A divisionDivision No. 93 · Tuesday, 28 January 2025· Commons· Environment

Water (Special Measures) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 16

181Ayes
322Noes
Defeated · majority 141 · Government won
145 did not vote
Aye182No322DID NOT VOTE · 145

648 Members · Aye 181 · No 322 · DNV 145 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 28 January 2025 on New Clause 16 of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which would have required the government to establish a Water Restoration Fund within 60 days of the Act passing. The fund would have ringfenced monetary penalties from water company pollution offences and directed that money toward improving freshwater environments in England, rather than letting it flow into the general Treasury. The amendment was defeated by 322 votes to 181. The practical effect of the new clause would have been to lock in a direct connection between fines levied on polluting water companies and environmental restoration spending. Supporters argued that because fines ultimately fall on bill-paying households rather than company shareholders, it was a matter of basic fairness that the money be recycled into improving the very waterways the companies had damaged. The government, by voting against, retained flexibility over how penalty revenues are used, meaning income from water company fines can be allocated across general spending rather than being legally committed to environmental projects. The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against, providing the government's winning margin. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK and the Greens all voted in favour, forming a broad but ultimately unsuccessful cross-party coalition for the amendment. Graham Stuart, the Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, argued from the floor that the fund had been created by the previous Conservative government in 2022 and that rejecting it amounted to ideology trumping evidence. The vote came on the same day as a related division on New Clause 19, which was also defeated by a similar margin of 325 to 180.

Voting Aye meant
Support ringfencing fines from water company pollution offences into a dedicated fund to restore local waterways, rather than letting the money disappear into Treasury coffers.
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a separate Water Restoration Fund, preferring the government to retain flexibility over how penalty revenues are allocated rather than being bound by ringfencing requirements.
§ 01Who voted how.503 voting Members · 145 absent

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
59
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
Your Party
1
1
0
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

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Emma HardySupportiveKingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
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)
Dr Neil HudsonQuestioningEpping Forest
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)
Tim FarronOpposedWestmorland and Lonsdale
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)
Clive LewisOpposedNorwich South
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)
Catherine FookesSupportiveMonmouthshire
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)
Joy MorrisseySupportiveBeaconsfield
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)
Graham StuartOpposedBeverley and Holderness
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0