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 9 of 13.
“The use of AI in radiotherapy planning increases productivity twentyfold, yet the Government’s decision to stop funding for AI contouring is estimated to cost waiting lists half a million extra days. Will the Secretary of State intervene and talk to his friends in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that they restore that funding and save lives?”
“It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and follow all the wonderful speeches in this important debate. I say a massive thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing the debate and for introducing it with great style and knowledge, as always. I think that my constituency is the wettest represented in this Chamber, certainly in England, although there is possible competition from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns).”
“The hon. Member is 100% correct. It is interesting that some of the older properties in my constituency are the ones that are most resilient. In many cases, they were built hundreds of years ago to resist flooding, or for it not to be the end of the world when it does flood. The design of the new buildings in Carlisle absolutely measures up, and we should do more of that.”
“Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million. I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—”
“Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is. I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate.”
“It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction. New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon.”
“I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct. Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment.”
“I am asking the question because the Government and Chancellor have said that there is no commitment beyond the end of this financial year. We do not know whether the Government are cutting or increasing spending, and we want to know. Many flood-hit communities are desperate to hear what the Chancellor’s plans are beyond this financial year.”
“Given that lengthy A&E, cancer treatment and ambulance waiting times in Cumbria are a direct result of the lack of social care workers, meaning that our hospitals are full to bursting, what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the damage that this policy could do to patients and NHS workers in my communities, where the most regular experience we have of migrants is that they care for us and our loved ones?”
“I could not help myself, I’m afraid. Some 87% of Eritreans coming over are refugees. The right hon. Gentleman talks about young men. The refugees are young men, because Christian young men in Eritrea are conscripted to murder their own communities, so of course they are disproportionately represented. Why does he not take part in this debate on the basis of evidence, rather than playing tabloid nonsense?”
“I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my work with the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. New clause 21 would help the Government to tackle poverty, prevent homelessness and demonstrate competence. Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget because they could instead support themselves. It would help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if asylum seekers were seen to be paying their way. It would also reduce the need to use hotels to house asylum seekers. Those seeking asylum should have the dignity of being able to work, and the taxpayer should get the benefit of the massively reduced costs that that would bring.”
“It is throwing our farmers under the bus, just as the Conservatives did through their deal with Australia and New Zealand. Will the Secretary of State support Liberal Democrat calls for the deal to be signed only if it supports farmers, and after a vote in this House?”
“On behalf of all Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I add my tribute to those who fought and died to secure our freedom. I also pay tribute to those in rural communities, like ours in Westmorland, who fed this country and welcomed evacuee children from the cities, and to our community in Windermere, who welcomed the children who had survived the Nazi death camps after the war. We remember them all with deep gratitude. Has the Prime Minister consulted the Secretary of State on the potential impact on British farmers of the US-UK trade deal? It is a matter of fact that US animal welfare standards are worse than ours, which means that import costs are lower, so allowing equal access is not free trade—it is unfair trade.”
“Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. Two excellent teachers in my constituency—both experts in special educational needs provision—set up an organisation called the Mighty Oak Initiative, whose work is focused on helping young people with special educational needs who are not attending school at the moment, either not fully or at all. Its work is exemplary. Would the Minister meet Mighty Oak and myself to look at how we can support the organisation, learn from what it does and apply it elsewhere so that young people with special educational needs can get the best out of their educational experience, rather than being left on the sidelines?”
“Given the enormous amount of money that sits with the Premier League, does the Secretary of State share my feeling that it and the FA in general do not do justice by the families of former footballers who suffer from neurodegenerative conditions? Footballers are four or five times more likely to have such conditions than the rest of the population, and those organisations are meant to help families with the care costs of such former professionals, but they do not do so. Will the Secretary of State meet Football Families for Justice so that we can put something in the Bill that will force the wealthy people in football to support those who suffer?”
“According to an OECD recommendation, radiotherapy should be the primary treatment for cancer in 53% of cases; shamefully, in the UK, it is in only 36% of cases. Lancashire and South Cumbria ranks 42nd of 42 ICBs, with only 29% of people with cancer receiving radiotherapy. That is in no small part down to the failure to provide that treatment within our communities. It is absolutely the case that the longer the journeys to treatment, the shorter the life expectancy of the people suffering with cancer. I urge the Minister finally to make the decision, which we have been demanding for years, to add to the chemotherapy service, to the diagnostics and to the cancer surgery that we now have at Kendal. It was wonderful to win those campaigns, but the one thing that we are missing is radiotherapy.”
“There is no logical reason for it to be in the last division of the third phase of the programme, which means that it will not be built until the 2030s. I urge the Minister to think again on that point. The Minister will be unsurprised to hear me use my last minute and a bit to talk about radiotherapy. In the northern part of my constituency, in places like Appleby, people who have cancer are able to get good quality radiotherapy treatment at Carlisle, but in the southern three quarters of my constituency, people have to make return journeys, sometimes of four hours a day for weeks on end, to get radiotherapy treatment at our nearest centre in Preston. That is outrageous. That is why we are asking for there to be a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal. This is not just about convenience.”
“We have known for three months that the excellent Dr Frey and Dr Abbas were retiring and leaving their posts in July, and the ICB has dragged its feet for three months, despite the community clamouring for action. We presented a petition of over 1,000 signatures in this place just a few weeks ago for there to be a replacement of the GP surgery to serve the community in Coniston. When it comes to the new hospital programme, I acknowledge the fantasy figures behind the previous Government’s non-existent programme, but I point out that land is available in the larger district general hospital site serving Lancaster in the southern part of my constituency. It is right next to the new medical school at Lancaster University and it is absolutely shovel-ready.”
“There was a total of 1,221 minor injury assessments last year; they are now pushed on to the urgent treatment centre at Kendal, potentially overloading that excellent centre, but also causing huge harm to people who live in those rural and dispersed places, and undermining the funding model for those GP surgeries and putting them at risk. I would love it if the Minister had words with the ICB to challenge it on this. Tomorrow, the ICB for Lancashire and South Cumbria will meet. On its agenda may or may not be, but jolly well should be, the decision to approve and to seek a new provider of GP services in the community of Coniston.”
“In rural communities like mine, our issues are very often about the distances that we have to travel in order to get any kind of healthcare, but particularly to reach hospitals. In Morecambe bay, which covers three quarters of my constituency population-wise, we are funded as if we have one hospital, but have to have three. One way that we have got around that is to have funding for GP surgeries to provide minor injury care in places like Grange, Ambleside, Hawkshead and beyond—yet, as of 1 April, our local integrated care board has cancelled that funding.”
“Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review gives us hope that a second, more ambitious water Bill might be coming, but there is no guarantee of that, so our job as the constructive Opposition in this place is to hold the Government to account and urge them to make the big changes that Britain voted for last July. The need for radical action was made all the more clear recently when the figures for sewage spills in 2024 were released. Those figures were horrific: a 106% increase in the duration of spills in our lakes, rivers and seas in just two short years.”
“It is an honour to open this debate. For me, serving the people of Westmoreland also means defending its natural beauty and purity, which are important to our national heritage, farming industry and tourism and hospitality economy. Our proposal aims to highlight the scandal of the pollution of our waterways and calls for practical solutions that will make a difference. The Government’s recent Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was a step in the right direction after the failure of the last Conservative Government to take meaningful action, yet it was surely also a missed opportunity to bring in the radical transformation of regulation and ownership that is essential if we are to clean up our waterways and clean up the water industry as a whole.”
“I beg to move, That this House regrets the persistent scandal of raw sewage being dumped by water companies into rivers, lakes and coastal areas; notes with deep concern that just 14% of rivers and lakes in England are in good ecological health; condemns the previous Government for letting water company bosses get away with the scandal while paying themselves millions of pounds in bonuses; further notes the potential benefits of Blue Flag status in improving responsibility and accountability from water companies, through compliance checks and stringent environmental standards; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to end the sewage scandal, including the introduction of a new Blue Flag status for rivers and chalk streams, to give them greater protection against sewage dumping and ensure the public knows when rivers are clean and safe.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a really good point about his own communities. That is what we are trying to address today by bringing practical solutions to prevent this outrage. That 106% increase in the duration of sewage spills in just two years has been explained away on the record by water industry bosses as the consequence of climate change, because it rains more than it used to. Yes, that is absolutely true, but it did not rain 106% more in 2024 than it did in 2022—not even in the Lake district. The reality is that the failure of water companies to invest in their infrastructure and the failure of Ofwat to force them to do so mean that the scandal is set to continue despite the Government’s new legislation.”
“Yet the data for 2024 shows that we are the third hardest hit constituency in England when it comes to the duration of sewage spills, with 55,000-plus hours of spills and 5,500 individual incidents. The catchment of the River Eden going through Appleby, Kirkby Stephen and many beautiful villages saw over 7,000 hours of spills on 705 occasions. The River Kent catchment saw 5,300 hours of spills on 455 occasions. Windermere alone had 38 spills over 123 hours.”
“My hon. Friend anticipates where I am going next, but yes, it takes some doing to have such figures in a constituency lacking in water—certainly lacking in it compared to my neck of the woods. I confess that I am doing this job not just because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) asked me; I would volunteer for all this stuff, because for me and my communities water is seriously personal. We are home to much of the English Lake district —Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston water, Grasmere, Rydal water and many more—and to a beautiful stretch of Morecambe bay and some of the most ecologically significant rivers in the UK, including the Kent, the Eden and the Leven.”
“The hon. Member would, of course, be enormously welcome to visit the lakes and the dales. He makes a key point, which I will seek to address, about the injustice of people being paid huge bonuses for failure at the top of these organisations. That is also money leaving the system and the industry that could have been invested in putting some of this right. I have talked about my patch, but colleagues across the House, from every party and from every corner of the United Kingdom, will have seen the data for their communities too, and they should rightly be outraged.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important observation from a constituency vast and rural—my constituency is the second largest in England, but it is bijou and compact compared with his. He makes a good point about the Administration in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) alluded to, sewage spills are not the only things that have increased; so too has the money leaking out of the system. Water company bosses received a total combined pay last year of £20 million and more, and the water companies responsible for these failures paid out £1.2 billion in dividends. Surfers Against Sewage, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), has led the way on this issue for many years, since before many others were even talking about it.”
“I will talk later about why privatisation of the water industry was such a colossal mistake, and that is one of the consequences—a predictable consequence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Recent research by Surfers Against Sewage covers all the water companies, but I am bound to pick out United Utilities as an example. United Utilities paid out £320 million to investors last year, while its customers—my constituents—will pay 32% more in bills. By the way, 11% of every one of my constituents’ water bills is going to service that company’s debts—debts racked up in part by borrowing money in order to give huge, undeserved paydays to their investors.”
“My hon. Friend represents an utterly beautiful part of the country and she fights for it admirably; her constituents are lucky to have her. She makes an important point. I mentioned that 11% of the bills paid by my constituents in the north-west of England goes to service United Utilities’ debt, but that is one of the lowest levels. For many other colleagues on both sides of the House, their local water companies will be using up to 30% of the bills charged just to service their debt. The sewage scandal is an environmental scandal, but it is also a financial one—an affront to justice and fairness, as well as to our ecology.”
“The report shines a light on what WASP considers to be inflated capital spending costs at water companies around the country, and it rightly asks what Ofwat is doing by signing this stuff off—signing off huge bill increases when water companies are not spending that money wisely.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his coastal and island communities in the far south-west. They are also very lucky to have him speaking up for them. The Windrush Against Sewage Pollution and Save Windermere campaigns worked together on a recent report showing that the use of funds for capital projects by water companies around the country was at best wasteful and negligent and at worst, dare I say it, deeply suspect. They focused on the proposal by, again, United Utilities to spend almost £13 million of local bill payers’ money on an extension to a sewage outfall pipe into Windermere. WASP found this to be “excessive” and said it seemed unreasonable that 43 three-bedroom houses could be built for the price of putting a mere 150-metre sewage pipe into a lake.”
“That is why our key criticism of the Government’s new water Act is not of anything that is in that legislation, but of what is missing from it. The situation whereby water companies can be responsible for record levels of sewage pollution and be shown to make bad use of bill payers’ money, with inflated capital costs and inflated dividends, could not happen if they were regulated properly, but they are not.”
“For example, the chief executive of United Utilities, Louise Beardmore, among others admitted at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee not very long ago that they had refused to release spill data until WASP appealed to the Information Commissioner. Furthermore, in 2022 United Utilities was listed as the best performing water company in England, for which it was allowed to raise its bills as a reward. However, the BBC reported whistleblowers at the Environment Agency claiming that United Utilities had been wrongly downgrading dozens of pollution incidents. So we can surely be forgiven for being a little cynical when those water companies propose huge sums for projects like the one I have just mentioned.”
“Until now, I always thought “The House at Pooh Corner” was a good thing; obviously that would not be so in this case. I have seen the same thing in my own patch. In the village of Burneside we are finally, after 20 years of campaigning, getting some additional new sewage infrastructure, which will hopefully prevent poop literally coming up on to the pavements in light rainfall where the local kids catch the bus to go into Kendal to school, which is an absolute outrage. My hon. Friend is right to campaign, as he does very well, for his communities on this issue. We should already know not to take water companies at their word, I am afraid, given their shoddy record on data transparency.”
“That is why the Liberal Democrats propose a new clean water authority so that water companies stop running rings around multiple regulators and begin to act in the interests of the British people and of the waterways that we love.”
“I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, particularly given the experience she has in her constituency. She rightly fights very forcefully for her communities and to clean up her waterways. She will have seen, like all of us, that the principal problem is a failure of regulation. There has to be an answer to that and the Liberal Democrat proposal, which I will come to in a moment, would certainly make it more likely that this would be dealt with effectively—and if it solved the problem, that would be great. The water industry regulatory framework is fragmented and weak. The regulators lack the resource, the power and the culture, it would appear, to make a serious difference.”
“I absolutely welcome the Act, as I said at the beginning of the debate. It is a step in the right direction; I just do not think that it is enough, and the hon. Lady makes the case as to why it is not enough. Her water company, Yorkshire Water, is one of four water companies that between them owe Ofwat £164 million in fines because of their failure, and Ofwat has so far claimed zero—none of that. There seems to be an awareness among water companies that Ofwat is not a regulator to be feared and therefore not one to be responded to. That is among the reasons why we need a new, much more powerful regulator that has the power, and uses it, to refuse to sign off on spending plans that prioritise the investor over the consumer and the environment.”
“In the motion before us, we specifically urge the establishment of a new system of blue flag status for rivers and chalk streams as a practical way to force water companies to be more accountable for the safety of the swimmers who use them and for the ongoing protection and flourishing of precious habitats and ecosystems.”
“It is why we call for the Government’s welcome new sewage spills database to be a searchable tool, including retrospectively, so that we do not hamstring those brilliant volunteers who seek to hold the water industry and its regulators to account. Tens of thousands of people are giving their expertise, time and passion to clean up our waterways. Let us let them off the leash, equip them and empower them. I was sad to see Conservative and Labour colleagues refuse to support these measures during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but I hope that they will have a change of heart today.”
“To be fair, with the commission the Government provide themselves with a second chance to bring in the ambitious changes that are needed, and we urge them not to miss this chance. Ministers will remember with deep joy the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats proposed to the water Bill. In our submission to Sir Jon, I have sought to turn those amendments into a single set of proposals to restore our water industry to environmental and financial health, and to harness the amazing power of citizen scientists and volunteers up and down the country. It is why we called for the inclusion of water campaigners, such as WASP, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Eden Rivers Trust and South Cumbria Rivers Trust, on water company boards.”
“The end result is the rivers, lakes and seas in which we swim, fish, canoe, sail, work and play polluted by an industry now owned by those who took but would not give. Water companies need new models of ownership, transitioning to public benefit companies that are focused on environmental good, not profiteering, with funds from customers’ bills pumped back into upgrading and repairing infrastructure, not draining away in dividends. We welcome the independent water commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, though we remain impatient given the time it will take to publish the commission’s findings, the further period of time it may take for the Government to do anything about them, followed by a legislative process and implementation period—we will be at the end of the Parliament before we know it.”
“I agree, and the hon. Member can check the record and see us voting with the Conservatives in Committee. He makes a good point: the communities most damaged by pollution should be the ones that receive investment from the fines—if, indeed, Ofwat ever bothers to collect them. Alongside the need for regulatory reform, we propose a radical transformation of the ownership model. Privatisation of the water industry has been an expensive failure—35 years of huge debts and payouts to investors, 35 years of inadequate investment in our infrastructure. The Conservative promise of Britain becoming a shareowning democracy has turned into the predictable nightmare reality of British public utilities owned by billionaires and foreign powers—what an absolute disgrace.”
“I completely agree—and the feeling is mutual. I appreciate that I am going on a bit and that a few Members wish to intervene. We will have to go by hands up. [ Interruption. ]”
“I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will allow maybe only two more interventions. I am coming towards the end of my remarks. I am trying to be not selfish but generous by getting the balance right. I do not want to squeeze people out altogether.”
“Residents in every community of our country want us to listen to them and to act to end the sewage scandal. We must not let them down.”
“We know in our community that it is our collective calling to steward the epic slice of creation that surrounds us, including the stunning waters, meres and tarns of the Lake district, our coasts and our rivers. They are not ours to keep; they are ours to preserve for the people of these islands and beyond, and for the people of this generation and the generations that we shall never meet. Politics is also a great calling. In this case, it allows us to establish the structures that will enable that stewardship of our waterways to be effective, to be more than just words and to mean practical change for the better. Our motion today gives the House the opportunity to do practical good, and to do so now, without further dither or delay.”
“If evidence were needed that our proposals are desperately needed, Surfers Against Sewage received 1,853 sickness reports from contact with our waterways in 2024 alone—that is nine years of sick days. As a brief aside, because it is so important and central to what we are trying to achieve, we want to provide special protection for our chalk streams. They are rare, ecologically unique habitats that are often referred to as England’s rainforests, yet even they have come under threat from sewage dumping in recent years. Blue flag status for chalk streams would drive their recovery after years of abuse. To conclude, to represent the precious lakes and dales of Westmorland and Lonsdale is a massive privilege, and it is also a huge responsibility.”
“It said: “This step could mean that sites that are deemed too polluted risk being immediately denied this designation, and therefore unable to receive the monitoring and investment needed to make blue spaces cleaner and safer”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) pointed out recently, that gives water companies a loophole to get away without cleaning up a bathing site that people use regularly because it is too polluted anyway. If it is a popular swimming site, it must be cleaned up. In contrast, blue flag status would be granted only at those sites where the data showed that the water is clean and safe. We would give swimmers and other river users proper evidence-based confidence in the safety of the water.”