Independent Water Commission

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Blencathra

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team on this thoroughly detailed review of the water industry. There are many of his 88 recommendations we support, including the replacement of Ofwat.

In the other place and on the airwaves last weekend, the Secretary of State for Defra tried to demonise the last Government for lack of progress on water improvement. Will the noble Baroness the Minister acknowledge that £93 billion of the £104 billion the Government boast they have raised was raised by the last Government and that the target to cut 50% of sewage discharges is less than the target of cutting phosphates by 80% set by my noble friend Lady Coffey in the last Government? The Government are able to set meaningful targets now only because the last Conservative Government increased monitoring of storm overflows from 7% under Labour to 100% in 2023.

We welcome the new regulator. Does the Minister agree that it should be independent of the water industry but completely answerable to the Secretary of State and, through that, to Parliament, so we get proper parliamentary scrutiny for the first time?

I note there is a recommendation for metering for all and for a social tariff system. While metering and paying for usage is a legitimate aim which would benefit low water users, a social tariff system is just a euphemism or another term for a tax based on income or wealth. Does she accept that turning water charges into a tax to make some people pay more, such as retired pensioners, even if they use little water, is regressive and unacceptable?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for making time for the repeat of this Statement. I also thank my noble friend Lady Grender for having another critical engagement at this time, thus allowing me to speak on the subject which had become routine for me over the preceding years. The noble Baroness the Minister and I have made many contributions on this subject in the years running up to the general election, both of us vehement about the lack of control Ofwat was exercising.

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report is lengthy, robust and to be welcomed. We look forward to knowing exactly how many of his recommendations the Government will take forward.

Since 2022, Liberal Democrats have called for the abolition of Ofwat. It is an organisation that is completely out of its depth. It had no real way of dealing with water companies, which seemed to have forgotten that their real remit was to provide a plentiful supply of clean water and dispose of sewage in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Although some water companies were fined by Ofwat, their sanctions bore no relationship to the number of bonuses and dividends that the executives and shareholders received for doing an abysmal job.

Like others, I welcomed the Government’s ban on bonuses for water company executives who oversaw sewage discharges. However, at least one chief executive and his colleagues got round this by receiving a 100% increase in their pay by way of compensation for the absence of a bonus. It is ordinary water users and taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this, just as they have to contribute to the bill for the increases which will be needed to repair the creaking and dilapidated sewerage system and to build new reservoirs.

The Government have stated that they will cut water companies’ sewage pollution by half by the end of the decade. This is to be welcomed, but how exactly will this be achieved? Bringing the oversight of the water industry under a single regulator which has the means to ensure high standards is essential, but I have some concerns. Previously, we have seen a rotation of officers from the water companies into Ofwat and from Ofwat into the water companies—a merry-go-round of incompetence. Is the Minister able to give the House reassurance that no existing or previous officer of Ofwat or any of the failing water companies will have a role in the new regulator once established? It is essential that the incompetent are not rewarded with having a role in the new regulator. A fresh start has to be just that, and not tainted with previous failure.

We look forward to the interim strategy policy statement giving directions to Ofwat and the Environment Agency on how to move forwards towards the transition plan. The Environment Agency is not without involvement in the sewage discharge debacle. While the EA has been underfunded over recent years, and with ever more responsibilities thrust upon it, a radical rethink of the way it operates has to be part of the solution going forward.

Since Liberal Democrats have been raising the issue of sewage spills in this Chamber and the other place, the EA has found that last year alone, there was a 60% increase in serious pollution incidents. We are at the start of the school summer holidays. Children and their families will be going to beaches and rivers to enjoy relaxation and at least a paddle, as well as swimming to cool down in the heat—which we hope will return.

So many of these children will be in water that is polluted with raw sewage spills, discoloured and stinking. Certainly, I would not want my grandchildren to swim in such waters. Families should be able to take their children for a day out at the beach without having to worry about whether the water is contaminated. The sooner the Government can bring the water companies to book, the better. The lackadaisical approach to sewage discharges has to stop, and quickly.

Last year, water companies breached their permits more than 3,100 times, at the same time as paying out a total of £9.3 million in executive bonuses. No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health; no English river is in good chemical health; and just 14% of English rivers are in good ecological health. This is a far cry from my childhood, when the babbling brook ran with clear, transparent water and I could see the minnows swimming along, trying to escape my small fishing net. I am confident that the Minister is as concerned about these issues as the rest of us.

What is needed is: more access for communities and citizens to hold water companies to account, including representation on water company boards; improvements in how pollution is measured and strict targets set, using volume flow meters and penalties for missing targets; an urgent implementation of a social tariff on water bills to help eliminate water poverty; and legally binding targets on the quantity and quality of bathing waters and sensitive nature sites, with independent and transparent testing of water quality. Local authorities, although already overstretched, should have strengthened powers to monitor the health of our rivers, lakes and coastlines in order to restore our natural environment and help tackle climate change.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on this vital issue, which affects every single water user in the country.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Blencathra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Blencathra

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.