Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, on Thursday this week the Minister and I will be discussing how we save the planet, so this important subject is good practice for that mega-issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out simply the unfortunate need for these amendment regulations. The Official Opposition support them. As she has pointed out, under the current regulations, eggs can be marketed as free range for a maximum of only 16 weeks if the hens are shut inside; after that, they are to be called barn eggs. However, as we have seen in recent years, housing restrictions for free-range hens due to Chinese avian influenza outbreaks have often exceeded the 16-week limit. Within 2021-22 and 2022-23 the outbreaks required measures for 22 and 23 weeks respectively. That has caused significant logistical and financial challenges for the egg industry, and the amendment rightly seeks to address those issues.

The amendment is essential, as the Minister has said, because the EU has removed its 16-week limit and, unless we do likewise, our producers will be at a huge disadvantage. We would be importing eggs from the EU labelled “free range” while ours had to be downgraded to barn eggs. As long as there is a trading market in eggs in Europe, we need to stay consistent.

On consistency, I was going to ask the Minister about Wales because, when I drafted my speech last week, I was under the impression that Wales was possibly going to stick with the 16-week rule, but I am delighted that it seems all four countries of the union will now be at the same level of derogation.

I want to ask about enforcement. Producers in areas where there is a danger of Chinese avian flu will benefit from this amendment, but can the Minister assure us that it will not be possible for these measures to be abused, so that free-range eggs will be permitted to be advertised as such only when hen housing has been mandatorily restricted, not for any other reason?

While this amendment is necessary at the moment, what if anything has the Chief Veterinary Officer said to Defra about how long these lockdowns may be necessary? I appreciate that that is a difficult question to answer and some of it is guesswork, but I hope that Dr Middlemiss will be able to remove the restrictions as soon as she thinks it is safe to do so. We, the Government and the industry must not get into the cosy rut of maintaining these lockdowns unnecessarily. We have already had a six-month one and if we have lockdowns that last a lot longer, as long as may be necessary, we will need to take a serious look at the definition of “free range”.

I understand that in the consultation 66% of respondents felt that the proposal would cause little or no confusion among consumers. Of course not, since how are consumers to know how long the hens have been shut inside in the first place while the eggs are still labelled free range? I am not worried about consumers being confused but I am worried about misrepresentation.

That brings me to my last point. As the Minister knows, the definition of “free range” is a bit farcical in any case—or perhaps it would be safer to say not what most people would think free range actually is. I recall in 1990, as a junior Minister in MAFF, three different supermarket directors marching into the ministry to demand that we adopt their own various definitions of free-range eggs, when we entered into negotiations in the EEC later that year. They varied from chickens getting a sniff of fresh air occasionally for a few minutes each day, to their being let out on a tiny patch of grass, to roughly the current definition that henhouses have little pop-out holes where the chickens could theoretically go out if they wanted to but, in many cases, the majority do not. No matter how unfree the range is, that is the current definition in Europe and we cannot get out of step with it. I suspect that there is no mood in Europe to change that definition and I hope that we in the UK will not take unilateral action to tighten it further, even if some animal welfare groups may demand it.

As the noble Baroness said—I believe this too—if hens are confined inside for six months, nine months or even more, consumers have a right to know that their eggs are not really free-range. On how we address that, I am glad that the Minister is in charge and that it is not me back in MAFF, as it was in the old days, having to tackle this problem. Nevertheless, we are where we are; I support the amendment and what the Government intend to do here.

Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister again for introducing these regulations and for the extremely constructive way in which she has taken a personal interest in trying to find pragmatic solutions to this undoubtedly very complex set of issues.

It is clear from the several debates we have had on the Windsor Framework regulations, today and previously, that they provoke strong emotions and reactions from the noble Lords of the DUP and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. However, it is true that in Northern Ireland there are also different points of view on these matters, which we heard very clearly, eloquently and constructively expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.

I will not repeat the Brexit arguments that I have made previously, but it is none the less true that we would not be debating these issues if we were still in the European Union or if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in the EU single market. There are genuine and legitimate issues about how to carry out parliamentary scrutiny of EU single market regulations when we no longer have representation in EU institutions and have to be a rule-taker without a say in the process. I have suggested previously that it would be useful for the whole House to have a wider debate, at some point soon, on our relations with the EU and on the much talked about reset with the EU and what it would look like in reality. It would also be useful to have a debate on the approach towards parliamentary oversight of decisions and regulations adopted by the EU and their impact on UK businesses in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

On the specifics of the regulations we are debating this evening, from these Benches we broadly welcome them as a further pragmatic and temporary step to try to make this complex arrangement work slightly more effectively. As these regulations apply only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland, we believe that they sharpen the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

I have three questions. The first is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked. Can the Minister say when this long-term approach to these issues is likely to be published and adopted? As she said in her introduction, these temporary measures will apply only until July next year. Can she say how MPs, noble Lords and all Northern Ireland political parties and businesses will be consulted in this process?

My second question is the same as the one the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked. Can the Minister say a little more about progress or otherwise on an SPS and veterinary agreement? It is clearly for the new Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in your Lordships’ House to decide its own programme, but it would be very useful if it were to look at some of these issues when it starts work next year.

My third and final question is something I ask every time. Can the Minister explain a little more about how these regulations will be enforced and policed in reality? Other noble Lords have raised this in a different way. I conclude by thanking her once again, and I look forward to hearing her responses.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.

While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?

The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?

Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:

“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]


Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.

This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.

Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.

The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.

Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.

Storm Bert: National Preparedness

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Storm Bert was a tragedy for home owners who were flooded out and whose homes and businesses were destroyed; they have our sympathy and support. It was also a disaster for farmers, who are already worried about increased cost and tax burdens as a result of the Budget. The Conservative Government introduced the farming recovery fund to support farmers in these exact circumstances. Can the Minister tell the House exactly how much financial support has been given to farmers through the fund in response to Storm Bert, since she confirmed that the scheme has already been opened?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we recently announced £60 million to be distributed through the farming recovery fund for the previous floods. It is very important that we support farmers. It is a very difficult time when your land is flooded; it can take a long time to recover and be very expensive. We are currently looking at this.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

I have asked the Minister a lot of questions. If she is unable to provide answers this afternoon, perhaps she would agree to meet to discuss this important matter, about which I readily admit to having something of a bee in my bonnet.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Government for bringing these regulations to the Committee for debate. I think all noble Lords agree that reducing the impact of pollution by waste on our environment is an important goal. These Benches wholeheartedly support that objective and we want the Government to foster innovation in the packaging sector that drives down the harms of pollution.

We all agree that recycling rates are too low in both domestic and trade scenarios. Domestic recycling is not helped by councils operating dozens of different schemes. Standardisation is essential, but these regulations impose huge bureaucratic burdens on the regulator and the industry to the very tight timescale of April 2025. As we all know, the Environment Agency is hard pushed to deliver on all its current commitments, including on flooding, and it will have massive new responsibilities under these regulations. Just look at the information which has to be sent to the EA for registration and at all the six-monthly reports that it will now have to plough through.

Here is my first question for the Minister. I should say that I, too, have a number of questions, some of which are technical; I would be happy for the Minister to write to me, as I do not expect her to be able to come up with, off the top of the head, the answers from around 500 pages of regulations. What estimate has been made of the extra staff required by the EA and what funding will be available to it? The Minister said that £1 billion will go to local authorities for their expenses, so who will pay the EA for its additional burden? If local authorities are to get an extra £1 billion, I hope that the Government will clamp down ruthlessly on this nonsense where some councils want to collect garbage—I apologise for that awful American word—and rubbish such as dirty nappies and rotten food only once a month. That is simply not acceptable; I hope that the Government will clamp down on it and stop it.

I hope that the Government will also stop councils charging for the collection of garden waste. Garden waste such as grass clippings is recyclable. There should not be a charge for that.

Then we have the cost to businesses. Many have expressed concerns with the illustrative figures suggested by Defra since most producers think that the fees will be at the top end of the illustration. For example, Defra has, I believe, suggested that the illustrative fees for glass will be between £115 and £215 per tonne. How can businesses plan on that basis, with such a wide variation, while also adding the planned increases in national insurance and business rates? This is not freeing up business to go for growth, as the Chancellor claims. I understand that, in October, 85 industry businesses signed a joint letter to the Minister, Mary Creagh, calling for the scheme to be delayed. They are not opposed to extended producer responsibility but they want to know what fees will be charged—and in good time, so that they have more time to register with the Environment Agency.

Wines and spirits member companies account for 70% of the glass used in the drinks business. They have 300 member companies and more than 60% of them are small and medium-sized enterprises. They also want to see the scheme delayed for a year, in order to sort out not just the fee structure but the definitions of “non-household waste” and “packaging designed for business use”. They say that the vast majority of waste generated in the hospitality sector is disposed of via business waste streams, which they pay for, but they will also incur EPR fees so will pay twice. Defra had promised to avoid this double counting, I believe, but it has now decided to press on with these regulations regardless, and the double counting is included. Why? Can the Minister justify this unfairness? The Wine and Spirit Trade Association says

“that all packaging sold to the hospitality sector or on-trade operators should be classed as non-household and exempted from additional EPR fees”.

Again, I would like to hear the Government’s explanation on that in due course; the Minister may write to me.

Paper and card are major recycling commodities. I understand that approximately 50% of business waste is made up of paper and card. It is important, therefore, that the regulations work—and work well—for the paper recycling industry. The Confederation of Paper Industries has a number of concerns about the

“proposed policy, particularly in the context of the … Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) and the illustrative base fees”.

With regards to the RAM, it is concerned that

“the thresholds for non-paper components in the paper and card category are high and not aligned with industry standards. This methodology will lead to high levels of contaminants, potentially increasing plastic waste, reduce the quality of recyclate, and limit opportunities for innovation and sustainable packaging design. They create barriers for the recycling industry and risk undermining the recycling process”.

I simply ask: is it right about that? I do not know, but I think that we deserve an answer.

Another of the CPI’s key concerns relates to the proposed fee structure. It says that

“the structure creates a cost advantage to choosing plastic due to its lightweight nature, which risks driving material shifts from paper to less sustainable, fossil fuel-based plastics, and disproportionately affects the competitiveness of paper and board packaging”.

This concern is similar to the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, when she was talking about the difference between glass and plastic.

Further, the paper industry is concerned about

“the inflationary effect of the fee structure due to higher per-unit costs; aside from these costs being passed onto consumers, it could also see the UK’s competitiveness reduced, potentially leading to disinvestment in domestic production”.

Again, I do not know whether that is right. I hope the Government can explain whether the industry is right to be concerned about that or whether it has the wrong end of the stick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The fact that there are incentives for producers to reuse is part of the purpose. It is about not just about recycling, but about changing behaviour to encourage producers to have packaging that can be reused. I hope that is the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness on energy from waste.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Will the Minister write to me on the technical points made by the Confederation of Paper Industries? I think we would all like to see that response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. As I say, we have had quite a long debate with a lot of questions, so I assure noble Lords that we will go through Hansard and write with detailed responses on any outstanding questions.

This legislation is necessary to initiate the circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument; I very much welcome their broad support.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

It is this side, thank you.

My Lords, I refer to the register of Members’ interests, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. We had a similar debate on the Windsor Framework some weeks ago and I suppose that we have had debates like this on other statutory instruments in relation to the Windsor Framework. It is an issue that divides communities in Northern Ireland along broadly political constitutional lines. However, we must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a result of Brexit. It would not be here if we did not have Brexit. That is the political reality that we all face and must countenance.

I for one support the Windsor Framework and I supported the protocol, which I believed was the best means of dealing with the challenges that were presented by Brexit for trade in goods on the island of Ireland, both north and south. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies, both north and south. That fact was recognised in the Good Friday agreement, which was referred to earlier today, and in the three-stranded relationships as a result of that agreement, whether it was the Northern Ireland Executive, the Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.

Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, many of us have insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland because of those unique trading and political relationships on the island. That fact has not diminished and now manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging relationships that exist—there is no doubt they are challenging. I believe that where there are imperfections with some areas of trade within the Windsor Framework, they need resolution through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU.

On veterinary medicines, my noble friend on the Front Bench very ably chairs our Veterinary Medicine Working Group, which is trying to understand and deal with the challenges presented to our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland and to resolve with the EU those challenges with the supply of medicines to our veterinarians in Northern Ireland, as well as looking at an SPS veterinary agreement. I believe the same applies with pets and companion animals; it requires sensible management of this issue to ensure that there are no impediments.

I say to those who supported Brexit and who bring forward these regret amendments to your Lordships’ House to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and Northern Ireland that I believe that is disingenuous. I recognise their reasons for doing so, but I do not agree with them. At the end of the day, those same people and those same representatives argued for the hardest possible Brexit, and sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, I believe we would have been better to remain in the EU, and I am pleased that my colleagues in the new Labour Government, via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, are working with the EU on a reset of those relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. For my part, I have my own political identity as a democratic Irish nationalist, but I recognise the difficulties that my colleagues on the Front Bench are presented with.

The purpose of the instrument under discussion this evening is to ensure the smooth movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from GB to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB and Ireland or other EU member states remain subject to the relevant EU requirements. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, considered that this instrument

“is an example of where wider consultation would have been desirable”.

Our role in that Committee is largely process-driven, and effective engagement and communication through a publicity campaign and notices in veterinary surgeries will definitely be vital to improve public understanding of how the scheme will operate in practice.

Therefore, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to do such publicity, and will she talk to ministerial colleagues, maybe through the usual channels, about the necessity for more consultation in relation to statutory instruments as per the Windsor Framework? That would help in explaining the detail not only to public representatives but to wider business and the communities throughout Northern Ireland.

Businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy of the Windsor Framework, and many businesses have said to me that they welcomed any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, it welcomes a unique solution for a unique place with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. It is also worth noting that in the assessment of the recent Queen’s University survey, most respondents—around 57%—again want MLAs to vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That vote is expected by the Secretary of State to take place before the Christmas Recess of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In wanting the dismantling of the Windsor Framework, I wonder whether those who object realise that their fervour for opposition could result in tampering with the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement that the Windsor Framework seeks to protect, as well as the single electricity market which exists on the island?

In conclusion, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I totally support this statutory instrument. I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society, but that all of us have to ask whether this is in the best interests of our businesses and economy? Perhaps my noble friend could also tell us how this statutory instrument can be progressed to full implementation stage and what she sees as evolving and developing as part of that full implementation?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving her amendment and securing this important debate. She made a very powerful and detailed speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his excellent contribution. As I know the Minister appreciates, there are many noble Lords who feel very strongly about the Windsor Framework. I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously as they work to deliver a fair settlement for Northern Ireland now that we have left the EU.

In particular, the Government’s stated policy of seeking closer ties with our partners in the European Union is concerning to many in Northern Ireland, and we on these Benches are clear that the Government must not do anything that undermines Northern Ireland’s access to the UK internal market.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have added my name to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just spoken to, and the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, both of whom have outlined very clearly their concerns.

Amendment 89, in my name, is really about abstraction. I mentioned the over-abstraction in chalk streams, which is genuinely a real problem. It is claimed that the Environment Agency rarely inspects water company abstraction monitoring records.

There is also no requirement for continuous volumetric monitoring and publication of real-time or up-to-date data. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been no effective enforcement where there have been breaches of abstraction licences. Spot-check results indicate neither the duration of the breach nor the seriousness of such breaches, either as against the licence condition or for the rivers or groundwaters from which the abstraction has occurred unlawfully.

Therefore, this amendment proposes that the Water Resources Act 1991 be amended so that all licences for abstraction held by water undertakers should include a condition that real-time abstraction volumetric data is recorded and made publicly available in as close to real time as is practicable. This is very straightforward. The Minister must have a view as to whether she thinks the Environment Agency carries out rigorous checks, and if it does not, I believe my amendment is the answer to it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as on the register. Since it seems to be de rigueur in the Committee tonight, I declare my wholehearted support for the controlled reintroduction of beavers into appropriate locations.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for leading this group of amendments on improved monitoring and publication of data and I rise to speak to Amendment 48 in my name. First, I was rather impressed by the points on telemetry made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We find in Natural England that the use of modern technology can replace hundreds of people on the ground trying to carry out inspections, and this sort of technology has to be the way to proceed.

It is important that the nature of emergency discharges is collected by water companies and is made available to the public and Parliament in an easily accessible format and location, as has been said by every noble Lord tonight. The damage of pollution caused by emergency overflows has become an issue of increasing concern to the public in recent years, and they deserve more information on how water companies are performing. It is sensible to require water companies to publish the extent of emergency discharges, as this data is indicative of the strain on our water sector and will provide valuable information as to what kind of infrastructure development is necessary to prevent overflows in the future.

We support the Government’s intention in this part of the Bill, but we feel the Government can go slightly further to ensure that the monitoring data is available to the public on the water company’s website. My Amendment 48 is a modest little amendment that would deliver that change. We on these Benches feel that this relatively small amendment would do a great deal of good in ensuring that consumers can access this information easily on the website of their own provider.

A number of noble Lords have moved amendments on monitoring and reporting. We are broadly satisfied with the Government’s measures to improve monitoring and reporting in the Bill, but we are also keen to see some movement from the Government in the direction of making this information more readily accessible to the public and have taken on board many of the points raised by other noble Lords tonight.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the interest they have taken in this debate. I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Amendments 44 and 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The Government agree that it is vital to understand the causes and impact of sewage discharges, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that this needs to be timely and accessible.

Clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows. This information will enable regulators and the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from an emergency overflow has occurred, and how long it lasted for. This will enable resource to be directed to investigate the cause as well as the impact of a discharge, with a view to resolving any issues.

While the Government agree with the intention behind the amendments seeking to require companies to specify the volume of discharges in their publications, we do not see the value in doing so, as this would not provide the meaningful insights that we need about the actual impact a discharge has had. Monitors required to measure volume as well as concentration are also very costly to install and could delay the rollout of other monitors.

The volume from sewage discharges is measured through flow monitoring, and the installation of flow monitors would likely require construction projects to install them at the majority of emergency overflows, hence the large cost. This is because the pipework in emergency overflows would require modification for flow monitors to be able to record accurate measures of volume. Therefore, the Government do not believe the expected high costs are proportionate to the information we would get. With respect to the cause of discharges, it is not possible for companies to provide this information in near real time. This is because an investigation and site visit are often required to validate the cause.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

52: Clause 3, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
“141H Monitoring of river health after emergency overflows(1) Where there is a discharge from an emergency overflow of a sewerage undertaker into inland waters, the undertaker must regularly assess the environmental health of that inland water within 500 metres downstream of the overflow.(2) The methods used to make assessments under subsection (1) must include the use of fish counters or other methods of accurately monitoring the fish population.(3) The undertaker must prepare a report on the results of these assessments on a quarterly basis and submit this report to the Authority.(4) The undertaker must publish this report within 30 days after it has submitted it to the Authority.(5) The information must—(a) be in a form which allows the public to readily understand it,(b) be published in a way which makes it readily accessible to the public, and(c) be published on the undertaker’s website.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell, I am pleased to move Amendment 52 in his place. This amendment seeks to increase and improve the monitoring undertaken by water companies after an emergency overflow.

The amendment is quite straightforward. It makes the case that, where there is a discharge from an emergency overflow, the undertaker must regularly assess the environmental health of that inland water within 500 metres downstream of the overflow. My noble friend then suggests that the methods used to make assessments under that subsection must include the use of fish counters or other methods of accurately monitoring the fish population. I accept that there may be a weakness here because, unless one knows what the fish count was before the overflow happened, it may be difficult to come to a conclusion as to the number of fish which should be in the river after the overflow has taken place. The undertaker must also prepare a report on the results of these assessments on a quarterly basis and submit it to the authority, and, after having done so, the undertaker must publish the report within 30 days. In addition, in accordance with everything else which has been said in debates tonight, the information must be in a form which helps the public to readily understand it, be published in a way which makes it readily accessible to the public, and be published in the undertaker’s name.

For those reasons, we on these Benches want to protect our rivers and restore the health of those rivers that have been seriously affected by pollution. Thanks to our efforts in government to drive up monitoring, 100% of emergency overflows are now monitored, and as such, we are able to access information about all emergency overflows that occur. This was a seriously transformative step forward compared with the situation we inherited in 2010 but we accept the need to go further, and we support better monitoring of both overflows and of the overall health of rivers themselves.

With the level of monitoring achieved under the Conservatives, it is now possible to learn far more about these incidents and therefore to take action to prevent them happening again. However, this does not mean that water companies are now taking enough responsibility to publish the results of this monitoring and to report their findings so that they can be held to account.

This amendment focuses on an area that the Bill does not address and ensures that the health of our rivers, not just the extent of pollution incidents, is a central component of the Bill. The inclusion of monitoring 500 metres down the river will give a real insight into the impact that an overflow is having on the overall health of a river over time. This monitoring will ensure that water companies cannot downplay the damage and leave the natural area to be ruined; instead, they will have to take a responsibility for a wider area that these emergency overflows can impact.

We on these Benches support this amendment in its intention to ensure that regular reporting is done so that the public are able to access up-to-date information on the overall health of our rivers beyond the immediate aftermath of any emergency overflow.

I know that many amendments in the previous group were related to monitoring of emergency overflows, and, although this amendment specifically relates to river health, I am sure there will be cross-party support for much of the previous group and for this amendment to ensure that water companies can be held publicly accountable for their action after emergency overflows.

I hope the Minister will take the concerns of my noble friend Lord Bethell as expressed in this amendment seriously and will consider it. Once again, we feel this is a timely opportunity to deliver a positive reform in the Bill today rather than waiting for the wider reform which the Government have proposed. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this important issue and tabling Amendment 52, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for moving it in his absence. I start by reassuring him that I always take the concerns expressed in this House very seriously. I think that we agree that understanding the impact of sewage discharges on the environmental health of rivers is vital.

Clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows. These measurements will enable regulators and the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from an emergency overflow has occurred, and how long it lasted for. This will, in turn, enable resource to be directed to investigate the cause as well as the impact of a discharge, and will enable the regulators to take enforcement action if it is required.

However, this is just one measure that the Government will use to better understand the impact of sewage entering our waterways. New continuous water quality monitors will be installed at storm overflows from 2025 to continuously measure the impact of sewage discharges on the receiving watercourse. The information gathered from these monitors will be key in supporting fish populations. Requiring the installation of additional fish counters downstream of emergency overflows may require additional structures in the watercourse and may impose additional costs on water companies and their customers.

This does not appear to be proportionate, given that emergency overflows should be used on only very limited occasions. The Government will therefore not accept this amendment. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are using this Bill to enable quicker action to be taken to investigate discharges from emergency overflows.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response. I regret that she is not accepting the amendment but, if we accept her assurances that the monitoring of overflows will be thorough, that may negate the need for further monitoring downstream. I like to think that we will check the water further downstream than just within a short distance of the storm overflows, because what happens downstream is terribly important. I recall when the creamery at Appleby burst and flooded the River Eden. The damage was considerable for a couple of miles downstream. Checking what happens right beside the factory or the storm overflow is one thing, but it is important that we check downstream when the money allows. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I also add my support for these amendments, and I agree with much of what has been said already. On the matter of water usage, I have lived in deserts and I find the idea of people power-washing their cars with pure drinking water in this country extraordinary. But that is where we are today, I guess.

Why do I support these amendments? It is simply because it is vital that this Bill is consistent with existing policy and legislation to which it naturally links. The only reservation I have, which may be something that comes out of the review, is that it brings us back to the question of whether Ofwat and the Environment Agency should be a single agency or two separate ones with a division of responsibilities.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for moving the amendment and for the interesting points she makes regarding the importance of clarifying the intention of this Bill. As we said at Second Reading, we are committed to cracking down on pollution by water companies and we support the Government’s intention to deliver effective measures that bring polluters to justice. While government can always do better, we are proud of our record in the past: we increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 7% in 2010 to 100% today; and the Thames Tideway Tunnel is now complete.

So we on these Benches share the Government’s concerns about the many instances of water and sewerage companies discharging pollution in recent years. This poses a risk to those who use and enjoy our waterways and is causing serious damage to the environment. It is imperative that the Government continue to build on the progress the previous Conservative Government made on improvement, monitoring and tougher action to tackle sewage overflow incidents.

The Government are right to prioritise this issue, but we have serious concerns about the impact of this Bill on the water industry that we expect to explore as we go through Committee. I reiterate my thanks to the Minister, who has continued to engage constructively with us. I am grateful for the time she has given us in the lead-up to Committee. I hope we will continue to make constructive progress and improve this Bill for the benefit of all stakeholders—cost-effective water for consumers and security for the 100,000 employed in the water industry—while protecting the Government from financial risk and restoring our natural environment and incentivising investment.

Amendment 1 would make the purpose of the Bill clear and place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, as well as the need to meet certain biodiversity targets and the current unpredicted impacts of climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is right that we should take every opportunity to improve biodiversity, and there is an opportunity in the Bill to deliver transformative change for our rivers. We have amendments coming up in later groups that would help to incentivise the industry to invest in catchment restoration. That would not only improve water quality and flood management but contribute to nature restoration, biodiversity protection and, more importantly, the recovery of our biodiversity.

The Government want to keep the Bill narrowly focused on the regulation of water companies and their manifesto commitments on penalties for water companies, with the promise of further reform soon. We on these Benches are disappointed that the Government have not brought forward more comprehensive reforms in the Bill. If the promised water Bill does not materialise next year, it would not be the first time that a Government had delivered just partial reform.

We want to see a more ambitious approach from the Government, focused on the whole water sector and not just penalties for water companies—or for executives of water companies. For that reason, we believe there are areas beyond the Government’s fairly narrow focus in the Bill that ought to be included and should not be put at risk by the unclear timing of the future water Bill. The Minister has previously spoken about the need for incentives to attract talent to the sector, as well as an effective penalties regime. We need whole-sector reform if we are to deliver the clean rivers and healthy environment that people across the country are calling for. We support the spirit of the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. We on these Benches agree that the Government must go further than the measures included in the Bill, and must do so urgently.

Amendment 91 similarly seeks to place duties on the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of our biodiversity targets and our climate change targets and to adapting to the impacts of climate change. The Minister will know that, in 2023, the last Government published the first ever comprehensive Environmental Improvement Plan, setting out targets and indicators for water-quality improvement.

Over 25 pages of the plan are devoted to water and targets. There were targets to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments; a target to halve the length of rivers polluted by abandoned mines; an interim target to construct eight water treatment works; targets on reducing water waste, reducing leakage by a further 20% by 2027; a target to restore 75% of our water bodies to good ecological status; a target to require water companies to have eliminated all adverse ecological impact from sewage discharges at all sensitive sites by 2035 and all other overflows by 2050; a target to create a level of resistance to drought so that emergency measures are needed only once in every 500 years; a target to direct water companies’ fines relating to environmental breaches to improving the water environment; a target to crack down on sewage pollution by holding water companies to account for delivering the targets set out in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan; a target to require water companies to upgrade 160 of the wastewater treatment works to meet the strictest phosphorus limits by 2028, with a further upgrade of 400 of them by 2038, which would reduce nutrient pollution from treated wastewater; and—of great concern to me—a target to protect our chalk streams by supporting the chalk stream strategy. Lastly, there was a target to make sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments, subject to final decisions following consultation on scope, threshold and process.

I mention those targets to show that the Opposition are not coming here to say that we have just discovered some good ideas and actions for the future. We have a track record of setting tough targets, and they are in the EIP. These targets are specific to water quality and will greatly increase biodiversity. They are not just reasonable steps but specific, measurable targets.

The Government have said that they are urgently reviewing the latest EIP, which is about to be published. I do not expect the Minister to say what the tweaks will be, but can we expect any changes to the water EIP targets when the Government publish them? We share the ambition of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for water sector reform, and we hope that the Government will listen to the concerns of noble Lords, who are calling from all sides of the Committee for a more ambitious approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments, but I want to make one comment on the discussion, which has possibly strayed a little from the Bill. Dealing with surface run-off and, in particular, developers’ right to connect are outdated. I hope that the Minister will urge those involved with the review to have a serious look at this, because it is completely outdated, and with increasing development, not to mention climate change, it will only get worse. It needs tackling properly.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving this important amendment, which has caused a little bit of welcome excitement in the Committee. Both Amendments 7 and 8 seek to ensure that senior executives do not receive a financial penalty for failures that were not their fault or within their control, and we on these Benches feel that the noble Baroness’s amendments merit consideration by Ministers. The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, at the end also merits some consideration.

It is right that the Government should take steps to ensure that, when a water company fails to meet the standards set by Ofwat, the responsible executive is held to account. While it is right that company directors take responsibility for the successes and failures of a business, under the Bill, other senior officers, who may not be members of the board of directors, could be penalised under these rules. The argument that the relevant senior executive is held responsible, rather than an officer of the company who was not responsible for the decision, is a simple one. Rather than applying financial penalties to all senior executives, including those below board level, these rules should penalise only those who are responsible for the company’s conduct.

It is quite a long time since I last worked in industry, but I do not think that much has changed to this day. Who is responsible depends on the level of direct supervision by a more senior officer. At lower levels of a company, it is quite straightforward: the supervisor or the foreman has minute-by-minute relationships with the team under him or her, so they could be held responsible for faulty work or bad behaviour by their workers. But that is at the lower level. As you get higher up a company, the whole ethos changes. Executives are supposed to set objectives and delegate to their other officers how it is done. The CEO, or directors, tell officers under their command, “Here are your legal duties and these are the company objectives. Here are your own personal targets and objectives—report to me weekly, monthly or whatever on how you are progressing. Now, just get on with it”.

There is no direct day-to-day supervision, and the CEO has to trust that the senior officers below him or her obey the law, behave properly and do not cause the breaches that we are concerned about. It would be wrong to blame and reduce the pay of CEOs or directors based on a mistake by a person under him or her where they have no direct control. Of course, the exception would be in the extraordinary circumstances in which the CEO or executive director gave instructions to the worker to break the law or not to care about the rules. That would be a different matter.

Without these amendments, we are concerned that it may prove difficult to find professionals willing to take on senior roles at water companies if there is a risk they will suffer an unfair loss of performance-related earnings through no fault of their own. It is a basic principle of performance-based pay for employees below board level that it should be tied to their performance as an employee within a team. It would not be an effective incentive scheme if one individual or team were deprived of their performance-related benefits because of the behaviours of failures of another individual below board level. As we discussed at Second Reading, arbitrary punishment will not improve performance; it will only encourage people to seek employment outside the water sector.

If we are to deliver the improvements to the water sector that the British people rightly expect, we must attract more talent to the sector through a fair incentives and penalties regime. The Bill is a bit too broad and could permit rules to be applied to the sector by Ofwat that are unfair and ineffective. Furthermore, when a current bonus scheme, or contractual bonus, provides for the bonus to be payable on the achievement of certain performance conditions, and the performance conditions have been met, an employer is, in effect, obliged to award the bonus. In cases where an employer may grant discretionary bonuses, employers are required to exercise this discretion honestly and in good faith, not to exercise it in an arbitrary, capricious or irrational way, and not to breach the implied term of trust and confidence.

It concerns me that, should the Government choose not to include these amendments in the Bill, and individuals’ performance-related pay was docked for actions or responsibilities beyond their control or remit, it would put the employer in a position of complying with the requirements of rules created by Ofwat under this Bill but then acting contrary to these common-law and contractual requirements. That leads to a concern that this scenario could result in costly and time-consuming litigation, thus diverting funds which would otherwise be better spent improving our water and sewage systems. Therefore, I encourage the Government to accept these amendments so that, should a water company fail to meet the standards set by Ofwat, only the relevant executives are held responsible. However, if the Government are unwilling to put this on a statutory footing, we hope that Ofwat would be willing to enact these principles under its rules, which could be overseen by the House under Amendment 27 as an affirmative instrument.

I want to comment on the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on surface water. I put it this way: if we were starting again from scratch a couple of hundred years ago, we would have designed a system whereby we never had rainwater from gutters or car parks running off into Mr Bazalgette’s sewage system—but we are where we are now. In an ideal world, two pipes would come into every house and, as the noble Lord suggested earlier, one would have clean water for drinking and the other water for flushing the toilet or for hose pipes. We cannot go back and do that now—but what we can do is look at new developments, and I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in that regard.

I understood that it is possible if one is building a car park, before one puts in the hardcore, to lay a whole series of ooze pipes and then collect all the rainwater run-off, so it replenishes the underground stream by putting the water back into the subsoil. That should be possible. Whatever it is, we need to look at new developments to ensure that surface water is not unnecessarily going into our sewage system. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has said.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, through provisions introduced by Clause 1, Ofwat will be able to issue new rules on remuneration and governance to ensure that companies and executives are subject to robust oversight and held accountable for failure. Among other things, these rules will ensure that executives will no longer be able to take bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability.

Amendments 7 and 8, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seek to ensure that these rules apply only in instances where the failure to meet the required standards is due to a failing by that individual and not another person. I start by reassuring the noble Baroness that, should companies meet their performance expectations, executives will rightly be rewarded. However, the changes proposed through Amendment 7, in particular, would make it more difficult for Ofwat to implement the rules on remuneration and governance in a meaningful way. This is because it would introduce an additional test to be met before the bonus ban could be applied, where a link between the specific actions of an individual senior leader and the performance failings of a company as a whole might be difficult to demonstrate.

Senior executives are also collectively responsible for the actions of the company and therefore should be held responsible for poor performance. However, having said that, Ofwat has stated, in the policy consultation it published last week, that, while it intends for the rules to apply to most performance-related pay decisions by water companies,

“there may be … exceptional circumstances where a payment should not be prohibited”.

For example, if an incident leading to a rule breach was clearly and demonstrably beyond the control of the company, this could be grounds for an exemption from the ban.

Considering the changes proposed by Amendment 8, we also consider it unlikely that individuals in senior roles will fail to meet Ofwat’s future standards of “fitness and propriety” due to a failing on the part of another person. The potential criteria proposed by Ofwat in its consultation to measure “fitness and propriety” include character, previous conduct, and knowledge. These criteria are specific to the individual, rather than the performance of the company, and do not obviously relate to acts by other persons.

I just want to mention an issue that the debate moved on to, around drainage and SUDS. We are going to be discussing SUDS further in group 8, so we shall talk about that then, but I want to assure the noble Baroness that we are engaging with officials in MHCLG, because it is really important that we have a proper discussion around planning and drainage as we move forward with development. I am very aware of the problems that surface water can cause in new development if it is not thought through properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, drew the Committee’s notice to the commission and asked whether it would be discussed there. I will draw the Committee’s attention, for interest, to part of the scope of the commission:

“Where housing, planning, agriculture and drainage interlink with strategic planning for the water system, these are in scope. ... The commission should have regard to how the water sector regulatory system provides the certainty around the provision of water infrastructure needed to underpin development plans, housing growth and sustainable development, while strategically protecting and enhancing the environment. This should include how regulation and planning for water infrastructure and for residential and commercial development can work together more effectively to anticipate and invest to provide for future growth, to quickly resolve and prevent issues where water and wastewater capacity constraints may otherwise inhibit necessary development (such as through their impact on requirements for water and nutrient neutrality)”.


So, although it is not entirely dealing with the issue around SUDS, I think it is something we need to explore further with the housing department, for example, and with local government. There is an opportunity to look at development and water within the scope of the commission. I hope that is helpful for noble Lords to understand.

I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness that the rules will be applied to individuals in a proportionate manner, and made clear why the Government consider these amendments to be unnecessary.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right to try to urge the adoption of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act through this Bill, but she is right that there was an expectation that it would be implemented this year. Given the new Government’s determination to expand the construction of housing as quickly as possible across the country, this schedule is pertinent and relates to the water services Act. We ought to try to address it, through this Act or not. The Minister’s heart is in the right place on this one, so now she has the levers of power I am sure that she will pull the right one.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments, which rightly seek to tackle the issues of flooding and drainage. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 set out standards for water companies regarding the reduction of flood risks and created more power for local authorities to be able to take action to protect their local areas.

When in government, we tightened restrictions on water companies to protect our countryside, and we are pleased that this work is being continued. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, government investment has better protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion. Since 2015, Conservative investment has protected over 900,000 acres of farmland, rightly putting the needs of rural communities first.

In 2020, we built on this further and announced a doubling of capital funding into flood defences in England, to a record £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. As the Committee will understand from these steps, we had a strong record of investment in flood defences and water management. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to improve on those Conservative measures to protect communities across the UK from the harms of flooding.

Much of our debate on the Bill has so far focused on the corporate structures and financial management of companies in our water industry. It is right that we consider these issues in depth and seek to put the right incentives in place to deliver better outcomes for the key groups and interests that we should be aiming to protect under the Bill; namely, consumers, employees of water companies and the protection of our environment.

While the majority of the public debate around our water sector focuses on the damage that sewage overflows do to our waterways, my noble friend Lady McIntosh is absolutely right to take this opportunity to consider the dangers of flooding and to seek to ensure that water companies put this issue front and centre. We on these Benches certainly understand the issues of sewage contamination in our rivers across the country and would like to solve this issue to preserve the nature and wildlife that this has serious impacts on. We also recognise the horrendous impact that floods have on many communities because those water companies have not done enough in terms of flood management.

The first impact most people experience when water management is poor is flooding on roads and on other key transport links. However, in serious cases—such as the 2007 summer floods and the floods of 2015-16—this can result in threats to lives and livelihoods, enormous costs to the economy and massive devastation for the people affected. I am not sure if the Minister is politically old enough to remember the terrible Carlisle floods a few years ago, but it was horrendous to drive through Carlisle and see thousands of homes with abandoned furniture outside, which was soaked through. In my own constituency, just south of Penrith, at Eamont Bridge, houses had been flooded to a depth of about three inches, but with osmosis, the water had been sucked right up the walls and everything had been destroyed. So, flooding seriously impacts people’s lives.

Reporting on those two exceptional examples together, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the 2007 summer floods cost the UK economy £3.2 billion, while the 2015-16 winter floods cost the economy roughly half of that, at £1.6 billion. These examples alone demonstrate the importance of improving water management to protect our communities from flooding.

That said, it is not only the extreme examples that demonstrate the importance of managing flood risks. As anyone who is involved in farming or other rural affairs will tell you, 2024 has been a very wet year, with many communities facing difficult challenges with flooding. In April 2024, England as a whole received 150% of the long-term average rainfall for the time of year and the north-west was particularly wet—as the noble Baroness and I will testify—with, as my notes say, the wettest April since records began in 1871. I can also tell noble Lords that it was also the wettest August, with one dry day this year.

This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that it is not just people’s homes that rely on a good water system but our food supply—people’s livelihoods rely on it too. That is why my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is right to bring this point forward for debate as the Bill makes progress.

When flooding and poor water management affect our rural communities, invariably this has a knock-on effect on agriculture and, in turn, consumer costs. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported that fresh food inflation increased to 1.5% from 1% just in August as the wet weather affected British production of salads and soft fruits, while storms in the Atlantic delayed imports of more exotic fruits, driving up prices.

No Government can control the weather—thank goodness; farmers would like to control it of course, but each would want to control it differently—and no water company can entirely mitigate the impacts of wet periods on our agricultural output. However, good water management is very important when we are faced with unusually poor conditions.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments to the Bill. I know many farmers will be pleased to hear their concerns about the impacts of poor water management are being discussed in your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Government may not be inclined to accept these amendments, we on this side of the House see this as an important opportunity to ask the Government to please keep the issue of flooding and water management high on the agenda, in light of the very serious impacts it has on people across the country, in both direct damage to their homes and communities and the secondary impact it can have on food prices for all of us.

I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister might consider bringing tougher flood mitigation duties for water companies into the Bill. As we have heard constantly, the Government intend to bring forward much wider reforms in the coming year, but, as we approach winter, many families up and down the country will have concerns in the backs of their minds about the risks of flood, in light of the continued failures in our water sector.

Will the Minister take this forward and look at possible improvements that can be made to the Bill now? I hope the Government will listen to the important points raised by my noble friend tonight and consider these carefully before Report.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As an aside in relation to the previous Bill, as a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I published a report on the appalling abuse of delegated powers by all Governments over the past 30 years. It is just as well that I was not replying for the Official Opposition, because I would have probably supported the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

When the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, proposes something, we should all pay close attention because he speaks from a position of great authority. We have all had in the past 24 hours—at least, Conservative Members have—a note from the Chief Whip reminding us of the proper appellations and how we should address people in this House. In this House, we have noble and gallant Members and noble and learned Members. I always thought we should have a category of noble and expert Members, of which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would be the prime example. I recall a debate during the gene editing Bill, when the noble Lord was making some important but totally inexplicable technical point about DNA with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It was inexplicable to every other Peer present, as we had no idea what they were talking about.

On this occasion, I think I understand the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I worry about overreach and that it may detract from the core tasks some of these public bodies have. That is the fourth reason I would worry about the Bill, not that I necessarily support the other three reasons; I have no objection to them in principle.

Take national parks, about which I know a little. Legislation which has received universal support over the past 75 years gives them two purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the designated national parks, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the national parks do not have an economic objective. In fact, one of the criticisms many of the national parks make is that they do not have that economic objective in their powers.

We all agree that national parks and AONBs, now called national landscapes, need to do more to recover wildlife and biodiversity. I have lived in the Lake District national park for many years and, as the Minister will agree, it is just as devoid of wildlife as the areas outside it, unlike US national parks. Recognising that, Defra introduced the grant scheme for farming and protected landscapes. It offers grants to farmers, provided that they deliver on climate change and biodiversity goals. They must support nature recovery and mitigate the impacts of climate change. They must provide opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage. They must protect or improve the quality and character of the landscape or place.

I suggest that these remain in sync with the national park aims and that we need to let these develop. Indeed, I would urge the Government to expand them before imposing the requirements in this Bill. I also suggest that the national parks will be out of their depth in trying to assist in meeting a target for particulate matter or air improvement. On water quality, we shall probably debate amendments to the water Bill on sewage in Lake Windermere, over which the national park has no control.

On local authorities, this House made some substantial changes via the Environment Act 2021 to amend the NERC Act 2006 to conserve and, now, enhance biodiversity. A public authority must consider what action it

“can properly take, consistently with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the general biodiversity objective”.

That objective, set out in the Act, is

“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.

Section 104 of the 2021 Act creates local nature recovery strategies, and 48 designated “responsible authorities” are now developing such strategies, covering every inch of England. Every nature organisation agrees that this will be the greatest boost to wildlife recovery in our lifetime.

Noble Lords may say that takes care of the biodiversity targets, but what about climate change, water and air? To that I would say that many of the organisations listed here do not have the ability or competence to assist in meeting those targets. We spoke about the problems of water quality at Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill last week and will debate it in more detail in Committee, but the only organisations that can improve water quality are the water companies, the Coal Authority, which has a specific obligation, the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I see that Ofwat is listed in Clause 2(2)(i) as a public body which must

“take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective”.

I think there was probably agreement from all sides of the House last week that Ofwat has failed in its relatively narrowly defined key regulatory role, and no one would trust it with any responsibilities on climate change adaption, air quality and biodiversity recovery.

I would have similar concerns if we gave all local authorities the duties under this Bill to assist with all the targets on climate change and the Environment Act. My concern is that many local authorities with no expertise in the targets in this Bill would be diverted into doing this badly instead of the day job. As we have seen, many local authorities have gone off on woke tracks in recent years. If given these duties they will, I am certain, merrily employ climate change, air and water quality officers, and our dustbins will not get emptied regularly and recycling rates will fall further behind.

Let us look at Ofgem’s priorities. They are:

“shaping a retail market that works for consumers … enabling infrastructure for net zero at pace … establishing an efficient, fair and flexible energy system”,

and

“advancing decarbonisation through low carbon energy and social schemes”.

Ofgem is already on board with the net-zero targets and, I suggest, would be at a loss to assist with air quality and biodiversity aims.

Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects

“to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government”.

I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that.

I will not go through all the 28 organisations, but a final example is Network Rail, which has as its objective

“to get people and goods to where they need to be, and in turn to support the UK’s economic prosperity. Our role is to run a safe, reliable and efficient railway, serving our customers and communities. We oversee the running of the railway as an entire system and work closely with train operators to deliver train services as safely, reliably and punctually as possible. We lead the industry’s planning for the future of the railway, and we’re committed to a sustainability agenda”.

I say that with a straight face. I think we all have views on how well Network Rail has fulfilled its primary purpose, and I would dread to see it having the slightest responsibility for net-zero or biodiversity objectives.

I am glad that this building is not included because I have counted six oil heaters trying to boost the heating in this building, as our 150 year-old steam generators are not quite working yet. I am not sure what contribution we are making in this House to burning extra carbon and use of electricity.

I have spoken more about biodiversity and nature recovery than climate change—possibly inevitably, since I am, for the next two months, still the deputy chair of Natural England and a member of the board of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, both organisations listed in the Bill. I submit that those two organisations do not need these provisions to drive forward, within their areas of expertise, all the relevant targets. They are already leading the way.

I also believe that climate change and nature recovery are two sides of the same coin and that, if we restore our peatlands, which hold 3 billion tonnes of carbon, plant the right trees in the right places, conserve our sea-floor and keep carbon trapped there, and go for nature-friendly solutions, then we can avoid the excessive cost of going too far, too quickly on heat pumps, electric cars and getting rid of gas boilers, not to mention the appalling damage to our natural landscape caused by wind turbines and pylons.

Personally, I have always considered biodiversity loss to be more important than climate change. With enormous political will and an awful lot of money, climate change can be reversed, but once a species is lost it is lost for ever, and the world is losing species at an alarming rate.

In Committee, I will judge the Bill by what these 28 public bodies can legitimately do, without detracting from their core duties, to increase species abundance and recover nature. I believe that that is the top priority and the key to unlocking climate change improvements and water quality. I wish the noble Lord well with his Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification, he appears to be suggesting that climate change and nature have to exist in certain silos and that getting people around the country by rail is a different and entirely separate silo. Do I take it from that that His Majesty’s Opposition’s position is that we should not mainstream climate and nature across all areas of action of government and public bodies?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Of course we want to “mainstream” it, but I am suggesting that some of the Bill may be overreach for some of the authorities and that they may not be competent to do it. I am not making any argument that it may be too costly, but we must try to achieve our targets on climate change reduction and in the Environment Act by the measures that the last Government took and that the current Government plan to take. I would be rather worried if we gave additional powers in the Bill to some of those authorities, but I remain to be convinced in Committee. I am sort of neutral on the Bill, and I respect the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his ability. In Committee, we can explore the points the noble Baroness raises.