Water Sector: Public Ownership

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will hear throughout my speech, the evidence clearly shows us that the model is failing in a range of areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) want to get in; I will make a little progress first, then I will give way.

The model has also been an environmental disaster. In 2024, under the administration of water companies, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas in England for a record 3.61 million hours. In the first six months of this year alone, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas during dry weather a total of 7,280 times.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Davies]

I will make a little progress first. According to Environment Agency data, today, just one in seven of England’s waters is in good ecological condition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that, as well as putting water companies into public hands, which I agree with, the companies should also be required to do more to support people to harvest their rainwater? That would reduce water bills and the amount of water being pushed into the sewers, which causes discharges into our rivers and seas.

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree with and support the hon. Gentleman’s point. The issue is also about how we look after our water in the future; unfortunately, it would appear from the last few years that such innovative and sustainable initiatives would not happen under private models.

Water Management

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

After a summer of drought in England, including in my constituency, we are bracing ourselves for flooding and storm overflows, and then more drought and more flooding, and then more storm overflows, and then more drought, more flooding and more storm overflows. On the levels around Stathe, Helland, Burrowbridge, Stoke St Mary and North Curry, my constituents must get used to the risk of their land being underwater almost every year, sewage being surcharged into the River Tone, and hosepipe bans and drought, if not at the same time, then in very quick succession.

We are looking at a future of water scarcity—too little water—and too much water. The proposed solutions sound familiar: more reservoirs, more underground stormwater tanks, thicker concrete, bigger pipes, more pumping, more energy and more chemicals. Yes, we are going to need some of that, but that alone would amount to one of the most carbon-intensive infrastructure investment programmes this country has ever seen. In treating the symptoms, not the causes, those measures risk failure. Instead, it is time to tackle the problem where it begins: in the way that our homes, streets and buildings have been designed for decades and in the way that they will be designed in the future.

The truth is that England does not lack water. I will be able to point to an awful lot of it this autumn across my constituency. Rather, it lacks the ability or perhaps the political will to manage it sustainably where it lands.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. Is it not time to ensure that developers with a number of projects—many of them building hundreds of houses—start paying towards the upgrading of waste and water management? They often have big profit margins on their houses and such a policy would take the onus off Government and off the Minister.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that developers should pay their way. There is much to do, as I will come to.

On average, each house roof in England receives enough free rainwater to meet all its household’s non-potable—non-drinking—water needs, including flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering gardens. Instead of that, we send it, often at high speed, into the sewerage network where it discharges into our rivers. At the same time, we spend millions of pounds making pure drinking water, pumping it into our homes and flushing that down the toilet.

Around a quarter to a third of drinking water in our homes gets nowhere near being drunk. In fact, it is all flushed down the drain without a single drop quenching anybody’s thirst. It is an appalling and pointless waste of drinking water and energy. It means that we respond by investing tens of billions of pounds in reservoirs to hold a bit more rain, so we can treat more of it, pump more of it into our homes and—yes—flush more of it down the toilet unnecessarily. That is not environmental progress; that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.

The water from our homes and highways—vast volumes of rainwater—continue to go straight down the drain as well, mixing with sewage, pointlessly being pumped and treated and pumped and treated, and far too often creating a backwash that sends sewage tumbling into the River Tone in my constituency and into rivers and beaches across the country.

Our waste water treatment plants can cope with the sewage that is produced. What they cannot cope with is the millions of litres of rainwater we add to the sewage before we send it to the waste water treatment plants. Too often we respond by investing huge amounts into storage tanks to hold stormwater, so we can pump and treat more of it. that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.

The climate is making the problems worse and, ironically, our addition of rainwater into the mix is making the climate worse—a classic doom loop. As the atmosphere warms, England’s winters become wetter and our summers drier with more intensive thunderstorms. Meanwhile, housing delivery continues at scale, covering land with more impermeable surfaces while we continue to legally entitle developers to collect new rainwater and add that to the sewerage systems as well, which cannot cope. We are building the problem into existence before our eyes.

Contrast this with how we look and deal with energy. We no longer assume that all power has to be generated centrally. Instead, we actively encourage decentralised generation, such as solar panels on roofs which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will now be required on every roof of every new home. We have batteries in homes and heat pumps replacing distant combustion, and we offer grants to make it happen. On water, we remain stubbornly stuck in—well, I was going to say the 20th century, but it feels like the 19th century.

Other countries have progressed. In parts of Belgium, new homes must capture rainwater for beneficial use. No wonder it has achieved the lowest per capita water consumption in Europe, and no doubt the lowest water bills with it. Australia, Germany and Singapore have embedded rainwater harvesting and source-controlled drainage into mainstream development. In England, by contrast, we continue to ignore rainwater’s massive asset value. Even the amendment I proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that new homes should capture rainwater to use it and lower residents’ bills was rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Government.

This issue will not go away, and the alternative approach is really not that radical. It is all remarkably simple. The simple principle is what is called source control: capture rain where it falls, use it wisely and return the excess rain to the ground where it fell. Why use it to top up our sewage? Do we love sewage so much that we actually want to make more of it by adding more water and creating an even greater volume? For all those homes built in earlier centuries where rainwater is directed into the sewer already, why not offer grants to retro-split two drains from the one drain they have at the moment? It would mean lower costs for the consumer, lower water bills, less sewerage for water companies, less sewage going into our rivers and lower costs for the Government, the public and the agencies to cope with.

It could cut water bills by roughly a third, meaning £225 off the average household bill. A household in Taunton and Wellington that catches its own rainwater and takes it out of the sewer would cut its water bill by a quarter to a third. That is around £225 a year off a £695 bill. Nationally, that is 28% to 35% of the total bill. If we gross that up, that is £6.5 billion off bills across 29 million households. Imagine what that could do if it was freed up to be spent in the economy in other ways.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I confess that I am a little confused. There are plenty of places in the country, including in my region, where we already have a separate system for sewage and rainwater runoff that should keep them separate. Yet, over many years, we have seen that that has not had the desired effect, and I am sorry to say that we are still seeing far too much sewage going into our rivers. While I recognise the point he is trying to make, I do not think that it is the silver bullet he suggests. Does he not accept that if we are to capture more rainwater, the way to do that is to build the reservoirs we need?

[Gideon Amos]

As I said at the beginning, we certainly need some reservoirs; I completely accept that. However, as I have explained, we do not assume that the only solution with energy is massive, centralised power stations. In the same way, collecting water on our roofs and in our homes can make a massive contribution. That contribution —some £6.5 billion back into people’s pockets—is not to be sneezed at.

Done at scale, the approach simultaneously tackles water scarcity, water excesses and carbon emissions. Toilets flushed with rainwater reduce demand for new reservoirs and enable more new development. Soakaways, green roofs and property-level sustainable drainage systems help to slow run-off and reduce flood risk and storm overflows. Less pumping and treatment means lower operational carbon. Less concrete and excavation means lower embodied carbon. Crucially, decentralised rainwater management delivers the benefits exactly where people experience them.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is showing his usual erudition on these topics. He mentions SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—which can be an important part of the solutions he outlines. However, many homeowners in my constituency find that those sustainable drainage systems do not work as intended because they are not properly designed and maintained. We have unenacted legislation that means developers are not being held to account. Does he agree that we need to do more to make sustainable drainage systems work effectively?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is characteristically right, and I will come on to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which he and I tried on several occasions to have enacted during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Crucially, decentralised water management delivers the benefits I have listed: homes that are more resilient, bills that are lower, streets that flood less and rivers that have less sewage being discharged into them. Before I was elected as an MP, my campaign was to get the River Tone designated as a bathing water at French Weir. Working with the friends’ group, we succeeded, but unless we take action to reduce sewage volumes in the Tone catchment and around the country, we will not be able to meaningfully reduce sewage discharges into those rivers and beaches.

Crucially, none of this requires an AI data centre to make it happen; what is required is a shift in mindset: managing rain before it becomes a problem rather than using it to make a problem and then trying to manage that problem we have created. We can personally do our bit. My son thinks that the enormous water butt I am trying to make in my back garden is a Heath Robinson creation—well, he would if he knew what Heath Robinson was, but he is far too young. Following all the regulations is challenging, but I am working on it. However, what is really needed is the Government to take action on regulation.

Three key changes are needed from the Government. First, we need to stop designing homes that treat rain as an inconvenience to be sent elsewhere. Rather, it should be sent into people’s homes and harnessed as the asset and essential natural resource that it is and require rainwater harvesting in all new homes. Secondly, the Government needs to bring schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act into law, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), so that we start to drain more of our rainwater into the ground where it falls and have a properly regulated system for doing so. Thirdly, the Government need to grant the retro-splitting of household drains so that people can save on their bills and at the same time save our rivers—like our precious Tone—which can be spared the sewage these drains create, add to and augment.

England is about to spend unprecedented sums on water sewerage and infrastructure. We cannot solely rely on carbon-heavy centralised systems. We should finally change our relationship with the rain that falls right on the top of us all. If we want cleaner rivers, secure water supplies, lower emissions and homes fit for a changing climate, the answer is learning to value rain and use it to save us all money where it lands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

This is like geeks united—we love our SUDS! They are brilliant.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right: the point about the maintenance of SUDS has been raised a few times. It is okay to build them—I actually think most are built and designed in a very effective way—but there is also the question of how we ensure they are maintained and who is responsible for that.

[Gideon Amos]

I just want to make an observation. When I trained as an architect, I had to follow a whole series of regulations on drains about what the diameters are, what the gradients are—everything has to be followed. For SUDS, there are no such regulations. One is regulated; the other is all down to policy. As many Members have said, we need proper regulation for SUDS, because things will go wrong if we do not get schedule 3 or similar legislation on to the statute book.

Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points. In every community there are hotspots that people go back to again and again. There is provision for local authorities to use CCTV, but it has to be monitored; there is no point in having CCTV if it is not. Local authorities also have powers to use drones to follow vehicles that are committing the crime of excessive tipping. My hon. Friend is also right about the cost to private landowners. Other hon. Members might talk about more rural communities, the impact of fly-tipping on rural land and the environmental waste their constituents are then required to clean up. It is incredibly challenging to deal with hazardous waste.

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

On rural and private land, the Environment Agency in my constituency has said that there is a gap in regulation when it comes to privately owned sites that are used for one purpose initially but gradually accumulate waste and become fly-tipping destinations. The Environment Agency has no power to act against that because it is private land, and councils are also struggling to find the right approach. Does the hon. Lady consider that as a significant issue in rural constituencies such as mine?

[Melanie Onn]

It is interesting that the hon. Member says there might be a gap in regulations, and I suspect that that is the case for not just rural private land but all private land. I have the same thing in my constituency, where there are alleyways or unadopted areas that are frequently fly-tipped. I was going come on to local authorities later, but I will just repeat myself—why not; this place is all about repetition, isn’t it? In those alleyways and on other private land, local authorities will say, “We don’t have responsibility for that.” I do think that the Environment Agency would be much more concerned about the dumping and fly-tipping of hazardous waste, which has a broader environmental impact and falls into its area of responsibility.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend, as we all do, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this important debate—it could not be more timely.

I start by asking the Minister why this Government refused to publish the full national security report on global biodiversity loss. The reason for that refusal is pertinent to today’s debate; it seems to be a refusal to be honest with the public about the inextricable links between nature, climate change and our national security, and how vulnerable it makes our country and society when we do not act on the evidence. That evidence states that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse have severe consequences for food and water insecurity, crop failures, fisheries collapse and intensified natural disasters. That is cause for alarm and action.

Instead of responding with urgency, however, the Office for Environmental Protection has confirmed that not only do the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental commitments, but, worryingly, they have committed to

“doing little that is new or different”

to change that. The latest State of Nature data shows decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction. We have heard that just 14% of England’s rivers are in good ecological health. Action on nature loss and climate breakdown cannot be dealt with in silos. That is why the Liberal Democrats, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), have pushed for an annual climate and nature statement from Government.

The Conservatives and Reform, meanwhile, refuse to accept that climate change is one of the greatest drivers of nature loss and propose the rolling back of climate legislation. There seems to be a similar siloed approach from this Labour Government—this time a nature-blind approach. While we commend the Government’s drive towards decarbonisation, the loss of nature is also accelerating climate change by disrupting habitats that capture and store carbon, such as peatlands and woodlands.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that habitat loss will not be helped if the Government accept recommendation 19 of the Fingleton review, which will weaken the duty to support our national parks? Our national parks did not stop the building of Sellafield, or of Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia national park; the Quantocks national landscape did not stop the building of Hinkley. We need to protect our national parks and landscapes.

[Pippa Heylings]

More than 20 leading nature organisations, including the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the RSPB, have warned that the changes my hon. Friend mentions would weaken environmental law by effectively allowing developers to pay to destroy protected wildlife.

I would like the Minister to respond on proposed recommendations 11, 12 and 19 of the Fingleton nuclear regulatory review. We do not want any more of the damaging framing of nature as a blocker to growth, or any more actions such as the weakening of key biodiversity safeguards in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. As my hon. Friend said, the proposed exemptions to biodiversity net gain risk hollowing out one of the most important tools for nature recovery. That is not just the case with nuclear energy; the Prime Minister has said that he also wants environmental deregulation across the entire industrial strategy, which would risk breaching level playing field provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.

Liberal Democrats take a different view. We would accelerate environmental land management schemes with an extra £1 billion a year to support nature-friendly farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. We would halt and reverse nature’s decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. We would strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, and properly fund Natural England and the Environment Agency.

We have heard much about chalk streams, the jewel of our natural heritage, which is why I brought forward legislation with cross-party support to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as UNESCO natural world heritage sites. I hope the Minister will support that legislation. Nature is our joy and our pride, and it underpins our economy, our health, our food security and our safety.

Storm Chandra Flooding

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.

In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about

“national security for national renewal”.

We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.

I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Every flooding incident is different and sometimes it is difficult to dictate where flooding incidents will happen, but there is certainly a lot more we can do. The Minister and I talked about the trigger points with the Environment Agency yesterday, which it has committed to looking at. I also agree that communication with local authorities and a collaborative, joined-up approach should be better.

I also feel that communities should have better real-time information on flooding. There is a really good example of that in the River Cam catchment, where flood monitors have been put on bridges and an app tracks the flow of water so that communities within the catchment are aware of any significant increase in the water levels. I hope that that can be rolled out so that our communities can be better protected and can better protect themselves in these instances of terrific rainfall.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for calling this debate, and for providing an opportunity for us to hear and discuss the steps that this Government have taken in advance of, and in response to, Storm Chandra.

Storm Chandra brought heavy and persistent rainfall to the United Kingdom between Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 January. For many communities, particularly in the south-west, this succession of storms has felt relentless. It has been a cycle of anxiety, disruption and uncertainty that has tested both infrastructure and resilience. During Storm Chandra, rain fell on ground that was already waterlogged. The consequences have been felt most acutely in Somerset and across the wider south-west, where three severe flood warnings were issued. This is the highest category of alert, signifying a genuine danger to life. Thankfully, all three severe flood warnings could be lifted by the afternoon of Thursday 29 January. However, the challenges have not ended, as I saw when I visited the south-west yesterday.

In preparation, local resilience forums stood up their response arrangements, and local partners have worked side by side to support residents—sharing information, evacuating households at risk, pumping water, patrolling flooded areas and helping vulnerable people. The Environment Agency operated its Somerset moors and levels flood plans at full capacity, deploying pumps and managing flood storage areas around the clock. As river levels rose, local authorities led evacuations in Dorset and Somerset. Their professionalism and compassion have been vital for affected communities. Work is ongoing with around 300 flooded households to determine when homes can safely be re-entered. Nationally, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs activated its emergency operation centre to co-ordinate cross-government activities.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is right to pay credit to the Environment Agency, which has rolled out pumps faster than ever before. One of the key questions I get asked is, could we not have permanent pumps? That would mean we did not lose five days bringing them down from Yorkshire. Apparently, the crane that puts them on site, which has to wait two or three days, costs £80,000 a day. The pumping stations were last built in the 19th century. Surely it is time to have permanent installations. We could save several days or a week, and that could create space for millions of cubic metres of water.

[Emma Hardy]

Yesterday, in the meeting we had with the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, the EA, recognising the importance of that issue, said that it would look at the costings.

The events of the past few weeks have brought back memories of the catastrophic floods of 2013 and 2014, when entire communities were cut off for weeks, and livelihoods were deeply affected. My deepest sympathies go out to every individual, family and business affected by this flooding. For some, it is the first time they have faced this disruption, but for many of us, it is heartbreakingly familiar. Flooding is not just an inconvenience; it is a profound emotional and financial shock. It disrupts daily life, damages treasured possessions, and leaves people feeling vulnerable in their own home. I want those affected to know that we are committed to supporting them, not only in the immediate aftermath, but in the months and years ahead.

As of this morning, the Environment Agency has reported that approximately 308 properties across England have been flooded, of which 16 have been on the Somerset levels and moors. An estimated 22,850 properties have been protected by flood defences, and assets have stood up well. The Environment Agency has not reported any issues or had any reports of asset failure resulting in flooding, but of course, the Department will carry out a post-event assessment with resilience partners to identify where lessons can be learned.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the first responders, Environment Agency staff, emergency services, local authorities and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. Their dedication, often in the most challenging and dangerous conditions, has been extraordinary.

Although Storm Chandra has now passed, further rainfall has triggered Met Office yellow rain warnings across the south-west and other regions. We expect a sustained operational response to continue for several weeks on the Somerset levels and elsewhere. That will involve ongoing pumping operations, continued monitoring of river and groundwater levels, and close co-ordination between local authorities, emergency services and national agencies.

Yesterday’s visit to Somerset with the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton to see the situation at first hand was invaluable. We witnessed the extent of the flooding across the Somerset moors and levels. We spoke with Environment Agency staff; local farmer Michael Curtis; internal drainage board members, including Rebecca Horsington from the Association of Drainage Authorities, Iain Sturdy, the Somerset IDB chief executive, and Tony Bradford, IDB chair; and community representatives who are working tirelessly to protect homes, farmland and infrastructure.

I saw the impact of the 16 days of incident response, villages cut off by flooded roads and the impact on people’s mental health. I am pleased to say, following my visit, that the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset once this incident has come to an end. It will work closely with the internal drainage boards and the council as part of the wider recovery plan. The review will consider several important questions: when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term. I also acknowledge the vital contributions of Somerset council, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, the police and ambulance services, members of the IDBs, and anyone who has played an essential role in the multi-agency response.

Flooding of that sort was always going to happen, but we can shape how prepared we are. The Government are investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences. That record investment is an average of £1.4 billion per year—an increase on previous investment—and will benefit nearly 900,000 properties. It includes a record £22.65 billion over 2024-25 and 2025-26.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on bringing to the Chamber an issue that has sparked vivid examples of the complete and abject failure of our privatised water companies. I welcome this debate, although the news that it brings is very disappointing, is it not? Our rivers are, of course, precious. The Tone runs through and unites almost all parts of Taunton and Wellington. It is a lifeline for biodiversity, for families and countryside lovers and for the whole natural world. When rivers are healthy, our communities and our nature flourish, but when they are polluted, we all suffer.

That is why the recent revelations about Wessex Water are infuriating. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that the company’s former chief executive officer, Colin Skellett, received a £170,000 bonus from the Malaysian parent company, YTL Utilities. Despite a Government ban on bonuses, the current CEO and chief financial officer received £50,000 in additional payments through the same route. Those payments came after Wessex Water’s criminal conviction in November 2024 for pollution that killed more than 2,000 fish, and after the company was fined £11 million for additional sewage failures. That is all in the context of the £4.25 billion paid out by Wessex Water to private shareholders since privatisation. I cannot think of a more graphic failure of the Conservatives’ privatisation programme. Imagine if that £4 billion had been invested in our rivers and infrastructure over that time. That is exactly the kind of behaviour that the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was meant to prevent, but companies are getting around it by using parent company fee payments, fee payments generally and complex corporate structures to circumvent the rules.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) warned that that would happen and pushed for a stronger regulator. We called for Ofwat to be scrapped and replaced with a regulator with real teeth. We also called for a new ownership model for water companies, for the public to be brought in through public interest companies, and for mutual ownership so that customers have a stake in the ownership and profits are reinvested in the company rather than going to private shareholders on the other side of the world. Many bill payers in the Wessex Water area would be surprised to find that that is where the money they pay ultimately ends up.

The fundamental problem is that while executives are exploiting loopholes to line their pockets, rivers are getting worse and dying. Customers are paying through higher bills, and communities are watching their local rivers fill with sewage. I checked just before coming to the debate, and north of Bradford-on-Tone and in Heron Gate and Lower Henlade in my constituency, sewage works are pumping sewage into the River Tone right now. Water company bosses should not be rewarded for that kind of behaviour through whatever corporate sleight of hand they are attempting to use. That is as real in my constituency as it is anywhere else.

As so often happens, volunteers have come to the fore. They banded together, and the Friends of French Weir Park and I applied for and got bathing water status to try to improve the water quality of the river, but we need investment.

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend highlights the involvement of the fantastic community groups that have had to pick up the pieces of this broken system. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, we would not need organisations such as the Nidd Action Group in my constituency, even though the work they do is fantastic?

[Gideon Amos]

That is absolutely right. Water companies should be run in the interest of the public, not of the private shareholders’ pockets. That would be a welcome reform for communities in Taunton and Wellington and, no doubt, across the country.

In Taunton and Wellington, Wessex Water needs to reform and put this right. I welcome the action it is beginning to take, but we need real investment in the River Tone to improve bathing water quality, and water quality generally. Our sewage works must get the investment that they need. The Government must close the loopholes whereby bonuses are paid in all but name, and we need to ban the parent company payments that circumvent those rules. We need to strengthen enforcement powers, give regulators teeth and hold companies accountable so that communities such as mine can have confidence that the water they pay for comes from a company that is set up and run in the interest of the public, not private profit.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Tim Farron. I thank everyone for keeping to time.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras—pur dha—to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). If we are being boastful about the number of people who are supporting the petition, the St Ives constituency, I should say that which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, came first with 470 signatures. It is worth pausing for a moment to respect the constituency for having achieved that figure.

I do not want to make light of the issue, though. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and others have rightly drawn attention to how it is a matter of deep emotion for everyone, but especially for the farmers who have been very deeply affected. Many farmers in my constituency have had a reactor and have been closed down and lost cattle. That has a very significant emotional impact on the family and on the viability of the holding, which is not something that we should dismiss or ignore.

I have been involved in this debate for many years. I was a member of the Agriculture Committee back in 1997—that shows my age—when randomised badger control trials started. At that stage, the independent scientific group used triplet areas, with proactive cull, reactive cull or no action, and my constituency was included. I was a strong supporter of the trial. I ran the gauntlet of a lot of animal rights campaigners at the time by supporting a cull in the area.

I believe that when we are establishing any kind of policy, we must base it on sound science; we cannot simply conjecture. The research by the independent scientific group provided a lot of baseline evidence against which we have been able to track and compare data over many years, which is really important. I supported it not because I wanted to see badgers culled, or because I felt that they were guilty, but on the basis that we needed to get the evidence. At the time, that was the only way of getting the evidence necessary to base our policy on sound science.

Since then, there have been many further iterations in the development of the policy. I remember the policy of proactive culling, which is rightly being brought to a close by the Government now, being brought forward within hotspot areas in 2014. The debates in the House of Commons at the time were sharply divided between team farmer and team badger—I think they even referred to themselves as such—while I was saying, “What about team science?” We need to base this policy on the evidence. Some people will remember the then right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was the Secretary of State, accusing badgers of shifting the goalposts, which caused a great deal of mirth. We had a lot of fun at his expense on that occasion, I am sorry to say.

It is important that the Government look very carefully at the science as they go forward. To pre-empt what I will say at the end of my comments, I think they are coming to the right conclusion. I welcome the approach they appear to be taking. People have referred to badgers being involved in the spread of bovine TB, and it is reasonable to say that the science indicates that they are, but I would argue, and the evidence appears to show, that they are involved to a lesser extent than cattle-to-cattle transmission.

A 2021 University of Cambridge molecular genetics paper by van Tonder et al. demonstrated that, on the basis of the studies they undertook, bovine TB is 17 times more likely to spread between cattle than to originate from badgers. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I imagine that she and her scientists have been looking closely at whole genome sequencing, which makes it possible not just to identify that there is a reactor, but to identify the source of the bovine TB and trace the sequencing process. That and the work of the University of Cambridge indicates where the infection originates. It is important to understand that when one is coming to conclusions in this respect.

While we were debating the matter in 2014, I was talking to Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who was involved in the randomised badger control trials and other work and who advises the Government on their partnership group. We were working with farmers in the constituency on the first community-led badger vaccination project. The Zoological Society of London did some great work at the time. We recruited a lot of support among the community of people who were not vaccinators, although some wished to undertake the training to become vaccinators.

That was the start of the first vaccination project where the community offered to support our farmers in the roll-out in Penwith—that is in the Land’s End area, for those that do not know my constituency well. Unfortunately, in 2015 I had to go on sabbatical from the House of Commons and therefore was not able to follow it as closely as I would have liked to as a Member of Parliament. There was then a worldwide shortage of the BCG vaccine, so projects like that could not proceed for two years. Nevertheless, the work of the Zoological Society of London continued across Penwith and the St Austell and Helston areas and is now rolling out further work elsewhere in Cornwall. A paper it published last August in People and Nature—for which, I say to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, the abstract was in Kernewek, which is a first—demonstrated that the vaccination trials over four years in the St Austell area showed very productive results. I hope that the Minister and her scientists are prepared to look closely at that.

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

My hon. Friend is making a helpful speech that benefits from his huge amount of experience. I congratulate the 229 people from my constituency who signed the petition. On the basis of team science, does my hon. Friend agree with Keith Cutler, a constituent of mine who is a past president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, who has pointed out in academic papers that the DEFRA testing is really not up to standard and that a far better testing regime is needed? With better testing, there could be better monitoring and better control, preventing the cattle-to-cattle transmission, which, as we have heard, accounts for the greatest proportion.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is of course correct. The testing regime has been hotly debated—indeed, not just debated; successive Government Ministers and scientists have promised progress on the testing regime for many years. In 1997, the agriculture Select Committee looked at this issue and the benefits of shifting from the tuberculin skin test to the gamma interferon test. The gamma interferon is often used and is a much more sensitive test. It produces many more false positives, which perhaps one might argue is a good thing, and fewer false negatives, so perhaps, if one wants to have a baseline of clean cattle, one might use it, but it adds to the complexity. None of this is perfect, of course, but perhaps the Minister might address the issue of the testing regimes that the Government are prepared to consider using to get on top of the disease.

I have a range of questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The first is about the tuberculin test and the gamma interferon test. I remember that back in 1997 there was a lot of talk about the diagnostic instrument for vaccinated animals test, or DIVA test, which has been referred to already, to differentiate between infected and vaccinated cattle. Clearly, that would be a golden bullet and enormously helpful to the industry, because until we get across that line, no cattle vaccine, no matter how effective it is, can be used, because farmers would not be able to sell cattle into the marketplace if they were not able to undertake that differentiation test. In 1997 we were told that an effective DIVA test was up to 10 years away. Every time we look at it, it is always 10 years away; the date simply rolls forward. We have been dealing with this issue for many years, so I would like to know this from the Minister: are we any closer to securing a DIVA test?

Secondly, if we are going to base policy on vaccination, are there enough vaccinators and do we have a mechanism through which we can create more? My understanding is that at present we have nothing like enough people who have the licence to undertake vaccination. When we were rolling out the community-led vaccination trial in my own constituency all those years ago, we knew that we were fortunate to have a number of people available to us then, but we also knew at the time that if any of them were to fall ill, we would struggle to continue the work. Clearly, there needs to be significant investment in training, and it is not something that can simply be created overnight. Maybe we could bring in a lot of vets, but that is an expensive way of doing it. Perhaps the Minister would like to advise us on that.

Gatcombe farm, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has been referred to on many occasions already, so I will not go into it, but have the Government taken a view of the Gatcombe trials? If so, what has been identified?

Can the Minister tell us whether we are on the cusp of the end of the culling? My understanding is that no new licences are likely to be granted. On the basis of the licences that have been granted, is it reasonable therefore to say that this winter will be the last when there is any culling at all? When the Government announced their policy last year, there was a lot of concern that there would be culling until the end of this Parliament, but it looks to me—I may be wrong—as if culling is going to end. If so, the vaccine, cattle security measures and biosecurity measures need to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

What lessons have the Government learned from the Welsh Assembly policy so far? Wales has been ahead of England and Cornwall for some time in rolling out vaccines. Have any lessons been learned through conversations with other Government Departments? Similarly, southern Ireland was undertaking a widespread cull policy, which it stopped. What lessons have been learned there? I do not know, and I wonder whether the Government are fully aware.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Stuart. A massive thank you to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who introduced the debate so eloquently, and to the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition, 239 of whom live in Westmorland and Lonsdale. We are a constituency with lots of skin in the game, so to speak. I am the MP for Tommy Brock, the badger of Beatrix Potter fame, and the Member for a large number of the farms that were dear to Beatrix Potter’s heart, many of which have been devastated by the threat of bovine TB over the last few years. This subject goes to the heart of two great passions for, I think, most of us in this room: the welfare of our animals, both wildlife and livestock, and the future of our farming communities.

Bovine TB is a serious issue. It has had a devastating impact on farmers emotionally and financially. It is an ongoing animal welfare emergency, causing huge numbers of livestock to suffer and die. In just a single year from June 2024 to June ’25, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England alone because of TB, and we know that over the 12-year period in question, close to 250,000 badgers have been culled, so I wonder whether we can start from a point of agreement. We all want to eradicate bovine TB. The question is how. How do we do that in a way that is humane, proportionate and grounded in science?

It is interesting to note that the Government are now committed to ending badger culling by the end of this Parliament—by 2029 specifically—yet at the same time the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes provision for the killing of badgers if they get in the way of housing development. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos)—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

Go on: you can make my point for me.

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have been debating today badger culling to control TB, and I believe that badger culling should be phased out as quickly as possible, but the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides for the killing of badgers not to control TB—not for public health purposes—but for general public purposes. I ask the Government to look again at why that is justified. Why do we need additional legislation to kill badgers?

[Tim Farron]

I did not give my hon. Friend any warning whatsoever, so I thank him for his eloquence and for immediate springing to his feet on this issue, which he cares about deeply, as do I. Is it not ludicrous to outlaw the culling of badgers for scientific purposes—to try to reduce the spread of a dangerous disease—yet permit it if developers want it? That seems outrageous and is certainly lacking any kind of scientific underpinning.

Farmers, rural communities and all of us who care about animal welfare, wherever we live, deserve a clear, evidence-based plan from DEFRA that sets out how England will achieve TB-free status by 2038, with milestones, accountability and fair support, including very fair compensation for those on the frontline. The lack of direction since the Godfray review in 2018—under both the Government in power now and the Conservative one that preceded it—has increased and created uncertainty and frustration right across the industry. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling on Government to publish a transparent, science-led evaluation of all disease control measures, including cost-benefit analyses, vaccination data and surveillance outcomes, to ensure that every action taken is effective, humane and sustainable.

I echo some of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). We believe very much that the way forward must be safe, effective and firmly rooted in evidence. Running the risk of attempting to be reasonable on all this—a Liberal Democrat trait—the evidence on the science really is mixed.

To show my own long standing, I remember some time ago the last-but-one Labour DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—who is a good and decent man, I ought to say—at the NFU conference back in 2009. When he was pressed by farmers on why he would not support even a limited form of badger cull, his answer was, “Well, we would, but public opinion would not let us.” It is really important that we make evidence-based decisions. That was maybe very honest of the right hon. Gentleman, but it underpinned what is often the problem with democratic Governments: sometimes we make the wrong decisions because we do not think we will get away with the right ones.

The current DEFRA review, published in August, found that culling may reduce infection quickly in some high-density and high-risk populations. There is a big “but” coming, and it is this: badger vaccination delivers a more consistent reduction in TB prevalence across both the core and surrounding buffer zones, if delivered properly. That is a massive “if”, is it not?

Farmers lack trust in the vaccination plan because they lack trust in this Government and in their posture towards farmers and farming in general. Clearly, vaccination would be the way forward, but we can surely understand why farmers lack trust in a Government that have damaged them through inheritance tax changes—the family farm tax—and botched the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, and opened and shut windows for the likes of stewardship schemes and what have you.

This is not a Government that farmers currently trust, and the difficulty of rolling out a vaccination programme against that lack of trust is massively scaled up.

Sewage

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady’s party had 14 years to take action, and did nothing.

Although I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for calling this debate, and I think there are many points of similarity between our approaches, I must gently point to some of the opportunities they missed to take action when they were in government. For instance, the Environment Agency had its funding cut by more than half between 2010 and 2019, leading to a fall in prosecutions against water companies and other polluters, and there were Liberal Democrats in the coalition Cabinet that started those cuts. The coalition Government published a report in 2011 that wrongly and, in my view, bizarrely concluded that water regulation

“works and is not fundamentally flawed”.

Of course, under that coalition Government, a Liberal Democrat Minister was responsible for the water sector between 2013 and 2015, and disappointingly they kept in place the very system of regulation that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale quite rightly just criticised.

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

Would the Secretary of State recognise that the Budget papers for 2009 and 2010 show that the then Labour Chancellor was projecting bigger capital cuts in expenditure than were carried out under the coalition Government?

[Steve Reed]

I do not think that decisions taken by the coalition Government were the fault of the previous Labour Government. I am merely gently pointing out that the Liberal Democrats did have a chance to reset regulation in the way that this Government are now doing. Where they offer their support for that work, I am grateful for it; by working constructively right across the House, we can make sure that we now reset a water sector that has failed the public, consumers’ investment and the environment for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Oh, there she is. Again, this is testing my eyesight—it is confusing me. I hope that the hon. Lady has seen and welcomed the changes we are introducing around bathing waters and the definition of a bather, and how that definition could also people involved in water sports. That is something she might be interested in.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I will not, only because I have just three minutes left.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) again for his support of the Water (Special Measures) Act and the commission, and for highlighting the impact that pollution has on wildlife and the importance of cleaning up our rivers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), too, for her support for the Act. She is right to highlight the awful inheritance we received and the action we have taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) talked about the Wave Project, which provides mental health support. I am really keen to hear about that project, and I commend everyone involved for their work. It sounds like a wonderful—[Hon. Members: “He’s not here; he can’t hear you!”] He will hear me by osmosis.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) highlighted that cuts have consequences, and indeed they do. Slashing the Environment Agency’s budget by half certainly has had a consequence. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) again for her work and support on the Water (Special Measures) Act and for championing those cleaning up our water. Of course, I also love being by the seaside, which is why I have to say how delighted I am that our mayoral candidate for Hull and East Yorkshire is championing a plan to provide free bus services to coastal areas during the summer holidays so that people can enjoy the countryside—vote Labour.

We have reset the water sector. We are stopping the sewage scandal and transforming the water industry from one of decline to one of opportunity. We are seizing the opportunity to restore national pride in our rivers, lakes and seas and to secure a reliable water future supply for all. We are delivering our plan for change to create a better future for our country.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Bathing Water Regulations

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bathing water regulations.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon.

We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year.

That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. I know how much he enjoys a dip in the River Tone. The River Parrett in Langport is a well known and loved body of water for swimming and water sports, which I hope will soon become a designated bathing water site. Sadly, polluters discharged sewage into it 54 times in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to support such sites to obtain bathing water status, so that they are safe for all who wish to use them?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He has invited contributions from those of us who are interested in bathing waters. My constituency has Strangford lough and the Irish sea on the other side. Back home, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs designates water quality. I am concerned that, if anyone wants to check water quality on the Ards peninsula, Strangford lough or the Irish sea, they must go online, which does not suit everybody. Does he agree with my suggestion to DAERA that there should be signs at designated bathing waters indicating the water quality? That would be much simpler. People who go for wild-water swimming and other pursuits, would be able to see right away if the water quality is at the level it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Seeing the quality of the river water is key, and that is one thing that bathing water status allows us to do. In tackling the need for improvement, many local groups face an uphill battle. Sewage pollution is a national disgrace. Time and again we see reports of raw sewage being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas, turning what should be places of recreation into sites of contamination.

In my constituency, further downstream on the Tone, examples of recent discharges of untreated effluent are commonplace. At Hook stream, which could otherwise be a charming stretch of the River Tone, there have been over 188 hours of discharge in the first eight weeks of 2025 alone. Residents are rightly appalled by the sewage releases; no one should have to fear that going too close to their local river could make them ill, especially as, all the while, water companies have paid out millions of pounds in dividends and bonuses. We need flow-rate monitoring, extra stormwater storage and resources for the Environment Agency to increase enforcement, but bathing water regulations are a key tool in reducing pollution.

That brings me to the main topic of the debate. There are elements of the consultation that I welcome. Removing the automatic five-year de-designation rule for bathing waters is a positive suggestion. It would simply be unfair for communities to lose the protections that come with designation just because a site has remained polluted for five years. The reality is that people will continue to swim in those waters, as they have done at French Weir for hundreds of years, regardless of whether they are officially designated. Having a high number of bathers is what allows sites to be designated, and that should continue to be the main criterion. Removing monitoring, which is what happens with de-designation, would just put rivers and their users at further risk. It would not stop people using the rivers. Water companies and regulators frequently take longer than five years to clean up sites, and people should not be punished by losing their designation because that has not happened fast enough.

Let us not forget that improving water quality in bathing areas has wider benefits throughout the whole of the river’s catchment area. Improving infrastructure in bathing areas that are susceptible to flooding benefits communities along the whole length of the watercourse. Part of the problem is misalignment between the four-year rolling cycle of bathing designations and Ofwat’s five-year price review for water companies, which sets out its investment plans for the period. A newly designated bathing water often has to wait years for the price review to receive the investment required. Designation of a bathing water should be aligned with those improvements in investment. Has the Minister taken any steps to resolve that discrepancy?

The health and wellbeing of those who use the water should also be a primary concern of regulation, which is why I am concerned about core reform 2 in the consultation, which proposes the introduction of feasibility tests for bathing sites. That would mean that if it is deemed too difficult or expensive to improve water quality, a site could be denied designation altogether. Who would really benefit from that approach? Certainly not the swimmers, rowers, kayakers or residents. The only people who stand to gain would be the very polluters responsible for the problem in the first place. We must not give water companies a loophole to argue that it is too costly to clean up a bathing site that people are regularly using for swimming and other recreation. Designation should be based on where people actually use the water, so will the Minister please reconsider that aspect of a perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately damaging proposal?

Core reform 3 of the consultation proposes the removal of fixed bathing season dates and moving them into guidance. I welcome greater flexibility, but the now well accepted 15 May to 30 September bathing season should remain the irreducible minimum that everybody understands and knows about. This should not be a cover for reducing bathing seasons to such a short window that they become meaningless. We should be going further: year-round testing should be standard, in my opinion.

We also need better quality testing, and for better integration with other monitoring systems we should be monitoring sewage volume from spills, not just hours. We should also consider testing for a wider range of bacteria than just E. coli and enterococci, especially considering other harmful pathogens such as salmonella and leptospirosis have, since 2010, contributed to a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases. There should be greater funding for the EA to monitor run-off into rivers as well. Only by understanding the scale of the problem will we be able to start to tackle it.

This will not be prohibitively expensive. Research by Surfers Against Sewage, which I thank for all its great work on this issue, suggests the additional cost of year-round monitoring per site would be roughly £775. Across the UK, that amounts to £350,000—less than 4% of the bonuses paid to water company execs last year. That is surely an investment worth making. Will the Minister publish a review into the potential cost of year-round water testing?

The reality is that our inland bathing waters are already in a dire state. While 92% of the 450 bathing waters in England meet minimum standards, that figure drops to only 53% of inland bathing waters. In contrast, Germany has almost 2,300 bathing sites, the vast majority inland. The fact that 98% of them meet minimum standards shows us what is possible. Instead of looking for ways to limit new designations, we should expand them so that more communities benefit from cleaner, safer waters. Had a feasibility requirement existed previously, we would never have seen so many bathing waters granted in the first place; perhaps there would be no more inland water bathing designations in the country.

We also need urgent action to hold polluters accountable. Water companies operate on five-year investment cycles, meaning that improvements to polluted waters often get kicked down the road for years. We cannot afford to wait. We need a tougher regulator than Ofwat, one with proper powers to hold these companies to account. We also need more immediate funding to improve water quality at newly designated sites, rather than forcing them to wait for the next investment cycle, as I said.

Ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle: everyone should have the right to access sites with unpolluted water. The Government must not allow water companies to dictate which sites are worthy of protection and which are not. Let us take this opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, our protection of bathing waters. It is time to expand, not limit, the sites that benefit from designation. Above all, it is time to ensure that polluters are held accountable so that future generations can enjoy bathing waters like those at French Weir, as well as our rivers, lakes and seas, without fear of pollution.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank them very much. I am delighted that when I was filling in the form for bathing water status in French Weir, it was such a successful initiative that it attracted not only the support of the Opposition spokesperson but also my predecessor as Member of Parliament at the time.

We were delighted to get that designation, but it would not have happened if core reform 2 was in place. Even though that bathing site has been there for hundreds of years, dating back to at least the 18th century—we have records and pictures from the 19th century of changing rooms beside the river—the designation would not have happened and people would continue using the river and they would not have the benefit of bathing water status.

I urge the Minister to think carefully about introducing this very different criterion and moving away from places where people actually swim towards places where the industry think that they can afford to make the water quality better. That is the wrong criterion. The right criterion is where people are already using the river. I was in the river every Saturday in February—I did not quite make January—and people will be there throughout the year, whether or not the signs are up and it has bathing water status. I urge the Minister to think a little more on that.

I reiterate my thanks to everyone for taking part. I hope the Minister will ensure a debate on the regulations when they go through this House, because they are really important for our water quality.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered bathing water regulations.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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