Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Duke of Wellington and Baroness Parminter

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In moving Amendment 30 I will introduce it and seven other amendments in this group. I say immediately that a number of them are consequential, and I am very mindful of the time—so do not panic. They are all about pollution reduction.

Amendment 30, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is specifically around the issue of pollution incident reduction plans, which I think the whole Committee welcomes. She is seeking to highlight that, at the moment, it is only water and sewerage companies that they apply to; they do not apply to water-only companies. Yet five out of the 16 regional water companies are water-only companies, and they are in areas of high ecological importance, including some that have some of our most precious chalk streams—and we have had plenty of debates in this House explaining how they are of global significance.

I wanted to quote what Ofwat said this summer about water companies. It stated:

“We recognise that water only companies … can be responsible for serious pollution incidents and intend to hold them to account”.


Making water-only companies subject to this provision, as well as water and sewerage companies, would allow it to do just that.

Amendment 32 is in my name and that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington; I thank him for his support. Also in this group are Amendments 31, 39, 40 and 36. They all deal with the issue of the water companies having a duty to publish these pollution incident reduction plans but having no obligation to actually implement them. We are saying that they should have a duty to implement them.

I raised this issue at Second Reading. In response, the Minister said to me about pollution incident reduction plans:

“A specific duty to implement the plan would make enforcement more difficult, we believe, as it would cut across the wider legal requirements for pollution reduction”.—[Official Report, 9/10/2024; col. 2072.]


I want to unpick that a bit, because I have a couple of issues with it.

First, the Water Industry Strategic Environmental Requirements, a document drawn up in 2022 by the Environment Agency and Natural England, sets out that pollution incident reduction plans can be a mechanism for water companies to discharge their pollution reduction obligations, and says that if they do that then they must be implemented. Secondly, it is fairly common practice in the corporate world that, if there is a duty to undertake an action plan or similar, it should be implemented. The most recent example I could find was in the financial sector, where last year a consumer duty was placed on financial companies, to be overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority, whereby they have to draw up specific action plans, and there is a duty in the law that these must be implemented. If it is in law elsewhere, why is it not appropriate here?

I tried to think whether there was any other reason why the Government might not want water companies to implement these plans. I thought they might be worried that the water companies would use them as a bargaining chip in the price reviews, or with local authorities when they sought permission for various planning applications: they could say, “You’ve got to give us this permission or allow us to spend this money—we’ve got a legal duty and you have to succumb”. I have more faith in local authority members not to accept that position. Equally, as we have just discussed, given that Ofwat does not really have that many environmental duties, I think that it will keep clear of that as well. But even if it is still an overriding concern of the Government, it is not insurmountable. Between now and Report, I think we could come up with some wording that said that, subject to the necessary permissions, the water companies must implement these plans.

These plans are really important. If we do not put it in the Bill that the companies must implement them, it begs the question whether the Government really want them implemented. We know that pollution levels are stubbornly high, and we know that the water companies are not doing enough. Unless they have an explicit duty to follow through on them, we are missing something of a trick.

Finally, Amendment 34A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, picks up the important issue of pollution in national parks. I know that a number of local noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and indeed the Minister herself, raised this at Second Reading. There are stubbornly high levels of pollution in our iconic national parks and the Broads. It is a travesty that not one of the rivers, lakes or streams in our national parks is in good ecological state—that is appalling. It was only earlier this month that we found out that United Utilities had discharged 140 million litres of sewage illegally into Lake Windermere. Frankly, it beggars belief.

This amendment very reasonably proposes that the companies must come up with plans to deal with these pollution incidents by 2030. I think that most members of the public would think that an entirely reasonable request. They have had just about enough of these companies constantly making our rivers, streams and lakes in national parks filthy and stinking while, in many cases, making themselves filthy and stinking rich. I beg to move.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I support some of the detail in Amendments 30, 31 and 32—I have added my name to Amendment 32. Amendment 30 makes a very good point and I would be surprised if the Minister was not prepared to devise her own amendment that would cover all these points. Obviously, water-only and sewerage undertakers should be included in the scope of this clause.

Amendments 31 and 32 are very similar. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has already said, it seems extraordinary that a water company could publish a pollution incident reduction plan without intending to implement it. It would then be just a nice idea but nothing more would happen. I would be very surprised if the Minister did not accept it; I cannot quite understand that there is a legal argument for not accepting it. My hope from this short debate is that the Minister will agree to look at these points carefully. I am sure that, with the benefit of parliamentary draftsmen who help on these matters, she could come up with an amendment of her own that would cover the points. Clearly, there is support for what I would say are the rather obvious points made in these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will react accordingly.