Tim Farron
MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The Government aim to reclaim 30% of our land and seas for nature. I welcome that, and much of the action plan, but 70% of England’s landmass is agricultural land. Does the Minister agree that we must start by ensuring that all farmers have access to environmental schemes—not just those who apply for them the quickest?”
“I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement. On my way into Kendal this morning, before I came down to Parliament, I observed the jarring reality of fields yellowing in the dry heat and the River Kent so low that I could see the bedrock.”
“They are often under coercion, and may not realise that they are victims of modern slavery until much later, so giving people only a handful of days to declare themselves victims is cruel and, again, performative. There is nothing in this Bill to undo or relax the moratorium on family reunion, which is a safe route.”
“It turned out, though, that every single person in that young mothers group had been a victim of sexual violence between the ages of 14 and 20. There are reasons why women do not end up on these boats, and do not take those risky journeys.”
“I certainly think that people who are seeking asylum in this country should be given the right to work. First, it will help them to integrate, if their asylum claim is successful; secondly, it will enable them to cover the cost of their accommodation and many other things while they are here.”
“This Bill is riddled with bogus context and false premises, as are most debates on this issue. It is worth bearing in mind that the majority of European Union countries take more asylum seekers per head than the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Tim Farron, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“T4. The Secretary of State co-chairs the child poverty taskforce. Will she confirm that its brief will be very wide-ranging, including looking at children in poverty in dispersed rural communities such as mine, but also taking practical steps to tackle poverty among migrant children whose parents have no recourse to public funds?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She mentions the amendment we pushed in the Bill Committee, which was not accepted by the Government. It is indeed vital that water companies are statutory consultees throughout the process, but we should bear in mind that there is an incentive for water companies to say that there is no problem: the additional buildings mean more water bills and more income for the water company. If the company concedes that there is a problem, it may have to respond by making improvements to the infrastructure, costing it money. Do we not need better regulation? Ofwat and the Environment Agency need to be put together into a single, new clean water authority, so that we enforce clean water standards on the water companies that are currently running rings around our regulators.”
“It will also outrage everyone who clings to that old-fashioned expectation that Governments should keep their word. On Monday, the Secretary of State came to my beautiful constituency to pose for pictures by Windermere. I wonder whether he might come back tomorrow and face up to the farmers who steward the stunning landscapes around our beautiful lakes, and who he has abandoned so shamefully. Will he reopen SFI and honour his promises, or turn his back on the very people who feed us?”
“Does this not damage both? There are 6,100 new entrants to SFI this year, yet only a mere 40 of them are hill farms. Because of the failure of the Conservatives in the previous Administration, the big landowners and the corporates are already comfortably inside the tent, but the farmers who are outside and now locked out without warning are Britain’s poorest farmers in beautiful places, such as mine in the lakes and the dales. As the Tories oversaw a 41% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years, is this not a bitter and unbearable blow for our upland farmers? This betrayal will outrage everyone who cares for our environment, our upland nature and landscapes and it will outrage everyone who cares about food security and it will outrage everyone who cares about our tourism economy.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The closure of the SFI from 6 o’clock last night came without warning or consultation, and it constitutes the breaking of the Government’s word to farmers. Farmers are already losing their basic payment this year, but they are now excluded from the very scheme designed to replace that. Has the Minister not broken his word to farmers and to all who care about nature? Will he clarify how much money he will save from the BPS cuts this year and say that it is not true that SFI is overspent? Is it not true that when the BPS cut is taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent? A bigger budget is pointless if we do not spend it. This money was supposed to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production.”
“What formal assessment have Ministers made, or will they make, of the benefits to children’s mental health and physical health, resilience and ability to learn of investing in more opportunities for residential outdoor education experiences?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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]”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”