Water Companies: Customer Bills
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Duke for his continued interest in this issue. Undoubtedly, we could resolve the situation by spending somewhere between £120 billion and £600 billion separating clean water from dirty water, retrofitting an entirely new sewerage system and creating additional storage equivalent to 40,000 Olympic swimming pools, but that would add between £271 and £817 per annum to bills. It is important that we are honest with customers—with the people who get water into, and have sewage taken out of, their homes every day—that this comes at a price. Some of the promises being made that this is a simple solution are entirely fallacious. We have to be honest with the people who pay these bills.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, for the past 30 years, we customers have paid the water companies all the money they needed to do their job properly. Their statutory duty was to build, operate and maintain sewerage systems capable of effectively dealing with the contents of sewers. We have paid the money for them to do that; the fact that they are not doing it means that we are surely owed a refund, rather than paying more bills.
Lord Benyon (Con)
First, the noble Baroness suggests that there was no sewage going into rivers before water companies came along. Underinvestment when they were nationalised businesses was at historic levels, and our bathing waters were much worse than they are today. I am not saying for a moment that there are not serious problems. This Government are—if I can steal a soundbite—tough on sewage in rivers and tough on the causes of sewage in rivers. We want to be absolutely clear that everything that happens comes at a price. We want companies to be able to pay out dividends, because that is what encourages investment in our water sector. It is about getting that balance right.
Horticultural Peat
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
In our environmental improvement plan we have set clear targets for the restoration of peat, both in uplands and lowlands. With lowland peat this involves re-wetting and assisting those growers to farm in a different way on wetter peatlands using cover crops. In uplands we have a demanding target of restoring moorland peat in a way that reflects the fact that it locks up an enormous tonnage of carbon every year. I do not know of any other country that is doing more to protect its peatlands.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, something that really annoys me about this Government—
Noble Lords
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
All right, one of the things that really annoys me about this Government is that they are not coherent or joined-up in their thinking. The Government have just allocated £20 billion to develop carbon capture and storage, and at the same time they are allowing CO2 to be released from peat, which is one of nature’s own carbon sequestration systems. Why are the Government not more joined-up in their thinking and why can they not see that they are encouraging damage to the climate?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness has made the point that I am about to make rather better than I will, and that is that we need to do all of these things. We need carbon capture and storage, because that will be a big part of dealing with our greenhouse gas emissions and protecting our environment, including our peatlands. I am sorry that this Government annoy her; I live for the moment when she and her Green Party colleague stand up and congratulate the Government on having serious targets for protecting our peatland and addressing climate change in a way that no other country is.
Oil Spill: Poole Harbour
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, there is likely to be a lot of damage to marine ecosystems in Poole harbour and outside. What remedial action are the Government undertaking or perhaps recommending be undertaken?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Poole harbour is a large expanse of water and this is a significant spill. Booms have been put out, but they will not contain all the pollutant. Other measures have been put in place and the Environment Agency is overseeing the recovery. Repair works will be conducted close to the salt marshes, mud flats and reed beds which are used by a variety of residents and overwintering birds. As the noble Baroness will know, Poole harbour is home to a native population of spiny seahorse, short-snouted seahorse and other rare species, and there is also a mussel fishery and an oyster fishery. We will make sure, working with the Food Standards Agency, that they are safe to eat. We are advising local people to continue to use the beaches but at this stage not to swim there, and we are monitoring the situation. The Environment Agency is in charge of all outreach to local people, and is making sure that we are communicating to them what we are doing by way of recovery and to limit the effects of the spill.
Lindisfarne Highly Protected Marine Conservation Area
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord’s knowledge of this area is, of course, understood, and he is absolutely right. This was a meaningful consultation that sought the views of people from all sectors that affected the area, and it was deemed not right to take it forward as a highly protected marine area. It is, of course, a marine conservation zone. It has at least 850 species and a very valuable benthic population of seagrass in certain parts, and it is an extraordinary neighbourhood for tourists as well as people who exploit it in a sustainable way. We are now progressing designating other sites and making sure that we continue to listen to local people as well as conservationists, and that we get this right.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was going to stand up today and congratulate the Government for actually doing something right for once. They were going to establish five of these highly protected marine areas. Do I understand that they have dropped two plus Lindisfarne, including Farnes Deep? What exactly is happening, and why are the Government so lackadaisical about something so important?
Lord Benyon (Con)
When Michael Gove was the Secretary of State, he asked me to chair a panel of scientists and others to look at whether we should have highly protected marine areas as part of our suite of marine protections. The conclusion of the embarrassingly named Benyon review was that we should, and that it was vital to do this—but we had to do it in the right way. We recommended that five pilot sites be created, and that we should consult and learn from the lessons of not only this but the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Access Act about a decade ago, when we came across the same problem with what were then called reference areas. We will now take forward at least two further sites as part of the pilot project, so the noble Baroness will be reassured that we will have at least five pilot sites, and then we will continue to grow this. I could extol the virtues of highly protected marine areas exhaustively, but I cannot in the time allowed to me in this Question.
Water Companies: Pollution Penalties
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
It certainly will look at that, and there is the option of a criminal sanction if the matter can be proved before the courts.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
This has been going on for some time now, and we are at the point where ecosystems have been destroyed that are irrecoverable—we cannot get them back. This is the fault of the Government because of their slowness and inactivity on this issue. I am sure that the Minister knows that over the past year, the water industry has paid out £72 billion to shareholders. How can that be right when it is responsible for so much destruction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The water companies have paid out dividends on profits of about 3.8%, which, compared with other industries, is not immense, but we want to make sure that they do not pay out in either reward to senior executives or in dividends to shareholders where they are underperforming. That is why we have a regulated system that does that. Coupled with the determination of the Government through our requirement of more investment and the measures we are bringing in through the Environment Act and other environmental legislation, we will see an improved environment. There is much to applaud; for example, the fact that 94% of our bathing waters are either good or excellent, which is considerably more than it was in 2000.
Agricultural Transition Plan
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
Absolutely. Regarding Holy Island, as he knows, we are holding a consultation, which is causing great concern. I have had letters from a variety of people, including the Archbishop of York, on this matter. I know it is causing serious stress to individuals, and we want to resolve it as soon as possible; that is the point of a meaningful consultation. The people managing that fishery need to know that we are listening to them. We will make an announcement very soon, which I hope will set their minds at rest.
The noble Lord and my noble friend also asked about support for that fishing industry. We want to see more biomass in the sea, so fishermen in the north-east of England feel that they can have a sustainable stock of fish to exploit in years to come. Everything we are doing is about driving towards sustainability. The greatest friends of protected marine areas should be fishermen. As we saw in a report I wrote for the Government before I took this position, in other parts of the world the greatest supporters of marine protection are fishermen. Outside those areas, they see biomass moving into an area, which they can then exploit. We want to see a good future for fishermen all around our coasts.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely accept the point that the noble Baroness makes, and her passion for that area is well known. In doing his survey, the Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Henderson, pulled together 12 leading experts in their field. They are listed in the report, and they have looked at this in the way scientists do. It is sometimes frustrating that you cannot ever get a clear, black-and-white answer to a scientific question, and sometimes there are mysteries, but I hope that this is not one of the mysteries that will always elude us. However, when talking to the scientists and really pushing them to find out whether we gave them the right remit, all the answers I received satisfied me that Professor Henderson, who is a deeply respected public servant and scientist, pulled together the most effective group possible, and they have produced a report that indicates what is very unlikely to be the cause.
Two types of dredging have gone on in that area. One is maintenance dredging, whereby very small amounts of the depths of sediment are removed. We tested that sediment before it was put in a licensed part of the sea, and the levels of pyridine were absolutely inconsequential in terms of its ability to cause the crab deaths. The other one is capital dredging for the new port, and the dates for that are interesting. In December 2020 capital dredging took place, but not actually on the freeport; the deaths occurred in October 2021, some months afterwards; and in September 2022 there was capital dredging in the freeport, after which there were no deaths. The fact that, largely, only crabs have been washed up is really extraordinary, so we want to ensure that we keep an open mind. I absolutely give the noble Baroness the assurance that we are also willing to look at other—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have two questions about the agricultural transition. First, the Minister is very enthusiastic about the number of farmers who would take it up. Does he have any estimate or is that too difficult to find? Secondly, what happens about monitoring practices of farmers who do not sign up? Is there a process for that?
On the crabs, Gary Caldwell, a senior lecturer in applied marine biology at Newcastle University—so, a well-respected expert—says that there is no direct evidence for disease among the crabs, and that very high levels of pyridine were found in the crab carcasses. The next stage of dredging will move a million cubic metres of riverbed seven miles out to sea. The noble Baroness asking the previous question asked whether there will be very careful monitoring of that so that we do not have a repeat occurrence.
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the farmer situation, about 2,200 have entered the sustainable farming incentive to date. That is not particularly surprising, because the amount of money that was available was between £22 and £60 a hectare, and now there will be considerably more. There will be farmers who will not join the scheme because they can farm profitability without support, or for whatever reason. We monitor or collect data from farms right across the country. It is vital that we do, so that we know what crops are being planted and where. It will feed a very important piece of strategic work that I am sure the noble Baroness will support: the land use framework, which is coming forward.
The noble Baroness referred to Dr Gary Caldwell. Professor Henderson has been in touch with him on a number of occasions. There was a rumour that he had somehow been excluded. There is a paper trail of emails between Professor Henderson and Dr Caldwell. I can only rely on the evidence we have seen, in the report from the 12 eminent scientists, that indicated that the levels of pyridine were “very unlikely” to be responsible—we have to be very precise in our language here. We will keep our minds open and make sure that developments in that area address the points the noble Baroness makes.
Pollution: Rivers and Beaches
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is highly regrettable. I am not aware of that case but no doubt the noble Duke will make me aware of it. One of our targets is about bathing waters, and the classification figures for 2022 were that 72.1% of them were in excellent condition, 20.8% good, 4.3% insufficient and 2.9% poor. Either there is a discrepancy in the information individuals hold on where they can swim, or a discrepancy in the statistics the Government are receiving from very eminent sources. However, I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Duke.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister knows that as of last Saturday, 28 January, Thames Water’s sewage overflow at Stratfield Mortimer had been dumping sewage non-stop for a total of 944 hours and 15 minutes—that is, dumping sewage continuously since 19 December last year. Does the Minister agree that, since Thames Water’s national television advertising must be costing quite a lot of money, that money would be better spent on renewing its sewage outflow pipes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Stratfield Mortimer is well known to me and others in this Chamber. That is an appalling statistic, and it is why the Government have brought in strict measures that no other Government have ever brought in before. Through our regulator, Ofwat, we are requiring water companies to address this problem. We are requiring them to spend £56 billion of capex on improvements, and we are taking other measures, including enforcement. We have increased money to the Environment Agency and increased the number of inspectors, recognising that it is not just water companies; there are problems that come from farming and from poor connections. There are also a host of different other measures. That is why we are looking at water quality in our rivers holistically and are determined to see the improvements that the public desire.
Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief, but I must first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and, more particularly for this debate, as a co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London.
In 2019, I introduced the Emissions Reduction (Local Authorities in London) Bill to grant local authorities greater powers to reduce emissions in their areas. The Bill was supported by the City of London and all the London boroughs but, unfortunately and inevitably, it made little progress beyond this House. Subsequently, although the provisions of the Bill received cross-party support as amendments to the then Environment Bill, they did not make it into the final Act.
Fine particulate matter is the pollutant most damaging to human health. It is a dangerous carcinogen that penetrates deep into our lungs and bloodstream. The two air quality targets set out in the draft regulations which we are debating today are an opportunity to make a significant impact on the level of PM2.5 in ambient air. Many emissions are from non-road sources, collectively referred to as “combustion plant”. Relatively little public attention is paid to that but tackling those emissions will be crucial to reducing PM2.5 levels.
During the Covid-19 lockdown, the City of London saw a 40% decline in levels of nitrogen dioxide compared with 2019 but levels of PM2.5 remained roughly the same despite the significant fall in transport activity. To achieve a meaningful reduction in PM2.5 levels we need to address non-road emissions. One way of doing this would be to empower local authorities to place limits on the use of highly polluting plant in their area.
The proposed fine particulate matter annual mean concentration target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is the right approach. There is consensus among many air quality experts that a 2030 target is achievable and proportionate. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants published a statement in January 2022 in strong support of a reduction in PM2.5 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre, with 10 micrograms per cubic metre as an interim target.
The Clean Air Fund’s 2022 report, The Pathway to Healthy Air in the UK, concluded that by 2030 most of the UK will comply with 10 micrograms per cubic metre if policies already planned are implemented. It goes on to state that the achievement of 10 micrograms by 2030 can be done at virtually no additional cost. The report details various positive health impacts of achieving the target by 2030. I noted the Minister’s concern for the effect on business. He may be interested to know that the City of London, which has some interest in business, has already adopted the target date of 2030.
These impacts we are talking about include 98,000 life years gained, 3,600 fewer respiratory hospital admissions per year and a reduction in the number of symptom days in asthmatic children of 388,000 per year. In these circumstances, will the Minister at the very least consider bringing forward the implementation date to 2030? If he will not, in his reply will he state clearly why the Government are so determined to set so unambitious a target?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, because I thought her analysis of this statutory instrument was excruciatingly thorough and coruscating, quite honestly. It was possibly her finest hour, but I am sure she is going to have many more.
I would have liked to have stopped the Minister several times during his opening remarks because, quite honestly, I would have liked to refute things or challenge them because they were so off-beam at times with some of the language he used. He said things such as “What would we want to snuff out?” I can give him a list and explain very clearly how we could achieve much tougher targets.
These targets make exactly the same mistakes as the targets on water that we argued over last week, which is that they are too little, too late. The Government have had the opportunity to show the public that they care about the quality of our water and air. They say they want to improve human health and reduce environmental pollution and that there is some urgency to their actions but that is absolute nonsense. I have seen no ambition in these proposed targets to reduce the thousands of premature deaths due to air pollution that this country suffers from.
The Minister said that we would restrict freedoms. What about the freedom to breathe clean air and not be ill from breathing the air in our urban spaces? That is absolutely a human right and something we could deal with. The Minister talks about restrictions but what we can do is make it easier for people to do the right thing. We can make it easy for them not to use their cars by giving them decent public transport. This is something that the Government do not seem to be able to tie up at all. They cannot see any relationship between a carrot and a stick. I know that Ken Livingstone is not held in the highest esteem any more but he really understood that and when he brought in the congestion charge, he massively improved public transport. It made a huge difference to travel patterns in London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said she was looking for ambition. She has certainly failed to find any ambition in these targets. It is totally unacceptable that the Government are proposing to delay compliance with the World Health Organization’s air quality guideline for fine particulate matter. Of course it is a complex problem but, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, not only road traffic but plant is responsible. We could insulate buildings, which would mean that people used less energy, for example, and therefore polluted less.
A target was published in 2005 that this country will not now hit until 2040. That is appalling, isn’t it? It is the same as with the sewage targets: putting everything back a couple of decades means that most of us will not live to see a country where we have clean air and clean water. I have no problem making sacrifices for the next generation—I do so on a daily basis—but I prefer to make sacrifices that deliver improvements while I am alive, if possible. And I am saying that it is possible, but this Government choose not to do it.
The World Health Organization has halved its guideline for PM2.5 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre. That happened over a year ago. So not only are we delaying targets; the targets we are using are already out of date. The science has moved on but this Government and this country have not.
I have a few questions. I realise that they will not be answered today but I would like them answered. I am happy to write to the Minister, but I will now read them into the record. First, are the Government taking literally the wording of Section 4(2) of the Environment Act 2021:
“Before making regulations under sections 1 to 3 which set or amend a target the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the target, or amended target, can be met”?
Doing so would mean the Government not protecting anyone until the last person in the entire country was protected from air pollution standards set in 2005. I would like clarity on that.
Secondly, what computer modelling can the Government possibly be using that shows that the UK cannot or will not achieve the WHO’s old air quality guideline until 2040? That modelling has to be out of date; it cannot possibly be anything that any of us on this side of the Chamber could have come up with.
Thirdly, are the Government aware that official modelling done for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol shows that less than 5% of the UK population would be exposed to more than 6 micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5 by 2030, and only 8,000 people above 7 micrograms per cubic metre? That is the baseline case.
Fourthly, are the Government aware—actually, I think the Minister did mention this—that the European Commission is proposing to comply with the old air quality guideline for PM2.5 by 2030, 10 years earlier than this Government, and that it is proposing to halve the current level for nitrogen dioxide by the same date? Where is our Brexit dividend? People will say, “I voted for Brexit. I want my dividend. Where is it in this SI?”
Instead of this nonsense and all the flannel we keep being given about targets, I ask the Government to support Ella’s Law—my Bill that would make clean air a human right. It is in the other place at the moment, and I suggest that all noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber lobby their friends and family to sign up to the Bill and say, “This is what would actually fix the problem we are facing.”
These targets will not fix the problem. People will suffer and die, and the Government will never hear the end of it while we few are on this side of the House.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, it is unusual, I suggest, in public policy to find an area where the case for faster action is as barn-door obvious as it is in this instance. We have a set of impacts with strongly negative consequences. We have a set of practical actions that would enable us to do something about that, and the benefits of so doing would be rapid—in some cases, almost immediate. That is not my judgment but that of Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer, whose 2022 annual report—published just before Christmas and which, unfortunately, did not get the scrutiny and focus it deserved—concentrates on air pollution.
Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the target of 70% for the protection of marine protected areas by 2042. Given that the figure at the moment is 44%, 70% is a strong target. For us, the issue with this particular statutory instrument is the monitoring and how we will be clear that we are achieving these targets.
The original consultation said that protection would be monitored by additional reporting on the changes in individual feature conditions. That was then removed from the final targets that we have before us. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked about this and got a bit of a non-answer from the Minister as to why there was this change and the removal of the monitoring of the individual sites. However, I was very grateful that, at the Minister’s meeting with me and colleagues last week, the Bill team were very clear that individual monitoring had been removed because of cost. Ship-based monitoring is clearly a very costly matter. Therefore, the targets today will be monitored by checking the pressures and vulnerabilities of the marine protected areas in general, so there will not be on-ship monitoring.
That is a disappointment, first, because when the OEP last week reviewed how the Government have been doing on achieving their 25-year environment plan, there were a number of areas where the OEP could not assess the level of success because the monitoring was not strong enough. In this area, we are again at risk that the monitoring being set in place to see whether the targets will be met will not, because of the cost, be sufficient to see whether the laudable target will be met. The Minister will be aware of this concern. The EIP to be published at the end of the month is proposing to set interim targets for meeting all the environmental targets that are set. Can the Minister say whether there will be a review of whether the monitoring arrangements for marine protected areas will be sufficient to see whether the targets can be met? Targets without effective monitoring are frankly meaningless.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I apologise for being two minutes 34 seconds late. I was following the Whips’ Today’s Lists, which said 4.15 pm, so thank goodness I came early. Anyway, my apologies for being late.
Reading these targets, I believe that nobody in the Government understands the ocean. It is crucial to our well-being, and these targets are utterly insufficient. The report published last year by the APPG on the Ocean, which I recommend to the Minister and his colleagues, gave excellent advice. The chair of the APPG is a Conservative. It is a good report with masses of recommendations that the Government could take. I hope that the Minister has perhaps already read it and that his team have absorbed it—that would be wonderful—but, looking at these targets, I rather think they have not.
If this Government are going to refuse to stop or even slow down our use of fossil fuels, the ocean and the marine protected areas are crucial because, as we all know, they are a carbon sink that we cannot do without. It is always fine to talk about techno fixes, but let us face it: they do not yet exist. They are wonderful, and it will be great when they happen, but they are, at the moment, science fiction. All marine ecosystems are valuable. For example, seagrass is a wonderful gobbler-up of carbon, but we have depleted our areas of seagrass because of pollution and all sorts of other factors. However, our Link briefing points out that there is no central driver towards such marine habitats and there is insufficient monitoring. This goes against the joint fisheries statement and the marine spatial prioritisation programme, both of which talk about protecting and restoring habitats that store blue carbon. They include seagrasses, mangroves, salt marshes and even algae and macroalgae.
I thank Claire Evans of the National Oceanography Centre, who helpfully pointed out that there is a legislative target that is not being met. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UK failed to reach its target of restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. It was adopted by the UK as part of target 2 of the EU’s biodiversity strategy, and the lack of progress is most pronounced in the marine and costal environment, where habitat degradation continues and restoration remains in its relative infancy. I recommend that the Government not only look at this report from the APPG for the Ocean but talk to the scientists, because they can probably direct the Government in the best way to do exactly what the Government say they want to do.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
It has already been noted that marine protected areas provide a practical and significant contribution to the recovery and conservation of marine species and habitats. As has been pointed out, it is important to protect and conserve the marine environment and safeguard our natural heritage for future generations to enjoy.
When MPAs are designed as a network and supported by wider environment management measures, they promote the recovery and conservation of ecosystem structure and function. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has published its thoughts on the Government’s various latest targets. It noted that it is
“not convinced by the Department’s explanation of the delay”.
Further, it expressed its
“regret that the original Explanatory Memoranda … did not mention or explain Defra’s failure to meet the deadline.”
It also pointed to an emerging pattern of delay from Defra, noting in paragraph 29 that
“the Environmental Principles Policy Statement, which was laid before Parliament for scrutiny in draft form in May 2021, still has not been laid in its final form.”
This pattern of delay was the subject of a Question asked by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on our first day back after the Christmas Recess.
The target for at least 70% of protected features in marine protected areas to be “in favourable condition” by 2042 is welcome. However, as has already been noted, the updated proposals for monitoring progress towards meeting this target fall short, focusing on contributors to favourable condition rather than on measuring favourable condition itself. Defra also needs to clarify how the target will align with the existing good environmental status targets set under the UK marine strategy.
Furthermore, marine policy documents, including the joint fisheries statement and the marine spatial prioritisation programme, frequently reference the need to protect and restore marine habitats that store carbon, known as blue carbon. However, there is no central driver towards this goal and no mechanism to measure progress towards it. A blue-carbon target would provide this central impetus, complementing the MPA target to build resilience against climate change and deliver ocean recovery.
The committee further notes that an overwhelming majority—91%—of consultation respondents called for “increased ambition” or an accelerated timescale for achieving the target, yet the headline target is unchanged since the consultation. Does the Minister believe that we could exceed 70% in practice, or is that the very best we can hope for?
Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the department has
“removed the reference to ‘additional reporting on changes in individual feature condition’ from the target that we consulted on”,
instead committing to publishing the percentage of features “in recovering condition.”
No rationale is offered for this. Can the Minister offer one or instead commit to writing to me with more detail?
Paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the target
“is predicated on implementing management measures to halt or manage damaging activities”.
When will the department bring forward more information about these measures? Will they feature in the upcoming environmental improvement plan, or will we have to wait for other documents? When might any other documents be made available? In theory, five-year interim targets will help us to move from the current 44% to the intended 70%, but what will happen if early reviews demonstrate that we are behind the intended pace?
Finally, can the Minister talk about what other resources or powers the department may have to ensure that the process stays on track?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I do not doubt the Minister’s intentions. I do not even doubt his expertise in this area, but the fact is that science moves on. You need constant updates about what is happening. That is where I feel that the Government might be missing out—that they are not having talks with marine scientists and biologists. This is behind the times; it is already old-fashioned.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, which leads me on to my next point. I was not boasting, because I certainly do not know as much as some of the academics with whom I have worked over the years. However, since I wrote my report—it was published only 18 months ago—the understanding of blue carbon has moved on considerably. She will be pleased to know that a number of the marine protected areas that we have designated contain seagrass. In other areas such as maerl beds and kelp, there is enormous potential to lock up and sequester more blue carbon. She is right that our oceans have enormous potential to add to our abilities to achieve our net-zero ambitions. We need to weaponise the oceans to help us to achieve that.
Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Because that is the way it goes. I thank the noble Baroness for giving way.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of this side. There will be time for everyone to contribute.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. On the environment, we agree on so much.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate as it enables us to consider where we are with the state of our rivers and seas. I pay tribute to my noble friend and congratulate him on the work he has done since we were on the Front Bench together—albeit in opposition—and the interest he has shown and the knowledge he brings to this area. I will make two brief points.
There is disagreement over why our rivers and seas are being polluted by sewage. I argue that one of the reasons is that we are building 300,000 houses a year—that is our aspiration and that of, I think, the Opposition Front Bench. There is nowhere for the sewage to go. At the moment, highways are excluded from the surface water run-off, which is compounding this, as was identified by Pitt in 2007. Surface water run-off is a relatively new phenomenon and it is combining with the combined sewers. That is adding sewage to our rivers upstream, way before it gets into the sea.
I welcome this opportunity strongly to urge my noble friend to respond urgently to the report into the review on SUDS. It has recommended that sustainable drains be added, exactly as they have been in Wales. I can see no reason to delay this, for the simple reason that, as the noble Baroness opposite said, we cannot accept this extra form of pollution: surface-water flooding into our rivers and seas. So I ask my noble friend to bring forward as a matter of urgency these recommendations, to ensure that there is an environmental impact assessment, that it is well costed, that highways will be added and that all new developments will be submitted to developers building sustainable drains in this regard.
My noble friend mentioned nutrients, which will cause an ongoing debate in the House. My noble friend is aware—I have registered my interest in this—that a study is taking place on the use of bioresources. Without putting too fine a point on it, we are seeking to take the solids out of the sewage—if noble Lords get my drift, without spelling it out—and, as other countries have done, recognise it as a resource, put a value on it and decide, with government advice and guidance, how it can best be used. There are two obvious ways to use it: putting it on the land, which they tried to do in north Yorkshire when I was an MP there—it got a very mixed response, but it is worth looking at—and using it to create energy, which I understand is happening in Denmark and other parts of Europe. We need to look at nutrient neutrality, as I think my noble friend called it.
Finally—I apologise to the noble Baroness opposite—when we come to the retained EU law Bill, I would like to consider why we would wish to remove the wastewater directive, the water framework directive, the drinking water directive, the bathing water directive and the urban wastewater directive when they are part of the reason why our rivers have recovered from the state they were in through the 1980s. I welcome this debate and look forward to hearing my noble friend sum up.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I hardly think it is appropriate for a government Minister to attack the people on this side of the Chamber as letting the British people down when it is we who are actually trying to protect them. We have had 13 years of Conservative Government and it has been mismanagement, incompetence and corruption almost from the start. I do not blame the Minister sitting in front of us, but the successive Cabinets at the other end have damaged the British people much more than we ever could.
I thank Ash Smith of WASP, which is Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, for a briefing on these targets. Essentially, telling water companies that 2038 and 2040 are appropriate targets is absolutely ridiculous. It means they can sit back on their hands and relax. I am curious to know whether the Government think that if they set the targets too high, the water companies will not make any money and go bust and then we will have to nationalise them—which sounds like quite a good result to me.
As of this morning, Fairford sewage treatment works has been dumping sewage into the River Colne for a total of 745 hours continuously since 23 December last year. I am curious to know what action the Government are taking about that. Is that the storm overflows that the Minister was referring to? Because, of course, storm overflows are not storm overflows, they are constant overflows. This is not a storm overflow, so are the Government doing anything about it?
The Government has a target of reducing phosphorous by 80% by 2037, because the current excesses lead to algae bloom, cut oxygen and kill rivers. It is used by water companies to mitigate harmful lead pipe impact. That is because, of course, they have not updated their pipes over the past 20 or 30 years. Feargal Sharkey, who we all know, suggested that I take the example of Amwell Magna Fishery, as it regularly has phosphorous readings way up in the death zone; even if the readings were reduced by 80%, we would still end up with a level of phosphorous that was poisoning the river.
I also point out that the Government have used different base years. I do not understand why. They have used 2018 and 2020: why use two different baselines? Is that because in those years the spillages were very high and so 80% of a huge amount is not a particularly difficult target? I would really like an answer to that. In order to recover the health of the Amwell Magna Fishery and the river there, something like a 95% reduction would be needed. Given that 60% to 80% of phosphorous comes from sewage, I cannot see that even these inadequate targets are going to be met.
I very much want to know why the Government have used different base years. There must be a reason. And what about untreated sewage dumping? What is happening about that? I did not see this mentioned. Is phosphorous measured at every sewage outfall, and is it measured seasonally? Of course, it varies with the seasons, and it varies throughout the day. Could the Minister explain that a little bit? What about nitrogen from sewage works? Why is that not mentioned? We know that many sewage works discharge large amounts of effluent with very high levels of nitrates.
Other countries have reduced ammonia from agricultural runoff using simple measures. For example, Holland have been covering its slurry pits. I do not know exactly how it works, but there is some capital input and they have had extremely good results. Why are we not doing something similar? Also, why is there no overall target for water quality after 2027? If the Government are committed to supplying water, would a standpipe cover the point about the amount of water supply by water undertaken per person? Would a standpipe come into that definition?
The only way to get clean rivers and a clean water supply is to accept high standards and monitor them, and to have an Environment Agency that does not have its budget slashed all the time and is actually competent to do the work. Personally, I would of course like to see water companies taken back into public ownership. It is absolutely ludicrous that we let profit-making companies make a profit from something we all so desperately need.