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

**What happened:** 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. **Why it matters:** 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 politics:** 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.