Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill, which is ping-pong, not Report. I was satisfied with the progress we made on the Bill while it was completing its passage in this Chamber before going off to the other place. I am naturally disappointed that the amendments we voted on were removed. However, I understand the rationale for this. I am grateful to the Minister for her time, and that of her officials, in providing a briefing ahead of ping-pong. This helped to set the scene for moving forward.

From the outset, the Government made it clear that the Water (Special Measures) Bill was the first step in a series of changes that the Government were considering to improve the water industry generally. Yesterday morning, I attended a briefing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is chairing the water commission, which is looking into a wide range of aspects of the water industry on behalf of the Government. The water commission will call for evidence towards the end of this month, and a period when submissions will be made and received will follow. At the right time, Sir Jon will publish his report. At that stage, there will no doubt be a series of debates and discussions around the recommendations contained in that report.

Given that the Government’s stated aim is to look at the water industry in its entirety, I believe that there is wisdom in waiting for the water commission to report, so that we can see where the Water (Special Measures) Bill fits into that scenario. We could then understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together and have a more complete picture of how the water industry is to be taken forward for the benefit of both the consumer and the water companies as a whole.

Turning to Motions 1A and Amendment 1B, in lieu of government Amendment 1, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to have transparency and clarity over the issue of water company debt. He is looking for this to be in the Bill. It is not acceptable for water companies to hide their level of debt in the depths of their financial reports, where it is unlikely that many water bill payers will be able to find it. Transparency is essential for consumers to grasp the level of debt that water companies are carrying. If the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not satisfied with the Minister’s response this evening and decides to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.

Motion 2A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seeks to amend the government Motion on Amendment 2, would require the Secretary of State to bring in regulations relating to Ofwat via statutory instrument. The use of statutory instruments to bring in legislation is a slow, cumbersome and not very transparent way of moving forward; perhaps that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. These Benches did not support the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, when he moved his original amendment on Report. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that Ofwat will hold drop-in sessions, and we will not support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their further contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, for providing further detail around their concerns. I would like to make it clear that the Government have carefully considered all non-government amendments tabled throughout the passage of the Bill, and that, where we agree with the intent behind a given amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward.

It is in that spirit that I reviewed Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As previously explained, the Government agree that it is of utmost importance to ensure that members of the public can easily access and understand information on water company finances. However, I do not agree that the approach proposed by Motion 1 A and Amendment 1B is the most effective way of achieving this outcome. I am disappointed that, after considerable engagement on the Government’s alternative approach, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is still dissatisfied with the suggested way forward.

The noble Lord has previously spoken to me about the need to specify how data is presented. I want to be clear that the specific metrics that he wants to see in reports are already required to be included through licence conditions. Indeed, he has pointed that out himself; the information appears in the annual Water Company Performance Report. What is missing, and what we agree with him on, is better formatting and clearer presentation with this information readily available right at the front of these reports, which is exactly what we propose can be achieved through regulatory accounting guidelines.

The noble Lord’s amendments require only that the data is presented in a format that can be “readily accessed and understood”, which is arguably open to interpretation by water companies. Having listened closely to him, we agree that data should be presented in this way, but the approach proposed by government would be more specific and could include, as I mentioned before, a summary table of financial information right at the front of the annual Water Company Performance Report. As such, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, I maintain the view that primary legislation is not the most effective means by which to achieve the intended outcome. I therefore urge Members of the House to support Commons Amendment 1 and the non-legislative proposal put forward by government and Ofwat.

I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for continuing to raise the need for sufficient parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules. These rules will be central in driving improvements in the culture of water companies, which of course we all want to see. As such, it is right that we, as parliamentarians, do what we can to ensure the rules are robust, without compromising the regulatory independence of Ofwat. That is why I was pleased to receive Ofwat’s offer of a drop-in session, which would give noble Lords and MPs an opportunity to further understand and raise concerns on the rules before they are finalised. I therefore urge all members of the House to support Commons Amendment 2 and enable Ofwat to move forward with arrangements for that session.

To finish, I reiterate that the Government strongly agree with the need to ensure increased transparency and accessibility of water company data and ensure sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance. I believe that the approaches that I have outlined today demonstrate the commitment of government and Ofwat to effectively and comprehensively address the concerns raised by noble Lords on these topics. I therefore ask that all noble Lords support Commons Amendments 1 and 2 and, in conjunction, the non-legislative proposals put forward by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

Avian Influenza

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, avian flu is becoming a yearly occurrence. In the run-up to Christmas 2022, special measures had to be taken to ensure that the supply of turkeys was secured. Currently, free range chickens are kept in barns. What reassurances can the Minister provide that, following her department’s call for free range birds to be required to be kept indoors, their welfare will be protected in these confined conditions? What plans do the Government have to support farmers to train staff to prepare for future outbreaks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we recently brought in a statutory instrument in order that owners of poultry that are free range do not lose that designation while there is an outbreak going forward. Clearly, it is really important that farmers and poultry and egg producers have support during influenza outbreaks. We have compensation in, and we are looking at labelling changes; we do not want to put extra costs on to farmers and egg producers during an outbreak, and we are working very hard to ensure that that does not happen.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

The Minister and I knew each other for quite a while in the other place, although she has been at this end a lot longer than I have. Overall, I absolutely support the motive to increase recycling rates and have simpler recycling. As I said, I put a lot of my time and effort into making this happen. However, I encourage her to take back to the department that it should have steps looking ahead—to watch out, make some guidelines and be prepared to revisit this issue if necessary.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.

The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.

The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.

Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.

According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.

I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to

“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.

According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,

“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.

Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.

Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.

Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?

While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.

The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.

Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

It is important to small businesses and, because we are talking about companies that operate worldwide, both producers and retailers. How closely will our system meet that of the other countries that the Minister identified? I am aware that there are negotiations in other parts of Europe on some form of return system; it would clearly be better for all concerned if there is either a common or a virtually common system. That is particularly the case for Northern Ireland versus Eire, as many of the products will move from one side of the border to the other.

My concerns are about why glass is excluded, the international basis of the operation and its similarity with others, and small businesses that will carry a burden in one form or another. Given the experiences that I witnessed in my previous role for many years—I should add that I later went on to become head of the British Soft Drinks Association, and therefore saw operations not only from Coca-Cola’s side but for waters and fruit juices—it is important that this works across the whole country. I recognise and expect that the returns will operate much better in some places than in others.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument. It is vital to ensure that, as a country, we reduce our waste and engage the consumer fully in the process. As the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states, the power to introduce a DRS was enshrined in the Environment Act 2021, nearly four years ago, but the issue was being debated as early as 2019, with Defra running two public consultations. The first gave 84% support from those participating; the second, 83%, so why has it taken so long to get to this position? I do not wish to be impolite to the Minister, as she has been in post for only a short time, but it has to be said that there was a lot of pratting about by the previous Government. This is, of course, a technical term.

The scheme is to be run by a direct management organisation—a DMO—and this will take another two and a half years to get up and running, so will not start until October 2027. They say that Rome was not built in a day, but I despair at the leisurely timeframe. Meanwhile, the country is knee-deep in waste.

I welcome the application of civil penalties to drinks producers that do not comply, but it would make a big difference if civil penalties were applied to individual consumers who carelessly discard their drinks containers around the countryside. I am not convinced that the carrot of a returned deposit will alone change behaviour; there needs to be a stick element as well.

Despite a not-for-profit DMO being set up to administer the scheme, local authority trading standards departments will be involved in monitoring and enforcement, along with the Environment Agency. As the Minister knows, local authorities are underfunded, with social care swallowing their budgets at an alarming rate. Do the Government intend to produce additional funding for local authorities trading standards to carry out this not inconsiderable extra work?

Despite the Explanatory Memorandum referring to the instrument enacting the “polluter pays” principle from the Environment Act, I can hardly be excited about the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point, as 2021 has disappeared over the horizon. The first Defra consultation was in February 2019, six years ago. That first consultation response was published within four months. The next consultation in March 2021 was not published until January 2023, nearly 18 months after it closed. The responses showed that 83% of respondents were in favour of a DRS. Was Defra waiting for a 100% response before it acted?

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Lord is right when he says that the mounds of burning carcasses tormented our country. I do not think any of us who were around at the time will ever forget that. He asks about lessons learned. In addition to regularly exercising our disease response capabilities, lessons identified reviews are undertaken at the end of any outbreak in order to identify and evaluate where improvements to disease response capability processes and organisational structures for managing an outbreak of exotic notifiable disease can be made. This is something we always do.

Following both the 2001 and 2007 foot and mouth outbreaks, extensive inquiries and reviews were undertaken. That led to some critical changes coming in, including, for example, the introduction of a ban on swill feeding, standstill periods for cattle, sheep and goats of six days and 20 days for pigs, and improvements in livestock traceability. These were all implemented in response to the recommendations of those lessons identified reviews and they are critical in order to prevent infection—in the case of swill feeding bans, for example—because we need to minimise any implications of the disease coming to this country again.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the last time we had a countrywide outbreak of foot and mouth, it was devastating to both the farming community and the rural economy, as tourism-dependent businesses were badly hit. I commend the Government for their swift action to prevent German meat products entering the country. Biosecurity is vital for the protection of farmers and to maintain public health standards. A veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is essential. Do the Government have a timetable for signing such an agreement?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I cannot provide the noble Baroness with any specific dates on those agreements at present. All I can say to her at this stage is that it is very much a government priority and we are working closely with the EU to make progress as best we can.

Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2024. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing egg marketing standards to enable free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures, which restrict the access of laying hens to open-air runs.

Currently, when free-range hens are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the egg marketing regulations allow their eggs to continue to be labelled as free-range for 16 weeks only; this is known as the 16-week derogation period. If the mandatory housing measure lasts for longer than 16 weeks, eggs from those hens must be labelled and sold as barn eggs. The requirement for egg producers and packers to relabel free-range eggs as barn eggs once the 16-week derogation period is exceeded is difficult to implement in modern automated packhouses. This adds significant logistical and packing costs to the industry.

This SI aims to remove the 16-week derogation period so that free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. During mandatory housing measures, egg producers still have the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range egg system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that hens are also temporarily housed indoors. The normal laying period of a productive free-range laying hen in the UK is around 90 weeks. This SI will remove the derogation, which affects only a small part of a laying hen’s productive life, with all the other free-range criteria still needing to be met—except access to open-air runs.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes with the Scottish Government. Some 70% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. The removal of the 16-week derogation period has already come into force in Scotland. Following their own consultation exercise, the Welsh Government have also announced that they will introduce legislation to remove the derogation.

In 2023, the EU amended its egg marketing standards regulations to remove the 16-week derogation period, which, through the Windsor Framework, applies also to free-range eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Without this SI, the introduction of any mandatory housing measures that last longer than 16 weeks—during, for example, an avian influenza outbreak—could be detrimental for English free-range egg producers and result in an increase in free-range eggs being imported from the EU and Northern Ireland. This could have a significant negative long-term impact on the English free-range egg industry. This SI restores alignment with the EU and Northern Ireland.

It will also ensure that free-range egg producers and packers do not incur additional costs for adhering to government-imposed housing requirements. Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months—as was the case in 2021-22 and 2022-23, resulting in the introduction of housing measures for poultry that, in both cases, lasted longer than the 16-week labelling derogation period: for an additional six weeks in 2021-22, and for an additional seven weeks in 2022-23. So it is imperative that this SI is in place for the rest of the winter period and beyond.

We continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses. The change contained in this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British egg industry. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this fairly straightforward SI, which allows, during an outbreak of avian flu, for poultry that are normally free-range with access to open-air runs to be kept in barns for an additional period of time. The current derogation’s continuous limit of time during which birds can be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range is 16 weeks, as the Minister said. During the avian flu outbreak in 2021-22, the period was extended from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. During the 2022-23 outbreak, it was again extended—on this occasion, to 23 weeks.

The UK is 90% self-sufficient in egg production. As markets for eggs need to be strictly in alignment with the EU’s for the purposes of trade, it is important that UK regulations closely match those in operation in the EU. As 94% of UK egg exports go to the EU, it is important that our egg producers are not at a disadvantage during outbreaks of avian flu. Removing the 16-week derogation limit will ensure that UK producers have parity with the EU; I fully support this move.

However, as the UK seems to be affected by avian flu on a fairly regular basis during the winter months, I wonder whether there is likely to be a maximum number of weeks when birds need to be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range. Six or seven weeks is a short period by which to extend the derogation but the effect of increasing the derogation, as happened in 2022 and 2023, meant that it was for nearly 50% of the year. Can the Minister give reassurance that this derogation will not be extended any further? I note that she said that the Government will extend it for “however long” is necessary. It is difficult to see how the consumer is likely to be persuaded that eggs that have been barn raised for30 weeks of the year, say, can still be labelled as free-range. As we all know, free-range eggs attract a premium on the price the consumer pays.

I turn briefly to the subject of the consultation that took place between 9 January and 5 March 2024. Eighty egg producers, 20 egg packers and 49 members of the public responded. The response from the public is amazingly small, which raises questions. How was the consultation conducted? Where was it advertised? Given that consumers are very exercised about the conditions in which poultry are kept, and that many choose free-range eggs over barn eggs because they believe the birds have a better quality of life in the open air, I am surprised that more did not respond to the consultation. Perhaps the Minister can give details of how engagement with the public on the consultation was conducted.

Despite that query and concern about the derogation limit being extended to beyond 50% of the year, I support the SI but feel that avian flu is not going away, and egg producers need a way of dealing with the effects that it has on their business, as well as consumers needing reassurance that they are getting what they pay for in buying free-range eggs.

Water Bills

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some extremely important points. Citizens Advice does an important service in supporting vulnerable people. Water companies should work with all charities, such as Citizens Advice, in order to support vulnerable consumers. It is important that we simplify the processes so that customers who need extra assistance can get it. Citizens Advice is an important part of that and helps customers get advice on benefits and managing debt, particularly customers who have not been in financial difficulty before. My noble friend makes some very good points.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the expected rise in water bills to ensure future investment in infrastructure, so deliberately disregarded in the past by water companies, will fall heavily upon small businesses that use water and farmers, for whom water is essential for rearing livestock and growing crops. Is the Minister talking to her Treasury colleagues about how to help this vital element of our economy with this burden, which will affect small businesses’ and farmers’ profitability?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that Defra is regularly in contact with the Treasury about all issues such as this, particularly about how to support people going forward. Many of the challenges farmers in particular face—my colleague is at the Oxford Farming Conference today talking to farmers—are to do with long-term security and the ability to bring in long-term investment. Water affordability is an important part of that.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, we are keen to encourage all small poultry keepers to register. The system is now working well—I have actually done it myself, because I am a small poultry keeper—so I absolutely encourage anyone to do it. It is very simple: it probably took me about a minute and a half. It is very straightforward so, if you have not registered, please do.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, although this outbreak is very small, the noble Baroness will remember that, in the previous serious outbreak in the run-up to Christmas, uninfected turkeys were slaughtered early and kept in large chiller facilities until needed for Christmas. Should this outbreak get more serious, are there plans to repeat that process?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, 85% of turkeys that are expected for the Christmas dinner table have already been slaughtered and are available either fresh or frozen, so I do not see that that will be an issue for this year.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on and thank her for bringing forward these regulations, which I wholeheartedly support; I also thank her for her clear exposition of what they contain. I have a couple of questions.

The Minister set out the responsibilities, particularly around informing households of what they are required to do. I understand that a lot of the waste that is contaminated cannot be effectively disposed of and recycled. Does the Minister know what percentage of household waste that constitutes, including whether it has gone up or down in, say, the last five or 10 years?

I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Green Alliance for the joint briefing that they have produced for our use. I am also grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which gave a very helpful background.

My understanding is that the regulations relate only to recycling. I wonder why the department has focused on recycling and not reuse. I have asked on a number of occasions both the Minister and her noble friend the Minister for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what the Government’s policy on energy from waste is. It is a good way of using household waste that has been contaminated and cannot be reused. It also prevents it going to landfill, which I understand is where most of the waste that is not recycled will go. So it not only reduces household waste and disposes of it in an energy-efficient way; it also provides an energy stream that other countries in Europe use to great effect. My late aunt and uncle in Denmark had their household heating provided by energy from waste at a reduced rate, so there was a community interest in taking it up. I have not heard anything from the Government—either this department or the department for energy—as to their views on energy from waste.

The Minister referred to kerbside collections, the cost of which is obviously quite high. I have now lost the page but one of the figures relates to the substantial cost of kerbside collections. Is it the idea that household collections will be performed by local councils, which will be reimbursed under the regulations by the funds raised? I think that the Minister alluded to this; that would seem very sensible indeed.

With those few remarks and questions, I commend the regulations, but I am interested to know how much will go to landfill; why the Government have not looked at reuse; what the percentages are for contaminated materials that cannot be recycled; and what the Government’s views are on any residual household waste going to energy from waste plants.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extensive introduction to this long-awaited SI. This is a complex issue; it has taken Defra and the Government since 2019 to bring it to this stage. I congratulate both of them on managing to get the devolved Administrations to sign up to more or less the same scheme, which should make things easier. I have received briefings from various producers and had face-to-face meetings for several years, and I was beginning to think that we would never get here. I am grateful to those who provided me this week with briefing material, as well as to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report.

The opening section of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to implementing the “polluter pays” principle. That is to be welcomed. This is an opportunity to use the extensive powers in the Environment Act 2021 in order to implement the best environmental outcomes and to support the efficacy of reuseable packaging systems.

This SI obliges producers to provide evidence of the type of their recycling to the regulator. However, there is no information on how this is to happen, except that those manufacturers with a turnover of more than £2 million and which produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging will do this once a year. These producers will pay the fees to local authorities. Those with a smaller turnover of more than £1 million will have to report their recycling type but will not have to pay fees. There is nothing about how the information is to be collected by the manufacturer and what the format is for it to be reported.

I regret to say that this is something of a “get out of jail free” card. Defra and the Government are placing a great deal of trust in those who will pay the fee to provide the evidence of their recycling. The regulations include the principle, at Regulation 62(2)(b), that producers can offset fees for packaging that they market, as well as where they collect and recycle that packaging through self-funded initiatives.

There is a risk that producers could claim they have collected and recycled packaging when this is not the case. Research shows that 70% of soft plastic packaging waste collected by supermarkets for recycling was, in fact, incinerated. Can the Minister say why is there no standardisation of how evidence of recycling is to be provided?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to say that it has been a great privilege to be responsible for the passage of the Bill through this House. I thank all noble Lords for their careful scrutiny of its provisions and the constructive suggestions and contributions made at each stage. While we may not have ended up agreeing on everything, I know we agree on the importance of the Bill and the need to drive meaningful improvement in the performance of the water industry as an urgent priority.

The public expect and deserve transformative change across the water sector, and the Bill is a crucial first step towards meaningful reform. The new provisions brought forward by the Bill will strengthen the regulation of water and sewerage companies while giving our regulators the most significant increase in enforcement powers in a decade.

The Bill will ensure that water company executives are held to high standards, reflecting the importance of their role in overseeing the operation of vital water and sewerage services. Crucially, the Bill will increase transparency around water company operations and pollution incidents, ensuring that the public, as well as the regulators, are well equipped to hold water companies to account.

With the passage of the Bill in this House, we have made inroads into turning around the performance of the water industry, and made clear our expectations for water companies in advance of the most ambitious investment period that the water industry has seen.

This Government are committed to working closely with counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address the shared challenges facing our water environment. Our waterways and some of our water companies cross our shared borders, so the importance of working together to improve the water environment cannot be underestimated.

Of particular relevance to the Bill are the challenges faced across the privatised water sector in England and Wales. In line with this, my officials have worked constructively with Welsh counterparts throughout the passage of the Bill through this House, so I am also delighted that the UK Government and Welsh Government have together launched the independent commission to fundamentally transform how our water system works. The independent commission will provide the lasting change that England and Wales need to deliver much-needed reforms in the water sector, which I know all Members of this House are eager to see. We look forward to continued and long-term collaboration with the Welsh Government on the Bill and the independent commission.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have offered their expertise to enhance and strengthen the Bill in this House. The discussions have been truly collaborative. The Government carefully considered the important points raised during the Bill’s passage and, in consequence, tabled the amendments that we discussed on Report. I believe that the provisions of the Bill leave this House even stronger as a result.

Many of the wider points raised by noble Lords will be addressed by the independent commission, which, as we have discussed, will review the entire water sector regulatory system. I look forward to further collaboration with noble Lords during the course of the independent commission, and on future legislation, as we continue to work towards the shared goal of restoring and protecting our precious water environment.

Just before I finish, I record my special thanks to officials, particularly the wonderful Bill team, who worked so hard and gave me exemplary support throughout the passage of the Bill in this House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Russell, Lady Parminter and Lady Pinnock for standing in for me when I was off with Covid. I am very grateful to them.

The Bill is essential, and it was essential that it began its journey in this Chamber. It is only one piece of the jigsaw that the Government will bring forward to deal with the problems of the water industry, but it is a vital one.

I thank the Minister and her officials for their time in listening to those of us across the Chamber who were concerned about some aspects of the Bill. She was extremely patient and receptive to the arguments we put forward, and we are grateful for the movement that the Government were able to make on the pollution incident reduction plans and the performance-related pay issues. Ofwat has been strengthened by measures in the Bill and it is to be hoped that, overall, the discharges of sewage will reduce quickly and the quality of water in our streams, rivers and lakes will improve as a consequence.

It is now up to the other place to take on the Bill, which has been much improved by the debates and changes made in this Chamber. For our part, we welcome the review of the water industry as a whole and look forward to seeing how the Bill will fit into the overall picture. It has been a pleasure to work with the Minister and her Bill team on this essential piece of legislation.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the core objectives of the Bill were, of course, supported by all sides of your Lordships’ House. The water and sewerage industry has betrayed consumers, and the regulators have consistently failed to bring these companies to book for many years. It is not so much to ask that we should all be able to enjoy clean and healthy rivers, lakes and beaches. On our Benches, we proposed tough action on the companies and executives responsible, and we are pleased that the Bill now places greater responsibility on the industry to clean itself up, while granting greater powers to regulators to enforce those rules.

This Bill is only a short-term move to impose special measures on the industry while we await the results of the commission, which will report next year. Special measures are, by definition, temporary, and the Government must bring forward the next stage of reform urgently. We look forward to reading and debating those reports and engaging fully with the Government to ensure that the right medium to longer-term reforms are put in place to ensure that all stakeholders’ interests are properly recognised and balanced.

I am most grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns of the House in constructive engagements in this Chamber and in private meetings with her and her excellent officials. Those engagements were always courteous and helpful in airing the issues around each topic of discussion or debate. The best traditions of the House may be frequently mentioned, but this is a very good example, and, in this case, the Bill is much improved as a result.

The House owes thanks to the Minister for the excellent amendments that the Government brought forward. In particular, the pollution incident reporting plans now have teeth and will be a valuable tool in pushing the industry to do better. I also highlight amendments that place much more weight on using nature-based solutions as an alternative to more traditional investment in infrastructure. These amendments will have a measurable impact on nature recovery efforts in this country.

Although this House amended the Bill to improve accountability on debt levels and financial structuring, thanks in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well as on the accountability of the Government on the rules being set, it was a little disappointing that the Government would not accept our amendments to protect the consumer in the event of an SAO, nor to enable the Secretary of State to limit water companies’ debt levels when necessary.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords from all Benches of this House who engaged in debates on the Bill and with whom I had many constructive discussions.