defending my constituents’ interests and their right to clean water. The White Paper is out today. My challenge to the Minister, whom I count as an ally in this fight, is this. What measures contained in the White Paper would have prevented the outages in Tunbridge Wells? She will, of course, give me an answer from the Dispatch Box, but I ask her to reflect honestly on that.

I also ask her to think about debt, which the Government do not speak to in the White Paper. About £70 billion of debt is held across the water industry, much of it by shareholders in water companies that pay out 10% interest. Financial engineering got us into this mess, and we need a bit of financial engineering to get us out of it and to lower interest rates on that debt. I ask the Minister to speak to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Thames Water first paid out bonuses it said it would not recoup, and has subsequently said only that the payment of bonuses is paused. My hon. Friend knows that I am a nasty, suspicious and cynical person, but I am pretty sure the senior management, the chief executive and the chair of that company are heading for the door one way or another at some stage. I suspect that one of their last acts before they leave the office will be to press “pay” on those bonuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happens, we can agree that whatever the good intentions behind the Water (Special Measures) Act, they simply have not worked, and we need to build a consensus on how to regulate these things more effectively?

[Tim Farron]

My right hon. Friend is neither nasty nor cynical; he knows Thames Water only too well. Well intentioned though the Act may be, it is clearly full of holes, and the water company chief executives and others are finding ways through them.

We contrast all of that with the fact that in 2024—the last time we had comprehensive figures—the water companies between them dumped sewage in our waterways for a duration of 3.6 million hours. My patch of Westmorland is now the third hardest-hit constituency in England for duration of sewage spills. In 2024 alone, there were over 5,000 sewage discharge incidents, amounting to more than 55,000 hours of raw sewage released into our rivers and lakes, from the Eden to the Eea and from the Kent to the Crake. In just the first 20—no, 19 and a half—days of 2026, there have already been 424 hours of sewage discharge into Westmorland’s precious waterways.

At the same time, water companies across the country are shamelessly slithering around the bonus ban. Their bonuses and dividends are being paid, for the most part, by bill payers. Indeed, water companies are wading in colossal debt, often incurred to pay those bonuses and dividends. In just 2024, £1.2 billion was paid out in dividends, mostly out of debt. In my communities in Westmorland, 11p out of every pound we pay on our water bills goes just to finance debt. Thames Water is even worse: customers are paying over 30p in the pound simply to service the company’s debts.

My message to industry leaders is this: bonuses are meant to be paid to folks who do a good job. If you are leading a company that actively pollutes our lakes, rivers and seas, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not doing a good job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I have huge sympathy and support for the hon. Lady and her constituents in the situation that they have faced in the last few weeks and I understand the urgent need for compensation, not just for her residents, but many of the neighbouring constituencies. She mentioned that it is the first time that Ofwat has ever done an investigation into whether a company is still complying with its licence to operate. It is looking at the customer part of the operation licence to see whether or not the company is complying; that is the first time that has ever been done. The Consumer Council for Water is visiting the Tunbridge Wells area to hear direct testimony from people about how they have been treated and how the situation has impacted them. I share the love expressed in the Chamber for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, particularly for Marcus Rink and all the work he does, and the inspectorate is looking carefully into that matter as well.

One of the things that we promised in the Water (Special Measures) Act were powerful new customer panels to ensure that customers are at the heart of company governance. Some first accountability sessions will be held in spring 2026, requiring customers’ views to be taken into account in company decision making and allowing those customers to hold companies to account—one of the many things that was in that Act.

While we are on the situation that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) faced, I will mention the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), whom we spent rather a long time with over the last few weeks. It is outrageous; my heart sank when I saw Tunbridge Wells and its residents being impacted again after the awful situation that businesses faced in the run-up to Christmas. I am keen for them to receive compensation as quickly as possible. He is right to point out the concerns that we all had about the disinformation that was put out. The need for clear communication to everybody about what is happening is incredibly important.

There are many things from the water White Paper that I would like to highlight. I hope we get a chance in Parliament over the coming weeks to look at some of that in more detail. There is a section on debt at the bottom of page 26 of the White Paper that states:

“We will therefore consider how the regulator can work with companies and investors to ensure companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt”.

There is a direct reference to debt in the White Paper. It is also worth pointing out what it says in the section called “Putting Customers First”. Page 31 mentions

“increasing public access to water for recreation and wellbeing”',

something that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) is really interested in. That is because of the love that there is for the Tyne and how beautiful it is—we want to see people having access to it.

The White Paper mentions the powerful new customer panels as well, and also looks at regulators strengthening the “customer measure of experience”. That is one of the metrics used to judge water companies and we want to strengthen that metric of experience.

Another thing that comes up in debates on agricultural pollution is the effect that it has on the beautiful and stunning River Wye, and which I know is a huge source of concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). On page 35, we talk about how we will

“consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether this should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regime..”

One of the big focuses and challenges is what the difference would be, if these measures were all in place. One of the many key things is about prevention rather than cure—I know you will understand that analogy very well, Dr Allin-Khan. It is about getting companies to fix things before they break. Around the country, we have too many examples of things breaking before companies recognise that they should be fixed. The MOT work, the engineer and the resilience standards are all about understanding where the problems are and getting in there and fixing them first. Fundamentally, that is cheaper and better for customers, because it costs less to fix something before it breaks and creates a disaster somewhere.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am interested to get the Minister’s view on this subject of the relationship between the Department and companies. She may be aware that the Department is currently appealing to the first-tier tribunal a decision of the Information Commissioner requiring them to disclose information to Democracy for Sale, an organisation run by investigative journalists. DEFRA’s defence is that they have to have a safe space when talking to water companies about these things. I am not expecting her to comment on live legal proceedings, but will she reflect on that, and interrogate her officials when she returns to the Department about whether it is appropriate for the Department to defend such cases where, in this case, the party receiving the obvious benefit is Thames Water?

[Emma Hardy]

As the right hon. Gentleman has noted, I cannot speak about live investigations, but I will reflect on what he outlines.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) mentioned livestock and its importance, something that came up a lot during our many calls. Yes, we need adequate water for people, but there have also been many animals in distress.

We will carry out pilots across the country to look at the new regional regulatory structure and how we are going to make it work. That is a massive opportunity for Members across the House to get involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) was talking about rural communities being supported and ensuring that we have emergency provisions for livestock. In relation to the River Tyne in particular, I encourage him to speak to his water company and find out exactly when it will upgrade those storm overflows, so that he can see tangible progress in his area.

We have also doubled the funding for catchment partnerships, which is great news where we have those, particularly in rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire for her work on the Bill Committee and for the work that she continues to do in championing the River Wye. She is quite right that rivers do not obey geographical boundaries, so we have to work together. I put on record my thanks to the Welsh Government for all the work they have done. We have worked together on many different measures and will continue to do so.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for his work on the EFRA Committee. He is right that there should be clear consequences for failure, and he will be pleased to know that following the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Environment Agency is on track to deliver 10,000 inspections in the year ’25-26. That is a massive increase on the previous year’s 4,600 inspections; we are more than doubling inspections of water companies. We are also doubling compensation because, sadly, we have seen that the doubling of compensation for customers who face supply outages or receive boil notices is desperately needed.

I would like to be in a situation—as we will be when we implement all these measures—where we do not need to compensate customers because we are not continually seeing failure. But until that moment, I will continue to work hard, push on and deliver the changes that the industry so desperately needs.

Food Inflation

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West]

Indeed; if the hon. Gentleman is a listener to “Farming Today”, which I listen to in the mornings, he will know that the price of milk goes up and down, which makes it very hard for dairy farmers to survive. I agree that there is something there, and I am sure the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been looking at it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in identifying the structure here. The market is one that is ripe for abuse. There are 15 behemoth retailers at the top and 210,000 primary producers at the bottom, leading to a situation where our constituents cannot afford to buy the food and the food producers cannot make a profit in producing it. Surely what we need to do is to look at that supply chain between the supermarket and the farm gate, build on the excellent work of Baroness Batters and her farming profitability review, and come forward with a revised food strategy, which we have been promised.

[Catherine West]

I know the Minister will have much to say on that issue, and I look forward to her response.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I feel I should declare an interest, Mr Speaker, in that Mrs Carmichael will be one of those veterinary surgeons who will be on call on Christmas Day this year. It will be me in the kitchen, yet again. [Interruption.] That’s fine; it keeps the turkeys safe, at least. Just 10 days ago, Baroness Hayman told us that we would get the strategy before Christmas. Publishing it next week is, I suppose, strictly within the letter of that, but it is not quite within the spirit. The Department seems to be struggling a bit with its strategies at the moment. Our Select Committee had an excellent session with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), but as soon as she was out the door, no fewer than four fisheries management strategies landed in my inbox. As a new year’s resolution, will the Secretary of State look at how these things are handled, so that this House can scrutinise future strategies?

[Emma Reynolds]

May I start by thanking the right hon. Gentleman’s wife for her service over the Christmas period? I am glad to hear that, by the sound of it, he will be spending a lot of time in his kitchen. We promised that we would publish the strategy before Christmas, and we will do precisely that, but obviously we would like to discuss the strategy with colleagues from across the House when it has been published.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Obviously, one of the biggest challenges to farming profitability is the market fact that farmers are price takers. The farming campaigner Olly Harrison was this week highlighting that Lidl and Aldi are selling carrots at 8p per kilo, well below the cost of production. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that when supermarkets sell under the cost of production, that cost is borne by the supermarkets, not the farmers?

[Emma Reynolds]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have already introduced fair dealing regulations for pig and dairy farmers, but I agree with him that we need to look to go further.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her new position. I have to say, though, if ever there were an illustration of the scale of the challenge facing Ministers in turning around the Department, this is it. Let us not forget that this fund was created because the Prime Minister rolled over for a further 12 years the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson gave us for five years. If the Minister is sincere when she says that the aim of the Government is to maximise local investment, then using the Barnett formula to distribute the funding is ocean-going madness. By volume and value, Shetland alone accounts for 9% of the fish landed in this country, but Scotland as a whole will get only 8% of the funding. When will the funding formula be reviewed, and when will we hear exactly where the money will be spent and what it will be available for?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Scottish Government about what they are going to do with their devolved part of the fund. He might also wish to ask them whether there is any extra money available from the devolved comprehensive spending review process, because they got an extra £8.5 billion to spend this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

In June, the Scottish Government made a very welcome commitment not to pursue a deliberate policy of reducing livestock numbers. Despite that, livestock numbers in Scotland continue to fall and have fallen by 15% over 10 years, so that across the United Kingdom we now risk losing the critical mass we need to maintain the network of abattoirs, hauliers, vets and merchants. If food security genuinely is national security, is now the moment to consider including within the remit of the Climate Change Committee the maintenance of food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We absolutely recognise that food security is national security. He is right about the decline in herd sizes, but of course, there are other aspects here: we have seen higher productivity and changed genetics. It is a complicated picture, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on that.

Global Plastics Treaty

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate, and for allocating the debate to the main Chamber. That is an important signal that the House is in political consensus on the issue, and we attach a great deal of importance to that. I thank those Members who supported the application for the debate to the Backbench Business Committee, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). She has a long and distinguished record of campaigning on this issue, but is unfortunately unable to be here.

I also express my appreciation for the support of the various campaigners—organisations and individuals—who have kept this issue in the public consciousness for so long, not always in the easiest of circumstances. At this turn of the wheel, I particularly thank Greenpeace UK for the assistance of its campaigner Rudy Schulkind, but in the past, I had a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and that was supported by a whole range of organisations, from the women’s institute through to Friends of the Earth. We have to call that a broad-based consensus.

This debate is timely. The next round of talks on the UN global plastics treaty will be held in Geneva between 5 and 14 August. The Government, I am happy to acknowledge, have a good story to tell, and in fairness, they inherited the record of the previous Government, who also accorded some political importance to this issue. The message I want the Chamber to send today is that the Government have to do all that they can—not just in presenting the UK case, but in supporting others.

For those of us who, like me, come from island and coastal communities, the growth of plastic pollution has been obvious for years. Ahead of this debate, I got an email just a couple of days ago from a constituent of mine, Jim Chalmers, who said:

“I can remember as a child beachcombing around the south end of Stronsay, and coming across the occasional unfamiliar plastic bottle and being intrigued by its novelty. It might have been an empty washing-up liquid bottle of a kind unknown in our household or even had words in a foreign language.”

Fast-forward to 2025, and the position is very different on the beaches of the Orkney and Shetland coastline, and right around the coastline of all European countries. Even when we go out on a beach that looks pretty clear and pristine, if we start picking up the small pieces of plastic, 10 or 15 minutes later, we have a carrier bag full of them.

In Orkney and Shetland, we have a great range of community initiatives to tackle this issue. In Orkney, we have the “bag the bruck” campaign every year. In Shetland, we have Da Voar Redd Up. Despite the community effort and people taking responsibility for stretches of coastline and picking up the rubbish, weeks later, it is as if almost nobody had ever been there. The tipping point for public consciousness on this issue was the “Blue Planet” series by Sir David Attenborough a few years ago. That created sufficient public pressure, so that in 2022, there was a decision by 175 countries to develop an internationally legally binding instrument to address the problem of plastic pollution. That matters on so many levels, and it is why the word “global” is central to the treaty.

Plastics as an industry emits more carbon than the entire global aviation and shipping industries. The question we should ask ourselves is: what exactly does “good” look like at the conclusion of the talks in Geneva? I cannot improve on the fine summary in the briefing from the Environmental Investigation Agency and Greenpeace ahead of today’s debate. They state that we should be looking for:

“A global target to reduce production of primary plastic polymers and related elements such as reporting and national measures.”

Reducing production is critical; I will return to that in a minute or two. They also call for a

“Clear and legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics…A binding obligation to improve the design of plastic products and ensure they cause minimum environmental impact and safeguard human health, including supporting reuse…Provision of ambitious finance (‘effective means of implementation’) in particular for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States”.

Finally, they call for:

“Using regular UN procedures for decision-making if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted”.

If we can achieve something along those lines in Geneva, we will have some cause for optimism.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has outlined the important global action that we need to take on plastics. Does he agree that this Government’s action to bring forward a deposit return scheme will help address some of these issues? It will ensure that we can recycle plastics, and that will take them off the streets and beaches, where they are ending up.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, if it is a properly constructed, nationwide deposit return scheme. The experience in Scotland was, shall we say, not everything that it might have been. A properly constructed scheme will be critical. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), on the Front Bench, and I know she has a tremendous personal commitment to this issue. This is about creating a circular economy. I know there is a genuine commitment to that in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and a deposit return scheme would very much sit within that.

We talk about such measures being somehow in conflict with business. Importantly, the fundamental truth is that the best opportunity for business comes from having a circular economy. We can make not just an environmental and social case for that, but a business case.

Ensuring that the treaty has the strongest possible reduction targets will be absolutely critical. That is where the contention has arisen in previous rounds of talks, and we can anticipate that the same arguments will be rehearsed. The most important point to address, however, is the idea that somehow the whole thing will be fixed by recycling and that we can just keep producing virgin plastics at an exponential rate. We reckon that the current exceptionally high levels will treble by 2060 if we do not do anything to arrest the increase.

We cannot manage to fix it all by recycling, and the people who advance that idea—particularly those who work for the big plastic companies and the petrochemical companies—are downright disingenuous. Given the vast number of different plastics that are available and the different polymer combinations, they know just how difficult it is to actually recycle plastic. This country has a good record on collecting plastic for recycling, but the truth of the matter is that we recycle very little of it. We export a horrible amount of it—I think we exported 598 million kilograms for recycling in 2024. Of course, once it is exported, we do not know if it gets recycled or not, and we completely lose control of it. Then we have the growth of incineration. The number of incinerators has grown from 38 to 52 in the last five years alone, driven by the growth in plastics. I am afraid the idea that recycling alone is going to be the silver bullet will not lead to the meaningful reductions that we know we need, so we need a cap on production.

We also understand that one of the biggest barriers in Geneva is going to be the role of the plastics industry itself. It is exceptionally well resourced, and it is rooted downstream of the oil and gas industry. Personally, I am pragmatic about the use of oil and gas. Until we have other technologies that can take its place, it is foolish to push our oil and gas industry off the shelf, but I am afraid I see little to commend in its behaviour. Had the industry’s representatives all come as one delegation to the last round of talks in Korea, it would have been the largest delegation at the talks. I am pleased to say that the UK delegation is the gold standard in this space. It is well resourced, and is well informed by scientific advisers, but that is not a cause for complacency or smugness. We have to see that it gives us an opportunity to help and support others.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I chair, took evidence on the global plastics treaty just last week, on 8 July, and some of what I heard was genuinely shocking. Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who is a fellow of the Royal Society and a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth, said:

“Moreover, scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations. Almost what I would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science is being denied. It particularly falls on some of the smaller nations. DEFRA is very well blessed in that it can afford to send a big delegation of highly trained scientists, which is fantastic, but they stand alongside small island developing nations, which perhaps only have one individual there. The need for a science mechanism is actually mandated in UNEA 5/14, and we need it really urgently to address this issue.”

It was one of those moments when I had to stop and say, “Just a second, did you say what I thought you said there?” Even after we had explained to him his position as an eminent scientist giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, with all the protection of privilege, he was not comfortable calling out in detail what is happening.

The fact of the matter is that we know that it is happening. If we are to get this treaty across the line, UK needs to be robust not just in presenting our own case, but in supporting and protecting those who are less fortunate than we are: the small island nations, the campaigners and the scientists who are there on their own finance. My final ask is that there should be a ministerial presence at the negotiations in Geneva, which would be a really important signal that the Government could send about the seriousness of their intent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you said I would speak for 15 minutes and I think I have had 14, so I will return to the email that I got from Jim Chalmers. He went on to say:

“I’m sure I have a reputation as that weird guy that carries a bag with him when he’s out with the dog, picking up litter (I call it recyclates). However, I know fine I’m urinating into the wind”

—he did not actually say “urinating”—

“as I have no control whatsoever over the source of the stuff and the forces that encourage and permit its growing release. I appreciate that the 17th of this month is not a good time for you to be away from Orkney”

—there is never a good time to be away from Orkney—

“but if you can somehow bring any influence to bear, I would feel my efforts aren’t totally in vain.”

It is for people like my constituent Mr Chalmers and his likes right across this country that we are here today. We pin our hopes and their hopes on the efforts of the Government and like-minded countries to get the treaty that we know we need and that our planet deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate—it has been quite a remarkable exercise and an enormously valuable one. Every contribution has been truly excellent. We have heard from Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and England; we have not had anybody from Northern Ireland, but I should place on the record that I have seen on the Annunciator that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has been in Westminster Hall this afternoon. It has also been noteworthy for the fact that, at a time of year when we all get a bit tired and scratchy, we have had remarkable consensus and a good-natured debate.

In closing, I want to address myself to not just the people in the Chamber, but those who might be watching from outside. The evidence session that our Select Committee held last week was not an easy one to pull together, especially when it came to bringing in corporate interests. Coca-Cola turned up and, to its credit, had a decent story to tell. INEOS turned up, and might or might not have had a good story to tell—it could not quite remember. The people who we really wanted to get were from Unilever, but apparently everybody in Unilever had gone to India for the day, so they could not appear before the Committee. We will return to this; they can run, but they cannot hide.

In the past, we have seen not just the national, but the corporate influences that have stood in the way of progress. If those corporate interests are watching our proceedings today, they should hear a very loud and clear message that we are watching them. If they again stand in the way of making progress on something that matters to this House and to the people who send us here, we will see them, and there will be a commercial price for them to pay for standing in the way of progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

Thames Water

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Under the £3 billion loan that Thames Water has negotiated, the first drawdown of £1.5 billion will be on 30 June, which is less than four weeks away. That is contingent on Thames Water having a lock-up agreement in respect of a recapitalisation transaction, but it now has no partner to provide that. It of course chose to proceed with just one option, which has now walked away. Who does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water will now turn to—it is not exactly going to be negotiating from a position of strength—and what are the Government going to do if it cannot meet that 30 June deadline?

[Steve Reed]

There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect Thames Water to follow through with the process to ensure it is able to fix the problems it is currently facing.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

[Andrew George]

If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.