Water and Sewage Companies: Directors’ Remuneration

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this important debate and sharing his extensive views on the subject, and thank other noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s discussion. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the progress we have made to improve the water environment and our reforms to the remuneration of company executives.

This Government have been leading the way on delivering clean water for customers and the environment. Our plan for water sets us on a holistic path to deliver more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement of our water system. Through this, we will transform our management of the water system, delivering cleaner water for nature and people and securing a plentiful water supply for the future. We have set out significant funding to support this work. Our plan for water committed £2.2 billion of new, accelerated investment directed into vital infrastructure to improve water quality and secure future supplies, including £1.7 billion funding to tackle storm overflows. In September 2023 we also published our expanded storm overflows plan, which set stringent targets to reduce the use of storm overflows. This plan will lead to the toughest-ever crackdown on sewage spills. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the Government have increased the number of storm overflows monitored to 100% since the end of last year. Furthermore, this plan will also drive the largest infrastructure programme in water company history: £60 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years.

It is important to put this investment into context. Since privatisation, we have unlocked more than £215 billion of investment in the water sector in England alone to deliver services for customers and the environment. Privatisation has delivered a range of benefits, including high-quality drinking water, leakage being reduced by around a third and 90% of our bathing waters in England currently being classed as good or excellent. In addition, since 2010 water bills have fallen by 1% on average per year while companies have been investing around £5 billion annually over the same period. Looking forward to the future, the next water company investment cycle will include the biggest environmental improvement programme since privatisation. Water companies’ business plans show a planned £96 billion of investment between 2025 and 2030.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised customers funding investment. The Government have been very clear that customers will not be paying for water companies’ mistakes. However, new infrastructure will need to be paid for, and while water companies can attract private investment, this will also need to come from customers’ bills. Ofwat assesses any increase in customers’ bills to ensure that they are fair and proportionate. We recognise that a balance must be struck here between ensuring that we prioritise spending on infrastructure to reduce environmental harm and securing supplies for the future without unduly hitting customers with bill increases.

I turn now to address the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We are taking clear and decisive action to ensure that no one profits from illegal behaviour and that water company executives take personal responsibility for serious breaches and damaging the environment. On 12 February my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary announced that the independent regulator, Ofwat, will consult on preventing the executives of water companies receiving bonuses if their company has committed a serious criminal breach. That could include, as the noble Lord said, successful prosecution for a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, such as causing significant pollution at a bathing site or conservation area, or where a company has been found guilty of a serious management failing.

Subject to consultation, we expect the ban to apply to all executive board members and chief executives. In answer to the question from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, it will come into effect later this year. This builds on Ofwat’s announcement last year that it will tighten restrictions on bonuses using new powers given to the regulator through the Environment Act. It is important to make clear that this new announcement sits among a strong and ambitious long-term strategy to tackle pollution, clean up British waters and ensure a plentiful supply for the future. For instance, in March 2023 Ofwat announced new measures enabling it to take enforcement action against water companies.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I have been slightly provoked by his talk of a long-term ambition and a vision of 25 years. Does he accept that it was 1991—I am sorry to be a nerd about this—when the relevant EU directive was passed, under a Tory Government, and it should have been implemented by 1998? We are already 25 years after that but now he is giving us another 25-year horizon, so it will have been half a century before the discharge of sewage is cleaned up.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Perhaps I might write to her on that subject, given that she did not contribute to the debate earlier.

Additionally, on 21 February we announced that inspections of water company assets by the Environment Agency would more than quadruple in order to strengthen our oversight of water companies and better hold them to account. That is not all. We have legislated to introduce unlimited penalties on water companies that breach their environmental permits and to expand the range of offences to which they can be applied. That can include criminal prosecutions, for which there can be unlimited fines.

Following the publication of its performance report in November 2023, Ofwat published the financial penalties and payments for all water companies. This required 13 companies to return £193 million to customers for underperformance in 2022-23, with money rightly being returned to customers through bills in the year 2024-25. We make no apology for setting high standards for the water sector or for our tough expectations of what companies have to deliver. That is why, in addition to returning money to customers, Ofwat and the Environment Agency will not hesitate to use the powers that the Government have given them to enforce the law and hold them to account.

I turn to various questions raised by noble Lords. If I miss any questions or run out of time, I will write to individual noble Lords and send a copy to the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked whether the Government will give customers the opportunity to vote each year on executive pay. Remuneration committees for each water company independently determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their water company executives. Ofwat expects water companies to take into account the legitimate concerns of stakeholders when making decisions on the application of remuneration policies.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others raised the issue of sewage spills and correctly pointed out that no one wants to see this happen. Significant progress has been made. The noble Viscount asked how the Government and regulators will hold water companies to account. The Environment Agency and Ofwat have recently launched the largest ever criminal and civil investigations into water companies’ sewage discharges, and into over 2,200 treatment works, following new data coming to light as a result of increased monitoring.

The Government are working with the Environment Agency to hold the water industry to account. Where water and sewerage companies are found to be breaking the law, we will hold them to account through enforcement. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences following the Government’s changes to broaden the scope of the existing civil sanctions regime and remove the previous cap on penalties.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the issue of the automatic right to connect to the sewerage system in Schedule 3 and Schedule 10. In April 2023, the Government published the Plan for Water. This plan included the requirement for standardising sustainable drainage systems in new developments in 2024. Subject to final decisions on the scope, threshold and process, we expect to commence consultation on this by spring 2024 and aim to have finalised the implementation pathway by the end of 2024. Schedule 3 would make the right to connect surplus water run-off to public sewers conditional upon the drainage system being approved as capable of managing it. The noble Baroness also raised issues around building on floodplains, water run-off, Schedule 10 and storing water. Perhaps I might write to her on those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked whether the Government have confidence in Ofwat. We are confident the industry regulators are using their powers to hold water companies to account, and we will continue to work with them and drive improvements that benefit customers and the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, gave an admirable list of the fines that Ofwat have recently handed out.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of foreign ownership. Ofwat, as the independent regulator, protects the interests of consumers by making sure that water companies carry out their statutory functions and are financially resilient, as well as holding them to account on overall performance and delivery of essential services. These same standards and licence conditions apply across all water companies, regardless of whether they are owned by foreign or domestic investors.

As I come to the end of my remarks, I want to be absolutely clear that profit should never come at the cost of pollution. As I have set out, this Government are going further and faster than any before to protect and enhance the health of our rivers and seas. We are holding water companies to account on a scale never seen before. This new action proposed by Ofwat will help us go even further to ensure that no one profits from illegal behaviour and that water company executives take full responsibility. I therefore assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to addressing the issues causing pollution in our waterways and we will continue to strive for a healthy and thriving water environment.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have been listening to this debate with interest. Obviously, it relates to environmental standards, but is also about the way in which the legislation that deals with environmental standards is cast. I am sure we are all agreed that some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, described could be substantially mitigated, to the benefit of everybody.

Having said that, what we see with the two amendments we are considering is the introduction of legal certainty into the legislation. That, it seems to me, is actually quite important because, as has been described on previous days in Committee, the underlying rationale behind the kind of approach being adopted by the Government is what I might describe as the operation of a compensatory principle. This, it seems to me, is a very attractive notion. But how is it going to work? In particular, as has been debated previously, what is the currency you use to determine whether or not something is compensation? It has to be equivalent, it seems to me. That is the basic meaning of the word in the English language.

Then there has been discussion about “Well, it’ll be done on the whim of a civil servant or a Minister”. But I do not think this is going to be the end of the story—this is what my concern is—because any change that comes about will produce winners and losers. Wherever there are winners and losers, not least in this area of policy, the law gets dragged in. I can see that the whole scheme on which this particular approach has been adopted is going to lead to an absolute abundance of applications for judicial review, because any change that is made on the basis of this compensatory principle is going to have a winner and a loser, and is going to be the hinge on which the legislation depends. I would be very interested to know the views of the Front Bench on this, because I can see that what sounds superficially like a siren song of easy administration may well end up providing an absolute bonanza for lawyers. I suppose that, as one myself, I should declare an interest.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to say a few brief words before the Minister replies; this is prompted by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in summing up on the last group, and the letter we received today from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. My noble friends, in moving and speaking to the amendments in their names, and other noble Lords from other Benches, have highlighted the objective of the amendments, which is to get pledges to uphold environmental protections, including those in international instruments.

In the last group, the Minister gave as an example a pledge to uphold human rights. We are shortly to have a Statement on the well-named Illegal Migration Bill, in which the Home Secretary has said that this is 50% likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights. If that is the standard by which we judge the Government’s intentions in upholding international law, I do not think it is terribly encouraging.

We debated on Monday the definition of a subject area in the light of the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I think we have done so again today. Does it mean water quality? Is it the whole of environmental law? Is it the whole of what Defra does? None of us has the foggiest idea. The same puzzle arises over the term “objectives”. The letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, tells us that

“the individual limbs of the power”

in Clause 15

“are also restricted. Subsection (2) is limited such that any replacement legislation must be appropriate and must fulfil same or similar objectives as the retained EU law or assimilated law that it is replacing.”

That is, of course, the wording in the Bill. She goes on:

“This limits the functionality of this limb of the power to essentially adjusting policy to better fit the UK context”.


Apparently, this is

“rather than radically departing or introducing legislation in ways that are controversially different from the existing legislation.”

So now we have “appropriate”, we have the “same or similar objectives”, we have “subject area”, and now we have a pledge to essentially adjust policy to better fit the UK context. I am afraid that this does not assuage concerns because I, for one, do not have the foggiest idea what restraints or constraints there will be on the Government in their adjustment of policy. They are proposing to adjust policy on refugees, with a 50% likelihood of breaching the European Convention on Human Rightsm as well as, in the opinion of these Benches, totally breaching the refugee convention. I am afraid that the Minister has his work cut out to convince us—certainly these Benches—of the Government's good intentions in the environmental area.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I seek two things this evening: first, to get through this group without having to write any more billets-doux to noble Lords, because I think they have had quite enough. I will be able to explain, I hope, what we are trying to do to satisfy noble Lords. The other is to leave them, if I did not in the previous group that I responded to, with the absolute certainty that we want to see our environment enhanced, and that existing protections continue to function in a way that works at a time when we are tackling the biggest crisis mankind has faced. My noble friend Lord Lilley raised points about the bureaucracy of trying to do the right thing—that if we want to create a wind farm, the delays in doing that are prohibitive. We need to do things quickly, because there is an urgency about what we are trying to do. There is an urgency in trying to reverse the decline of species, which is more than just a crisis. As Dasgupta said, it is more than just an environmental crisis; it is an economic one as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned my noble friend Lord Randall, who is in hospital. I sent him a message earlier and he replied; he is on the mend and we wish him well.

Amendments 126 and 130 seek to add conditions on and restrictions to the use of the powers contained in the Bill. Amendment 126 would place conditions on UK Ministers or devolved authorities when using the powers under Clause 15 to revoke or replace retained environmental EU law. In particular, this amendment would prevent any provision being made before all the conditions specified in the amendment had been fulfilled. This would add significant delay and negatively impact how we review and reform retained environmental law.

The Government have been clear that we will uphold our environmental protections and our commitments, both domestic and international. The UK is a world leader in environmental protection. In reviewing our retained EU law, we want to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes. We remain committed to our ambitious plans, set out in the net zero strategy, the Environment Act and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which detailed comprehensive action this Government will take to reverse the decline in species abundance by 2030, achieve our net zero goals, and deliver cleaner air and water. This includes creating and restoring at least 500,000 hectares of new wildlife habitats, delivering a clean and plentiful supply of water for people and nature into the future, keeping councils accountable to improve air quality faster, incentivising farmers to adopt nature-friendly practices, and boosting green growth and creating new jobs. This Bill will not alter that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

In his reply, the Minister has several times implied that it was the fault of EU law, but surely it was a problem of UK implementation and enforcement. I know I am a broken record in this respect but I have, at various times, referred to the Thames super sewer. Left to their own devices, the UK Government were not going to stop the discharge, in even minimal rainfall, of raw sewage through 36 combined sewage overflows into the River Thames as it goes through London. It was only infringement proceedings by the European Commission that led to this result. The standards that we have are not the EU’s fault; it is the UK Government and the agencies that have not done their job.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I never said that. I was the Minister who made the sewer that is being put in place happen. I know all about the urban waste water treatment directive, and it is a very good directive indeed. It is cleaning up a lot of rivers and will ensure that we have more investment such as we are seeing in the Thames. There may be cases where there has been poor implementation, and there may be cases where there has been very good European regulation which we want to see retained. There may be areas where we can see an improvement which reflects a local dynamic in our environment.

We cannot talk about this in a binary sense. There is some very good EU law which we want to see continue, there are some areas in which it is no longer necessary, and there are some areas in which with a few tweaks it can be improved. Among the proposed conditions in the amendment is a requirement to publish a statement setting out how such environmental standards have been met. Such conditions are already being met under the Environment Act 2021. The Act has established a robust legal framework to deliver environmental benefits and hold Governments, both now and in the future, to account in delivering them. Crucially, the Act also established the Office for Environmental Protection, an independent body to scrutinise government delivery and progress on environmental ambitions. In addition, we have a statutory duty, through the Environment Act, to report annually to Parliament on progress against the environment improvement plan and to undertake a significant improvement test every five years.

To reiterate the point on REACH, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised, we recognise there may be concerns about the future of REACH regulation. That is why we have deliberately built protections into the provisions of the Environment Act. The Secretary of State must publish a statement to explain how any proposal is consistent with the basic aim and scope of REACH. There must be consultation before we can make any changes. We have also excluded more than 20 provisions to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, including the no dating, no market principle, using animal testing only as a last resort, and the public transparency of the system.

Finally, I want to clarify a response made to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the last time I addressed the Committee on the Bill’s removal of interpretive effects. The removal of interpretive effects by the Bill refers to measures in Clauses 3 to 5 which repeal rights, powers and liabilities saved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They abolish the principle of the supremacy of EU law and general principles of EU law as aids to interpretation of the UK statute book. Retained case law is not being sunsetted.

Further detail on interpretive effects was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his letter circulated before the Committee on 6 March. We will shortly publish a list for noble Lords, so they will have plenty of time and opportunity to review the regulations we intend to allow to expire at the end of the year and those we wish to retain.

The Government are committed to upholding the environmental protections. I hope I have reassured noble Lords, and I therefore ask them not to press these amendments.

Water Companies: Pollution Penalties

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The number of spills per overflow per year in England in 2021 was 29. That compares, for example, with Wales, where it was 44. It is undoubtedly the case, in a river that I know, that there is a problem. There are eight villages up that valley. Every one of those villages has increased in size—in the number of houses—over the past four decades by between 25% and 40%. There has been a consistent, decadal problem of investment to match that. We are now requiring water companies to play catch-up, and they are, in that catchment and many others. We are complying with regulations such as the urban wastewater treatment directive, which has seen £1.4 billion invested in stopping just 50 storm overflows in the River Thames. There are 14,000 storm overflows in England. To deal with them all is a massive job and will require billions of pounds of investment to restore our rivers.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, will the urban wastewater treatment directive, which is dear to our hearts, be preserved, assimilated or whatever under the retained EU law Bill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If anything, it will be improved, because we want to see urgency in the restoration of our waterways, and that is what we are pushing for.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2023

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have certainly not gone back on the commitment to ban neonicotinoids. As has happened in the last two years, we have given an indication that we might be in favour of the application of something called Cruiser SB, a plant protection product containing the active substance thiamethoxam, for the sugar beet industry. It will be allowed to be applied only if winter data shows that there will be a considerable loss of crop. If there is a considerable loss of crop, the sugar that would have been produced would have to come from other parts of the world at a higher carbon cost, and probably grown in circumstances where neonicotinoids are allowed. We will not allow spraying when the plant is in flower, so it will not be as damaging as the seed dressing that caused such a problem. It is a very rare circumstance; in the years in which this derogation has been allowed, on many occasions it has not actually been used because the threshold of potential crop loss was not reached.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I make my regular plea to the Minister—I think he took this point once before—that the term “storm overflows” of raw sewage should be discouraged. It does not happen in storm conditions or even in heavy rainfall; moderate rainfall causes these overflows, which exist because of a lack of investment in sewage treatment capacity. I learned that from a tip-off from someone in the Environment Agency 18 years ago when I was campaigning for what became the Tideway Tunnel.

Water Companies: Environmental Pollution

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I would hate any noble Lord to be under the impression that our attempts to resolve this problem start here. We have record levels of investment in our water infrastructure. Between 2020 and 2025, £3.1 billion is being invested by water companies specifically in storm overflow improvements. We have set out target dates by which we want to see these improvements, and we will report by 1 September on precisely how they are going to be delivered.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the term “storm overflow” was just used. In a debate last week, the Minister agreed with me that the term “storm overflow” is very misleading and said that he would look at it. Water companies love it because it sounds as if raw sewage is going into rivers and seas as an exceptional act of God. Can the Minister confirm that he is going to ban it from his department?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will have a look at the lexicon we use. The real problem is illegal storm overflows. There have been overflows from our sewage systems into our rivers for centuries. It has reached an unacceptable level, which is why we have set out a clear plan for dealing with it. Perhaps we need to use better terminology. There are permitted storm overflows and there are illegal storm overflows.

Sewage Disposal in Rivers and Coastal Waters

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Amid this discussion of an unpleasant subject, it is pleasurable to have in my mind the image of leaping salmon, which slightly cheers me up.

I do not have the expertise of others such as my noble friend Lord Oates, whom I thank for this debate, but I want to speak about the Thames Tideway tunnel and my modest role in it. I have had just two things named after me in my political career. One is Sarah s law, a statutory instrument in 2008 whereby I was able to leave this House for a while—to be disqualified in fact, like a traitor or a bankrupt, since that was the only route before the facility of resignation was introduced—to allow me to re-stand for the European Parliament in 2009, but that is history.

The other is “Sarah’s tunnel”, which is what is now the Thames Tideway tunnel, which as your Lordships will all know is a major new 25-kilometre sewer being built along the north bank of the Thames—I think the original target date was 2020, which of course has slipped. Its purpose is to capture raw sewage instead of overflows, as now, pouring into the river from some 36 so-called CSOs, or combined sewage overflows, on the Thames and the River Lea.

I cannot remember whether the term “Sarah’s tunnel” was coined by a journalist or Thames Water. It must be said that Thames Water found that to be a quite convenient term when it wanted to wheel me out as a shield when local residents were up in arms about the disruption of construction works—including, I recall, in the Southwark constituency of my then right honourable friend Simon Hughes MP. They pointed at me and said, “She’s the one who’s got to answer for this; not us”, which was a bit much.

I take a large degree of pride in my role in ensuring that the Thames, at least, will finally be cleared up. A large discharge in 2004 killed a lot of fish, which floated on the surface of the Thames and rowers had to plough through them, which they naturally found very distasteful. A petition was then collected and, as a Member of the European Parliament for London, I had the privilege of presenting this to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. The usefulness of this mechanism is that the European Commission—the enforcer of EU law—had to respond to such a petition. Suffice it to say that that helped lead to the so-called infringement procedure, which culminated, though only many years later in 2012, in a judgment by the European Court of Justice which found the UK in breach of EU law on sewage treatment. I will come back to this court judgment.

That EU law is the snappily named urban wastewater treatment directive. In fact, this was passed more than 30 years ago, in 1991, and came into force, after the usual grace period for member states to comply, in 1998 for larger towns and cities and in 2005 for everywhere. So for nearly 20 years, it has been illegal to discharge raw sewage anywhere, including in the UK—as far as I know, this is either still retained EU law, subject to correction, or is being spilled over to the Environment Act. This directive marked a shift from legislation aimed at end-use standards—testing pollution levels in a river, for instance—to a stricter law regulating water quality at the source, whether domestic or industrial.

I admit that my knowledge of this subject acquired as a constituency MEP has not kept up with the times. My specialisation has always been in justice, home affairs, human rights, and equalities, so I am not knowledgeable about environmental and pollution matters, and my knowledge runs out in about 2012, the date of the judgment by the ECJ. I know that the European Commission has run a consultation on a review, and I think it will respond to the consultation later this year. However, both then and now, domestic regulators have been asleep on the job. I saw recently that Ofwat described the current situation of polluted rivers and seas as “shocking” a few weeks ago. Where on earth has it been for decades? I also know that the Environment Agency funding has fallen 70% in real terms in a decade, so enforcement is much undermined. In that case, the only real enforcement has been by the European Commission, which I will quote shortly.

As we know, the combined system of rainwater and sewage was state of the art—beginning with Bazalgette in the mid-19th century. Of course, this means that if both rainwater and sewage flows increase, so does the combined flow into the sewers. However, we need to keep up with that; we cannot have a static approach and say, “Well, it was okay 50 years ago, so we won’t provide any more investment or make any more changes.”

I wanted to speak today mainly to warn against the term “storm overflows”. The Government and water companies love us to use this expression, because it suggests that discharges are somehow exceptional—only when there is a kind of storm which produces the type of flooding that we have seen in the last few years in Shropshire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire and Lancashire. They want us to have that image in our minds, so that we say, “Oh well, how can they be expected to plan and invest for that sort of exceptional event?” I was tipped off about this by a staff member—who shall for ever remain anonymous—in one of the regulators.

That brings me to the 2012 judgment of the European Court of Justice. I was amused to note that the representation of the United Kingdom Government was led by one “D Anderson QC”—and I hope that he does not mind, in his absence, if I say that I assume that this QC was the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Of course, I am not reproaching him for acting for the UK Government; he would have been acting on the cab rank principle, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is acting for the Government on the Rwanda scheme.

This case was finally brought by the European Commission after years of argy-bargy with the UK Government. The Commission said that, under the directive, member states

“are obliged to ensure that a collecting system is designed and built so as to collect all the urban waste water generated”

by the town it serves. It continues:

“The capacity of the collecting system must therefore be able to take into account natural climatic conditions (dry weather, wet weather, even stormy weather) as well as seasonal variations … The directive must be interpreted as providing for an absolute obligation to avoid spills from storm water overflows save for exceptional circumstances.”


That is what water companies tell us all the time: “Oh, it’s exceptional.” Clearly, however, with climate change what was once exceptional is now routine. In this case, the Commission pointed out that

“the more an overflow spills, particularly during periods when there is only moderate rainfall, the more likely it is that the overflow’s operation is not in compliance”

with the directive under EU law. This is what that staff member in the regulator said to me: “Don’t be misled by the term ‘storm overflows’.” This is happening once a week into the Thames, purely when there is “moderate rainfall”. The staff member told me not to be fobbed off, and I suggest to noble colleagues that we continue not to be fobbed off.

The Commission continued by saying that the directive required

“waste water treatment plants … designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions.”

That is the warning that I want to repeat today. The Commission went on to say that

“failure to treat urban waste water cannot be accepted under usual climatic and seasonal conditions, as otherwise Directive 91/271 would be rendered meaningless.”

This is the point: water companies come along and say, “Oh, it is all exceptional, so we cannot possibly be expected to invest in this.” But they are failing to invest for normal climatic conditions.

The court found against the UK, because it said that it is not exceptional that these discharges are happening. It also went on to say

“in accordance with settled case-law, a Member State may not plead practical or administrative difficulties in order to justify non-compliance … The same holds true of financial difficulties”.

So the Government and the water companies cannot say that there is a disproportionate cost; they have undertaken to stop these discharges and so they must. Indeed, in its judgment, the court found that there were

“60 waste water discharges from”—

it did not use the term “so-called” here, but I will add it—

“storm water overflows in London per year, even in periods of moderate rainfall”.

That is the situation we are facing.

Against the background of that 2012 judgment, I admit that I do not understand the system of permits for the discharge of raw, untreated sewage—this is my ignorance. Why are water companies being given permission to make these discharges? I do not see how this is legal under the directive I have mentioned, since this normalises the routine absence of treatment in unexceptional weather conditions.

I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Oates again for this debate, which has allowed me to go down memory lane. If I have achieved one thing, I hope it has been to put noble Lords on guard about the phrase “storm overflows”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I do not agree with that. I also believe it is good that international sovereign wealth funds want to invest in our regulated utility sector, but it has to be a regulated sector that cracks the whip when it needs to—that is, when those companies do not do what they are required to.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked the House to take note of the impacts of current sewage disposal rates in UK rivers, and further noted the responsibility of water companies to alleviate these impacts. There are two main types of sewage discharges into the water environment by water companies: treated and untreated. Discharges of treated wastewater into our waterways are one of the most significant pressures on the water environment. Treated sewage is the biggest source of phosphorus within the water environment, and excess phosphorus is the most common reason a water body fails to meet good status. Water companies are required to reduce phosphorus loads into the water environment from treated sewage by 50% by 2027. We have recently consulted on a proposal for an Environment Act target to deliver even more progress and deliver an 80% reduction by 2037.

However, it is the untreated discharges that are understandably generating the most public interest. Discharges from storm overflows not only impact the ecology of the receiving water body but can also impact public health where water bodies are used for recreational activities. We have been clear that the current use of overflows is completely unacceptable. They were only ever meant to be an emergency measure but now they are seemingly part of doing business; anecdotally, it seems that only centimetres of rain can trigger them, and that is simply not good enough. We have made it crystal clear to water companies that they must massively reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority. If we do not see the change we expect, we will not hesitate to take further action.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister and sorry that I missed the first minute of his response. Following the theme of my speech, can I ask that another term be used instead of “storm overflows”? It is the biggest excuse that the water companies rely on. It sounds like, “It’s an act of God; it’s a storm; we couldn’t have anticipated this”. If another term could be found it would help to shift the debate.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness may well be right. I agree that there probably needs to be a change. Just behind us, the River Thames is subject to storm overflows that we are hoping to relieve with the Thames Tideway tunnel. With just a few millimetres of rain that one could not call a storm, many other towns, cities and rivers are similarly affected. We have made it clear that the companies must massively reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised a number of good points. I applaud the Slowing The Flow project that she mentioned in the constituency that she used to represent. Importantly, she went on to talk about flooding. There is an easy line that campaigners and politicians use: “We should never build in flood plains”. We are in a flood plain here, in York and in most of our cities. Are we honestly saying that we should never build in those communities? We need to build flood-resistant buildings and to remember the impact that buildings can have on a creaking—sometimes Edwardian or Victorian—sewage system. That is why it is vital to link the pieces together.

We are the first Government to instruct water companies in legislation to massively reduce the use of storm overflows. Earlier this year, the Government published a new set of strategic priorities for the industry’s financial regulator, Ofwat. This set out for the first time the direction from government that water companies must take steps to

“significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows”,

and that the regulator should ensure funding should be approved for them to do so. The Government have also committed to undertake a review of the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010—a case close to my noble friend’s heart. Schedule 3 was designed to set standards for the construction of sustainable drainage systems on new developments, and to make any surface water drainage connections to foul sewers of those developments conditional on the approval of the sustainable drainage systems. This, therefore, can also seek to address the right to connect, which has been of concern to many colleagues here and elsewhere who have mentioned it.

A number of noble Lords mentioned wet wipes. The Storm Overflows Taskforce is considering wet wipes as a contributing factor to overflows and treatment works. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the importance of stopping wet wipes getting into our sewage system. We have a call for evidence that will explore a possible ban on all wet wipes containing plastic. We continue to encourage water companies and wet wipe manufacturers to raise concerns with the consumers and try to get this situation changed.

The review of sustainable drainage systems in planning policy and other developments towards reducing new burdens on the sewage system from surface water drainage from new developments really matter. My noble friend Lady Altmann mentioned nature-based solutions. These need to be understood. When I first raised them with Ofwat a decade ago, it did not like them because they could not be measured. There has been a sea-change and now nature-based solutions are much more palatable to the regulator and all concerned.

In addition to the actions that the Government are taking, we are setting out clear requirements on water companies to put in place the mechanisms to hold them to account for delivering reductions in the use of storm overflows. Last year, our Environment Act brought in a raft of new duties on water companies, which are now legally required to secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from storm overflows. The Act also included a duty on the Government to produce a statutory plan by September this year to reduce discharges from storm overflows and report to Parliament on progress.

On 31 March, we published a consultation on the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which will revolutionise how water companies tackle the number of discharges of untreated sewage. Water companies will face strict limits on when they can use storm overflows and must completely eliminate the harm that any sewage discharge causes to the environment. This will be the largest programme to tackle storm sewage discharges in history.

In the consultation, the Government proposed several specific targets for water companies to achieve. One example that addresses some of the points raised is that, by 2035, the environmental impacts of 75% of overflows affecting our most important protected sites will have been eliminated. These are the most important protected sites; they are used for bathing and are valuable ecosystems that are deteriorating and need to be addressed. By 2035, there will be 70% fewer discharges into bathing waters.

The Government will also publish a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England. We will be very clear about the costs that this would place on consumers and their bills. Under the Environment Act, water companies are now required to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, which will set out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over a minimum 25-year planning horizon. They must include how storm overflows will be addressed.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked some pertinent questions. The water industry was privatised in 1989, with the aim of attracting much-needed investment into the sector through private capital markets, rather than by relying on core government funding. Since privatisation, water companies have delivered £160 billion of investment, including £30 billion invested in the environment. This is equivalent to around £5 billion of investment annually. The privatised model continues to attract investment, and, for the period from 2020 to 2025, water companies have invested £51 billion, including over £7 billion of investment in the environment. This will reduce pollution incidents by 30% and deliver improvements to more than 12,000 kilometres of rivers.

The right reverend Prelate talked about the importance of joining up the pollution in our rivers with our farming policy, and he is absolutely right. I was in his diocese recently at the Groundswell event, which showed how farmers can weaponise their soil to protect rivers and the environment. He will be pleased to see the Government’s riparian tree-planting proposals, which will protect river systems by planting more trees on the edge of water.

My noble friend Lord Caithness was absolutely right to raise catchments; we need to think about this landscape to protect water bodies and, of course, aquifers. I am such a geek that I check the Pang Valley Flood Forum’s data whenever it rains to see the impact on my local river. I refer noble Lords to the evidence given to the EFRA Select Committee by the Government’s preferred candidate to take over the Environment Agency, Alan Lovell, who comes from a farming family and understands the impact, both beneficial and damaging, that farming can have on waterways and rivers. We hope that noble Lords will appreciate this appointment and the other work that we are doing with public bodies to make sure that this remains a priority.

The Environment Act also includes a power for the Government to direct water companies in relation to the actions in these drainage and sewerage management plans. The Act includes duties to massively improve the monitoring and transparency of the use of storm overflows. Water companies will be required to publish spill data in near real time and monitor the water quality impacts, upstream and downstream, of all storm overflows. Water companies and the Environment Agency will be required to publish summary data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis.

The Government have been clear to water companies that we will not hesitate to take enforcement action if they are failing to meet their obligations. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that the fines get unloaded not on customers but on shareholders. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but this is true: it is a rule that we have imposed.

Since 2015 the EA has brought 49 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of over £137 million. On 9 July last year, Southern Water was handed a record £90 million fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage which polluted rivers and coastal waters in Kent, Hampshire and Sussex. The fine has been paid solely from the company’s operating profits, rather than added to customer bills.

We are holding the industry to account on a scale never done before. Ofwat and the Environment Agency have launched the largest investigations into all water and wastewater companies in England and Wales in the light of information suggesting that water companies in England may not be complying with their permits, resulting in excess sewage spills into the environment, even in dry periods.

Before coming to this role I was on the board of River Action, which seeks to address the issues around the River Wye, and across many other rivers. These combine the problems of sewage in the rivers and phosphates from farming and make sure that we are holding relevant people to account, so I have some form on this.

In conclusion, the frequency of discharges from storm overflows is wholly unacceptable. I have set out the Government’s ambitious agenda to deliver huge reductions in the use of storm overflows for the first time ever. This includes: reviewing the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act; a direction from government to Ofwat in the strategic policy statement setting out that water companies must take steps to

“significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows”,

and that the regulator should ensure funding be approved for them to do so. Further measures include: statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, with powers of direction; a storm overflows discharge reduction plan, with clear, specific and ambitious targets; and statutory requirements for improved monitoring of sewage discharges.

It is time for water companies to step up and deliver on their promises. We have all set out our expectations that they must do better, as have the public. The Government recognise that healthy and well-managed waters are a cornerstone of our economy and our well-being. We are committed to collectively addressing all of these issues alongside our action on storm overflows to deliver on our pledge to hand over our planet to the next generation in a better condition than when we inherited it.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I regret Brexit, but I support the targeting of financial support to farmers to secure environmental enhancement, food security and safety, and the welfare of animals and plants. I hope that small family and hill farms will get a better deal, as opposed to the cereal barons and city-owned megafarms that the CAP seems to favour. However, I will put down a few markers.

First, I fully concur with my noble friend Lord Tyler’s concern over the protection of GIs. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s plans in this respect, whether for Cornish pasties or other products? Secondly, there should be no threat to the production and marketing of kosher and halal food in the wake of Brexit. Thirdly, I fear that the Government will torpedo British farmers’ and consumers’ interests by giving in to US pressure on food standards. As others have said, the US produces food to standards that many of us regard as very bad practice and which EU law prevents. Even if the response was, “We won’t ban them but will require them to be labelled”, that is not an adequate substitute in all cases—and anyway, we know from the experience over GMOs that the US will fight that tooth and nail.

The Government have made much of their manifesto promise, reflected in a letter from the two Secretaries of State, that they would

“not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”

The problem is that this pledge was set in the context, and with the caveat, that the Government would not so compromise

“In all our trade negotiations.”


As we have heard, Neil Parish, the Conservative chair of the EFRA Select Committee, clearly did not trust the Government. Hence, he was among those—my colleague Tim Farron was another—who tabled amendments in the other place last month to try to avoid the commitments being, as he put it,

“traded away on the altar of cheap food.”

If the Government’s pledges meant anything, why did they rally their troops to defeat those amendments?

I fear that the Government are leaving themselves plenty of wiggle room. There are reports of a plan to apply tariffs on lower standard products, apparently with the idea that US producers would thus find it uneconomic to send them here. What is the state of play on this reported plan and how does it accord with the manifesto and ministerial pledges? In any case, as the Times columnist Clare Foges put it well on Monday, the pledge not to lower our standards through trade negotiations does not prevent them doing so through domestic legislation; hence the refusal to agree a level playing field in the EU negotiations.

Given the experience in the other place last month, it would seem that the Government could rely on their loyal lobby fodder to get a diminution of standards through. As it was put in the Financial Times yesterday:

“For Mr Johnson … a deal with the US is a strategic imperative … Washington’s price will be … a decisive British break with EU rules and regulations. It is looking more and more as if Mr Johnson is ready to pay this price.”


Mr Johnson might be ready to pay that price, but it is British farmers and consumers who would take the hit. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said at the beginning of this debate, Liberal Democrats are determined to stop that—as, apparently, are noble Lords across the House.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the title of this debate must have been designed as an illustration of the Prime Minister’s erroneous claim that Brexit is done, since neither Brexit nor the European Union feature in it. Are we supposed to regard the EU already as part of “foreign affairs”?

I have to recognise the reality that Brexit is happening, although I cannot and will not accept it. I think it is a terrible mistake. I will never be reconciled to it; I hope that future generations will take the UK back into the EU—not least when they find that ending free movement not only destabilises and harms EU and EEA citizens but rips from British citizens the opportunity that their parents and grandparents have enjoyed to live, work and retire on the continent.

My colleague in the other place, Wera Hobhouse, put it very well in the Second Reading debate on the withdrawal agreement Bill, on 20 December, when she stressed that her,

“passionate belief that the UK is better off as a proud member inside the EU, rather than as an irrelevant outsider, has not melted away overnight.”

She went on to describe the withdrawal agreement as,

“damaging to our economy, our security, our international reputation and our ability to tackle the global climate emergency … it will put a border in the Irish sea and threaten our family of nations. Most of all, we will lose something profoundly British: being international, and leading in the continuous fight for liberal values, human rights and a rules-based international order. We Liberal Democrats will always fight for that.”—[Official Report; Commons, 20/12/19; col. 177.]

We have seen a major illustration in recent days of the challenges Wera Hobhouse enumerated in the crisis over Iran, which also encapsulates the warning of my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, in his response to the Queen’s Speech on 18 December, that,

“the aspiration of having your cake and eating it is about to be dashed.”—[Official Report; 18/12/19; col. 21.]

But cakeism is exactly what the Prime Minister tried to continue to enjoy in the several days that it took him to come home from his luxury beach holiday in Mustique and address the Iran crisis. The killing of Qasem Soleimani has raised tensions throughout the Middle East while the Prime Minister stayed in the Caribbean, took three days to make an official response and now, I understand, will not be updating MPs in the emergency debate.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I think the whole the House will regard those comments as unworthy of a great political party and quite inappropriate when we are discussing serious things today.

[Baroness Ludford]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, with which I profoundly disagree. Frankly, there is a crisis over President Trump’s impetuous decision to assassinate Mr Soleimani, as unpleasant a character as he certainly was. It would have behoved the Prime Minister to be rather more visible sooner.

Apart from all the other potential threats, the crisis may well endanger further the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other Britons in Iran. What update can the Government give us in that regard? I heard Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, the outgoing—and hoping to be incoming—chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, say on “World at One” that the crisis might have a silver lining in allowing a reset of relations with Iran. He may be among few in thinking that there will be any kind of silver lining.

Mr Johnson has tried to bridge supporting the so-called right of the United States to defend itself—a doubtful justification which appears to have no support in international law—and aligning with his European partners to call on both sides not to escalate into a devastating cycle of violence. There is confusion as well as recklessness in Washington, with President’s Trump’s decision on the assassination having apparently been made on the spur of the moment without any strategic plan. Apparently, the letter announcing the withdrawal of US forces sent by the US military in Iraq to the Iraqi Government was issued in error and US forces are not withdrawing. What is the situation with UK forces?

Instead of being a bridge, the Prime Minister is falling into the gap. Were Iran to respond forcefully, how would the Prime Minister choose between the more aggressive US approach and the more conciliatory EU line? When EU Foreign Ministers meet on Friday, what will Mr Raab say? Will this, by the way, be one of the last EU Council meetings a UK Foreign Minister attends or will Mr Raab attend throughout this year?

The Minister talked of strengthening global relationships but the Iran situation highlights the story and tragedy of Brexit: instead of enjoying being part of an influential organisation, the EU, we will be required to tag along with Trump and his crazy schemes as the price of a trade deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who I do not think is in his place—oh, yes he is—put it last night on “Newsnight”, the UK’s position is uncomfortable since President Trump will demand loyalty on Iran, Huawei and other issues as the price of a UK trade deal for the UK. He tweeted:

“I’m afraid that’s going to be one of the realities of post-Brexit Britain, constantly having to weigh our need for trade deals against foreign policy objectives.”


How and on what criteria will the Government resolve that dilemma? Another expert commented that the crisis between the US and Iran highlights how much of a lose-lose situation Brexit is in terms of geopolitical influence, both for the UK and for the EU 27.

On the economy, some Brexiters have made much of a Financial Times editorial last week about how the UK economy could thrive after Brexit. The editorial read rather as if it were drafted by a committee, or at least two people, but it had one striking conclusion:

“The UK economy will survive”.


If that is the benchmark for sunny uplands and all the amazing prospects that we are supposed to have, it is not much of an endorsement of Brexit.

Mr Johnson intends to tear us away from the EU single market and tie us to US standards and trade intentions, which many of the public are rightly wary of, from food hygiene to designs on the NHS. Even if a deal is reached, with Mr Johnson’s risky refusal to contemplate an extension to the negotiations very unwisely being written into the draft legislation, all that we are going to get, even with success, is a Canada-style trade agreement with, as my noble friend Lord Newby said in December, free trade in goods, where we have a deficit, but no equivalent deal on services, where we have a surplus. Indeed, services represent 80% of our economy. What about industries, such as the automotive industry, that rely on a long uninterrupted supply chain and on being part of a customs union with common rules of origin? What are their prospects under the Government’s intentions?

On fisheries, the Conservative manifesto promised that the UK would control its fishing waters, and the Minister repeated the pledge to take back control. That promise will definitely be broken if there is to be any prospect of the 80% of our catch that goes to the EU getting into its primary market on the continent without tariff and administrative hurdles.

The withdrawal agreement Bill includes a clause specifically about parliamentary sovereignty, stating:

“It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign”


and that nothing in the Act derogates from that sovereignty. Not only does that contradict other clauses in the withdrawal agreement Bill and the withdrawal agreement itself since we are going to be a rule-taker—or, if you like, a vassal state—for at least a year, and for some aspects way beyond that, but it is of doubtful legal significance. Mike Gordon, professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, has said that,

“it is difficult to see that it has any practical effect in terms of diminishing the actual legal status of the obligations flowing from the Withdrawal Agreement in domestic law.”

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Given the disastrous performance of the noble Baroness’s party at the general election and the loss of its leader, does she not think that instead of just repeating the same carping criticisms, she and her party should get on board and make a success of Brexit?

[Baroness Ludford]

We will do our very best to make it the least worst Brexit, but the fact is that what the Government have already said and put in the draft Bill is making that prospect extremely difficult, on top of Brexit itself.

As I said, there is a declaratory clause about parliamentary sovereignty. That is then completely undermined by the removal of the clauses that were in the October version of the Bill which were going to give MPs a veto over an extension and control over negotiations on future relations. It seems contradictory, if not hypocritical, to declare parliamentary sovereignty and then take away its substance.

We also know that the Prime Minister tried to claim black was white when he said there would be no checks on goods going between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All we had to do was read the Government’s own impact assessment which said that those moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and entry summary declarations, therefore completely contradicting what he tried to claim. The Government need to come completely clean on that.

Many people are already worried about Prime Minister Johnson being tied to the coat-tails of an erratic and unpredictable President Trump, but there was a curious speech a few weeks ago from No. 10 adviser Tim Montgomerie, which has further set alarm bells ringing. He said that the UK would forge a special relationship with Viktor Orban. He praised the “interesting early thinking” on “the limits of liberalism” of Mr Orban, who is of course a notorious authoritarian. Brexit is set to tear us away from our pole position as a leading member of the liberal, democratic EU into alliances with dodgy leaders across the world, because we are desperate for trade sweeteners. I will never, ever regard that as a good bargain.

Finally, the only wry amusement that might emerge from the situation will be watching the tensions between the little England nationalists who want a nostalgic return to the 1950s, such as Charles Moore, who wants to go back to imperial measurements, the creative destruction of Mr Cummings, as he recruits weirdos and misfits to Whitehall, and the global, buccaneering Singapore-on-Thames that the hedge fund backers of Mr Johnson desire. It will be funny, if terribly sad.

European Union: Environmental Policy

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the great repeal Bill will provide an opportunity to ensure that there will be no gaps, to provide certainty for businesses, stakeholders and everyone. It is precisely the case that those standards will be coming back to this country and if there is any requirement for alteration, it would come before Parliament in the normal manner of scrutiny by both Houses.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, health and flooding have been mentioned, but is it not true that without EU environmental laws on air pollution and clean water, we would have had an even worse situation on air pollution, particularly in London, and would not now be building a supersewer to stop the discharge of raw sewage into the Thames, which is still happening in 2016?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, what the noble Baroness said about the Thames Tideway project is extremely important: raw sewage is going into the Thames; we must reduce it and work on it. That is why it is a very important investment. However, when I looked into the matter, much of what the noble Baroness mentioned is domestic legislation which even predates our membership of the EU. We will be continuing with our environmental course so that we have a better environment.

Natural Environment

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Bakewell on introducing this debate. I will follow other noble Lords in concentrating on air pollution, especially from vehicles.

As another former Member of the European Parliament, it is a pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord Callanan. We will both have to get used to calling each other that.

I, too, am grateful for the recent Environmental Audit Committee report in another place. As time is short, I would just urge noble Lords to read it. I broadly agree with it. It is nearly 60 years since the Clean Air Act and more than 40 years since the Control of Pollution Act. I was, briefly, a very junior civil servant and worked on drafting the latter. It is a scandal that, all these decades later, we are not dealing with what has become the number one environmental health challenge. It is estimated to cause 29,000 premature deaths a year in this country and 7 million or 8 million worldwide. It is not just diesel exhaust but air pollution as a whole that is classed as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization. London seems to have the highest monitored nitrogen dioxide levels in the world—three times WHO limits, especially on Oxford Street and Marylebone Road.

Quite rightly, there has been great emphasis on carbon dioxide limits in the tackling of climate change—no one, certainly not a Liberal Democrat, would quarrel with that. However, there has been an overlooking of the problems and challenges of air pollution. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that it needs to go very fast up the policy and political agenda. I applaud the Healthy Air Campaign, which is run by a group of non-governmental organisations, and also Living Streets, which emphasises how tackling air pollution can make life much pleasanter and safer for pedestrians.

Liberal Democrats have long championed the need to tackle air pollution as well as climate change. Perhaps I may quote from a document which is headed “Localised Air Pollution”. It says that, “There is increasing evidence that many people in the UK become exposed to concentrations of pollution above World Health Organization guidelines as the result of emissions from road vehicles. This includes ground-level ozone, which is a problem in both rural and urban areas, nitrogen dioxide at urban sites, PM10s —the fine particulate emissions from diesel engines”. That was in a Liberal Democrat policy paper of 20 years ago. The working group was chaired by my now noble friend Lord Bradshaw. My noble friend Lord Tyler was also a member of that group. So, we are not Johnny-come-latelys when it comes to tackling air pollution.

I congratulate the successive holders of the post of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the current Government. I believe that they have been more active than their counterparts at Defra in dealing with air pollution and that there has been some complacency at Defra on the issue. One of the most urgent requirements is to update the air quality strategy in this country. We need a holistic approach and a clear demarcation of responsibilities and resources as between central government departments and between central and local government. One rather simple thing that could be done is to incorporate pollution warnings into weather forecasts as happens with pollen counts. There seems to be a curious contrast in those things. The planning framework needs to place much more emphasis on air quality matters. Locating schools and new homes away from main roads is one example.

Although I cannot enumerate all the issues that need attention, one of them, of course, is airport construction. We need explicit air quality objectives for the current Airports Commission appraisal framework. Liberal Democrats believe, of course, that aviation expansion must not further damage health. That is the reason for our negative response to suggestions to build new airports, particularly in the south-east. As others have said—including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—we must not allow the Red Tape Challenge to undermine local air quality monitoring.

As others have also said—I will not dwell on this—the main problem is diesel engines. Although there were undoubtedly good reasons for encouraging diesel, it is way past time for a radical change in policy direction. That will mean giving attention to the fiscal and other frameworks—such as fuel duty, vehicle excise duty and so on—under which people have been encouraged to go for diesel. I do not own a car but sheepishly admit that, as a member of a car club called Zipcar, I find myself involuntarily driving cars with diesel engines. I do not drive frequently but when I do, the engines always seem to be diesel. Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to remove the loopholes whereby diesel particle filters are removed after being factory fitted? People are apparently managing to remove them through these loopholes, so I would very much welcome a specific answer on that. We need to aim for the adoption of zero-carbon technology in motor vehicles and in London. Liberal Democrats propose having a big switch to 100% electric buses, taxis and vans. We regard the Mayor of London’s ambitions for the ultra-low emission zone as lacking both urgency and stringency. We need to go much further and much faster.

We work in a European context because air pollution does not recognise national boundaries. The coalition agreement pledged compliance with EU clean air laws but the UK is massively in breach of these laws and is thus subject to legal action. We are 20 to 25 years late in the schedule. My noble friend Lord Callanan and I are not quite on the same page on this matter. He says that air quality rules must not impede economic growth but that is a false choice. I also venture to suggest that the engineering companies of the north-east could make big business out of clean technology.

My last question to the Minister is therefore to ask whether he will update us on the Government’s efforts to ensure that the EU’s ambitions for clean air will continue and to dissuade the Commission from withdrawing its proposals for new air quality directives. Unfortunately, I believe that there is a lack of consensus in the European Parliament to pass a resolution now to urge the Commission not to withdraw these measures. It was disappointing that the Environment Secretary was not a signatory of a letter from the national Environment Ministers to the Commission President urging against withdrawal. Will my noble friend tell us whether the Government are determined to press forward to meet EU laws?