Latest news with #TimFarron
Telegraph
04-08-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Sewage crisis putting people off sea swimming
The sewage crisis is putting people off swimming in the sea, according to a poll. Almost half of adults say that they would never swim off the British shoreline, up six percentage points in two years. Labour has promised to halve the amount of raw sewage being pumped into rivers, lakes and seas by the end of the decade. But the poll of more than 2,000 people by the Liberal Democrats found that even halving the amount of waste off the coastline would only tempt a fifth of bathers back into swimming in the sea. There are around 14,500 storm overflow drains in England, which are used to pump raw sewage into rivers and the sea when there is heavy rain. Last year, there was a record 3.6 million hours of sewage spills into waterways, suffocating wildlife and making bathing waters unsafe for humans. The Government has also promised a crackdown on polluting water companies, scrapping the failing regulator Ofwat and replacing it with a more effective body. The bosses of polluting water companies also face having their bonuses blocked by the Government if their firms fall short of stricter new standards of pollution. But the Liberal Democrats have urged that the Government go further in its actions against water companies, demanding higher fines and the threat of criminal repercussions for persistent polluters. Tim Farron, the party's environment spokesman, said: 'This coastline crisis threatens to wreck British summers with people afraid of swimming in the sea due to rampant sewage dumping. 'These polluting firms have been let off the hook at every turn and it is our local environments and people's summer holidays that are suffering the consequences. 'The Government has tried talking a good game on sewage but their targets have failed to wash with the public who expect more than a job half done. 'The only way to reverse the Conservatives' neglect of our waterways is for Labour to give the new regulator the powers it needs to hold these water companies accountable for the damage they are doing.' The Liberal Democrats made sweeping gains to the detriment of the Conservatives in rural areas in last year's general election, having made the state of Britain's waterways a central plank of their campaign. Chichester, a city which had been Tory for a century, was captured by the Lib Dems after the party capitalised on anger over contamination of the River Lavant. Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, has backed plans to strengthen environmental protections on Britain's coasts. A Conservative Environment Network (CEN) report put forward proposals to strengthen marine protections by introducing more highly protected marine areas (HPMAs). Designating a site as an HPMA would ban all fishing and seabed mining in the area, which the report argued should be done in places 'guided by ecological evidence'. It also argued that instead of building more seawalls and groynes to tackle coastal flooding and erosion, nature-based solutions such as dunes and saltmarsh should be prioritised as primary defences instead.
The Independent
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
The Cunliffe report into our failing water industry will make a splash
We live in a deeply polarised, politicised world, where anything from changing rooms to the Motability scheme can be subjected to the most extreme invective and propagandised argument. One exception to this is the state of the water industry. This is something that can unite the nation. We can all now agree – Tim Farron, Nigel Farage, Surfers Against Sewage … – that the model introduced when the sector was privatised in 1989 has failed, and that it needs some radical restructuring. Something better needs to be put in place, and it should not actually make matters even worse by costing the taxpayer billions to bail out the shareholders and bondholders invested in companies such as Thames Water, which has all but gone bust. Step forward, then, Sir Jon Cunliffe, career civil servant and practical economist, who has produced an excellent report on reforming the industry at minimal cost to the state and maximum cost to those who got us into this mess. This is a fundamental review that should, in truth, have been undertaken decades ago. We should be grateful to environment secretary Steve Reed for commissioning him to do the work, and for completing it so speedily. Reed has today responded to the report with a bold move of his own, announcing plans to abolish water regulator Ofwat in its current form. However, he has not recommended immediate nationalisation of the industry, which has disappointed some, such as the redoubtable Feargal Sharkey, former Undertones frontman turned clean rivers campaigner who has done more than anyone – sadly, including the politicians – to bring the water companies to account. Sharkey is so apoplectic about what he sees as the failures of the report – essentially, another missed opportunity – that he has already called for Reed to resign. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Surfers Against Sewage say of Cunliffe's report and his 88 recommendations for the government to transform the water industry that 'this is putting lipstick on a pig'. The Labour left, as ever, want water brought back into public ownership immediately. Such critics need to hose themselves down a bit. There's nothing in Cunliffe's report that would prevent any water company that is going bust from being rescued by the taxpayer or the water bill payer, and thus nothing to stop such companies going into a transitional regime that would almost certainly mean nationalisation anyway. This is, in fact, the current situation, and it is probably what will happen to Thames Water – deeply in the debt doo-doo itself – before much longer. It is vastly superior to Rachel Reeves nationalising the firm now and taking on its £15bn in debt. Apart from anything else, there's no room in the public finances for such a move. And that's just one company – there are many more in varying states of financial peril. Of course, Parliament could just pass a bill that takes control of the assets without compensation, but that Bolshevik approach wouldn't encourage private investment in the UK, and would in any case violate human rights – the right not to have property arbitrarily confiscated by the state. Not even the great post-war Attlee administration did that when it took over our run-down utilities. Cunliffe's report therefore leaves the door wide open for nationalisation of the individual companies in the future, but in an orderly manner that doesn't take money off, say, the schools or the welfare budget. That seems eminently sensible and un-ideological. It's a clever approach, but what I like best about Cunliffe's work is that he is telling the nation the hard truth: that someone, somewhere, has to pay for water and to repair the huge underinvestment over decades in what is still basically a Victorian system. Indeed, it is only fair to point out that one of the attractions for the Thatcher government in privatising water all those years ago was that it would avoid the need for the Treasury to pay for the wholesale rebuilding of the pipework and treatment plants that was becoming necessary and increasingly urgent. As with the soon-to-be-privatised railways, the magic of free-market forces would renew the industry, reduce costs and charges, and lead to a lovely sparkling Panglossian future pouring out of every tap and toilet cistern in our kingdom. Now, four decades on, the investment is still needed, and if the private sector can't do it in an acceptable fashion, then taxpayers and bill payers will have to do so. Someone will have to finance all the new reservoirs we haven't built since 1992. Someone will have to find the money to stop the sewage dumps and plug the leaks. They're the same people, of course, and there's a political decision to be made about how the burden is distributed – through a progressive tax system or, more regressively, by hiking water bills. It's unavoidable, whoever owns the networks. On that point, Cunliffe also makes the startling observation that only 12 per cent of households have smart meters, so it's difficult to follow the usual rule that those who consume the most water should pay for it. He's also right to suggest that the water companies should receive some payment from the housebuilders for connecting the planned 1.5 million new homes to the already overstressed water and sewage networks. In the end, it may well be that the supply of such a basic public service as delivering clean running water and removing sewage is incompatible with market forces – especially where this is the only economic activity where a company is not allowed to withhold its product or service. By law, no water company can cut a household off – unlike gas and electricity, or anything else out there. Rightly so, I should hastily add – and nationalisation may well be inevitable, financially and politically. A system where, as in water and the railways, the state sets the standards and dictates what's delivered, regulates the charges and monitors the pay of the directors in a monopoly framework isn't really free enterprise at all – and, as we've seen, works rather unsatisfactorily for all concerned. Strengthening regulation – and, crucially, including financial viability as we do with our banks – is vital, even if it pushes these companies closer to insolvency. Sir Jon, and the government, understand that there's more than one way to skin a water company, and it would be an even greater outrage if the water companies and their owners were to be rewarded for abject failure with a handsome payout from hard-pressed taxpayers. With patience, it will resolve itself.
BBC News
08-07-2025
- Business
- BBC News
A66 road dualling approved again after spending review
A plan to dual the A66 has been approved again, a year after the government put the scheme on project to widen the road, which runs from Penrith to Scotch Corner, was approved by the previous Conservative government, but when Labour won the election last July it put the plan on hold to review a "black hole" in the public Department for Transport (DfT) has now confirmed the work in a £92bn national package announced on Campbell-Savours, Labour MP for Penrith and Solway, said: "This was one of the biggest road projects in the UK and it's frustrating that it's taken so long to get an answer, but I'm really pleased it's gone our way. We've fought hard for this." The DfT said the amount of HGV traffic on the A66, which also has single lane sections in County Durham, was more than twice the national average for a road of this added the widening would shave up to 12 minutes off journeys and boost the economy by speeding up access to other routes such as the M6 and A1 (M), as well as to ports such as Stranraer in south-west Scotland.A timeline for the work to be carried out is yet to be Farron, the LibDem MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, had joined forces with the former Conservative Prime Minister and MP for Richmond in North Yorkshire Rishi Sunak to press for the work to be carried out on the road which crosses their said the connection to other routes made "so much sense for the economy" and the work would improve safety on the road."For those people who are most concerned locally about the loss of life on the A66, I think for them and for me this is a moment of great relief," he said. 'More traffic' fear The plan to dual the A66 had been subject of a failed legal challenge by Transport Action Network (TAN).The group believes the work to upgrade 18 miles of single carriageway offered "poor" value for money and would increase Todd, TAN's director, said the project would cost "more than it will ever deliver in economic benefits"."It represents another set back for the government's growth agenda. The only thing that this will grow is more traffic and more HGVs on our road, making them less safe."This will lead to nearly three million tons of carbon - it completely contradicts the government's drive for decarbonisation and nature protection."But Farron said the scheme would benefit local people and ease traffic."What really peaks carbon emissions is when you have thousands and thousands of vehicle, including 25% of them being freight, stood still belching out fumes because of all the traffic hold-ups because of the accidents and that's one of the reasons why I think that case fell."Campbell-Savours said there was "nothing environmentally friendly" about the current congestion."For many of us it's exactly about better junctions, safer junctions and a road system that doesn't see Penrith getting gnarled up every weekend," he DfT has announced a wider £92bn investment across England, including upgrading road and rail networks and extending the £3 bus cap. Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
The Guardian
19-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ending sheep farming in the Lake District is not our aim
Phil Stocker's letter (12 June) defends sheep farming against an attack that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the Guardian article he is responding to (Conservationists call for Lake District to lose Unesco world heritage status, 7 June) does anyone call for 'sheep farming's demise'. Neither the letter I sent to Unesco nor the report that I co-authored, both referred to in the article, call for it either. Instead, we're raising concerns about the Lake District's world heritage site designation, which poses a major threat to exactly the sort of adaptation that Mr Stocker says he wants and that most farmers know is coming. None of the farmers I've spoken to could name a single benefit of being in a world heritage site. Most people won't be aware of the downsides, but for those of us working in conservation, they are obvious. The designation is influencing decisions by the national park authority, which views every element of the park's management through a world heritage lens and puts sheep farming first, often at the expense of rural livelihoods and nature. We are not attacking farming or anybody's culture, and it's a pity that this is how Stocker and many others, including the MP Tim Farron, have interpreted it. For farmers and conservationists to be at loggerheads is madness. Once the dust settles, I hope we will be able to sit down and have some sensible discussion about these issues and how to resolve them. As Mr Stocker attests, farming has played a key role in the history of the Lake District, and it will have a vital role to play in its future, but only if it is allowed to adapt. Removing the world heritage site designation, or amending it to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis, will help that transition to take SchofieldBampton, Cumbria Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
BBC News
11-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
No update to A66 dualling plan in Spending Review
No new details were announced in the Spending Review about the future of the A66, which runs across northern to dual the road between Penrith in Cumbria and Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire were put on hold indefinitely by the government in 2024, citing a "black hole" in public Farron, Liberal Democrat MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, said he was "deeply disappointed and frustrated" over the lack of new to a question in the Commons from Farron, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the decision over the scheme would be made by the Department for Transport at a later date. She said: "We haven't set out every project that that's going to fund today and I'm sure the transport secretary will come to this House or the relevant select committee in due course." Follow the latest reaction to the Spending ReviewKey points: What has the chancellor announced? Farron said the road upgrade scheme was "critical for the north's economy, for east-west connectivity, and for saving lives"."I will keep up the pressure for ministers to approve this massively important project," he MP for Penrith and Solway Markus Campbell-Savours said it was "vital" the upgrade was approved."This isn't simply about quicker journeys, this is about safety and economic development," he the 2024 general election, the Conservative government was moving ahead with plans for sections between the A1(M) and Penrith, but Labour put the project on hold alongside a number of group Transport Action Network (TAN) previously claimed the scheme would cost £1.5bn and increase carbon emissions by 2.7m tonnes. Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram
