A divisionDivision No. 94 · Tuesday, 28 January 2025· Commons· Environment

Water (Special Measures) Bill Report Stage: New Clause 19

180Ayes
325Noes
Defeated · majority 145 · Government won
143 did not vote
Aye180No326DID NOT VOTE · 143

648 Members · Aye 180 · No 325 · DNV 143 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 28 January 2025 on New Clause 19 to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, a proposal to add stronger enforcement mechanisms or penalties for water companies beyond what the government had already included in the legislation. The motion was defeated by 325 votes to 180. Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly against, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and several smaller parties supported the new clause. The vote concerned whether to expand the regulatory powers available to address water company misconduct. Those backing the new clause argued that the existing provisions in the Bill lacked sufficient teeth to compel water companies to change their behaviour, pointing to ongoing sewage discharges and what they described as inadequate penalties. The government's position was that the Bill as drafted provided a proportionate and workable framework, and that adding further enforcement powers at this stage was unnecessary. The result means the Bill will proceed without the additional measures proposed in New Clause 19. The division produced an unusual cross-party coalition in favour of the new clause. All 97 voting Conservatives, all 61 voting Liberal Democrats, all four Plaid Cymru MPs, all four DUP members, all four Reform UK MPs, and the single voting Ulster Unionist supported it, alongside eight independents. Labour, including its Co-operative Party members, voted unanimously against, providing the government's winning margin. The vote sits within a broader legislative debate over how far the Water (Special Measures) Bill should go, with opposition parties and some government critics arguing the Bill is too modest and the government maintaining it represents a significant first step.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring that fines imposed on water companies lead to equivalent reductions in customers' bills, protecting bill payers from bearing the cost of water company wrongdoing
Voting No meant
Oppose this specific mechanism for bill reductions, preferring the government retains flexibility in how penalties are applied and how customer interests are protected
§ 01Who voted how.505 voting Members · 143 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
289
72
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
97
0
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
8
2
4
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 No
0
3
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

§ 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