Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak on the issue of how we can fix our broken water and sewerage sector, and get serious about cleaning up our rivers and lakes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate. My constituency of Witney, in west Oxfordshire, has borne the brunt of the sewage scandal. Many beautiful rivers flow through it, and the Thames bisects it. We have the Windrush and the Evenlode, Shell brook to the north, and the Ock to the south. They are all heavily and frequently polluted. I welcome the calls from colleagues to introduce a new blue flag status so that we can guarantee that a river is clean enough to swim in. That would help to restore people’s confidence in swimming, and the bathing place in Witney would be a fantastic example. It is just north of Early’s mill, where generations of people have spent their summer swimming but no longer do so. We know what a car crash our sewerage network is, thanks to the many campaigners who have gone to so much trouble in their own time, and often using their own money, to bring this issue to our attention. At the top of the star is WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—which is run by Professor Peter Hammond, Ash Smith, Vaughan Lewis and Geoff Tombs, who have worked tirelessly for the last five years to highlight what has gone wrong. I thank them and all the other citizen scientists in my constituency and beyond, who have done so much to bring this issue to national attention. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. I will focus on failures of regulation—specifically, Ofwat’s failures. Ofwat is responsible for holding water companies accountable against the terms of their operating licences. DEFRA has oversight of Ofwat, sets the policy framework and provides strategic guidance to Ofwat on key environmental and social policies. As many Members have said, Ofwat is clearly failing on pollution. The Environment Agency’s own data shows that Thames Water discharged raw sewage for almost 300,000 hours in 2024—up by almost 50% on the 196,000 hours in 2023. That is well known. Ofwat is also failing to enforce financial viability. Just like every other water company in the country, Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has to have two investment grade credit ratings, but it has not done so for nearly a year. It has been beaten with limp celery, but that is about it. It has £19 billion of debt and is quite possibly heading towards £23 billion of debt, and it has cash flows of just £1.2 billion. That obviously makes no financial sense, yet Thames Water is allowed to breach the rule with impunity. I have no doubt that other water companies, and companies in other sectors, take note of what Thames Water has been allowed to do and say, “We, too, can cross that line in water and other regulated sectors.” How is that good news? It introduces a moral hazard that does enormous damage to our country. Who is ultimately paying the cost of all this debt, and the enormous interest and advisory fees that go with it? Of course, it is the bill payers. Ofwat fails to provide value for money. As per the Water Industry Act 1991, it has a statutory duty “to protect the interests of consumers” and “to promote economy and efficiency” on the part of water companies. As WASP’s recently published note on water companies’ capital project costs states, the costs that companies are proposing are extraordinary. In some cases, they are almost an order of magnitude higher than those in comparator companies in countries such as the USA and Denmark. Why is this, and why is it being allowed to happen? Why are our costs so much greater? Is it because our regulatory capital value pricing model is based on asset values, and therefore gives an incentive to water companies to boost their asset bases? They do this through extraordinarily long depreciation periods for network assets such as pipes, which were installed 50 years ago, but somehow have depreciation periods of 100 years and are leaking like sieves. It also gives them an incentive to pour really expensive concrete. Why is it that something built over here costs eight times the price in Denmark? Why has, say, the Oxford sewage treatment works gone from £40 million to more than £400 million in planned spend in the last four years? What sort of inflation is that? Ofwat fails to provide fair pricing. Water companies have a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers, which, again, Ofwat is supposed to uphold. Water companies have been allowed to hike bills this year—in the case of Thames Water, by 31%, although some of my constituents have come to me and said they have received increases of 50%, 70% or even more than 90%—and what are bill payers getting for that? This is not fair when more than a quarter of the bills in Thames Water’s case are just paying the interest—not paying down the debt, but just paying the interest. Again, Ofwat is continuing to allow the pockets of water company creditors to be lined at the expense of ordinary households. Ofwat fails to be awake. It has a responsibility—bear with me on this one—for tracking who are the ultimate controllers of the water companies. That should be pretty simple; there are not many of them. In Thames Water’s case, it is taking wilful ignorance to an extreme of utterly determined ignorance. Last May, Thames Water’s largest shareholder, OMERS, wrote its stake in Thames Water down to zero and pulled its directors off the board. This has been widely reported in the press—it is not secret—yet I got a letter from Ofwat last month confirming that it believes OMERS is still the ultimate controller of the company. Why is Ofwat ignoring this, and why does it matter? Being the ultimate controller of the company means it has certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities are just being ignored, and Ofwat, which is exactly what is supposed to be holding the company to account, is hiding under a stone somewhere. It needs to stop doing this.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I will make that three. Thank you very much, and over to you.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that adopting a policy of managed decline, as the Conservatives did in Oxfordshire in 2014, is a disaster, and is really not the appropriate way to fix the problems we have in front of us?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Member elaborate a little bit on that £250 billion number and where it comes from?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I want to play back what the Minster just said. It is up to either Ofwat or the Secretary of State to apply to the court to put the company into special administration. As the Minister wrote to me last July or September, one of those conditions is whether the company is unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. Given that the company has come out and said that it has only £39 million, with £19.5 billion of debt, and it is going to run out of money by 24 March, I think that we have passed that benchmark pretty clearly. The idea that we have not is simply not true. It is therefore up to Ofwat or the Secretary of State, who continues to decline—maybe that is a better word than resist—to ask the court to consider.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  To be clear, I said that Ruth Kelly is the chair of Water UK—I said exactly that.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Many apologies to you, Ms Lewell, and to the Minister. The signal that the Minister and the Government are sending to this and other regulated sectors is simply terrible. All that customers in my Witney constituency and across the whole catchment really want at this point is reliable, affordable, clean water to our homes. We want local rivers and lakes not to have sewage poured into them on a near-daily basis. We want a Government who are serious about putting the interests of customers and our rivers before the interests of hedge funds and private equity funds. Please stop letting us down.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I said that she is the chair of Water UK, which is the trade body for water companies, so I think that follows.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, it does. I think Ofwat is doing exactly what the company’s creditors want it to do, and I wonder why that is happening, because it should not be. Finally, there is a failure to innovate. There are a host of technologies out there, and far too often we hear the same old lines about Victorian sewers, cameras and how impossible it all is. There is a huge range of leak detection, pipeline monitoring, protective maintenance, trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. I hear from Oxfordshire firms that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions into the US and Europe than into the UK, so something is going seriously wrong. We could start by looking at whether the incentives are effectively aligned; I do not believe they are. What are the consequences of this failure to act? It is easy to lay a lot of the blame at the last Government, but the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was more window dressing than action. I am new to Parliament, but I was particularly dismayed that not a single word of a single proposed amendment from any party was accepted by the Minister. I wish that in Parliament we all had enough confidence to accept good ideas where we found them—I live in hope.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate on Government support for Thames Water. What does Government support for Thames Water look like? Our current Government support Thames Water by letting it breach the terms of its operating licence, letting Ofwat ignore its own rules, letting consumers take the pain of higher bills for no gain, letting financiers make out like bandits and letting our rivers continue to be filled with sewage. What is shocking about that is that a Labour Government are doing it. This Government are turning out to be every bit as bad as the Conservatives were at protecting our rivers. They are completely ducking their responsibilities. It is within the Minister’s powers to take action: she is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding at DEFRA, DEFRA oversees Ofwat, and Ofwat issues operating licences to water companies. Here are some of the key requirements that Thames Water needs to comply with, per its Ofwat-issued operating licence. First, there is an operational requirement to comply with environmental and health standards. Thames Water is failing that requirement. As per Environment Agency data, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, in 2024 Thames Water discharged nearly 300,000 hours of sewage, which is 50% up on 2023. It is illegal to dump sewage in dry conditions, but it is happening repeatedly. Professor Peter Hammond, who lives in my constituency, monitored the Stanton Harcourt sewage treatment works in my constituency, and found that there had been 266 illegal spills in just a single sewage treatment works in a four- year period. That is a complete failure of that operating requirement. Secondly, Thames Water is failing the financial viability requirement, under which it is required to have two licences of investment-grade credit ratings. Currently, it has no credit ratings that are investment grade. Standard & Poor’s has the company’s debt 12 notches below investment grade, and Moody’s has it nine notches below. That is as far deep into junk bond territory as one can get. In the last financial year to March 2024, Thames Water had £19 billion of debt but only £1.2 billion of cash in. Everybody knows that that is not a sensible way to run a company. By allowing Thames Water to breach that rule, we introduce moral hazard into the water sector and all other regulated sectors. Other water companies take note that there has been no material sanction of Thames Water and realise that they can also likely get away with it. Of the nearly £1.4 billion of funding due to come into the company, £900 million is going straight out in interest expenses, sweet financial goodies for hedge funds, and advisory fees. That is not fair on our bill payers. Customers are being royally stuffed, and Ofwat and the Minister’s DEFRA team are standing by. Thirdly, there is a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers—the fair pricing requirement—and Thames Water is failing at that too. Bills have gone up by a headline of 31%. Many Witney constituents have written to me with increases of 50% and 70%—in one case, it was even 93%. On top of that, to add insult to injury, Thames Water has an application to the Competition and Markets Authority to increase bills even higher, by 59%. Fourthly, there is the ownership requirement. This one really gets my goat. Thames Water must inform Ofwat of any change to control. Ultimate controllers are defined in Ofwat’s papers as being “in a position to control or in a position to materially influence the company”. Thames Water’s own advisers have publicly stated that the company is de facto controlled by its creditors. Ofwat is ignoring this. Extraordinarily, Ofwat, wrote to me in the last month to say that, despite it being publicly stated in the press that Omers, a shareholder in Thames Water, had written its stake down to zero and pulled its board representation off last May, it is still actually controlling the company. Why is this going on? What could be going on here? It smells—

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  None of the 60 amendments in the Commons, or however many there were, was accepted. The rejected proposals included putting flow meters on the outflows of sewage treatment works, which is sort of logical; establishing targets to reduce pollution over time, using existing benchmarks of hours of spilled sewage; making sewage treatment works’ calculations more transparent; and bringing environmental experts and consumer representatives on to water boards. The Labour Government are now allowing a public utility company to line the pockets of bankers and hedge funds at the expense of bill payers. As someone said in the Financial Times this week, “with water, it’s a total monopoly and a total shambles. A shambopoly if you will”. The Government’s support for Thames Water essentially amounts to unconditional support for the company’s creditors, at a direct and massive cost to its customers. What do we need to do instead? First, we need to put the company out of its financial misery and put it into special administration. We should allow its debt to be massively written down to something like three times the cash flow or thereabouts. If the debt is reduced, the company will have a sufficiently strong balance sheet to allow it to invest in the infrastructure we desperately need and to spend our bill payments on fixing treatment works and pipe networks, rather than paying interest. We should allow water companies coming out of special administration to be mutually owned by their customers and professionally managed. We should set pollution baselines and pollution reduction targets and get serious about putting transparency targets and technology to work to clean up our rivers. Special administration is clearly the most logical option at the moment, but I believe that the Government are shying away from it because of threats of legal action against them, phantasmagorical scenarios of financial Armageddon, or both. Please do not let Thames Water’s lobbyists, including Ruth Kelly, the ex-Labour Minister who is now chair of Water UK, to scaremonger you out of taking the action that 16 million consumers—your electorate—need. Those scenarios are patently not true, and it is best to ask Thames Water about that. As per page 92 of the independent expert report from Thames Water’s adviser, Teneo, the net cost to the Treasury of taking the company into special administration, even in the worst-case scenario, is zero—please look it up. Instead, we now have this bizarre situation whereby a Labour Government are cheerleading the American hedge funds and private equity funds taking over our largest water company and making a massive profit out of its customers. What goes for Thames Water will very likely go for the rest of the sector, so the signal that you and your Government are sending the sector—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State will know, in 2018, this House allocated £40 million of funding in memory of Dame Tessa Jowell, who was killed by a brain tumour. Seven years on, less than half of that money has been spent. The money is doing no good sitting in a bank, so will the Secretary of State please commit to spending that money within a decade of Dame Tessa’s death?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to rejoin a single market in electricity, we would lower our electricity bills by joining the single day-ahead coupling system with Europe?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because I have enjoyed working with them on the Bill. We all have our own stories. I should state my personal interest. My sister Georgie is sitting in the Gallery. She was diagnosed with a GBM—glioblastoma multiforme—nearly two years ago. I would like to say that she is alive and well, but let me just say that she is alive and she is doing well. She has been brave, determined and an inspiration to us all. It is particularly painful as she is a mother of three, a wife, a daughter and a sister. We have a lot to focus on, and it is on us collectively. I will not rehash too much, and I will try to resist having a cry-fest, but it might be difficult. Our actions, and what we do as a team, are what we will be judged on. I am going to throw it over to the Labour side a little, because they are in government now and they have more power than we do in opposition. When we leave the Chamber today, I ask each Government MP to ask, “Okay, what are we actually going to do?” The talk in this Chamber is nice, but it is the actions that count. I will pick up on two points. The first is the trial register. We have first-hand experience with Georgie of trying to find what trials are out there. Obviously, there are not enough trials; we know that, and that is something we need to fix. Also, matching patients with trials is not rocket science—that is a basic thing. I would also encourage the Government, rather than just starting from scratch and taking months to reinvent the wheel, to find out what is going on in the private sector and what trials and registers of people seeking trials are already out there, and to build on that. If there is a partnership with some company, that is fine, but let us move quickly, because speed really counts. The second point is about orphan drug regulations. A key trigger for me getting into politics was Brexit. I thought it was a disastrous idea, and I still do. I struggle to find any possible gains from Brexit, but there is one thing that we could do. The EU has regulations on orphan drugs; ours could be more generous. We could pull research into the UK by giving patents for a few extra years, which would encourage people to dig into the research in these critical areas. I live in hope of that one potential gain. Even if products are obtained, reimbursement has to be accessible on the NHS, which is far from certain. Ensuring that there is a robust, timely and accessible route to making these drugs available on the NHS for patients really counts. It is critical that that does not fall off the radar. Also, we are really falling behind in the number of clinical researchers active in the UK today. If we want to get this research moving, we must think about what we are doing to get clinical researchers working hard in this space and in others, because we are not doing a good enough job on that. That is all I will say. Let me just return to my first point: we need action. It is good to have those in the Gallery here today.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member will agree that the shutting down of the SFI with no notice on Tuesday night is an awful situation. DEFRA has been either disorganised or sneaky, but either way it diminishes the trust of our farming communities in the Government.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Product Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  Our country’s very high electricity costs are another huge problem facing businesses in my constituency and nationally. Reintegrating our power markets with Europe’s through the single-day ahead coupling system would cost our country nothing, save costs for businesses, reduce carbon dioxide and make our power markets more efficient. Will the Minister take fast steps to reintegrate our electricity markets with those of our European neighbours?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents in Witney were extremely distressed to receive letters this week from Thames Water saying that their bills are going up by £19 a month from April, putting more pressure on household bills. Does the Minister think that is acceptable, given that the restructuring plan in the High Court is putting £800 million to £900 million of interest expenses on to this company—

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to hear that mutual ownership is being considered. I am very grateful for that. I will take my chances and try to clear up one point. I completely agree with what the Minister read out from the last page of the fact sheet: “Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR? No.” Absolutely, but my point is not remotely about that. I am not asking about compensating creditors. Let me take the Committee back to the first paragraph on page 1. Where there is a recovery to be made, who pays for it? We are not talking about compensating creditors; we are talking about taking money off them. Rather than the money being taken from the customers, which is exactly what the bullet point that I read out three minutes ago states, we believe that it should be taken from the creditors. It is not about compensation. I am surprised that there is confusion on the point, because that is not where I am coming from. It is about the shortfall and who pays for it. It is clearly stated twice—both in DEFRA’s explanatory notes and in the bullet point, which I can read out again as desired—that the bill payers will pay for it. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I do not know when that changed. [Interruption] In 2015, was it? There we are: maybe it was changed in 2015. Perhaps all of us, or most of us, recognise that is not a good situation. Time and again—I have seen this in Witney, Ducklington, Bampton, Aston and Carterton—this is just waved through. When I quiz people from Thames Water about why they have waved it through, they say, “We have a duty to connect.” They do have a legal duty to connect, which they take seriously, but they take their duty to add capacity to match that increase much less seriously.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  What I really like about our proposal is that the companies are coming out of special administration, so it does not cost anybody anything: the equity of the shareholders has been written off. We often hear that it would not be a good idea, because it would cost too much to buy the companies out. Under our proposal, we would not need to buy them out, because we are advocating this only where companies are going into special administration. We are advocating a mutual model and—I say respectfully to the hon. Member—only that. That is what is on the table today, and that is what we are after.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We will not press this new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire for her excellent point. It is very interesting that a mutually owned water company is taking that very sensible decision and approach. It highlights that that is a benefit. They are not trying to make money hand over fist. They are trying to do the right thing.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We will not put this to a vote, but I will continue to highlight the point that £200 million is too high a benchmark and we should drop it, because that would serve us all, and our customers, better. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 33 Responsibility in relation to planning issues “(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows. (2) In section 37 (General duty to maintain water supply system etc), after subsection (1) insert— “(1A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide— (a) full and accurate information, and (b) an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1). (1B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (1A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose. (1C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (1A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsection (1), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time. (3) In section 94, after subsection (2) insert— “(2A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide— (a) full and accurate information, and (b) an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2). (2B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose. (2C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time. (2D) An undertaker which fails to carry out a plan established under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.””— (Charlie Maynard.) Brought up, and read the First time .

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a big one: companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets. I will read out the key bits: “(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish…annual, and…rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.” On the five-year average, obviously we have wet years and dry years. We cannot just have flat numbers. We have to take an average. The new clause also states: “A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline…a 25% reduction within five years;…a 60% reduction within ten years;…an 85% reduction within fifteen years…and…a 99% reduction within twenty years.” What are we trying to get at? Clause 2 is about pollution incident reduction plans. That is about specific events, so it is at a micro level. We have a national problem and need to think about things at a national level. We have a lot of data already. I think it was Peter Drucker who said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” We have been advocating for measuring it; we have had that debate. The good news is that we already have one metric of measurement—event duration monitors—that tells us how many hours of sewage are spilled per year. EDMs are a long way from perfect in two respects. First, we do not know the volumes going out or how much of that is actually sewage, as we have discussed at length. Secondly, a lot of EDMs are sub-par. I will give a shout-out to Professor Peter Hammond, who has highlighted some essential messages about that. However, that is still the best dataset we have, and we should all take the view that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As soon as we put in flow monitors and quality monitors—I know the Government do not support that—we will advocate using those as a metric, but we do not have those now. However, we do have EDM data, so I am advocating that we use that metric. We already know how many hours are spilled by operator. We can take the five-year average and start setting out targets. Businesses like knowing where they stand. I am a naive politician who is only six months into the job, so there is an awful lot I do not know. I probably committed a key error here by putting in numbers, so some smart politician could come along and say, “That is an incredibly generous number. We’ll go lower than that.” Fine—I do not really care if someone wants to play that game. I want our rivers fixed, and we get our rivers fixed by setting targets, telling the water companies that we want them to meet those targets and giving them sticks, and possibly carrots, to meet them. We are missing an opportunity—respectfully, I feel that we have missed a lot of opportunities. We did not have to have this Bill now, but we do have it. We ought to be going for the wins now, but every single amendment has been rejected regardless of which party tabled it. That is a loss for our rivers as much as for hon. Members present. However, this new clause provides an opportunity to set some targets. Whether it is today—although this new clause will almost certainly fail because we will not push it to a vote—or in the future, I encourage the Government to take the metric they have, which is hours of sewage spilled, set benchmarks against which to measure water companies and set out bad news or good news depending on whether they miss or hit them. If we hit those targets, we are seriously getting closer to fixing our rivers. Without them, we are not. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in saying that I have really enjoyed most of the three days of this Committee. I appreciate the courtesy and generosity in the answers. I thank the Chair, the team of Clerks, who have been so helpful, and the DEFRA team.