Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell, I am pleased to move Amendment 52 in his place. This amendment seeks to increase and improve the monitoring undertaken by water companies after an emergency overflow.

The amendment is quite straightforward. It makes the case that, where there is a discharge from an emergency overflow, the undertaker must regularly assess the environmental health of that inland water within 500 metres downstream of the overflow. My noble friend then suggests that the methods used to make assessments under that subsection must include the use of fish counters or other methods of accurately monitoring the fish population. I accept that there may be a weakness here because, unless one knows what the fish count was before the overflow happened, it may be difficult to come to a conclusion as to the number of fish which should be in the river after the overflow has taken place. The undertaker must also prepare a report on the results of these assessments on a quarterly basis and submit it to the authority, and, after having done so, the undertaker must publish the report within 30 days. In addition, in accordance with everything else which has been said in debates tonight, the information must be in a form which helps the public to readily understand it, be published in a way which makes it readily accessible to the public, and be published in the undertaker’s name.

For those reasons, we on these Benches want to protect our rivers and restore the health of those rivers that have been seriously affected by pollution. Thanks to our efforts in government to drive up monitoring, 100% of emergency overflows are now monitored, and as such, we are able to access information about all emergency overflows that occur. This was a seriously transformative step forward compared with the situation we inherited in 2010 but we accept the need to go further, and we support better monitoring of both overflows and of the overall health of rivers themselves.

With the level of monitoring achieved under the Conservatives, it is now possible to learn far more about these incidents and therefore to take action to prevent them happening again. However, this does not mean that water companies are now taking enough responsibility to publish the results of this monitoring and to report their findings so that they can be held to account.

This amendment focuses on an area that the Bill does not address and ensures that the health of our rivers, not just the extent of pollution incidents, is a central component of the Bill. The inclusion of monitoring 500 metres down the river will give a real insight into the impact that an overflow is having on the overall health of a river over time. This monitoring will ensure that water companies cannot downplay the damage and leave the natural area to be ruined; instead, they will have to take a responsibility for a wider area that these emergency overflows can impact.

We on these Benches support this amendment in its intention to ensure that regular reporting is done so that the public are able to access up-to-date information on the overall health of our rivers beyond the immediate aftermath of any emergency overflow.

I know that many amendments in the previous group were related to monitoring of emergency overflows, and, although this amendment specifically relates to river health, I am sure there will be cross-party support for much of the previous group and for this amendment to ensure that water companies can be held publicly accountable for their action after emergency overflows.

I hope the Minister will take the concerns of my noble friend Lord Bethell as expressed in this amendment seriously and will consider it. Once again, we feel this is a timely opportunity to deliver a positive reform in the Bill today rather than waiting for the wider reform which the Government have proposed. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this important issue and tabling Amendment 52, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for moving it in his absence. I start by reassuring him that I always take the concerns expressed in this House very seriously. I think that we agree that understanding the impact of sewage discharges on the environmental health of rivers is vital.

Clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows. These measurements will enable regulators and the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from an emergency overflow has occurred, and how long it lasted for. This will, in turn, enable resource to be directed to investigate the cause as well as the impact of a discharge, and will enable the regulators to take enforcement action if it is required.

However, this is just one measure that the Government will use to better understand the impact of sewage entering our waterways. New continuous water quality monitors will be installed at storm overflows from 2025 to continuously measure the impact of sewage discharges on the receiving watercourse. The information gathered from these monitors will be key in supporting fish populations. Requiring the installation of additional fish counters downstream of emergency overflows may require additional structures in the watercourse and may impose additional costs on water companies and their customers.

This does not appear to be proportionate, given that emergency overflows should be used on only very limited occasions. The Government will therefore not accept this amendment. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are using this Bill to enable quicker action to be taken to investigate discharges from emergency overflows.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response. I regret that she is not accepting the amendment but, if we accept her assurances that the monitoring of overflows will be thorough, that may negate the need for further monitoring downstream. I like to think that we will check the water further downstream than just within a short distance of the storm overflows, because what happens downstream is terribly important. I recall when the creamery at Appleby burst and flooded the River Eden. The damage was considerable for a couple of miles downstream. Checking what happens right beside the factory or the storm overflow is one thing, but it is important that we check downstream when the money allows. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 105 and 106 were commencement blocks when laid that sought to ensure that the Government published an assessment of the justice impact of the Bill before it could come into effect. I thank the Government for publishing their impact assessment, which makes it clear that there will be a small additional burden on our already strained prison estate as a result of the custodial sentences included in the Bill. I am satisfied that the Government’s impact assessment covers the justice impacts of the Bill, so I will not press my amendments.

That said, this is a good opportunity to raise the question of the Government’s priorities. We know the burden on our prisons will be small but is it not the wrong priority to sentence water executives to up to two years’ imprisonment at a time when the Government are releasing violent criminals early? Equally, there is the question of necessity. The Government’s own impact assessment states:

“Defra assumes there could be one case every two years with the maximum sentence of a two-year imprisonment based on the fact there has been four historic cases”.


So is this provision truly necessary? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns in her reply.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for introducing this small group of amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his amendments on the issue of justice. I thank both noble Lords for their interest in ensuring that the Government are fully considering all the impacts of the Bill, on both the environment and the justice system.

Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relates to the reporting of impacts on environmental pollution. This Government share the noble Lord’s concerns that the number of water company pollution incidents has not reduced in the last few years. It remains unacceptably high. That is why the Bill seeks to increase accountability for water companies and their executives where they pollute the environment.

The Bill will enable automatic and severe fines for certain pollution offences, making it possible for the regulators to take swift action where it is clear that an offence has been committed. The Bill will increase transparency around pollution incidents by enabling the public and regulators to see where and how often emergency overflows are discharging and, as discussed in previous groups, by requiring water companies to publish pollution incident reduction plans on an annual basis. As I set out on our first day in Committee, the Bill provides Ofwat with legal powers to ban bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability. Collectively, these measures will strengthen enforcement and disincentivise pollution incidents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this is a group of five amendments. Amendment 60 would reduce the maximum custodial sentence to 12 months. Amendment 61 would remove the word “connivance” in respect of a possible offence. Amendment 62 would prevent liability for those purporting to be officers of water companies. Amendment 65 would prevent individuals who impede investigations receiving custodial sentences, and Amendment 66 would reduce the maximum custodial sentence to 12 months.

We on these Benches have been clear that we support tougher measures in order to hold water companies to account. However, to put water executives in prison during a time that the Government have admitted is a time of crisis for prisons because of overcrowding is to us the wrong priority. I am concerned, as I am sure so many are across the Committee, that dangerous individuals are being released from prison having served less than half their sentence. I draw attention to the fact that this Government appear more focused on putting water executives in prison than on keeping violent offenders in, and that seems to be a wrong priority.

In the latest release, 1,100 prisoners were released, and although the scheme claims that none of those offenders are guilty of serious violence, sex crimes or terrorism, this is true only of their primary conviction. An additional 1,800 were released earlier in September. Some mistakes were made, as offenders were released who were not supposed to be. That is the context.

Amendments 60 and 66 in my name seek to reduce the maximum custodial sentence that a water executive can receive from two years down to 12 months. As it stands, prison resources are seriously overstretched, and it seems to be the case that the Government in this Bill are wrongly prioritising those resources. While I do not think that custodial sentences are the right way forward, if the Government insist upon them then can they at least reduce the maximum custodial sentence to 12 months to prevent further overstretching? That would have the added advantage of ensuring that these cases would not need to be heard in the Crown Court under the new provisions, which would prevent further strain on our court backlogs.

The Government’s own impact assessment admits that this measure will put a further burden on our prison services. While it is certainly necessary to hold water executives to account, I believe my other amendments address more appropriate penalties. There is no doubt that the pollution of our rivers is a serious issue. Measures to ensure that those who break the rules are dealt with, and that those who work for water companies do so properly, are necessary. However, these measures appear to be too severe at a time when prisons cannot handle further pressure. Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on releasing domestic abusers, only to put individuals who work on the boards of water companies into the same cells?

In the same vein, Amendment 65 seeks to prevent a custodial sentence from being placed on an individual who has impeded an investigation. While that is indeed a serious issue, our prisons cannot handle further pressure.

Amendment 61 in my name seeks to remove “connivance” as an offence in the Bill. We have tabled the amendment to probe the use of the word “connivance” in this Bill specifically. We understand the use of that word, which exists in other legislation, such as the Theft Act 1968 and, more recently, the Bribery Act 2010. However, we pose the question to the Government as to why they have used it in this scenario. Under what circumstances do they envisage using it? Can they provide the Committee with real-world examples of situations where it will be used?

Amendment 62 seeks to remove the offence in respect of individuals who purport to be executives. This simple amendment would ensure that only those who were actually acting in executive roles could be held responsible for the mistakes of the water company.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his interest in sentencing powers for obstruction investigations and for all the suggested amendments covered in this group.

Amendments 60 and 66, tabled by the noble Lord, both look to reduce the maximum custodial sentence available for those convicted. The obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies from blocking the regulators’ investigations. For example, in 2019 the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable.

The aim of the two-year maximum custodial sentence is to deter future obstruction. That should support more effective investigations, which should ultimately enable stronger enforcement action against both companies and individuals. I am pleased to confirm for the noble Lord that this sentence is consistent with other provisions in the Environment Act 1995 and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

I highlight to the noble Lord that the two-year sentence is the maximum limit. Sentencing will ultimately be decided by the courts, factoring in the specifics of each case and the relevant sentencing guidelines. While I cannot comment on Home Office procedure on prisoner release, I would be interested if the noble Lord could provide some information as to why our prisons became so overcrowded in the first place.

Amendments 61 and 62, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, speak to senior leader liability. I hope the noble Lord will agree it is unacceptable under current law that, if water company senior leaders encourage or allow obstruction of Environment Agency or Natural Resources Wales investigations, they cannot be held liable for this wrongdoing. In contrast, senior leaders can be held liable for other environmental offences, as well as obstruction offences in other sectors: for example, the Building Safety Act 2022.

This clause will remedy this gap by bringing the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales in line with other environmental offences, as well as offences in other sectors. I hope the noble Lord will agree that, in doing so, it should mirror the conventions and language of existing “consent, connivance and neglect” clauses. These make connivance by senior leaders a potential ground for liability and ensure that, where a person “purports to be” a relevant officer, they should also be held liable for wrongdoing. I hope the noble Lord is therefore content that these amendments are unnecessary.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 65, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which proposes to remove increasing the sentence for offences of impeding Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations from the scope of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, the Yale Environmental Performance Index ranks the drinking water in England and Wales as the best in the world, alongside just 10 other countries. This is in part thanks to the effectiveness of the Drinking Water Inspectorate. To accept this amendment would be to imply that the regulations enforced by the Drinking Water Inspectorate are not as serious as those enforced by the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales.

This cannot be right. There are grave public health risks if the DWI does not have the power or the authority to ensure that water supplies in England and Wales are safe and of the right quality. While I accept that this may not be the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, it would certainly be its effect. The quality of our drinking water is one of the enduring strengths of the current model and one that the Government want to protect. I once again thank the noble Lord for his contributions and hope my response has reassured him.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and for the care with which she delivered it. My amendments were there to ensure that the already overburdened prison sector is not put under further pressure. I hope the Government will bear them in mind and take them on board before Report. We will seek to work with the Government to ensure that the Bill ensures appropriate punishment for water executives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for speaking to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his absence. Amendments 63 and 64 relate to guidance and mandatory training for water company employees on obstruction offences.

One thing that it is important to emphasise on this matter is that Clause 4 amends only existing offences. It does not create any new obligations on companies, so employees should already have some understanding of that in the first place. To be clear, the existing offences are obstruction of investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Prosecutions have already been brought against companies and individuals under Section 110 of the Environment Act 1995. On that basis, we believe that companies should already be very well aware of their obligations under that section of the 1995 Act, and of the obligations to their staff to ensure that they are properly trained to engage in this area.

I reassure the noble Lord that the obligations of companies are set out as well in the Environment Agency’s enforcement and sanctions policy, so it should be very clear. I hope he understands why we do not think it proportionate to put this into legislation.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply from the Minister. I am not sure that I am necessarily entirely satisfied with it, but—as I have not yet had a chance to say it today—I am most grateful to the Minister for the constructive engagement that she has had with us, as well as all parties in this House. That will continue and perhaps we can discuss it then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this aspect of the Bill on fines and penalties. Amendment 67 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, whom I thank for his points on variable monetary penalties. Currently, there is no limit on the maximum variable penalty for water industry offences, whether the case is tried summarily in the magistrates’ courts or in the Crown Court. This amendment would not provide additional protection or assurance. However, we recognise that there are concerns about ensuring that there are robust protections for civil sanctions. So the Government will consult on the offences for which the civil standard of proof may be used and on the cap for new civil standard variable monetary penalties. This cap will not be limited to offences triable only in a particular court—we believe this is a proportionate safeguard. The House will also have the opportunity to debate and vote on secondary legislation containing the cap before any changes are finally made.

I reiterate that unlimited penalties issued to the criminal standard will still be available to the Environment Agency, along with all its other existing enforcement tools. Existing legal protections, including the right to appeal, will also be maintained. There are proportionate safeguards and legal protections for the use of those penalties, which will strengthen the enforcement of minor to moderate offences. Therefore, we do not believe this amendment to be necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

68: Clause 5, page 10, line 4, at end insert—
“(6) But an offence is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as committed by a water supply licensee or sewerage licensee only if it is committed by such a licensee in the course of the activities to which its licence relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that Clause 5 applies to water supply and sewerage licensees only in relation to their licensed activities.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn now to the amendments that we are making to Clauses 5 to 8. Government Amendments 68, 71, 76, 77 and 83 are minor and technical amendments to clarify who is within scope of the measures in Clauses 5 to 8. The inclusion of water and sewerage undertakers remains unchanged by these amendments.

Ofwat issues water supply and sewerage licences, which give the holder rights to provide water or sewerage retail services—for example, billing—or certain services using the public water and wastewater networks. In this remit, businesses are operating as water companies. The amendments make it clear that the measures relating to penalties and the recovery of enforcement costs apply to licensees only in relation to their water supply and sewerage licensed activities. This clarification means that companies can be subject to these measures where this is relevant to their licensed activity.

As businesses with these licences often operate in other sectors alongside the water industry, wider business activities unrelated to the licensing regime should not be brought within scope of Clauses 5 to 8. These amendments ensure that this is the case. For example, a food manufacturer may hold a water supply licence that is issued by Ofwat and permits them to provide billing and metering water services only. Unrelated permitted or licensed activity, regulated by the Environment Agency and undertaken by this business, such as abstraction of water for food manufacturing, would not be in scope of the Bill measures. This is because these activities, which are already regulated and enforced, are not relevant to the company’s operations as a water company.

These amendments minimise impacts on wider businesses and their regulation and ensure that enforcement regimes are consistent within sectors, while still ensuring that water companies are better held to account where they have failed to deliver for the environment. I commend these amendments to the House.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group. It is essential that the way that this Bill applies to the activities of licensees is clearly laid out, and we are satisfied that the amendments brought by the Minister are necessary to achieve this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support.

Amendment 68 agreed.