PFAS
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that I am always happy to be brave when I can and I will encourage the department to push forward as best it can in this area. It is important and I recognise the huge concern both in this House and among the public.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that this is a starting point and we broadly welcome that, and I note that she said that this is an extremely complicated group of chemicals used in many industrial processes. The Minister also spoke of Europe and the action being taken there. Fundamentally, the approach being taken in Europe is different to that being taken in the UK. Can I ask the Minister for further clarity about how we can have further co-operation with our European partners on these important issues?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the EU is developing a broad ban on PFAS. We know that industry is concerned about any plans being workable, which is why this is the starting point in working with industry to get it right. We need to see what the EU’s proposals are; we do not know yet. We are expecting it to announce an update next week, which will be followed by a consultation. I am sure that we will debate that much more in Parliament. But our plan is the starting point; we want to work with the EU. We are waiting to see what it comes up with. Then, I hope, we can be braver.
Global Biodiversity Loss and National Security
Earl Russell Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, nature underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is essential to address them effectively. This important assessment provides strategic analysis that is designed to help government plan for future risks that may arise. The UK is already taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and overseas. The findings in the report will support and inform that action.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, a nature security assessment was initially withheld and then only partially released following an FoI request. Given the gravity of its findings for biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and our future national security, will the Government now publish the report in full? What policy responses are being developed as a result? Will Ministers engage in open dialogue, both at home and with allies, that recognises the interlinked climate and nature emergencies as essential to our natural security strategy and future prosperity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to note that this is a strategic tool and not a prediction of future possibilities. The idea behind it is to help government plan for future shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation. The way it has been managed reflects standard national security planning for preparedness. On policies, we are taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and aboard, through various ways. Tree planting in England is at its highest rate, and we are restoring peatlands, improving water quality and protecting pollinators. We have introduced landmark legislation to protect our oceans. We are supporting food security with new technology and farming schemes that reward sustainable production, and we are also committed to providing international climate finance—I could go on. Maybe the noble Earl and I can pick this up in more detail after the Question.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises some important issues. I am sure that, in referring to Hull, she is aware that the Minister for Water is a Hull MP and so is very aware of these issues. We are currently looking at our reservoir policy, because we need to consider how best to make use of the water that we have, future water storage needs and so on.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we have 89 flood warnings and 150 flood alerts in place today, and we extend our sympathies to all those impacted. The five wettest winters have all been since 1990. For every one-degree rise in temperature, the air can hold 7% more moisture. Climate change is a key driver of warmer, wetter winters. Is the key solution to this not an urgent return to the cross-party consensus on climate change and urgent action on adaptation, so that we can adequately address the climate emergency together?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As someone who spent four hours baling to try to stop her house being flooded last November, I am completely in support of much of what the noble Earl is talking about. We have to take climate change seriously. We know, as I mentioned in the Answer to the first Question, that the report has indicated clearly that these issues are only going to increase. We in the department are working with other departments—this is not just a Defra issue—on how we can better tackle climate change so that future generations are safe.
Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware of the concerns around foxhounds. To reiterate, the consultation will look at all views and concerns. I urge people who have concerns around the future of foxhounds to take part in the consultation, so that point can be properly considered and discussed as we move forward on the manifesto commitment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our rural areas are defined by their communities, of which farmers are undoubtedly a very important part, both economically and socially. However, imported meat products, often produced at lower animal welfare standards, are threatening their ability to make a living. Will the Government therefore look at ensuring that imported meat products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make informed choices to support British farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the issues the noble Earl raised, I point him to two parts of the animal welfare strategy. First, we reference labelling. It is something that we will be looking at, not just on the issue he talked about but more broadly. There is a section on labelling. Secondly, we have a section on international impacts around animal welfare, which include trade. In the strategy, we recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to work internationally to champion high standards of animal welfare. That includes looking at how we manage our trade, because we have said quite publicly that we will not allow poor animal welfare standards to undermine our own standards here that our farmers meet.
Large-scale Waste Crime
Earl Russell Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent of large-scale waste crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. The Environment Agency assesses all reports of waste crime and deploys its resources against the offending that poses the greatest threat, risk and harm. The Environment Agency recorded 176 active, high-risk, illegal waste sites at the end of March 2025. As with all criminal activity, understanding the true extent of waste crime is difficult due to its often covert nature.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, organised waste crime is out of control, and there seems to be a reluctance to expose its true scale. In the five weeks since the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, more illegal waste sites were discovered than were previously known to the Environment Agency. Will the Minister commit to using remote monitoring and AI to survey the country and drive enforcement; hypothecate landfill taxes for cleaning up sites; and end the perverse practice of charging the Environment Agency landfill tax on the waste it removes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are committed to the introduction of digital waste tracking, and the analysis of data that this brings will enable us to provide a significant asset for regulators and enforcement bodies in the fight that we have against waste crime. Additionally, the Environment Agency is looking at other technology-based opportunities to measure the levels of waste crime. That could use the potential of satellite-type technology and machine learning. We are providing the Environment Agency with extra, targeted funds. My officials are also working with the Environment Agency and the Treasury on the implementation of the proposed Environment Agency levy, and we will be able to update on that in due course. Of course, we will also continue to work with the Treasury on the landfill tax policy and keep under continual review how best to tackle waste crime, including considerations around resourcing.
Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
Earl Russell Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap on this important report. I, too, thank the committee, the clerks and our policy analyst.
For too long, nitrogen has remained the invisible pollutant, a silent driver of environmental degradation. While nitrogen is fundamental to life and food production, our mismanagement has transferred it into the nitrogen octopus, as one of our witnesses put it, whose damaging tentacles harm our air, soil and water. It is clearly time for a more innovative approach so we can escape the nitrogen paradox. Nitrogen is essential for life, yet it is also a super-pollutant, driving damage to human health, biodiversity loss, river pollution and climate change. In agriculture, nitrogen losses account for nearly two-thirds of water pollution, and three-quarters of the emissions of nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas almost 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This is not just an environmental crisis; it is an economic one as well. As we have heard, we waste some £420 million of fertiliser every year, while the total cost of nitrogen mismanagement has very serious economic costs and consequences for human health.
We offer the Government a transformative approach, moving us away from excess use and degradation towards a circular economy, whereby nitrogen is valued rather than wasted. Simple ideas, such as a regional nitrogen-spreading weather forecast, letting farmers know when and when not to spread fertiliser to reduce run-off, could produce tangible benefits—both financial savings and environmental gains. We must also recover nitrogen from sewage sludge, food waste and animal manure.
Agricultural nitrogen use efficiency is low, dropping to 11% in some cases, depending on circumstances. This is a resource that farmers are wasting. I welcome the Government’s initial response and recent progress, including doubling the Environment Agency’s farm inspections to 6,000 per year by 2029. I also welcome the consultation on extending environmental permitting to intensive beef and dairy units, and including nutrient circularity in the forthcoming circular economy strategy. However, the Government’s response lacks the urgency and innovation needed to meet our statutory obligations.
We are off-track on nitrogen pollution goals and a piecemeal approach will not suffice. More must be done. Critically, the Government rejected our core recommendation for a holistic national nitrogen strategy, claiming not to see the value in it. I ask the Minister to reconsider. Nitrogen moves fluidly between air, land and water. Treating these in departmental silos is exactly why we have failed to treat this problem to date. We need an integrated policy, connecting transport and the water industry under one coherent policy framework. The nitrogen octopus travels freely through our environment, causing damage, while policy remains contained within its silos.
Central to this must be a UK nitrogen balance sheet, which is another of our core recommendations. As we have heard, Scotland has acted, mapping flows across its economies to identify where interventions have the greatest impact. Without a balance sheet, policy efforts are like managing the national budget without a balance of payments. Its value is clear and data is essential for prioritising actions, so I ask the Minister to monitor the Scottish experience and to look firmly at the need to bring in the balance sheet.
Energy Market Reforms
Earl Russell Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the case for energy market reforms following their decision not to implement zonal pricing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the review of electricity markets arrangements has concluded. This Government have decided to retain a national electricity market pricing regime and have established a programme called reformed national pricing. The purpose of the new programme is to deliver a cohesive package of reforms to improve the efficiency of our future power system. We will publish further detail on the reformed national pricing later this year, which will give market participants and investors clarity on our approach.
Earl Russell (LD)
We still have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. Does the Minister agree with me that reducing the costs of energy for everyone has to be an absolute priority? What progress is being made on producing a clear programme to redistribute energy levies, and will the Government examine in detail the Greenpeace policy proposals to remove gas plants into a regulated asset base, which it is claimed could save £5.1 billion a year by 2028?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for families and businesses is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through these reforms, particularly with moving towards renewables—that homegrown renewable energy sprint, as we are calling it—in order to get where we can as quickly as we can. The quicker we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the more quickly we can reduce bills and do more about getting off the gas grid, which I think is at the heart of the noble Earl’s second question. Of course, the Government are always happy to look at contributions from different groups and NGOs, but the important thing is that we focus on that transition to renewable energies to bring those bills down.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Earl Russell ExcerptsWednesday 17th September 2025
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 View all Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Sep 2025)
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to my Amendment 246 in this group on strengthening the NRF model and, most importantly, on the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans under Clause 55.
This is a really interesting amendment, and I welcome the speech the noble Lord has just made. We recognise the amendments that the Government have made, but judging by the size and the number of them, and the uniformity of purpose across the amendments and across political parties, I think it is fair to say that concerns remain and that many Members are still looking for further reassurance and guidance from the Government on these matters.
My amendment makes it clear that the conservation measures must not merely mitigate or offset environmental harm but significantly and measurably outweigh it. That is important, because that is about delivering a genuine net gain on the conservation status of our natural heritage. Against that there are two things. First, we have the new policies and plans the Government have put forward. There is a background worry about the disregard for nature and the dangers inherent in some of the Government’s plans, but there is also a worry that the bar is too low and that too often in the past we have seen, with the best will, government intentions and legislation ultimately failing to deliver what they promise, particularly for nature.
It is therefore important to put in those measures, and other Members have picked up on them as well. It gives clarity to developers and those involved that they need to do something more than merely replace. The amendment would enshrine in law a clear principle that any harm caused by development must be more than compensated by concrete improvements. As my noble friend Lady Grender said, that aligns with the Government’s own biodiversity and net gain targets and sets robust, measurable standards.
We are all aware that we are already, famously, one of the most nature-deprived countries in the world and the few precious sites we have left are often not properly looked after and maintained. They are very disparate and very precious. Organisations and Members across the House have raised these issues, so while I welcome “materially outweigh” that the Government have put forward, there is a need to go further. I hope we can have further conversations on this area. These matters are important.
I support most of the amendments in this group. Again, what is important is the sense in this House that on these matters we seek reassurance.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is my first intervention today and, of course, I am speaking personally. I wholeheartedly support what the Government Whip said about this being Committee stage and how it should be conducted, but this is a big Bill and it needs proper scrutiny. As the Minister has told us today, there are lots of things still to clarify and many questions still to be answered. Some speakers may need reining in, and I am sure the House will support the Whips when they attempt to do that, but I put it on record that I thought the crude attack yesterday in Oral Questions was inappropriate and unhelpful.
I support most of the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 286 and 300 and others that have been raised such as those by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, a few moments ago. These all seek to introduce some quantification, comparison and accountability into the EDP process. There will always be a temptation for implementing bodies, be it Natural England or those that it subcontracts, to introduce subjectivity—or, shall we say, optimism—into their results and reporting. Openness with data and debate will be essential to enable candour, challenge and particularly third-party professional scrutiny. EDPs are a new adventure, and lessons will need to be learned early and fully. I therefore support, as Amendment 300 puts it,
“a high degree of certainty based on an objective assessment”.
I also support Amendment 264 in this group from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and, to save time, Amendment 275 in the next group from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Both seek to introduce some discipline and accountability via mitigation hierarchy and a stepped approach.
Finally, I have two related questions for the Minister. Will there be an independent audit process of Natural England and EDPs—not just of their finances but of the outcomes and results? If so, who will select these auditors and evaluators?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my two amendments in this group on the mitigation hierarchy—Amendments 251 and 275. I do not want to speak too long on this, in the interests of the Committee, but I think that this and the last group are the two key issues remaining in the Bill. To my mind, the Government have not made enough of a solid argument for removing the mitigation hierarchy system—a tried and tested system that works and can be relied upon. No doubt there are inherent risks with changing this new system, even with the best will in the world. Similar to the last group, I generally support all of the amendments in this group and I welcome them. However, despite the reassurances given by Ministers, there is still an air of concern around these issues across the Committee.
To my mind, the Government have not made the required level of argument as to why they need to remove the mitigation hierarchy. I want to look at that specifically in relation to housing, because—and I raised this in relation to the stand part group we had the other night—all the energy policy statements have recently been updated. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy—EN-1—has been updated and we have had new policies on renewables, new policies on the grid and new policies on nuclear under this Government. They all have the mitigation hierarchy at their core, and they are actually really good, solid documents. So, if this Government are able to deliver the energy transition with the mitigation hierarchy in place, why can the same Government not deliver new housing with it? It just does not make sense to me. That is something I will leave to be discussed.
My Amendment 251 seeks to ensure that Natural England accepts requests only when developers have properly applied the mitigation hierarchy and justifies projects due to there being no alternative solutions and no incorporated public interest grounds, especially for sensitive habitats. We believe that this basic safeguard is needed to embed our core principles of environmental protection in planning into the Bill.
My Amendment 275 seeks to intervene in Clause 58 of the Bill and is designed to inject rigour, accountability and genuine environmental protection into the heart of the new planning system. I am pleased that this amendment has the backing of the Wildlife Trusts. It mandates that Natural England, as a delivery body, must not only adhere to the mitigation hierarchy but demonstrate that any EDP will result in significant environmental improvement
“at an ecologically appropriate scale”.
Those words are important. Other Members have raised issues about the mitigation hierarchy. I recognise the commitments the Government have made, but I think there is still a need for reassurance on these matters.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have been pleased to sign a number of amendments in this group, because the issue of the mitigation hierarchy is a big outstanding area of concern for those of us who want EDPs to be part of packages in the future but are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, have made the case, as has my noble friend Lord Russell, for our concern that the mitigation hierarchy does not remain for EDPs but does for other planning obligations.
I have one question for the Minister. Both Ministers provided a letter today that said that,
“an EDP can include planning conditions to avoid or reduce impacts on the site … before they can access the benefits of an EDP”.
I can see that that is an attempt to soften concerns that the mitigation hierarchy does not apply for an EDP, but I think the Committee needs quite a bit more information in the Minister’s summing up, and certainly before Report, about what exactly that means. I note that the letter says that an EDP “can”, not that an EDP “must”. I do not see how it is going to work.
The helpful chart drawn up by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, makes it clear that, for an EDP, there is absolutely no compulsion for an assessment of the environmental impacts by a developer of the site that they are going to develop before they can go straight to an EDP. How can you have planning conditions for a site where you do not even have an obligation to identify what the environmental impacts are?
We have heard from meetings with civil servants that they have been drawing up plans for two EDPs on nutrient neutrality and newts, so they must have some idea of what the type of planning conditions might be. I would like a bit more information about how the planning condition process might work and what it might be in order to give noble Lords more information before we get to Report. I have to say that I feel that being able to move straight to pass “Go” and avoid the mitigation hierarchy is a massive hole in this new system. As my noble friend Lord Russell has said, other parts of government have managed to find ways to incorporate it in equally important areas of infra- structure development.
Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Earl Russell Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations in the form of the statutory instrument before us. I share and echo the concerns of my noble friend, without going into any great length, who was an excellent Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions at a most difficult time during Covid—a big applause to her and her department at the time, and the work that it continues to do.
I welcome much of the content of the regulations. I forgot to declare my interest as president of National Energy Action and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water, which will be significant when I come on to smart meters. However, the Whip on duty will remind me that I have said this in the past, so I am going to say it again because I want to record it at every opportunity. I do not know if it is something that the department might look at but, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer today, can she write and place a copy of the letter in the Library? Those households that are most in need of energy, such as in the north of England, Scotland and many vulnerable areas would have qualified for, say, £300, so fewer households would have benefited, but it would have had a much bigger impact on fuel poverty in that regard. Is that something that the Government are minded to look at?
Again, it is not part of these regulations but it is something that National Energy Action would like to place on the record but that I do not necessarily agree with. It would like to see a social tariff. My understanding is that there was a social tariff for energy prior to the warm home discount. I was trying to explain to NEA that you either have one or the other. Social tariffs operate quite effectively in the water sector, but I do not see how we can have both. I presume that that is something that the department under successive Governments has looked at. I should like to find out and have placed on the record for National Energy Action’s benefit what the current Government’s thinking is. Are we going to stick with the warm home discount, which would be my preference, or are we going to have both a warm home discount and the social tariffs?
My more radical thinking, when the Minister was referring to the contents of the regulation and the result of the consultation, was about transforming the housing stock. The Government have granted £13.2 million, not an insignificant sum of money, in that regard. I have a mounting concern that there is housing stock—I see this locally, and I am sure it is in other parts of the country as well—that would benefit from just a bit of an upgrade in having double-glazed windows and maybe a bit of stuff in the wall cavity areas and the roofs to make those houses more habitable. Obviously that would reduce the cost of heating, so it is not going out the window or through the walls, so to speak.
The plan I propose is that we reverse VAT. Take VAT off renovations and put it on newbuild. That way, I argue that it would be neutral. Obviously, it would pass on to the purchasers of new houses, but it would greatly increase the housing stock. Again, that is not in the regulations, but is it something that the Government might consider?
In preparing for today, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 30th report, where it did a short analysis on this. Its conclusion, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referred to, was:
“We note that the percentage increase in the levy on billpayers and the impact of the expansion of the Scheme on the number of recipients and overall spending are expected to be significant”.
It is no secret that the major parties are deeply concerned about the cost of living crisis, which is ongoing. We have had the higher cost, for those who are not on a fixed tariff, of energy prices going forward for this winter. As my noble friend pointed out, that is going to mean a higher increase for those households that do not benefit to pay for the significant amount of money, which we know to be approximately £1 billion, up from £600 million in the past.
The Government could look at other measures as well. I have long been interested in the possibility of having a smart meter. Anna Walker did a report on water efficiency at the same time as there were the reports by Martin Cave on competition and Michael Pitt on flooding in about 2007 or 2008. Of those three reports, the Walker report on water efficiency never really got any legs. However, she gave very useful advice like, “Don’t run your water when you’re brushing your teeth, but in particular don’t run the hot water because you’re literally putting hot water that you have heated down the system, which is ridiculous”.
Is there a possibility that energy and water would both be governed by the same smart meter? Are the Government aware that currently—my authority for this is the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, which I happened to listen to on, I think, Friday—there is evidence that smart meters do not work in rural areas? I know the Minister lives in a deeply rural area. I have been reluctant to fit a smart meter for that reason; there is no point in having one fitted if it is not going to work. Apparently they will give you all these other gadgets to help it work, but still it will not.
If smart meters are not working and people are not able to monitor true energy use then that is one point, but if we were able to develop smart meters that covered both water consumption and energy consumption then that would be a big plus for households. So I give a cautious welcome to these regulations, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make the few comments that I have.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this instrument brings forward much needed and real expansion of a vital scheme that we believe will have significant positive impacts. We welcome the proposed expansion of the warm home discount, which aims to bring financial relief to millions more households across Great Britain that are grappling with the brutal realities of fuel poverty and escalating energy bills.
What we have here is, in essence, a doubling of those who will be eligible for the £150 rebate on energy bills. This will bring vital relief to many families who are struggling, but the scale of the challenge is immense. In England alone, some 2.7 million households are trapped in fuel poverty. The average fuel poverty gap has soared to an alarming £407—a near 60% increase since 2020 in real terms. Disturbingly, the number of households forced to spend over 10% of their income on energy bills, after housing costs, has more than doubled since 2020 to 9 million households in 2024. Furthermore, energy debt and arrears hit a record £3.85 billion in December 2024.
Independent Water Commission
Earl Russell Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My right honourable friend said in his speech down the other end that the new regulator
“will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past”.
That basically demonstrates that we need to look at the big picture about what went wrong in the past and what we need to do to rectify it in the future. I am sure that we can look at the noble Lord’s suggestions as we move forward to ensure that we have regulation and pricing that are fit for purpose.
Earl Russell (LD)
I declare my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company. I thank the Minister for the Statement, and we welcome the report. I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking all the members of the public, charities and NGOs who have done so much work to ensure that we are aware of the level of the sewage crisis and the pollution in our water system. I noticed that there is no direct recommendation in the report to support citizen science. What action will the Government take to support these citizens? What is happening with the water restoration fund?