Tim Farron MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  In that case, I will speak to amendment 19, which is about revolving doors. Amendment 19 seeks to prevent a revolving door between water companies and the regulator. In July 2023, the chief executive of Ofwat stepped down to very swiftly pick up the role of interim chief executive of Thames Water. An analysis by The Observer in 2023 found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate until shortly beforehand, with about half of them in very senior posts. Some work that the Liberal Democrats did in the last 18 months found that the director for regulatory strategy at the country’s largest water firm, Thames Water, was previously an Ofwat employee. Meanwhile, a senior principal at Ofwat moved directly from Thames Water, where they worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors who work on regulation. The amendment tries to prevent that revolving door, which clearly brings in a potential conflict of interest. It also builds the quite justified absence of trust. I can feel an intervention brewing—go for it.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  We would be content not to press any of the amendments bar amendment 18, which we will seek to push to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert— “(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following— (i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers; (ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational; (iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and (iv) environmental interest groups.”.— (Tim Farron.) Question put , That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— “(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require— (a) the interests of customers, and (b) the environment, to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me—

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

  More

  I want to point out something that is probably blindingly obvious, because I want to support the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Beaconsfield. When emergency overflows happen in rivers near places where people may engage in aquatic sports, that is one thing and it is unacceptable, but it is worth bearing the lakes in mind—I will pick Windermere for an example. A drop of water that enters the north end of the lake takes nine months to pass through the River Leven and out into Morecambe bay. The consequences of an overflow in a lake—in the Lake district or elsewhere—are so much greater than in other waterways. I also have 30 outdoor education centres in my constituency, many of them on lakes. They are much more affected by overflows than any other form of spillage, which is why I think the amendment is worth pursuing.

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

  More

  With your permission, Mr Vickers, I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to speak to the bulk of these amendments. I will focus on amendment 17, which requests that we insert into the Bill a position of Minister with responsibility for issues relating to the coast. That is something that the all-party group for coastal communities, chaired by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), is fully in favour of. Coastal communities face a unique set of environmental and economic challenges, which are spread across Departments. It is therefore common sense to have a Minister to bring them together under one portfolio and champion those communities in Government. The specific needs of coastal communities were raised in the annual report of the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in 2021, and we particularly highlight those communities. In my own part of the world, we have the Lancashire over the sands part of my constituency and south-west Westmorland, but there are also coastal communities in places such as North Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere. As I said, there is cross-party support, through the APPG for coastal communities, for this proposal. Let me make a quick reference to my own constituency. Among the challenges that the communities around Morecambe bay face is the pollution of the environment around them. In 2023 alone, one treatment works in Grange-over-Sands pumped sewage into the Kent estuary channel on 79 occasions for 73 hours. Across the water in Arnside, another pumped 42 times for 147 hours.

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

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney for his detailed points and for the Minister’s replies to them. We will not seek to press the majority of the amendments to the vote. Nevertheless, we stand by all that we have said and we do wish to press amendment 13 to a vote. The reality is that duration monitors only do so much good. Asking for volume to be added to duration is not to the exclusion of quality. In fact, it is part of an attempt to try to get to the bottom of it. Again, off the top of my head, earlier last year there was a sewage overflow into Coniston Water from 22 August, which lasted just over a week, and a sewage overflow around Easter time in Windermere, which lasted a matter of hours. The former was more of a trickle—still unacceptable—and the latter was a deluge. The difference in terms of quality was significant as well as in terms of volume. We therefore ask that the Committee considers amendment 13, which we seek to press to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 10, at end insert— “(e) the volume of discharge.”

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

  More

  You will be delighted to hear that I will not say very much about this, Mr Vickers. Amendment 26 relates to nature-based solutions for these broader issues, and many of my points were covered under amendment 24. I simply want to point out the value of nature-based solutions. They are cheap, they are low input, they provide potential income for farmers and other land managers, they are environmentally friendly in and of themselves, and they involve very light engineering to install and maintain. They are also less complex, not labour-intensive and much quicker to achieve and install, as well as having very clear ecological benefits and alleviating pressure on more conventional forms of sewage treatment. I make those points just to add to the importance of prioritising nature-based solutions to tackling sewage treatment.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 9, line 1, leave out from start to “in” and insert— “a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”. I have made my argument in favour of amendment 17, probably at the wrong time. I do not seek to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  More

  There are no further comments from us, and we do not seek to press to a vote any of the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned that there is not enough detail in the Bill about the impact of pollution incidents on the wider environment, much as I am grateful to the Minister for many of the comments she has made. All the same, we will not seek to trouble the Committee with a vote at this stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 4, page 10, line 4, leave out— “use that is to be made of” and insert— “priority that is to be given to”.

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

  More

  Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far. We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.

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

  More

  I will add to the words I have already said, but not by very many, I promise. The simple bottom line of our proposal is that nature-based solutions offer great value for dealing with sewage. As has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, they also have a significant impact on flood prevention. I am bound to crowbar this in, but it is a reminder that among the things that we should be enormously grateful to those who work our uplands—our hill farmers—for is that their work, if we support them properly, prevents people who live in towns, villages and cities from being flooded. Another part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief is the environmental land management scheme, and how we can look to further support those working in the uplands—our land managers and our upland farmers, both tenants and owners—to be able to deliver those nature-based solutions to protect millions of homes and avoid billions of pounds of damage, as well as being part of the solution to dealing with sewage. We will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Impeding investigations: sentencing and liability Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Scotland: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Member moves on, when it comes to Scotland and northern England transport links, does he have a view on the practice of Avanti, which runs the west coast route from London Euston to Glasgow? Whenever there is any kind of problem on the line north of Preston, whether it be in north Lancashire, Cumbria or the south of Scotland, Avanti’s habit is to stop all trains at Preston, so everywhere between Preston and Glasgow, be it Oxenholme or Motherwell, has no service. Does he think that Avanti is in breach of at least the principle of its contract in failing to serve north Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland?