Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] 2025-02-11

11 February 2025 · 10 other contributors

Opened by Emma Hardy Con Constituency

Environment

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Emma Hardy raised concerns about water (special measures) bill [lords] 2025-02-11 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Concerns raised about the Water (Special Measures) Bill were discussed in the UK Parliament on 2025-02-11.
  • The debate focused on amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords during consideration of Commons amendments on 2025-02-05.
  • The Minister defended the government's amendments, stressing the need for meaningful change in the water sector and the protection of Ofwat's independence.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Emma Hardy Con Constituency

I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place. I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission.

Other contributors (10)
  • Barry Gardiner Lab Brent West

    Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it? The Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable.

  • Neil Hudson Con Epping Forest

    It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies.

  • Caroline Johnson Con Epping Forest

    Supports Lords amendment to clause 1 for financial transparency of water companies and acknowledges Government concessions. Argues that the vagueness in 'from time to time' could hinder timely reviews. Suggests precise regular intervals for reviews instead.

  • Tim Farron LD Westmorland and Lonsdale

    Welcomes amendment (a) but considers it a step towards better financial transparency, not as ambitious as proposed by Liberal Democrats in earlier amendments. Emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny over Ofwat's decisions on water company bonuses.

  • Catherine Fookes Lab Monmouthshire

    Critiques Tim Farron's stance, highlighting that no previous government passed legislation to ban water company bonuses and that this Bill will do so. Emphasises the importance of Ofwat's independence.

  • Lisa Nandy Lab Wigan

    Although not directly quoted, the context suggests that she is criticising previous Labour governments for not tackling issues related to water regulation effectively. She also acknowledges a changed situation due to the UK no longer being in the EU.

  • Bernard Jenkin Con Harwich and North Essex

    He emphasises that the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats risks stalling progress on the Bill which aims to improve water quality. He criticises the timing of this change as a political move rather than constructive action.

  • Rob Hudson Con Epping Forest

    Rob Hudson argues that the amendment, despite being poorly worded at times, is an attempt to introduce greater scrutiny and accountability. He criticises the Liberal Democrats for proposing radical reforms without offering a credible alternative.

  • Tim Farron Lib Dem Westmorland and Lonsdale

    Farron insists that despite imperfections, giving six months' notice on bonuses is better than seven days. He outlines his party's long-standing commitment to reforming water regulation and calls for a clean water authority with more powers.

  • Emma Hardy Lab Kingston upon Hull East

    Minister Emma Hardy defends the Government’s position, stating that legislation is not needed for the water restoration fund. She also mentions plans to review requirements as and when appropriate to allow Ofwat to adapt quickly where necessary.

Government Response

Government Minister

The Minister defended the government's amendments, emphasising the need to bring about meaningful change in the water sector. She highlighted that legislation is not required for the water restoration fund and underlined the Government’s intention to protect Ofwat’s independence while ensuring rules are brought forward without delay.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy