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

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. We have no formal objection to clause 7, which imposes a duty on environmental regulators to impose penalties for offences by water company that the clause specifies. Offences have of course increased, and water bosses have been banned from receiving bonuses if a company has committed serious criminal breaches. Regulators have more powers than they used to in being able to impose larger fines for polluters without needing to go to court. The clause focuses on exactly the same principle and we therefore have no formal objections.

I raised in an earlier Bill Committee sitting—this is relevant here—that there has been an increase in the number of inspections that water companies can expect, from 4,000 a year by April this year to 10,000 a year by April of next year. In other words, what has been addressed in the past is not just regulation, but the whole pathway of the enforcement of regulations, so that regulations are not merely blunt instruments but active ones that water companies can expect to have to deal with if they do not act responsibly to their customers, the environment and the wider public.

On that last point, will the Minister clarify and ensure that these offences are and will be enforced and commit to making further amendments to the law, not only regarding the offences themselves, but also on their enforcement, if the Government believe that things need to be tightened up moving forward? Aside from those clarifications, we have no formal objections to the clause.

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

It is a great privilege to serve under your guidance this morning, Dr Huq. We also have no objection to the clause and, in fact, we consider automatic penalties to be a positive move.

My concern is that we see water companies not paying the fines that are levied against them. We talk about minor to moderate offences, but water companies wriggle out of paying fines for much larger offences, too. I just want to probe the extent to which the automatic penalties might stretch to what are considered more serious breaches.

I mentioned an example last week in Committee. In November 2021, Ofwat launched an inquiry into sewage discharges and how water companies manage their treatment centres and networks. It found three water companies in particular to be in breach: Thames, Northumbrian and Yorkshire. It imposed fines on those three companies—a £17 million fine against Northumbrian Water, a £47.15 million fine against Yorkshire Water and a £104.5 million fine against Thames Water—but as of autumn last year, not a single penny of that has been collected. It is understood that Ofwat allocated a grand total of eight and a half people to pursuing that particular line of inquiry.

Large fines, which there is no doubt that these companies rightly face, make no difference if they are never collected. That underpins the failure of our regulatory framework—water companies clearly feel they can just run rings around Ofwat and the other regulators. We very much welcome the automatic penalties, but we remain a bit concerned and would like the Minister to clarify whether those automatic penalties would have covered fines of that size as well. Otherwise, we are very supportive of the clause.

[Emma Hardy]

It is good to start the day off with a bit of unity in the Committee Room and everyone agreeing. In terms of which offences the automatic penalties will apply to, we are looking at targeting minor to moderate offending. The purpose behind the clause, and much of the Bill, is to change the culture of the water industry.

As I said in my opening remarks, one of the concerns about how the water industry operates at the moment is that the standard of proof needed to impose fines for minor to moderate offending is often seen as not being worth the cost. Companies are therefore getting away with minor to moderate offences because of the cost of trying to prosecute them. These penalties will apply to those offences. If the offence turns out to be more significant—not minor to moderate, but more of a major pollution incident—obviously, penalties will apply in the usual way.

For an offence to be suitable for an automatic penalty, we consider that the Environment Agency must be able to quickly identify and impose the penalty and the offence must cause no or limited environmental harm. I describe it to colleagues as similar to speeding ticket offences. Everybody knows that if they go over 30 mph in a 30 mph zone where there is a camera, they will get caught and fined. That is the idea behind the fixed penalty notice. If someone commits an offence that they are not meant to do, they are automatically fined.

The proposed offences will cover information requests. The details will be dealt with in secondary legislation, on which colleagues across the House will vote. My thinking on information requests is that a situation where someone has to comply with a request for information and is given a timeframe, but does not deal with it in the timeframe, is the kind of thing we are looking at for automatic fines. As for reporting offences, pollution offences and water resource offences, we will consult on where the penalties can be used, and Parliament will debate and vote on them before any changes are made.

The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 provides for the enforcement of penalties if a company refuses to pay a penalty. That includes allowing regulators to use the same enforcement mechanisms available to a court. The Act also allows for interest charges in the event of late payment. Parliament will debate and vote on the details in secondary legislation.

I thank all hon. Members for their invaluable contributions to the debate on clause 7. The clause will fundamentally drive improved compliance across the water sector through introducing automatic penalties for specific offences, allowing the regulators to impose penalties more quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Abstraction and impounding: power to impose general conditions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Modifying the licences individually is both expensive and time consuming, which is why we are hoping to modernise and harmonise the process under this clause. It is crucial that automatic penalties under clause 7 can be applied to abstraction and impounding offences, so this power is needed to improve the water industry’s regulatory framework. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etc

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 9, page 14, line 11, leave out from duties to end of line 13.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

Let me clarify what we mean with this amendment. Among the myriad problems in the water industry, perhaps the greatest is the failure of the regulatory systems. We are concerned, particularly in relation to the Climate Change Act 2008, that the obligations placed on water companies via the regulator are not sufficiently clear. Let us look at the wording of clause 9:

“In exercising or performing any such power or duty in accordance with those provisions, the Authority must also have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with the relevant environmental target duties”,

and we are happy with that, but then it states

“where the Authority considers that exercise or performance to be relevant to the making of such a contribution.”

Basically, we are giving Ofwat wriggle room to do nowt if it wants to. As we saw earlier on clause 7, Ofwat has a track record of not even imposing the colossal fines due from water companies, and I am not filled with confidence that if we give it wriggle room, it will not use it.

My concern is that the clause is building in a qualification, an opportunity for the regulator to step back and the possibility—dare I say, the probability—that measures against water companies will not be enforced. If we care about tackling climate change and about a stronger and robust regulatory framework—and we surely do—we should remove these words to remove the wriggle room and to make sure that regulation is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

As I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will agree, the Government heard the strong support in the other place for adding a further environmental duty to Ofwat’s core duties to support the Government in making progress against our environmental targets. I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman for her work on this.

We understand that there are concerns around the current core environmental performance of the water industry and around the role and responsibilities of the water industry regulators. It is for this reason that the Government tabled an amendment in the other place that will require Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to achieving targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and Climate Change Act 2008 when carrying out its functions.

This amendment will further ensure that Ofwat’s work to contribute to the achievement of environmental targets complements the work of Government, who are ultimately responsible for the 2021 Act and the 2008 Act targets. It is important to note that the independent commission announced by the Government will take a full view of the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators. Any changes made now to Ofwat’s duties may therefore be superseded by the outcomes of the commission. I hope the Committee agrees that this power is needed to ensure that the environment is considered in regulatory decision making.

Amendment 27 seeks to remove Ofwat’s discretion to exercise its duty to have regard to environmental targets where it feels this as relevant. It will be for Ofwat as the independent regulator to determine how it applies the Government’s new obligation to its regulatory decision making, and how this new duty will not take precedence over other duties. It is for this reason that flexibility has been built into the drafting of this duty, ensuring that Ofwat has discretion to exercise the duty where it feels it is relevant.

Mechanically applying a duty in circumstances where it is not relevant to a particular matter would be a waste of resource. That discretion is in line with similar duties for other regulators. For example, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was recently amended to provide an environmental duty for the financial regulators. It is right that as the independent regulator, Ofwat has the discretion to balance its duties and determine when it is appropriate that they are applied. The new duty introduced by the Government can be only a stopgap before more fundamental reforms are brought forward. For those reasons, we will not accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and I hope he feels able to withdraw it.

[Tim Farron]

I am not reassured that removing this discretion means that a mechanical duty is placed upon Ofwat. I think that removing discretion is actually very important. It will only be applied where it is relevant by definition. I feel that by building in wriggle room, we are creating vagueness in the process. Nevertheless, we will not seek to push this amendment to a vote today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Charges in respect of Environment Agency and NRBW functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you, Dr Huq, for giving me the opportunity to speak on clause 10, which is one of my favourites. The costs for Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales enforcement activities are paid by the taxpayer via grant in aid. The clause broadens existing charge-making powers, allowing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales to recover costs for enforcement from water companies instead of taxpayers. Failure to introduce the clause would result in the burden of funding water industry enforcement continuing to fall on the taxpayer. It could also result in the regulators being unable to scale up their water industry enforcement activities due to wider budgetary pressures.

The Secretary of State, or the Welsh Minister in Wales, and HM Treasury are required to approve charging schemes in consultation with affected parties. Those safeguards ensure that environmental regulatory powers are proportionate and support sustained improvements in environmental performance in the water industry. I hope the Committee agrees that this power is essential for environmental regulators to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on the taxpayer. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

Clause 11 extends the purposes for which water quality inspectors may be appointed to include functions relating to national security directions under section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and it provides flexibility for the charging of fees for regulatory work. This is a straightforward clause to which we raise no formal objection, but once again we would be grateful for a couple of clarification points from the Minister. How will the Government increase the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s ability to monitor and audit water supplies? Does the Minister feel that the clause will improve the inspectorate’s functions? Will the Minister please explain how the Government intend to support the powers of the Drinking Water Inspectorate, beyond this clause? She praised the inspectorate, and I echo that praise, but how do the Government intend to support its capabilities?

Once again, we wish to raise no formal objections to the clause. I would be grateful for clarity on the points I have highlighted.

[Tim Farron]

We also have no objections to the clause, but I want to probe it a bit. The Minister rightly praised the Drinking Water Inspectorate. I think most of us would say that its performance as a regulator is significantly better than Ofwat’s, but one of the biggest problems that we face within regulation is the fragmented regulatory framework. We have the DWI, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and others too. What consideration has the Minister given to the efficacy of continuing that fragmentation?

The Minister may argue, in relation to the DWI, that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I take that point, but regulation of the water industry is absolutely broke. It is very clear, particularly when it comes to the Environment Agency and Ofwat, that large water companies run rings around the regulators because of their heft, their weight, their capability and the volume of their staffing, which is larger than that of the regulators. The culture of the regulators is sometimes not aimed at pursuing those they are meant to regulate.

Although the DWI is broadly a successful regulator, do we not face the ongoing problem that having so many regulators gives water companies the ability to avoid their responsibilities? Will the Minister give that some further consideration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

On clauses 12 and 13, the Opposition tabled amendments 7 and 8 to remove them. They provide the Government with the power to issue special administration orders to water companies that face financial difficulties.

I put on record my thanks to my Conservative colleagues in the other place for sounding the alarm on this issue when the Bill came forward. They made the case that the measures in clauses 12 and 13 could put the very people we want to protect in such legislation, namely the consumers, at risk. The moral hazard has been explicitly set out by my colleagues in the other place, but I will attempt to summarise it so that we are clear what the problem is. As it stands, the clauses will give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills.

The problem seems self-evident. If water companies, through their own failure, require the Government to place them under special administration, why should consumers be expected to foot the bill for those failures when they had no particular responsibility for them? It runs contrary to the nature of all the action that has been taken in recent years to try to improve our water quality, and companies that have failed to get their affairs in order must take responsibility.

I was on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and we spent a lot of time looking at the financial resilience and behaviour of the water sector in close detail. I know that the current iteration is continuing that work. It was concerning to hear about the financial resilience of the sector at first hand in our hearings and meetings. As I said in a sitting of this Committee last week, the financial resilience of the water industry is not a hypothetical issue, but one of paramount concern right now.

We are all starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of companies such as Thames Water. We heard about that in detail on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the last Parliament. In November, Ofwat’s “Monitoring Financial Resilience” report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Three were placed in the highest category of “action required”, which means that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen a company’s financial resilience challenges and that there is a requirement to publish additional information and reporting on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.

As well as sending out the opposite message to the companies that Ofwat is working so hard to scrutinise and regulate to protect consumers, clauses 12 and 13 send out the wrong message to consumers themselves. Consumers were recently told that they can expect their average bills to rise by a minimum of about £86, at a time when no doubt some of them have concerns about how to afford their existing bills, along with wider cost concerns. I say gently to the Government that the recent Budget did not help the situation for people’s household budgets. How can it be fair that as a result of these clauses the Government may lead consumers to pay more at a time when many are finding it difficult to pay their bills and do not feel that they are getting the clean water that they deserve? It will potentially add insult to injury when many people are all too aware that they could face higher prices on their water bills because of the Government’s moves.

Shareholders and water company bosses used to be able to receive dividends and bonuses despite polluting our rivers and seas and failing to do the right thing to tackle it. Although reforms have been made to ensure that water company bosses who are not doing their duty with regard to our waterways are forbidden from claiming excessive bonuses, the sting will remain for many people when they keep in mind the prospect of paying higher bills to bail out companies for their poor financial performance.

To water companies, these clauses will send out a signal that they do not have to worry about incurring the consequences of financial irresponsibility, as the Government will have a mechanism to bail them out and consumers may indirectly have to fork out the costs. Nobody is being required to take accountability or face the consequences of the decisions that have caused the failure, but those who have no responsibility or influence are being forced to pay an unfair price increase.

Worse still, the clauses fail completely to specify how much they can require companies to raise from consumers or how much consumers could have to pay in increased costs as a result of the Government’s imposition of these conditions on water companies. That means that any announcements of price changes to water bills, such as those announced by Ofwat, could give no indication at all of how much consumers could end up paying on their water bills. To compound the higher prices even further, consumers may end up facing higher bills to solve special administration financial issues for companies by which they are not even served.

Under clause 12, proposed new section 12J(4) of the Water Industry Act states that “relevant financial assistance” in subsection (3) can include

“any other company which holds or held an appointment under this Chapter and whose area is or was wholly or mainly in England.”

Companies that do the right thing could be forced to pay up, or make their consumers pay up, for the mistakes of those who have failed to do the right thing. As my noble Friend Lord Remnant put it:

“It is the debt and equity investors”

in a company that has failed to do the right thing

“who should pay for these losses in the form of lower proceeds from any eventual sale. Why should a retired police officer in Yorkshire or a hard-working nurse in Cornwall lose out to a hedge fund owner in New York trying to make a quick return?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 293.]

Although in the other place the Government attempted to explain away concerns by suggesting that they do not think that they will have to use the power except as a last resort, and that the bar for special administration would be extremely high, the fact that on more than one occasion the Government could have accepted amendments to remove proposed new subsection (4) must mean that they expect that on at least some occasions they will require its use. The time taken to defend the measure and oppose reforms suggests that this is no mere formality in the wording of the Bill, but something that the Government may put in place.

The Minister in the other place said that the Government would seek to exercise the power in proposed new subsection (4) only if Government bail-outs to water companies could not be financed for the duration for which a company is in special administration—that is, during the shortfall. If that is the condition the Government are setting for the measure—if we have to have the measure at all—could they not have set it out explicitly within the Bill? At the very least, that would have provided clarity about how far the power should be permitted to go.

Clause 13 will provide the Welsh Government with the same powers as those in clause 12. Although the powers in clause 13 are independent of who occupies the offices of the Welsh Government, it should be noted that the Welsh Government who would currently be expected to exercise the powers do not have the most brilliant track record on the water industry, to say the least. Under the Welsh Labour Administration, the average number of spills from storm overflows in 2022 was two thirds higher than in England. That record suggests that the Government in Wales leave much to be desired when it comes to the competence of the water industry, and there is evidence for concern when it comes to exercising the clause’s powers.

Regardless of the specifics of the subsections and of who holds the powers contained in clauses 12 and 13, they are, as they stand, completely against the principles of improving the water industry. I urge the Minister to consider those points and to remove the clauses. Accordingly, we will seek a vote to remove clauses 12 and 13 from the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

I back my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who has made an excellent case for our amendment to clauses 12 and 13. We are deeply concerned about the issue. There are two aspects to the public’s reaction to the scandal in our water industry. First, there is revulsion about sewage being dumped in our lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas, which is obviously appalling. Secondly, there is a deep sense of injustice that people are making vast amounts of money while not providing basic services.

For a day or two last week, the coldest place in the country was Shap, in my constituency. I had the pleasure of being there over the weekend. All water was frozen. However, that is not always the case. Last year alone, at Shap pumping station, 1,000 hours’ worth of sewage was pumped into Docker beck. Just along the way at Askham waste water treatment works, 414 hours’ worth of sewage were dumped into the beautiful River Lowther just last year. I make that point because the water bill payers who have to deal with that know that of every £9 they spend on their water bills, £1 is going to serve United Utilities’ debt. That is at the low end of the scale: until the change announced just before Christmas, 46% from Thames Water’s bills was used to service debt.

Over the lifetime of our privatised system in this country, the water companies have collectively racked up £70 billion of debt. That means that all bill payers are paying between 11% and 46% of their bills simply to service those companies’ debt. Our amendment would simply tackle the fact that if investors choose to take risks, hoping to make gains, but fail, they should accept the consequences of those risks, which they chose to take, rather than passing on the cost to my constituents and everybody else’s. It is not for the public to carry the can for corporate failure.

[Emma Hardy]

I will speak to amendments 11 and 12, both of which were tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I welcome the opportunity to bust some myths and add some facts to the debate. Speaking of facts, following the debate that we had at our last sitting, we have produced a fact sheet relating to storm and other overflows, which has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I recognise that we are not discussing that now, but I thought I might mention that my promise to provide the evidence has been fulfilled. For this debate, perhaps it would be helpful to produce a fact sheet that explains exactly what this is and what it is not, because there has been an awful lot of confusion already.

On the subject of facts, I am not quite sure where the shadow Minister’s number on average bill increases of over £80 a year comes from. The fact is that the average bill increase is £31 a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

To be clear, this is literally just a point of process. The provision, which is not currently available in law, says that in the event of an application to the court for a SAR, the Government will be notified at the same time. The reason, as I outlined in my opening remarks, is that we do not believe that creditors are likely to protect the public interest as comprehensively as the Government. It is a mere process clause that provides that in the event of an application to the court for special administration, the Government and Ofwat need to be informed at the same time. The Government maintain the importance of ensuring that the Government and Ofwat are notified in the event of a winding-up petition. For that reason, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 15, page 21, line 22, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—

“(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 5.

Clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

We recognise and, indeed, strongly believe that patience is a virtue, but on these Benches we are also a bit impatient. Our concern regarding this clause is simply about implementation. There are two categories of things to be delivered. Some are to be done straightaway, and with others it looks like we are preparing to drag our heels. Therefore our amendment seeks to simplify implementation with one clear and immediate deadline for all provisions of the Bill.

Clause 15 provides that issues to do with remuneration and governance, pollution incident reduction plans, emergency overflows and nature-based solutions, for example, will come into force

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”—

in other words, not right now. That troubles us, given that there is this great sense that there has been a lot of talk about reform of the water industry and we run the risk, at least when it comes to those provisions, of getting just more talk. Making things subject to consultation, further navel contemplation, does not feel like the way to radically reform our industry. Our single deadline would cut through all that and bring the urgent change that the water industry desperately needs, so we commend amendment 20 to the Committee.

[Dr Hudson]

I support Government amendment 5, as it is a privilege amendment in accordance with the procedure for the passage of Bills between the other place and this place. We wish to raise no formal objections to this and we have no opposition to the amendment.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, seeks to make all provisions in the Bill come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. I share his urge to get on with things, which is why I am a little confused by the desire elsewhere for another water review, but we will get to that when we get to it. First and foremost, I would like to reassure the hon. Member that the Government have carefully considered the appropriate method and timing for the commencement of each clause and have made provision accordingly in clause 15. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot be justified.

For example, the emergency overflows provision will be implemented over the course of two price review periods to protect bill payers from sudden cost increases. Therefore, the commencement provision for clause 3 has been designed to allow for a staged implementation where it is needed. The Government have already committed in clause 15 to the immediate commencement of the civil penalties provisions on Royal Assent. I assure the Committee that the Government and the water industry regulators are dedicated to ensuring that all measures in the Bill are commenced and implemented as soon as possible and appropriate, to drive rapid improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale tempts me to read through a list of every provision and when they will be enacted, but I am going to save that treat for another time and instead list the clauses, rather than going through them in detail. The provisions in clauses 5 to 8, and in 10 to 15, will all come into force automatically either on Royal Assent or two months later. Clauses 1 to 4 and clause 9 will not commence immediately after Royal Assent and will require secondary legislation to come into force, which is due to the need for regulations required to commence the powers. I am sure that the hon. Member will have thoughts to share on those provisions involving statutory instruments after Royal Assent.

I trust that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is reassured by the Government’s careful consideration of the commencement of each clause, which has the best interests of bill payers in mind and recognises the need to debate and discuss some of the exact details under secondary legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Government amendment 5 removes the privilege amendment made in the other place. I like this amendment, because one of the quirks of how British politics has evolved is that we have the amendment in the Bill—I found it quite amusing. The privilege amendment is a declaration from the other place that nothing in the Bill involves a charge on the people or on public funds. It is because the Bill started in the Lords that we have to have the amendment to remove that. It recognises the primacy of the Commons, and I think it is quite fun. It is standard process for that text to be removed from the Bill through an amendment at Committee Stage.

Clause 15 sets out the extent of the Bill, when and how its provisions are to be commenced and its short title. The Bill extends to England and Wales only. As set out in the clause, the provisions of the Bill will variously come into force on Royal Assent, two months following Royal Assent, or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. The clause makes specific provisions, such as that the commencement of clause 3 may make reference to matters to be determined by the environmental regulators.

[Tim Farron]

I am happy to accept many of the assurances that the Minister gave, particularly on the role of Government amendment 5—I learn something new every day. The Liberal Democrats retain concerns about the delay in implementation of some of the good things in the Bill. All the same, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 5, in clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11).—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment reverses the “privilege amendment” made in the Lords.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations

“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—

“(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—

(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,

(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,

(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,

(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or

(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);”

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—

(a) water pipe leaks,

(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and

(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.”—(Adrian Ramsay.)

This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

Good. We are all for talking about and raising the issue of chalk streams, but it is clear that we wanted to include that in our amendment. Our amendment will therefore be a chance to give chalk streams the attention they need from this Government. The previous Government were ready to deliver that and hand the baton over to the new Government, so that they could follow through on the explicit requirement that chalk streams be considered.

The amendment is a chance for the Government to reconsider their stance on the water restoration fund. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister about what they are planning to do. If they are serious about improving our waterways and if the money from penalised water companies is allowed to go back into the local area to improve those waterways, we could agree about that. If the Government do not face up to this, that might be a negation of the various promises they made to the electorate when in opposition and send a message that their words are merely soundbites. I hope that the Minister will consider the points I have made and support this amendment to restore the water restoration fund—for the sake of not only our waters, but the democratic and local accountability on which they rely. We will seek to push new clause 2 to a vote.

[Tim Farron]

I rise briefly to support the new clause. Among many other reasons, it bears great similarity to one proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell. We consider everything in it to be right. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest has said, we should be deeply concerned about the Treasury seeking to hang on to money that, if there is any justice, ought to be invested back into the waterways that have been polluted by those who have been fined for that very offence.

I talked earlier about the deep sense of injustice felt across the country about those who pollute, who are getting away with polluting and who even—far from being found guilty—are getting benefits from that pollution. The measure would simply codify a move towards the establishment of a water restoration fund, supported, at least in part, by the fines gathered from those guilty in the first place. There would be a great sense of justice being done for folks concerned about how Windermere is cleaned up, how we make sure that Coniston’s bathing water standards remain high and how we deal with some of the issues I mentioned earlier on the River Lowther, River Eden and River Kent.

The water restoration fund should in part be supported by funds gained from those who are guilty: that is basic justice. We strongly support the new clause and will be voting for it if it is put to a vote.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to establish a water restoration fund in legislation. I accept his invitation to do better than the previous Government when it comes to pollution in the waterways, and welcome the low bar that they have set me.

A water restoration fund is already being established to direct water company fines into water environment improvement projects. This arrangement does not require legislation, because it exists. Defining a water restoration fund in legislation would create an inflexible and rigid funding mechanism, with the amendment requiring specific detail on the scope, operation and management of fines and money. We need to maintain flexibility in how water company fines are spent, to ensure that Government spending is delivering value for money.

The hon. Member can already see from the Bill and the discussions we have had that the cost recovery powers that we have introduced for the Environment Agency are an example of how we can ensure that water companies pay for enforcement. It is continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury regarding continued reinvestment of water company fines and penalties, and water environment improvement. A final decision on that will be made when the spending review concludes later this year. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

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

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

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

Clause 1

Rules about remuneration and governance

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

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

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

(a) the interests of customers, and

(b) the environment,

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

(iv) environmental interest groups.”

Government amendment 1.

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

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

Government amendment 2.

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

Clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Helena Dollimore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I will make some progress, if I may.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me—

[Dr Hudson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

[Dr Hudson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

Oh, go on.

[Dr Hudson]

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

[The Chair]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[The Chair]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Pollution incident reduction plans

[Tim Farron]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Hudson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that people need to have access, clearly and simply, to as much information as possible. My point is that if we put such details into law in the Bill, the way in which we want people to access such information may change—technology or best practice may evolve—and we will have to resort to altering legislation using statutory instruments. That is why I think it is better that we look to the guidance produced by the Environment Agency as the best way to present that information, while continually evaluating how we do so. I completely understand the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, because we all want information to be transparent and clear for everyone, and certainly not buried on a website.

To conclude, I will briefly speak to why clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The occurrence of pollution incidents is unacceptably high and has not reduced in the last four years. Water companies must reduce pollution incidents as a matter of urgency. Currently, sewage companies in England produce pollution incident reduction plans on a non-statutory basis. These plans vary in standard, content and frequency, and that makes them hard to scrutinise. It is particularly difficult to identify the progress that companies have made on the actions that they committed to in these plans. More transparency and greater accountability are needed.

That is why the clause will require both water supply companies and sewerage companies in England and Wales to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans to address matters such as the seriousness of pollution incidents and their causes. These plans will need to set out the actions that the water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have.

In addition, the Secretary of State will be able to direct water companies to include other matters in the plans as needed. Moreover, companies will be required to produce an accompanying implementation report detailing the progress they have made with the measures to which they committed in the previous year. Companies must clearly explain the reason for any failure to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failure in the future. This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to hold water companies accountable for making the improvements that they have committed to.

Chief executives will be personally liable for the production of these plans and must approve them before publication. If a company fails to publish a compliant plan and implementation report by the deadline each year, the company or the chief executive could be prosecuted for the offence. That could result in a fine and a criminal record. This emphasises that taking action to minimise pollution incidents should be at the core of the chief executive’s role.

We believe that this provision will ensure that the right people, with the right incentives, lead water companies through the changes necessary to drive down pollution incidents. Furthermore, regulators will be required to take companies’ compliance records in relation to implementation reports into account when carrying out their enforcement duties.

I hope that all hon. Members agree with me about the importance of clause 2, and I commend it to the Committee.

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

There are no further comments from us, and we do not seek to press to a vote any of the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned that there is not enough detail in the Bill about the impact of pollution incidents on the wider environment, much as I am grateful to the Minister for many of the comments she has made. All the same, we will not seek to trouble the Committee with a vote at this stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

In the interests of promoting transparency and clarity, we would still like to press our amendment 6 to a vote. To bolster, support and protect the precious integrity of our national parks, we would like to do the same with amendment 9.

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Emergency overflows

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

“(e) the volume of discharge.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”

This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible; and

(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”

[Tim Farron]

With your permission, Mr Vickers, I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to speak to the bulk of these amendments. I will focus on amendment 17, which requests that we insert into the Bill a position of Minister with responsibility for issues relating to the coast. That is something that the all-party group for coastal communities, chaired by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), is fully in favour of.

Coastal communities face a unique set of environmental and economic challenges, which are spread across Departments. It is therefore common sense to have a Minister to bring them together under one portfolio and champion those communities in Government. The specific needs of coastal communities were raised in the annual report of the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in 2021, and we particularly highlight those communities. In my own part of the world, we have the Lancashire over the sands part of my constituency and south-west Westmorland, but there are also coastal communities in places such as North Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere. As I said, there is cross-party support, through the APPG for coastal communities, for this proposal.

Let me make a quick reference to my own constituency. Among the challenges that the communities around Morecambe bay face is the pollution of the environment around them. In 2023 alone, one treatment works in Grange-over-Sands pumped sewage into the Kent estuary channel on 79 occasions for 73 hours. Across the water in Arnside, another pumped 42 times for 147 hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I think that might be really helpful. It has been an interesting but slightly muddled conversation. We were going to produce a factsheet to explain the difference between emergency and storm. Maybe we can include as much information as we can for Committee members by the end of Committee or before Report, if that does not put too much on my hard-working officials.

On the annual data being analysed, the proposed amendments are unnecessary and I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. On amendment 16, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and which is about the speed of delivery, the need to deliver the installation of monitors on emergency overflows must be balanced with practical constraints and with due consideration for the cost of rolling out so many monitors, especially as those costs are ultimately passed to consumers through water bills.

Water companies have been instructed to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030. This represents a doubling of the previous Conservative Government’s target of 25% of emergency overflows monitored by 2030. The Environment Agency will agree with water companies which emergency overflows will have monitors installed over the next five years based on priority areas, such as those that impact designated bathing and shellfish waters. As set out in the impact assessment, we expect the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows to cost £533 million over a 10-year period. We believe that pace of roll-out strikes the right balance of recognising the urgency—this Government are doing double what the previous Government promised—while ensuring that companies have the capacity to progress other improvements and balancing customer bill impacts.

To speak frankly, it is very important to monitor, but it is also very important to fix the causes of some of the problems that we see. There is always a balance between monitoring and fixing the problem, and we believe that we have got that balance right.

Requiring a faster roll-out of monitors could undermine the delivery of other improvements that water companies must make in price review 24—I would not want to be in a situation at the end of the price review where we monitor everything and fix nothing. That includes upgrades to wastewater treatment works and sewerage networks to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. Where companies can move further and faster to achieve the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows, they will of course be encouraged to do so, but we cannot accept this amendment to require water companies to install all monitors within 12 months. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney for his detailed points and for the Minister’s replies to them. We will not seek to press the majority of the amendments to the vote. Nevertheless, we stand by all that we have said and we do wish to press amendment 13 to a vote. The reality is that duration monitors only do so much good. Asking for volume to be added to duration is not to the exclusion of quality. In fact, it is part of an attempt to try to get to the bottom of it. Again, off the top of my head, earlier last year there was a sewage overflow into Coniston Water from 22 August, which lasted just over a week, and a sewage overflow around Easter time in Windermere, which lasted a matter of hours. The former was more of a trickle—still unacceptable—and the latter was a deluge. The difference in terms of quality was significant as well as in terms of volume. We therefore ask that the Committee considers amendment 13, which we seek to press to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 2

---

Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 9, line 1, leave out from start to “in” and insert—

“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.

I have made my argument in favour of amendment 17, probably at the wrong time. I do not seek to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert—

“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows

(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).

(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”.

This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

In my remarks on amendment 3, I highlighted the fact that parity of attention between storm overflows and emergency flows is critical to action in regulating the water industry. With that point in mind, I move amendment 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, which would make it a criminal offence for water companies and their chief executives to fail to comply with their duty to report on discharges from emergency overflows.

As I stated earlier, much was done to tackle the issue of storm overflows by the previous Conservative Government, including the passing of the Environment Act 2021, which we have spoken a lot about today. That introduced the statutory duty for water companies to publish storm overflow data in England every year and a storm overflow discharge reduction plan that created strict targets for sewage pollution and demanded water company investment in the necessary infrastructure to resolve issues.

Amendment 4 would address the need to ensure that emergency overflows are subject to the strict enforcement that we have seen exercised towards storm overflows in recent years. We have seen that an emphasis on strict enforcement can work in getting the reform that we all want to see the industry practise, and indeed in improving water quality. I note and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Witney who welcomed the progress that we have made in that area on monitoring and trying to address these issues.

The Government have set out in the Bill plans to put in place a criminal offence for failing to co-operate with or obstructing regulatory investigations. The amendment seeks to address a gap in those plans in a key area of public concern—a duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

Despite significant steps, some water companies are not taking their responsibilities to protect our waterways seriously enough. This is a sector where the rewards for success have historically been high for shareholders and, as we have heard a lot about, for executives. It is time now for serious consequences for failure to protect our waterways and the public to sit alongside those rewards for success.

The duty to report discharges from emergency overflows is basic, reasonable and vital to public transparency. I come back to our points about transparency. There can be no defence from any water company that it does not understand that duty or why that duty matters. Given the Bill already puts in place the principle of a criminal offence for failure to fulfil a reasonable duty and establishes a criminal offence for failure to co-operate or to obstruct a regulatory investigation, the amendment would strengthen the Bill’s intent that water companies’ conduct must be subject to criminal sanction and unlimited fines.

Of course, at the same time, however, as human error and technical fault can plague many walks of life and water companies are no exception, there must be a fair and reasonable opportunity for water companies and chief executives accused of violating their duties to show that they have genuinely tried to comply with the duties of reporting emergency overflows. Therefore, subsection (2) of amendment 4 provides explicit criteria that failure to meet the duties of publication for storm overflows does not result in a criminal offence when the company has done all it reasonably could to prevent the incident from occurring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for proposing amendment 10, which seeks to make it an offence for sewage undertakers to use an emergency overflow in areas used for aquatic sports. I will mention how much I enjoyed meeting the Clean Water Sports Alliance just last week to hear about its fantastic work to get us all up, out and active, although I have so far resisted the temptation to don a wetsuit and join in.

I agree that it is vital for us to reduce the impact of sewage pollution, so that our children and their children can make the memories that we did enjoying our waterways. However, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It risks duplicating existing requirements to limit pollution for emergency overflows, as well as protections for bathers that are already in place. Emergency overflow discharges are permitted only in very strict circumstances and as a last resort, such as in the event of mechanical breakdown or a downstream blockage. That factsheet on the different circumstances might help.

Should an emergency overflow discharge occur outside permit conditions, the Environment Agency is able to take robust enforcement action, including fines and criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they should not be happening.

[Tim Farron]

I want to point out something that is probably blindingly obvious, because I want to support the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Beaconsfield. When emergency overflows happen in rivers near places where people may engage in aquatic sports, that is one thing and it is unacceptable, but it is worth bearing the lakes in mind—I will pick Windermere for an example. A drop of water that enters the north end of the lake takes nine months to pass through the River Leven and out into Morecambe bay. The consequences of an overflow in a lake—in the Lake district or elsewhere—are so much greater than in other waterways. I also have 30 outdoor education centres in my constituency, many of them on lakes. They are much more affected by overflows than any other form of spillage, which is why I think the amendment is worth pursuing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate on clause 3. I reiterate my promise to provide a factsheet and information about the numbers we have used. We have had an interesting debate about the different types of monitors. To clarify, we have emergency overflows, storm overflows, water quality monitors, event duration monitors and volume monitors, which we have discussed. We will make sure that the factsheet provides clarification so that we are all on the same page and understand the debate clearly.

Putting all that to one side, I think we ultimately all agree that it is important to better understand the frequency and duration of discharges from all the emergency overflows. We all think we need to improve transparency and inform investigations by the regulators into potential non-compliance.

Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, clause 3 will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and, importantly, the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred and how long it lasted. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulators. We have discussed our concerns about volume monitors being more difficult and costly to install. I gave a rather garbled explanation of the difficulty owing to the pipework in the majority of overflows requiring modification. As I said, I will provide further information on those numbers.

Such a large programme of work would take much longer than 12 months. We do not think that this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge—measurement of the water quality is required for that. To repeat a point, I do not want to be a Minister in a few years’ time who has perfected the art of monitoring and done nothing to deal with the causes. That is why the water companies will begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows, as set out in the price review ’24, to provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality.

New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, would require capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station to be calculated. That is unnecessary because that information is already included in environmental permits and available from the Environment Agency’s public register. The new clause also proposes a general duty for water companies to collect data relating to their performance operating a sewerage system. We do not believe that that broad duty adds any meaningful requirement on water companies beyond their existing duties through the environmental information regulations.

On that basis, I commend clause 3 to the Committee and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Nature-based solutions

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 4, page 10, line 4, leave out—

“use that is to be made of”

and insert—

“priority that is to be given to”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 5—Licence conditions about nature recovery—

“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—

‘17FC Nature recovery

(1) It is a condition of all licences granted under section 17A (water supply licences) that relevant undertakers must give due consideration to nature-based solutions targeted at reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.

(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”

This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature-based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.

[Tim Farron]

You will be delighted to hear that I will not say very much about this, Mr Vickers. Amendment 26 relates to nature-based solutions for these broader issues, and many of my points were covered under amendment 24. I simply want to point out the value of nature-based solutions. They are cheap, they are low input, they provide potential income for farmers and other land managers, they are environmentally friendly in and of themselves, and they involve very light engineering to install and maintain. They are also less complex, not labour-intensive and much quicker to achieve and install, as well as having very clear ecological benefits and alleviating pressure on more conventional forms of sewage treatment. I make those points just to add to the importance of prioritising nature-based solutions to tackling sewage treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this debate and the careful consideration of the amendments tabled to clause 4. We are in danger of having a bit of a love-in with so much agreement in this room.

I turn first to amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I was genuinely really pleased to see clause 4 added on Report in the Lords, as a result of the collaborative cross-party approach to strengthening the Bill so that it further encourages greater use of nature-based solutions by water companies, and I appreciate the kind comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. This is why clause 4 requires sewerage undertakers to address, in their drainage and sewerage management plans, the use that is to be made of nature-based solutions in their networks.

Sewerage undertakers already have existing obligations under section 94A of the Water Industry Act to address the sequence and timing for the implementation of measures proposed in their drainage and sewerage management plans. We believe that these obligations sufficiently require sewerage undertakers to address the relative prioritisation of the proposed measures in their plans. Nature-based solutions are one of a diverse range of potential solutions to complex drainage and sewerage issues. Clause 4 will ensure that sewerage undertakers highlight the proposed role of nature-based solutions within their network. It is right that undertakers have due flexibility to consider the full range of solutions available to them and to work with stakeholders to identify the right solutions.

As much as I love nature-based solutions—and so does everyone in the room, it appears—I am sure we all accept that it is not appropriate to prioritise nature-based solutions ahead of other available options in every circumstance. We believe, however, that the provisions in clause 4 will have sufficient positive effect in supporting greater exploration and development of nature-based solutions without posing operational challenges for the sewerage undertakers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest tabled, I take this opportunity again to agree and emphasise that the Government think that nature-based solutions are critical to ensuring that we have a resilient and sustainable sewerage system. I am therefore delighted to inform the House that we have recently seen the regulator doing just that. In its final determinations for the 2024 price review, Ofwat has set out an allowance of £3 billion for water company investment in nature-based solutions and biodiversity. That includes £2.5 billion to reduce storm overflow spills through green solutions.

However, the Government have noted the concerns and amendments in the other place, which is why we introduced our amendment to place a new requirement on sewerage undertakers to support the greater use of nature-based solutions, which now forms clause 4. Clause 4 will ensure that nature-based solutions are considered from the start of investment planning and decision making as a solution across multiple risks, including pollution, flooding and drainage. I trust that the hon. Member is therefore reassured that his new clause has already been provided for. On that basis, I ask him not to push his new clause to a vote.

Although I have outlined some of the merits of clause 4, I will briefly reiterate why this Government consider the clause to be an essential part of the Bill. Nature-based solutions are vital to protecting the environment and the wider water system, as well as delivering co-benefits including protection from flooding for the public and enhancing the natural environment. I concur with the comments made about flooding by the Opposition spokesperson. Clause 4 will drive further exploration and development of nature-based solutions, and will require undertakers to be transparent as to how they have deployed, or propose to deploy, nature-based solutions within their drainage and sewerage networks. Compliance with that duty will be monitored by Government and regulators.

Sewerage undertakers will also be required to conduct public consultations on their drainage and sewerage management plans, which will allow the public to scrutinise the plans and propose changes. Therefore, to help realise the Government’s desire to see further development of nature-based solutions by sewerage undertakers, I commend clause 4 to the Committee.

[Tim Farron]

I will add to the words I have already said, but not by very many, I promise. The simple bottom line of our proposal is that nature-based solutions offer great value for dealing with sewage. As has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, they also have a significant impact on flood prevention. I am bound to crowbar this in, but it is a reminder that among the things that we should be enormously grateful to those who work our uplands—our hill farmers—for is that their work, if we support them properly, prevents people who live in towns, villages and cities from being flooded.

Another part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief is the environmental land management scheme, and how we can look to further support those working in the uplands—our land managers and our upland farmers, both tenants and owners—to be able to deliver those nature-based solutions to protect millions of homes and avoid billions of pounds of damage, as well as being part of the solution to dealing with sewage.

We will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Impeding investigations: sentencing and liability

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 5. The clause strengthens the penalty for obstructing the investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies blocking the regulators’ investigations.

In 2019, the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure Members will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable. Currently, the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s investigatory powers—under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995—is punishable only by a fine, and can only be heard in the magistrates court. There is also no mechanism for prosecuting executives where obstruction of those powers occurs under their guidance.

The offence of obstructing the Drinking Water Inspectorate is already triable in the Crown court. That too, however, only carries a maximum penalty of a fine. I am sure Members will agree that it should never be preferable to accept a fine rather than face the full consequences of lawbreaking, and where lawbreaking occurs with their involvement, executives should be held accountable. Clause 5 makes the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s powers under section 108 of the 1995 Act triable in the Crown court. It expands the maximum penalty for obstructing Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations to be up to two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

Clause 5 will address a notable justice gap and further deter the offence of obstruction. In turn, it should better enable our regulators to carry out their investigations uninhibited and hold water companies to account accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

The Opposition have no formal objections to the clause, but I do have a couple of clarifying questions. I realise I am getting into territory with which I have no familiarity. I am not a lawyer; I am a veterinary surgeon. When we are changing offences to make them more criminal, there are implications for the courts and for individuals. Although expanding the options available to the court when sentencing offenders who have not followed the rules is welcome, how have the Government ensured that the offences are clear, so that those who commit them face the full punishment if and when required?

In terms of modelling the potential impact downstream, what work have the Government done to look at the situation retrospectively? If this provision had been law over the last few years, how many offenders would have been caught by it and potentially imprisoned? I realise that that is quite a technical question, but I wonder if the Government have looked at that at all. When we bring in laws, we need to ensure that we are aware of their implications and know how the legal and judicial system can exercise them. However, we have no formal opposition to the clause.

[Tim Farron]

Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far.

We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.

[David Reed]

I want to raise one minor point. Public confidence in us restoring our water systems is the reason we are here, scrutinising this Bill. Feargal Sharkey—a main campaigner who many people up and down the country listen to—recently wrote an article saying that no water boss would ever go to prison as a result of this legislation. Will the Minister comment on that to give confidence to people watching this proceeding?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

[Steve Reed]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Presumably it is related to the questions.

[Tim Farron]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

Storm Bert

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

Rural Affairs

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

[Simon Hoare]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Kane to make his maiden speech.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Farron]

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

[Sarah Dyke]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Farron]

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

[Mr Amos]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

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

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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