Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Emma Hardy and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood. There is certainly no desire from me to keep pedalling. Instead, what we want to do is look at the entire financial situation of companies—he knows that we have had that conversation outside this room. We need to look at some of the longer-term reform options for how companies are structured financially, which is why we have the deputy governor of the Bank of England leading our review, and using his knowledge and expertise to look at how companies are structured.

I do not think that the new clause is the appropriate place to pre-empt the outcome of the commission before it has had an opportunity to report, or even to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest through the call for evidence that is yet to be announced. I want to stress that I support sentiment of the hon. Member for Witney, but I express caution around the risks of putting through changes of this magnitude without giving full and proper consideration. We believe that the commission is the appropriate way to do that.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Okay, perhaps the Minister is right—perhaps the detail of what percentage of debt or what multiple of revenue is appropriate should be established by the commission and the wider review—but surely the principle can be established now. From any investigation in this area, we can say that the principle will be that debt will need to be capped or managed, or have some oversight, because we have seen what happens—particularly with Thames Water—when there is no cap or oversight. Does the Minister not agree that the new clause just sets out the principle, and the amount would be set out by an SI?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I would like the Minister’s comments on the issue that we have, and I am focusing primarily on the Norfolk broads, of which I represent a good chunk. There is the requirement to make a mandatory obligation on the water undertaker to ensure “high ecological status”, which is above “good ecological status”—that is the point the Minister is making. Does she agree that, while they are a primary input into the quality of the water in the Norfolk broads, they are not the only influencer? While the intention to create and encourage high ecological status in the broads is a very good one, and it is one that I share, does the Minister agree that the drafting of this new clause is not appropriate?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that the pollution caused in the Norfolk broads and in many other areas does not come from water companies alone. As has been discussed, it comes from the environment, road run-off and various other places. “High ecological status”, as we have stated, could involve not being able to fish in those waters at all, which I know is a recreational activity in his area. It may also restrict planning for housing developments with any minor effects on the water quality of water bodies in national parks. The Government therefore cannot accept either new clause, although I recognise the intention behind them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to press both.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Emma Hardy and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Before I start my response to this group, I just want to note that there has been considerable discussion on the monitoring of the volume of discharges during this debate. In the interests of time, I will respond to those points when we debate amendment 13 next week, if that is agreeable to everyone. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments relating to pollution incident reduction plans.

On amendments 23 and 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, we agree that companies should seek to reduce the impact of pollution incidents in their pollution incident reduction plans. That, of course, is the core purpose of the plans. That is why the clause requires water companies to set out the measures they will take to reduce the frequency and seriousness of the pollution incidents and their causes. The impact of a pollution incident on people and the environment will be taken into account when the undertaker determines how serious it is, as required in the pollution incident reduction plan. In fact, it would be impossible to determine whether something was serious without looking at the impact the pollution was having. These amendments are therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press them.

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling amendment 9. The Government agree that national parks form a vital part of our environmental heritage and must be protected. For that reason, the Government have committed to strengthening the statutory purpose of national landscapes and national parks to give them a clear mandate to recover nature. We will also strengthen through new regulation the role that public bodies, including water companies, must play in delivering better outcomes for nature, water, climate and access to nature in these special places.

Ofwat made significant funding available to water companies in the price review for 2024 to support work to reduce pollution in national parks. As an example, Ofwat approved four storm overflow schemes related to improvements in the Windermere catchment, with potential to include 12 additional schemes via the large scheme gated process. We do not believe it is necessary to include a specific reference to national parks in clause 2. All sites, including national parks, are already in scope of the duty. Creating a statutory hierarchy of priority sites risks deprioritising other important areas such as bathing and shellfish waters. For those reasons, the Government will not support the amendment.

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling amendment 24. The Government agree that nature-based solutions are an essential tool for tackling the root cause of sewage pollution, while also delivering significant ecological benefits. That is why, in line with the Government’s strategic policy statement, Ofwat has allowed companies to increase the use of nature-based solutions with £3 billion-worth of green schemes in water companies’ final determinations for price review ’24. Although the benefits of nature-based solutions are clear, we believe their use is better supported through drainage and sewerage management plans than through pollution incident reduction plans.

Pollution incident reduction plans are intended to set out the steps that companies intend to take to reduce the frequency and severity of pollution incidents. These issues are often best addressed by monitoring and maintenance measures such as burst pipe detection, checking pumps and re-lining sewers. Drainage and sewerage management plans are intended to address the resilience of the whole sewerage network over a long period of time. That is why the Government have introduced a duty through the Bill for sewerage undertakers to consider nature-based solutions in their drainage and sewerage management plans. That will ensure that nature-based solutions are considered at the very start of the investment planning, increasing their development and potential future delivery. The amendment is therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press it.

Regarding amendment 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I agree that improving transparency and accountability is key to the success of pollution incident reduction plans. That is why clause 2 already requires water companies to publish the implementation report alongside the pollution incident reduction plan. Details of where and how to publish the plan and the implementation report, and in which format, may change over the years as technology and best practice evolve, so that is best addressed in the guidance that the Environment Agency is producing about how to fulfil the duty.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. The problem with the position she is taking now is that it is at variance with the Government’s position and with section 81 of the Environment Act 2021. If she is right about the efficacy of leaving it to the Environment Agency to publish such information, buried in its website or its regulations, should she not also amend section 81 of the Environment Act so as to have consistency?

[Emma Hardy]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that people need to have access, clearly and simply, to as much information as possible. My point is that if we put such details into law in the Bill, the way in which we want people to access such information may change—technology or best practice may evolve—and we will have to resort to altering legislation using statutory instruments. That is why I think it is better that we look to the guidance produced by the Environment Agency as the best way to present that information, while continually evaluating how we do so. I completely understand the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, because we all want information to be transparent and clear for everyone, and certainly not buried on a website.

To conclude, I will briefly speak to why clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The occurrence of pollution incidents is unacceptably high and has not reduced in the last four years. Water companies must reduce pollution incidents as a matter of urgency. Currently, sewage companies in England produce pollution incident reduction plans on a non-statutory basis. These plans vary in standard, content and frequency, and that makes them hard to scrutinise. It is particularly difficult to identify the progress that companies have made on the actions that they committed to in these plans. More transparency and greater accountability are needed.

That is why the clause will require both water supply companies and sewerage companies in England and Wales to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans to address matters such as the seriousness of pollution incidents and their causes. These plans will need to set out the actions that the water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have.

In addition, the Secretary of State will be able to direct water companies to include other matters in the plans as needed. Moreover, companies will be required to produce an accompanying implementation report detailing the progress they have made with the measures to which they committed in the previous year. Companies must clearly explain the reason for any failure to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failure in the future. This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to hold water companies accountable for making the improvements that they have committed to.

Chief executives will be personally liable for the production of these plans and must approve them before publication. If a company fails to publish a compliant plan and implementation report by the deadline each year, the company or the chief executive could be prosecuted for the offence. That could result in a fine and a criminal record. This emphasises that taking action to minimise pollution incidents should be at the core of the chief executive’s role.

We believe that this provision will ensure that the right people, with the right incentives, lead water companies through the changes necessary to drive down pollution incidents. Furthermore, regulators will be required to take companies’ compliance records in relation to implementation reports into account when carrying out their enforcement duties.

I hope that all hon. Members agree with me about the importance of clause 2, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I now rise to talk about amendment 16. My primary objection here is the overarching one: I am not convinced that this is the right technical approach, for the reasons set out in the report of the Environmental Audit Committee, and also in the Environment Act 2021. However, if I am wrong on that, I am happy to support this amendment as a probing amendment and look forward to the answer that the Minister gives; but if it were to be taken to a vote, without further information about the practicality of being able to obtain the required tens of thousands of these machines, install them and have them operational and reporting in a 12-month period, I am not sure that I, as a responsible legislator, could support amendment 16. I would need further information on whether that was a practical option.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughts on this set of amendments. I would also like to pay tribute to all of the citizen scientists—in fact, many Members have paid tribute to them—and the incredible work that they do as volunteers, going out there to discover the true state of many of our rivers, lakes and seas. I think we can all agree that it is vital to understand the scale and the impact of sewage discharges by ensuring that water companies install monitors on emergency overflows as soon as possible and by encouraging public access to emergency-overflow discharge statements. As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham said, I think this is about us all trying to move in the same direction.

Just before I turn to the amendments, I think there may be some confusion in the debate today about the different types of monitors and the different types of discharges being discussed. There is a big difference between fully treated waste water being released from treatment outlets and the discharge of untreated sewage from an emergency or storm overflow. I am therefore very happy to share a factsheet detailing the differences in the different types of emergency and storm overflows to help inform future debates.

On amendments 13 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in near-real time. Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, that will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and the public to see, in near-real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred, and how long it has lasted for. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulator.

However, the monitors required to measure volume are much more difficult and costly to install compared with those used to monitor discharge duration. By comparing that with the cost of installing flow monitors at waste water treatment works, we estimate the cost of installing flow monitors on all 18,000 storm and emergency overflow sites in England to be up to £6 billion. Network overflows are not set up for flow monitors to be installed, which means that the majority of overflows would require complex works, such as pipework modifications, in order for monitors to record volume accurately. We do not think this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge. For example, a very small volume of very concentrated foul water could enter our rivers, which would be very damaging, or a large volume of diluted rainwater overflow. Volume cannot give an accurate assessment of impact. The measurement of water quality, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has said, is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Witney, but he has a good point on the speed of roll-out of the installation of water quality monitors. The 2024 price period is for five years, I believe. That suggests installation in 25% of the monitoring areas over a five-year period. If I am wrong on that, I would be very grateful if the Minister could correct me. What I am really interested in is how quickly the full network will be installed and what is preventing that from happening faster.

[Emma Hardy]

I feel as though we are comparing apples and pears here. The point I was making about the 25% at the next price review was around water quality monitors. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the monitoring on emergency overflows, and he was referring to the data on the speed at which they would be installed.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister may be right, but it is important that we get to the bottom of this. From my perspective, the important data is the upstream and downstream of a discharge pipe water quality monitor being installed and activated. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out during the course of the next hour and a quarter, either because she knows it off the top of her head or because her officials can give her the answer, the timeframe for those installations and the reasons why it is not happening faster.

[Emma Hardy]

I think the hon. Gentleman is probably moving on to amendment 16 with his point about the speed at which these were being rolled out. We were discussing amendments 13 and 14. That is where the confusion lies in this conversation. I will address the points about speed when we move on to amendment 16 —it is all to come.

I turn now to amendments 3 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale respectively. Clause 3 already requires companies to publish information on discharges in a readily accessible and understandable format. That includes information on the occurrence, location and start time of the discharges, which must be published within an hour of the discharge starting. To meet this requirement, water companies will install monitors that have telemetry technology to communicate discharges as they occur. To the point the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made, that information cannot be falsified. It is not based on someone coming; it is automatic communication.

Those requirements are the same as those for publishing storm overflow discharges, which is now a statutory duty enforced by Ofwat. Water companies have already published individual maps for their regions to show storm overflow discharges in near real time. In addition, Water UK launched a national storm overflow hub in November last year to centralise all discharge information from water companies on a single national map. We expect that a similar approach will be taken for emergency overflows. If further direction for companies on how to approach the duty is needed, that can be more appropriately addressed through guidance. Furthermore, validated historical information on discharges from emergency overflows will be available through annual returns published by the Environment Agency. Those will allow for long-term trends in annual data to be analysed. If there are any specific requests from groups or organisations about how they would like to see information, they are of course welcome to communicate that to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I am just about to finish. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that clause the clause can stand part of the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I think this is technically now a speech rather than an intervention. I am supportive of the content of the clause, but I have one technical question: if we choose to move a penalty from a fine to imprisonment, there has to be a person to apply that penalty to, rather than a body corporate. The question that obviously arises out of that is: is it the intention of the Government to apply the penalty to the controlling mind, or to a member of an organisation who may be several layers below that of the controlling mind? Who is it intended that the criminal offence should be applied to, and how will the Government ensure that there is no misunderstanding and uncertainty based on the current drafting? It is not at all clear.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Emma Hardy and Jerome Mayhew

Tuesday 26th November 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 8 October, adds three additional substances—UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor —to the assimilated persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, regulations in response to the adoption of those three substances as POPs under the United Nations Stockholm convention. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obliged to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention.

In addition, the instrument makes a number of other technical changes to the annexes of the POPs regulation. Those include changes to waste concentration limits, specific exemptions and unintentional trace contaminant levels, or UTCs, for some POPs. In brief, the amendments update and clarify how some articles, substances or mixtures containing some POPs can be used, manufactured, placed on the market or disposed of. This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within articles 7, 15 and 18 of the assimilated EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument.

POPs are substances recognised as particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This instrument preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK. Some of the regulations in this amending instrument are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm convention on POPs. The majority of amendments are informed by updates to the Stockholm convention and, in some cases, have come about following updates to the Basel convention guidance on the management of POPs waste, and following consultation.

Let me turn to the details of the instrument. At the 11th meeting of the conference of the parties, held last year, a decision was adopted to add three new substances called UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention; this decision was communicated to parties by the UN depository in February 2024. This instrument adds those new POPs to the list of substances prohibited by law from being manufactured, placed on the market or used in Great Britain.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of the three substances at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus and metho—methox—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister repeat that, please?

[Emma Hardy]

I will do my best—by the end of this, I’ll have nailed it.

These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus—I got that one—and methoxychlor can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture, where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. Dechlorane plus and UV-328 will also be listed alongside time-limited exemptions for their continued use in specific circumstances. These exemptions are available following agreement by the Stockholm convention’s conference of the parties.

This instrument will make a number of further changes to annex 1 of the POPs regulation, including the addition of a UTC level for two POPs already prohibited in Great Britain. It will also make amendments to the UTC limits and specific exemptions listed for the substance perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, including a provision to phase out or remove exemptions that are no longer required, and the tightening of the requirements regarding a specific exemption for use of PFOA in polytetra-fluoroethylene, or PTFE, micropowders.

Annexes 4 and 5 of the POPs regulation relate to the treatment of waste containing POPs. This instrument will add or update waste concentration limits for several POPs. In practice, those limits specify the concentration at which waste containing POPs must be diverted from landfill to high-temperature incineration or other appropriate disposals, to ensure that the POPs content is appropriately destroyed. Importantly, that includes the introduction of a limit specifically targeted at firefighting foam mixtures containing PFOA—a substance in the poly and perfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, group of chemicals—to ensure the environmentally sound disposal of any remaining stockpiles of these foams.

Finally, this instrument will update the maximum concentration limits for a number of POPs and add decabromodiphenyl ether, or decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant, to the list of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, in annex 5 of the POPs regulation. Maximum concentration limits set the threshold at which waste handlers can apply to permanently store certain wastes in designated landfill for hazardous waste or salt mines, where it can be demonstrated that destruction is not the environmentally preferred option. The instrument will also add two new European waste catalogue codes to this provision: one for fly ash from peat and untreated wood, and one for soil and stones.

Policy development informing this instrument was subject to a public consultation in 2023. In that consultation, we also stated our intention to prohibit the three new substances once they were adopted for listing under the convention, to implement our international obligations. There have been various opportunities, at both domestic and convention level, for UK stakeholders to submit information regarding the potential prohibition of UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, and their potential adoption for global elimination under the Stockholm convention. A de minimis impact assessment was carried out, which concluded that there is no indication that the amendments in the instrument are expected to have an impact on businesses beyond one-off familiarisation costs, and that this instrument is not expected to disproportionally burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England; Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this instrument and have no concerns about implementation or resources. The territorial extent and application of the instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor frame-work, the EU POPs regulation applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the instrument and have consented to its being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this instrument are needed, in part, to implement the requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding new POPs UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances prohibited in Great Britain by law. Other amendments included in the instrument ensure that the POPs regulation is adapted to scientific and technical progress in our understanding and treatment of POPs. The draft regulations will allow the UK to continue to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.