Environmental Improvement Plan 2025

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am quite tight for time. I shall do my best to answer all the many questions, but if there is anything that I do not cover, I will make sure I write to noble Lords with responses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond and to discuss how the environmental improvement plan will deliver the targets of the Environment Act.

The EIP, as noble Lords are aware, sets out the Government’s commitment to the ambitious statutory Environment Act targets. It is our road map on how we are going to improve the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it. It ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority for this Government and is fundamental to our general approach, including growth, because we know that growth is not possible without a healthy and resilient natural environment.

Our EIP goes further than the previous one. It is a credible, clear plan with clear, prioritised actions to deliver the environmental outcomes of restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving people’s access to nature. It sets out who is responsible for these actions across government and our wider society.

The EIP sets ambitious yet achievable interim targets. It is essential to have those as staging posts on our journey in order to deliver the targets that have been rightly described today as challenging. Each interim target will make an appropriate contribution to corresponding statutory targets over the next five years. We have increased the ambition of some of the interim targets since the Government’s last plan, including for air quality and to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. We have also introduced new targets on farm wildlife and on invasive non-native species. We are maintaining our delivery trajectories for other targets and have adjusted others to ensure that they remain deliverable and credible.

On other targets, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the MPAs and whether the 5% flex was watering down that target. The flex is introduced largely to account for adverse impacts of offshore wind developments that have been consented to because they pass the habitats regulations or MCZ derogation tests. We think it is the best option to set an interim target that contributes towards the statutory target while aligning it with the changing MPA network that supports the Government’s clean energy mission. I hope that explains why we have done that.

Of course, setting clear targets and goals is simply not enough; we need to know exactly how we are going to reach them. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the first time we have published delivery plans for those targets. They clearly set out how actions contribute, who will deliver them and how progress will be measured. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked which actions will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity. The delivery plans will set that out on a strong evidence footing so that we know exactly what is happening.

Driving environmental change and understanding the impact of actions being taken will obviously be complex and take time, so the delivery plans are designed to remain live and can be refined over time in response to emerging evidence, to policy evaluation and to any feedback that we get from stakeholders carrying out the delivery. We believe that this transparent and collaborative approach to communicating and adapting our plans is a major step forward. It is also central to our monitoring and our reporting of progress, which, again, is essential to keeping any delivery on track.

The EIP sets out more than 90 commitments. Each is associated with a delivery metric, and we will report on changes to those metrics in our annual progress reports, along with the latest evidence and changes to trends in our environmental indicator framework. The framework, which is also published online, objectively measures how the environment is changing across the 10 EIP goals.

Together, such approaches better enable external appraisal and will ensure that we learn and adapt appropriately as we move towards the targets. I am already very grateful to stakeholders, including the OEP, whose scrutiny and recommendations are helping to shape this improved approach. We have a clear plan and process, but we also know the scale of the challenge and are trying to match this with the right actions to get where we need to go.

SFI was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, just this morning at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State set out how we are reforming SFI to make it simpler and fairer and to enable as many farmers as possible to benefit and help nature thrive. As someone who has a smallholding, I was particularly pleased to see that this is also targeted now at smaller farmers. At that conference, the Secretary of State also made clear that protecting the environmental foundations of farming is not separate from productivity but an essential part of it. All this will help us to meet our EIP targets, including doubling the number of farms delivering for wildlife. This follows the most nature-friendly farming Budget we have seen, to give farmers the support they need to produce food sustainably while protecting soil, water and wildlife.

Last year we had the highest amount of tree planting in 20 years, as I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear—over 10 million trees—and we have started planting the first of the three new national forests. We recently implemented the Water (Special Measures) Act. I have been asked about the water White Paper, and I confirm that it will be published very soon; watch this space.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about PFAS. The EIP includes a commitment to publish a PFAS plan in 2026, and that will set out how the Government are taking action to protect people and the environment from the particular harms and risks that this relates to. We are acting decisively to improve air quality. A circular economy is an important part of this. We are further reducing environmental harm by turning waste into opportunity and creating green jobs across the country—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly interested in this. We are boosting opportunities and, as the Minister for access to nature, I am pleased that we have a chapter in the EIP on how we will do this. I was pleased that we launched the first of the nine new river walks on Boxing Day.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of working together. It is important that we do this, as we will not make progress unless we have cross-government contributions in achieving these targets. That includes the land use framework, the farming road map and what we are doing across the department as well as across government. This is important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, particularly talked about the importance of working with stakeholders and people who have to deliver. Only by government working hand in hand with communities, businesses, farmers, the public sector and the third sector can we achieve our target delivery.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions, and I will try to fit those in. If there is anyone else, I will come back to them. He asked what aspects of the new plan give me confidence around SSSIs —in fact, there were a few questions around SSSIs. I have an SSSI on my land, so I completely understand the challenges of site management. Natural England has improved its understanding of SSSI condition and the pressures and actions needed to restore SSSIs. It is making progress: it has a more strategic focus than previously and, over the spending review, it is looking to improve the evidence from each site. It is looking at a strategic landscape scale, with a greater focus on what happens on the land outside the site boundary as well as just within it, and at those implications.

The noble Lord asked how many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts. It is approximately 40% at the moment. Additionally, Natural England has developed a conservation enhancement scheme to fund actions on SSSI land that is not eligible for environmental stewardship schemes. We want to continue to build on that work.

On national landscapes, we know we need to go further and faster in protected landscapes to meet our national targets, and we will ensure that protected landscape bodies, landowners and land managers have the tools and resources to achieve that. We will continue to work closely.

The PMB was excellent and very much in line with government ambition. The principles of it—to drive and strengthen action towards meeting natural environment and climate targets and objectives from both local and other public authorities—are absolutely at the heart of what we will achieve. I hope we can continue to talk to the noble Lord and bring in his expertise around that.

I seem to have run out of time. I am really sorry; I had lots of lovely answers to all of the questions posed by noble Lords.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us about peat?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have just been told that I can carry on because I have another five minutes; my officials will tell me when I need to stop.

I turn to the gene editing of ecosystems. We are supportive of that innovation. We have agreed the parameters for the new SPS agreement with the EU. The EU has accepted that there are a number of areas where it will have to look at our laws. This is something that we are discussing with the EU.

I turn to peat. To confirm, we are committed to ending the sale of horticultural peat and peat-containing products by the end of this Parliament. That is part of our ambition for this Parliament. We are working very closely with the sector to look at how we can make that transition.

The noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to SUDS. It is worth reminding the Committee that we made immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the increased delivery of SUDS. Clearly, we need to continue to discuss that.

My noble friend Lady Young talked about the environmental principles and asked whether people, particularly officials, have training. The answer is yes. Our recent report on the implementation of the environmental principles, which was published in November, recognised that our tools are valuable and that we do provide training.

Is there anything else that I have forgotten? I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to the debate and assure them that we are committed to delivering the environmental improvement plan and to meeting the environmental targets.

Flooding Interventions

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. The noble Lord makes an important point: floodwater does not recognise boundaries, as I think we all know. I live in Cumbria, which, again, is a community with a border with one of the devolved nations. I meet regularly with my Welsh and Scottish counterparts, as well as those in Northern Ireland. It is important, as we make policy decisions and decide what legislation investments we are going to make, that we all work together. It is something I am very committed to.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Some floodwater is highly toxic and dangerous to humans, particularly if it comes from a sewage treatment works or from farms. What extra interventions are done on such floodwaters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons why we are investing in anti-pollution measures, working with farmers, for example, to see how we can stop run-off and better manage slurry, and working with water companies. A water White Paper is coming up that will look at many of these issues. As someone who lives in a flood high-impact area, I know that the damage that can be caused by pollution is immense and is something we absolutely need to tackle.

River Pollution

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the release of millions of toxic bio-beads happened two weeks ago. Southern Water at first refused to take responsibility and, even now, it is not in charge of a clear-up that would benefit people and wildlife. When will this Government accept that the water companies are incompetent and badly managed and should be nationalised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is aware that the Cunliffe review made a number of recommendations, and we are acting very quickly on nine of them. She will also be aware that it is our intention to bring forward a second water Bill in order to tackle properly so many of the issues that we still see in our water industry that are simply not acceptable.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to inshore fishermen, who are a really important part of our industry. Regarding detail, we are negotiating with stakeholders. We are looking to work very closely with all the different groups that are interested or have an impact with this growth fund. Clearly, they will be an important group as part of our discussions.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it has occurred to me that the noble Baroness might not have seen the Oceana report, Deep Decline. It is absolutely excellent, if a bit depressing, but it gives some very good recommendations, so perhaps I could make sure that she gets a copy.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be absolutely delighted to receive a copy from the noble Baroness.

Waste Crime

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right that this can be a really dreadful problem for landowners, and it can be very expensive and difficult to clear up. He may be interested to know that we are working with a range of interested parties to specifically look at these issues through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. That includes organisations such as the National Farmers’ Union, the CPRE, the Countryside Alliance and the CLA, because we need to work with landowners on how they can prevent fly-tipping on private land. I know it is not always possible, but the better guidance people have and the more they can work with organisations, the better. We are also developing practical tools on how councils and others can then bring robust cases to court, because that is important as well. We have a large fly-tipping issue, and it is important that the perpetrators are punished.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, one way to reduce waste crime is to reduce waste. Have the Government set a date for a ban on single-use plastics?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are working hard on reducing waste, particularly through the circular economy strategy that we are developing at the moment. We are committed to reducing the amount of plastic waste, and the noble Baroness will see progress and development on that as time goes on.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the timetabling, clearly, it is not something we can bring in this Session. We do not yet know when the end of the Session will be—we have not been informed about that—but when we have reached the end we will look to see when it will be practically possible to bring in such a Bill. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that this is a government priority.

The run-off from roads and agricultural run-off is being taken very seriously, and our response and how we will manage it as part of our overall approach to water pollution is being worked on.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that Sir Jon Cunliffe was not given the option to look at renationalisation. In the other place, the Secretary of State for Defra has twice replied to Green MPs Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, saying that his department looked at the cost of renationalisation and it came out at £100 billion. I have two sheets of paper here with lots of ideas about how we could renationalise without that sort of figure being necessary. The most exciting one suggests that, if we stack the liabilities against the assets of these companies, they would be worthless. So, perhaps the Minister could tell the Secretary of State to get new accountants or consult the professor of accounting we have here in your Lordships’ House. I would be pleased to give him these two sheets of paper with all these different ideas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct: we have ruled out nationalisation. But if she would like to share the paperwork, I would be more than happy to look at it.

Thames Water

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we are already paying more for our water because Thames Water has put up our bills. I declare an interest as a Thames Water bill-payer. How much higher are our bills going to go before the Government actually accept that they have to put public ownership before private profit?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the reasons that bills are going up—not just for Thames Water customers but for other consumers—is the lack of investment for years and years by the water companies in infrastructure, which is why we have so many problems with pollution, for example. While it is not something that the Government want to see continue—we do not want to see consumer bills going up unnecessarily—it is important that, with the PR24 settlement that was made, that money goes directly into investment, which is why we are stopping dividends and unnecessary bonuses being paid.

Thames Water: Bids

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, a special administration order is the mechanism to ensure that the company continues to operate and customers continue to receive their water and wastewater services. However, the bar for entering special administration is understandably high; the law states that it can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or seriously breaches an enforcement order, and Thames Water does not fit those criteria, despite all its other problems. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we are currently monitoring the situation closely.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, 90% of England’s water and sewerage services are owned by foreign investors. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so happy for that to happen but not happy to allow us to buy our own vital resources back? It seems madness to allow our vital infrastructure to be owned by foreign states.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, water privatisation happened quite a long time ago now, which was when different foreign states came in and invested in our water system. I am sure the noble Baroness is very aware of the work going on through the Cunliffe review at the moment in order to try to get our water companies into a better state. The Government are very keen that we sort out the problem with Thames Water, but that is Ofwat’s and the company’s responsibility at present and we are just watching to ensure that Thames Water does not fail, because we cannot afford to have water companies failing.

UK Fishers: EU Agreement

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware—because we have talked about it in relation to other issues with Defra—that we are working closely with other departments in this area, including DESNZ, to address exactly the kinds of issues she raises. I will go back to the department and talk to my colleague the Fisheries Minister, Daniel Zeichner, specifically about the point that she just raised.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister knows that we have French and Danish fishing fleets not only fishing in our waters, as per the agreement, but bottom trawling in our marine protected areas. Are the Government going to start protecting those marine protected areas, or shall we call them something else?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are looking with different groups and industry to increase protections across MPAs and at the best way to move that forward. Around 100 of our MPAs have by-laws which are in place to protect designated species and habitats from fishing gear that we know is damaging, including bottom trawling. As I have said before, we are looking at how we can move forward in this area.

High Seas Treaty

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Supporting our fisheries is an important part of the work that Defra does. We must ensure that when we work on areas of conservation those who fish are also talked to and understand the implications—and that we understand the impact that any decision has on our fishing fleet. My honourable friend Daniel Zeichner MP, the Fisheries Minister, speaks regularly to those who fish so that we hear their voices as loudly as we hear others.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is well aware that of our marine protected areas only 5% are protected from bottom trawling. Does the high seas treaty mean that when some of our allies, such as Denmark or France, assert that they are okay to bottom trawl in our MPAs, we can stop them?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The key thing that we are doing around bottom trawling is looking specifically at the areas that are most important and need conserving the most. When we look at making agreements with other countries, that is clearly an important consideration, because there is no point in designating somewhere a marine protected area if we do not look carefully at which parts need protecting the most and ensure that damage does not take place. It is good that we have 60% of our MPAs protected, but, clearly, we need to move forward and do more.

Water Bills

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are working very closely with water companies to ensure that bills do not increase unnecessarily. There are many challenges in the farming industry, and the Farming Minister is working across the piece to try to support farmers. For example, the farming budget was not reduced in the Budget this year.

On ability to pay bills, we know that all water companies have measures in place for people who struggle to pay for their water and waste services, and we encourage water companies to work with customers to apply for those whenever it is appropriate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this House debated the Water (Special Measures) Bill yesterday, and presumably the Government thought it might bring bills down for bill payers and taxpayers—yet it will not. Where is the justification for passing a Bill that makes it more difficult for people to pay bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not really understand the noble Baroness’s logic in thinking that it is going to increase bills. That piece of legislation is to ensure that water companies are better held to account and to drive behaviour change from what we have seen in recent years.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussion on the important topic of ownership and management structures of water companies. I turn first to Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I understand his concern about the aspect of the clause that allows for socialisation of shortfall recovery. We had some discussion around that, as he mentioned. However, I reassure him again that this element is necessary for the shortfall recovery power to function effectively and safeguard the interests of taxpayers and water customers.

We do not expect to have to use this power—the noble Lord mentioned that we had talked about this—and I stress that it would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover all the funding provided by Government over the course of a special administration; that is, in the event of a shortfall. It is only at that point that Ministers would decide whether to exercise the shortfall recovery power. Water sector stakeholders, including the Consumer Council for Water, would be consulted about any decision to exercise the power. It is therefore not entered into lightly.

All water customers benefit from the use of a special administration regime, as it ensures that services continue in the event that a water company fails. This power already exists within special administration regime frameworks for other essential service sectors, such as energy, where there is a well-established principle of socialising these costs across the sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, asked specifically about why we think the powers are needed, so I will provide an example. There may be an occasion where government funding, provided during a special administration regime, contributes towards water sector infrastructure—such as a reservoir—that goes on to benefit several different water companies. In other cases, a particularly small water company, with a limited number of customers, may enter special administration. In this scenario, it is vital that a decision can be made about recovering a shortfall from more than one company, to ensure fair allocation of costs and to prevent customers of a single, small company facing unmanageably huge bill increases.

In all scenarios, a failure to deal with a shortfall fairly, or to prevent impacts unduly falling on a single company, risks increasing the cost of capital for the whole sector. This is because investors will price in the risks of excessive shortfall costs falling on a single company. The ability to recover a shortfall from multiple companies is therefore necessary both to ensure that it is possible to recover government funding in the event of a shortfall and to safeguard the sector from any wider cost impacts. I reiterate that we see it as very unlikely that this will ever happen. For this reason, the Government will not accept the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. While I thank her for her engagement on this clause, the Government must reject this amendment because it would jeopardise the main purpose of the water special administration regime, which is to ensure the continuation of water and sewerage functions in the event of a water company insolvency or failure.

The role of the special administrator, once appointed, does not include a power to cancel debt, so does not serve to bail out water company creditors or shareholders. When a water company exits from special administration, via either a rescue or a transfer, the special administrator determines the level of repayment to creditors in accordance with the statutory order of priority. The level of repayment that creditors and shareholders may expect will be in accordance with the order of repayment clearly set out in statute. Any power to cancel debts outside of a restructuring plan agreed as part of a special administration, or a scheme where there is built-in court supervision, would be a material departure from long-established insolvency principles of fairness and treating creditors equally according to their rights. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why the Government must therefore reject this amendment.

I will turn next to Amendment 54, also tabled by the noble Baroness, and Amendment 56 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. He mentioned dividends. I assure him that Ofwat is able to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience, and can take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. I just wanted to make that point clear.

Amendments 54 and 56 are already covered by the existing legal framework for insolvency and special administration regimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, specifically asked why a SAR can be used in only financial circumstances. However, that is not the case. A water company can already be placed in special administration on performance grounds where it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties, or an enforcement order, that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Both the amendments would limit the powers of the Secretary of State and Ofwat by forcing their hand to take specific action, thereby limiting their ability to respond appropriately to individual situations. As part of an application to the court for a special administration on performance grounds, the Secretary of State and Ofwat must consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including its record of criminal convictions. Under the current framework, a company must take actions to address performance issues, including those involved with poor performance. Any failure to do so would form part of any assessment by the Secretary of State, or Ofwat, of the appropriateness of that special administration in the first place. Special administration must be a last resort, and proportional and appropriate to the circumstances. An automatic threshold for special administration, such as outlined in these amendments, would limit the ability of the Government or regulators to act. It would also likely undermine the confidence of actual and potential investors, and bring instability to the wider sector.

The Government are already taking action to strengthen the regulatory system through the recently launched independent commission into the water sector and its regulation. The regulators’ roles and responsibilities, including on enforcement, will be reviewed as part of this. We expect that recommendations from this review will form the basis of future legislation. The rigid approach in these amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising their powers to respond to the details of individual cases. For this reason, the Government will not accept these amendments. However, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my explanation.

Regarding Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have already spoken at length about the costs of nationalising the water sector. It would require a fair price to be paid to shareholders and debt holders. This would come to over £90 billion. I know that noble Lords have disputed this figure, but it is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value figures for 2024. I have also spoken about the benefits—or lack thereof—of nationalisation.

Research commissioned by the Consumer Council for Water, an independent organisation that represents customer interests, found that a substantial change to the industry and company ownership would not address the main problems experienced. We also see a variety of ownership models in the UK and internationally, with clear mixed performance. For these reasons, the Government have been clear that nationalisation is not on the table.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is okay for the railways but not for water. If it were within the remit, at least we could get some accurate figures. At the moment we do not have accurate figures. Also, a recent poll said that 82% of the general public would like water out of private hands and in public ownership again. That means that this Government are going against the grain.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I had better clarify: I want another Labour Government only if I cannot have a Green Government. On the issue about having monopolies where market forces do not operate, can she see that there are inherent problems in having monopolies on something such as water—or any public service that we all need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the noble Baroness’s point. I would hope that, when we do the review, we look completely across all the issues to do with a water company, including the way it behaves because of the way it is set up, and that that should be part of any consideration. By the time we have reported, I am sure the noble Baroness will be very happy to have another Labour Government.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and for a very interesting discussion. Clearly, it is very passionately felt as well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing her Amendment 37. I would also like to discuss Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord Gascoigne, because they are both about nature-based solutions.

As I mentioned on the previous group, the Government agree that nature-based solutions are an important tool for tackling the root causes of sewage pollution and addressing flood risk, while delivering wide ecological benefits. In line with this, I am pleased that Ofwat has proposed an allowance of over £2 billion for investments in nature-based solutions in PR24. I was pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, refers to catchments, because catchment and nature-based solutions are part of that £2 billion investment, and £1.6 billion is looking to reduce storm overflow spills through those solutions.

Ofwat has made it clear in its guidance for PR24 that it expects water companies to adopt more nature-based solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned reed beds, and it is important to say that the further funding includes money for reed beds and wetlands for nutrient removal. The Government are also supporting water companies with trialling different nature-based solutions. As I mentioned, this is obviously subject to the final determinations in December, but we hope to move forward in these areas.

At the same time, we need to recognise that nature-based solutions may not always be the most appropriate or effective means of improving water quality or flood risk. We need to ensure that water companies and Ofwat have sufficient flexibility to develop the right solution to deliver the best outcomes for customers and the environment. In a similar vein, although nature-based solutions may feature in pollution incident reduction plans, it is important to recognise that these may not be the most effective or available response to pollution incidents in every circumstance.

Having said that, we will not support the amendments, but I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we take this seriously. I am happy to have further discussions on this particular amendment, if that is helpful.

I turn to Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington-Mandeville. It is important to draw our attention to the impact of sewage pollution in our national parks. The Government agree that our national parks—Lake Windermere in the Lake District and the Broads have had particular attention regarding this matter—are a vital part of our environmental heritage, and everyone agrees that they must be protected better. For this reason, the Government will seek to use the powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to ensure that relevant authorities, including water companies, deliver better outcomes in protected landscapes.

I reassure noble Lords that existing plans are in place to protect high-priority sites from sewage pollution, including the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan. As part of that reduction plan, we expect water companies to tackle overflows discharging to high-priority sites by 2035. These sites include designated bathing waters, SSSIs, special areas of conservation and chalk streams. However, completely eradicating sewage discharges is not possible without a costly redesign of the whole sewerage system.

Similar issues may arise in relation to the proposed requirement for all water bodies in national parks to achieve “high” ecological status. Under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations, most surface water bodies have an objective to reach “good” ecological status, except where it is technically infeasible or disproportionately costly. I stress that “good” ecological status is a very high standard to achieve, and represents a thriving aquatic environment with only minor disturbance from natural conditions. In this way, it supports a diverse group of aquatic invertebrates, fish, mammals and birds.

“High” ecological status equates to water almost entirely undisturbed from its natural conditions, with almost no impact from human activity. Requiring this very high status would have wide-ranging impacts on any future planning developments and human interaction with national parks—that would include farming and fishing. The requirement would place achieving this demanding objective on only water companies, regardless of the pressures and sectors that are actually impacting on water bodies within the protected landscapes. It would also not allow for the consideration of costs, which would ultimately be borne by water bill payers, and any technical feasibility around this.

It is clearly important to reduce phosphorus levels— I have seen the damage that phosphorus can cause in the lakes near where I live. A reduction of phosphorus levels by 90% by 2028 goes significantly beyond the Environment Act target to reduce phosphorus loading by 80% by 2038—that is assuming that the baseline is at 2020 levels. This would require an extremely expensive and immediate increase to the number of phosphorus improvement schemes planned in the price review of 2024. We are concerned that that is a big jump, with a big extra investment that would immediately be passed on to bill payers. We do not want to risk the delivery of any wider environmental improvements through the price review of 2024.

Amendment 74 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I confirm that the Government are absolutely committed to the protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams. We recognise that these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but a symbol of our national heritage: we in this country have by far the majority of chalk streams. This requirement would have significant implications for existing legal frameworks’ operational delivery, and would not necessarily result in environmental improvement for chalk streams. As discussed in relation to Amendment 55, requiring “high” ecological status would have the wide-ranging impacts that I mentioned.

The levelling-up Act brought in some protections for chalk streams. The independent water commission on the water sector regulatory system, already announced by the Secretary of State, is the appropriate vehicle for considering broader reforms, including to the current water system and overarching targets for the water sector. In the previous group we talked about better use of water and grey water. If we move forward with that through our review, that will reduce abstraction, which will help to support chalk streams better.

I hope the noble Earl therefore understands why the Government will not accept his amendment. However, he requested a meeting to discuss Blue Flag status as a possible way forward, and I am more than happy to offer him one.

Amendment 90 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I am grateful to her for this amendment. We are clear that water companies must improve on their delivery of water resources management plans. The independent commission will help to transform how our water system works and will inform further legislation. It would be more appropriate at the moment to consider how we make improvements to the water resources management planning process as part of the independent commission. I note that there are already requirements for the review process in Section 37A of the Water Industry Act 1991. Water companies must also report to the Secretary of State on their reviews annually. Defra works closely with the EA and Ofwat to review water companies’ delivery of their plans, and the EA recently published a summary of assessments of water company delivery and the actions that they must take to deliver their plans.

We are concerned that, in practice, a duty on water companies to deliver all measures simply would not work. Many measures, such as new reservoirs, need further permissions, for example, before they can proceed, and a water company cannot guarantee that it will get those permissions. That is why we will not support that particular amendment. I thank noble Lords again for this interesting and helpful debate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not think anyone in the Committee doubts her sincerity or her concern for nature—that is a given. I am afraid it is the Government I do not trust. I did not trust the last Government and I do not trust this one either—it must be something in my nature.

I supported two other amendments: Amendment 74 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and Amendment 104 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough. Chalk streams, for example, are incredibly important; they are so rare. We have the most in the world and we trash them. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, goes much further than my modest amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has never called anything I have ever done modest, so I look forward to his signing this same amendment on Report to show that he is sincere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about local engagement. Just this week, I hosted a group of 30 or 40 people from the Bengali community who are working on recovering mangrove forests in Sundarbans. They do it because they care about the local; they are losing culture, opportunities and so on. I really see that local activity is incredibly important, but the Government have to make that easy. This is the thing about the nature recovery schemes. They are obviously not the only way; they can be extremely effective, and sometimes quite cheap as well. It definitely engages the local community. I was up at Lake Windermere recently, and the local support there for cleaning up the lake was quite astonishingly broad.

Waste: Incineration

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to pause permission for new incineration plants to allow for a review of the treatment of residual waste.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to transitioning to a circular economy. We are considering the role of energy from waste in the context of circularity, economic growth and reaching net zero. As part of this, we are giving consideration to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation. This year, Defra will publish an analysis of energy-from-waste capacity in England to inform future policy. We continue work to implement packaging reforms, drive up recycling rates and take material out of incineration.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister, but I am deeply dissatisfied. This Government, in whom I had a lot of trust, have made the deeply irresponsible decision to allow the Portland incinerator to go ahead. I declare an interest as a resident of Dorset, although nowhere near Portland. Incineration and energy from waste is not a practical way forward; it is very damaging both in terms of public health and environmentally. I beg the Minister to speak to her department and suggest getting better advice on energy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it does say in the Companion that you should not thank a noble Member for their Question—so, on this occasion, I will not. The environmental permitting regulations prevent the incineration of separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic waste, unless it has gone through some sort of treatment process first. Following that treatment, incineration is seen to be the best environmental outcome. We know that the recycling rate is too low, that we burn too much waste and that, for too long, recycling rates in England have plateaued. The way forward is to look at the whole big picture and our circular economy ambitions are designed to address this.

Water Companies: Financial Resilience

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I too welcome the noble Baroness to her new post; I am sure she will be superb. How many water companies are currently financially resilient?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome. I am sure she has seen the environmental performance assessment that came out today. It reports that most companies continue to underperform and there continue to be a lot of concerns in this area. On the specific question she asked, I will write to her with the proper information so I know I am accurate.