That's it from Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, at least for now as the show breaks for the summer recess.

But, we'll be back on 7 September, after MPs return to the Commons.

Today, we heard about failures in England's water sector, with the government pledging to halve sewage pollution by 2030. We also heard how the Conservatives, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats would approach the issue, which you can read more details of in our previous post.

If you find yourself wanting more politics for your Sunday, be sure to check out:

• The latest: Sewage discharges to halve by 2030, minister pledges
• Analysis: Who is in charge? The prime minister's authority is in question again
• Looking locally: Water company to invest £83m to tackle pollution

Tom Joyner
Live reporter

That was quite a lot to digest in a short period of time! We heard from four politicians representing four different political parties.

Here's a breakdown of what each of them said on the programme today:

• Environment Secretary Steve Reed said the situation with UK waterways is "very grim" – it's clear the water sector is "broken", the regulator is failing, and he's "furious" over last year's water bill hikes. "We need a water revolution," he said
• Reed distanced himself from calls to re-nationalise the water industry, but said the government is ready to intervene if necessary. He argued the roughly £100 billion it would cost to buy back the companies would take away from the NHS and education
• Reform UK's Nigel Farage said the water industry is in a "hell of a mess", and the government should not bail out existing investors if it does re-nationalise it
• Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said he wants to see Ofwat replaced with a stronger regulatory body. "It's no wonder these water companies have been getting away with it," he added
• The shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake said the UK's Victorian era sewage system is expensive to upgrade and argued the water industry is better run by the private sector

Esme Stallard
Climate and science reporter

Image source, EPA

Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has been making a number of claims this morning on whether the UK's planet-warming emissions have actually reduced, and whether it should "beggar itself" on the issue of climate change considering it contributes less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But is this true?

The UK's emissions have reduced by more than half since 1990, according to the government, external. But these are what we call "territorial emissions" - effectively the emissions we produce within the borders of our country.

If you were to buy a piece of clothing manufactured in India, even though you will use it, the emissions from making the garment will be counted towards India's contribution.

Farage has claimed that despite our own emissions going down we have just "outsourced" them to other countries, like those who manufacture our goods.

But the government does collect data on these emissions as well , external- it says these peaked in 2007 and since then our "consumption-based" emissions have fallen by about a quarter. So, it seems Nigel Farage is not quite right on that one.

On the issue of how much the UK contributes, he is not wrong.

The UK does contribute less than 1% (not taking into account those emissions from goods he spoke about). But with nearly 200 countries in the world is that a surprise?

In fact, more than 160 countries in the world all contribute less than 1% - but the argument from academics and environmentalists is that these all add up.

Esme Stallard
Climate and science reporter

On Monday we're expected to hear from the outcome of the Water Commission - the independent review of the water industry set up by the government to come up with solutions to improve the financial and environmental performance of the sector.

But before the chair, Sir Jon Cunliffe even started his review, the government said he could not look at or recommend nationalisation as a potential model.

Steve Reed has said previously, and this morning, that it would be "too expensive" and "too complex".

Despite this, as part of his work Sir Jon has been looking at alternative models to privatisation, including mixed public-private models - which are common in Europe.

This is something that leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he would look to implement should his party be running government.

But in his preliminary findings published last month, Sir Jon said it wasn't clear that any particular model equated to better outcomes.

"The Commission’s Call for Evidence set out preliminary analysis that suggested no clear, consistent causal link between ownership models and water company performance on a range of metrics and called, specifically, for more evidence on this issue."

Turning to policies under the leadership of Kemi Badenoch, Hollinrake says the Conservative leader doesn't want "U-turn after U-turn", which he says has been Labour's fate under Starmer.

"That's chaos," he says, adding that "you want to properly think through your plans, build your policies that have stood the test of time, and you execute them".

Before wrapping up the show Kuenssberg turns to the panel one last time.

Stephen Flynn is asked about Trump's impending visit to Scotland. Flynn says that John Swinney, the First Minister of Scotland will be meeting him, but that Flynn himself won't as he will be "getting a haircut".

Flynn says Starmer won't be playing golf with Trump, "because Starmer would have to lose".

That's the end of today's show, which was the final episode of Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg before the summer recess.

We've got a few more lines from the final moments to bring you, so stick with us

Hollinrake says "quite rightly" there should be regulation of water services, but that people need to be realistic.

If you want private investment in this country, they expect to see a return, he says.

He's next asked his view on the Southern Water boss's pay rise.

"I think it's a ludicrous amount of money," Hollinrake says. "But that's a matter for their shareholders. That's the system we operate."

Kuenssberg presses him further, asking if he would implore the company not to give him a pay rise.

The shadow housing secretary says the Conservatives gave powers to Ofwat to stop bonuses being paid out, calling the pay rise a "long term incentive plan" which could have been stopped by Ofwat.

Shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake is up now. Kuenssberg asks if he supports the role of the water regulator Ofwat.

"We need strong regulation," Hollinrake says, but he doesn't agree with Ed Davey's proposal to replace Ofwat with something else.

"I'm not convinced playing musical chairs with the regulator will solve the problem," he says.

Investment in infrastructure expensive, he adds, largely because the UK has a Victorian era sewage system.

Instead he argues the water industry is better run by the private sector.

Kuenssberg asks Davey about the practicalities of his party's proposal, and asks where the money will come from if big investors leave the water industry altogether.

Public benefit corporations could borrow "a lot of money", Davey replies. And although a new oversight body would be run commercially, it would have an environmental mandate as well.

"It's been done elsewhere really successfully," he says. "We'll be pushing for it."

Looking at other policies that the Liberal Democrats have supported, including Labour's U-turn welfare plan, scrapping the winter fuel allowance, getting rid of the two child benefit cap and the 3% of GDP on defence spending before 2034.

"Where on earth is that money going to come from," she asks.

He says that the Lib Dems have argued to have more growth-oriented policies and a new UK-EU customs union, and argues that revenue comes from these policies.

Esme Stallard
Climate and science reporter

The nations of the UK all run their water industries in very different ways.

In England it's privatised, in Wales it's a not-for-profit and in Scotland it's nationalised.

But which one is better?

Stephen Flyn, SNP Westminster Leader, it will comes as no surprise, thinks it's Scotland. He told Kuenssberg that "87% of Scottish waterways are in good or better condition, 97% of our bathing waters are in good or better condition, our water bills are £113 cheaper than south of the border."

But comparing the two countries is not so straightforward.

Storm overflows are one of the main points in a water system that untreated sewage can enter our rivers and seas. England monitors 100% of these points, but in Scotland just 35% are monitored, according to its environmental watchdog. , external

In its review of the sector, the watchdog also said it was concerned that Scottish legislation advising when sewage can be spilled had not been updated in over 25 years. It meant it could be calling some spills "legal" when they should not be.

So it seems that where testing has taken place, water quality in Scotland is better, but the full picture on where, where and how much sewage is being spilled is far less clear than in England.

Kuenssberg asks Davey why people should have faith in the Lib Dem's plan for a new water regulator.

"The regulatory system is a failure," Davey says, that at the moment there is power in all different sectors.

"It's no wonder these water companies have been getting away with it," he says.

Davey adds that he will wait for tomorrow's report and the Liberal Democrats will hold the government to account.

Kuenssberg is now speaking to Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey.

Davey's position has been to get rid of Ofwat and replace it with a stronger regulatory body that can better "hold these companies to account".

What good is replacing one quango with another quango, Kuenssberg asks.

Davey says it's not just about replacing the regulator, but also restructuring the water industry as a whole.

"A tough regulator by itself isn't sufficient," he says, adding that a restructure "could start afresh with the investment we need without costing bill and taxpayers".

Farage and Kuenssberg turn to the topic of human-induced climate change.

The Reform UK leader concedes it's impossible to ignore the effect of eight billion people on Earth on the planet's climate, but he says that shouldn't mean shutting down domestic manufacturing.

"What about those that have lost their jobs in traditional industries?" he says.

He argues, without presenting any evidence, that the UK hasn't helped reduce global CO2 emissions, but instead simply exported it.

Climate change is not a dilemma, Farage says, adding that it is "mindless" for a country that produces less than 1% of global CO2 to "beggar itself".

Would Farage be willing, Kuenssberg asks, to spend £50 billion of public money on nationalising water.

Farage points to regulation as the problem, saying that the government should not bail out existing investors in the case part of the industry is nationalised.

If a company goes bust, he says, investors deserve to lose their money.

"That's the starting point of all this."

It's now Nigel Farage's turn for a one-on-one with Kuenssberg, who introduces the Reform UK leader with a quick run down of Reform's poll performances this year.

She immediately dives into the issue of the water industry.

She asks him how much it would cost to have water under 50% public control.

Farage responds that it depends on the deal, but says there's a "hell of a mess".

The conversation turns to the four MPs that were kicked out of the Labour party this week.

"Why is Keir Starmer bothered about the activities of four MPs?" Kuenssberg asks, questioning if Starmer can't "cope with a few critics".

"We are a team," Reed says. "We have to govern as a team."

He adds that there have to be limits, that if you go too far outside so that "you are damaging the team itself, that can't be acceptable".

Reed adds Starmer has sent the "right signal".

Reed dismisses the idea of nationalising all water services, arguing it would cost more than £100 billion and take away from the NHS, undoing work the government is doing to modernise it.

"We'd have to take that away and throw it in reverse," he says. "It doesn't make any sense to me."

He says he wants to prioritise improving regulation instead of spending time "unpicking" the current model of private ownership.

"Of itself, it's not the answer. The problem is regulation and the way the rules are applied."

Kuenssberg asks if Thames Water should be nationalised.

Reed responds that "we're not there yet", adding that the company remains viable.

We're ready for all circumstances, including special administration if it becomes necessary.

Kuenssberg presses Reed on the future of Ofwat and says he is speculating: "You're the decision maker," she says. He again says he will respond tomorrow.

She says one thing that makes people's blood boil is how much water bosses get paid.

Reed nods in agreement and says Southern Water boss hasn't performed well enough for a pay rise and it's "outrageous".

I don't think Southern Water has performed well enough for that kind of pay rise to be merited, he says.

After pushing from Kuenssberg, Reed says he will deliver on his pledge of halving pollution and that he will personally be held accountable for bringing sewage pollution down.

Moving next onto water bill rises, the environment secretary says he is "furious" over last year's hikes.

He blames the previous government and says his changes to the sector will ensure we "never again" see massive bill hikes.