Water and Sewage Companies: Directors’ Remuneration

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to make a brief contribution to this debate. I congratulate my noble friend on securing it and on how he introduced it. It is very well timed. This is an election year and this is an issue that is not going away. The problems have not yet been solved and a change of government is likely to bring a welcome and overdue change of policy. To go to the heart of what I want to say, the country has reached the end of its patience with the current situation. Sewage continues to pollute our rivers and coastlines, and those in charge—the directors of water and sewage companies, mentioned in the title of today’s debate—continue to be paid handsomely and, in too many cases, continue to receive bonus payments which seem absurdly large and utterly unjustified in view of the failures over which they preside. Since 2019, about £26 million has been spent in bonuses.

I have two straightforward observations. First, water is essential to life and access to clean and safe water is a basic human right. Therefore, those engaged in companies that provide water and sewage services are engaged in a business unlike any other. I personally do not support a privatised water system, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. Secondly, not a single member of this House on any side wants sewage to be spilt, but it is still happening. We know that sewage discharges mostly occur during heavy rain, when sewer capacity is overwhelmed. Sewage releases are often the result of geography and water company infrastructure, but have the water companies been doing enough about it? In my view, they have not.

I am sure that the Minister will reply referring to the improvements being made, the role of Ofwat being beefed up, that there is consultation going on and so on, which is all very well, but that is not enough, When William Blake wrote his poem about England’s green and pleasant land, even his vivid imagination could not comprehend the capacity of modern water companies to degrade our landscape. What we are talking about here is neither green nor pleasant.

Shortly after I arrived in the House, having been elected, I found myself listening to debates on the Environment Bill. I remember in particular the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which sought

“progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage”.

I thought to myself, “What a modest amendment”, but I remember the outcry because of the Government’s opposition to it. As the House will recall, fearful of being defeated, the Government introduced their own amendment, which they claimed would satisfy public opinion and the noble Duke’s original intentions. However, the Government’s version was weaker. First, it was confined to storm overflows and not the sewerage system as a whole. Secondly, there was no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance. Thirdly, it referred to adverse impacts rather than reductions in harm, which gives water companies plenty of wiggle room to keep polluting, which is exactly what has happened.

I can give an example too; I hope that the House will not mind. I found this on the website of a Government Back-Bencher whom I have never met. She says that

“a number of constituents have raised the issue of sewage being dumped in our waters. Along with others, I am horrified by the images from across Teignbridge showing this taking place and I believe we are all in agreement that steps need to be taken to resolve this troubling issue”.

Well, your Lordships may have read in the Times on Monday that nearly 39,000 sewage spills have been recorded in marginal constituencies held by the Conservative Party in 2022—more than the marginal constituencies of MPs from any other political party. That will concentrate the mind. The Times concluded that 56% of people would consider raw sewage discharges when they vote in the next election. No wonder this is likely to be an election issue. There are plenty of examples.

In 2020, I believe there were more than 400,000 raw sewage dumps into England’s rivers and seas or more than 3 million hours of spillages. In one incident, in June 2022, raw sewage spilled into Windermere lake for three hours. In 2020, Severn Trent was fined £2 million by Cannock magistrates for illegally spilling more than 260 million litres of raw sewage into the River Trent. Finally—I think I am right about this—in the High Weald of Sussex, Surrey and Kent, almost 27 hours of sewage releases took place in a single year. If we cannot protect the vital ecosystems of our areas of outstanding natural beauty, we are failing badly. I could go on, but I will not. The bad news is that they still continue.

Who is responsible for not having a proper system of planning—who, if not the directors of water companies? People increasingly feel that there is something really wrong in a system that does not apportion any meaningful responsibility for what is happening on those who are legally most responsible. In short, is it not time to get tougher with the role of directors of water and sewage companies? I think the answer is yes, and this debate is well-timed to put the directors of water companies on notice.

The next Labour Government should, and I think will, take decisive action to expand the regulatory powers of Ofwat to ensure that directors of water companies that fail to meet high environmental standards on sewage pollution will not profit from breaking the law. How can anyone seriously argue that they should benefit by doing so?

I am sure that the Minister will tell the House about the action being taken and improvements being made. The House of Lords Library briefing helpfully tells us a bit more about that, but I would like the Minister to confirm that the proposed bonus ban will cover directors and board members. Finally, can he say when the proposed changes will come into effect? I am sure that the Government are as aware as anyone of the political sensitivity of the issue; the Government have been behind public opinion on this, and we will know soon enough whether the electorate decides to place its faith in a future Labour Government to tackle these issues.

Biosecurity and Infectious Diseases

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees—he is my noble friend; I hope that I am allowed to use that term—on securing today’s important debate. I welcome those Members who are here to take part in it. Frankly, I wish that we had more debates of this kind in the Chamber. I will do my best to bear in mind what was said earlier about the time limit. The introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was masterly and comprehensive. I wish the Minister well in his maiden speech at the Dispatch Box.

I know that noble Lords have received useful briefings from organisations with an interest in this broad subject. I thank them all. I pay tribute to the valuable briefing from our own House of Lords Library and the briefing produced by POST in April last year. I recommend that today’s readers of Hansard should consult them all.

I want to use my time to convey some of the points raised with me by the Royal Society of Biology, in particular its science policy team. The House will know that the Royal Society of Biology is the major scientific society covering the biological sciences; I should draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of interests as a fellow. The RSB submitted evidence to the UK Biological Security Strategy in 2022 and to the Emerging Diseases and Learnings from Covid-19 inquiry in 2023.

It is the view of the society that, in responding to threats to UK biosecurity, government policy-making should take into account all available evidence from all available sources, whether environmental or concerning human or animal health. Frankly, we cannot take a piecemeal approach to biosecurity because, if you do not consider the issue in the round, the risk is that you displace one problem with another. Action on one specific front is not going to be enough. The Government should optimise the use of evidence synthesis so that our society and its ecosystems, its health systems and the food, feed and fuel—even the construction material production systems—that we rely on are able to avert and be resilient to disease, biological attacks and other biological risks.

By construction materials I mean, for example, wood. The health of trees is of huge importance, especially when considering the threats from overseas; mention has already been made, quite rightly, of ash dieback. I think this is one of the reasons why Members have taken quite an interest in the recent Bill to facilitate the CPTPP: because of the biosecurity risks that arise from trade in that part of the world. For example, a bacterium called Xylella fastidiosa—I hope I pronounced it right—has not yet been detected in the UK but is known to have been responsible for major outbreaks in Europe. It causes disease and plant death in more than 650 plant species, including crops such as plums, cherries, almonds, blueberries and rosemary. Other hosts include tree species such as oak, elm, ash and plane—all of which, as we know, we have here in the UK. Stricter measures are necessary, especially at our borders, to prevent the import of biosecurity risks.

Another risk that we should take extremely seriously concerns the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animals, which is all too prevalent in parts of south and south-east Asia. I shall return to this in a moment.

It is fundamental that the evidence base used by the Government to decide their policy incorporates the One Health principles and that these are incorporated into future policy-making decisions. This is an important point that I would like to emphasise. The One Health principles are an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment—including ecosystems—are closely linked and interdependent. The Government must co-ordinate their efforts with funders and other stakeholders to enhance and incentivise One Health research and education. They must also integrate One Health into their evidence base and take it into account alongside their long-term strategy to tackle current and future threats. One Health policy must not be solely human and animal focused but should encompass as broad a range of aspects as possible, including plants and other organisms, environmental factors and the interactions between these.

There are different types of threats to UK biosecurity. It is vital that the funding for and prioritisation of zoonotic diseases do not detract from resources focused on the continuing threat of other pandemics. Emerging infectious diseases in plant populations can seriously jeopardise food security, biodiversity and the natural environment, with serious health and economic consequences. Insufficient biosecurity measures have increased the risk of pandemics across species, including what you might call the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance, as well as hampering the treatment of current and emerging infectious diseases. I hardly need to tell your Lordships that AMR remains a major threat that faces us all. If we cannot keep one step ahead of nature’s ability to adapt and develop resistance to antibiotics, we will go straight back 200 years to the early 19th century, when a cut on your knee could lead to infection and death; to be more up to date, treatments that we now have for HIV, as well as hip and knee operations, would be too risky to attempt and deaths would soar as a result.

My time is coming to an end so I will finish by saying this: this biosecurity debate is one side of a coin that has climate change on the other. It will benefit us all if we understand how important that is because we have lots of threats facing us in this country, and biodiversity loss and climate change are two of the most important.

REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to make just a couple of points. I remember when the EU REACH legislation was going through the European Parliament. I was involved in a different capacity. It was, as Members will know, the biggest piece of legislation that the European Parliament had ever dealt with. This is a very complex area.

I appreciate the Minister’s exposition of this statutory instrument but, like other noble Lords, I have a couple of questions. As the Minister mentioned, this is not the first extension. I am not surprised by that because this is a complex area. Nevertheless, I want to raise something that I think other Members will also raise; indeed, it has just been raised by the noble Baroness. Is the 2024 deadline realistic, bearing in mind especially that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to concerns that the ATR might be weaker in its effect? Does the Minister care to elaborate a little more on that?

Another question that arises is whether the HSE has enough staff to cope with the complexity and volume of data and the examination that is necessary in this process. Does the Minister care to comment a little on the industry’s concerns about cost? There are some legitimate concerns about that. Who did the Government consult in the course of preparing this SI? The Minister did not mention anyone specifically, but did the department consult the Chemical Industries Association or the professional body for chemistry, the Royal Society of Chemistry, which has taken a close interest in something of such importance over a period of many years? Does the Minister care to say anything about the capacity for confusion in Northern Ireland between the parallel systems of EU REACH and UK REACH?

Finally, in respect of the retained EU law Bill, I really do think—I hope Members agree—that this is too big an issue for us to allow a future Government to make a major change without consulting Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could address those points in his reply.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I too have experience of dealing with REACH at the European level. When I was the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, we worked with the British chemical industry, including the Chemical Industries Association—often against opposition from the powerful German chemical industry lobby, which was hostile to the whole concept of REACH. I was very pleased when we got it through; as my noble friend Lord Stansgate just outlined, it was not without considerable difficulty and this is an extremely complex area.

I will make two points today. First, I want to give a little tribute to the Chemical Industries Association, which I have found over the years to be as good a lobby group as any in the business world in terms of taking a broad view of issues, as well as looking after its members’ interests. That is important.

I am particularly concerned to ensure that in the extension that has been given, which I support, we continue to adhere to EU REACH, because we have nothing at the moment and the game plan is there. No doubt we will have some variations on it in due course, and I accept that, but in the meantime, in the absence of a British UK-EU arrangement, I hope that the Minister can ensure that the British industry follows the EU rules until they are replaced.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2023

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I can assure my noble friend that it does remain a priority for this Government. If he looks at the very first few lines of the Agriculture Act, he will see that it is beholden on the Secretary of State of the day to make sure that farmers are able to produce food sustainably. That remains an absolutely determined view right across government, but we also want to make sure that we are accepting that, if you deplete your natural capital, you are destroying the life chances of farmers of the future and you are not allowing the industry to produce the kind of food that the public want to eat. So we want to assist farmers, where they need it, to go on that journey to produce food sustainably; it is absolutely at the heart of our agricultural policy.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the fact that, 70 years ago, people were waking up to the great flood of 1953, which caused great loss of life and great damage in Millbank, outside this House. One of the consequences of that great flood was to begin the planning that eventually led to the Thames Barrier. Will the Minister share with the House the current thinking about the need to look ahead for an additional protection for London with a second barrier? Given the time involved in planning such a thing, can he give us any indication of what the department’s thinking is about the need for it and how long it might take to bring about?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Viscount is absolutely right to raise this. That storm flood, which was a perfect storm in every sense of the word, combined a tidal surge with very high water levels. It led to some visionary thinking right across government and saw that measure put in. There is work going on to factor in long-term rises in sea levels, as have been predicted by a number of different organisations. I am not up to date on where those are, but they are very real and we want to make sure that we protect one of the great cities of the world from all future risks. If I can get back to the noble Viscount with more details on precisely where the Environment Agency, Defra and other parts of government are working on that, I will.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches. There will be time for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to speak afterwards.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In the light of the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend, can he tell the House whether his own adviser, Professor Henderson, has recommended to him further action or research that should be undertaken? The Minister also referred to a wider group of interested people who will want to know what has happened in this tragedy; sometimes, things occur in nature and we do not understand them. Will the action taken involve a wide range of scientific societies, including, for example, the Royal Society of Biology?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Absolutely, in addition to the organisations I listed earlier. The initial views are that finding something to which we can attribute the cause is unlikely, but Professor Henderson has suggested that the university sector will be well placed to extend research in this area, and he is working with it to see what further research can be done.

Avian Influenza

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I totally take my noble friend’s point. We are talking about taxpayers’ money here and are deeply sympathetic to farmers who have been hit by this but also have responsibility to make sure that compensation is fair. I am sure that my noble friend’s flock is very well protected and that the systems of management there ensure that the chances of infection are very low. But that is not the case everywhere. The taxpayer will be forking out millions of pounds where there have been biosecurity breaches. I have seen some photographs and have had evidence of lamentable biosecurity measures in place in some really quite large poultry establishments, and of course that has had an effect on the outbreak. We have narrowed the time from notification to someone arriving and have changed the way that the compensation is applied. It is never going to be perfect. The problem we have here is that this is so highly pathogenic. The time from the first visual example of a bird having the disease to large numbers dying is very short. We are getting out there within 24 hours in nearly every case. We continue to try to speed that up, but my noble friend’s experience in this matter is invaluable to the House.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask a question about the longer term. The Statement said that

“any future decisions on disease control measures, including the use of vaccination, will be based on the latest scientific, ornithological and veterinary advice.”

Is the Minister able to tell the House, especially in relation to the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, from which scientific organisations the department is intending to get the advice that it is seeking, and does it include the Royal Society itself?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I do not know specifically, but I would be very surprised if it does not. Our chief scientific adviser, Professor Gideon Henderson, is a very renowned scientist; he ensures that we use the best and most rigorous scientific advice and that we use it properly. I am very happy to give the noble Viscount more details about how we are approaching the medium to longer-term solution in the areas that he raised. I can assure him that—while scientific advice does vary and, at certain points, it comes down to Ministers making a judgment call—the advice that I have seen on this has been pretty clear. We need to progress that, and I will certainly keep him informed and give more details about the areas of scientific advice that we are tapping into.

Environmental Targets

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We will be publishing these targets and they will be very much linked to the areas we consulted on: halting the decline of species by 2030; reducing exposure to PM2.5, benefiting health, as the noble Baroness knows it will; helping restore water bodies to their natural state; increasing woodland cover; protecting marine habitats; and setting a clear direction of travel in reducing the amount of waste per person. These are the measures we want to see implemented, and they will be rigorous targets we can meet, not just for this Government but for future Governments. In line with the Act, they will mean that this country is respected for its protection of the environment above all others.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talks of ambitious targets. Is it too ambitious to use his position in the department to persuade the Prime Minister to attend COP 27?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I would say to the noble Viscount the words “over pay and grade”, but I do appreciate the point he makes.

Climate Change and Biodiversity: Food Security

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to rise to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech, which I do on behalf of everyone present here today. She put a powerful and persuasive argument utilising all the expertise she could bring to bear. You would never know that the noble Baroness has been a Member of this House for such a short time. The House will recall that she took her seat on the last day before the Summer Recess, and here she is making her maiden speech four sitting days later. I do not know what the record is for the gap between being introduced and making a maiden speech—I dare say some Minister holds the record—but nevertheless for a Cross-Bencher it is a very distinguished way to start.

The research to which the noble Baroness modestly alluded, whether conducted at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge or Bergen, or at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is an example of how important it is that the House of Lords Appointments Commission can produce for this House people of the noble Baroness’s calibre. We are due tomorrow—though I understand a statement is to be made at 6 pm tonight—to discuss the Appointments Commission, but we will see. In the meantime, I congratulate the Cross Benches on the arrival of their latest Member. I hope she will not mind if I say this, but I have found since my relatively recent arrival that it is the almost intolerable good will of this House that is sometimes difficult to bear. I hope that I have conveyed just a hint of it in welcoming her speech today. The trouble is that I now have to make some remarks of my own.

I begin, like others, by saying that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for introducing the debate in the way in which she did. You cannot imagine a more important debate than one on the future of the planet earth and our ability to feed ourselves. It is very timely, and I compliment the noble Baroness on the way she introduced it.

In my short contribution, I want to mention some of the risks of biodiversity loss, because biodiversity loss and climate change are two sides of the same coin. Biodiversity is a term we use to describe the variety and variability of life on the planet, from the biggest mammals to microscopic single-cell organisms. The diversity of life and the interactions between organisms are what create the natural ecosystems that in turn regulate the environment and make the earth habitable.

As the House will know, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, among many others, has drawn attention to the fact that biodiversity loss is accelerating by stating:

“Despite increasing recognition of the crucial role of biodiversity in maintaining human and planetary health, biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history, and perhaps as fast as during any mass extinction”.


That is a serious warning we need to take seriously.

I heard the other day that it is thought that by 2035 the National Health Service will be spending more money on the complications arising from type 2 diabetes than on cancer. That is a result, in part, of what might be called the “junk food culture” of the western world, because we are not necessarily eating the best or most healthy food. When it comes to mind-blowing statistics, I understand that the world is going to need to produce in the next 40 years more food than it has produced in its entire human history—which shows the scale of the challenge we face.

As the noble Baroness correctly pointed out, I think about two-thirds of the world’s plant-based food comes from just nine species of crop. The House really needs to know how vulnerable we are when we read a statistic like that, and the noble Baroness speaks with much greater authority than I do. The noble Baroness also referred to the resilience of plants, which is going to be crucial to our survival. Converting land to agriculture does not just destroy natural ecosystems such as prairies, grasslands and forests. It also deprives wildlife of the food sources and shelter that it depends upon to survive.

Beyond the destruction of ecosystems, the intensification of farming is also driving biodiversity loss. I think it is estimated that about 100,000 species of insects, as well as birds and mammals, pollinate more than two-thirds of the food plants that are responsible for about one-third of the world’s crop production. I am only in many ways repeating in a pale form some of the points made by the noble Baroness. The variability and availability of living organisms are essential to agriculture as they ensure that the natural processes can take place, contributing to important functions such as soil fertility.

There are one or two things that are going wrong, and I will briefly draw attention to them. Land use, which has been mentioned, is a major driver of biodiversity loss and many agricultural practices are unsustainable in the long term. I suppose the deforestation of the Amazon is the most obvious example.

Then there is corn. We have been growing corn for 9,000 years but, as demand for it has soared, one of the most worrying aspects is the loss of diversity within the crop itself. Studies have pointed to a troubling erosion of genetic diversity within corn crops that could impact the crop’s ability to be sustained and grown in future.

In the last 40 years there has been a reduction of about one-third in all insect pollinator species where they have been measured, while biodiversity loss in marine fisheries is likely to continue and global heating can threaten that recovery completely as the oceans warm and become increasingly acidified. That matters because about 3 billion people on the planet rely on fish for a whole host of their food intake. In light of the time, I shall close by saying that biodiversity loss is as great a threat to the world as the phasing out of fossil fuels.

Perhaps I could conclude with a word of hope. I think I am right in saying, although I am sure I will be corrected if not, that there has been some fascinating scientific research that hints at breakthroughs in the productivity of plants and the possibility of significant increases in, for example, the yields of soya plants that could make a big difference in a world with a growing population and significantly amounts of farmland lost to climate change.

I hope the Minister might say a word about the current COP 15 process in relation to biodiversity and when we might expect a White Paper from the Government in response to the recommendations of the national food strategy, as referred to by my noble friend among others. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in his reply, and I end by congratulating once again the new expert Member of the Cross Benches on biodiversity, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.

Food Security: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There are enormous opportunities under our new schemes for farmers to operate in a more entrepreneurial way. They are really good at seeing new opportunities. With the new technologies which Defra and the Government are investing in for farmers, particularly in the fruit and vegetable sector, there are new possibilities with vertical farming and other means to make sure that we are disrupting the age-old food supply chains which have been found to be so vulnerable at this time.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s reference to the international dimension, is his department involved in work towards the COP 15 conference due to be held in China on the convention of biological diversity and in particular discussion of the strategic plan and its implementation? What can the Minister tell the House about the constructive contribution that I hope the UK will make to that conference?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Building on the fact that nature was hard-wired into COP 26, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is leading on this to make sure that these are embedded in the Kunming COP. We recognise that, as the Dasgupta review said, half the food we eat is totally dependent on biodiversity. Therefore, this COP could not come at a more important time and we have to make sure that we have success at the end of it, as we did with COP 26.

Sugar Beet: Neonicotinoids

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If we did consider giving this permission, we would then have to apply thresholds. They may be different from the thresholds we applied last year. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: that threshold was not reached and so no seed dressings were applied. I hope very much that that will be the case this year.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government have not yet made their decision, and referred to the advice from the Health and Safety Executive and the Expert Committee on Pesticides. I invite, encourage and ask the Minister to consult, as part of his decision-making, a body such as the Royal Society of Biology, the expert professional body in this field, which is full of an enormous amount of expertise—and, moreover, like other scientific bodies of this kind, has a duty under its charter to serve the public interest. Will he consider approaching it for advice?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are open to any advice. There are people from the Royal Society, Rothamsted and many other organisations that provide information, much of which was based on the ban that we introduced in 2018 and any of the conditions that we might make for exemptions this time. The noble Viscount is therefore absolutely right to raise the widest possible type of evidence to be sought.