Tim Farron MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous; I am grateful. The concern is that farmers are often pushed into things that they would not choose initially—such as giving over productive agricultural land for stuff that is not food production. Because of the perversity of Government funding changes, perhaps the most egregious thing in the Budget was the 76% cut in the basic payment for farmers this year, which will make many of them feel that their hand is forced to go down a direction that they do not want to go down. Might the Minister have a word with the Treasury to see whether that cut could be taken away?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Let me say, without going through all the flowery stuff that we did earlier, that I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for what has been a broadly collegiate debate. However, the shadow Secretary of State said something that is worth reflecting on. I think she was talking about what I am about to mention, namely the fines of £164 million that Ofwat had indeed proposed should be levied against the very three water companies to which she referred. For what it is worth—and I am not here to defend the Treasury—this was not a Treasury decision at all. It was because of Ofwat’s weakness, and a culture of timidity that is evident when it comes to gathering money from the water companies, that the money was not collected. That information is 100% correct, because it was given to me in response to one of my Freedom of Information Act requests. In any event, the key feature is my disappointment in the Bill. I will certainly support it should it come to a vote, and I support it anyway, but its weakness lies in the fact that it is not radical enough. It does not go far enough, and it does not tackle the weakness in regulation to which, in a roundabout, accidental way, the Secretary of State has referred . We will engage with the Cunliffe water review and recognise it as independent. My reflection is simply this. The Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. They were a well-funded Opposition through short money—we could only dream of such things—and surely had the capability to come up with a set of plans that meant they could get on with it straightaway, rather than kicking it to halfway into the Parliament. This is an unambitious Bill, but it is good enough, and it will have our support. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed , with amendments .

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  They are not mutually exclusive, are they? Knowing the duration of a spill is important, but knowing what went into it and how much also helps to know the impact so we can regulate it. Is that not true?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Somebody representing the water industry will say that the water industry, as structured, is deeply unappealing to investors. There is a case for changing the model of how we structure those companies. When a company goes into special administration, we do not think it is right that innocent customers should have to foot the bill. The management of those companies, and their investors and creditors, are responsible for the mess the company is in. They took the risks and speculated in order to make money, so it is only right that they should have to cover the costs of the risks that they took, not our constituents. One of the positive aspects of the Bill is the Government’s decision to deploy volunteers, citizen scientists and campaigners to ensure scrutiny of the water industry. Only last week, I spent time speaking with the leaders of the Save Windermere campaign and the Clean River Kent Campaign. I also enjoyed getting my hands dirty and my legs very wet alongside the Eden Rivers Trust in the River Eden not long ago. We are lucky across the whole country to have passionate, committed, expert volunteers who are dedicated to cleaning up and protecting our precious waterways, yet we are saddened that the Government have failed to provide those volunteers with the resources they need or the power they deserve.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Those funds are vital. Bathing water status is important. We hope that DEFRA will come out with new criteria soon so that places such as the River Kent can bid to be included. We have tabled new clauses 4, 10, 13 and 15, which between them would strengthen the hand of those wonderful volunteers, including by ensuring that the Government’s proposed live database, which we support, retains comprehensive historical data. If it does not, the Government are expecting campaigners to be watching that database 24/7. If they have the temerity to go to sleep, look after their kids or go to work, they may miss something. If we are to back campaigners and volunteers, the least we can do is give them the tools to scrutinise water companies’ performance. Knowledge is power, and our amendments would give those campaigners knowledge and power. New clause 11 and amendment 14 address monitoring. Event duration monitors tell us how long a spill took place over. For instance, they tell us that last February, United Utilities spilled into Windermere for 10 hours in one go, but those monitors do not tell us anything about volume. As a result, they do not tell us enough about the impact of sewage spills on the ecology and wildlife of our waterways. It is equally possible to have a long duration trickle or a short duration deluge of sewage into our lakes, rivers and seas. New clause 11 would insist that water companies have to measure and report on the volume of discharges and that regulators hold them to it. New clause 25 would put into law concrete pollution targets and proper penalties when companies fail to meet them. Companies who fail to meet those targets would be put into what we are calling special measures, meaning that they would be subject to financial penalties and/or be made to undertake a specific improvement project. No water company chief executive will quake in their boots if they are not held to targets that are ambitious and enforceable with penalties, and which actually mean something.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are in the Chamber, as well as to all my colleagues who sat on the Committee for what was a genuinely enjoyable and collegiate experience. I hope they will forgive me for making a few criticisms in the next few minutes. We tabled 44 amendments in Committee, but only 34 today, you will be delighted to know Madam Deputy Speaker— [ Interruption. ] I know—I am failing. I will not speak to all of them for blindingly obvious reasons. We tabled those amendments because we in the Liberal Democrats, humbly yet enthusiastically, have taken on the mantle in this place and beyond of being the voice for many thousands of campaigners, volunteers and citizen scientists who continue to lead the way in exposing the failures and injustices in the water industry, and fighting for meaningful change. We are immensely grateful to those people all across the country. Our water industry has become a money-making vessel for speculators, who appear to care little for the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas—something I can tell the House is a source of great fury in England’s precious Lake district. The water companies have accumulated £70 billion in debt since privatisation, while still managing to pay out £83 billion in dividends. That is more than a third of the total spent on infrastructure during that time. In the last year, water companies paid out £9.3 million in executive bonuses, and Thames Water’s bonuses doubled to £1.3 million that year. Money leaks out of the industry, infrastructure is failing, and it is our constituents who pay the price. Meanwhile the regulatory framework has failed utterly and is not fit for purpose. As I speak, £164 million in fines has been levied against water companies by Ofwat, following an investigation that began four years ago, of which it has so far failed to collect a single penny.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talks about Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, and we are obviously interested in engaging with that. Does he think, though, that today’s appointment of a former Thames Water executive to the commission will fill the public with confidence that it will be independent in any way?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies simply do not fear Ofwat, or indeed any other part of our fragmented regulatory system. They dwarf Ofwat in terms of resources, they flout the limited regulations that they face, and they run rings around the regulators and obviously get away with it. There was the outrage of the water companies being permitted, just before Christmas, to increase water bills by 36% by 2030, and what makes it even worse is that a third of customers’ bills are being spent just on servicing the debt—a debt that was in part run up to fund excessive dividends. Water companies are already passing on the consequences of their complete financial mismanagement to our constituents—their customers—but this Bill could enable that to go further and to be even worse. According to the Government’s explanatory notes, “following the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State to a company in special administration”, clause 12 of the Bill, as drafted, would “require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers, and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall”. In other words, when a water company goes into special administration, there is a cost to the Government of ensuring that supply is maintained, and the Government need to recoup that cost. That sounds reasonable at first glimpse, but it does not seem reasonable that bill payers should have to pick up the tab, despite bearing none of the blame for the financial mess a water company finds itself in. My hon. Friends and I are keen to press amendment 9, which would make it explicit that it should be the creditors of the companies—the big financial investors that have loaded debt on to the water companies—that cover those costs instead. The amendment would strike out the Government’s provision in the Bill that opens up bill payers to carrying the cost of paying off company debt, even in the event of bankruptcy.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Clinical Academics · Hansard source

  More

  The new Pears medical school at the University of Cumbria and the Lancaster University medical school, among others, are struggling to recruit and retain medical academic staff, in no small part due to the last Government’s somewhat masochistic decision to undermine one of Britain’s best exports: namely, the income we receive from overseas students. Will the Minister undo this nonsense and allow Britain’s brilliant universities, especially the medical schools, to help boost the quest for economic growth?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Storm Éowyn · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and for his thoughtful presentation of it. As he said, Storm Éowyn may well have been the strongest storm to hit the United Kingdom in 10 years. Sadly, it is a sign of what is likely to come. I am praying for those who are grieving those who have died, and I pay tribute, alongside everyone else in every corner of this House, to all who worked throughout the weekend to support others, often at great cost and even risk to themselves. Back home, communities such as Patterdale, Flookburgh, Cark, Shap, Tebay, Crosby Ravensworth, Witherslack and Bouth saw many homes, businesses and community centres lose power. Like others, I am incredibly grateful to the engineers at Electricity North West and the wider community groups who have worked tirelessly to reconnect residents and support those without power. I want to mention the Commodore Inn at Grange over Sands, the Kings Arms at Stainton, the Watermill at Ings and the Kings Head at Ravenstonedale, which provided shelter, food and drink to residents hit by the power cuts. Storms are becoming more commonplace and severe, and the damage that they leave behind all the more troubling and increasing. Four days on, tens of thousands of homes across the British Isles are still without power, and transport networks remain badly hit. The Government’s failure at the recent Budget to guarantee funding for flood defences beyond this coming financial year is a cause of great anxiety for communities such as mine, who are often the first to be hit by extreme weather events. It also strikes me as extraordinarily short-sighted. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts this right, and quickly? Farmers are our crucial ally in the fight to build more storm-resilient communities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster get the Treasury to ringfence funding, in addition to the environmental land management budget, to support farmers to protect our villages, towns and cities through natural flood management? Farmers are also major victims of these storms, with crops and livestock tragically lost and equipment destroyed.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Storm Éowyn · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that resilience funding goes to the farmers who need it? Finally, will he meet the electricity companies to consider how they can improve the resilience of power lines?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Storm Éowyn · Hansard source

  More

  Have I gone over it?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Schools in Westmorland have been told that they will have to meet the costs of teacher pay rises next year, at least in part, from existing funds and by making efficiencies. Does the Chancellor not understand that all that is available to schools in my constituency is sacking teachers and merging classes? Will she instead commit to fully funding the teachers’ pay rise and other cost increases, so that our schools can do the job that they are meant to do?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  The acute hospital that serves most of my constituency is the Royal Lancaster infirmary. It is an overcrowded Victorian hospital; parts of it are falling to bits, it has inadequate parking and it is at the wrong end of a one-way system. With the Secretary of State’s help, the local hospital trust has acquired an almost perfect site for a rebuild. The trust has designed the new hospital and even begun consulting the public on it, so today’s announcement that we face a 10-year wait until a spade is dug into the ground will come as something of a bombshell. Will he reconsider the timescale? The longer we leave it, the more the cost will spiral and, I am afraid, the less likely it is that people will have confidence that it will even happen at all.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Second Homes: Use Class · Hansard source

  More

  4. If she will make it her policy to introduce a new planning use class for second homes.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Second Homes: Use Class · Hansard source

  More

  I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply. Towns and communities in my constituency, such as Coniston, Hawkshead, Pooley Bridge and a whole range of other beautiful places, have so many second homes that up to 85% of properties are not lived in for most of the year, meaning that the very survival of those communities is under serious threat. The Government have done a number of things, including talking about short-term lets being a separate category of planning use. However, will the Minister agree to look at also making second homes a separate category of planning use so that we can prevent these beautiful places from becoming ghost towns?

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

  More

  We pushed the Minister earlier on the Cunliffe review. I thought it had been explicitly stated that ownership was off the table for that review. By talking about mutuals being a potential outcome, is the Minister saying that what is actually off the table is full-scale nationalisation, but that mutualisation, public benefit companies and not-for-profit companies could be a serious option in the Cunliffe review and in whatever legislation might follow?

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

  More

  We are not going to push this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 35 Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets “In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert— ‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish— (a) annual, and (b) 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. (2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data. (2DZC) 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) a 25% reduction within five years; (b) a 60% reduction within ten years; (c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and (d) a 99% reduction within twenty years. (2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include— (a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and (b) financial penalties.’”— (Charlie Maynard.) Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I will not rehash the debates we have had in Committee already, but we are talking about more than just event duration monitoring, as set out in proposed new section 27ZB(2)(d)(ii)(a); we are talking about flow and volume, and it is right to specify those things.

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

  More

  I am grateful for that well-informed and thoughtful intervention. The hon. Member is absolutely right: that is what we should do. To be reasonable, we want people who understand the industry working for the regulators. We understand why there could be a benign reason for what is happening, but nevertheless, we trace it to some of the reluctance in the culture of Ofwat towards taking action. I talked about the £168 million-worth of fines still not collected by Ofwat from three transgressing water companies. Some of the reluctance comes not from corruption but cosiness, and we need to make sure we address that, as the new clause seeks to do. We dealt with this issue on amendment 19 and it was pushed to a vote. I do not want to trouble the Committee again, so I will be happy to withdraw the new clause.

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

  More

  I will say a brief word on the new clause. This is important, and I would like to add to the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has set out. Essentially, we have two problems here, one of which is that water companies are not statutory consultees, and they should be. I take the point that it could be more clearly stated, but the new clause does say “When participating” more than once, not “If participating”. Without pointing fingers—well, maybe a bit at water companies in certain parts of the country, including mine—the key thing is that there is an incentive for a water company, when giving its advice to a planning committee, whether it be in the national parks, the dales, the lakes or a local council, basically to say that everything is fine, and why would it not? If a water company says, “We have no capacity issues. You can build those 200 houses on the edge of Kendal and it won’t cause any problems for our sewer capacity,” two things happen, do they not? First, the water company is not conceding the need to spend any money on upgrading the sewerage network. Secondly, it is guaranteeing itself 200 households that pay water bills, in addition to the ones it already has, so it has a built-in incentive—maybe not to be dishonest, but to not really give the fullest and broadest assessment of the situation.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We have conferred, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that we have two proposed new clauses to go and we will not press either to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and I may disagree, but I think we have confirmed that that is our view. I have little to say on new clause 34. We had the substance of this debate on amendment 19, but the new clause is significant all the same. The point is simply that among the things that deeply undermine the public’s confidence in the water companies, and in the industry in general, is the very obvious revolving door between the regulator and the water companies themselves. I will reiterate some points and add to some things that were said the other day. In its analysis in 2023, The Observer found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the water industry that they had previously regulated.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the intervention; I am sure that is the case, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I want to see houses built. The great frustration in our communities in the lakes and dales and just outside is that we desperately need homes that are affordable, and we want homes to be zero carbon. We want to be in a situation where the local community is able to hold developers to account. The danger is that developers who are going to build stuff on the cheap that is not affordable to potential buyers or renters are able to get themselves off the hook because the water companies will not really test the resilience of the existing infrastructure. It is true that both things can happen. We feel that this is about giving planning authorities the power to say, “The developer is seeking to do this, but the community as a whole does not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with 200 extra bathrooms; so what resources will the developer or the water company put in to ensure that the facilities are upgraded to make that possible?” This is about ensuring that planning does its job.