Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister has rightly spoken of the flood resilience grant scheme, which is an important scheme, but residents of Wheatley in my constituency found out in September 2024 that they were ineligible for grants, because 2,000 homes need to be flooded before payments are triggered. That fundamentally disadvantages rural areas, because many villages will never reach the threshold, even if the entire village is flooded. That is really unfair and advantages urban areas over rural areas. Will the Minister look at that with Cabinet colleagues, so that we can better support rural areas?

[Emma Hardy]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that particular scheme is supported by MHCLG. However, we have been having conversations about the best way that we can support people collectively as a Government in the floods resilience taskforce.

Thames Water

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the appalling record of Thames Water, and the impact that it is having not just on her constituents but on businesses in her constituency. As I have said, there are two different options for a special administration regime, and we remain open to all eventualities.

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

Ten months ago, the Government appointed FTI Consulting to advise them on taking Thames Water into special administration. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the outputs of that work and how much it has cost to date?

[Emma Reynolds]

We appointed FTI Consulting because, in the event of a special administration regime, it is right to have prepared for that eventuality and to have that contingency arrangement in place, but I am afraid that the figure for which the hon. Gentleman has asked is not at my disposal.

UK Wine Industry

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Will the hon. Member join me in welcoming Hendred Vineyard to Westminster today, which has been exhibiting the best it has to offer at the “Taste of Oxfordshire” event? Does he agree that English sparkling wine is now better than champagne? Will he encourage MPs to purchase English sparkling wine rather than champagne?

[Tristan Osborne]

I went to the Oxfordshire event today and tried some of the wine, which is of outstanding quality from an established producer of 50 years; long may that success continue. The hon. Member is correct that we have award-winning sparkling wines, and across Europe we are now seen as a choice region for many champagne producers.

That sustained growth is being seen over the long term as well. In 2024, there were 1,030 vineyards in the UK— 87 more than the year before—occupying 4,000 hectares under vine. That is a 123% increase over a decade and production is now trending upward too, with 21.6 million bottles produced in 2023.

Future of Thames Water

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran]

I do not trust Thames Water to do anything, and I will come on to an example of an even bigger and even worse project. We want investment and change, but the problem we have is that there is no longer any trust that this company can do that on time and on budget, and in a way that is actually going to deliver real change. That is why 2,507 local residents across Oxfordshire backed a Lib Dem petition calling for these price hikes to be scrapped. If this were a proper private company, it would not be asking customers to pay more for this level of service, yet that is exactly what it has done, and it has frankly given them no say in the process.

While I am lambasting this company today, I am not having a go at its hard-working staff. We need to be clear that they are not to blame for the current woes and dismal performance. In July, I visited Abingdon sewage treatment works, and friendly and knowledgeable people who had worked there for decades told me how the system is supposed to work: tanks remove the sludge, microbes digest bacteria and clean water is discharged. It was so clean that I could have drunk from it there and then—in fact, a heron strutted around the wetland ponds showing exactly what would have been possible. Sadly, that summer idyll is all too frequently shattered when the rain falls, the floodgates open and raw sewage pours out.

At this point, I should acknowledge the role that we and the public can play in helping to reduce pressure on the system. We have seen with our own eyes those mountains of wet wipes being removed from the pipes, and that skip full of rubbish that should never have been flushed down the toilet in the first place. Do the Government have plans for a public information campaign on this matter—paid for, of course, by water company profits? If we saw as many adverts on this issue as we do on things such as fast food, it would help everyone in protecting our rivers.

However, I do not want to downplay the institutional failings that we see in the company. We need additional capital investment; in Abingdon specifically, the staff were asking for another set of tanks to filter and clean the sewage to help that problem there, but it is the same everywhere. Last year, Thames Water admitted that £19 billion of its assets were deemed “poor” or “failed”, posing a risk to thousands of homes.

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

My hon. Friend speaks of the under-investment in sewage treatment works and other assets. Nowhere is that truer than in Oxford sewage treatment works, which serves residents in my constituency outside of Oxford city. The site already cannot cope with the amount of sewage that it has to deal with. Does my hon. Friend also find it strange that the Environment Agency suddenly dropped its objections to developments, days after receiving a letter from lobbying interests around Oxford? Does she share my scepticism that Thames Water can deliver on the upgrades before the homes are built?

[Layla Moran]

My scepticism about Thames Water is basically the theme of my entire speech, and I completely agree. We absolutely need more houses in and around Oxford—on that I am clear. However, if that work is one of the things stopping those homes from being built, we must of course ensure that it is done to the highest possible standard. It sounds like something has happened there, and I would love to understand better why the EA withdrew that objection with no further change.

More than half of sewage treatment facilities are operating below their required capacity, while raw sewage discharge doubled between 2023-24 and 2024-25. That is a symptom of chronic underinvestment, and we need serious capital to fix the problem. Instead, Thames Water chose to funnel profits into dividends. As recently as March 2024, the company paid £158.3 million out to shareholders. This is a company that is hanging on to a lifeline of creditor goodwill, having already raced through £1.5 billion of the emergency cash that was injected 11 months ago. The scale of the mismanagement is staggering.

No one doubts the need to take steps to secure our water supply for the future in the context of the climate change, but I now come to the local example that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Thames Water presides over leaks to the tune of over 592 million litres a day, which is nearly a quarter of all the water it manages—it is unbelievable. My residents have justified questions about the validity of the arguments underpinning the south-east strategic reservoir option, also known as SESRO, which lies just outside Abingdon. It is estimated to cost £7.5 billion and counting, and we should remember that it started at £2.2 billion, and barely nothing has changed since then. If such a major project must go ahead—the Government say it should, fine—then can the Minister tell me something that I just do not get? Do they really trust Thames Water to get this done right? It is like running a bath when a hole has been punched through the plughole. I would not trust Thames Water to run a bath, let alone deliver a project of this size.

Will the Government also make clear what residents can expect from this project, should it go ahead? Will there be genuine community benefit? As it stands, the company is promising lots of lovely things—sailing clubs and all sorts—but when questioned on the matter at a recent drop-in event, the promises seemed to be nothing more than an artist’s impression. Will the Minister therefore intervene to ensure that the local villages and towns that will have to suffer the disruption get something out of it, beyond higher bills?

Time and again, constituents are being let down by chronic under-investment. For decades, every Government of every colour have presided over some form of this mess. But I do not want to blame; I just want solutions. As a result, I have some questions. What are the Government doing to prepare for when Thames Water exhausts the £1.5 billion of emergency funding? Have they considered the Liberal Democrats’ plans to turn it into a public benefit company? That is not public ownership, which others call for. The taxpayer would not take on the debt, but the profits would be invested back into infrastructure and fixing the problem, not used to enrich the likes of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the China Investment Corporation.

Will the Government promise a full response to the Independent Water Commission report and the creation of the new regulator with teeth? When can we expect the White Paper? Will we all, together, make a new year’s resolution—that this is the year we sort out Thames Water’s mess, for the sake of people and our planet, once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate.

Every week my office is inundated with emails relating to Thames Water. Issues range from miscalculated and aggressive billing to the now ubiquitous sewage discharging into local rivers and streams, and indeed the flooding of homes and gardens with human waste. Members have spoken eloquently on those issues, so, in the interest of time, I will not repeat what they said.

Since being elected I have also been made aware of the issue of tankering in my constituency—in other words, tankers sitting next to overwhelmed pumping stations, ready to take sewage away to a treatment works. It should be a temporary stopgap, perhaps if there has been an unexpected surge in sewage, yet it has become institutionalised. Rather than upgrading pumping stations and stopping groundwater infiltration, which is the source of the problem, the company is taking the easy way out. In the village of Cuxham, my constituents have been forced to tolerate 24/7 tankering for over a decade. Staff have got so comfortable in Cuxham that they have created their own little camp, complete with a Portaloo for their own comfort. It is probably needed, but is nevertheless a sign of just how institutionalised the practice is.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend describes the tankering of sewage from his constituency. In 2023, those tanks arrived in my constituency and the sewage was stored in open tanks on a Thames Water site for an entire summer, casting a stinky pall over the whole of Camberley town centre. It was an environmental crime and Thames Water promised to pay my constituents compensation, which they have never received. Does he agree that we need a far tougher regulator to bear down on these appalling environmental practices?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need greater regulation. I can only apologise that my hon. Friend has been at the raw end of our tankers.

My staff and I have tried to influence the company to install the measures that are needed, particularly in Cuxham, to resolve the issue, but Thames Water tells us that further investigations are needed and it must do more reports. When we ask when they are going to take place, it tells us, “There’s too much water now because it is winter. We must do them in the summer.” When we get to summer, it tells us, “There’s no water in the pipes, so we’ll have to wait till winter.” It is a ridiculous case that highlights just how short-sighted Thames Water is and how incapable it is of taking a long-term view. It is clear that Thames Water is now in a state of complete, irrecoverable disrepair.

Can the Minister explain why decisive action has not been taken to put Thames Water into special administration? Our constituents have no choice over who supplies their water, and it is down to the Government to protect them from being exploited. I hope that the Minister listens to the experiences of constituents that have been shared today, gains the confidence that a 174-seat majority should give her and takes bold action.

National Trails

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Before I call Freddie van Mierlo to move the motion, I remind other hon. Members that they can speak in this debate only if they have the prior permission of the mover and the Minister, and they have told the Chair. As no one has told the Chair, I presume no one else wants to speak. Of course, interventions are possible.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of national trails.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. National trails are the less well-known but no less important friend of national parks and national landscapes. They deliver significant benefits by improving access to nature, as well as for health and the economy. However, due to their low profile, national trails have been an easy target for cuts. Funding remained flat for the decade from 2013, resulting in a 30% real-terms cut. Although funding began to rise with inflation in 2023, no account has been taken of that lost decade.

There are 16 national trails across the UK, which have more than 309 million visits every year. They provide access to nature, often just a stone’s throw away from people’s houses. They are treasured assets for walking, horse riding, running and cycling. Unlike some other countryside rights of way, they are extremely well signposted, making them more navigable to those less familiar with the countryside.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand. Northern Ireland stands apart from the rest of the United Kingdom in that it does not have a formal national trail system. What we do have is the Ulster Way, a 636-mile walk across the six counties of Northern Ireland. However, there are issues about signposting, overgrown paths and access. Does the hon. Member agree that these beautiful scenic walks need to be protected and that we need to work closely with the relevant agencies to maintain upkeep?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The hon. Member is right to point out concerns about the upkeep of the Ulster Way. I thank him for bringing that route to our attention; I look forward to perhaps walking it myself one day.

National trails tend to be far more accessible for people with disabilities due to additional work that takes place to replace stiles with gates and improve the standards of paths for wheelchairs users. For these reasons and more, the great British public appreciate the trails, and so does our economy. The combined economic impact of national trails totals £1.8 billion, and the contribution to health every year is £300 million through savings to the NHS.

In my constituency of Henley and Thame, we are lucky to have two national trails—the Thames Path and the Ridgeway.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

The River Thames arises in my constituency, and hence the Thames Path does too. As well as providing a beautiful walking route, it offers a valuable corridor for wildlife. Does my hon. Friend agree that funding the Thames Path adequately is essential if we are to protect habitats, contribute to biodiversity targets and preserve the natural beauty of South Cotswolds?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunity that exists in leveraging national trails for the improvement of biodiversity and meeting the Government’s biodiversity goals. I will come on to that a bit later.

I am going to focus on the two trails in my constituency: the Thames Path and the Ridgeway. As we have heard, the Thames Path begins in the Cotswolds. It enters my constituency at Benson, before darting across the river into Wallingford, and then crossing the river again and coming into Henley and Thame at Goring. From there, it makes its way into the beautiful village of Whitchurch-on-Thames before paying a visit to Reading and then onwards to my home town of Henley-on-Thames.

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

My hon. Friend makes a point about the urban settlements that the trails go through. I have three trails in my constituency—the Pennine Way, the Pennine Bridleway and the Coast to Coast Path. They go through beautiful countryside, of course, but places like Orton, Shap and Kirkby Stephen benefit hugely from people walking through them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that there should be good services and facilities in those places? I mention that in particular because of the current threat in Shap to close the public loos. Does he agree that local councils, both at parish and district level, should do everything in their power to maintain these services for local people and for all the walkers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of services along these well-loved routes. He is also right to highlight that national trails are accessible from urban areas, which makes them particularly special compared with national parks and landscapes.

Walkers are currently forced to deviate from the Thames Path at both Benson and Henley. While the weir project is progressing in Benson, the Marsh Lock horse bridge between Henley and Shiplake has been closed for over three years. The current diversion requires crossing the dangerous A4155 twice and takes the walker well away from the water.

Since coming into office, I have been campaigning to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. With the help of an 11-year-old Brownie, Claudia, and her petition, access to a pot of £500,000 has been secured to begin plans for repairs. I continue to have conversations with the Environment Agency to ensure that repairs move forward. I am grateful to the Minister for Water for her engagement on that issue, but there is a long way to go, including to find the estimated £2.5 million needed to actually implement the repair.

Further north in my constituency, the Ridgeway national trail carves an impressive path from the iconic Goring Gap, through the village of Nuffield and the idyllic town of Watlington, before crossing the border into Buckinghamshire just after Chinnor. The Ridgeway is known as Britain’s oldest road. It is believed to have been in use over 5,000 years ago as a trading route. We know how important connection to our history and cultural heritage is. It is amazing to think that when we walk the Ridgeway, we are striking our feet on the same earth as our ancestors all those years ago.

The Ridgeway is also well known for the internationally renowned Uffington white horse, carved into chalk, but such chalk is vulnerable to damage and parts of the Ridgeway are classified as byway, meaning they are legally open to motorised traffic. The Ridgeway therefore suffers damage from recreational vehicles and off-road motorcycles. Local authorities and National Trails UK find it difficult to justify the regular repairs needed to maintain the trail to the correct standard. Ian, the project’s trail officer, is fighting to prohibit recreational motorised vehicles from the trail so that road users are limited to Trampers, off-road wheelchairs and road-legal pedal electric bicycles.

From just those two examples in my constituency, we begin to get an idea of how important protected national trails are for nature and our history. After speaking with representatives from National Trails UK, the Thames Path and the Ridgeway, I know that stark action is needed.

There are three main problems preventing the maintenance of national trails: legal status, underfunding and bureaucracy. National trails were originally designated by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main goal was to provide public access to the countryside and establish protected landscapes. Trails, parks and landscapes were considered under that legislation. It gave powers to Natural England to survey, plan and propose long-distance routes that would subsequently be maintained.

Since that legislation, however, the legal status and protections of those routes have deteriorated. Although national parks and national landscapes have what is known as a statutory purpose, national trails do not. They are therefore not sufficiently protected by or referenced in key legislation alongside parks and landscapes, giving them a lower status. That lower level of protection puts people’s access to the outdoors at risk.

Furthermore, the current designation of national trails is mostly limited to the width of the path, which is particularly worrying given that they neighbour vast biodiversity. The Thames Path, in my constituency, runs along the edge of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust’s Hartslock nature reserve, which is one of the two remaining UK sites to have the monkey orchid. The Ridgeway passes through the Chinnor Hill and Oakley Hill nature reserves. Failure to recognise the paths’ interconnectedness with other nature means that BBOWT has reported damage to the surrounding nature due to ill-thought-through diversions or people straying from the paths, but without recognition of the surrounding nature, there is no allocation for renewal and maintenance.

The second main problem is funding. Considering how many economic benefits national trails bring, they have not received a meaningful funding increase since 2013.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about the economic benefits of national trails. In my constituency, we have the South West Coast Path, which attracts 9 million visitors every year and is reckoned to support them spending about £500 million. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a south-west inland path would maintain more hospitality jobs in Devon? Does he recognise the value for the hospitality sector in his constituency too?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend’s intervention speaks exactly to my point around the closed Marsh Lock horse bridge, which has resulted in a direct loss of hospitality revenue in the local economy because of people avoiding the path due to the long diversion.

As I said, there are many economic benefits to national trails, but they have not received a meaningful increase in funding since 2013. That is despite the fact that the national trail network has increased in size over the last decade, and will double in size by the end of 2025 with the addition of the King Charles III England Coast Path and the Coast to Coast Path. Increasing the workload while stagnating the funding is a recipe for decline; the Ridgeway’s funding now stands at just £1 per mile to cover all revenue, staffing costs and maintenance.

National trails are facing a range of new challenges that funding is not keeping up with. When speaking with Wendy and Ian, representatives from the two trails in my constituency, they both noted the changing weather patterns as a barrier to the trails’ protection. In Oxfordshire, rainfall was 300% above average in September 2024, but dry weather in the summer has worn away the grass on the riverbank in popular areas of the Thames Path, leaving bare soil exposed. The combination of bare soil and high rainfall means that there is an increased likelihood of erosion, with banks washing into the river. In Goring, part of the river path had to be closed last year precisely because of that issue.

Flooding presents an additional challenge. In anticipation, national trails are preparing to identify winter routes and diversions to avoid flooding, but without the funding, groups are worried that that they will find it difficult to tackle these new challenges.

Staff work day and night to support national trails. Hannah, who takes care of the Thames Path in Oxfordshire, says that they have consistently doubled any match funding that they receive. Despite their hard work year on year, a lack of funding coupled with inflation pressures has caused them to make some difficult decisions, cutting funding for improvement projects, engagement activities, information provision and volunteer programmes to stay afloat. With rising costs, there may soon be nothing left to cut.

A third issue facing national trails is bureaucracy. For work to be carried out adjacent to the River Thames, there is a need for a flood risk activity permit, but there is currently a four-month delay from the EA in issuing these. In addition, for some of the year, such as in winter when the river is flowing fast or in flood, work cannot be carried out, but funding is still given year by year. That leaves an extremely short window for work to be done, if there is any opportunity at all, and funds often cannot be used in time.

Although I have painted a bleak picture so far, some simple changes could improve the future of national trails. I make three recommendations to Government. First, they should support a statutory purpose for national trails, including them in the group with national parks and national landscapes. With a statutory purpose would come the duty to protect and enhance people’s access to the outdoor and to experience the national trails. It would give national trails a proper place in the planning system, and would help to stop the loss of trails to development, as has already happened to the new King Charles III trail. Changes to the national planning policy framework, such as making it clear that changes to national trails require the consent of the Secretary of State, would further protect their status. Automatically, with small cost-free changes, we can better protect national trails for future generations.

Secondly, the Government should invest in national trails properly, or at least restore their funding in line with inflation from the 2013 benchmark. Further, those funding settlements should be made three years long. Thirdly, the Government should communicate with agencies, such as the EA, that have responsibilities that interact with national trails to ensure that they produce assessments in a timely manner and are given the resources that they need to maintain assets, such as the Marsh Lock horse bridge and Benson weir. Without that, national trails are in danger of falling below the quality standard. In 2023, the Disabled Ramblers’ condition monitoring report revealed that nearly 80% of the 50 miles surveyed along the Ridgeway did not meet the established standards.

The Government have previously recognised the vital role that national trails play in rural tourism, promoting the cultural assets of England and the health of the population. With proper funding and support, we can ensure internationally high standards and deliver more for people and nature.

Thames Water

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I beg to slightly correct my hon. Friend. Special administration is not nationalisation and nationalisation would cost in excess of £100 billion—money we would have to take away from other public services to hand to the bosses of the water companies who caused this mess in the first place. I do not think taxpayers would welcome that.

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

I received a note in my inbox today from the Government engagement lead for north Thames valley that says that Thames Water will run out of money in summer 2026. Will the Government commit to taking Thames Water into special administration and unburden the company of its debt via its creditors, or will Members be required to block their diaries for summer 2026 for another recess recall?

[Steve Reed]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are procedures to follow that would require any regulated company to go into special administration. As things stand, Thames Water remains stable and there is a market-led solution on the table. We expect Thames Water to follow through on that.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. In the village of Playhatch, my constituent Suzzanne wakes up most days to flooding on her doorstep. Afraid that her children will touch sewage, she carries them, wearing wellington boots, to the bus stop. The area should not flood, and she was reassured of that point by the previous occupiers of her property. In this case, the cause is not increased rainfall; it is development.

Development is not supposed to put additional burdens on the drainage system, yet all too often the lived experience of residents is different from what is in the plans. Local knowledge is insufficiently valued. When that happens, can we expect anything less from our residents than dogged resistance to new housing?

I welcome new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled as an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act. It is an important step in requiring flood risk to be taken into account ex ante.

Ex post, my new clause 89 would require developers to assess the real-world impact of development five years after completion. Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve a development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations. I urge all hon. Members to review my new clause and sponsor it. It would give residents security over the future of their homes when development is taking place.

Sewage

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert

“recognises that the Government inherited a broken water system, with record levels of sewage being pumped into waterways; welcomes the Government’s rapid delivery of its promise to put water companies under tough special measures through the landmark Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which has introduced new powers to ban the payment of unfair bonuses to water bosses who fail to protect the environment and to bring tough criminal charges against them if they break the law; supports the Government’s work to secure over £100 billion of private sector investment to upgrade the crumbling sewage infrastructure; and backs the largest review of the water sector since privatisation, aimed at tackling inherited systemic issues in order to clean up UK rivers, lakes and seas for good.”

I welcome the chance to set out the action that the Government are taking to end the sewage scandal in our waterways once and for all. The staggeringly high level of sewage pouring into our rivers, lakes and seas is a national disgrace. The beach in Deal that I visited just a couple of weeks ago was forced to cancel its Boxing day swim because of toxic levels of sewage in the water. The world-famous boat race between the Oxford and Cambridge University boat clubs earlier this month was, yet again, overshadowed by concerns about water quality in the Thames, so much so that rowers were told not to throw their teammates into the river.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Secretary of State mentions the boat race, but in 10 weeks we will be welcoming the world’s rowers to the Henley Royal Regatta. Does he share my concern about the amount of sewage being dumped in that part of the Thames, which is blighting the event?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I share his concerns. Wherever it is happening and damaging people’s ability to enjoy our rivers, it is a disgrace and a scandal, and we want to work across the House to put that right.

Parents across the country should not have to worry about letting their children splash about in the river or paddle in the sea on a sunny bank holiday weekend. I recently met campaigners at Windermere, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who told me that they are sick and tired of the sewage flowing into the iconic and beautiful lake on their doorstep and that, a few years ago, that sewage caused algal blooms that turned it bright green.

Up and down the country, the public are furious about water pollution. So am I and so is this House, so how did we get into this situation? I am afraid to say it is the toxic result of years of failure by the previous Conservative Government. Instead of fixing our sewage system before a problem turned into a crisis, the Conservatives stood back and let water companies divert millions of pounds of their customers’ money into the pockets of their bosses and shareholders. Over £25 million was paid in bonuses to water company chief executives during the last Parliament alone. The Tories left our water infrastructure to crumble into ruin.

Bathing Water Regulations

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate.

As a former cabinet member for climate change and nature recovery on South Oxfordshire district council, I have been involved in two bathing water status applications. One was successful, one was not. We often learn more from failure than success, so while I am delighted by the bathing water status achieved at Wallingford Beach, I will speak mostly to the desire to establish bathing water status in Henley.

What I learned is that the current system is perverse. It requires swimmers to brave potentially dirty water before a site is cleaned up. This topsy-turvy thinking is all wrong. That is why I very much welcome the Government’s review of the status and have contributed to it. My contribution focused on the bonkers criteria that stopped Henley from being successful.

Despite widespread use of the river for canoeing, paddleboarding, pleasure boating and, of course, rowing, only spontaneous, immersed swimmers count as river users, but if someone has my balance, or indeed that of the leader of the Liberal Democrats when paddleboarding, they know that being a paddleboarder does not mean they will not end up in the water. Equally, rowers are constantly exposed to spray and contact with the water during their sport—a fact that leads every year to reports of domestic and international athletes falling ill at the Henley Royal Regatta after being exposed to our effluent. It is embarrassing to know that during the regatta, if I flush the toilet, it may well end up on the sides of one of the boats.

It is bonkers that organised swimming events have also been excluded from the criteria. While I understand that we do not want to see the system gamed with events organised solely for the purpose of meeting the criteria, Henley has enjoyed a vibrant, organised swimming culture for many years, with four annual swims organised by the brilliant Henley Swim. I urge the Government to replace the current bathing water state designation with a recreational water designation with teeth, taking into account the full range of river users.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have talked a lot about the ecological and health benefits, but there is also an important economic impact, as shown by all the events in Henley that he outlined. For example, tourism contributes more than £700 million every year to the local economy in West Dorset. We have the Jurassic coast and the River Lim church cliff beach at Lyme Regis, which has just been designated as bathing water. It is important to recognise that clean water benefits our local communities not just in terms of health and nature, but in terms of our tourism industry.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every year, we welcome to Henley thousands of visitors who contribute to our local economy.

I urge the Government to row back—no pun intended—from the idea that cost and deliverability should be determining factors for investment in a site. When Henley welcomes the world to our wonderful section of the Thames each year, it would be simply unacceptable to say, “Sorry, we must expose you to our sewage, because the Government think it is too hard to treat.” I would therefore be grateful if the Minister commented on the intended change to the criteria for bathing water status and met me to discuss the situation in Henley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on.

Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation.

We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say.

I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister made some points on the length of time it would take to get some popular sites up to standard. Would she consider a pre-designation status, so that those sites are not left on the shelf with no support whatsoever—so that we are recognising, as my hon. Friends have said, the importance of certain sites for sporting, cultural and historical reasons?

[Emma Hardy]

That is a really interesting consideration. I hope the hon. Member fed that into the consultation. I will not commit either way, but it is an interesting point and one I will reflect on—as I said, this is a Government who listen. On that note, I think it is time for me to finish talking. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Water quality and sewage pollution is one of the most pressing issues in my constituency. In the past year alone, we have had 57 sewage dumps—the equivalent of 594 hours of sewage spilled—at Bournemouth pier. As many Members will know, Bournemouth pier is a place where people surf, paddleboard, swim and walk their dogs. It is a magnet for tourism. This is more than just an environmental issue; it is a public health issue, with people frequently getting sick from swimming in the sea. It also has massive economic consequences for my constituency, which thousands of people visit over the summer. It is impacting our reputation, our businesses and our tourism industry. However, it is also a matter of deep pride for my constituents. We are proud to be one of the most beautiful bits of coastline in the UK—we are often ranked in the top 20 in Europe. My constituents want to enjoy those coastal waters, not be afraid to go in them. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

I am truly glad the Conservatives have found some vim on this issue, but I gently remind them that we did not come to power in a vacuum. We are facing a Victorian situation with the amount of sewage, and that comes from a failure to deal with systemic issues. [Interruption.] Despite their protestations, the Conservatives’ actions have spoken louder than their words. Under the previous Government, we heard talk of scrapping nutrient neutrality, and they slashed the Environment Agency’s budget, with the then water Minister instructing the Environment Agency not to publish data. We have heard all about the increase in monitoring, but if they knew so much about the problem, why did they not do anything about it? It is a little too late for that. It is Labour that is bringing forward the legislation to deal with this issue.

I am proud to support this Bill, with its provisions for criminal liability and banning bonuses. The amendments the Minister has outlined today, in particular to improve transparency, give industry certainty and speed up the implementation of these measures, are so important.

I end by saying that my constituents will welcome the actions taken by the Labour Government. We owe it to them and to the next generation to leave this country with seas, rivers and an environment that are protected and thriving.

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

I welcome the Bill. While its provisions are modest, I none the less welcome this step to improve on the failures of previous Conservative Governments on sewage pollution.

For too long, water companies have been allowed to operate without proper regulation and oversight. Since privatisation, English water companies have paid out £83 billion in dividends while amassing £74 billion in debt. Shockingly, with the Bill still making its way through the House, water companies have brazenly said that they plan to circumvent the ban on bonuses by jacking up C-suite salaries to compensate. The Bill must do more and be more ambitious to truly hold water companies to account. I am therefore pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which would strengthen the Bill, improving monitoring, protecting consumers and ensuring responsibility falls on sewerage companies to clean up their act.

I will speak to amendment 9 and new clauses 11 and 21. Amendment 9 would ensure that creditors, not bill payers, pay for the bail-out of water companies in special measures. It would protect consumers against the reckless financial mismanagement of Thames Water. Ordinary bill payers should not be required to pay for the mistakes of a company they had no choice to use and the folly of investors that indulged it.

New clause 11 would require sewerage undertakers to install volume flow meters in all their locations where overflows occur. Campaign organisations in my constituency, including the famous Henley Mermaids, tell me that flow meters would help to inform them when it is safe to go in the water.

New clause 21 is also of special importance to my constituency, much of which is in the Chilterns national landscape. It would commit sewerage undertakers to secure and then maintain high ecological status in protected landscapes. It would require them to improve outflow from storm overflows in areas such as Goring, in my constituency, which lies within the Chilterns national landscape. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would very much welcome that, as we both enjoyed stand-up paddleboard yoga in Goring in July.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.

New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon.

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

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

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

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