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

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

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 ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Amendment 13 is about volume. It would add volume to the list in clause 3, which includes

“the location of the emergency overflow…when the discharge began…when the discharge ended.”

The Liberal Democrats seek to add the volume of discharge to that list, and that is common sense. As many Members have said, we want to know how much sewage is coming out, and we are looking for help from all Members to get the amendment into the Bill. If we are serious about solving the problems in our rivers, we need to know how much sewage is coming down.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for the conversation that we had over the lunch recess. One challenge with the measuring of volume is what we are measuring the volume of. The industry estimates that 97%-plus of volume from a storm event is water—it is just rainwater. How do these amendments address the measurement of what is being passed, and is this something on which we could co-operate?

[Charlie Maynard]

Let us talk about the spectrum of information here. We have got the number of spills, where we have no idea how long those spills went on. We then have EDMs—event duration monitors—which count the number of hours of pollution. There is then the volume of flow, and then various iterations around measuring dissolved oxygen, or whatever it might be. I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We need to make progress. Thames Water is installing flow monitors all over its network, upstream of its sewage treatment works, but not downstream. That is because it is scared of actually having to count and have in the public domain the volume of sewage that it is dumping.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, “If you have a coke bottle of sewage, and you don’t know how diluted it is, you still don’t want it in your bath.” Of course we want to know how diluted it is—that would be nice—but if we are serious about addressing these problems, we need to know how much is coming out of those overflows.

To quantify what has been going on over the last few years—I give the previous Government some credit—some 14,000 monitors have been installed in the last seven years, which is good news. The figure was less than 1,000, and 15,000 have now been installed on the storm overflows, but another 7,000 do not have monitors. Amendment 16 talks about where those locations are. We can have overflows at a sewage treatment works, at a pumping station or on the sewer network. I believe that everyone on this Committee wants to capture wherever that overflow is, which is what the amendment would do.

I will try to quantify some of the numbers, and I will talk about my favourite, Thames Water. Right now, Thames Water has 30 event duration monitors at inlet storm overflows at waste water treatment works. It has 183 EDMs on storm tanks at waste water treatment works and 137 EDMs at storm discharge overflows at pumping stations, and it has 320 storm overflows on the sewer network—not in a pumping station or at a treatment works. We are trying to capture all those areas, because we need to know what is going on. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot fix it.

Amendment 13 is on the volume of discharge. Amendment 14 concerns the same count, so I will not go into it in more detail. Amendment 15 relates to reporting on discharge from overflows and would add to existing stipulations about the form in which the information must be published. I will read it out: the information must

“be uploaded and updated automatically”.

Let us get rid of human involvement. We are in 2025—all this stuff can, and should, be automated.

Professor Peter Hammond has done some great research, and I am incredibly grateful to Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been one of the drivers of information and campaigning in this space. Well done to Peter, Ash, Vaughan and Geoff; I give them many thanks. Peter spotted that when Thames Water monitors its sewage, it does so at the wrong times of day, when the level of sewage is at its lowest. We want to automate that so that it is monitored all the time. That means less human interaction and lower costs, and it is much more achievable.

There is a map that shows whether sewage has been dumped in the last 48 hours, is being dumped currently or has not been dumped in the last 48 hours—Thames Water was actually one of the first to put that in the public domain—but it does not give the historical information. We need the historical information in there and it needs to be downloadable, so that any citizen scientist can come along, pull the data off and act on it. Without amendment 15, we do not have that. These are very nuts-and-bolts, practical things that we want to head along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will start with the Liberal Democrat amendment to add volume measurers to storm outflows. I hope I made it clear in my earlier intervention that I am sympathetic to the amendment’s objective, but I have questions about whether the route that the Liberal Democrats have gone down is the right one. Legislating for another piece of kit—volume-measuring equipment, alongside the EDM—yes, would go some way to solving the problem, but it would not solve the real problem, which is that we need to know when a discharge is happening, the volume of the discharge, the level of sewage as opposed to water in that discharge, and the consequential impact on the watercourse into which it is being discharged.

I was grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, who referred to the water report of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was one of the authors. We took a lot of evidence on the issue and we had a trip to Oxfordshire, to the River Windrush. We met the leading citizen scientists in the area and took evidence from them there and in our more formal evidence sessions in this place. The hon. Lady was right that the outcome of the combination of evidence we received was that the most appropriate form of technical solution was a measurer of water quality upstream and downstream, and for that water quality measurement to be published timeously. For that reason, section 81 of the Environment Act 2021 requires automatic publishing within 60 minutes of an event happening.

That leads me to a question. The hon. Member for Witney referred to Thames Water choosing when to measure, but with respect to him, the clause is about emergency overflows, not about standard monitoring, and under the existing legislation, Thames Water or any other water undertaker has no option as to when it measures—the EDM is triggered by the emergency event. It also has no option as to when it can publish, because it has to be within 60 minutes of the event being notified.

[Charlie Maynard]

Yes, of course, the EDMs are automatic; I was talking about the spot monitoring by individuals.

[Jerome Mayhew]

With respect, that is a separate point, because we are talking about amendments to clause 3, which is about emergency overflows. I accept the point. As with so many of our discussions this morning and this afternoon, we are all trying to get the right outcome, but this is line-by-line consideration of the Bill, which is rather boring and technical, but it is where we try to tease out some of the drafting issues and what can be improved. I am not sure that the problem that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to resolve sits naturally in this clause.

Moving on to amendment 15, again I highlight my fear that, given that the clause relates to emergency overflows, the amendment leads to a legal duplication of section 81 of the Environment Act. I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, but from my perspective, that is a reason why we should look carefully at amendment 15 before we accept it. Of course, when I say that I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, that is only pro tem—in the future, I definitely want to do this job for her.

The Liberal Democrats have not yet spoken in favour of amendment 16, so I will leave that until such time as they decide to. The hon. Member for Witney can come back to it.

Finally, on amendment 17, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—

[The Chair]

Order. Amendment 17 is not in this grouping.

[Charlie Maynard]

Mr Vickers, may I revert to amendment 16? I am sorry; I thought I had mentioned it. I will read it out:

“The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required”.

That point is 12 months, so that is holding people’s feet to the fire, but we have a massive problem. This is totally doable in terms of timeline. If the Government came back and said, “No, we want 36 months, not 12 months,” then fine, I have no problem with that, but I have talked about being depressed by the desire to slow things down, and about the House of Commons Library data on giving another 10 years to install these monitors. Why are we going slow? We all say to the public that we are really serious about it; let us be serious. I thought that I had covered amendment 16, but there it is again.

[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]

I understand that this will not be put to a vote, but I want to add my support for nature-based solutions and to draw to the Minister’s attention an experience I had with Anglian Water. It had a village-sized water treatment works just over the border in north Norfolk at a place called Langham. The chalk stream that the sewage works discharge into is the Stiffkey, which runs through my constituency and then just over the border. To its great credit, Anglian Water co-operated with a local landowner and created a wetland. I would have thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to have the treated sewage discharge into a secondary processing unit—it was, from memory, about two acres in size, so it is quite a large wetland with meandering going through it—and then exit back into the Stiffkey.

The Environment Agency eventually allowed this to take place, but it is worth highlighting that its initial response was, “No, you have to apply for a new licence to discharge effluent into the river.” That was because it was coming not from the pipe, which was semi-treated, but from a new entrance into the stream via the wetland. The “computer said no” attitude of the Environment Agency was quite extraordinary, because it was not going to get any worse with the discharged water going through a wetland before entering the stream, and yet it took several months. It was a very significant constraint, and it called into question whether or not the project would go ahead.

I would be grateful if the Minister could take that away with her and ensure that the Environment Agency sees the development of wetlands as a really positive step forward. I know its senior leadership does, but that message should go right through the organisation so that the time and delay of bureaucracy, and the requirement for new applications for licences, do not get in the way of what we all wish to achieve.

[Dr Hudson]

I rise to speak to new clause 5, tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We are talking about practical nature-based solutions to flood risk. I welcome the comments made about nature-based solutions, not least from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who talks passionately about the importance of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation and that side of things.

I noted that during the election campaign, he waxed lyrical about Windermere, which is a beautiful part of his constituency. I know that he was an active participant with the leader of his party in water sports as well, although I note that he was a lot more competent at staying on the paddleboard than his leader. I welcome his comments on the importance of protecting and preserving our water spaces, but very much encourage the Government to facilitate landowners, land managers and farmers to do nature-based solutions to mitigate flood issues.

New clause 5 would try to ensure that water companies consider practical, nature-based solutions to flood risk. That would also make water companies try to improve water quality and nature restoration in their catchment areas, so there would be a double win. In Government, we Conservatives set specific, legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability in order to try to reduce nutrient pollution and sediment pollution from agriculture to the water environment. We also set out how to reduce water pollution in our environmental improvement plan. Nature recovery was carried out under us, and opportunities to do that with nature-based solutions should be seized on as we move forward.

--- 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.

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

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Fookes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I take the opportunity to welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly those in clause 1, and to thank the Minister for her really swift work. We know all too well the damage that has been done by water companies and agricultural pollution across the UK. That damage has only been exacerbated by years of Conservative failure, allowing for record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas.

In my constituency of Monmouthshire, we have the majestic rivers the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. Armies of citizen scientists, co-ordinated by the wonderful Save the River Usk group in Usk with Angela Jones, have been monitoring the river over the past few years. Sadly, it is getting worse and worse. The levels of phosphate pollution in the River Usk are the worst in all the nine Welsh rivers that are special areas of conservation—SACs.

This Labour Government have only been in office for six months, yet we are already taking more action to tackle the scourge of sewage than the Conservative party did—indeed, more than the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party did—when they were in government. Instead of obfuscation and delay, we are getting serious action to end the disgraceful behaviour that we have been discussing. That is especially evident in clause 1, which seeks to ban bonuses for water bosses unless high standards of protecting the environment are met. Water bosses must also involve consumers in decision making. In addition, the clause ensures that failing water bosses will no longer be able to be water bosses. This action is essential if we are to hold water company bosses to account and ensure that they act in the best interests of the public and the environment, rather than in the interests of their own pockets.

I am pleased that in Wales we have the not-for-profit water company Dŵr Cymru. Sadly, however, that status has not stopped the company from leaking sewage. In 2023, we had 2,383 sewage dumping incidents in Monmouthshire, which is 2,383 too many. In 2022, chief executive Peter Perry took home £332,000 and a further £232,000 in bonuses, while in the latest financial year Ofwat had to step in and stop the company from paying out £163,000 of bonuses from customers’ money.

I am sure that I am not alone in recognising the injustice of such bosses’ being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses while polluting our environment. It is clear to me that significant Government action and regulation is needed, and the clause delivers it. It finally ensures that the polluter pays. I support it wholeheartedly.

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

I am pleased to see you in your place, Mr Vickers.

I am not going to speak to the Government amendments; I merely repeat the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. At this stage, however, I will just express a couple of concerns that I have about amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

I understand the rationale or the intention behind amendment 18; we all want the water companies to pay closer attention to the interests of their consumers. I note in passing that they already have a statutory duty—a consumer-focused statutory duty—but the actions taken by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years to ask questions about the state of sewage discharges and to get information about them, so as to take effective action to bring them to an end, bring with them an additional need.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted a loss of trust in the water undertakers, and I agree with him on that. There has been a significant loss of trust as their poor behaviour, which was uncovered by the Conservative Administration, has been met with considerable outrage—justifiable outrage—by the Government and by members of the public.

However, I fear that there will be some significant unintended consequences associated with the drafting of amendment 18, relating to the legal obligations of a board member. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to those new positions being on the boards of companies. There are legal obligations that apply to all board members and I question whether the representatives of consumers and of the voluntary organisations that have been so active in this area over the past few years would really want to be exposed to the legal obligations of being a member of the board of a plc, because those obligations are significant and onerous.

[Charlie Maynard]

It is fairly standard on boards today to have directors and officers insurance; indeed, all board members have it. What is the problem with the new people also having D&O insurance?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention. However, it seems an odd way to proceed if it is recognised that there is a risk to voluntary members who join boards, exposing them to personal obligations, such as a fiduciary duty of care. There is also a legal duty of loyalty to the organisation, which such volunteers might find quite difficult to stomach. There is a duty of obedience to the organisation as well. It seems odd at this drafting stage to say, “We recognise that there is a risk, but don’t worry: you can take out insurance and you’ll probably be okay.” It seems odd to introduce an amendment in an imperfect form, rather than perfecting it.

[Charlie Maynard]

First, it is up to each individual to sign up or not; they do so of their own free will. Secondly, this is standard insurance which almost all boards have in the UK and internationally nowadays, which protects board members. It would not be specifically for those board members; it would be for all board members. To say that that is a concern, and that we should not make this provision on those grounds, seems odd.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have expressed my concerns. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the object, which I share, of improving the voice of the customer in water companies, or of improving the implementation of the existing obligation on water companies to take account of the consumer interest. I do not think that the current drafting is the best that we can do. I raise these concerns so that they may be properly considered.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the Minister for all her work in introducing this Bill so quickly in the new Parliament. It is a Bill that my constituents in Hastings and Rye desperately need. As I have said many times in this House, our constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages has suffered hugely at the hands of Southern Water. Litres of raw sewage has been pumped into the sea. Our town centre has been flooded twice, leaving homes and businesses under sewage water, and our taps have run dry twice in less than a year. We in Hastings and Rye felt the impact of 14 years of Conservative failure to crack down on water companies’ bad behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helena Dollimore]

I think Opposition Members are slightly confused about the record of the Government of the past 14 years, of which both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were a part at different points. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages would find the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the last Government fixed the crisis in our water companies very bizarre indeed. I draw his attention to the powers that this Government are introducing to ban bosses’ bonuses when they fail our constituents. The last Government left thousands of outlets unmonitored, and when there were monitors, they were reporting to the water companies themselves. What this Government are doing differently is not allowing the water companies to mark their own homework; we are saying that monitors should report directly to Government, not the water companies.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady says that it was the last Government who allowed the water companies—the undertakers—to mark their own homework. Does she not recall that it was actually the Labour Government in 2008 who specifically changed the rules to allow water companies to do just that in relation to their environmental performance?

[Helena Dollimore]

I am yet to hear an apology from the Conservatives for their failure to put monitors on any outlet in my constituency, their failure to make those monitors report to Government at all, and their failure to address the severity of the sewage scandal that has caused so much disruption for my constituents, for local businesses and for so many people up and down this country.

I pay tribute to campaigners in so many of our constituencies. Many are in the Public Gallery and they have done so much work exposing this scandal for what it is. We would not be discussing the scale of this scandal were it not for their hard work. In my constituency, Clean Water Action Group campaigners go out regularly of their own accord and out of their own pockets to test the water to expose what Southern Water is doing in our community. I pay tribute to them.

What we are discussing today is a measure to ban bosses’ bonuses, because it is so important that we do not see what we have seen over the last 14 years of Conservative Government—the continued failure to prevent Southern Water from rewarding bosses with bonuses. Laurence Gosden, the chief executive of Southern Water, received a bonus last year when we had seen repeated failure in Hastings and Rye under Southern Water’s watch. As I said earlier, the chief executive of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee that had the measures in the Bill been put in place last year by the Conservative Government, the bonus would not have been paid. Laurence Gosden only received that bonus because of the failure of the Conservatives to act when they had 14 years to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

It is absolutely right that this Labour Government have acted to ringfence the water companies’ money for investment in the crumbling pipes in my constituency of Hastings and Rye, and are stopping that money being diverted into bosses’ bonuses and rewarding failure.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helena Dollimore]

I will make some progress, because I know that we need to make progress in the debate.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her work on bringing the Bill before the House so quickly. I know that this is just the start of the change that we need to deliver on our water companies. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative and coalition Governments failed, and are working to clean up our water system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

In that case, I will speak to amendment 19, which is about revolving doors. Amendment 19 seeks to prevent a revolving door between water companies and the regulator. In July 2023, the chief executive of Ofwat stepped down to very swiftly pick up the role of interim chief executive of Thames Water. An analysis by The Observer in 2023 found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate until shortly beforehand, with about half of them in very senior posts.

Some work that the Liberal Democrats did in the last 18 months found that the director for regulatory strategy at the country’s largest water firm, Thames Water, was previously an Ofwat employee. Meanwhile, a senior principal at Ofwat moved directly from Thames Water, where they worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors who work on regulation. The amendment tries to prevent that revolving door, which clearly brings in a potential conflict of interest. It also builds the quite justified absence of trust. I can feel an intervention brewing—go for it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not against the principle of this—in fact, I am strongly in favour of it—but I have some practical questions. I wonder whether this would bump up against individuals’ human rights and restraint of trade arguments in the courts. I must confess that I was previously a barrister. That was a long time ago, so I have dangerously little knowledge now, but it was certainly the case that the courts would habitually not enforce a restraint of trade clause on a contractual basis that was in excess of 12 months. I know that this would be legislation, but to have such a wide-ranging blanket prohibition for such a long period against all employees, irrespective of the role they undertook and the role that they might in future undertake with a water company, might be challenged successfully under human rights legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered that in his drafting.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that interventions should be short—much shorter than the last two. I have been very generous.

--- Later in debate ---

With this amendment, we are trying to ensure that the water company pollution reduction plans, as required by the Bill, have the maximum effect, so I hope that the Government will consider accepting it. As I said to the Government on Second Reading, we want to ensure that the Bill is the best that it can be to deliver for the constituents of all Committee members and Members right across the House of Commons and the other place. We tabled it and other amendments in exactly that spirit: not as a hindrance or for the sake of party politics, but to make this Bill even better for the country that we serve. We will therefore be pressing amendments 6 and 9 to a vote.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will speak primarily in support of amendment 6. I pay tribute to the former Member for Ludlow, the right hon. Philip Dunne, who throughout the previous Parliament was the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sat. The EAC’s work on water quality and the seminal report that we produced started this huge public interest in water quality and led to the legislative changes in the Environment Act 2021, among other things.

One of the key lessons we learned from the work that we did on the EAC was the need for transparency of data and information, which can unlock the power of citizen science. We visited the citizen scientists working on the River Windrush, who had difficulty analysing the data that was then publicly available but very hard to find to work out whether storm overflows were being used in the way the water companies were describing. Their very detailed, hard-to-do work exposed the shocking misuse of storm overflows.

As those citizen scientists understood, an event duration monitor is a very simple piece of equipment: it is either on or off. It is set on the outflow of the storm overflow tank. When it detects flow on that channel, it turns on, and when that flow ceases, it turns off. What it does not do, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly pointed out, is measure volume. It also does not measure what is passing. It says that something is passing or not passing, but it does not measure volume or quality. That leads me to support amendment 6, tabled by the loyal Opposition, and to question not the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendments—amendments 24 and 25 and those to clause 3, which I suspect we will talk a bit more about—but the effectiveness of having new machines that measure volume, in addition to whether it is on and off, but not quality.

A better solution may be the one that the Environmental Audit Committee recommended all those years ago—I stand to be corrected, but I think we wrote that report in 2021. It called for the upstream and downstream monitoring of water quality, typically in the outflow river, so that in addition to a signal that there has been an event, there is close to real-time reporting of the comparative water quality upstream and downstream of a discharge outlet. That would simplify the technical requirements of having to install a whole load of new equipment, which other amendments from the Liberal Democrats anticipate, at an unknown cost and implementation speed. Instead, it would look at the actual real-time impact on a particular water body.

Amendment 6 would require the publishing of the information on the undertaker’s website. I am surprised that that was not part of the Bill in the first place and, given that it was not, that the Government have not adopted the amendment. All it does is to apply consistency to the legislative programme. Section 81(2) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021—I know the Minister is familiar with it, but just in case she is not—require the publishing of event duration monitor data within an hour and in a format that is readily accessible by the general public. The loyal Opposition’s amendment is simply trying to ensure consistency between what we already require for EDMs on undertakers’ websites and this area.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I agree that it is indeed amazing. I know that all of us on the Labour Benches, and perhaps on the Opposition Benches too, share the public’s anger at what happened to our rivers, lakes and seas.

The legacy of 14 years of Conservative Government is the highest level of sewage spills on record, economic growth held back by a lack of water supplies, and now potentially painful bill rises to fix the problems they left behind.

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

The Secretary of State says there was the highest level of spills on record. How does he know? When Labour was in power previously, only 7% of sewage outlets were even monitored.

[Steve Reed]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there is very little point in monitoring sewage in the water if all you do is watch the sewage increase and keep on flowing into our rivers, lakes and seas. The Conservatives seem to be satisfied with the failure they presided over. The Labour party will fix the problem that they left behind.

If you find cracks in the wall of your house and ignore it for years, the problem gets worse and the cost of putting it right escalates. That is exactly what the Conservatives did to our water system. They refused to bring in the investment early enough, so ageing infrastructure crumbled even further and the cost to bill payers has rocketed.

Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

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.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

I agree with both of my hon. Friend’s points, and I will speak about them in a moment. My hope is that by solving the issue of joined-up working in Norfolk, we can transport that model to his constituency and elsewhere.

A key motivation of mine in securing a debate on this issue at this time was the important public meeting I chaired recently in Hickling. Nine different agencies sent their representatives to share the work they are undertaking to prevent flooding in the area. They also told us of their personal fears and frustrations. They spoke of the challenges with the funding system and our changing climate, and of the regulations and responsibilities that are stymying their ability to make change.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is right that there are a multitude of agencies that have partial responsibility, creating a network of overlapping duties and responsibilities. We are lucky in Norfolk that we have the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, under the capable directorship of Henry Cator, a constituent of mine. Will the hon. Member take this opportunity to congratulate the alliance and Mr Cator, and will he focus on the absolute importance of strategic dredging, particularly in the Norfolk broads?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.

Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.

In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.

Draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I agree that the statutory instrument represents an improvement on what has gone before. Pet-owning families will not be exposed to costly and time-consuming veterinary certification, nor will they have to ensure that animals are rabies-vaccinated or examined for tapeworms. I am glad to see that the regulations apply not only to cats and dogs, but to ferrets. As a former ferret owner, I am reassured that ferrets are being properly represented in this House.

The single document lasts a lifetime. I have personal experience of bringing a couple of dogs across the Irish sea, and being treated as coming from a third country brings significant costs and delays for pet owners. With these improvements, and in the interests of not creating increased uncertainty for pet owners across the country, I support these regulations. However, I am aware that a number of pet owners have some concerns, and I would like to seek reassurance and clarification from the Minister. A number of pet owners are deeply concerned that this change will prevent or hinder them from travelling freely to Northern Ireland, and I fear that has been exacerbated by the lack of a full public consultation. Will the Minister explain why a public consultation was not undertaken and what steps will she and the Department take to reassure pet owners more fully about the impact of these changes on them?

On a much more serious point, the regulatory regime that underpins this legislation is the responsibility of, and open to future amendments by, the European Union. Will the Minister reassure me that the European regulations to which these regulations operate in reference will continue to be monitored closely by His Majesty’s Government? Will the Government give an undertaking that this legislation will be revisited, should the underlying regulations change to the detriment of the UK and its citizens who want to travel to Northern Ireland?

It is also concerning that full EU entry requirements will remain in place for individuals moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, as if they were travelling from a third country. That implies that SPS border checks would be required between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether that is the case, and whether this statutory instrument introduces any measures to ensure that the Irish border—the land border between the north and south on the island of Ireland—remains without a physical border and without physical checks for pet owners?

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will always look with keen interest at anything that can help us to make progress. In terms of how we provide support and reassurance to those small farmers, that again is by making sure that we have a strong, stable economy.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is the Minister surprised by the reaction of the farming community?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my fellow East Anglian MP for his contribution. Am I surprised? No, I am not entirely surprised, because people are very fed up and depressed, and they have been depressed for a long time. I understand why it is difficult, but my job is to reassure and talk calmly to people, and that is what I shall continue to do.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I was born and raised in the heart of Cornwall, have lived there my whole life, and have always enjoyed the sea. Members who follow me on any my private social media platforms will know that I am found in, on or beside the sea at just about every possible opportunity. Therefore, I have taken a very keen interest in the whole issue of water quality, particularly bathing water and sewage discharge, throughout my life, long before I was first elected to this House.

We have to start by saying that this is not a new issue. Let us remember that Surfers Against Sewage was started in 1990 specifically to raise awareness about it and deal with it. At that time, less than 25% of UK bathing waters were at a minimum acceptable standard for bathing, whereas there is now only one beach in my constituency that does not meet that standard. I am sorry, but pretending that things are worse than they have ever been is absolute nonsense. We have seen incredible progress on this issue over many years.

I remember very clearly that the Labour Government did absolutely nothing in 13 years to address the issue—zero. When we came into office in 2015, we were the first ever Government to take this matter seriously and start to address it.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend has just said is not actually accurate. Labour did not just do nothing; in 2006, it cut a deal with the water companies to agree self-assessment on their environmental performance. Does he agree that that is worse than nothing?

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Labour actually made the situation worse—so much so that in 2009, the Labour Government was taken to court by the EU for failing to deal with the issue—so I am sorry, but we will take no lectures whatsoever from the Opposition Front Benchers about dealing with it. We are the first Government who have ever taken this matter seriously and taken action to start addressing it. We do not even have to think back in history, because we have a living example right before us today: in the one part of the UK where the Labour party is in government, the situation is far worse than in England. Wales is responsible for 25% of sewage discharges for the whole of England and Wales, yet it has only 5% of the population, so again, we will take no lectures from the Opposition.

It was this Government who first introduced substantial monitoring of storm overflows. When Labour left office, 7% of storm overflows were monitored; that figure is now 91%, and it will reach 100% in the next few weeks. I place on record my thanks—and, I believe, our thanks—to one of my Cornish colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who started the process of dealing with this issue when he came into DEFRA. I do not believe we would be in the position we are in today with monitoring, or with any of the other measures, if he had not initiated that work when he first became a DEFRA Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats often claim that they are very interested in sewage, yet they fail to mention that the water Minister between 2013 and 2015 was the former Member for North Cornwall, a Liberal Democrat. What did he do to improve the situation? Nothing.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It was not until 2015 that the Government started to take this issue seriously and take action; it did not even happen under the coalition Government. Therefore, all the crowing from the Liberal Democrats that they regard this as a really important issue is nonsense, because when they were in government, they initiated nothing to address it.

It is clear that there is now far greater public awareness and concern about this issue, and it is much higher up the political agenda than ever before, and rightly so. Some of us, particularly in Cornwall, have been pushing for that to be the case for a very long time, so I welcome the fact that sewage discharges are now a much bigger priority and there is much greater public awareness of them. However, again, let us be frank: people are only aware of what is going on because of the increased monitoring that we have introduced. For 13 years under Labour, all of this sewage was being discharged into the sea, but no one knew about it because there was no monitoring. It is only because of the increase in monitoring over the past few years that we know what is going on.

The first step towards dealing with an issue is to know what is happening. The first step that the Government took was to introduce monitoring, and we now have the data that enables us to hold the water companies to account. Before we had that monitoring and that data, we could not hold them to account because we did not know what was going on; now, we are holding them to account. Since 2015, there have been 58 prosecutions of water companies for failing to fulfil their obligations, and £141 million has been secured in fines. That money is being invested in environmental improvements and in reducing pollution. We must always remember that under this Government, it is the water companies that get taken to court; under Labour, it is the Government who get taken to court.

We now have a plan to reduce storm overflows, which I had the great privilege of launching during my brief time as water Minister. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) put in most of the legwork to produce that plan; I just had the glory moment of crossing the t’s, dotting the i’s and launching it. We now have a plan to invest £56 billion in upgrading the infrastructure to reduce sewage discharges, but we have to be honest with the British public. We hear comments from Opposition Members like, “Let’s stop sewage immediately; we could do it straightaway,” but that is nonsense. We are talking about Victorian infrastructure that has been in place for over 100 years: it is going to take an awful lot of money and an awful lot of time to upgrade and improve that infrastructure to address this issue. However, we now have a plan to make sure that it will happen, and we can hold the water companies to account to ensure that they make that investment and deliver on that plan.

There is also a myth—I am sure Labour Members will mention it today—that somehow Conservative Members voted to allow water companies to continue to discharge sewage. It is a lie: it is not the truth. Actually, we were the ones who brought forward the Environment Act 2021, which contains all the measures that enable us to hold the water companies to account. The Opposition did not support the Act so, if anything, they were the ones who tried to stop us taking action against the water companies, and we were the ones who voted for the Act and all the measures it contains. We need to be absolutely clear that we are the ones taking action and we are the ones taking this matter seriously.

The motion mentions directors’ bonuses. It is absolutely right that directors of water companies who fail to keep their obligations when it comes to sewage discharge and other forms of pollution should not be rewarded because of that, but we are already doing it. Ofwat has confirmed that it has the power to review both dividend payments and bonuses where water companies fail to keep to their environmental obligations. I know it is difficult for Labour Members, because they probably sit there looking at all the things we are doing and thinking, “Why on earth didn’t we do this when we were in government for 13 years?” I know it must be difficult for them, because they did absolutely nothing. They made things worse, not better, and it is this Government who are delivering on this issue.

I take this issue seriously. I have taken this issue seriously for many years—long before I came to this House—and it is right that the public are now much more aware of how important it is, but let us get real: we are dealing with it. We are taking the necessary steps to reduce the amount of sewage that will be discharged, and I welcome that. I believe that this Government will continue to deliver on our plan, and we will see things continue to improve in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is right: in my view there was a failure of regulation in the noughties, because during that period the financial engineering took place to load those businesses with debt. Does he accept that that manipulation of debt was completed by 2009? If he does, what does he have to the say about the Labour Government in power at the time? Were they asleep at the wheel?

[Andy Slaughter]

I accept that the debt has been loaded and that the gearing is completely out of proportion. Under Macquarie, Thames Water’s debt went from £4 billion to £10 billion, but it is now at £14 billion under the current owners. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the radio or has read the media this morning, but Thames appears to be asking for a 40% rise in bills. It has £14 billion-worth of debt, and according to press reports, it might run out of money by next April. That would be the second scare within a year. This is a company that almost has a licence to print money. It has 17 million customers, all paying their bills every year. Its job is obviously not straightforward, but it is not the most difficult job in the world. It cannot perform any part of that function well, and it cannot run its own company well, and that is the parlous state into which it has descended. I therefore understand that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has called Thames Water before it tomorrow to answer some questions.

If the Select Committee can do that, what are the Government doing? I heard an extraordinarily wittering, complacent speech from the Minister the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) just now. There was no grasp of the risks. A major company could go under, with a failure to supply a basic service. What more basic service is there than the supply of water and sewerage services to a large part of the population in this country? There was no understanding of the risks or what the remedies need to be.

This is another area where this Government have failed completely. It is their job, which I do not believe they will do in the small amount of time they have left, to take this issue seriously. They will have to, because otherwise my constituents and those in London and the south-east will not be able to have any realistic purveyor of water and sewerage services going forward. I hope that when the Minister the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) winds up, he shows some awareness of those needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My constituents are not only bill payers and users of Thames Water, but they live with its decades-long failure to plan and invest. The River Thames flows alongside Chiswick, Brentford and Isleworth, where we walk, kayak, row and paddleboard. Too often, the Thames is polluted with dilute sewage just about every time it rains. Mogden sewage treatment works, covering 55 acres, sits in my constituency. For decades, Mogden has been a regular source of pungent sewage smells and a virulent subspecies of mosquito.

In February 2020, the streets and parks of Isleworth and the pristine Duke of Northumberland’s river was flooded with raw—not even dilute—sewage, because the main sewage intake into Mogden backed up and punched a hole through into the river. That was a direct result of maintenance failure and that issue not appearing on the risk assessment register. This debate matters to my constituents.

In October 2020, 2 billion litres of dilute sewage was discharged into the River Thames at Isleworth Ait over just two days. That was two thirds of the total discharges in 2020. In 2022, that same sewer storm outflow spilled 20 times for a total of 164 hours, discharging again into the River Thames. Just across the river at Petersham, another outfall regularly discharges. All of that is 10 years after Mogden sewage treatment works had its treatment capacity almost doubled.

I am struggling to find any evidence of any fines that Thames Water has received for the discharges I have just described. That is because they are planned. They are permitted discharges. The discharges of which we are notified are the only ones we know about, because, as the BBC “Panorama” investigation found, water companies appear to be covering up illegal sewage discharges, making sewage pollution disappear from official figures.

The water companies not only process our sewage and storm run-off, but supply fresh water. As other Members have already said, however, too much of that fresh water is wasted through pipe leaks. After too many water main bursts flooded shops and homes, we had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) described, a programme to replace the Victorian fresh water pipes across the Thames Water area, but it seems to have stopped and we are just supposed to wait until the next burst happens. There is so much more that Thames Water could be doing to stop the leakages.

The overall picture of our water situation in the Thames Water area is a failure of oversight—a failure to upgrade the water and sewage infrastructure continually as London’s population grows, and as drought and heavy rain become regular aspects of our weather. For over 20 years—first as a councillor, and as an MP since 2015—I have been pressuring Thames Water to take action, as have the Mogden Residents’ Action Group, Hounslow London Borough Council and other residents. As a result of a legal challenge by residents, Thames Water was forced to increase the capacity of the sewage treatment works, to improve its reporting and to do continuous mosquito eradication.

Thames Water has also done some other work. We have had to put up with recent roadworks locally, because it has now installed a pipe to pump excess methane into the main gas grid, which is to be welcomed. We have had the multibillion-pound tideway project to take sewage out of the Thames, but it does not benefit those of us who live upstream of Hammersmith, so we are now faced with another expensive tunnelling project: the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme, which will address not high rainfall periods but periods of drought.

The Teddington DRA is designed to take millions of litres of water from the Thames, pump it across London to the Lee valley, and then replace that water with treated effluent from Mogden. That means a new pipeline and access shafts, so we are going to have a building site the size of half a football pitch on the Ivybridge estate, a low-income council estate in my constituency. The project will involve tunnelling beneath homes. It will also potentially impact on biodiversity in the River Thames and on riverside walks, and impact on river users as well. Are there really no alternatives to this three-year construction project across my constituency and those neighbouring it? The Environment Agency certainly raised doubts about the scheme when it wrote to Thames Water in March this year. The Teddington DRA will save only a 10th of the 630 million litres lost per day through leaks.

What are the rewards for this managed incompetence? Thames Water’s chief executive, Sarah Bentley, received a £496,000 pay-out last year. At least she had the good grace this year to say that it

“just did not feel like the right thing to take performance-related pay this year.”

I support the Opposition’s motion calling on the Government to enable Ofwat to block company bosses’ bonuses where high levels of sewage are being pumped into rivers; to end self-monitoring and force all companies to monitor every single water outlet; to ensure that water bosses face personal criminal liability for extreme and persistent lawbreaking: and to introduce severe and automatic fines for illegal discharges that bosses cannot ignore. We should not be dependent on whistleblowers to find out about failures. With a boost in the powers of the water regulator, water bosses who fail to meet high environmental standards on sewage pollution must be met with significant sanctions to ensure that they cannot profit from damaging the environment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and apologise more generally for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box. Is she aware of Ofwat’s press release of 29 June entitled “Ofwat delivers decision on executive pay”? In that, it says that it has recently announced

“new powers that will enable it to stop the payment of dividends”

directly and in full if a company does not meet its performance targets, including environmental targets. It goes on to say:

“In line with the new guidance”,

which it published that day,

“Ofwat expects water company remuneration committees to take full account of performance for customers and the environment”,

and that, if they do not, Ofwat will intervene on every single basis. Does she not accept that the powers are already in place and being used?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I would like to see them—I find that Ofwat is just too powerless. On dividends, Thames Water has not paid them for five years—so it keeps telling me—but that did not stop it until this year paying its senior executives very high dividends.

Why should my hard-pressed constituents face an average increase of £39 in their water bills? They have lost trust in Thames Water after years and years of scandal, putting up with smells, mosquitoes, building works, flooding and sewage through their streets and parks. Having met and talked to Thames Water for almost 20 years as a councillor and an MP, it is clear to me that it still has a lot to do to clean up its act. Bills are rising, service standards remain poor, and we continue to see raw sewage being pumped into the Thames.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Church on strengthening its parish ministry.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Church on strengthening its parish ministry.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Parish ministry is at the heart of the mission of the Church. The Church Commissioners will distribute £1.2 billion between 2023 and 2025 to support our mission and ministry—a 30% increase on the current three-year period—and the lion’s share of this funding will be used to revitalise parish ministry.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the relationship between a parish priest and his or her congregation is the single most important element of outreach and service for the Church, and as such, its support should be the primary objective of Church funds?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Church Commissioners continue to fund increasing numbers of ordinands. In 2020, 570 new priests were ordained and there were 580 in training, with only 320 retirements. Innovative ways of attracting clergy from many backgrounds include the fantastic work of both the Peter and the Caleb streams, which I would commend to his parishes.

Sewage Pollution

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

If the hon. Lady writes to us about her proposal, we will look at it. DEFRA has a target under the Environment Act 2021 to increase the number of bathing waters that are in good and favourable condition, and the Environment Agency and others work to ensure that the designations can be processed.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We need to establish the real scale of the problem. It has been estimated that providing a full solution to storm overflow discharges will require the replacement of 100,000 miles of combined sewers, so the Government have it absolutely right with increasingly onerous targets for Ofwat backed by unlimited fines, and £56 billion of infrastructure investment year after year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to pretend that we can call for an immediate ban does a huge disservice to the general public and takes them for fools?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to take the right long-term decisions now on investment, monitoring and bringing prosecutions in order to ensure that the issue improves over the next 25 years and, indeed, that it improves significantly between now and 2025; that is exactly what our plan sets out.