A divisionDivision No. 95 · Tuesday, 28 January 2025· Commons· Environment

Water (Special Measures) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 9

73Ayes
321Noes
Defeated · majority 248 · Government won
253 did not vote
Aye75No321DID NOT VOTE · 253

647 Members · Aye 73 · No 321 · DNV 253 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 28 January 2025 to reject Amendment 9 to the Water (Special Measures) Bill at Report Stage (the detailed scrutiny stage in the Commons). The amendment, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would have changed the Bill so that creditors rather than consumers would bear any financial shortfall arising from government assistance given to a water company in special administration. It was defeated by 321 votes to 73. The practical consequence of the defeat is that clause 12 of the Bill remains unchanged. Under that clause, the Secretary of State can require a water company in special administration to recover a financial shortfall from its consumers through higher bills. Had Amendment 9 passed, that burden would instead have fallen on the company's creditors. The vote therefore preserves the government's ability to recoup the cost of keeping water services running during a company failure from bill payers rather than investors, at a time when bills are already rising significantly. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 287 Labour MPs and all 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the 73 ayes, with 61 of their MPs supporting it, joined by the Greens, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, Traditional Unionist Voice, and several independents. The Conservatives registered no votes on either side, and Plaid Cymru had no vote recorded. The result was never in doubt given Labour's commanding majority, but the division reflects a broader cross-party pressure on the government to go further on water industry reform.

Voting Aye meant
Support protecting water bill payers from bearing the cost of bailing out failed water companies, placing that burden on creditors and investors instead.
Voting No meant
Reject the amendment, maintaining the Bill's existing provision allowing the government to recover special administration costs from consumers via higher bills.
§ 01Who voted how.394 voting Members · 253 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
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
60
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
6
2
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
7
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
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
1
1
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 no_vote_recorded · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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