Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. There is much to welcome in the Bill. There is much that we on these Benches will support. Equally, we call on Labour to be braver and bolder and to act with greater urgency. The environment cannot wait while Labour decides on the real systemic reforms that are the only solutions to this crisis.

The most positive thing in the Bill is the acknowledgment of the scale of the problem and the signal from Government that further, more fundamental measures, beyond this Bill, will be tabled in this Parliament. I give Labour my thanks for this. With this we finally have a potential starting point for change. The Bill is a welcome first step, but the Bill alone is far from a comprehensive solution. It is a list of useful measures, but if the Government think that simply blocking the payment of bonuses to poorly performing water company executives and a few other measures will resolve the sewerage crisis, there are real grounds for further thought.

Since privatisation 35 years ago, we have witnessed one of the worst environmental crises in the UK, with unabated and unprecedented pollution. Just 14% of England’s rivers and streams are in good ecological health. In 2023, there were some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone. Water, water everywhere, and not a drop of it unpolluted.

Meanwhile, water companies have paid at least £78 billion in dividends, while failing to invest adequately in the infrastructure required. At the same time, they have piled on £64 billion net in debt, when the water companies had been debt-free at the point of privatisation. The regulatory system is broken and has failed to hold companies to account. When researching this speech, I was astonished to find that Ofwat has to give 25 years’ notice to revoke a water licence.

Measures such as monitoring outflows, banning bonuses, automatic fines, lowering the burden of proof, and possible jail terms for obstruction of investigations are all welcome. The reality is that the Bill is just a list of useful, but ultimately nothing more than stopgap, measures. The real change needed is a radical and complete systematic overhaul of the whole system. Feargal Sharkey called the Bill inadequate. He rightly said:

“We want an end to pollution, clean rivers and seas. We wanted transformative action and these small steps do not satisfy that goal”.


Similarly, Charles Watson of River Action said:

“What we’ve got today is a long list of measures that will cost the government nothing and is really not going to fix anything because it’s the system that’s broken”.


The review of water health is welcome. Is the Minister able to confirm that the review will be independent of government, with an independent chair? When will it start work, and when is it expected to complete? Steve Reed has said that a “full review” of the water sector will take place over the course of this Parliament. I hope that Labour has the courage to be brave. It also needs to find its own policies and grasp the reform nettle. Why is more comprehensive legislation not yet ready, after some 100 days, on such a fundamental issue?

The broken system and the consequences of light-touch regulation were all issues at the general election. Our rivers, streams and lakes have been polluted to the point of ecosystem collapse in some cases. I am proud that my party has led the campaign on these issues, which cut through to people on all sides of the political spectrum. The broken system saw the polluter paid time and again, instead of the “polluter pays” principle ever being applied.

My warning to Labour is that the people who voted for it did so with an expectation that real action would be taken to resolve this mess, and that it would be undertaken at scale and pace. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: out-of-control water companies must be forced to put the interests of the environment before profits. They must be held to account for their corporate failings. Our policies include plans to abolish Ofwat and install a clean water authority—a regulator with real powers. We would turn private water firms into public benefit companies—the quickest and least costly method of resolving this mess. England remains the only country in the world to have privatised its entire water system, and for good reason.

The hard part about scrutinising the Bill is that the important parts of the puzzle are not in it at all. They are yet to come, and we do not know exactly when they will arrive and what they will say. I remain to be convinced that, even with further legislation, Labour can keep private water companies and the existing regulation architecture, including Ofwat, in place, and pull off the magic trick of protecting the environment, making regulation fit for purpose, securing the billions of investment and protecting bill payers in the midst of a cost of living crisis.

Can the Minister reaffirm that, where water companies systematically use overflows to dispose of untreated sewage in dry conditions, it is the Government’s intention to swiftly prosecute them? Enforcement powers exist already—water industry bosses can be sent to prison under certain circumstances—but these powers have hardly ever been used. Since 2001, the DWI has brought only three prosecutions and given two cautions. Are the Government clear that the regulators will have a firm touch and prosecute breaches?

It is welcome that the Environment Agency will be able to levy automatic fines and recover costs, but cost recovery is retrospective and does not pay for the enforcement today. The Environment Agency had its budget cut almost in half between 2009 and 2019. Will this Government properly fund enforcement? Laws cannot be enforced without effective regulators. We need fundamental regulatory reform. The Bill could be strengthened through the inclusion of environmental and clean-water duties on Ofwat. Companies that persistently breach obligations should face the prospect of special administration. We need much larger fines that are a real deterrent. We need legislation which ensures that funds from fines will be invested in environmental projects through the water restoration fund. Enforcement is still based solely on ecological impact, with no requirement to restore areas that have been severely polluted in the past. We need more investment in mechanisms and processes that work with nature—so-called nature-based solutions. All water companies should be required to implement pollution reduction plans. Ofwat should have a statutory duty applied to contribute to meeting our climate and nature targets.

The Bill has many measures coming in at different times and subject to different consultation processes by associated regulators and the need for many measures to be approved by statutory instruments. When does the Minister envisage that all the measures contained in the Bill will be enacted? Will the Minister agree to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that measures in statutory instruments are able to be debated on the Floor of the Chamber as far as is possible? Finally, I worry that the villain of the piece is the lack of funding for enforcement measures. Only real reform, determination and hard cash will ever change this.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires Ofwat to issue rules about remuneration and governance.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I wish to inform the Committee that my noble friend Lady Bakewell is unwell and unable to attend today, so I will be speaking to many of her amendments as well as my own. This second group of amendments concerns the rules for renumeration and governance, and Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Bakewell, requires Ofwat to issue such rules.

This Government are seeking to strengthen the measures in this Bill by making them firm commitments with due weight in law, and not merely the vague assumptions as currently written into the Bill. We on these Benches have little faith that, without this amendment, the water companies will keep to the spirit of the law on these matters. I have a very similar “must” to “may” amendment, Amendment 24, in group 6, and I shall make general points on both in this speech. We have strong grounds for taking such a position, based on the past performance of the water companies themselves, especially in relation to awarding pay and bonuses and returns to shareholders, which have always come first. Meanwhile, investment in infrastructure and the protection of our environment from the harm these companies have caused and continue to cause have always come a very distant second, if at all.

By way of a very brief introduction, we would of course prefer it if this Government had a more comprehensive and clearer set of plans in place to make more rapid progress on these matters. We on these Benches are clear that we would abolish Ofwat and replace it with a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority, and we would make water companies public interest companies. This Government have taken a different route and are of a different opinion, believing that the shopping list of measures in this Bill can bring improvements that will hold while a full review is undertaken, before fuller and more fundamental reforms are implemented later on.

We welcome the announcement of the review, but I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, particularly about our commitment to 30 by 30 and further delay on these matters. The trick for the Government is to make sure that they can make the rapid change required and make Ofwat fit for purpose, since that is their stated intention, and to put in place all our environmental regulations and protections in the timeframes available. That is a bit of a magic trick, and I remain to be convinced that the Government will be able to pull it off, so that is a key concern for us.

We will work to support the Bill where we feel that it brings improvements, and there are many measures that we welcome and will support. We thank the Government for bringing them forward and signalling the future direction of travel and intention to take these matters very seriously. But the measures are really a list of stopgaps and quick fixes, intended to make the system work somewhat better than it has until the full review is finished and implemented. These measures come first and will need to work alongside any further actions. That is something we will need to think about in Committee—how the measures and amendments we are bringing forward and discussing today might work with potential outcomes from the review that is yet to come.

For the measures in the Bill to work, even the stopgap measures, the clauses need to be strong and effective. If they are not firm or binding, or can be easily ignored or circumvented without clear consequences, they simply will not work or do what they are intended to do. This is one area of the Bill that we think can easily and should be strengthened, so that it has the intended and required effect. The wording here as it stands is simply not strong enough. We cannot allow weak and ineffective measures to stand while the country waits for the Government to consider making further legislative changes post the review, and these then to pass through Parliament, to be enacted at a much later stage, which, as we have heard, could be by 2030. I seek clarification from the Minister as to when those measures will go through that process and come into force.

Since privatisation 35 years ago, we have witnessed one of the worst environmental crises in the UK, with unabated and unprecedented pollution. Just 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. In 2023, there were some 3.6 million hours-worth of untreated sewage discharges in England alone. Meanwhile, water companies have paid at least £78 billion in dividends, while failing to invest adequately in the infrastructure required. At the same time, they have piled on £64 billion net in debt, yet they were privatised debt free. The levels of executive pay and remuneration have rightly caused outrage across the country, as water bosses have got even richer as our bills have got even higher and we face more and more pollution in our rivers and streams.

Clause 1 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new Section 35B, which links the remuneration of water company directors to the meeting of a single set of specified standards, which include environmental standards. This is a welcome and long overdue measure. Performance-related pay and profits must be linked to the outputs achieved, and investment and environmental standards must be the benchmarks. While the intention is clear, the determination of the proposed legislation is weak. As drafted, it simply says that the authority “may” issue such rules. That is neither clear nor well-defined enough as it stands. The Bill must ensure that Ofwat issues clear and well-defined guidance, in a defined timeframe. What is written is not enough and brings no guarantee that Ofwat will issue such guidance, with no means of holding it to account if it decides that it is simply not minded or does not see any need to issue any guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly, public trust in the water sector has been severely damaged and the number of serious pollution incidents is increasing, as we heard very clearly from my noble friend Lord Sikka when he introduced his amendments. At the same time, companies have been paying out millions in bonuses. To rebuild public trust, the Bill enables Ofwat to issue new rules on remuneration and governance to ensure that companies and executives are subject to robust oversight and held accountable for failure. I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the application of these rules.

I will start with Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing it on the noble Baroness’s behalf and wish her all the best from these Benches. I also listened with interest to the suggestions made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Clearly, he and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had different opinions on the wording. Our approach is intended to strike a balance between the approaches suggested by the noble Lords, to give Ofwat some flexibility while ensuring that it issues rules in relation to our priority areas.

However, I emphasise that the provisions in the Bill state that Ofwat must exercise its power to set rules in relation to performance-related pay, fitness and propriety, and customer representation. Ofwat may also make rules about other remuneration and governance arrangements at its discretion, but it must take action regarding the specific matters referred to in the Bill. We are pleased that Ofwat is already taking action to implement these rules through the publication of its consultation announced on 22 October. This was referred to by number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I hope the noble Earl will tell the noble Baroness that we hope that this has reassured her that her amendment is unnecessary.

I turn to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. Ofwat has a range of primary duties, including acting to protect the interests of consumers, ensuring that companies properly carry out their functions, and securing that companies are able to finance the delivery of their statutory obligations. I assure the noble Lord that Defra has worked to assure agreement with companies to update their articles of association to place customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions which impact on consumers.

The noble Lord is correct that I am going to say that Ofwat’s existing duties are already consistent with the outcomes that this amendment aims to ensure. This includes ensuring due consideration of the human and capital needs of the sector. He also raised concerns about influencing Ofwat. The current consultation that I have referred to is an initial policy consultation which has been launched with the express purpose of inviting views early. This will be followed up with further statutory consultations, which will also take into account the views shared through this initial policy consultation.

I thank the noble Lord for bringing his knowledge and experience to the development of this legislation. It is very valuable to hear his contributions. However, I hope that he is reassured that, in setting the rules about remuneration and governance, Ofwat will continue to act in accordance with its core duties and understands that it is for this reason that the Government will not accept the amendment.

Amendment 25, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka, and Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to the timing and process for setting the rules for remuneration and governance. My noble friend took the opportunity to lay out clearly the many concerns around the behaviour of water companies and the ability of regulators to hold them to account. Ofwat is required to undertake statutory consultation with the relevant persons, which includes the Secretary of State, before any rules are finalised. Allowing Ofwat to set rules in this way, rather than through legislation, will enable those standards to be more easily amended, subject to the relevant procedural requirements, where it is appropriate to do so in the future. The Government and Ofwat agree that the rules should be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and Ofwat intends to implement them following its statutory consultation, which, as I previously mentioned, has already been launched. I hope the noble Lords are therefore reassured their amendments are not necessary.

Finally, Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka, relates to dividend payments. Sustained investment in the water industry will continue only if the shareholders of companies can expect a fair return. Ofwat already has the power to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience and to take enforcement action if companies do not link dividends to performance for consumers and the environment. The amendment risks deterring much needed investment in the sector. I highlight that the Government’s new independent water commission will look at how we can improve the regulatory framework to attract investment and support financial resilience for water companies. I hope this is helpful in explaining to my noble friend why the Government will not accept his amendment.

A few noble Lords talked about the importance of investor confidence and the impact that we could have on this and talent in the water industry. While we believe it is right that companies and their executives are held to account for basic and fundamental performance requirements, it is important that, should companies meet their performance expectations, executives can still be rewarded. The proposed £88 billion in investment under PR24 is the largest ever in the water sector and has the potential to create up to 30,000 new jobs. It is crucial that the sector can recruit the talent it needs to deliver the PR24 proposals, because improving the performance of the water industry will help the industry attract and retain talent. Private sector investment is also at the core of how we grow the economy, and the Bill is designed to deliver a clear and consistent regulatory framework for the water industry and its investors. Noble Lords may be interested to know that on 10 September Defra and Treasury Ministers held a round table with investors where they outlined how the Government will work in partnership to attract the billions of pounds in private sector investment that are desperately needed if we are going to clean up Britain’s rivers, lakes and seas.

Finally, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that I always try to get on well and work constructively with everybody, including Ofwat. I once again thank the noble Lords for their suggestions and input to this discussion on the general application of the rules for remuneration and governance.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, put forward an interesting idea on issuing guidance, and it is one that I will take back to my noble friend for further consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, talked about the lack of ability to scrutinise the rules, the need to attract talent and the carrot and stick approach. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about broken trust, the poverty of regulations and the level of convictions in the water industry. His Amendment 101 would curb excessive dividends, financial engineering practices and practices inflating the worth of companies. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, n his amendment said that rules must be published within six months and he talked about the powers of Ofwat being unchecked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Gosh—my turn again. This amendment seeks to replace the words “performance-related pay” with “total remuneration”. At Second Reading, I raised the question of how the ban on bonus payments was actually to be implemented. At the time, the Minister did not reply and, to my mind, the question still stands. Over the years, I have written many executive remuneration contracts and seen many others; some of them contain many odd bits. For example, so-called performance-related pay may come in the form of cash, shares, share options, chauffeur-driven cars, even gardeners, rent-free accommodation, children’s school fees and much more.

Published company accounts never really make it clear what the complete components are and the executive remuneration contracts are never filed at Companies House for anyone to see what exactly they are getting paid for. The value of some of these payments may not be known until some time in the future. For example, the value of a share option granted today and exercisable after a certain number of months or years would not be known until the date of the exercise. So how will the regulator decide whether any bonus payment is materially significant and deserving of a possible ban? Somebody might simply say, “This does not appear to be significant at the moment, but it could be significant by the time it is exercised”.

Companies can also shift the basis of bonus plans to retain or attract executives. If Ofwat or any other regulator were to impose a ban, it might change the weight attached to the part of the performance that may be considered by the regulator, and thereby defeat the whole objective of imposing any ban. The company can also easily bypass any restriction on bonus payments by adjusting the bonus pay. It can simply say to directors, “Your basic pay will increase and your bonus pay is down”. As many water companies are part of giant conglomerates, directors can be offered seats on other company boards so that their total remuneration is no less, even if a bonus is banned.

So it is not clear to me how this ban is going to be implemented. It looks good on paper, but in practice I have yet to hear the details, so what I am suggesting is that the attention needs to focus on total pay, not just bonuses, because bonuses can easily be bypassed. That is why this amendment seeks to substitute “performance-related pay” with “total remuneration”. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 6, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to which I have added my name, would mean a water company could not give performance-related pay to persons holding a senior role if the company had failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills or leaks. This definition also includes legal spills. We have included legal spills as this practice also needs to stop, and the only way to ensure that it does is by working to put pressure on private water companies to apply the appropriate and necessary levels of investment in infrastructure. Only then will these companies be operating as intended, and only then should they potentially be free to think about remuneration above and beyond basic salaries to their top executives.

I have also added my name to Amendment 28, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell. This amendment creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills or leaks. Taken together, these amendments seek to help tackle head-on one of the main issues that I am sure many of your Lordships had raised with them, with passion, on the doorsteps at the last general election: the sheer hypocrisy of water companies continuously and seemingly endlessly failing to protect our environment. It is outrageous that they are continuing to get away with unabated sewage spills in our much-loved rivers and lakes, all the while paying themselves massive bonuses and dividends and racking up huge amounts of debt.

We are not able to go to the beach or to wild swim, while they get rich off the back of failure after failure. All of this has been done while failing to adequately invest in the infrastructure that is so desperately needed to end this seemingly endless cycle of scandal. My party has tirelessly campaigned on this issue and we will continue to do so. No other issue has cut through to the electorate on such a scale and with such a level of arguable clarity as this one has. Indeed, the promise to scrap CEO bonuses was a core manifesto pledge we stood on at the last general election. The electorate are outraged and rightly so. No one feels good when they are overcharged for the privilege of receiving an appalling service. To be clear, this is exactly what bill payers are getting with a proposed 40% increase in bills and no end in sight to the pollution of our environment. Our rivers, streams and lakes have been polluted to the point of collapse. My party has led a campaign on these issues that cut through on all sides of the political spectrum.

The broken system has seen those who have a duty to protect polluting with no consequences, and time and again they have rewarded themselves lavishly for the privilege. Instead of the “polluter pays” principle ever being applied, we have the “polluter awards themselves a pay increase” principle applied every time. In 2023 alone there were some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England, up a staggering 105% on the year before. How many fines have been levelled against water companies in the previous few years? I have really struggled to find that information. Meanwhile, water companies have paid at least £78 billion in dividends while failing to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

9: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(d) requiring a relevant undertaker to have arrangements in place for environmental experts to be members of a board, committee or panel of a relevant undertaker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Ofwat to create rules to compel water companies to place environmental experts on their board, committee, or panel.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to representation on water company boards. This is the third-largest of the 24 groups we are scrutinising in Committee, so it is clear that many noble Lords are concerned about these matters and have a number of ideas for discussion about how representation can be broadened, made more representative and more fit for purpose, and used as part of the wider toolkit to help ensure that water companies act appropriately and are held to account at all levels.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 9 in my name would require Ofwat to create rules to compel water companies to place environmental experts on their board, committee or panel. I find it extraordinary that water companies can be allowed to operate, selling a natural resource, where their actions are having such devastating impacts on our environment, yet they are still not required to have environmental experts at the highest levels of their corporate governance structures. To date, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that many non-executive directors on many water company boards have failed to bring significant added benefits for their presence. How do we expect senior leadership teams and the chief executive officers to have the necessary knowledge, senior accountability and the ability to have due regard in fulfilling their functions if environmental knowledge, expertise and challenge are not mandated at the most senior executive governance and decision-making levels? We have various rules and guidance in place for lots of other types of make-up, backgrounds and skills in other board structures, so why do we not have the environment as a condition? Is it simply that we do not value the environment in our decision-making at senior levels? I think this is something we should not allow to stand.

The environment and environmental decisions need to be at the very heart of water companies’ plans, decisions and actions. We must work to ensure that corporate governance is not able to use ignorance as an excuse for causing environmental damage or for failing to adequately prepare for the impacts of rapid global climate change. Our water companies need to have environmental concerns at the very forefront of their long-term thinking, plans and strategies, from issues such as drought and the impacts of extreme rain events and floods, to the projections and limits on abstraction and the need for new reservoirs. All these matters require environmental knowledge and challenge at the heart of water company boardrooms.

We also need community environmental experts sitting on water company boards—an idea my party included in our last election manifesto. As non-executive directors they could help improve accountability, transparency and community relationships, and provide an important interface that could help ensure that water companies take sewage spills seriously by ensuring that community concerns are raised at board level and that water companies take appropriate action and communicate it effectively with local communities. As environmental experts, they could hold community meetings and report back on action being taken by companies, improving information flows and accountability. Environmental governance concerns are at the very heart of the water companies’ business, and the case for requiring environmental experts to be included on their boards along with consumer representation is, in my opinion, very strong. I kindly ask the Minister to lend government support to this amendment and to give a response from the Government Benches to these ideas.

I have added my name to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell. This is another simple “may” to “must” amendment and would require Ofwat, as part of its rules on consumer representation, to require water companies to place consumers on their board, committee or panel. It would require Ofwat to direct water companies to perform certain actions if it considers them to be contravening rules under new Section 35B. New Section 35B(2) sets out that Ofwat must exercise this power to issue rules that achieve specific effects, but the power in new Section 35B(1) provides only that the authority “may” issue such rules. As the Bill is written now, it is not at all clear that it is incumbent on the authority to use the power specified in the Bill to lay such rules. In our opinion, it is necessary that the Bill clearly states that the authorities have a duty to lay out such rules. I call on the Minister to support this amendment to make certain that the Government’s own intentions are clear and well defined so that they can be enforced as they should. What is the Government’s thinking on when the initial rules might be published?

Finally, Amendment 24 would require Ofwat to direct water companies to perform certain actions if it considers them to be contravening rules under new Section 35B. The Bill says:

“If the Authority considers that a relevant undertaker is contravening the rules, the Authority may give the undertaker a direction to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction”.


All these clauses concern rules on remuneration and governance, including performance-related pay. If the authority does find that a relevant undertaking is contravened, the rules in the Bill do not say that the authority must give a direction. As written, it is not at all clear that it is incumbent on the authority to use the powers specified in the Bill. Why do we have the rules in the Bill if there is not also a clear requirement for breaches to be enforced? Left as it is, the clause leaves a get-out-of-jail-free card for the authority to not give a direction, even where the evidence of a contravention is clear.

Other amendments in this group include one from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which requires the regulator to engage formally with civil society; one from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which requires CEOs of relevant undertakers to have regular meetings with relevant consumer and environmental panels; and one from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on the governance structures of the authority. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, we spoke earlier about the issue of two regulators and I will not go back over that. However, I will talk a little more about the presence of people on boards. I think there is a middle ground here—obviously beautifully set out in my amendment. To extrapolate a little from that, I agree that directors in a company have specific responsibilities which would not sit comfortably with having a consumer representative as a member of the board. That is clear and right.

These companies, however, are not just profit-making companies which represent shareholder interests; they are monopolies providing a service to the public for which they achieve a reward. That is an important distinction to make. For that reason, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that avoiding groupthink and having challenge on a board is a very useful thing. However, I would not go so far as to make them directors, for all sorts of legal reasons that others have already expounded.

It pains me to disagree marginally with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I do not like panels, because they become ghettos that the unfortunate member of board who has to interact with them dreads going to—but they go anyway, they go through the motions and then they come back. I far prefer something more formal: a regular cycle of meetings with representatives of civil society, which are going to be challenging and sometimes uncomfortable but which end with recorded actions that are made public. Otherwise, it becomes just a token exercise and a ghettoisation into panels. I will not try to emulate the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but the representatives of consumers or environmentalists can be listened to but not heard.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been one of the really interesting groups in the Bill. I am not certain that any of us—from any party, in any amendment—has the complete solution. There are questions about whether a one-size solution fits all. In any case, there is a lot for all of us to go away and think about. These are crucial issues that go to the heart of what we do, how water companies operate, how they are accountable and how people who are impacted by them can feed in to and influence what they do and how they operate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his contribution. I fully support him on the role of civil society. It is particularly important that we all acknowledge, as he did, that we would not be here without the role of civil society. I have an amendment in a later group to encourage the Government to work more with civil society in monitoring the environment.

I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his comments on the need for environmental representation. I am not quite certain where I agree on that debate; I will go away and think about it some more. I have also been on a board, and to be honest, it was one of the most difficult things I have done in my life. That was even on a good, well-functioning board. Sometimes, if you are in a difficult situation, even with good people who work together, things can be very difficult.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, for tabling his amendment. The board should decide on its own make-up and we should not dictate to it. Perhaps there is some kind of compromise here between the Government setting guidelines for what needs to happen, while perhaps allowing some freedom within the way that it is organised and monitoring the outputs that come from it. Maybe there is something we can all work on there.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for his contribution. It is a bold move, indeed, and I am not entirely certain that I agree with that kind of prescriptive democracy. I think that it is better to allow things to be inclusive, as opposed to dictating that they must be in their make-up, but again, I will think about that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about bringing some democracy into the regime. I certainly think we need that, and that the environment needs a proper, formal voice. I take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the need to watch the environment. If we do not do that, and if nobody has that responsibility or role, then that protective piece that needs to happen will not be there.

I think our areas of agreement were the need to broaden representation to include the environment and community, the need for diversity, the need for boards to work well, the need for constructive challenge to operate and to be brought to these companies at the highest level, and the view what we have now is not working, so we need to go away and find something else.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 100. The water authorities in Berlin and Paris are publicly owned and have stakeholder-elected directors. In most European countries, large companies have stakeholder-elected directors in them, as either a substantial proportion of the unitary board or a German-style two-tier board where one board is supervisory, and the other is executive. On the supervisory board, directors are directly elected. There are plenty of precedents for stakeholder-elected directors on company boards, and in many ways the UK is an outlier.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said, the independent commission will carefully consider the roles and responsibilities of the regulators, but in this Bill we cannot pre-empt the commission’s outcomes. I encourage noble Lords to take part in any stakeholder engagement going forward. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I hope that my response has reassured the Committee so that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting debate. There is more for us all to think about on these matters. I share a slight concern with the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, that the Government are looking back to Ofwat for a big, expanded role, even though there have been failures in the past. We will come back to the idea of expanding representation in further debates on the Bill.

For us, and I think for others around the Committee, the environmental aspect is important. I hear the Minister’s reassurances that there are new powers on Ofwat. I will go away and look at that, and I thank her for her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 74. I have added my name to Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for also adding her name in support. This amendment would require water companies to adhere to and deliver stronger environmental objectives and duties within national parks and the Broads, so as to protect waterways across national parks from sewage. The amendment would give the Secretary of State regulation-making power to extend protections to specific bodies of water, such as Lake Windermere.

Our national parks are very special places with national emotional importance, but the sad reality is that the areas that are the most important have some of the weakest environmental protections and this needs to change. There were 377 sewage releases from storm overflows within the boundaries of national parks in England and Wales in 2022, totalling 176,000 hours, equivalent to more than 7,300 days. I am confident that the Minister, like me, will find this as unacceptable as I am sure do all noble Lords present. This amendment seeks to bring forward measures that will help to correct this and return the ecological status of our national parks to a level that we can again be proud of. As we heard in the previous debate, there is not even a single river within a national park that has good ecological health.

It is not just sewage which is causing the problem. The University of York found there was also widespread toxic chemical pollution within some national parks. In many ways this is much more worrying indeed. With huge influxes of seasonal visitors and often old and not-fit-for-purpose sewerage infrastructure, during the summer months especially the systems cannot cope and we have regular sewage spills. This infrastructure needs updating. I want to thank the Minister here. She said on the previous group that she had been meeting United Utilities and that is welcome.

In addition, it is ironic that we have far lower standards for the operation of sewage works in our national parks that we do in our urban equivalents. Proposed new Section 4A(1) in Amendment 55 gives details of how the relevant undertaker must secure high ecological status, enhance wildlife and natural beauty, and reduce total phosphorous discharges into freshwaters within areas of national parks by 2028. Subsection (2) indicates what will happen if this does not happen and calls for the relevant undertaker to be put in special administration and not be eligible for further licences if it fails to demonstrate an adequate process each year and meet the targets in subsection (1). Subsection (3) gives a time limit of one year for the Secretary of State to lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament. Subsection (7) of the proposed new section explains exactly what type of environment is covered by this section.

I will not repeat the remarks made about Amendment 34A in group two, but it is worth noting that Lake Windermere is a UNESCO world heritage site which has inspired Beatrix Potter, William Wordsworth and Arthur Ransom and that it contributes over £1 billion a year to the UK national economy. This site is particularly sensitive and I guess that everybody in this House wants to see improvements made to it. I hope other noble Lords can support this amendment and the Minister can support it as well. It might be that the Minister has other ways of doing these things, possibly through statutory instruments, but I look forward to her response.

Finally in this group, Amendment 74 is in my name and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for adding her name in support. This amendment aims to provide “high ecological status” to our chalk streams. To be clear, “high ecological status” is the closest wording the Table Office said was in scope for blue flag status. What I am trying to do is have a conversation with the Minister about putting forward blue flag status for our chalk streams. That is the point of the amendment.

As we have heard, England’s chalk streams are of global significance and are a source of great national pride. They are unique waterways, found particularly in the south of England and Yorkshire. They have been referred to as the “rainforests of England” for their special qualities, the diversity and range of the habitats they provide and the iconic species, from invertebrates to kingfishers, that dwell within them. I confess that I spend quite a lot of my spare time mountain-biking and quite a lot of that is done on the South Downs, so places such as the River Meon are very special to me and I am sure other noble Lords have experiences with other chalk streams.

Research undertaken by my party found that, according to Environment Agency data, in 2022 chalk streams were subject to 14,000 hours of sewage discharges. This is devastating to these very valuable but fragile ecosystems. Wessex Water was guilty of 1,013 separate sewage discharges across the west of England. The worst chalk stream sewage discharge lasted for nearly 3,000 hours in the River Till, a tributary of the Hampshire Avon. Thames Water discharged sewage into the Misbourne in Buckinghamshire for 1,206 hours last year and Southern Water’s 62 discharges into the River Meon last year lasted over 1,000 hours. The figures may have been even higher than that as a number of monitors are not working; I would argue that the true scale of the discharges into these rivers is not properly known, which is also a worry.

I am very grateful for the support for this amendment and I hope the Minister can lend some support to it from the Government. It might be that there is a possibility of further conversations or some kind of compromise around these issues. It might be that the Minister or the Government feel that blue flag status is not quite the appropriate means to help give further protection to these chalk streams. I am open to ideas. I am open to other ways that we could work collectively to try to increase protection for these very fragile systems.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have been able to add my name to this very important amendment. I live on the Dorset/Hampshire border and chalk streams are really important in my part of the world.

We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of the importance of these chalk streams, which have been managed in England since Roman times. There is the real danger of contamination of the water course itself from sewage and agricultural run-off, but one of the key features of a healthy chalk stream is the water flow. Not all chalk streams are particularly deep but, so long as the water flows regularly, fish can spawn and the other flora and fauna which are so important to them can survive. Once the streams slow down, for whatever reason, particularly from excessive abstraction, that immediately has an impact on all the wildlife that we associate with chalk streams. So I am very pleased to add my name to this very important amendment.

Amendment 90 in this group, which is in my name, is on the general duty to deliver measures set out in water resources management plans. I was a bit concerned whether it is in the right group, but I guess that it is—it is associated. It is all very well to legislate but unless you can enforce legislation, it seems to us legislators all a bit pointless. As far as water resources management plans are concerned, this is about tightening up the regulations to make more sense of them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

43: Clause 3, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
“(ba) the volume and concentration of the discharge;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require water companies to publish the volume and concentration of discharge from an emergency overflow.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is about rules and requirements for monitoring and the publication of data. I apologise that this is a big group, as well as being the last group that we have to debate before our dinner hour; there are 15 separate amendments here.

Data, what we know, how we know it, how we use that information and how it is shared are all of crucial importance in monitoring what water companies are doing and also for protecting our environment. Knowledge is power, and I am reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan: “Trust, but verify”.

Amendment 43 in my name would quite simply require water companies to publish the volume and concentration of discharges from their emergency outflows. One area of the Government’s Bill that I personally particularly welcome is the plans to improve the real-time monitoring and sharing of data on emergency sewage overflows, introduced as new Section 141F. These measures are very much welcomed on these Benches. Can I clarify with the Minister that it is the Government’s intention to apply the monitoring regime as set out in the Bill to 100% of the outflows?

My amendment here is not a criticism of what is in place; instead, it is an attempt to see if there is scope to build on and slightly improve it, if possible, and explore with the Minister what some of the practical obstacles might be in place, if there are any at all. The measures set out in the Bill do not require transparency in terms of volume and type of discharge. I am fully aware, having done some work in other areas of monitoring and verification, that what I am asking for may well have far-reaching and possibly expensive implications. I am aware that this may involve different types of sensors being used and different information being captured, stored, and interpreted before going on to be shared. I would be interested to hear the Government’s position on these proposals, and what challenges such changes might present for them. Moving to a more robust and complete monitoring set of data is an essential journey that the Government need to take over time.

Amendment 47 in my name would require water companies to publish data on one website to increase transparency and ease of access for the public. This amend seeks to do what it says on the tin. It is relatively straightforward, so I will not speak to it for too long, but it is a quick and affordable improvement, which I hope will win government support. It is designed to strengthen and better enable the intentions of the Government to improve monitoring and the public’s access to the monitoring data. This is important not just to hold water companies to account and protect our environment but to help protect public health as best that we can. Where there are sewage spills, for whatever reason, it is very important that we all work to ensure the quick and smooth access to this information so that the public are aware of potential health risks and can take appropriate measures.

With many multiple water companies and water and sewage companies, and with all their websites having multiple pages and different tabs and set-ups, it would be easy for this information to all be published in full compliance with the Bill yet still leave it virtually impossible for the public to find it quickly and easily. That would defeat the spirit of the legislation, as I interpret it. My hope is that this amendment would have small associated costs but would bring strong associated benefits in transparency and accountability for what is actually happening but also as a means of deterrence. Water companies, I am sure, will think twice about their investment plans and clean-up operations when things go wrong, if they are aware that the public can monitor them easily in real time. It may be that this information is best hosted on either Defra’s or the Environment Agency’s website, and the wording of my amendment does not intend to rule that out as a possibility. I look forward to the response of the Minister to this practical suggestion.

Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 94 in my name. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take steps to facilitate citizen science with regard to monitoring water companies. It is fair to say that none of us might be sitting or standing here debating the measures in this Bill were it not for the tireless work of concerned citizens and their passionate dedication and care for their local environment. In recent years, we have seen enforcement budgets for the Environment Agency cut almost in half, combined with a light-touch regulation regime, which has allowed water companies to self-monitor, as well as many no-flow incidents and other pressures. Much of the information, knowledge and drive to prevent sewage discharges and much of the information about what is happening out there in the real world has come as a direct result of citizen science and citizens who care about their local environment. It is really important that we as Lords pay tribute to their work as a thank you to them, because the rise of this issue up the national debate and the national consciousness is partly a direct result of the work that they have taken up. That is work where they have taken on roles that really should have been filled by the Government and regulatory agencies. For whatever reason, they did not have the capacity to do that. They are too many of these organisations to mention them all, but I acknowledge the Rivers Trust and its Big River Watch, which has worked for many years to build up a detailed knowledge of local environments, as well as the work of Thames21. I hope that other noble Lords will join me in offering them thanks.

With only 14% of our rivers in good ecological health and with budget pressures, improving citizen science is a win-win for everybody. It acts as another means of assessing the information that Ministers get from their regulators; it acts as a check on that and acts as a deterrent on what water companies are doing. They do not have as much of a relationship with the citizens doing this as they might do with the regulators, so it is a little bit left field in their context; they do not know what is being monitored where and when. It is an important deterrent and a check on the system—a check that it is working as intended. I encourage the Government to make better use of that resource and provide encouragement, support and training. It is also important that, by doing that, the Government help to make sure that the information being provided through these means is more reliable and using agreed baselines and methods, which in itself provides another important sense of information in all these debates.

There are lots of other really good amendments in this group, too many for me to go through them, but I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to three practical amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 44, 46 and 49. They are modest and proportionate—perhaps that is my catchphrase. I support and echo almost everything, I think, that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said a few moments ago, especially about citizen science.

Public accountability and transparency need data that is both sufficient and timely. As currently drafted, I do not think that this Bill does that sufficiently. My Amendments 44 and 46 together would solve this. Amendment 44 provides for relevant information to be made publicly available and Amendment 46 recognises that this is not something that can always be provided immediately—I am trying to anticipate the Minister’s reply here. Amendment 46 would allow the water companies to indicate when the information would be available, rather than requiring them to produce it immediately. By including these questions in the Bill while allowing a reasonable approach to how soon it can be provided, the amendments would fill the information and accountability gap that is in the Bill currently.

To turn to Amendment 49, experience shows that allowing companies—we had this exact issue during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill, by the way—to report things exclusively on their own websites results in difficulties such as differences in the information that is included, where it is shown, how easily it can be found and how fully it is reported. That makes it unnecessarily difficult for those seeking to monitor performance on a comparative or aggregated basis. As represented in my amendment, putting this into one place where it is accessible to everybody is not a large amount of work. It is simply a matter of the water company putting it on its own website and firing off a link to the authority, which can put it on its website. That is how it should be, and it would enable comparative measures of performance, which will be lacking if water companies bury this on their own websites and report it in different ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not have that detailed information. I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library so it is available to everybody ahead of Report.

Amendment 50 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. The Government fully agree that emergency overflows should be monitored. However, we do not support the removal of the delegated power for Ministers to make exceptions to the Clause 3 duty. We believe that this power is necessary to allow for scenarios where it is not feasible to monitor emergency overflows, such as where an overflow is due to be decommissioned. Removing this power may inadvertently lead to delays in commencing this duty, if issues arose that we could not resolve without this power. Any exception to the monitoring duty would need to be agreed by Parliament using the affirmative statutory instrument procedure.

On Amendment 58, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, water companies should bear the cost of understanding the impact of their discharges on water quality. Installing and maintaining continuous water quality monitors requires regular access to water company sites. Water companies can do this much more easily than can the Environment Agency. Defra has issued guidance on the expected standards of these monitors, and in future all monitors will be expected to become independently certified under the Environment Agency’s certification scheme. Water quality data that will be made available will then be scrutinised by the independent regulator. Regulators will continue to work with water companies to ensure that the data is of high quality. I hope that this reassures my noble friend and that she feels able not to press her amendments.

Amendment 75 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I thank her for raising this issue. Misusing sewers to dispose of materials such as wet wipes and cooking oils contributes to major issues, such as blockages in the sewerage system. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked whether I have gone down a sewer. I have, and it is just disgusting; it is quite extraordinary what can happen there. Sewer blockages cost the water industry £200 million a year to fix and are responsible for 40% of pollution incidents.

Many people are not aware that the actions they take in their own homes can have such damaging impacts. Small but significant steps, such as not pouring fats and oils down the plug hole, can prevent blockages. The Government work to encourage all householders and businesses to play their part, and fully support water industry campaigns to address this issue, including Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign. I completely understand where the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is coming from. I will take this away and look at whether there is any more we can do to draw attention to this fact.

Having said that, we do not believe that water companies should be exempt from sanctions when using emergency overflows following blockages caused by sewer misuse. Water companies should take every reasonable measure to prevent the use of emergency overflows, including measures to prevent blockages. Some blockages caused by sewer misuse can often be mitigated by good maintenance; for example, by detecting blockages before they become significant issues and with preventive cleaning. The intent of this Bill is to strengthen water companies’ accountability for pollution incidents and not to diminish it. That is why Clause 2 will require water companies to publish the pollution incident reduction plans that we debated earlier.

I was interested in the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to look at how Canda deals with this issue. My brother-in-law lives in Canada, so my family and I go there. It is a really interesting suggestion.

I turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Proactive data publication is vital for transparency and to enable the public to scrutinise water companies. While we support the principle of transparency and are taking action to increase transparency through Clauses 2 and 3, we are concerned that the noble Baroness’s specific proposals duplicate pre-existing provisions and would create practical difficulties. Case law and the Information Commissioner’s Office have been clear: water companies are public bodies for the purpose of the Environmental Information Regulations, and water companies already provide information under these regulations.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is clear that water companies must be transparent, and it is taking several actions to enforce that. In May of this year, the ICO released decision notices for six water companies, instructing them to disclose the start and stop times of sewage discharges. In July, it wrote to water companies to encourage them to proactively publish information on sewage monthly. In October, it published a practice recommendation to United Utilities to address the specific issues that it had identified.

I turn to Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. The Government acknowledge that it is important that there is more transparency about the abstraction of water by water companies. However, any new requirements must be both practical and proportionate. Clause 7 already provides the necessary flexibility for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to impose conditions or general rules for abstraction licences. We believe that secondary legislation is the more appropriate vehicle to address these technical matters effectively. However, having listened to the noble Baroness carefully, we will consult on the use of Clause 7 powers to ensure that the conditions introduced are appropriate and achievable.

Finally—I am sure we all want our dinner—I turn to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am supportive of greater involvement of the public in this sector. He made the very important point that bringing in the public is vital, including through citizen science. However, this amendment is not needed, as we believe that the provisions in the Bill will already increase transparency and the provision of data in this sector, which are critical to informing and engaging the public going forward.

I hope that I have set out sufficient detail on Clause 3 to reassure all noble Lords of its intended purpose and effect. I sent out a fact sheet on the definition of emergency overflows and storm overflows to try to make sure that everybody is clear on the difference, but I am sure that we will come back to these issues in future. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments and enjoy their dinner break.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response; that was a lot of amendments to respond to in one go.

I take the point about volumetric flow monitoring. I will go away and think about that but I am aware that there might have been costs associated with it. It is welcome that that has been confirmed.

I take the point also about a number of amendments on the website, access to data and one data point. I hear what the Government say—that one does not want to pin that down, limit it and find that what is written in the Bill is yesterday’s technology, or that there are other, better ways of making sure that it is accessible. I welcome the response there as well.

I also welcome the response of the Minister about the plans of the Government to publish live maps in one place. That seems sensible.

In relation to my amendment on citizen science, I welcome what the Minister said. Let us go away, think about it and explore it. I am pleased that the Government acknowledge the importance of that matter, the work that has been done and the work going forward.

This has been an interesting group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for what she said, and the Minister’s response on the emerging threats was important. I am particularly concerned about microplastics because we do not know what those are doing. They are in our brains and various parts of our body where they should not be. I encourage the Government, outside the Bill, to do more research and work on that.

I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his interesting comments on telemetry monitoring, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his contribution.

This was an interesting debate. I am getting in the way of everyone’s dinner, so I thank noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 67 I will speak against the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I will also speak to Amendment 72.

My Amendment 67 would limit the maximum fine under the Bill to the level set out in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. This Bill seeks to amend the 2008 Act to impose fines that will be set by regulations. The Government are asking Parliament to grant them these powers without clarity or definition on the level at which the fines will be set. All we know is that the Government’s impact assessment states that this penalty cap will be consulted on during the Bill’s passage, before it is set out in secondary legislation. I am pleased that the Government have committed to consultation but, regardless of any consultation, under the Bill as drafted the Government may vary the cap by statutory instrument. I respect and trust the Minister, who has acted in good faith throughout the passage of the Bill, but what is to stop a future Government misusing this power?

I propose to set the maximum cap at the level established in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which was passed under the previous Labour Government. When what became the 2008 Act was being debated, the Minister who took it through the other place was the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right honourable Pat McFadden MP. He wisely argued then that the 2008 Bill would

“guarantee more consistent regulatory treatment of businesses”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/08; col. 329]

Indeed, the 2008 Act built on the Hampton report, which recommended

“a comprehensive review of regulators’ penalty regimes, with the aim of making them more consistent”—

and I stress the word “consistent”.

Does the Minister agree with her colleague that we need more consistent regulatory treatment of business? If she does not, can she explain why the Government are seeking in this Bill to depart from the Labour Party’s previous reforms by giving the Executive the power to set variable monetary penalties by statutory instrument in this case? Is this the first of many reversals of Labour’s previous policy? Can I mark this down as yet another entry on my list of Labour U-turns?

I will now speak against Clause 5 standing part of the Bill. My concern is that the modification of the standard of proof in this case is dangerous and unjust. Water companies, no matter how poorly they may perform, deserve to be treated equally under the law with other regulated companies. When preparing for this debate, I once again found myself reading the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s words from May 2008, when the 2008 Act was going through the other place. On the issue of the criminal burden of proof, Mr McFadden said:

“The Bill contains a number of essential safeguards. It makes it clear that a Minister can confer powers on regulators only if the Minister is satisfied that they are capable of exercising those powers in compliance with better regulation principles. Before regulators can impose monetary penalties or discretionary requirements, they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. Businesses can make representations and objections before sanctions can be imposed, and, most importantly, there is a right of appeal to an independent and expert tribunal.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/08; col. 332.]


This was an essential safeguard in 2008. I ask the Minister: have our standards of justice changed since then?

Amendment 72 speaks to the need for wider reform within the water industry. While His Majesty’s Government may not see fit to introduce a water restoration fund in this Bill, on these Benches we would welcome the Government taking the opportunity to implement wider reforms sooner rather than later. Can the Minister explain why the Government are resisting opportunities to deliver further positive reforms to the water sector in this Bill while we still have the chance?

The previous Conservative Government implemented the water restoration fund. That means that all environmental fines and penalties imposed since April 2022 have been ring-fenced to directly improve the water environment. Does the Minister agree that a water restoration fund for spending on freshwater recovery would improve the quality of water in the United Kingdom, and therefore would she welcome the introduction of one?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell and signed by myself. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, although I note that she is not in her place.

This amendment would require all funds from the fining of water companies for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for the water restoration fund and spent on freshwater recovery. We on these Benches have tabled Amendment 72 because it is unclear that fines imposed on water companies for breaches of their licences will bring any improvement to the water industry itself.

At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords suggested that the Bill could be used to bolster the water restitution fund—the pot set up by the previous Administration to channel environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The idea of this amendment is to achieve just that.

The Government have indicated that the Environment Agency will act as an enforcer to ensure that water companies adhere to the terms of their licences, monitor sewage overflows effectively, take steps to prevent this from happening in the future and make sewage reduction plans work. As has been raised many times during debates on the environment and water quality, the Environment Agency is chronically underfunded. Indeed, it has lost almost half of its funding in recent years. This lack of investment in the Environment Agency has led to what was once an effective organisation that could be relied on becoming weakened and less able to fulfil its statutory obligations effectively.

The case for this regulation is strong, as the water restoration fund is without legal foundation. The fund is not receiving all the fines. This is a direct consequence of the fund’s non-statutory character. In the continual absence of a legal imperative, revenue from fines can continue ending up in alternate destinations. The Government’s answer to make the regulator effective is for it to have the power to levy fines on operators that breach their licence conditions and break the law in other ways. These fines will then go back to the Environment Agency to recompense it for its work. As this is retrospective, it begs a question about what section of its current work programme the Environment Agency will have to put to one side while it is dealing with bringing the water industry into line.

There is also an issue around transparency. Customers know their bills will be going up—Ofwat agreed this in the latest review. They also know that the water companies have received fines in the past, but customers are unclear about what happens to those fines. Is it to be assumed that they have just gone towards the funding of Ofwat? In future, if the Bill is enacted, a lot more fines will be imposed. Bill-paying customers and the public in general expect to be able to trace what has happened to those fines.

Amendment 72 introduces new clauses to establish a water restoration fund. This fund will receive and hold all the fines and monetary penalties that are imposed on water companies for illegal activities and breaches of their licence conditions. The fund will then use the money recovered to invest in schemes to promote fresh-water recovery. It is only by improving the quality of fresh-water resources that we can begin to see an increase in the biodiversity of species that rely on the water they live in and around being fresh, unpolluted and free of sewage. As sewage discharges reduce, the quality of our fresh water will increase, and customers’ bills will need to be increased to deal with the chronic underfunding of the past. We will ideally reach a stage where the polluter does indeed pay for the damage they have done, as set out in the Environment Act.

We realise that this amendment leaves the Government with a conundrum as to how to fund the Environment Agency to carry out its work as a regulator, imposing fines and penalties on retrograde water companies. Our solution, of course, is to implement Amendment 80 and set up the clean water authority—but I do not want to rerun arguments that we have already heard. By accepting this amendment, the Government can future-proof the water restoration fund and ensure that one of the legacies of the Bill is a legally secure guarantee that sanctions for water pollution will always be used to help repair the damage caused and begin to restore the natural environment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

73: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to revoke licencesAfter section 17R of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—“17S Power to revoke licencesThe Authority may revoke a water supply and sewerage licence (WSSL) with six months’ notice.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides Ofwat with the power to remove a water supply and or sewerage licence with six months’ notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is on water company ownership. In preparing for this Bill, my Whips’ Office briefing note said that, in some circumstances, Ofwat could take no fewer than 25 years to revoke a water licence. When I read this, I found it hard to believe that this was the case, so I had to go away and have a look at it myself.

I note that different conditions apply to household water companies and retail or business suppliers, as retail suppliers operate within a different market, and that this is an extremely complex area of legislation. I understand that Ofwat can take up to 25 years to revoke the licence of a water company in some cases where it is in breach of its licence conditions. My amendment is a probing one. I want to be certain that it is possible for licences to be revoked much earlier than 25 years for matters such as sewage spills and failures to invest in infrastructure. I am also interested in looking at whether six months is a feasible timeframe for revoking licences in the cases of the worst sewage spill offenders.

It is unacceptable that, in 2023, for example, water companies dumped 54% more sewage in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounted to some 464,000 incidents and some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, yet few water and sewage discharge licences have been revoked as a direct result of sewage spills.

The Government have given a clear commitment to make improvements, and this Bill contains many measures that we welcome. The framework for these proposed improvements is one where the Government are passing this Bill to bring in more immediate measures in order to hold the water companies to account and to strengthen the powers of the regulators. This is being done now while the water commission undertakes deeper, more fundamental thinking to make further recommendations in due course.

The Government’s argument is based on the belief that Ofwat can be supported, strengthened and remade to be an effective regulator. The arguments I want to discuss relate to the ultimate sanction of revoking water and sewage discharge licences. If Ofwat is to be effective, the ultimate sanction must act as a real deterrent against illegal and improper behaviour. I fully recognise that my suggestion of changing this to six months may not work and may need a rethink; I would be more than happy to discuss this with the Minister if it is of interest. I recognise that there is a need to balance the needs of water companies, their investors and customers, as well as to ensure continuity of supply.

I will be honest: I know that there are many different licences and conditions for revoking them, and that this is a complex area. The conditions for a quick termination, applying to the issues of a special administrator and bankruptcy, are welcome. My concerns relate more to the broader, far from general, form of deterrence for water companies doing what they have been doing up to now with no real comeback, such as siphoning funds off to shareholders while failing to meet the required levels of investments, falsifying self-reporting of sewage discharges and failing to prevent sewage spills.

I want this amendment to lead to a brief discussion on the licence conditions in place now. I seek reassurance from the Government that they will have a look at these powers, look at how they are used in practice and consider whether any changes are required as part of this Bill. I do this as there are no real changes to any of the licence termination conditions; I wondered whether this was a mistake or oversight. The imposition of tougher prison sentences and higher fines are welcome measures, but what happens if these measures alone failed to regulate companies’ behaviour?

For comparison, the revocation of licences in other regulated sectors appears generally to happen on a much quicker timescale. Can the Minister give the rationale behind leaving the 25 years in statute, and can she give examples of Ofwat acting much earlier in relation to lack of investment or pollution incidents? What is the average time for revoking a water and sewage licence?

I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group: Amendments 97, 98 and 99. This weekend saw tens of thousands of people marching for clean water in London. It was the most amazing event. It was a chance for me to speak to people who agree with me—as opposed to being here in your Lordships’ House, where not many people agree with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the noble Baroness’s point. I would hope that, when we do the review, we look completely across all the issues to do with a water company, including the way it behaves because of the way it is set up, and that that should be part of any consideration. By the time we have reported, I am sure the noble Baroness will be very happy to have another Labour Government.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her responses on this group. Mine was a probing amendment and I appreciate her response. I fully recognise that there would be issues with six months as a period, but I think it is important that we have a discussion about the power of revoking licences. I appreciate that the Government are keeping that under review. On Amendment 97, I appreciate what she says about the courts and their powers in all this: that was a welcome response. On Amendment 98 on the public ownership of water companies, I think her response to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, giving those figures and calculations, was useful in moving that debate forward. Obviously, there are costs involved in that and in the Government supporting failing water companies as well. I know that these are difficult matters. Of course, on our Benches we want to have public ownership of water companies, and we will continue to support that, but I thank the Minister for her inclusive responses and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.