Tim Farron MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will try to be brief and speak to both new clauses. For the Committee’s information, we will not seek to press new clause 7 to a vote, but we will seek to press new clause 20. I know that the Minister will talk about the Cunliffe review as the time when these things will be considered. Nevertheless, we have all spent enough time in opposition to have come to some conclusions before this Parliament. Even if nothing else had happened beforehand, there was Ofwat’s signing off of the bill increases last December. This is a 21% increase in bills, and that is 14 times larger than the current inflation rate. In my part of the world, it is a 25% price rise. As I said earlier, 11% of the bills being paid by my constituents will go to finance company debt. We have seen bonuses signed off regularly despite shocking performance. We see Ofwat as a failed regulator with a culture and presumption of non-intervention. Nearly four years on, Ofwat still has not collected £168 million-worth of fines. We see a culture of weakness and an organisation that the water companies consider to be weak and for which they do not have respect. It is partly the fault of Ofwat and its leadership, but it is also that the powers given to it are not sufficient.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Water bill poverty is a reality, and many people will require greater water use because of disability, age or health conditions. Although WaterSure benefits exist, they are patchy and are something of a postcode lottery. Which benefits a person may receive under WaterSure depends on supplier and catchment, and whether someone qualifies depends on which water company they get water from. That is not right. There should be a single social tariff that is applicable and understandable for everyone. A postcode lottery should not dictate whether a person gets the support they may need, and which water company someone lives under should not dictate whether they can afford their bills. Some water companies require three or four pieces of evidence and some just a quick assessment of finances, and the savings range from 15% to 90% off a bill. We would bring that under one simple tariff. We have certainly heard Government Members regularly talk about the value and importance of such a measure, and we simply want to put it on the face of the Bill. A unified and universal social tariff is about basic social justice. It would help those people for whom paying water bills is most difficult, for a variety of reasons—health and disability reasons, as well as financial ones. This is something that the Government should accept, or else we will seek to press it to a vote.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Thank you—I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than I need to. The new clauses are about a vexing and serious issue: the presence of polyfluorinated and perfluorinated alkyl substances in our waterways and in our drinking water, in particular. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for championing this issue in this place and outside it. The new clause attempts to raise the existing guidance from the Drinking Water Inspectorate on PFAS levels in drinking water to a statutory level; that is the key point. The Bill seeks to increase regulatory power over water companies, and the new clause will increase the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s power to enforce the guidance regarding PFAS. There is currently no legal limit on the amount of PFAS present in our drinking water. There is only guidance, even though the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have both recommended that there should be a legal limit. New clause 13 would require water companies to prioritise and take a proactive stance on limiting PFAS in drinking water. Currently, if a water company were to breach PFAS guidance, its regulatory compliance score would not be affected as it would if, for example, lead was found in its water. This would encourage them to invest in treating water to remove PFAS. This is an important first step in prompting the Government to create a fully-fledged chemical strategy to deal with chemical pollutions of all kinds, starting with the most direct threat to human health, which is the direct consumption of PFAS through drinking water. PFAS are toxic, they are forever and they are very pervasive. Links have been found between PFAS chemicals and a host of health issues, such as, but not limited to, cancer, thyroid disease, fertility issues, lowered birth weight, weakened bones in children and immune resistance to vaccinations. New clause 14 would put the duty on the water companies to take responsibility for the reduction and prevention of PFAS chemicals in water systems, ensuring that each water company is responsible.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Environment Agency will have more powers as a consequence of the Bill. There will be greater regulation and there will be an impact on the Environment Agency as an organisation. It is my privilege to represent large chunks of the English Lake district. We have an agency full of really good people—dedicated and qualified professionals, many of whom are from and love the area, and yet they already find themselves overwhelmed with their responsibilities. I made an allusion earlier, but it might help to give a sense of how the organisation copes with its challenges. We are still in the process of having walls built around the River Kent to protect the town of Kendal and its businesses from a repeat of the devastation in December 2015, when something like 6,000 of my residents lost their homes and we saw just under 1,000 businesses devastated. The Environment Agency is looking after that, and just up the road are Windermere, Coniston, Ullswater and the other lakes, rivers and coastal areas of our beautiful part of the world. We are already stretching the capacity of those people, to say the least, and we are beginning to see that in real time, as we try to deal with sewage spills in the tributaries that lead into Windermere. We see many such failures, and although the Environment Agency is trying to find the time to regulate, observe and scrutinise them, it is understandably distracted by the huge civil engineering project that it is overseeing in Kendal to protect the town from flooding. This is about paying tribute to people in the EA, but also recognising that they are already under enormous pressure. The Minister has said that there will be 500 new members of staff at the Environment Agency. That is one answer to the question. We are trying to recognise that that is still only one person per English constituency. We need to therefore test the extent to which the Environment Agency has the capacity to do its job, because part of the problem is insufficient regulatory powers, and the other is agencies without the resource to police the powers that they already have. This aims to be a helpful new clause. It recognises that the Government seek to and will do good through the Bill, but we need to ensure that the agencies there to deliver that good have the capability to do so.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clauses 13 and 14 are connected, so with the Chair’s permission, I might speak to both of them.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, but we think that seeking to mobilise thousands of people around the country is so central to the ethos of the Bill that we should also seek to resource them and proactively seek to fill in the gaps, where they exist, so that every community has this level of scrutiny. We will press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  In-depth analysis is not going to tell us anything other than that there is massive inconsistency across the country. Of course, WaterSure provides benefits, but it is different depending on where someone lives. The benefits received by someone living in a Yorkshire Water area, United Utilities or Northumbrian Water area will differ, as will the qualifying criteria. That means that some people in poverty, and some people with serious disabilities or health needs, who therefore have higher water usage requirements, will be hit by higher bills simply because of the lack of a single social tariff. We think that the new clause is important to ensuring social justice and helping those most in need in our communities, and therefore that it is very important to put it to the vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is similar in scope to the last one, and I do not want to detain the Committee long. The clause refers to the duties of the water regulator under the Water Industry Act 1991, and lists duties against which the regulator would be able to mark water companies to see whether they perform. The duties would be to ensure, “clean drinking water…bathing waters of excellent quality…lakes, rivers and beaches of high ecological status…the conservation of water resources, and…reasonable water bills.” Interestingly, those are significantly more detailed than the 1991 Act currently provides. We are seeking to beef up Ofwat’s powers so that water companies are marked against these higher and more comprehensive standards. We do not think the clause should be controversial, and will seek to push it to a vote.

• 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.”