Victoria Atkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I thank him for bringing his expertise as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to the discussion. May I welcome, although I am not supposed to, the farmers in the Public Gallery who have been known making their views, not all of them terribly happy, about various contributions during the debate, and the tractors outside? We cannot hear the tractors in the Chamber, but they have been tooting as loudly as they possibly can. I am not sure the tooting is to welcome the SFI scandal that emerged on Tuesday, but no doubt the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will be able to help us with that. This debate should have been filled with positivity and confidence about the future of British farming. Instead, it has been overshadowed by this Labour Government’s farming fiasco. In just a few short months, this city-dwelling Government have destroyed families’ ambitions for the future, put at risk generations of expertise and custodianship and, less than 48 hours ago, ripped the rug out from underneath businesses immediately. This Government have treated farmers and the countryside with unashamed contempt, and that contempt has consequences. The NFU announced this week that farm business confidence has reached historically low levels, and that was before the SFI scandal on Tuesday night. New tractor registrations are at the lowest level since 1998. When I visited the Lincolnshire Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers Association in January—the farming Minister apparently could not make it—manufacturers were telling me how people are not investing in new machinery as a direct result of the Budget. I am afraid RoboCrop will have to wait for the next Conservative Government. Just as the Chancellor inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and has ground it down into stagflation, so too the Secretary of State inherited a growing farming sector that had gone through massive change since Brexit, but was seizing the new farming and environmental opportunities available. After a few months of this city-centric Government, farming families are feeling “ignored, alienated and disrespected”, to use the Secretary of State’s own words. But where is the Secretary of State? I have been hunting high and low for him, but nowhere is he to be found. He had a major announcement yesterday, but he sent his poor junior Minister out to take the flak because the Secretary of State is missing in action. Where are rural Labour MPs? [Hon. Members: “Here!”] We have heard about a rebel force—

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The clarification that everybody wants is this: we saw the figures last night, and they cut across two years, so what is the money for this financial year—2024-25—that the Minister describes as a cap? What is the value that he reached on Tuesday night that led to that announcement?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Oh, I would not do that if I were you. We have heard about a rebel force of Labour MPs who are going to stand up to the Government on the family farm tax. This debate is their chance to show their support for their farmers, but where are they? A total of 10 Labour MPs have turned up and six have spoken—that is 1.4% of the parliamentary party. The Labour Government’s farming fiasco policy can be summarised in three points: they will remove, without warning, farming and environmental schemes that help farms thrive and on which farms build their business cases; they will permit the state to seize farmland without consent or market value; and, if family farms manage to cling on despite that, Labour will tax farmers for dying. Let us deal with the first point: the abrupt halting of the sustainable farming incentive and the massive cut to delinked payments. The Government sneaked the SFI decision out late on Tuesday night, before being dragged to the Dispatch Box by us yesterday. That is a chaotic and inept way for a Government to treat taxpayers, businesses and families. Yesterday, the Minister kept using the figure of £5 billion for farming over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26. Of course, the funding for the first year, 2024-25, was set by the previous Government, including the £300 million that was rolled over from the previous year. It is for Labour Ministers to set the budget for 2025-26 after the spending review. Will the Minister confirm that the DEFRA budget will not face substantial cuts in the spending review, given he has relied on that figure so much? If he cannot confirm that, then those figures are meaningless, as Ministers are counting money for 2025-26 that could be removed at a stroke by the Chancellor. The decision on SFI has consequences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) have made clear. David from Gloucestershire, a farmer, asks the Minister whether he should simply plough up his farm and turn his back on 25 years of farming with an environmental focus. He says: “We are a small family farm…I won’t be able to afford environmental principles, everyone loses but the environment mostly.” We have heard from hon. Members about how farmers have contacted them because they face a financial crisis as a result of this decision, yet the no-farming Minister told them that they should be celebrating—well, the tractors outside do not seem to be tooting in celebration at his announcement yesterday. Let us move on to delinked payments, which were cut in the Budget. Tens of thousands of farmers who are not signed up to SFI in any of its iterations are still being subjected to a 76% cut in their delinked direct payments, leaving many in cash flow crisis, including tenant farmers. That was not mentioned at all by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) or for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). An urgent issue facing the industry is the importance of biosecurity to the future of farming. The second case of foot and mouth disease in Europe is alarming, but we have heard nothing from the Government on that. Will the Minister confirm whether funding for Dover Port Health Authority has now been agreed, outline how he is preventing the rising trend of bushmeat being sold over social media platforms and explain why the Government continue to ignore our calls to increase funding for the redevelopment of Weybridge? I can reveal what the Secretary of State and the Farming Minister have been prioritising this week. They have issued a consultation not on SFI, the family farm tax or cuts to delinked payments, but on how to carry a chicken. I am sure everybody thinks that really is the national priority for farming at the moment. Let us turn to the Government’s plans to undercut property rights and force farmers to sell their land at below market value. This is a policy that goes against the fundamental British principle of land ownership and puts food security and prices at risk—my hon. Friends set out the case on that. We then move on to the points made about the family farm tax, which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) criticised as being a distraction. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal seemed to be arguing for more taxes on farmers, but at least those Labour Members mentioned the family farm tax. The hon. Members for Shrewsbury, for South West Norfolk, for Cannock Chase, for St Austell and Newquay and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland did not see fit to mention it, because they are ignoring the facts of life on this. As Conservative Members know, this policy is having a genuine emotional and economic toll on farmers throughout the United Kingdom. One farmer told me: “I’ve stopped encouraging my daughter to spend time on the farm so I don’t have to have the conversation of why she can’t take over in the future.” This Government are robbing the next generation of farmers of their future, and this is also having a devastating impact on elderly farmers. It was shared in the Senedd this week that a farmer declined cancer treatment months before his death as he wanted to make sure that he died before these changes came into effect. That is desperately harrowing, yet we are being told this week in, week out by farming organisations, all because the Chancellor—who, by the way, refuses to meet farmers—is destroying British farming with her taxation policy. This is not just about the family farm tax: it is about the family business tax, the national insurance hike, the fertiliser tax and the double cab pick-up tax, which were all set out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. You name it, the Government will tax it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that farmers see no future in farming under this Government. In the words of one mid Devon farmer: “At no time in all these years have I felt so deflated with the job.” To the farmers despairing at this city-dwelling Government: please know that we Conservatives hear you, support you and will work with you to mend the outright assault on the countryside that this Labour Government are carrying out. Together, we will build a bright future for farming.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, which I am going to pull apart in a moment. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question that forced the Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the Government sneaked this statement out last night, presumably hoping nobody would notice; but, guess what, the countryside has noticed, because the question we are all asking ourselves is: what have this Government got against farmers and the countryside? They sneaked out this announcement that they were halting the sustainable farming incentive scheme immediately. The scheme replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit freedoms to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment and food production, yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night. The SFI scheme is popular with farmers, but the Minister does not have to take my word for it. To quote one: “The…schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmentally responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.” Those are the words of the former president of the Country Land and Business Association, and father of the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), who I am sure will agree with his father’s analysis. Why, then, would this city-dwelling Government stop such a successful scheme? In the words of the CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan: “Of all the betrayals so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature. It actively harms the environment. And, with war once again raging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.” Does the Minister think she is wrong? The Secretary of State, by the way, is missing in action. This is a significant statement, yet he is sending out his junior Minister to take the heat. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November, when he said that farmers “feel ignored, alienated and disrespected”. I do hope the Minister will tell us how that is going. This Government’s farming policy can be summarised in three sentences. First, they will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning or consultation, using criteria they have never before defined. Secondly, the state will seize their farmland at will through the compulsory purchase orders that were announced yesterday in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Thirdly, if families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all that, then Labour will tax them for dying. However, I am delighted to hear that the Minister for farming himself can see that farmers do not make enough money—I hope he will be changing the family farm tax. It all adds up to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP—someone who actually likes the countryside—I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the United Kingdom who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice, asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect our countryside. The Prime Minister has said he understood the significance of losing a farm, acknowledging that it “can’t come back”, and warned against “constantly moving the goalposts” for the agricultural sector, yet that is exactly what his Government are doing. The statement issued by the Government last night was a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It says that the SFI scheme has “reached completion”. What criteria have they used? They have not set those criteria out before. The Government’s own website stated that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was that disregarded last night? Does the Minister recognise that, in doing so, this Government have betrayed the trust of the farming community yet again? How many farmers does his Department believe will now be caught out without an SFI agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got its figures wrong. The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister some questions. What are his Government’s ambitions for the two thirds of farmers in England who are not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to payments under the basic payment scheme saved his Department, and where has that money gone? How will the Secretary of State support upland farmers who were intending to move on to the sustainable farming incentive scheme? Then, of course, there are the legal problems cause by last night’s announcement. How will the Government meet their legally binding environmental targets, given that they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of the changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities. Any words that the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy, particularly as we all know that this Government have been delaying consideration and grants of these applications since the general election. The figures that the Minister is using are wrong and the theory behind this policy is very questionable, yet the Government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact that this measure will have on farmers. Farmers are in despair. My message to farmers is clear: we have got your back; we will help you, so please hang on in there for the next four years; we will axe the family farm tax; and we will sort out this shocking mess of SFI, to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Withdrawn.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  That is a lie!

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  You voted for this policy.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the Secretary of State either understood my question or knows the answer, because I asked him when he will confirm the funding. Compare this relaxed approach with the Prime Minister’s seeming desperation to pay more than the entire DEFRA budget to surrender the Chagos islands. Does the Secretary of State really support taxing British farming families for dying, slashing winter fuel payments for rural pensioners, and hiking taxes on rural businesses to pay £9 billion to a foreign Government on some dodgy legal advice from Labour lawyers?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The head of the Dover Port Health Authority warned the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this week that if funding is not secured with seven weeks, food security checks at the border will be stopped. That will mean unchecked and potentially dangerous meat appearing on supermarket shelves and in restaurants at a time when there is foot and mouth disease in Germany. When will the Secretary of State protect our borders and confirm that funding?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on avian influenza.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  This is a very difficult time for birdkeepers and farmers, particularly those whose birds have died or been culled, and all those who have had to upend their flocks and move them inside, given the impact that doing so can have on both the mental and economic resilience of individuals. I thank everyone who is involved in tackling avian influenza, and is working tirelessly to prevent the spread of this disease, including in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his response. I regret that the Secretary of State has not made an oral statement on this important matter; particularly in the light of the revelation that a farm worker has been infected with avian influenza, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have thought to update the House. However, we have managed to secure this urgent question, for which I am grateful. On the subject of the farm worker infected with the virus in the west midlands, first, how is this person? Have they recovered, and has anyone else been infected? What are the wider risks to human health? Elsewhere, one of the largest and most modern egg-laying sites in the country has been affected, with more than a million birds being culled. Given the site’s significant role in processing the UK’s barn egg production, what discussions is the Minister having with the sector to mitigate the impact on supply? Will he please update us on his discussions with the devolved Governments about introducing similar restrictions to those in England? Of course birds, and indeed viruses, do not recognise borders. How is he ensuring that compensation is made without delay, and how much is it costing? Is the Department keeping the scheme under review, including the loss of profit for farmers and the conservation impacts for zoos housing rare and critically endangered species, such as the Bali starling at Battersea zoo, which I visited this week? We are also concerned by reports that the avian influenza vaccination taskforce has stalled. Is that correct and, if so, why? Finally, DEFRA Ministers—

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this incredibly important issue of the women’s health strategy, and the fact that the word “woman” has been excluded from the updated planning guidance, could you help me understand this? As a common courtesy to both you and the House, when a Minister is unable to organise herself such that she can get to the Chamber on time, is it not courteous to apologise to those of us she has kept waiting before we were able to discuss this important subject?

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

  More

  I will not, because I want to allow others to speak. The Government have also sadly failed to recognise the importance of chalk streams, refusing to confirm the continuation of protections put in place by us Conservatives. I am afraid that warm words about rainforests, much as we agree with them, will not protect these vital habitats. We want to see improved water quality, and I urge the Government to take stock and seek to adopt a more rounded approach that cleans up our rivers and seas, treats bill payers and taxpayers properly, and builds on our work to construct the water systems of the future.

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

  More

  I do love being mansplained to by Labour Back Benchers. I suppose it is part of the Labour party’s women problem. The hon. Gentleman is now throwing his thumbs up at me—goodness me! What I will say is that throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said, “We have made some progress, but there is more to do.” That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill tonight, although we will try to improve it and strengthen it.

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

  More

  I will give way, with great interest.

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

  More

  I thank everyone who has scrutinised and worked on the Bill in both Houses, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), our very efficient Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), and the noble Lord Roborough, who led very constructive discussions in the other place. It is a shame that the Government rejected the amendments put forward today. I thank the Doorkeepers, the hon. Members who chaired the Committee and everyone who helped His Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise the Bill. Across the House, we can all agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased; we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good; and an increase in blue flag beaches. But of course we want to see more. We were, in fact, the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced, and our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies and storm overflow improvements, and nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Thames tideway tunnel super sewer. When we came into government, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we left government, we had increased that to 100%. We support the Bill, but we do so with some disappointment at its lack of ambition. Frankly, as we have said before, much of what the Bill tries to do, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and fines, was brought in by the Conservatives in government. We say that the primary legislation is not necessary, but we will of course support the Bill. I am especially disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our amendments. In particular, it is woeful that they have failed to put the water restoration fund into legislation. [Interruption.] I will deal with the Minister’s comments in a moment. The public rightly want to see the Government addressing water quality, but rather water company fines being used to restore water bodies, that money will be going into the gaping hole of the Treasury’s coffers, presumably in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the Chancellor’s disastrous growth-blocking, tax-hiking, job-cutting, investment-plummeting Budget. Now I am going to correct the Minister, and I will do so from the Dispatch Box rather than through a point of order. Last summer it emerged that Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water would be fined a record £160 million between them for a “catalogue of failure” over illegal sewage discharges, subject to consultation. However, in August—when this Government were in power—the Treasury held back those fines, which were due to go into the water restoration fund to help clean up affected areas. The Minister gave figures earlier, but it is her Government’s fault that money was not paid into that fund. We on the side of the House believe that the polluters should pay for their mistakes, rather than their fines paying for pay rises for the Government’s trade union buddies. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the train drivers are very grateful.

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

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman, as a Back-Bench MP, is presuming to tell a regulator with criminal powers how to investigate and prosecute companies or indeed any defendants, we need to be very careful, because never before in our law have we permitted Members of Parliament and Ministers to direct independent investigators on whom to investigate and prosecute.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Supermarkets!

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment she has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release on the costing of changes to agricultural and business property relief.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR. Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today? In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy? Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How heartless and how extraordinary that the Secretary of State is more discomfited by being presented with the facts of the consequences of his policy than the reality of what this policy ensures. I was a Minister for seven and a half years, and I have never seen a policy have the consequences that this one has. [Interruption.] Members of the public will see Labour Members reacting in that way because I have dared to present them with the facts. We know that there is a tragically high suicide rate among the farming community. The National Farmers Union gave evidence about this, and the Secretary of State has been told repeatedly. Will he collect data on a monthly basis of suicides from farmers, farming families, landowners and family businesses, so that we, the House and the outside community can understand the human costs of this tax policy before it comes into force?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I wish a merry Christmas to everyone in the House, and also to everyone in our farming, food, hospitality and water sectors. But not everyone will be able to celebrate Christmas. In recent weeks, a farmer took himself off to a remote part of his farm and killed himself. The message he left his family, who wish to remain anonymous, is that he did this because he feared becoming a financial burden to his family because of changes to inheritance tax. This is the human cost of the figures that the Secretary of State provides so casually. What does the Secretary of State say to that grieving family?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will do in a moment—I am not like the Secretary of State. The truth is that Labour Members do not like hearing the facts. We brought forward measures to ensure that companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited financial penalties. We also set up the water restoration fund, meaning that any fines or penalties levelled at water companies were ringfenced to support projects that improve the environment and keep pressure off bills, rather than being returned to the Treasury. The fact that Ministers appear to have stalled the fund reveals how little this Government understand the countryside or care about it. Indeed, it looks like they have held back £168 million in fines that were due to be paid into the fund. Why on earth would this Labour Government not want polluters to pay? Why are they content for fines of many millions of pounds to be paid into the Treasury slush fund, rather than local environmental projects that have been damaged by storm overflows? Does the Treasury really need that money, or is it perhaps paying for the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, flash apartment? My colleagues and I will work to ensure that the water restoration fund is reinstated and that money goes to local environment projects to protect local environments, as was intended. Most of the measures in this Bill, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and significant fines, were in fact brought it by the Conservative Government. Indeed, primary legislation is not necessary to put most of these measures into practice.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Of course the constituents’ experience that the hon. Lady has described is not acceptable. I do not think anyone would say that it was. Sometimes the public are switched off by this back and forth, because the idea that anyone would be content with the experience that she has described is for the birds. The difference that we draw on—I hope we will have a much more constructive conversation about water than this—is that the investment that was made by the last Government in flooding has had many benefits across the country but, as I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech, there is more to be done. That is why we will support the Bill, but we will be looking to improve it. I just want to make sure that the Minister got the point that I was making. The amendment that came from the Lords to improve accountability on debt levels and on the financial structuring of water companies is a critical one, and I very much hope that the Government will address this and set out their commitment to keep that amendment that the noble Lords saw fit to put in the Bill. As I say, in Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver effective and constructive amendments to this Bill, but I put down this marker. It is surprising—and, I have to say, disappointing—that the Government have failed to grasp that water companies and sewage are just two elements in managing, maintaining and improving our waterways and water quality. Where are the plans for investment in infrastructure? Where are the plans for nature-based solutions? Where are the plans for the roles of other businesses? As we face the likelihood of increased bills being announced this week, what guarantees and reassurances can the Government give to bill payers? And what plans do the Government have to separate foul water and surface water systems? That is a critical infrastructure question that I hope we will get some answers to in the coming weeks. How will the Government encourage investment, particularly given the depressive effects on growth that this Chancellor and her Budget are having on the economy?