Tim Farron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Murrison. It is also a great pleasure to follow four excellent speeches. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his excellent contribution and for securing this important debate. He said it felt somewhat less glamorous to be here talking about chicken poop, but people will say that I have been talking poop for the last 20 years; certainly, as my party’s water spokesperson, I spend half my life in this place talking about the human variety, so chickens makes a nice change. I also belatedly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to this place, not least because it has allowed us to deploy Liz Truss elsewhere, in our battle to take down the forces of reaction across the world. On the renewables obligation certificate scheme, we are right to think about what happens next. The scheme is being phased out by the current Government, with the contracts for difference scheme being its principal successor. For what it is worth, I am proud of the role the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition in trying to move on to a better scheme. That said, hon. Members have rightly pointed out that letting ROCs disappear without being replaced is a particular problem for biomass. All four Members referred to the impact on their constituencies if that was to happen, and they talked about the jobs the scheme has created in Stafford, Suffolk, Norfolk and in Strangford, in Northern Ireland. They recognised that biomass plays an important part in providing diversification of income for farmers and others, and in using organic waste that might otherwise find itself on the land. Indeed, when I am in this place talking about water quality, we are principally talking about the failings of the water companies, but agricultural run-off is clearly part of the issue, so if we can deal with that in a positive way, that will be a good thing. It would be an unintended consequence of moving on to new and better schemes if we allowed important plants such as the one in Thetford to close, with the impact that that would have on the local economy, because we had not thought through the transition and managed it in an efficient way. I want to say a few words about how ROCs fit in with the nation’s energy security and about the extent to which they sometimes have perverse incentives. Drax power station in Yorkshire enjoyed just over 9 million renewables obligation certificates last year, at a value of £548 million. The material burned at that site includes biomass that has been imported into the UK, which is often wood pellets, mostly from America and Canada. Drax has previously admitted that some of the wood is from primary or old-growth forests—ancient forests of incalculable value in terms of biodiversity and beauty that would be vital in the fight against climate change if they were not felled. The new contract, I am pleased to say, states that 100% of those pellets must be sustainably sourced, which is something. But it is not organic waste, and there is still something not very sustainable about wood imported from across the oceans and then burned. We want to ensure that we invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by the end of this decade. To do that, we will need to call in all our available resources; we do not want a situation where we are meeting our targets by having renewables in name only. Members have talked about energy security and the importance of getting to net zero, which is vital. In the last few days—hopefully it is longer than that—we have been waking up to our need to protect our national security on a military footing. Yesterday, in Treasury questions, I raised the issue of our failure to step up to the mark when it comes to food security. Only 55% of Britain’s food is produced in Britain; that is a deep threat to the United Kingdom’s food security, and we need to take action quickly to tackle that by undoing the basic payments cut and scrapping the family farm tax. We also need to look at energy security. It troubles me that some of those who claim to be very patriotic seem to pour cold water on and be sceptical about the environmental imperative. Even if I cannot convince people of the reality of climate change, and of the need to produce renewable energy for that reason, if we care about our energy security, we should surely care about net zero, which is a way of achieving it. To put it bluntly, Vladimir Putin cannot turn off the wind, the waves or the sunshine in this country.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We are talking about incentives that we give to renewable energy generators and providers, but we have an energy market that essentially advantages not just fossil fuels but ones that, to some degree, are in the hands of potentially hostile powers. That is ludicrous for both the environment and our security. I was pleased to hear Members on all sides of the debate talk about the importance of farmers and farming to the battle against climate change and to clean energy generation. We would love to see a recognition that farmers are primarily food producers but that diversification of businesses and cross-subsidy within them is a good thing. It is right that farmers should be incentivised and encouraged to use their land—for example, by putting solar panels on buildings and land that is not good for food production—so long as that is not displacing good-quality agricultural land. I want to draw attention to a site near Barrow, which is not in my constituency but next door, in the Westmorland and Furness council area. The council now has a solar farm on unproductive former agricultural land, with the full support of the local farming community. Let us look at the ways in which we can support farmers to do that. I live in a very wet part of the United Kingdom with 1,500 farms within it. Pretty much every farmer has fast-flowing becks and rivers on their land, so why are we not incentivising them to build small but nevertheless powerful hydro schemes? That would be great for the environment and the local economy, and it would ensure that farmers can continue farming. I sound like a broken record given how regularly I talk about this, but it continues to astound me that the United Kingdom, which has a higher tidal range than any country on planet Earth apart from Canada, does next to nothing with the latent tidal power around our islands. I encourage the Minister to come up with schemes to reward that. I also want to say a word about grid capacity. A huge barrier to progress with this scheme and those that follow is the fact that 75% of energy sector insiders find timely grid connections to be the biggest single obstacle to growing renewable energy in the UK. To give a sense of the size of the queue, there are £200 billion-worth of projects waiting to be connected to the national grid, and that delays all the benefit that would come with that. We would seek to expand the grid network and unlock those billions of pounds of renewable energy projects through a land and sea use framework that has statutory weight in the planning and infrastructure Bill. That would help us to balance the many competing demands on our land, and the competing priorities of security and self-sufficiency that I mentioned earlier. Those priorities also include local communities’ experiences, which are important to understand when we are trying to tackle the climate imperative. It is no good building huge energy infrastructure near communities if there is no clear, tangible benefit to them. For example, customers in communities local to such projects should receive energy at a discounted rate. If we build renewable energy schemes on the River Kent or the River Crake, the people of Kendal, Staveley, Windermere and Coniston should benefit from them, at least to a degree. We also want to empower local authorities to develop local renewable electricity generation and storage strategies, because they are best placed to understand where the most and least appropriate sites to place them are. I return to the issues raised by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. It is important that ROCs have played a significant part in the transition from fossil fuels to new and renewable forms of energy. I recognise that they have had a big impact on his constituency by creating jobs and ensuring that farmers have additional sources of income. They are part of a range of actions—our arsenal—for tackling water pollution. We must not throw out the good things that ROCs have achieved when we move on to new schemes, which hopefully will make even more progress in our move towards a society run entirely on renewable energy.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Britain is only 55% food secure. In these deeply uncertain times internationally, is it not time to change policy when it comes to agriculture? Is this not the day to get rid of the family farm tax, undo the 76% cut in basic payments and invest in the people who keep us food secure?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  Forty-four.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take that personally, Sir John, although I am sure it is intended. It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon and to speak in a long line of Liberal Democrats, as you might expect when water is mentioned. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate and for the eloquence with which he spoke on behalf of his communities. I know how active he is, not just as a bather but as a campaigner for clean water swimming in his constituency, recognising and amplifying the importance of bathing water status for the people who use the rivers in his communities and in all our communities. He also recognises that it is an important way of upping the ante and improving the standards that all those responsible for the quality of our waterways are held to. I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about de-designation and how that will not help people or keep them safe; we will simply be in a situation where people will carry on swimming in those places and will no longer have the protections they had beforehand. He rightly talked about an issue I am deeply concerned about, which is the potential for flexibility over fixed season dates. The minimum must be the May to September window, but many people who are enthusiastic about open water swimming do so at other times of the year. I have swum in Windermere in February, but I know people who have swum in Grasmere and Rydal in January and December and marvel at their hardiness. They tell me it is good for their mental health, and I believe them. That falls without that window, and it seems a nonsense to not have year-round testing. I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington made about what it is we are testing. There is much good in the Government’s new Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Nevertheless, the insistence on only testing for the duration of spills in our waterways, lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas means that we do not get the full picture. There could easily be a brief deluge or a lengthy trickle. The reality is that not testing for volume and content does not give a full picture of what is happening in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about the public health and ecological aspects of maintaining bathing water designations and how important it is to extend those designations in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about bathing water status in his communities and his active campaign to extend access in his constituency. He also talked about the topsy-turvy nature of the bathing water status, which can create all sorts of perverse outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who is no longer in his place, made a really important point about the economic value. There is a clear case in my communities in the lakes and the dales, because people do not visit the Lake district not to see the lakes. The value to our communities is something like £4 billion every year in tourism revenue. Any threat to the cleanliness of our bathing water sites or the rest of our waterways could be catastrophic for our economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) made incredibly important points about the biodiversity of our waterways and how it is important to protect them and stand by the wonderful citizen scientists who underpin the work of trying to maintain them and their cleanliness. It is also about recognising that, as with all aspects of nature, our job is to preserve our waterways for those who come after us. Caring for our neighbour means caring for the environment for those we will never meet. That is vastly important. In my communities in the lakes and the dales, there are seven designated bathing water areas, on Windermere and Coniston. One of the sites on Coniston was recently designated as poor, which is deeply concerning. However, it has been pleasing to see the local parish council work very successfully with the national park, Councillor Suzanne Pender, the business forum and others, and United Utilities has agreed a significant package of investment to help deal with that problem. The current bathing water regulations have not been sufficient to protect our waterways from egregious offences. For example, in the north-west alone in 2023, United Utilities spilled 10,467 times for 76,259 hours into bathing waters alone. That does not include all the other times that it has spilled in other parts of our region. Indeed, United Utilities is the worst offender of all the water companies, despite the fact that there are other serious offenders across the country. The Liberal Democrats take the view that water is precious. It is important to our economy, our ecology, our heritage, leisure and human health, as well as biodiversity. It is of such significance that we have made it one of the key issues that we continue to campaign on, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), is so dedicated to our waterways that he spent much of the election in them. Much of what the Government have done in the first part of this Parliament, including the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, has been commendable. We wait now for the Cunliffe review to see whether there will be the advances that have been promised or hinted at. There are three things that we need to make sure we do better. First, monitoring must be much more comprehensive. We welcome the fact that the Government are engaging citizen scientists in the process, including the Clean River Kent campaign, Save Windermere in my own constituency, and the Rivers Trusts up and down the country. But we are not helping them if we do not ask for them to be given a place on water company boards. Nor are we helping them, although they are very useful to a degree, if the monitoring sites available for those people to look at do not have historical data. We depend on our brave water campaigners around the country committing their time to never, ever go to bed or go to work or look after their children. They cannot look backwards. If they blink, they may well miss egregious offences in our bathing waters and in other parts of our waterways. Monitoring is important. Secondly, regulation is all important. I always try to be careful not to castigate the individuals working for Ofwat or the Environment Agency, or any of the water companies for that matter, but I recognise the system is broken and we have a diluted regulatory framework in this country. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and other water regulators should be merged into a much stronger regulator that the water companies would actually fear, rather than running rings around them all the time. Finally, there is ownership. We could have an organisation called the clean water authority. It would replace and advance on Ofwat and create real powers. It would have real teeth that the current regulatory system does not have. Ownership matters. It is an outrage that between 11% and 40% of the water bills of every person in this country are going to pay off the debt of the water companies. That is a disgrace. And it is time that we moved those water companies into a not-for-profit status. We do not want to call for nationalisation, but we do call for public-benefit companies to be incorporated to make sure that those who look after our waterways do so in the interests of our water quality, and of meeting the needs of the consumer, not racking up huge profits. Finally, because bathing water status does give communities more power over the cleanliness and the standards of the waterways that they care about so much, particularly in my part of the world in the lakes, it is clear that very often DEFRA does not grant clean bathing water status when it really should. So I want to say on behalf of my own communities—communities up the River Kent, north of Kendal through Burneside and Staveley—that the river desperately needs to be given bathing water status in several places. That would allow the communities who campaigned so vigorously for the cleanliness of that river to be able to hold United Utilities and other polluters fully to account.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the Lake district and the dales of Cumbria, average house prices are around 20 times average household incomes. Will the Minister try to tackle this issue by making sure that there is a specific and unappealable designation of social housing-only developments that national park authorities and local councils can enforce?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, and the moves towards centralised regulation and improved safety generally. Does the report not serve as a single act of shame for this country? As she just said, it reveals that the safety and quality of social housing has been considered to matter less, because the people who live in social housing have been considered to matter less. Should that point of view, which has been in place since the decline in building standards in the 1960s, not be a matter of deep national repentance? As the Deputy Prime Minister seeks to tackle that, has she spoken to or is she continuing to speak to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is a cost to making sure that we build to a high standard, as we did immediately after the war, while also expanding the number of social rented homes, particularly in parts of the country where build costs are more expensive, such as London and the Lake district.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for bringing this important issue to this place and for making an excellent speech. There have been great speeches from all the speakers so far, with a number of interesting and useful interventions. The five hon. Members who have spoken all made good points that I want to endorse. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe spoke about imbalance in the market with large numbers of producers—1,500 farmers in my constituency alone and thousands across the country—and 12 retailers making up 95% of the sector. That is an incredible imbalance of power. Others have also referred to the greater depth to the industry in the supply chain than the Groceries Code Adjudicator is allowed to give credit for. My hon. Friend talked of the impact on farmers of potential delisting, the impact of late payments, having to pay for waste, and all the things that many have to struggle with. The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) made a great speech, emphasising the power those retailers have in the market and its irrational nature, which leads to farmers and producers of all kinds going out of business just because the large, powerful entities who own our supermarkets can make that happen in order to maximise their own profits. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) absolutely deserves credit. I first heard the phrase “supermarket ombudsman” from his lips before I entered this place. When he was doing the job I am now doing—being the Liberal Democrats DEFRA spokesperson —he fought hard for that ombudsman, and that is the reason why, in the coalition agreement, what became the Groceries Code Adjudicator came to pass. It was introduced by Liberal Democrat Ministers including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), Vince Cable and Jo Swinson, who were involved in the Department. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) rightly talked about processors. They are significant and are often untouched by the arm of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the role of ownership in the sector and the unfairness that affects the workforce in the retail sector, as well as the producers who supply to it. There is an important point for us to remember here. Those who are at the wrong end of the abuse of power in the food supply chain are processors in broadly rural communities and workers in broadly urban communities; they have a lot more in common than we are sometimes allowed to think. The Groceries Code Adjudicator is one of the things that came from the coalition of which the Liberal Democrats can be rightly proud. It was motivated in no small part by the simple reality that many producers—many farmers—were being paid less than the cost of production for their produce. Most notably in my constituency in Westmorland, but elsewhere in the country, that means those working in the dairy sector, but there are many others besides. As with all things in the coalition, there were compromises. Even the good things we got were often watered down and were not what they might have been had we had what will one day obviously happen, that is, a majority Liberal Democrat Government. There are three particular areas of weakness with the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which we passionately believe should be addressed in the interests of our farmers, producers and consumers alike. First, the reach of the adjudicator is too small, particularly its ability to investigate across the range of people involved in the sector. As has been mentioned, the adjudicator can investigate direct supply arrangements between farmers and retailers, but cannot get involved in the enormous majority of the food chain—that is, in the processing sector, and the middle people within the market. The Groceries Code Adjudicator should be given that ability. That is obvious. The second point is about protecting farmers and other producers from the reprisals that they fear they will get if they refer something to the adjudicator. Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union—local branches in Kendal and Appleby, and the NFU across the whole country—the Tenant Farmers Association and other advocates should be allowed to make referrals to the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that farmers do not feel that they have to do so themselves while fearing the reprisals, which they clearly do. We strongly support that idea. Finally, there is the issue of resource, which has been mentioned by other people. The team is seven-strong, including the adjudicator themselves four days a week. That is not right. However wonderful those people are, they can be run rings around by the enormously powerful supermarkets. The unfettered free market is indifferent to Britain’s food security, and we need to be not indifferent. We need to decide that it is of ultimate importance and that we therefore need to referee the market powerfully to protect our food security. Over the last 20 years, we have seen 30,000 farm holdings cease to be—a 22.7% reduction in the number of farms in the United Kingdom. That is undermining our ability to feed ourselves. Now, only 55% of Britain’s food is produced by farmers in the United Kingdom. If we are serious about food security, we are going to have to put that right. The Liberal Democrats are challenging the Government over the family farm tax—we would scrap it—which is suppressing production and creating unfairness in the market. There is a 76% reduction in the basic payment this year, undermining small family farmers in particular, in Westmorland and beyond. DEFRA officials told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the other week that they expect 92% to 93% of farms to survive the environmental land management transition—so, 7% to 8% will not survive that transition. The land use framework, which I welcome in principle, will in practice potentially take productive farm land out of usage. All of that leads us towards a situation where the UK is less food secure. The overdue Groceries Code Adjudicator reforms are not just vital to ensuring British farmers are treated fairly, which they must be; they are about underpinning the vitality of food security in this country, which is essentially national security. A country that cannot feed itself is not safe.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Kendal Post Office · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,830 of my constituents in Kendal and the surrounding communities in favour of retaining and keeping alive the Kendal Crown post office on Stricklandgate in our town. In 2019, we successfully ran a campaign to save the Kendal Crown post office and, as a community, we are determined to do so again. The Crown post office serves our community wonderfully with fantastic staff, but more than that, it provides the home for the Royal Mail sorting office, and the postal workers there also do a wonderful job. To lose the Crown post office building could mean that we also lose the Royal Mail sorting office, and we are determined to stop that. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, Declares that Kendal Post Office should not be included in the list of 115 directly operated post offices at risk of closure; further notes Kendal Post Office’s role as a vital community service at the heart of Kendal; further declares that it should remain in its current position or should only be moved to suitable premises. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Post Office to reconsider and guarantee the future of Kendal Post Office. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003046]

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Refugees here from Ukraine under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not eligible to indefinite leave. They have a three-year visa, which in many cases, obviously, is about to expire. They have a very short window to apply for what is only an 18-month extension. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is not long enough for Ukrainian families here to be able to plan their future, and will she reconsider?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It did.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag. Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not. My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called. We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter. I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies. That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be back talking about the Bill again. In Committee and on Report, the Liberal Democrats put down a grand total of 56 amendments. What is two more? We believe, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, that this Bill is a good thing, and we wish to see it on the statute book, but we do not feel it goes far enough, and the two amendments before us today give us the opportunity to consider it a little more. Through amendment (a) the Government want to introduce financial reporting requirements for water companies. The report, to be required once a year, should be a concise, intelligible and up-to-date overview of the financial position of each undertaker—a water company—including information on share capital and debt, and any significant changes that may have happened in the past 12 months or expected changes in the 12 months to come. We very much welcome the amendment. We tabled many similar amendments that contained aspects of those proposals, both in Committee and on Report. We are bound to say that they were better amendments—more ambitious and far reaching—but as with much of this Bill, these proposals are a decent start and we do not want to stand in their way. To clarify, we have proposed a variety of amendments to the Bill up to this point, including calling for Ofwat to be made responsible for the financial stability duty on water companies. We called for the banning of bonuses for water company bosses whose companies were performing poorly, and not just on environmental duties but on financial stability and water quality. On the Floor of the House we pushed to a vote, with the permission of the Chair, a ban on water companies making customers pay for their debt at the point of bankruptcy, and instead for investors, who have taken risks, to pay for them. That was right, and we were disappointed that the Government voted against it and the Conservatives sat on their hands and did not support bill payers. This is an important and live issue. In Westmorland in the north-west of England, 11% of bills paid only service the debt of United Utilities, yet in other parts of the country such as the areas served by Thames Water, that figure is around 35% or potentially even more. We have called for scrutiny not just of the finances of water companies but of other areas. The Bill has moved things in the right direction, but not radically enough. In Committee, we sought to encourage and persuade Labour and Conservative Front Benchers—without success—that it would be wise to have environmental experts on the boards of water companies. On the Government’s laudable and positive move towards a live database that citizen scientists can scrutinise, we asked that it also be a historical database that is searchable in retrospect. Wonderful organisations in my constituency, which are replicated around the country, such as the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Clean River Kent campaign and Save Windermere, would monitor that database, but unless they look at it 24/7 and do nothing else in their lives, some things may get past them. For example, between 2021 and 2023, 120 million litres of sewage were pumped into Windermere lake without United Utilities reporting it. We are reliant on citizen scientists knowing about this stuff, and a great database will do the job only if it is searchable in retrospect. Scrutiny and transparency on finances and environmental matters are vital. We are satisfied that amendment (a) provides increased transparency on water company finances, and therefore we will not make a nuisance of ourselves today. I turn to the second of the amendments in front of us. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) rightly highlights and reminds Members of my distaste for not having stuff in the Bill, and how statutory instruments are not the best way of doing things. Despite that, I am even more of a fan of ensuring that we in this place can properly scrutinise those who are meant to be scrutinising our water companies, namely Ofwat. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Liberal Democrats have made good, radical, environmentally minded proposals that are in the interests of our constituents and our waterways. Although the Government have understandably stuck to their guns and voted against us, the official Opposition have, oddly enough, abstained on pretty much everything—including, it would appear, on their own amendment today, for which we want to vote, notwithstanding all our reticence about not having important matters in the Bill. This amendment was proposed in the other place by my former neighbour but one—not the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who is also my former neighbour—the right hon. Lord Blencathra, a former Member for Penrith and the Border, and a very accomplished parliamentarian. In this amendment, he is seeking to require increased parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat when signing off on water company bonuses. That issue is of huge concern to me, and, I think, to most people around this country—certainly in my constituency—because record bonuses are being paid to senior executives around the country.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency. I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  May I invite the Minister, and indeed everyone here, to join us in Room M after these exchanges, when Radiotherapy UK will have a drop-in session with—most important—our patron Bryan Robson, England’s Captain Fantastic? I thank him for mentioning radiotherapy in his statement, which is crucial step forward, but may I suggest that he and the Government need to show exponentially greater ambition to get this right? The UK spends 5% of its cancer budget on radiotherapy, while the OECD average is 9%, which is why the UK is at the bottom of the survival league for so many cancers. Will the Minister commit himself to putting that right?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I am extraordinarily fond of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which he represents well. He makes an important point about travel times. In some parts of my constituency, people need to take a ferry to get from one place to another, but it is not quite as common as in his constituency. At the heart of the radical, lifesaving transformation that we need through the cancer plan must be the elevation of the unsung hero, the Cinderella of our cancer services: radiotherapy. Lord Darzi found that 30% of patients are waiting more than 31 days for radical radiotherapy. As the incidence of cancer grows, the urgent need for quicker and more efficient treatments such as radiotherapy is only increasing. As things stand, the replacement and updating of linear accelerators is left to the 52 separate cancer units in England—52 separate procurement operations, 52 different finance officers trying to balance the books and 52 different heads of service all trying to meet increasing demand, often without the time and space to look beyond the horizon. It is time, then, to centralise the commissioning of the technology to ensure a constant focus on updating and expanding radiotherapy. That would immediately start saving lives everywhere. Radiotherapy UK estimates that simply replacing all the out-of-date LINACs could free up 87,000 additional appointments every single year. Modern radiotherapy is quicker and more accurate than other treatment. It is also by far the cheapest, costing between £3,000 and £7,000 per patient—several times less expensive than equivalent cancer treatments. The Government’s £70 million commitment to radiotherapy services was welcome, but in reality, as the Minister says, that money would cover the cost of only 26 LINAC machines, fewer than half the number that are currently operating beyond their sell-by date. Erratic one-off rounds of funding do not address the need for a sustainable rolling programme of machine replacement to enable planning, support procurement and improve access for patients. Even the new machines are often old technology. What a terrible waste. In my years of campaigning on this matter, I have found that radiotherapy lacks funding and prominence. Britain therefore lags behind our neighbours, so people tragically die when they do not need to—all because of a lack of leadership and drive from the centre. On more than one occasion, I have almost seen the penny drop on the faces of Ministers of all parties when it comes to our failure on radiotherapy, but every time so far, I have seen that zeal founder on the rocks of bureaucratic sluggishness, indifference and resistance to change within the NHS. If they show the leadership that we desperately need, the Minister and the Secretary of State will have the enthusiastic and active support of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, and of the army of outstanding clinicians who are out there saving lives. Professor Mike Richards is a name that many people remember. He was the cancer tsar in the early noughties, under the previous Labour Government; he did great work and his achievements were tangible. If the Government will forgive me for using shorthand, we basically need a Mike Richards for radiotherapy, and we need them, like, yesterday. Failing that, tomorrow morning would just about do. Every day we delay, my constituents—as well as yours, Sir John, and those of the Minister and of all Members present—are dying unnecessarily. We need new technology as we plan treatments, too. Last May, £15.5 million was announced for AI technology that would save clinicians time and reduce radiotherapy waiting lists. However, we have heard from cancer units around the country that this funding may be withdrawn or diverted, which would be a hammer blow to trusts in the face of the ongoing workforce crisis. Will the Minister take the chance today to reassure our cancer units and confirm that this funding will go, as promised, to radiotherapy departments in full? I hope the Minister will also act swiftly to tackle the perversities of the tariff payments for radiotherapy, which effectively punish trusts for treating cancer patients in the most effective and modern ways. I ask the Minister to guarantee that radiotherapy will be at the centre of the NHS 10-year cancer plan, and that that plan will be led by people empowered and determined to deliver it. The technology is vital, but the people matter just as much. Our specialist and highly skilled radiotherapy workforce numbers only 6,400 people, yet the survey conducted by Radiotherapy UK shows that one in five cancer doctors may leave the profession in the next five years. We have a 15% shortage in clinical oncologists—set to rise to 21% by the end of this Parliament—and 30% of oncologist training posts were vacant last year. On top of that, 50% of clinical technologists are over 50 years old, and 84% of heads of cancer services reported that they were concerned that workforce shortages affected the quality of patient care. I ask the Minister to agree that the 10-year cancer plan will include a renewed investment in workforce and infrastructure. A 10-year vision already exists, by the way—drawn up by the experts, via Radiotherapy UK. I simply urge the Minister to consider their findings and borrow the proposals detailed by leading oncologists and cancer experts. I have asked for two separate meetings today. The first is on the need for a satellite radiotherapy unit at Kendal; the second is a first meeting for the Minister with the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, to look at the national picture. I hope he will grant me both. The radiotherapy lobby is tiny: 6,400 dedicated professionals within our health service; a compact but awesome group of charities and volunteers; a handful of companies building the technology, many of which are based in the United Kingdom; England’s captain fantastic, Bryan Robson; and a small band of MPs of all parties, seeking to be a voice not just for the radiotherapy sector, but for the thousands and thousands of people living with cancer in our country, who deserve the best treatment that we can give them. For the last generation or more, the UK has let those people down, and so often with tragic consequences. Yet radiotherapy is a cost-effective, easily deliverable technology that will save lives in every community in this country. We are way behind where we need to be, yet it would be so easy, with the right leadership from Ministers, to catch up with and go beyond our neighbours. Cancer no longer needs to be seen as a death sentence; it is a disease that can be treated and cured, but we cannot do that if our systems and practices prevent us from deploying the best treatments available. Please save lives, Minister, and become our radiotherapy champion.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a great point and does a great service to his community by standing up for those groups who support people after cancer, and their families. I know that personally in my own family, so I congratulate him on making a really important point. My second ask—the Minister should be delighted to hear that I only have two—is that he separately meets with the all-party group on radiotherapy and the leading fantastic clinicians who support us, to look at how the Government and NHS England can turn the tide on radiotherapy nationwide, because the problems of access do not just affect Westmorland; they affect the whole country. Although in Westmorland our issue is unacceptable distance from services, the problem across the country is that we lack sufficient capacity, lack up-to-date technology, and lack an effective workforce plan. Britain is behind our neighbours on the number of radiotherapy machines, and we are behind our neighbours in how advanced that machinery is. In France, for example, there are twice as many linear accelerators per head as we have in the United Kingdom. Across the OECD, roughly 9% of cancer budgets are spent on radiotherapy; in the UK we spend a paltry 5%. One in two of us will have cancer at some point, and one in two people with cancer should have radiotherapy—to be precise, 53% of us should—yet only 35% of cancer patients in the UK had radiotherapy as their primary treatment. In fact, the regional variation in access to radiotherapy ranges from the lowest of only 29.8%—by the way, that is in my constituency—up to 50%. There are shocking variations based on tumour type, too. Only 11% of lung cancer patients in some regions receive radiotherapy, compared with 43% in other regions. Only 18% of rectal cancer patients receive radiotherapy in some areas, compared with 62% in others. People’s chances of surviving should not depend on their postcode. Inadequate and inequitable radiotherapy capacity is costing lives. Over the past decade, more than 500,000 patients have waited more than two months for their first cancer treatment. Yet the chilling reality is that for every four weeks of delay in treatment we have a 10% reduction in our chances of surviving. The Royal College of Radiologists reminds us that in 2024 only 38% of patients starting radiotherapy did so within two months of an urgent referral for cancer. The national target is 85%. Let us compare that with other forms of cancer treatment: 68% of patients had surgery for their cancer in that time, and 64% started chemotherapy within that two months. That means that over 10,000 patients requiring radiotherapy received their treatment after the recommended timeframe. In 2023 some 92% of cancer centres reported delays in patients starting radiotherapy. That is one of the main reasons why the UK is near the bottom of the OECD cancer outcome rankings, which is a sanitised way of saying that people with cancer in Britain are more likely to die sooner than in other equivalent countries. So longer journeys mean shorter lives, and longer waiting times also mean shorter lives.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. Many people watching the debate today, whether physically in the Gallery or on television outside, are part of that outstanding workforce, and we are massively grateful to them. What a career for someone to be in, where you are saving lives every day and alleviating pain. That is a wonderful thing, yet there are not enough of them. The workforce is part of the solution, as well as the challenge, to the problem that we face. For us in Westmorland, longer journeys mean shorter lives. The answer is clear for us in Westmorland, and that is to build a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal as part of the Rosemere unit, following the model of the many excellent satellite units around the UK. The number of cancer patients travelling from south Cumbria each year for radiotherapy provides demand for at least one linear accelerator at the Westmorland general hospital. If the experience of other new satellite centres around the country is replicated, such as at the new Hereford site, which is a satellite of Cheltenham, a satellite centre in Kendal would attract at least 20% more patients than existing demand, because people who would not have had radiotherapy treatment at all beforehand would now be able to access it, simply because it is closer to them. That a satellite unit in Kendal has not already happened is an indictment of the lack of responsiveness to the obvious need from NHS England, and of a lack of concern for cancer patients and their families who live in rural communities.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the accessibility of radiotherapy. It is a great honour to serve under your guidance, Sir John, and it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the accessibility of radiotherapy on World Cancer Day. Three quarters of those in my communities in Westmorland live dangerously too far from radiotherapy treatment. It has been my privilege over the years to drive a number of my constituents to the Rosemere centre at Preston to get treatment, and I am always struck by the quality of the treatment and the warmth and professionalism of the staff, but also by the gruelling impact on my constituents, on whom the daily lengthy journeys take a terrible toll.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. Travel times, which I will come on to in a moment, do have an impact on outcomes—in other words, whether people survive—because there is an impact on the extent to which a person will be referred for treatment depending on how close they are to the nearest site. What she says is absolutely right, especially for her communities. For my constituents, the two, three or in some cases four-hour round trip to the excellent but distant Rosemere cancer unit at Preston is not just inconvenient, but debilitating and cruel. It means that many do not complete their treatment, and many choose not even to start such treatment. Some do not even get referred for radiotherapy in the first place, because clinicians understandably conclude that the patient is not strong enough to cope with the rigours of travelling such distances so frequently. For us in Westmorland, longer journeys mean shorter lives.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  Because I did!

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, Sir John, thank you for your oversight of this debate and for keeping us in order. I also thank everybody who has contributed from the Front and Back Benches. Members from all sides of the House have contributed so knowledgably and passionately on behalf of their communities, so I am really grateful to them all. I especially thank the Minister for his response and for agreeing to my two requests. That is great—I appreciate it very much indeed. I also appreciated his statement in the main Chamber earlier, when he spoke very movingly about his own family experiences. We share an experience: my mum also passed away from ovarian cancer, at a similar age to his mum. We begin to see the impact that cancer has on the lives of just about every single family, so when we get to a position where we can do something about it, what a privilege that is and what an opportunity, which we absolutely must not miss. Since I still have a few moments left, I encourage Members who are not already members of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy to join up, please: we will not overburden you. I have discovered over time that decisions are so often made in the interest of the people who are in the room, so we need to be in the room. Chemotherapy is a really vital part of cancer treatment and the pharmaceutical industry that goes with it has tons of resource to lobby us; that is good, and it is entitled to do that. Radiotherapy is a very different industry. This is the lobby—so we need to be in the room to make sure that we are equally heard and that radiotherapy is part of the armoury to tackle and defeat cancer. Money is vital, but leadership is key. Having people who will be “on it” constantly within NHS England at the senior levels—who want this to happen, who are dissatisfied with how things are and who are hungry for change—is essential, but, without meaning any disrespect to anybody, I do not see that at the moment. I am, though, encouraged by what the Minister said about trying to instil it. Radiotherapy is non-invasive. It is increasingly targeted and accurate. In the time that I have been involved in this area of campaigning, I have seen an exponential increase in how targeted it is and therefore how strong the doses, so to speak—the fractions—can be. I have seen the damage that can be done to a tumour without seriously damaging the healthy tissue around it. If the Minister is trying to convince his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to give us more money, he should argue that radiotherapy is so beneficial for the economy, because people will go back to work healthy, earn money and pay taxes. I thank the Minister very much again for responding to points made in the debate. My final point is to make again the case for satellite radiotherapy units around the country, not just in my patch. His civil servants might want to look into this more deeply. Among the wonderful people I met today was a young clinician, James, who works in a radiotherapy unit in London. He used to work in Cheltenham, which then of course branched out to have a satellite unit at Hereford. He was able to demonstrate and vouch for the fact that that new satellite unit ended up with getting on for 25% more patients than it had originally planned for. That was for one obvious reason: people who would not have had radiotherapy at all were able to get it because it was closer to them. The important thing to remember is that satellite units are not just about convenience—in fact, they are not even about convenience; they are about saving people’s lives and returning people to normal life if possible. I again thank the Minister for the attention he has given this issue, and I thank everybody else here today for taking part in this debate—not least yourself, Sir John. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the accessibility of radiotherapy.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Accessibility of Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I feel that the hon. Member has a point to make.