Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee noble Lords across the House made it clear that, although they were supportive of the new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, they wanted further assurances that the measures in the plans would be duly implemented. I have listened carefully to the points raised in Committee and to the views shared on this issue during a number of very constructive meetings with several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, among others, and I thank them for their time and consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked for further explanation as to why we believe annual reporting is more appropriate than more regular reporting for pollution incident reduction plans. The measures in these plans are typically programmes of ongoing maintenance that will need to continue on an ongoing basis. Examples include regular cleaning of wet wells at sewage pumping stations to remove detritus that could lead to blockages or replacing rising main sewage pipes. We want companies’ focus to be on delivering the measures they have set out in their plans rather than on preparing reports for publication to talk about delivery. More regular reports also may lead to a focus on the wrong metrics to show progress for progress’s sake rather than the work necessary to reduce pollution incidents.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, I am pleased to propose a group of amendments to enhance and strengthen Clause 2 of the Bill. I turn first to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 31, all tabled in my name, which will expand the scope of pollution incident reduction plans to encompass water supply system-related incidents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, specifically raised this in Committee when she tabled an amendment which would require that water-only companies as well as water and sewerage companies produce pollution incident reduction plans. She made very persuasive points which we listened to carefully and, on reflection, we agree that including water supply incidents in scope would strengthen these plans. While pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system are less frequent than incidents attributable to the sewerage system, they have the potential to be equally serious. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to this in Committee. Such incidents could include a burst clean-water main leading to erosion and then silt pollution in the watercourse or the addition of chlorinated or fluorinated water into the watercourse.

The amendments tabled in my name will mean that water companies will have a duty to develop and publish measures to reduce pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system as well as the sewerage system. This duty will apply to all relevant companies, including water-only companies as well as water and sewerage undertakers. We believe this will support the overall intent of Clause 2 in further reducing the frequency and impact of pollution incidents from the water sector. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and all who spoke in support of this topic in Committee for their constructive approach.

I now move to Amendments 29, 34 and 35, also tabled in my name. These amendments create personal liability for chief executives to ensure that pollution incident reduction plans are published and implemented in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. A key aim of this Bill has been to hold water company executives to account for pollution caused by the water industry. As a core part of their role, water company executives should be acting to minimise pollution incidents and ensuring that their infrastructure is fit for purpose and resilient to pressure, including from climate change and population growth.

This is why Clause 1 of the Bill will enable Ofwat to ban bonuses for executives when water companies fail to meet environmental standards. But we want to build on this by making chief executives personally liable for the production of pollution incident reduction plans. This will mirror the personal liability which accompanies the duty for directors of a company to publish accounts and a company report under the Companies Act 2006. This will emphasise that minimising pollution incidents is a central aspect of a water company chief executive’s role. Under this group of amendments, the chief executive must personally ensure that the company produces a plan each year which meets all legal requirements. The chief executive must also personally approve the plan before it is published.

If the company fails to publish a compliant plan by the deadline each year, the chief executive—as well as the company—will have committed an offence. The regulator will be able to prosecute against this offence and, if the courts find the chief executive guilty, they will issue a fine.

To ensure that this measure is proportionate, imprisonment will not be available as a sanction. Furthermore, we have provided a defence to ensure that chief executives are not penalised if non-compliance arises due to circumstances that are—I emphasise—genuinely out of their control.

Through bringing forward these amendments, we will ensure that the production and publication of pollution incident reduction plans is overseen at the highest level, reflecting the importance of water companies bringing forward measures to meaningfully reduce pollution incidents.

I turn now to Amendments 19, 32 and 37, tabled in my name. In Committee, noble Lords made it clear that they wanted to see a clearer mechanism to ensure that water companies implemented their pollution incident reduction plans. We have listened very carefully and now propose a group of amendments to further ensure that companies implement the measures in their plans.

However, before I describe these amendments, I would like to recap why we do not think imposing a direct duty for water companies to implement the plans—as is proposed in Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—is helpful. First, at present, it is rightly the responsibility of companies to produce these plans and to decide the steps they will take to reduce pollution incidents. A direct duty to implement the measures in the plans could therefore result in companies setting enforceable duties for themselves. This would create a confused regulatory system, which could ultimately make it more challenging for the regulators to enforce legal requirements for pollution reduction.

For example, regulators would need to disentangle measures that water companies have put in their plans from pre-existing regulatory duties. This could make investigations and enforcement action more challenging and add complexity and confusion to the regulatory system.

Secondly, a direct duty may inadvertently reduce companies’ ambition. To manage the risk of enforcement, companies might be persuaded to make a commitment only when highly confident they could deliver.

Thirdly, this direct duty may force companies to continue implementing measures, even when they have realised it is not the most effective way to reduce pollution incidents. Companies should have the flexibility to learn and iteratively improve their approach. Sometimes, this may mean companies ceasing implementation of a specific measure and taking a different approach. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to create a legal duty for water companies to implement the measures they have set out in their plans.

I will now turn to the government amendments themselves and explain how they will ensure that water companies reduce pollution incidents and are held to account for delivery of their plans. First, this group of amendments introduces a duty for companies to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans. Companies will be required to set out where they have and have not implemented the measures they planned to implement in the preceding year. Companies must then set out the reasons for any failure to implement their plans and the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.

This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to scrutinise the extent to which companies have implemented their plans. Requiring companies to set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future will ensure that companies cannot continue to make the same excuse year after year.

Secondly, we are also amending the Bill to ensure that the environmental regulators take into account companies’ track records in implementing their plans when undertaking regulatory activities. This means that the regulator will consider the extent to which the company has implemented its plan when considering its enforcement response to a pollution incident, or when planning its schedule of investigations. This may well mean that a company will face more severe enforcement action for a pollution incident if it has failed to sufficiently implement those plans.

I hope the House will agree that, collectively, these amendments represent a significant strengthening of the Bill, and will ensure that companies are firmly held to account for implementing the measures outlined in their pollution incident reduction plans.

I will conclude by speaking to Amendments 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 60 and 63. I am delighted to move this suite of amendments to extend the application of the provisions introduced by Clause 2 of the Bill to Wales. Upon reviewing the requirements imposed by Clause 2 of the Bill, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales have requested that Clause 2 be extended to apply in Wales. This was announced by the Deputy First Minister on 16 October and these amendments seek to deliver on that request.

I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with our counterparts in Wales, and indeed with all of the devolved Governments, to tackle shared problems relating to the water industry and water quality more broadly.

I once again thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and input to discussions around the new requirement to produce pollution incident reduction plans, and hope that noble Lords agree that these amendments will significantly improve and strengthen this new requirement. I move that these amendments form part of the Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

On behalf of these Benches, I thank the Minister for listening to the cross-House comments made on the pollution incident reduction plans in Committee. The whole House welcomes the fact that the Government are bringing forward these plans. They can be an important contribution to dealing with the sewage crisis which we have seen for too long; water companies have let the public down.

On that point, it was a disgrace in the last week to see that United Utilities—which has been so responsible for all the sewage pollution that has gone into Windermere, as we referred to in Committee—has increased its dividend to shareholders. It is an absolute disgrace, so these measures cannot come soon enough.

We thank the Minister for listening to the very real concerns we had on two fronts: first, that water companies were excluded from the provisions in the way that water and sewerage companies were not. Although they are a smaller number of the 16 and may be proportionally less important, they are still very important. We thank the Minister for that.

On a slightly broader point, we hear what the Government said on not accepting the amendment proposed in Committee, about adding “and implement” into the Bill, which I see that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has brought back today. We are satisfied with the numerous amendments the Government have brought forward to address the two main points: first, that the plans will have to be annually and publicly reported, so we can see what the companies are doing. As the Minister made very clear, it is not just what they have done; they have to make absolutely clear what they have not done and what they are going to do about it, so that we the public—and indeed the regulators—can hold them to account.

The second point, which the Government have moved on significantly—which we very much welcome—is that the chief executives have become personally liable for the production of both the plans and the reports and have some legally binding responsibility which can translate into sanctions, which we believe are strong enough. We thank the Government for bringing forward these pollution incident reduction plans and for listening so constructively to the comments which were made. This is a major improvement to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I fully echo the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in thanking the Minister both for her engagement during the Bill’s progress and also, specifically, for listening to the House on the implementation of the pollution incident reduction plans. We also welcome these government amendments.

I tabled Amendment 15A simply as a reminder of how understanding and accommodating the Government have been. This was originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in Committee. As I said then, we would have tabled it ourselves had she not been so swift with her pen. It is crucial that pollution incident reduction plans are more than a wish list, and actually have real obligations for implementation.

We are most grateful to the Minister for listening to this House and creating a structure for making water companies responsible for implementing these plans and reporting on that implementation. The Minister explained clearly the issues around that responsibility, relating to interference with the other statutory obligations of those companies, and we are very pleased that she and her officials were able to design a methodology that would work.

We agree that making the CEO of the relevant undertaker responsible for signing off the plan and liable for its implementation creates significant incentives to ensure that these pollution incident reduction plans will be implemented. I thank the Minister, yet again, for her further explanation of why annual reporting is appropriate in this instance, and I accept that. We on these Benches are supportive of these government amendments and I will not press my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, a lot of this comes down to the language from the Minister, which I hope will build on what the Government have done in their movement today.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, this is an interesting group of amendments and we on these Benches welcome them. I do not wish to replicate what has been said but I have a few reflections.

Government Amendment 48, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, is extremely welcome. It could go further, but we on these Benches welcome it. We accept that the Bill is an interim measure and that the independent water commission is just that: independent. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government at this point in time are making a marker in the sand that the regulator should have greater regard for climate and environmental targets. That is extremely important and is the additional reason why on these Benches we welcome it.

Amendment 44 was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. You would expect that we on these Benches, as Liberal Democrats and liberals, would welcome anything that enables local people to have more say on decisions that affect their lives, particularly the environment and climate decisions, because we know that, if they get involved and are caring about their environment, they will help protect it better. So we think that this is an extremely welcome amendment and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.

On the final group of amendments, on nature-based solutions, which we participated in in Committee, I think there is broad agreement. Everybody understands that we need water companies to look less at concrete and far more at green solutions. Government Amendment 42 is extremely welcome. The only point that I would make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when introducing his Amendment 55: there is an area where it could have gone a bit further. The noble Lord’s amendment talks powerfully about water storage and flood prevention; the Government’s amendment is welcome, but it excludes that. We on these Benches would like to hear a little more about how the Government see themselves taking that forward —mindful that it is not in their amendment. Having said that, we welcome these amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving the first amendment in this group. I shall speak to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s Amendment 55 as well as government Amendments 42 and 48.

Amendment 55 is a powerful, concise amendment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on his commitment to, and passion for, making the case for nature-based solutions within the water industry. My noble friend’s amendment has two parts— both are important for the future of nature-based solutions in the water sector. The first would require water companies to give due consideration to nature-based solutions for meeting their statutory obligations. The second would prevent the regulator blocking the use of nature-based solutions.

The Minister has two amendments in this group that make significant additions to the Bill around the use of nature-based solutions. Amendment 42 requires undertakers to explain the contribution from nature-based solutions. Amendment 48 is a broad amendment that could also contribute towards nature-based solutions being used for their wider benefit to nature restoration. I am most grateful to the Minister for her constructive engagement on my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, and for these government amendments. It is clear from these discussions that the Minister cares deeply about nature recovery.

However, I ask the Minister to clarify the approach taken by Ofwat to the use of nature-based solutions within the water and sewage industry. I am aware that £2 billion of investment is included within the draft determinations. However, we on these Benches wish to be reassured that, where suitable and at no additional cost to consumers, further nature-based investment is possible within this determination and beyond. To echo my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would also like reassurance that nature-based solutions will be used not just in drainage and sewerage but throughout the water supply and treatment network, including catchment restoration for flood prevention, drought mitigation and water quality.

I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This would appear to be captured within our Amendment 55 as a specific case but also potentially within the government amendments. The water companies are perfectly positioned to stimulate nature restoration at scale and without using the public purse. We welcome these government amendments and look forward to the Minister explaining how impactful she believes they will be.

Biodiversity Net Gain

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the biodiversity net gain provisions.

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

My Lords, it is almost nine months since biodiversity net gain became mandatory for most developments. We are pleased to see stakeholders embracing this opportunity to deliver much-needed development while improving the environment at the same time. Officials are monitoring implementation closely and engaging with sectors, including developers and local authorities. We have updated guidance to provide clarification on areas of concern and will continue to refine the policy to ensure that it achieves intended outcomes.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She may know that analysis has shown that only 7% of planning applications are identifying a need for biodiversity net gain, which is massively lower than all of us, including the Government, expected. I am very pleased to hear that officials are monitoring the situation, but will they be reviewing the exceptions, some of which are proving to be rather large loopholes, to ensure that biodiversity net gain builds nature’s recovery and the sustainable homes that we need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is referring, I assume, to the exemptions in place for applications that have no or a very limited impact on biodiversity. That was brought in to ensure proportionality and to keep the planning system moving. However, Defra is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review planning statistics and specific applications.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Oh!

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

That is not true.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry. Thank you; it is lovely to see the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back in her place.

All three of my amendments are intended to be helpful—that is, to help the Government regulate the water industry properly and end the 30 years of fleecing bill payers while dumping sewage into our waterways. It is an absolutely unforgivable three decades of abuse of the system.

Amendment 97 would prohibit the Government bailing out shareholders and creditors of water companies in the event of special administration. Amendment 98 would allow the Government to take back control with public ownership of water companies, but it is only an option. It is an option that I believe the Government could use as a lever in their negotiations with the water companies, so I think it is worth putting it back in the Bill. Amendment 99 would allow water companies to be put into special administration for failing on environmental issues, such as leaks and sewage spills.

What strikes me about these issues is that the public are demanding that this is sorted, but the Government are giving us half measures. I am concerned that that will not bring the sort of change we need. There is a democratic shortfall here because polls tell us that 82% of the public want to end privatised water, but only a few of us in Parliament are willing to consider it. To me, this suggests that the Government are out of step with the public, which is very concerning for me; I would like the Labour Government to last longer than one term because I really do not want to see another Conservative Government in my lifetime. There is, of course, a fear among many campaigners that this Bill will raise their water bills by enabling the Government to bail out and reward the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for signing Amendment 97. It is essential that the Government do not bail out the water companies in such a way that they simply hand money to shareholders and creditors and let them start afresh, behaving in the same way but perhaps with a little more regulation. Amendment 97 would prohibit this so that the public purse does not underwrite the casino capitalism and financial engineering that has been going on in the water sector. We have a ridiculous situation where the debt is being traded by hedge funds, which are gambling on water bills going up in future to finance a bailout. If these companies fail, let us instead bring them into public ownership and democratic control. The shareholders and creditors took a gamble on greed when the companies used £75 billion since privatisation to pay dividends rather than invest. Let them take the hit.

Amendment 98 would allow the Government to set out how they will bring water companies into public ownership. The Greens are deeply disappointed that the Government have ruled this out. I do not understand any sort of ideological addiction to private ownership of a public service such as this, particularly when it is not even a competitive market. It is a monopoly, and it is time it stopped.

I have heard the Government say that private investment is essential, but it is simple maths that, if we stop paying dividends and debt payments, that frees up 40% of people’s water bills to be invested in fixing the sewerage system and building more reservoirs. The Government have been using overinflated estimates from the water industry—a figure of some £90 billion—to claim that public ownership would be too expensive, but actually, it is the complete opposite: it is privatised water that is too expensive to continue. Water company shareholders have spent decades sucking out the profits while loading debt on to the balance sheets and hiking people’s bills. That is inevitable, as free market economics simply does not work without competition. Thatcher turned a public monopoly into a cash cow for people who are greedy. Unless amended, this legislation does nothing to stop that continuing for another decade. I want the Government to at least have the power to bring the companies into public ownership. If they rule out that option, the Government will make any taxpayer bailout a lot more expensive, as a potential buyer has the upper hand in all negotiations.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to introduce the amendments in this group. They all seek to create, strengthen or delete regulations. Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks review of the environmental permits. Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks to impose duties on the regulator to provide clean water. Through Amendments 79 and 80, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seek to abolish the water authority and create a clean water authority. Through Amendment 81, the noble Earl seeks a regulatory review of the water industry. Through Amendments 84 and 85, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove the regulator’s growth objectives and make environmental protection a statutory duty. I am sure that they will have plenty to add when they speak.

Meanwhile, I should like to speak to Amendment 29, which is about the prohibition of possible conflicts of interests. The key principle is that regulators must not only be independent of the regulated entities and personnel but be seen to be independent and free from any conflicts of interests. They must avoid cognitive capture. Individuals from regulatory bodies are in demand by the regulated entities because they can open doors and help to secure favours, and enable water companies to game the regulatory system.

No matter how vehemently such charges are denied, that is how it will always appear to the public at large, and public perceptions matter. Thanks to the wage freeze and the real wage cuts over the past 14 years, too many regulators are poorly paid. While in regulatory positions, they begin to look for greener pastures or are targeted by water companies for enrolment. In fact, every interaction they have with a water company is a potential job interview. There is always a temptation to go easy and be extra helpful to a potential employer, as that can help to land a much better-paid job. No one wants to sour that potential by being tough, awkward or robust with their potential employer. That applies to the regulators’ employees too.

There is plenty of evidence about the merry-go-round between the core regulators and water companies. A report last year noted that at least 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry, which they helped to regulate, subsequently began to work for water companies, mostly in senior positions. Six water and sewerage companies in England have hired directors of corporate strategy or heads of regulation from Ofwat. They were the insiders. One celebrated name, Cathryn Ross, at one time interim joint chief executive of Thames Water, was a former head of Ofwat. Several former Ofwat senior people now work at Thames Water. In addition to Ross, there is Jonathan Read, who is a director of regulatory policy and investigations. There is also Giles Stevens, director of regulatory strategy and innovation. Another executive from a regulator was recruited by Thames Water as recently as March last year as a “regulatory engagement lead”. At Severn Trent Water, there are at least nine employees who were previously at Ofwat. They include Shane Anderson, director of strategy and regulation, and Jonathan Ashley, head of economic regulation. Both previously worked as directors at the regulator that oversees water and sewerage firms in England and Wales.

I add for clarity that none of these people has broken any rules; I am not accusing them of doing so. It is simply that the rules are inadequate or, if they exist, incredibly poorly applied and permit this merry-go-round.

Amendment 29 requires that senior staff who work at the regulator cannot and must not have a potential conflict of interest by being lured into a job at a regulated company. It also requires that the Secretary of State must have no conflict of interests or appearance of a conflict: for example, by accepting gifts, free tickets for football matches, or even possibly tokens to buy new suits. None of that should be permitted. All regulators must be seen to be above any reproach, and there must be no question whatever about their integrity. An enforceable statutory framework is needed, and that is what this amendment seeks. We do not need voluntary codes, because they cannot be enforced by any court of law. We need legal backing. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 78 and to return to the issue we covered on the first day in Committee around the duty of the water regulator, Ofwat, and the fact that at the moment it does not have a core duty which comprises a public interest. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who again is unwell and cannot be with us today, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their support for this amendment.

It is quite clear that the public feel extremely strongly about how the regulator is ensuring, not ensuring or unable to ensure that companies perform their duties towards the public interest correctly. If we have any doubt of that, we saw the strength of feeling in the general election, we see it every day in the newspapers, and I am sure we will see it on the streets of London this Sunday with the March for Clean Water; I declare my interest as stated in the register.

However, if anyone were to sit down and read the Water Industry Act 1991, they would be amazed that there are no duties for Ofwat with regard to the public interest, to promote public health or to ensure the protection and conservation of our environment. They would see it as an absolutely astonishing omission. What they would see is a core duty to ensure the “long-term resilience” of water company services and sewerage systems. That is effectively a “keep the taps on” clause—which my local water company, Thames Water, seems to be unable to do on quite a regular basis, although that is beside the point. Then there is a whole swathe of legally binding economic duties which ensure that Ofwat absolutely focuses the water companies on making a profit. I am not against making a profit; of course they should make a profit. However, Amendment 78 says that we should look for a triple bottom line: for profitability, environmental returns and social outcomes.

As this returns to an issue that we looked at on Monday which is fairly similar to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which talked about taking all reasonable steps to contribute to the environment and climate change targets, I made sure that I read the Minister’s reply carefully in Hansard because I thought I might get the same sort of reply myself. She made three points. She says that the amendment is not necessary because it overlaps

“with existing government requirements, Ofwat’s core duties and our ambitions for the future”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 939.]

The Government do not have of themselves the mechanisms to deliver on all these targets; they rely on other bodies to work with them. Giving Ofwat this duty would enable it to support those government requirements and targets.

Secondly, on the point about Ofwat’s core duties, I strongly but respectfully disagree with the Minister. There is no evidence in Ofwat’s existing core duty of any public interest duty. Thirdly, the Minister talks about our ambitions for the future, by which I think that, rightly, she means the water industry commission. I shall quote again from her response on Monday. With regard to the independent water commission, she said the Government would put the environment

“at the heart of what we are doing”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 939.]

Great, fantastic—but, as we discussed on Monday, once we get the commission done, we will have to wait for legislation and time is rolling on, while our environmental and climate targets are here and now. We cannot wait. We should be using this opportunity in the meantime to strengthen the duties for Ofwat to ensure that our water companies can support the Government in the very necessary task of protecting our environment and delivering clean water for the public.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendments 56, 79, and 80, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 81 in my name.

Amendment 56 would require the Environment Agency to review permits applying to water and sewerage companies every five years rather than “periodically”, as regulations currently dictate. It brings in measures to ensure that a review of environmental permits happens on a regular basis rather than the ad hoc arrangements that are currently in force. Current Regulation 34 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 requires the Environment Agency only to

“periodically review environmental permits”,

including those attached to water and sewerage works. The reality is that many of these permits are unfit for the intended purposes and do not properly protect our rivers, lakes and coastal waters from pollution incidents. It has been a long time since the system was fully reviewed in any meaningful way. The system is outdated, not really fit for purpose and clearly not working as it was intended. The Bill offers an opportunity and it would be wrong not to make use of it.

“Periodic review” could mean absolutely anything. It could mean that there are regular reviews in place, with systems for a review after serious pollution incidents up and working well. Equally, it could mean that water companies conduct reviews only once every 10 years, regardless of the number of incidents that happen over that time. The language we use in the Bill is of the utmost importance. We have an industry that is not abiding by the rules and a regulatory framework that is underresourced and low on morale and has not been able to prevent, contain or stop persistent breaches of environmental regulations. The public are fed up to the back teeth with illegal sewage overflows that no one seems to be taking seriously. They want action and they want it now.

While it can be argued that at least every five years is not often enough, it is a clearly defined requirement that can be monitored and enforced. We must also bear in mind that the Environment Agency is operating under such budgetary pressures that insistence on more frequent reviews would put it under a fair amount of strain. We need to be realistic about where we are and what we can enforce. This is put forward as a compromise that we feel best achieves those two aims. It is important that we set targets that are both achievable and operable. The amendment proposes that the Environment Agency should be placed under a duty to review permits applying to water companies every five years. Ideally, this should be done in advance of each periodic review, to reflect other legal obligations on sewage pollution and water quality and therefore drive investment.

Amendment 79 seeks to abolish the Water Services Regulation Authority. Amendment 80 establishes the “clean water authority” and provides it with duties concerning the water companies’ governance and performance standards. It is well known that the Liberal Democrats do not believe that Ofwat in its current form, alongside an underfunded Environment Agency, can achieve the change necessary to prevent continued sewage overspills, provide a return to clean water running in our streams and rivers, and achieve the reversal of biodiversity decline currently found across our natural environment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

30: Clause 2, page 4, line 30, after “Each” insert “water and”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that both water-only providers and sewerage providers are required to prepare pollution incident reduction plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely understand. This is not a straightforward area, and I would be absolutely delighted to meet the noble Lords to see if we can find a way forward.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her responses to the numerous amendments in this group on pollution incident reduction plans, which I think everyone in this Committee believes is one of the really valuable steps in the Bill. I will pass on her comments about a meeting to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Water-only companies are responsible for a number of pollution incidents, particularly around drinking water treatment, but I will leave that for that later discussion.

Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, I just did not find the Minister’s comments very convincing, but it was not just that. I am not a lawyer, so I did not really understand what a sub-delegation of powers was; I am humble theologian, so I will have to go away and think about that and take some advice from people who know about it. However, the offer made to talk about this further is an important step forward. She will have noticed that everyone across the Committee believes that these are important steps we need to take to ensure that the ambitions that the Government rightly have in this regard are carried out as fully as they need to be.

In making that point, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his comments. His phrase—that the Bill in this area does not ask enough of water companies to deliver on the ambition of pollution incident reduction plans—was absolutely spot on, so I thank him for that.

I hope that my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville will be reassured by the Minister’s comments about the Government taking pollution seriously in national parks. I am sure that if she has any further matters to discuss with the Minister when she is well—next week, I hope—she will be in a position to come to the Minister’s door, which we all know is an open door, and we thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it specifically refers to the UK carbon budget framework and the Climate Change Act. We discussed this very briefly in the Water (Special Measures) Bill yesterday during the environment amendments. The biodiversity targets set within the Environment Act are certainly ways to deliver the changes that we need and I suggest that anything that is currently in law is something that the commission would be discussing.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will pick up the point that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made about regulators. While we welcome very much the independent water commission and what it will look at in its scope, last week the Secretary of State introduced another review by Dan Corry of the Defra regulatory framework, which will report before the independent water commission. I did not want to think that that might preclude any of the broader structural issues that we know need to be addressed in the water industry. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what relationship will there be between the Dan Corry review of Defra’s regulatory framework and the independent water commission?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really good question. I have met with Dan Corry and spoken with him about this. He is doing a very broad overview of everything; it is not limited to the water industry. His review is entirely separate from any work that the commission is doing. If there is any overlap on the effectiveness of the water industry regulators, I am sure that it will be fed into the commission as part of its discussions.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 91 in my name. These amendments seek to set a strategic direction for the Bill and, crucially, to apply a new duty on the water regulator to take account of—and take all reasonable steps to ensure that Ofwat and, by extension, the water companies that it regulates, contribute to—our targets under the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. It would have immediate effect outside the price review process by applying climate and nature considerations into yearly in-period determinations. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, as well as the Blueprint Coalition, for their support.

As the first speaker in Committee, and conscious that I was not here at Second Reading, I will quickly say that I fully support the general intent of the Bill and note that this is just one stage of the Government’s wider plans for tackling water pollution. While I do not have major issues with what is in the Bill, it presents us with a legislative opportunity to strengthen the regulator to ensure that Ofwat has the duty to contribute to the delivery of our climate change and nature targets. This is a key chance to modernise Ofwat’s remit and ensure that it is fit for purpose.

As we all know and hear daily, the water industry has a huge impact on our natural environment. Its shortcomings and their effects are well documented—I will not repeat them here—but it is not just the shortcomings of the water industry. It is hard to imagine that these shortcomings would have been possible with a regulator which had a remit that also ensured it took these issues seriously. But the fault, or reason, does not lie simply with Ofwat. It lies with the duties it has—or, more importantly, does not have—which have been legislated by this Parliament over the past three decades. In short, there is a misbalance between what Ofwat currently does and prioritises and what the Government and the public would like us to do: ensure that industry cleans up its act.

In Ofwat’s duties there is no mention of climate change—which is going to make its job harder as we experience more erratic weather events—or biodiversity, on which we have binding targets that will be impossible to achieve without putting an end to sewage pollution in our rivers. We can all acknowledge that the regulators are busy and, without these targets on their list of things to do, this will continue to fall by the wayside or be deprioritised, as it so obviously has been in recent years. That is why I have tabled Amendment 91, which would help the Government and the public to ensure that a greater contribution is made by the sector. With a clear duty, it would mean that the regulator has to further two of the Government’s core aims.

Amendment 91 would amend the Water Industry Act 1991, which established Ofwat, to require it to take all reasonable steps, in exercising its powers, to contribute to the achievement of our biodiversity targets under the Environment Act and our net-zero targets under the Climate Change Act, and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Such a duty is currently missing from Ofwat’s governance.

Ofwat’s current primary duty, set under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act in 1991, is

“to further the consumer objective … to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition”.

Section 3 goes on to state that Ofwat’s work to further the conservation of flora and fauna should be undertaken only as far as is consistent with the primary consumer objective. This clear subordination of environmental considerations to economic ones was not corrected by the introduction of a rather muddled resilience objective in 2014 and was actively exacerbated by the 2024 imposition of a new statutory growth duty on Ofwat

“to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”.

In a speech in the other place last Wednesday, the Secretary of State announced an independent water commission that

“will ensure that we have the robust regulatory framework that we need to attract the significant investment that is required to clean up our waterways”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 279.]

That is good and welcome, as is the text in the notes that it must consider alignment with net-zero objectives. However, I went back through it and did a word search. Nature is mentioned once in the notes and there is no mention at all of biodiversity or of consideration of alignment with our mandatory targets for biodiversity, as outlined in the Environment Act and associated secondary legislation.

Is it relevant that we are asking Ofwat and, through it, our water companies to look at the biodiversity and water targets? Over the weekend, I went back and looked at the 2030 species abundance target, which was one of the biodiversity targets that was published as a statutory instrument in January 2023. I counted the list of species that will contribute to this target; included are 244 freshwater invertebrate species, which absolutely require clean water; 40 species of birds that forage and nest in riverine environments—that is 25% of the total list of bird species; and 48 plant species associated with, or growing in, rivers, streams or marshy freshwater environments, which is 22% of the plant list. By the most basic calculation, almost a quarter of the plants and birds on our species abundance list—the list that will be used to check whether we meet those targets—and 100% of our freshwater invertebrates rely on clean, unpolluted rivers to thrive, yet we have no statutory purpose or duty for Ofwat to look at this. Many of those species will not recover unless we improve the quality of our rivers, so this is a fundamental part of what we should be looking at. We urgently need every water company to acknowledge the Environment Act targets and for Ofwat to measure their performance against them.

It may well be argued that this would be covered by the independent water commission review, but there is an issue of timing as well. Even if these biodiversity targets are included as part of the consultation outlined by the Secretary of State last week in the other place, it will not, as stated, have any findings until the first half of 2025; and because of the current price review processes, changes will likely not come into effect until 2029 to 2030, which, if I have understood correctly, means they would be implemented after the biodiversity target to halt species decline in 2030 has come and gone. Perhaps the Minister can clarify on this.

A review is not legislation—I do not need to remind people in this Committee of that. Legislating for a climate and nature duty for Ofwat early in this Parliament would allow benefits to accrue ahead of the looming environmental deadlines falling at the end of Parliament, including the previously stated 2030 biodiversity targets. If we do this now, with a duty that will come into force in 2025, we can build these environmental objectives into work on the next price review from the start, as well as applying climate and nature considerations into yearly in-period determinations and everyday decision-making.

In summary, it would be counterproductive not to take this opportunity to give Ofwat a new duty to help ensure that we meet our climate and, crucially, Environment Act habitat and species targets. I hope we can find some agreement there.

The public were clear at the election that they expected change and that protecting and restoring our environment, including biodiversity, is a priority. This amendment would be a simple, proportionate, pragmatic and positive change that we could make today. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has set out clearly the case for a duty for Ofwat to deliver on the Government’s biodiversity and climate change objectives. I just want to pick up on the point about the review, because I think the Minister will say, “This is a fantastic amendment, but we just need to wait for the review”, and there are three reasons why this Committee will find that response unsatisfactory.

The first point is that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which is around the timing of the review, which we all welcome, but we do not know when exactly it is going to finish. Of course, by the time it is in legislation, and we do not know when there is going to be a slot, we could have missed our biodiversity targets, let alone our climate target.

Secondly, there is nothing in this amendment which is not already Government-stated policy. It is Government-stated policy to deliver on our biodiversity objectives, to move towards our climate change objectives, and to adapt to respond to those. So why do we need to wait for the review? There is nothing about putting this in legislation now which is counter to the Government’s position and therefore there is no barrier.

Thirdly, the wording is rather clever. It does not say “Ofwat”; it talks about “the Authority”. So, whatever the review decides, it is relevant. It is also clever because it says that it must “take all reasonable steps”. Again, it is not precluding or being prescriptive about that future authority; it is just setting the parameters.

It is a very well-crafted amendment and I think the Committee will be deeply disappointed if the Minister comes back and just says we should wait for the review. It would also make us question what the point of the review is, and we would not wish to do that because we have the highest regard for the Minister. If the Government are not prepared at this stage to put in the Bill that part of the review is to ensure that we deliver on our environmental and climate targets, then how can we be sure the review is going off on the right foot?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my support to these two amendments, to which I have put my name. I was pondering why Ofwat lost the plot on the environment around 2010. In a way, it is not surprising, because the reality is that it was getting a strong steer from government that the important thing was to keep bills down and that everything else should take second place. It was eminently possible to say that to Ofwat because the number of objectives and duties that it had been given was quite a large, disparate and often conflicting set and was growing yearly.

Ofwat currently has a primary duty under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to

“further the consumer objective … to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate, by promoting effective competition”.

That really became the sole mission of Ofwat in the 2010s.

Section 3 says that Ofwat’s work to further the conservation of flora and fauna should be undertaken only as far as it is consistent with the primary consumer objective. So, there is a “get out of jail free” card for Ofwat about environmental improvement and biodiversity decline and they take a very second-class seat. Ofwat also has a duty for pursuing sustainable development and a whole suite of environmental and recreational duties.

In 2014, a very muddled objective was added to Ofwat’s increasing list relating to resilience. In 2024, Ofwat got a statutory duty to promote growth. If one was being benign towards Ofwat, one could say that perhaps it was a bit confused by a number of directions which were mutually inconsistent, but the primary one was that Ofwat was told very firmly to keep prices down, and it pretty well did that in terms of the environmental elements of successive price rounds since then. Had Ofwat been challenged at any point as to whether it was meeting these duties, many of which are about contributing to or furthering or having regard to, it would have been very easy for it simply to construct arguments that demonstrated that it had a limited compliance with almost anything and to deliver nothing that it did not want to deliver.

The Minister will no doubt say that the broader review which has been referred to will consider how to streamline and focus Ofwat’s duties, and I agree that that is important and that the review should do it, but I share the views expressed that we cannot wait that long. The review will report eventually and there will be a delay while legislation comes forward. This amendment, which gives equal prominence to environmental duties and consumer duties, is fundamental if Ofwat is going to immediately play its full part in meeting the legally binding targets of the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. At the end of the day, though I gather the debate on climate change last Thursday tried to deny it, these are in fact existential issues, which is why there are legally binding targets on both climate change and biodiversity.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday we learned that water companies failed, for the fourth year in a row, to meet critical pollution reduction targets and that last year over 3 million hours-worth of sewage was flowing through our waterways in England. And yet, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—

[Noble Lords]

Wellington.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I heard on Radio 4’s “Today” programme that the response from the regulator was that what was needed was a change in culture. Now, putting aside that it seemed strange that the regulator would say culture change was the answer, the issue is that these companies have had the chance over decades to show that they can change, and they have not. Now is the time for the Government to intervene.

Like others, I welcome the strong manifesto commitment by the new Labour Government to clean up our waters, rivers and beaches, and I welcome this first step. It is not going to do it on its own, as indeed the Minister said in her opening remarks, but it is a welcome first step which will do something to help regulate these failing companies and extend the remit of this sadly ineffective regulator. At the same time, it will hopefully allow the Government to undertake a broader review where they can identify a way forward for this broken model of managing our precious water resources.

The special measures Bill is welcome, but there are a number of areas I would like to see strengthened. I find it very concerning that there is not a public interest remit for the regulator Ofwat. I think the general public would find it very surprising that the regulator for our water companies does not have any need to look at issues of ensuring clean water or improving the environment. However, it does have binding, legal duties to improve the economic performance of companies. Over time, this has allowed them to sweat assets and put profit before public interest. That must change. Again, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—

[Noble Lords]

Wellington.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I am so sorry: the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—it is not easy to muddle the two, so apologies for that. He rightly made the point that this situation was actually made worse by the last Government when they introduced the legislation that made Ofwat have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when it was undertaking its duties. We have to redress that balance. Of course, water companies have to make a profit—we cannot have companies that do not make profits; they would not be in existence—but there is an imbalance between focusing on the bottom line and ensuring that public interest in our water is delivered by these companies. That must be redressed. The special measures Bill, by changing the remit of Ofwat remit to have a public interest duty, is a way to do that.

I very much welcome, in a spirit of hope rather than expectation, the pollution incident reduction plans that will do what they can to ensure that we see less pollution in our rivers and waters in the future. Like other colleagues, I feel very strongly that it should be a duty not just to produce and publish them; there must also be a duty to implement them. It must also be a duty on all water companies, both straight water companies and water sewerage companies. We would like to see some amendments on that.

We need to make sure that those pollution incident reduction plans do not just end up being stuffed full of the cheapest and quickest options to tackle combined sewer overflows. If we allow that, all we will end up with is downstream proposals for end-of-pipe storage, such as concrete storm tanks, at water recovery centres, rather than looking upstream to find sustainable—admittedly more expensive—options that will deliver sustainable drainage and other nature-based solutions. These will not only deal with the combined sewer overflows but will offer other benefits to society more broadly, in terms of flood alleviation and liveability for communities, if we are talking about sustainable urban drainage systems, for example.

So I hope that, in Committee, we will have the chance to ensure that those pollution incident reduction plans are not just stuffed with the quickest and the cheapest but actually move companies towards looking towards the sustainable and the best.

Like other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who spoke so well earlier, I want to add my voice to say that I hope that, in summing up, the Minister today will be able to say a bit more about the review on which we are all pinning such high hopes. Like others, I would very much like to see a very clear and firm look taken at the operating and financing models of companies. My party has long and strongly argued for social and environmental purposes to be incorporated in water company corporate articles of association. I very much hope to see that sort of aspect looked at.

We need to make sure that all areas across government are included, because there are so many areas which impinge on how we manage our water, including talking about planning rules for new homes and the right to connect for developers, or incentivising sustainable agriculture so that we help farmers to do what we need them to do and not contribute to some of the run-off that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey spoke so powerfully about, and really starting to prioritise catchment-scale planning for water. We need to look at all the areas in that review and ensure that we have an enforcement regime that is worthy of the name. Without that, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

I will add one thing that no other Member has yet mentioned this afternoon. I hope that the review will look at the role of consumers, of us as individuals, in paying for all the new infrastructure that will be required to deliver the water services we want and need and also at our responsibility to save water, which for too long has not been articulated strongly enough. I remember that 10 years ago, during the passage of what became the Water Act 2014, I made the case for compulsory water metering and better standards for installations in homes. The case for compulsory water metering with social tariffs has not gone away; it is still here. However, I hope that the Government will at least look at the role of what consumers are expected to do and pay for in this whole review, because they must be an integral part.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be public consultation on this, because it is our water system. It is a problem that all of us know about, wherever we live, whether it is on the Wye or me by the River Wey in Surrey. We have all had our water stopped and have all seen slurry in the rivers. All of us have a say in this and the public will want us to do the best we can to help the Government make this special measures Bill and the review what they need to be.

Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee An extraordinary challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our land and sea by 2030 (2nd Report, Session 2022–23, HL Paper 234).

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate as the past chairman of the Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change, as we debate the issue of how we in the UK meet our target to achieve 30% of our land and sea to be restored to nature by 2030. When we launched our report last year, we called it an extraordinary challenge, and that title is as apposite today as it was then.

When I look at noble Lords in this Room, I can see that I do not need to tell any of them that this global target for biodiversity for 30 by 30 was agreed at the nature COP, COP 15, back in 2022. But I put on record my thanks to the past Government, who showed considerable leadership in securing that global agreement and, in particular, to the noble Lord sitting behind me, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who was instrumental in achieving that. I thank him and welcome that the new Labour Government have already committed to meeting their international biodiversity obligations.

We put our report together over a year ago—God knows why it takes over a year in the House of Lords to report a Select Committee, but it does—and the recommendations that we made on securing the land in England are as relevant today as they were then. That has made it even better for us to debate it today, given that we face the opportunity next month of COP 16 in Colombia, which I hope is focusing the minds of our own Government, as well as Governments right around the world, on their shared biodiversity targets.

Frankly, we should not need an international gathering on biodiversity to redouble our efforts to protect nature. This month alone we have seen five more UK seabirds added to the red list for extinction: Arctic terns, Leach’s storm petrels, common gulls and the great black-backed gull, and the great skua have all been added to that list. We know that protected species survive and thrive best in protected areas such as SSSIs and SACs, as well as the SPAs—the sites of special scientific interest, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. But there is a great swathe of other protected sites around our country, whether they are areas owned by environmental NGOs, managed for nature conservation, or national parks or national landscapes, which we have come to term AOBs, or wildlife reserves, national nature reserves or national forests—to name but a few. They are all important, but the question for us as a committee when we looked at our report was what counted towards that 30 by 30 target.

We were very clear that we accepted the international definition that was put together by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which was agreed at COP 15, that to qualify for 30 by 30 the area should be:

“a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.

We took “long term” to mean more than 30 years. Taking that definition, we listened to the advice from the Government’s own nature advisory body, the JNCC, and the other environmental groups, as well as from other stakeholders. We concluded that, at that time, the amount of land in England that could count towards 30 by 30 was 6.5%. That means that, by 2030, there remains 23.5% of land required to meet the target, which is a massive amount of land. To give it some context, that is more than 3 million hectares of land, or an area of land more than 1.5 times the size of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, might want to challenge me on that—I do not know. Those were the figures that we identified.

In December, the Government—as was—argued that, in their delivering 30 by 30 on land and at sea, that figure was not 6.5% but 8.5%. However, they included in their definition land that is not compliant with what we take to be suitable for inclusion in 30 by 30 as compliant with the international guidance. Irrespective of arguing over those amounts, what is absolutely clear is the scale of the challenge. But we all know that it is not just size that matters; it is also about the quality and condition of the land, as is articulated in the COP 15 statement that it should be effectively conserved and managed.

When we asked Natural England for an update on the quality of those SSSIs, it indicated that only 37% were in favourable condition and that there had been no improvement in the past 13 years in improving the remaining SSSIs. When it came to monitoring, it said that less than a quarter of our SSSIs had been assessed in the past six years. Although I acknowledge that Natural England has made some extremely welcome changes since December in how it assesses and monitors SSSIs, this does not get away from the fact that we are not looking at and assessing our protected sites anywhere near enough for land managers and others to make appropriate management decisions—let alone the fact that, in February 2026, we as a country will have to report internationally on how we are doing against the 30 by 30 target. We as a committee were clear that, despite the financial implications, a proper management assessment needs to be done for every piece of land that constitutes 30 by 30, and that it should be assessed every six years.

That is the state of our best-protected land in England. What about at sea? When we asked the JNCC, we found the deeply worrying situation that only two out of our 76 MPAs—most protected areas—receive any form of monitoring, despite the threats that they face from overfishing, bottom trawling near the seabed and energy infrastructure. We think that this is insufficient. We argued very strongly for there to be more monitoring of our MPAs, both inshore and offshore. We also argued for better regulation of bottom trawling—that is, I think, an issue that several Members may wish to return to later. Like the EFRA Committee, we argued that there needs to be speedy resolution in designating more HPMAs—highly protected marine areas—because the pace of change has been glacial, to say the least.

Let me explain what I mean by “glacial”. One of the things we asked the Government to do was produce a map of how they saw themselves bringing together all the land needed for the 30 by 30 target, along with an action plan. We said—I remember it clearly—that one thing that would be invaluable in helping the Government draw up that map would be the “forthcoming” land use framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may wish to say something more about the forthcoming nature of the land use framework, which we still need to see in its entirety. It is good to see that the new Government have committed to produce one of those.

However, what the Government did do in December was produce a map, along with some indications of how they saw themselves delivering the 30 by 30 target on land, but with no indication of how they saw themselves doing it at sea. In no sense could this be called an action plan because, as the Government themselves said, the map was only indicative as they had not yet agreed the criteria for what would constitute 30 by 30. There was glacial progress too by the last Government on getting any OECMs—other effective area-based conservation measures—up and running, which would have been a really important way of helping farmers, woodland managers and others voluntarily contribute towards the 30 by 30 target.

I am pleased that the Government have now committed to produce a plan for nature protection and recovery, which is to be informed by this rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. That is to be welcomed. It should be a starting point for driving nature recovery right across government departments. I suspect that if I ask the Minister now, she might say that it is probably too early for her to say how the Government see themselves securing this huge extra amount of land that we are going to need if we are going to meet 30 by 30. But it is not unfair for us to ask her today whether the Government will commit to abide by the internationally agreed guidance in drawing up the criteria for determining what will be part of those areas contributing towards 30 by 30.

I have one further question. Will the Government’s laudable plans for new homes for people be accompanied by new streams of funding to provide more homes for nature to thrive and survive?

I am sure that other colleagues will have many more questions; I do not want to go on for too long. I just want to say a particular thanks to those Members here today with whom I shared the privilege of being on the committee—it was a real honour to serve alongside them. I also thank the ever-diligent staff, who deal with us with professionalism, kindness and decency.

In conclusion, our report made it very clear that there is a long way to go if we are going to make a reality of 30 by 30. We need to do it. If our recommendations fall on stony ground, it is quite clear that 30 by 30 will be no more than a catchy slogan for international political summits, and meanwhile our precious nature will be lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

All that remains at the end of this long, thoughtful and valuable debate is, on behalf of us all, to wish the new Minister and her colleagues well in delivering on this important target. The interest this afternoon and early evening shows that there are people around the House who will keep her feet to the fire. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.