Water (Special Measures) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 16
181Ayes
322Noes
Defeated · majority 141 · Government won145 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 181 · No 322 · DNV 145 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on New Clause 16 during the Report Stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill on 28 January 2025. The new clause, tabled by the Conservative opposition, would have required that monetary penalties (fines) collected from water companies for pollution offences be paid into a dedicated Water Restoration Fund, with that money then directed specifically towards improving freshwater environments in England. The motion was defeated by 322 votes to 181. The practical effect of New Clause 16 would have been to ringfence fines levied against water companies so that the money could only be spent on restoring and improving waterways, rather than flowing into general Treasury funds. Supporters argued this would ensure bill payers and communities affected by sewage pollution saw a direct benefit from enforcement action. Without the clause, fines collected from water companies enter consolidated public spending, where the Treasury retains discretion over allocation. The vote means the government's preferred approach, keeping that Treasury flexibility, remains in place. The division affected how enforcement revenues from the water sector are treated within public finances, with consequences for rivers, chalk streams, and bathing waters across England. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 288 Labour MPs and 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against, while Conservatives (97), Liberal Democrats (60), and smaller parties including Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK, the Green Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party all voted in favour. This created an unusual cross-party alliance on the opposition benches, with parties of very different outlooks united behind the ringfencing principle. The Conservatives positioned the Water Restoration Fund as their own policy, originally established in 2022, and accused the government of abandoning it. The Liberal Democrats pressed for significantly stronger regulation throughout the Bill's passage. The Labour government argued that Treasury flexibility is necessary, and that this Bill represents just a first step in a broader reform programme. The defeat sits within a wider legislative context: the same day saw New Clause 19 defeated by a similar margin (180 to 325), and the Bill subsequently passed its later Commons stages and Lords ping-pong in February 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support ringfencing water company fines into a dedicated Water Restoration Fund to improve freshwater environments, ensuring penalties directly benefit waterways rather than disappearing into general government finances
Voting No meant
Oppose mandatory ringfencing of water company fines into a separate fund, preferring the government retains flexibility over how penalty revenues are allocated
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
287
74
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
97
0
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
0
12
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
—
8
3
3
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government minister defending the Bill's progress, welcoming New Clause 18 on water poverty, and committing to address environmental and consumer concerns through regulation and secondary legislation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,849 words) →
Opposition spokesperson supporting the Bill's intent but pressing for New Clause 16 (water restoration fund ringfencing), New Clause 17 (borrowing limits), and amendments preventing non-service-user bill increases in special administration.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,448 words) →
Criticizing both regulation and the privatisation model, pushing for Ofwat abolition (New Clause 2), creditor liability (Amendment 9), tighter pollution targets (New Clause 25), and better monitoring tools for campaigners.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,124 words) →
Arguing that England's privatised water model is failing and that investors and creditors, not consumers, should bear costs of company failures, while suggesting alternative public ownership models.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (884 words) →
Defending the Bill as a strong first step after Conservative inaction, praising progress on criminal charges and cost recovery, and rejecting Liberal Democrat amendments as overreach.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (831 words) →
Supporting amendments 2 and 3 to criminalise failure to report emergency overflows and prohibit discharges in aquatic sports areas.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (716 words) →
Pressing the government to accept New Clause 16 on the water restoration fund, emphasizing that fines should fund environmental recovery rather than Treasury coffers.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (376 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0