Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

This amendment would not put civil society on the board of water companies; it is the authority that has to interact with them. They would not, therefore, interfere in any way with the running of the water companies themselves. It would simply ensure that there was regular and documented discussion between the authority and civil society. The lesson from the post-privatisation experience is that this was inadequate: it needs fixing. This amendment would do that. Although I have not given earlier notice of it, I must now add—in the light of what I have heard about other amendments, which may be voted on—that I may now also wish to test the opinion of the House in respect of Amendment 8.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her time over the period between Committee and now. I shall speak first to my Amendment 9, which deals with performance-related pay and, more specifically, with bonuses paid to CEOs and directors of water companies. Performance-related pay should be related specifically to how well the water company has carried out its functions, having regard to the environmental targets it has been set. These are likely to relate to the number of illegal sewage spills that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.

During the last year—and especially during the general election campaign—the issue of sewage overflows was in the news almost daily. We saw the outrage of local residents at the state of their streams, rivers and lakes due to sewage spills—many occurred when there had not been any heavy rain. I will not go through the arguments, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. What I and my colleagues on these Benches are looking for is a reassurance from the Minister that where a category 1 and/or a category 2 pollution incident has occurred, the management of the offending water company—including the CEO, directors and senior officers involved in decisions in respect of controlling pollution—will be prevented from receiving any bonus or other performance-related pay enhancement to their basic salaries. It is unacceptable to the public for those in a very senior position in sewage and water companies to be rewarded over and above their normal salary for allowing sewage and other pollution to take place and not to have taken any steps to rectify the situation in a reasonable timeframe.

On Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, environment groups have expertise to give to the water industry, but they should sit on boards. Consumers would also have a voice on boards. On our Benches are Peers who have in the past sat on water boards and contributed positively to their debates. This is a good and positive way forward. We support environmental groups and consumers being on boards and not being sidelined.

Amendments 2 and 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, are about reporting. Amendment 2 would set up annual reporting on financial restructuring, including debt levels. This would seem a sensible way to ensure that the sewage and water company was aware of its business. However, Amendment 8 would involve others in the work of the authority, which is likely to become a bureaucratic nightmare. I have in a previous life sat on such bodies and found them to be unproductive and ineffective—I am sorry. Expectations of the civil society representatives will be high, sometimes with little understanding or knowledge of just how long it can take to implement what may often seem like a trivial matter.

Amendments 4, 7 and 10, from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, do not align with our Amendment 9 and therefore we do not support them. However, I am conscious that whatever penalties the Bill hands out to directors and CEOs of water companies, they have to be proportionate, or it will be difficult to recruit people with the necessary expertise to sit on the boards of sewage and water companies.

Amendments 11 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would introduce an SI into the legal framework. SIs are a favourite tool of Governments to get the detail of legislation in place. They tend to get somewhat divorced from the original Act that they refer to, but the timeline proposed here should mean that the original Act will still be fresh in peoples’ minds.

Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is, I fear, unworkable. I know from previous debates that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prefer to be debating the renationalisation of water and sewage companies.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

True.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

The Government have indicated that this is not going to happen. The amendment is an attempt to bring forward a different model of governance. The proposal is for 25% of board members to be chosen by local authorities. Local authorities are struggling with social care, looked-after children, education and people with learning disabilities. They certainly do not need this added to their “to do” list.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 9.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 57 is highly workable, because it advances democracy and public accountability of the regulatory bodies. As we have it now, the regulators of the water industry have failed the people, mainly because they are too close to the very interests that they need to regulate and far removed from the welfare of employees, customers and citizens, who bear the ultimate cost of regulatory failure. I am pretty sure that the Government will soon be asking customers to chip in more money to restructure water companies and taxpayers to pay more to reconstruct them. That is just one part of the cost which people will bear.

All regulatory bodies need to be guided by effective watchdogs and guide dogs, but Ofwat has neither any watchdog nor any guide dog; it just seems to be running loose and doing whatever it wishes. There is no mechanism for preventing capture of water regulators. The executives of Ofwat pass through revolving doors and join the water companies with dizzying speed and great regularity, undermining the independence of the regulatory bodies. Regulatory bodies must be seen to be independent rather than just claim that they are independent. At the moment, a director of Ofwat, a former Conservative Minister, is spearheading a campaign that would make it harder for consumers to sue water companies that breach legal sewage limits. Should a regulator be doing that—or should it be more even-handed between the regulated and consumers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relate to the publication of data on sewage overflows in a form that is readily accessible to the public. The public are concerned about sewage spills, and they want to know when and where they are occurring. They also want to know what is being done about preventing further spills in their area. The amendments help to redress the current balance on availability of information.

Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, relates to the failure of electricity supply which affects a sewage overflow outlet. I agree completely with the noble Duke. If an overflow outlet is reliant on an inefficient electricity supply, it is up to the undertaker to work with the electricity company to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The electricity supplier, similarly, will know when there is going to be a planned outage and should notify the undertaker in advance so that alternative arrangements can be made. If the electricity supply which serves an overflow outlet is inclined to break down, the undertaker should plan to have a generator on standby, as the noble Duke said, to take over when the electricity supply is down. This is common sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, first an apology: in my excitement in the last group on the government amendments, I forgot to refer to my register of interests, including as a landowner across a number of river catchments and an investor in several natural capital-related technology companies.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving his amendment. I recognise how hard he has worked to improve the Bill, in consultation with the Government. We agree with the spirit of his Amendments 39 and 40 in that we also want more transparency from water companies on pollution incidents. This is an important principle that runs through the Bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to the noble Lord’s argument and seek to strengthen transparency in the water sector where this is appropriate.

I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his Amendment 41. While we do not agree with it, we do agree that water companies should take some and more responsibility for the resilience of their power supplies. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can offer in reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

I think the current rule is that fines levied by Ofwat go to the Treasury and fines levied by the Environment Agency stay within the Environment Agency. That is what I am seeking to change and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has a similar intent. I hope the Minister, although she will, of course, be told by the Treasury that it wants to keep the money—I am sure it will always do that—might be prepared to try to persuade the Treasury to allow these funds to be devoted, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I have said in a slightly different way, to measures to improve the quality of the freshwater environment in England and Wales. I think that is obviously what most Members of this House would want and I hope the Minister might be able to make a move in that direction. That is the essence of the purpose of these two amendments which, as I said earlier, are similar to the intent of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I hope the Minister will consider very carefully these three amendments.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has set out the case for this group of amendments with his usual clarity and passion for sorting out the obligations which Ofwat needs to impose.

The money collected from fines from sewerage and water companies needs more clarity over its destination. At the moment, it would appear that the money from fines imposed by Ofwat does not go back into ensuring that investment occurs to correct the defects which allowed sewage spills in the first place. Much of the money from fines goes into the Treasury coffers and supports other government departments. This is not what the public want. They want the money from fines to go into making good inadequate and out of date sewerage systems and helping to create new reservoirs. A transparent and obvious way to achieve this is to set up a water restoration fund. This group of amendments requires all fines for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for this fund.

I understand that the Treasury is not in favour of this as it is hypothecation. I understand where it is coming from. However, it is necessary, due to the appalling performance of the water industry, for the public to be able to see just where the money from fines is going and how it is being used to improve the service they are paying for in their water and sewerage bills. We are, therefore, very keen to see such a fund set up without delay. There are undoubtedly going to be large fines coming down the line which water companies will have to pay. These fines cannot just evaporate into the ether so that customers cannot see what is being done with the money. Restoring public confidence in the water and sewerage industry is key to moving forward and a water restoration fund is a vital element of achieving this.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for introducing this group. I also take the opportunity to thank him for his tireless commitment to clearing up the water industry. I have no doubt that the fact that we are considering this Bill in this Chamber at this time owes much to his hard work.

In government, we made progress on work to ensure that fines charged to water companies would be reinvested into the infrastructure of the water sector to reduce pollution and tackle flood risks. Given the very clear concern of the public about the health of our rivers, lakes and beaches and the impact of pollution, it seems only right that the proceeds of fines levied on water companies should be invested in tackling pollution, so we support the spirit of Amendments 46 and 47 in principle.

While there is clearly disagreement on how best to achieve the goal of reinvesting the funds raised through fines on water companies, we hope the Minister will listen to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and ensure that proceeds from water company fines are reinvested in the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am so sorry, but we have reached time. Thank you.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is the last group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, has introduced Amendment 50 on recovering costs from water companies. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has Amendments 51 and 52 to leave out Clauses 10 and 11. We did not support these amendments in Committee and have not reconsidered our view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken to Amendments 53, 54 and 59, dealing with water companies that have been taken into special administration. Under Amendment 53, 50% to 100% of the debts of the company would be cancelled. Under Amendment 54, the Secretary of State would place a water company into special measures for breach of environmental conditions. Amendment 59 requires an assessment of costs to bring water companies back into public ownership. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is very articulate and passionate, I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of Lord Sikka, to which he has spoken very eloquently, seeks to prevent companies from operating where they have criminal convictions in a five-year period. I have listened to the noble Lord’s arguments on this amendment and will listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but at the moment I am not convinced of the efficacy of Amendment 56.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to leave out Clauses 10 and 11 from this Bill. These would also have the effect of rendering unnecessary Amendment 50 of my noble friend Lord Remnant.

Our concern on these Benches is that the consumers are left as the providers of funding of last resort to the water industry. In the event of a company going into special administration and there being losses incurred by the Government, these clauses allow the Secretary of State to recover those losses by putting consumer bills up above the levels that have been determined by Ofwat—not just customers of that undertaker but also of others.

This does not seem fair or just. Surely the ultimate responsibility resides with the Government who created the system of regulation that must have failed in this scenario. I intend to test the opinion of the House on my amendment; we do not believe that the Government should grant themselves this power.

I would also like to briefly address Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We on these Benches agree with her that a bailout of creditors or shareholders by the Government would be completely wrong. It is not for the Government to make professional or retail investors whole when their investments have gone wrong. However, we are unconvinced that this amendment needs to be in the Bill, given that there does not appear to be any mechanism where the Government could be called on to bail out investors. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House that this is the case.

Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, it is estimated that more than 360 million single-use vapes were placed on the UK market in 2023. These devices are designed to be used a small number of times and are often referred to as disposable. Once used, which may be after a matter of hours, they are commonly thrown away. Research by Material Focus estimates that 5 million single-use vapes are thrown away every week. That is equivalent to eight per second.

They are often littered. They blight our parks, playgrounds and streets, and they introduce plastics, nicotine salts, heavy metals and lithium-ion batteries into the environment, harming biodiversity, soils, and our rivers and streams. Alternatively, they are thrown into black bins where, at best, they end up in landfill or are incinerated—at worst, they cause fires when they are crushed in bin lorries.

Last year, it was estimated that 700 waste fires were caused by batteries hidden in electricals such as vapes. This generates pollution, damages waste infrastructure and risks the safety of waste management workers, firefighters and the public. To give a personal example, a friend of ours has a medium-sized haulage business, and he lost virtually all his lorries last year through a fire caused by single-use vapes, which pretty much destroyed his business. So they can do enormous damage, and it is important that we tackle this problem.

Research by Action on Smoking and Health shows that the rise in single-use vapes has happened concurrently with an increase in young people vaping. Although vapes can play an important role in smoking cessation, adults who do not smoke and children should never vape. We must do what we can to prevent children from being targeted. Without action, it is estimated that, by 2030, the number of single-use vapes placed on the UK market could rise to over 1 billion per year. We must therefore take steps to stop the misuse of resources and protect our environment.

My department is leading a drive towards a circular economy to minimise waste, prioritise circular product design and retain the value of resources for as long as possible. It is estimated that, last year, 40 tonnes of lithium from single-use vapes were thrown away. This is enough lithium to power 5,000 electric vehicles. Single-use items such as these play no role in a circular economy, so we must act now to ban the supply of single-use vapes in England.

Before I turn to details of the legislation, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Its report highlighted several points of interest, particularly the links to youth vaping, which I referred to earlier, and whether we will monitor market developments following the implementation of the ban. We work closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to understand the types of products notified for use, and we will continue to look at this in future.

The committee highlighted correspondence received from Green Alliance, which strongly supports the ban but questioned the timeline for implementation and enforcement. We want to introduce the ban as soon as possible, but we must allow a minimal but reasonable transition to allow businesses time to run down stocks and adapt activities. That is why the ban will come into force on 1 June next year. Effective enforcement is critical, and we will work closely with enforcement agencies to understand how we can best support them.

I turn to the details of the legislation. This ban is introduced through powers in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part 1 of the legislation sets out the meaning of a “single-use vape”, which is

“a vape which is not designed or intended to be re-used”

and which includes any vape that is not rechargeable or refillable.

The ban applies to England only, but my officials have worked closely with the devolved Governments, who are bringing in equivalent legislation. We are grateful to our colleagues in the devolved Governments for their collaboration to ensure that, from 1 June next year, there will be a UK-wide ban.

Parts 2 and 3 of the legislation introduce offences and enforcement provisions. Enforcement of the ban in England will be carried out through local trading standards officers, and the powers in the legislation have been developed in partnership with them. The regulations provide new civil and criminal sanctions and provide powers to test or seize illicit products and issue fines as well as stop or compliance notices. Where a compliance or stop notice is not complied with, a further fine or jail sentence may follow.

Lastly, Part 4 of the legislation covers requirements for guidance, as well as setting out review clauses.

Vapes can play a role in helping adults to quit smoking, but there is no reason for these products to be single use. Given the harm caused, we must take this simple but important step to ban these products.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has set out the rationale for the introduction of this SI very clearly.

Single-use vapes are extremely popular among young people. Encouraging young people not to start smoking has to be a key aim of any Government. It is something of a rite of passage to gather with your friends for a chat and a smoke or a vape. Preventing experimentation with cigarettes is the first priority. Then, it is about encouraging young people away from vapes—especially single-use ones—when they may have switched to vaping.

I am grateful to Green Alliance for the briefing that it provided on this subject, and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Since 2023, 7.7 million single-use vapes have been bought every week—twice the number in 2022. Vapes are easily discarded, causing plastic-containing litter. They also contain other hazardous substances such as nicotine, which has previously been used as a pesticide. The batteries in vapes are a potential fire risk; the Minister gave a good example of that.

Although the lithium contained in the vapes discarded in 2023 would have made 5,000 electric vehicle batteries—the Minister referred to this—recycling them is problematic. Young people and others are not going to take their used vapes to a recycling point. The vapes are going to be discarded where they are, sometimes in a litter bin but often just thrown on the ground. A ban on single-use vapes will ensure that the lithium is put to a better use.

The Government’s recent Budget introduced a vaping products duty, which will be introduced in October 2026 —that is two years away—and is to be £2.20 per 10 millilitres of vaping liquid. This will increase the cost of vapes and will, I hope, discourage their use. Cheap, reusable vapes are as easily discarded as single-use ones, so increasing the cost of reusables must be part of the strategy in moving people away from vaping. The ban on single-use vapes will come into force in June 2025, as the Minister said, which gives enough time for retailers to reduce their stocks and for users to become accustomed to buying reusable vapes.

I fully support this SI but I have a couple of small queries. Paragraph 9.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the

“impact on the public sector as local authorities are regulators and therefore responsible for enforcement”.

The last sentence of the paragraph reads:

“Funding will be provided to support enforcement”.


That is an encouraging statement. Although it does not say what the funding will be, having a statement that it will be provided in the Explanatory Memorandum is to be welcomed.

I turn now to the SI itself. Regulation 14 states that, at the end of a three-year period, the Secretary of State must conduct a “review of the operation” of the Schedule. As with any change in legislation, a review of how the change has had an impact on those affected by the SI is key to ensuring that changes keep pace with public behaviour.

Paragraph 1(1)(a) in Part 1 of the Schedule indicates that a fixed monetary penalty of £200 will be paid to the regulator for a breach of the regulations. Later on, paragraph 16 in Part 2 of the Schedule, which is headed “Offence”, states:

“Where a person on whom a stop notice is served does not comply with it, the person is guilty of an offence and liable—


(a) on summary conviction, to a fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both”.

Imprisonment for 12 months or two years is quite a jump from a £200 fine. It is likely that I have not understood how what seems like an on-the-spot fine of £200 can escalate to imprisonment; I would be grateful if the Minister could help me with this.

Green Alliance has asked three questions. First, given the exponential growth of single-use vapes, can the Government expedite the ban to before 25 June? Also, how do they plan to limit further growth in the use of vapes between now and then?

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument adds three substances, UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, to the assimilated persistent organic pollutants—or POPs—regulation in response to the adoption of these three substances as POPs under the United Nations Stockholm convention. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obligated to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention.

In addition, this instrument makes a number of other technical changes to the annexes of the POPs regulation. These include changes to waste concentration limits, specific exemptions and unintentional trace contaminant levels—or UTCs—for some POPs. The amendments, in brief, update and clarify the way that some articles, substances or mixtures containing some POPs can be used, manufactured, placed on the market or disposed of.

This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within Articles 7, 15 and 18 of the assimilated EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument.

POPs are substances recognised as being particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This instrument preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK. Some of the regulations in this amending instrument are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm convention on POPs. The majority of amendments are informed by updates to the Stockholm convention and, in some cases, following updates made to the Basel Convention guidance on the management of POPs waste, and following consultation.

Let me turn now to the detail of the instrument. At the 11th meeting of the conference of the parties held last year, a decision was adopted to add three new substances called UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention. This decision was communicated to parties by the UN depository in February 2024. This instrument adds these new POPs to the list of substances that are prohibited by law from being manufactured, placed on the market and used in GB.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of these three substances at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. Dechlorane plus and UV-328 will also be listed alongside time-limited exemptions for their continued use in specific circumstances. These exemptions are available following agreement by the conference of the parties to the Stockholm convention.

This instrument will make a number of further changes to Annexe 1 of the POPs regulation, including the addition of a UTC level for two POPs that are already prohibited in GB. It will also make amendments to the UTC limits and specific exemptions listed for the substance PFOA, including a provision to phase out or remove exemptions which are no longer required, and tighten the requirements regarding a specific exemption for use of PFOA in PTFE micropowders.

Annexes 4 and 5 of the POPs regulation relate to the treatment of waste containing POPs. This instrument will add or update waste concentration limits for several POPs. In practice, these limits specify the concentration at which waste containing POPs must be diverted from landfill to high-temperature incineration or other appropriate disposal to ensure that the POPs content is appropriately destroyed. Importantly, this includes the introduction of a limit specifically targeted at firefighting foam mixtures containing PFOA, a substance in the PFAS group of chemicals, to ensure environmentally sound disposal of any remaining stockpiles of these foams.

This instrument will update the maximum concentration limits for a number of POPs and add decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant, to the list of PPDEs in annexe 5 of the POPs regulation. Maximum concentration limits set the threshold at which waste handlers can apply to permanently store certain wastes in designated landfill for hazardous waste or salt mines, where it can be demonstrated that destruction is not the environmentally preferred option. The instrument will also add two new European Waste Catalogue codes to the provision: one for fly ash from peat and untreated wood, and one for soil and stones.

Policy development informing this instrument was subject to a public consultation in 2023. In the public consultation, we also stated our intention to prohibit the three new substances once they were adopted for listing under the convention, to implement our international obligations. There have been various opportunities at both domestic and convention level for UK stakeholders to submit information regarding the potential prohibition of UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, and their potential adoption for global elimination under the Stockholm convention.

A de minimis impact assessment was carried out. This concluded that there is no indication that the amendments in the instrument are expected to have an impact on businesses, beyond one-off familiarisation costs, and that this instrument is not expected to disproportionately burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England, and Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this instrument and have no concerns in relation to implementation or resources.

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, the EU POPs regulation applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the instrument and have consented to it being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this instrument are needed, in part, to implement requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding new POPs UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances that are prohibited in GB by law. Other amendments included in this instrument ensure that the POPs regulation is adapted to scientific and technical progress in our understanding and treatment of POPs. The draft regulations will allow the UK to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.

I hope noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I understand why the changes to these regulations have been brought forward, in order to take account of changes to scientific and technical progress, and to stay in line with amendments to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The UK is a party to this critical convention, and it is important that we ensure that the country and the public as a whole are protected from toxic substances.

The four qualifications for substances being classed as a POP are that they are persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative and subject to long-range environmental transport. This SI makes amendments to the lists of substances in annexe A of the convention. The SI lists these substances as UV 328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor. The instrument also lists unintentional trace contaminant UTC limits for those substances, and adds two new POPs to this category which are already prohibited under the ordinary POPs regulations: hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol. There are other substances named which are covered by the SI, but I readily admit that, not being a chemist or a scientist, some of the detail is outside my experience.

Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to certain POP waste being permanently stored in designated hazardous waste landfill or salt mines when destruction is not the environmentally preferred option, as the Minister referred to. I assume that the salt mines referred to will be depleted and never brought back into use. Can she provide reassurance on this matter?

The SI also expands the scope for three offences under the POP regulations of 2007, but neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the SI says what the penalties for the offences are. Can the Minister provide clarification on this?

An eight-week public consultation took place from 3 March to 23 April 2023. There were 58 responses. Of those, 14—24%—were from industry associations, 16% were from large businesses of 250 or more employees, 16% were from local authorities, 9% from charities, 5% from small and micro-businesses of less than 50 employees, 3% from medium businesses of 50 to 249 employees, 2% from NGOs, 2% from a government body and 2% from a consultancy. There was also 9% from “other”. I wonder who the “other” were, as the website did not say. This is a very wide range of responses on quite a specialist area. The consultation response and the Government’s responses are very detailed and are on the website. I am therefore satisfied that those who will have to implement these regulations know what is likely to happen.

The regulations come into force 21 days after the day on which they are made, which I imagine will be one day next week. Can the Minister confirm this? This is a very specialist subject, but it is important that toxic substances receive adequate regulation. I believe the SI does this and I am happy to support it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee and for opening this debate. We wholeheartedly support the Government in their work to build on our strong track record of tackling pollution and effectively managing substances that are persistent pollutants.

These regulations amend EU regulation 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and Council on persistent organic pollutants to alter the rules for the management of certain substances under the persistent pollutant regime. It is important that the Government have the right rules in place for the management of substances that can pollute our environment over many years because they break down slowly. We welcome these regulations.

What assessment have the Government made of our pollutant regulation regime since they took office? Can the Minister confirm whether they have identified any areas of pollution where Ministers intend to change our existing regime or whether they feel that it is currently satisfactory? Can she give some idea of current trace levels of these persistent pollutants and how they compare with the limits in this instrument? Further to that, can she reassure this Committee that these new limits will ensure that none of these pollutants can be intentionally introduced in manufacturing, except for the specified products?

The Minister set out exemptions for the use of these chemicals. Can she explain why these exemptions are necessary given the awful long-term consequences of allowing any production of these chemicals and compounds? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to monitor the levels of “forever chemicals” in our environment to ensure that these levels are within a safe range?

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. It is a pleasure to support this SI. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, introduced this into the Chamber by way of a Private Member’s Bill, we have all been anticipating that it would be implemented as soon as possible. The instrument itself and the Explanatory Memorandum are clear as to what is to happen and who will perform the duties of enforcement. Much of it will fall on local authorities which, as we all know, are struggling to make their budgets balance. Can the Minister say whether local authorities will be recompensed for this additional work? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also raised this.

No one has any doubt that animals should not be transported live to Europe or other countries specifically for the purpose of slaughter. It is unnecessary to have transported animals suffering cramped conditions, often with no access to water and food, and for disproportionately long periods. Animals which are going to slaughter should be dispatched as near to their living quarters as possible. The distress that transportation causes should be kept to a minimum and access to abattoirs should be within close proximity. Other noble Lords have referred to this.

I have received a brief from the RSPCA, which has asked two questions. First, how does the instrument ensure that transporting live animals for slaughter or further fattening, including horses, is not authorised to Northern Ireland from England, if they would then be re-exported to the Republic of Ireland? The noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Elliott and Lord de Clifford, also referred to this matter. Secondly, the RSPCA asks: when will the Government come forward with proposals on improving the rules on the internal transportation of live animals in England, now that it is no longer limited by the transport times in Regulation 1/2005? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to these two questions.

I also have a question of my own relating to the date of implementation for this SI. In the EM, at paragraph 5.2, we learn that Royal Assent was granted for the Act on 20 May of this year. Then in paragraph 5.3 we learn that the prohibition on transportation of live animals from and through the UK

“came into force on 22 July 2024”.

Again, that is this year. However, in the SI itself, Regulation 1(b) states—I am sorry that this is very nerdy —that the regulations

“come into force on 1st January 2025”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the ban is already in place, as from 22 July, or whether animals will have to wait until 1 January 2025 to be totally protected. I realise that no animals have been exported for slaughter since 2020, but it is important that the dates on the legislation are accurate.

I look forward to the SI which will come forward to cover horses, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Apart from these queries, I totally support this vital SI and the sooner that it is enacted, the better.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the Government’s Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024. In government we took the issue of animal welfare very seriously, as evidenced by the passing of the Act to which this statutory instrument refers. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 prevented the exportation of livestock for the sole purpose of slaughter or preparation for slaughter and received cross-party support.

We are pleased that the current Government continue to focus on this area by implementing the practical steps to ensure that the correct people are held responsible. Increasing the necessary requirements of evidence submission will allow inspectors to examine more closely the intentions of a transporter and ensure that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that an animal is not being taken to slaughter.

I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. We are satisfied that this is a sensible approach and have no issues to raise.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

In my few words today, I question the validity of extending the Ivory Act to species such as the sperm whale when the UK has virtually no international commercial trade in these items and when, unlike the trade in elephant ivory, there is no third country with an insatiable desire to acquire sperm whale teeth. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the various questions and to my noble friend Lord Carrington’s concerns.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It is right that the common hippopotamus, the killer whale, the narwhal and the sperm whale are to be included in the category of protection for their ivory. I have to say that it has taken a long time to reach this point. In 2018, when we were discussing the Ivory Bill, the Minister’s predecessor on the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who I am delighted to see in her place, was tireless in trying to persuade the Government to include narwhals and other species in the categories to be classed as having ivory, but to no avail. The then Conservative Government were content to leave it at elephant ivory. The passage of the Bill was not easy, with the antique ivory lobby pressing hard for exclusions to the Bill. I began to wonder whether we would ever get the ban on elephant ivory through, but in the end we succeeded.

I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not share my view. He referred to the destruction of items made of ivory that are of no antique value but are sent to landfill. He also referred to scrimshaw items made by sailors. I have some sympathy with his view on these items and I look forward to the Minister’s answer to his question about changing the policy on destroying ivory.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to historical antique ivory collections that may have been donated to museums and form part of history. This is a very valid argument. I note that a public consultation that took place between 17 July and 11 September 2021 overwhelmingly supported the measures we have before us.

Paragraph 7.1 of the EM states:

“Walrus ivory is not included in the extension of the Act under this instrument because it will remain prohibited subject to certain narrow exemptions under Council Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009”,


which relates to the Windsor Framework. The Minister referred to this exemption, but I am slightly confused by it and would be grateful if she could explain exactly what it means in terms of protection for the walrus species.

I am reassured that items containing ivory or made of ivory will be protected. I am also pleased that the burden of proof will lie with any accused to prove that the item is not ivory from an elephant or from the other four species covered in the SI. Scientific tests are to be used to determine the exact origin of the article and the age of the antique artefacts.

I welcome that this debate has covered both sides of the argument and we have heard opposing views. Nevertheless, I fully support this SI.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in favour of any measures to preserve the rich tapestry of species on this planet, particularly those threatened with extinction. However, we have some concerns, not with the objective of this SI and the Ivory Act more broadly, but with some of the consequences of its drafting.

The SI extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Although we agree with the banning of selling of modern items manufactured from these sources, there is no modern market for whale teeth or narwhal tusks. Old pieces of art, such as inscribed sailor’s knives or mounted narwhal tusks, will fall foul of these regulations and will have to be landfilled.

As we have heard already from my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Carrington, there is virtually no import or export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. In 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, and just two teeth were exported. Narwhals are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

While it could be argued that this legislation is an important aspect of our soft power, it is debatable whether this soft power has worked. It has not had much influence on the EU, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. Will the Minister please clarify to the Committee what outcomes she foresees from this decision? Will she outline why these measures have been implemented and say whether she can see that they may have unforeseen and unintended consequences?

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, I meet the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland regularly and met the Ulster Farmers Union very recently, as well as the noble Baroness, to discuss these issues, and I know that my officials meet various organisations regularly to discuss them. I will be back in Belfast towards the end of this month and hope to meet the Ulster Farmers Union again shortly. As she pointed out, tax and succession planning is incredibly important. There is an issue with getting young people into farming, and I recommend that people talk to professionals about what is available to them for tax purposes going forward.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, a sustainable supply of food is essential for the country. The farming community is key to achieving this goal. The perception that farmers are wealthy is erroneous. Farmers have seen their income shrink as a result of the slow implementation of ELMS, and now they face the prospect of having to sell off or dismantle family farms to pay inheritance tax. The appalling headline “We can’t afford to let farmers die tax-free” is a gross distortion of the truth. What is the Minister doing to reverse this impression?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, back to her place. Her contributions have been missed on earlier days in Committee.

The main focus of the Bill is on improving the health of our rivers, and that aim will likely lead to a larger number of punishable offences. In its manifesto, Labour set out its plans to impose severe fines on water companies that failed to meet the expected standards, but it did not establish what would be done with that additional income. Amendment 70 seeks to put in place a system whereby the fines imposed on water companies and their employees—by this Government, the devolved Governments or, in fact, any other relevant authorities—are collected. Then, once a year, the income from these fines could be used to reduce customer bills.

In government we created the water restoration fund, which sees the money collected by the Treasury from fines and penalties and then channelled into improving the water environment. However, we sit here today with consumers facing pressure on their water bills as part of the inflationary environment that has created the cost of living crisis, as well as the cost of investing to improve water quality. It seems appropriate that fines and penalties should be returned to those consumers and identified by a separate line in their bills, making it clear that the regulator is taking action to punish wrongdoing and that money is returned to the consumer as a consequence.

An amendment such as this would benefit so many individuals and resolve how additional income from stricter fines is applied. It is not a subject that the Bill adequately addresses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has recognised in other amendments. Does the Minister agree that the money from the fines should be used to benefit the consumer through mechanisms such as the water restoration fund that we implemented when in government or by using the sum to reduce customer Bills, as this amendment suggests? As such, will the Minister confirm that the penalties will not return to the Treasury under this Government? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee and the Minister for my absence on the first and second days in Committee. I regret that an attack of Covid meant that I was confined to quarters and unable to travel to London. I did, however, watch the debate on both days on parliamentlive.tv and was therefore able to hear the nuances of the contributions, which you do not always get by reading Hansard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his comments.

A seminar of all the devolved Administrations once a year, to discuss how to return all fines to the relevant customers, will do nothing to fix the problems of inadequate investment in crumbling and inadequate infrastructure. I am sympathetic to the need to keep customers’ bills to an acceptable level. Consumers should not have to pay for the inadequacies of the water boards to ensure that problems are fixed. I do not see why an annual gathering of the devolved Administrations or other authorities will be sufficient to refund bill payers in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group: Amendments 97, 98 and 99. This weekend saw tens of thousands of people marching for clean water in London. It was the most amazing event. It was a chance for me to speak to people who agree with me—as opposed to being here in your Lordships’ House, where not many people agree with me.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Oh!

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

That is not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, it is a while since I have taken part in proceedings where a stand part debate has been used to try to remove clauses of a Bill. On our Benches, our departed colleague Lord Greaves was very fond of this measure to enable him to make detailed speeches railing against the Government of the day’s proposed legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has set out his case eloquently for why he believes that Clauses 10 and 11 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 10 refers to England, and Clause 11 offers the same powers to Welsh Ministers. Both clauses are complex and deal with the recovery of losses. I respect the motives of the noble Lord, who appears to be on the side of the water industry and the bill payers at the same time. However, when 15,000 people from around the country are prepared to give up their Sunday to come to London to join a protest against the action of the water companies, I fear that he may have misjudged the mood of the water company bill payers. The public are rightly furious that, while their water and sewage bills have increased, the infrastructure has not been improved, but directors’ bonuses and shareholders’ dividends have not reflected the poor service that some water companies have given. I say “some” water companies, because some are performing well and do meet their targets; unfortunately, it is the ones that do not do so that we hear about on a continual basis.

Removing from the Bill the two clauses, which would have seen some balance being provided to enable costs to be recovered from those water companies that have failed to deliver on their Ofwat targets, is to give a signal to bill payers that the poor service that they have received is acceptable. If Clauses 10 and 11 are removed from the Bill, there would be no clarity on what is happening or how recompense would be achieved. I am therefore afraid that, on the Lib Dem Benches, we are unable to oppose these clauses standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his interest in Clauses 10 and 11 and also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support for them standing part. A special administration regime—or SAR—enables a company that provides vital public services to be put into administration in certain circumstances to ensure that the public service will continue to be provided pending rescue or transfer to new owners. An SAR would be required only when there is evidence that a company is insolvent or in serious breach of its statutory duties. It is the ultimate enforcement tool in Ofwat’s regulatory toolkit and, as such, as I said in the last debate, the bar is set high.

Although government has had the powers to place water companies into special administration for over three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect modernisation of law and experiences in other sectors. If a SAR occurs, government funding would be required to cover the costs of a special administration, including both operational and capital expenditure—for example, ensuring that statutory environmental obligations were met, as well as for paying the cost of the special administrator.

In the unlikely event that the proceeds of a sale or the repayments agreed as part of a rescue at the end of a SAR are insufficient to cover repaying government funding, there is a risk of a funding shortfall. Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a flexible power, allowing the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to recover any shortfall in funding in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances. They allow for modification of water company licences to recover any shortfall in financial assistance provided in a water industry SAR. These clauses will align the water industry SAR regime with the energy sector. Without this power, there is a risk that taxpayers will foot the bill for the water industry SAR.

The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will be able to decide whether or not they should use this power and the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers. This will include which group of customers it should be recovered from—for example, all water company customers, a subset of the sector, or only customers whose water company went into a SAR.

Although the power is flexible, the design of a recovery mechanism will be subject to consultation with all relevant sector stakeholders. The Government must consider these views and explain our approach accordingly. If a SAR occurs and this power is ever required, this will allow a decision to be made, and be consulted upon, on what the fairest cost recovery option is, based on the evidence and circumstances at the time.

I reiterate that the shortfall recovery mechanism does not mean that customers end up paying for water companies’ failures. Any intervention that would increase customer bills would be considered very seriously and as a last resort. In the first instance, the Government would seek to recoup all the funds spent on financing the SAR through the sale or rescue of the water company after the administrators’ conclusion. This new power would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover what the Government spent funding the administration. If there was a shortfall, Ministers would then decide whether they felt that it was appropriate to exercise this power.

This power would allow the Secretary of State to decide, subject to consultation, the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers and which group of customers it should be recovered from, as I just mentioned. This will ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is always implemented in a way that ensures that costs are recovered fairly. I hope that noble Lords agree that this power is essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR, and that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.

Flood Prevention: Farmers

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this extremely important debate and on his excellent and informative introduction to the subject, on which he has become something of an expert. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his excellent and informative speech. All speakers have spoken in depth about the effects of climate change on the lives of farmers. I am grateful to the NFU, the CLA and the House of Lords Library for their briefings on this subject, which affects many rural and farming communities.

Between October 2022 and March 2024, according to the NFU, the country experienced torrential rain, the most since records started in 1836. Storms Babet, Ciarán and Henk left many farms underwater between October 2023 and April 2024. Farmers were unable to plant crops or graze their stock. The Government’s response was to announce the flood recovery framework in May. This was welcomed, but information was difficult to find on who would be eligible and how to apply, and it had a short application timeframe. Many farmers missed the closing deadline or were turned away because their local authority was not aware of the scheme. As we approach autumn and another season of poor weather, can the Minister reassure us that this will not happen again and that there will be better communication in future?

One of the reasons the flood recovery framework was underused was that many believed that the farming recovery fund was only one option. This fund had grants of up to £25,000 towards repair and reinstatement costs for farmers who had suffered exceptional flooding. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has referred to this. This scheme now needs urgent expansion. The fund was also for exceptional flooding, but there are areas of the country where devastating flooding is not exceptional but the norm. These farmers are often part of a scheme whereby their land is offered up regularly for flooding, so that towns and villages are protected. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also raised this issue.

Such is the case on the Somerset Levels, where a system of regular flooding of certain moors in rotation occurs to protect the town of Bridgwater and the surrounding villages. The IDBs are a key element for the success of these schemes. On a fine day during the winter, the Somerset Levels can look picturesque, with the whole area underwater and trees loftily rising above the flood-water, with ducks, swans and other fowl floating serenely along, but this does not put bread and butter on the farmers’ tables, nor does it enable the farmer to plant crops for the next season or feed their cattle, or allow them to put their cattle or sheep out to graze.

Flood Re recompenses those householders who live in areas prone to severe flooding who cannot get insurance through the normal routes, but Flood Re is not available to businesses, nor to farmers. ELMS is designed to reward those farmers who deliver public good. It really is time that those farmers whose land is used to store flood-water on a continual, year-on-year basis should have some financial recompense for the loss of the use of that land. If protecting homes, villages and towns by preventing them flooding is not a public good then I am not sure what is. I urge the Minister to act to recompense these farmers.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the issue of building new flood defences as well as repairing those which are in a poor state of repair. It is important that those which are already there but crumbling should be repaired, and that is a much more cost-effective option.

As has been said, the qualification for claiming under the flood recovery framework is 50 properties affected in an area. This is helpful for centres of towns and villages but pretty ineffectual in rural areas, where hamlets and households are more widely spread. Meanwhile, the farming recovery fund criteria for claiming was being within 150 metres of the river which was flooding. Again, this was a limited criterion, which left many without access to funding.

In April 2024, the previous Government announced that this scheme would be expanded to more farmers, but as we have already heard, so far nothing has happened. Although this commitment was made in April 2024, no details from either Defra or the Rural Payments Agency have been forthcoming, despite numerous requests from the NFU. Can the Minister say whether the new Government will honour this commitment and, if so, when it is likely to be rolled out? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans also raised this. I understand that some announcement may be waiting for the Budget, but that does not fill me with confidence that we will get a positive announcement.

The AHDB reran its cropping early bird survey in March 2024. This indicated that reductions in the following crops were anticipated due to flooding: wheat, down 15% at 1.463 million hectares, which is the biggest reduction since 2020; oilseed rape, down 28% at 280,000 hectares, which is the biggest reduction since the 1980s; and winter barley, down 22% at 355,000 hectares, which is the biggest reduction since 2020. That clearly demonstrates the effects on the farming and food-producing communities of continual rainfall leading to extreme flooding.

My noble friend Lord Russell raised the issue of suicide among farmers. Farming is not an easy way of life. Surely now is the time for the Government to act to ensure that our farming communities do not disappear altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her introduction to this Bill. The issue of continual sewage overflows and the failure of water companies to deal with this effectively has been the subject of many debates in this Chamber. It is also a subject of great concern to the public, who have to suffer the consequences of raw sewage in their waterways and lakes, and often in their back gardens. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others have referred to public involvement in this issue.

This is a hot political issue, which featured in manifestos during the recent general election. I know that the Minister is keen to deal with this problem, and I am pleased that this Bill is one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government have decided to start in this Chamber—especially since we have had so many debates and Questions on the subject. Every noble Lord this afternoon has welcomed this Bill. The performance of the water companies and their regulators is an especially important part of our everyday lives. Industry through to domestic householders rely on an efficient water system and have been badly let down in the past. I concur completely with the comments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

The Bill is only part of an overall programme of reform needed for the water industry. The Government are promising a review. This is urgently needed, and we all look forward to it being holistic and in-depth, and setting out a clear programme of action to provide the country with an efficient water and sewage industry that will be fit for purpose. My noble friend Lord Russell has referred to this.

The Bill itself has 13 clauses and three main sections: remuneration and governance; pollution incident reduction plans; and sanctions. Remuneration and governance are in desperate need of reform. Since privatisation, CEOs, directors and shareholders have enjoyed payouts that do not reflect the appalling performance of the industry. At privatisation, the water companies were debt free. Since then, they have borrowed money on a large scale, not to invest in infrastructure but to reward themselves. No new reservoirs have been built since 1992, and sewage works are crumbling and out of date. Infrastructure needs addressing urgently.

Solutions so far have been concrete construction-based, which has a high carbon footprint. Nature-based solutions, which are more carbon friendly, have been rejected. Only 2% of Ofwat’s budget is allocated to nature recovery solutions. Bill payers have had an extremely poor deal, while the shareholders and directors have been rewarded. It is time that this trend was reversed. There will be amendments in Committee to ensure that this happens efficiently—and we have heard a lot about the amendments that may be coming forward.

It is absurd that Ofwat is unable to rescind the licence of a poorly performing company without giving 25 years’ notice. My noble friend Lord Russell referred to that. I wonder what planet those who drafted that legislation were living on when they drew up that guidance.

Pollution incident reduction plans should help to concentrate the minds of those managers running the sewerage systems. The plans should include reporting on the state of the sewerage infrastructure, alongside the action being proposed to remedy this within a reasonable time limit. Monitoring each sewage discharge within the hour of occurrence is to be welcomed but, once the spillages have been recorded, are they to be published in a way that can be readily accessible to the public and those directly affected? Transparency is strongly recommended by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

I note that the regulations under this section will be made only after the Minister has consulted such persons as the Minister considers fit. That could be anyone—the CEO of the water company concerned, Ofwat, the Environment Agency or some other person. I am sure that this is something that will come forward in Committee. If the regulations are to be meaningful and effective, the regulator has to have teeth and be up for the job. Currently, there is little confidence in the ability of either Ofwat or the Environment Agency to deal with the scale of the problem, which is endemic within the water industry.

This leads me on to sanctions. It is going to be extremely difficult to identify who is the guilty party responsible for a breach of the regulations regarding sewage discharges, as well as dealing with water leakages. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the issue of leakages. I welcome that the sanctions are to be stricter and toughened up. The Bill gives the job of monitoring and implementing this section to the Environment Agency.

During the passage of both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act, the woeful reduction in funding for the Environment Agency was a cause for concern to your Lordships across all sections of the Chamber. This funding situation has not improved. It seems unlikely that the Environment Agency will be able to conduct its role in this Bill effectively.

The system of fines laid out in the Bill may be levied and go into a consolidation fund. Those fines will recompense the EA for the cost of the work that it has conducted in imposing fines, but it will be retrospective. Surely any fines levied should go into a fund for remedial action to ensure that a problem does not occur again and be returned to bill payers, who have, after all, suffered as a result of loss of water supply and incursions of sewage into their homes and business premises.

One of the Environment Act’s tenets is that the polluter pays. That has to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, gave a graphic description of pollution in the River Wye—and we have heard that before. My noble friend Lady Parminter referred to yesterday’s news that Ofwat had fined water companies £158 million, with Thames Water having the largest share. I received an email from David Black, CEO of Ofwat, yesterday morning informing me of this, and giving me some detail. Later, I listened on the radio to David Henderson, the CEO of the water industry’s union, Water UK, saying the problem was lack of investment due to Ofwat preventing the industry raising consumers’ bills and preventing borrowing for investment. There was no mention that the water companies were set up debt free; nor that some of their assets had been sold off to increase shareholders’ dividends; nor that salaries and bonuses of CEOs and directors had been increased to what an ordinary bill payer would consider an obscene level.

The water industry as a whole is in a dire state. The regulators are ineffective and too close to those they are supposed to be bringing to book. My noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, raised the issue of ex-water board members being on the regulatory boards—hardly impartial. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, gave detail of Ofwat’s poor performance. Neither Ofwat nor the Environment Agency are going to change their modus operandi in the way in which the Government envisage. The EA has been chronically underfunded for years. Ofwat already has powers which, if they had been exercised continually since inauguration, would have prevented some of the excesses and failure of service from which the country is suffering. It is no secret that on these Liberal Democrat Benches we would have abandoned the current system and replaced it with a clean water authority to take on the relevant environmental and regulatory powers, including river health, as my noble friend Lord Russell indicated.

We have heard some excellent contributions from all sides of the Chamber. Many have suggested how they would improve the Bill. My noble friend Lady Parminter referred to public interest being essential for Ofwat. The noble Lords, Lord Remnant and Lord Douglas-Miller, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock warned about a broad-brush approach that lumps all water companies together. Your Lordships are exercised about the state of the water and sewage industry, quite rightly so. I am grateful to all those organisations which have provided briefings for this debate, many of which have suggested amendments for Committee. I agree completely with the need for impact assessments and statutory instruments to be prepared.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate and to working with her during future stages of the Bill to ensure that we have a Bill that is effective into the future and dovetails into subsequent legislation which the Government intend to bring forward following the review of the water industry. As all noble Lords have said, this is not going to be an easy task—quite the opposite.

Water Companies: Financial Resilience

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working with Ofwat and the water companies to deliver change as quickly as possible. As I mentioned, the first thing we are doing is bringing in the water special measures Bill to try to change the culture within the water companies. We will work on another water Bill that will come forward, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords, including my noble friends, on what that could contain in order to make the biggest difference to the current situation.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Thames Water is in a precarious state due not only to its financial position but to the poor quality of drinking water and sewage treatment facilities. Are the Government taking action to ensure that those living in the Thames Water area will have access to adequate and safe drinking water now and into the future while they sort out the financial issues?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There is no way we would allow there not to be safe drinking water during the current financial situation. The drinking water directive works extremely hard to ensure that we have safe water in this country. Although Thames Water clearly has financial issues, that should not be affected.