Tim Farron MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  I am not entirely reassured but I am partially at least and we have no desire to push this new clause a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 11 Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks After section 205 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert— “ 205ZA Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks (1) Each relevant undertaker must publish a map of its sewage catchment network. (2) A map published under this section must illustrate any relevant pumping stations, pipes, and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network. (3) Maps published under this section must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and must be updated whenever changes are made to the sewage catchment network or the components listed in subsection (2). (4) Maps published under this section must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.”— (Charlie Maynard.) Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  I am not wedded to one model or another. Having said all that, water is blindingly obviously a natural monopoly and should not have been privatised in the first place. Can I give one metric? Yes. Of the 16 water companies, Welsh Water is among the minority that are financially sound. Performance is not necessarily and always a function of ownership absolutely: it is a combination of ownership, culture and regulation. We are simply saying that we should look at migrating the system to this model. Let us bear in mind that for all the additional money we can say we leverage in through private investment, a vast amount of money leaks out of the system to shareholders, often through holding companies overseas and in bonuses, which could otherwise have been spent internally. New clause 7 is an attempt to come up with a constructive alternative. We would abolish Ofwat, take the water regulatory powers off the Environment Agency, create a single regulator in the form of the clean water authority and seek to migrate ownership within the water industry towards a mutual and community benefit model. As I say, we will not push new clause 7 to a vote, but we will seek a vote on new clause 20.

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

  More

  I do not think it is unrealistic—we need to be ambitious—but I absolutely accept that there are multiple sources of pollution. I promise to be brief in talking about my patch, which is not of interest to everybody. It is key to point out that pollution in Windermere generally comes from three sources. It is true that agricultural run-off is an issue but, sadly, the policies of this Government and the previous one, over a period of time, have effectively destocked the fells, meaning run-off has a massively reducing impact on Windermere and the broader catchment. The bigger two problems are the 14 assets that United Utilities has either on or around the lake or its tributaries. There is also the best part of 2,000 septic tanks around the lake or its tributaries. Unlike septic tanks and, indeed, package treatment works in many rural communities, these are not scattered all over in the middle of nowhere; they are in a ring around the lake, most of them within yards of a mainline sewer. It is, then, entirely possible for the water companies, while gaining significant income benefit as a consequence, to mainline a massive proportion of the sources of sewage spillage into the lake, via the septic tanks and the package treatment works being brought into the system. The new clause is of course slightly selfish, but it is really important that we seek to maintain national parks right across the country at the highest possible bar, and therefore make sure they set an example for others to follow. We will seek to press new clause 27 to a vote.

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

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very good point, and we will later come to a new clause that we tabled about planning, because undoubtedly development and industrial activity also have an impact. However, this goes back to my original comment about the importance of singularity in regulation; while we recognise that the water companies may not be entirely responsible, we think that the regulator should have a responsibility across the piece. However, the hon. Member makes a good point. We are not planning to push new clause 12 to a vote, but we are keen for the Minister to look at what we have said—and indeed what the hon. Member and his colleagues have said previously in Committee—about the importance of chalk streams, and for them to be included on the face of the Bill. New clause 27 relates particularly to national parks. Every single lake, river and stream in England’s national parks—every single one—is polluted in one way or another. There has been no regard by water companies for national park status in this process. It is not that the lakes, rivers and waterways outside national parks do not matter—they absolutely do, and a vast part of my constituency is not in either of the national parks—but nevertheless, the lack of a higher bar for those in our national parks demands the question: what is the point in the national parks? We need to make sure that that stipulation is included. New clause 27 would therefore force water companies to specifically reduce pollution in those precious places. To talk about my own community, United Utilities’ negligent treatment of Lake Windermere has been a standout example. Over the two years between 2021 and 2023, 165 hours of illegal sewage was pumped into Windermere, England’s largest lake and the centre of our hospitality and tourism economy, with 7 million visitors every year to that part of the Lake district alone, out of the 20 million who visit the lakes overall. For the record, I should say that I still swim in Windermere and I do not think I am a complete lunatic, so it is not an open sewer by any means. Nevertheless, for many people, the reality is that so many of the 14—I think—assets that United Utilities owns on or around the tributaries of Windermere, or its connecting lakes, are not fit for purpose. I am thinking about the pumping station at Sawrey, for example, or the water treatment works at Ambleside. It is unconscionable that we have these assets, many of which are ageing and under-invested in, and the water company, United Utilities, failing to take action. Windermere is known globally and is part of Britain’s national brand. If its reputation becomes unfairly sullied, it will hit my constituents’ revenues.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her very reasonable intervention. In the extremely unlikely event that the Committee rejects my new clause today, we will of course submit our ideas to Sir Jon Cunliffe and take part in the review, which we welcome. Nevertheless, my point is that the division of responsibility and division of attention, particularly in the Environment Agency as a regulator dealing with flooding and so on, means that it does not have the resource; I know that we will talk about that later. Also, the fact that the regulatory set-up is so fragmented means that the water companies simply run rings around the various regulators. One final point arising from new clause 20 is that we must outline a potential way forward. We are not convinced at this stage that renationalisation would be affordable or wise. I am not saying that I am opposed to it in principle; it just does not seem wise at this stage to do something that will cost the taxpayer a vast amount and put money in the hands of people who have fleeced us once already. Unless people can come up with a different model, that does not feel like the right way of doing it. At the same time, the current model of ownership has clearly failed. We suggest a not-for-profit, a community benefit company model or looking at mutuals, but there may be a way of migrating the system towards that model of ownership via what happens at the end of the administration.

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

  More

  In short, I am happy not to push new clause 12 to a vote now, nor will I seek to push new clause 27 to a vote when we get to that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Guidance on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances “After section 86ZA of the Water Industry Act 1991, insert— ‘ 86ZB Guidance on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the regulation of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in drinking water based on guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. (2) Until the Secretary of State makes provision for the regulation of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, water and sewerage companies must implement any relevant guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”—( Tim Farron . ) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the presence of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in drinking water based on guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, and require water companies to follow the Inspectorate’s guidance in the interim. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.”

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of local authority roads across the country include half-joint bridges built in the 1960s and 1970s that are now dangerously unsafe. They include the Brigsteer Road and Underbarrow Road bridges leading out of Kendal, which have been closed for the last six months, causing great inconvenience to the local community. They were built with Government funding 50 or 60 years ago, but local councils are unable to replace them with the funds available to them now. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of Westmorland and Furness council as a matter of urgency, so that the bridges can be reopened and our communities can be reconnected quickly?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  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—

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  Oh, go on.