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

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

There are no further comments from us, and we do not seek to press to a vote any of the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned that there is not enough detail in the Bill about the impact of pollution incidents on the wider environment, much as I am grateful to the Minister for many of the comments she has made. All the same, we will not seek to trouble the Committee with a vote at this stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

In the interests of promoting transparency and clarity, we would still like to press our amendment 6 to a vote. To bolster, support and protect the precious integrity of our national parks, we would like to do the same with amendment 9.

Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”— (Dr Hudson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

It is a great pleasure to speak to amendment 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). Today, there is a recurrent theme—transparency and clarity. We want cleaner waters and we want the data collection to be transparent and available to people so that they can actually monitor and analyse. The spirit of this amendment is, again, transparency and clarity.

Amendment 3 would, as the text suggests, make it a statutory requirement for water companies to publish the information that they have on discharges from emergency overflows on the home page of their website. Some water companies already go some way to discussing overflows of different kinds, including what they are and why they occur, but this amendment from my hon. Friend would go further by setting a clearer guideline for how transparent water companies must expect to be for every specific incidence of an emergency overflow that may occur.

We of course know that emergency overflows are those that occur particularly when technical faults or blockages in the water system arise and require overflows to help with their resolution, as opposed to storm overflows, where the system is overwhelmed by excess surface water or groundwater entering the network. The work of the previous Conservative Government tackled the issue of storm overflows—unlike any Government who had preceded them—including by, as I have said, getting 100% of reporting and monitoring of storm overflows, which was at 7% back in 2010. That was in addition to fast-tracking £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent 8,000 sewage spills in 2024, and introducing requirements for further investment, over 25 years, of upwards of £60 billion.

Moving forward, however, we need to ensure that emergency overflows are treated with a similar parity of attention. We do not want the hypothetical situation to arise whereby the problem of storm overflows, which have had so much attention in recent years, is simply shifted to emergency overflows, and technical fault is used as an unnecessary justification for emergency overflows to occur. By requiring emergency overflow information to be published on the home page of each and every water company’s website, this risk is potentially alleviated.

Although the Government may argue that the risk is alleviated by clause 3 in and of itself, this amendment goes further in its specificity about the publication of data relating to emergency overflows. By requiring the home page to be used for publication of emergency overflow data, the requirement in clause 3 that the information be published in a way that makes it readily accessible to the public would be given a definition that the Bill in its current form lacks. In other words, amendment 3 would provide explicit clarity in the Bill for water companies about the requirements for publication of emergency overflow information, without the risk of dispute down the line about whether an individual company has complied with the measure’s requirements.

On that basis, I encourage the Government to support the amendment, as it clearly does not seek to frustrate their intentions to be stringent with the water companies about duties on emergency overflows. The amendment merely strengthens the existing conditions in the clause by providing further clarity and specificity. We urge the Government to consider it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 9, line 1, leave out from start to “in” and insert—

“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.

I have made my argument in favour of amendment 17, probably at the wrong time. I do not seek to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert—

“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows

(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).

(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”.

This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

In my remarks on amendment 3, I highlighted the fact that parity of attention between storm overflows and emergency flows is critical to action in regulating the water industry. With that point in mind, I move amendment 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, which would make it a criminal offence for water companies and their chief executives to fail to comply with their duty to report on discharges from emergency overflows.

As I stated earlier, much was done to tackle the issue of storm overflows by the previous Conservative Government, including the passing of the Environment Act 2021, which we have spoken a lot about today. That introduced the statutory duty for water companies to publish storm overflow data in England every year and a storm overflow discharge reduction plan that created strict targets for sewage pollution and demanded water company investment in the necessary infrastructure to resolve issues.

Amendment 4 would address the need to ensure that emergency overflows are subject to the strict enforcement that we have seen exercised towards storm overflows in recent years. We have seen that an emphasis on strict enforcement can work in getting the reform that we all want to see the industry practise, and indeed in improving water quality. I note and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Witney who welcomed the progress that we have made in that area on monitoring and trying to address these issues.

The Government have set out in the Bill plans to put in place a criminal offence for failing to co-operate with or obstructing regulatory investigations. The amendment seeks to address a gap in those plans in a key area of public concern—a duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

Despite significant steps, some water companies are not taking their responsibilities to protect our waterways seriously enough. This is a sector where the rewards for success have historically been high for shareholders and, as we have heard a lot about, for executives. It is time now for serious consequences for failure to protect our waterways and the public to sit alongside those rewards for success.

The duty to report discharges from emergency overflows is basic, reasonable and vital to public transparency. I come back to our points about transparency. There can be no defence from any water company that it does not understand that duty or why that duty matters. Given the Bill already puts in place the principle of a criminal offence for failure to fulfil a reasonable duty and establishes a criminal offence for failure to co-operate or to obstruct a regulatory investigation, the amendment would strengthen the Bill’s intent that water companies’ conduct must be subject to criminal sanction and unlimited fines.

Of course, at the same time, however, as human error and technical fault can plague many walks of life and water companies are no exception, there must be a fair and reasonable opportunity for water companies and chief executives accused of violating their duties to show that they have genuinely tried to comply with the duties of reporting emergency overflows. Therefore, subsection (2) of amendment 4 provides explicit criteria that failure to meet the duties of publication for storm overflows does not result in a criminal offence when the company has done all it reasonably could to prevent the incident from occurring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for tabling amendment 4, which seeks to make a failure to publish discharge data from emergency overflows in near-real time a criminal offence.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is vital that regulators have a clear means of ensuring that water companies comply with this duty. However, clause 3 already ensures that the duty is enforceable by Ofwat under section 18 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which provides a range of tools—including significant fines—for Ofwat to bring companies into compliance. Changing the provision to a criminal offence might slow down enforcement, because criminal prosecution is typically slower than enforcement by section 18 of the 1991 Act.

In addition, we do not believe that in this case it would be proportionate to create direct criminal liability for a chief executive, particularly the potential sanction of imprisonment, because the large number of emergency overflows operated by companies, with each company operating in a different situational context, means that it is unreasonable to hold a single person to account for full compliance with the duty. By making changes such as introducing bonus bans and provisions to support prosecuting executives for obstructing the regulator, the Bill already strengthens provisions to hold executives to account for wrongdoing.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I can confirm that we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert—

“141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports

(1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

(2) In this section, an ‘area used for aquatic sports’ is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of—

(a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing,

(b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and

(c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water-based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.

(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (5).

(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

I will try not to mention teeth in this part of our proceedings, but I cannot promise. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of amendment 10, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield —this is sounding like “Groundhog Day”, isn’t it? The amendment has a simple principle: that waters used for aquatic sports should be subject to the same protections as those used for bathing. It establishes that there should be clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives when they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the waters in which people practise aquatic sports.

Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but the impact of overflow discharges into our waterways and rivers is potentially creating an existential risk to some sports clubs up and down the country. We have heard reports of increased incidences of illness among participants as a direct and indirect consequence of exposure to pathogens and bacteria from sewage outflows in the waterways where they practise their water sports. That is a significant cause for concern for our rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs.

Many clubs take their duty of care very seriously indeed. They are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their participating members. Training sessions, competitions and regattas are all facing potential cancellation, and participation in those sports risks becoming less attractive and less available to people. We can all agree that actively participating in sport and physical exercise is so good for not only our physical health, but our mental health. Any deterrents discouraging people from being involved in some sports are deeply regrettable.

The amendment is trying to put the safety of the waters used for aquatic sports on the same basis as those where people bathe. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use. The amendment sets out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge from an emergency overflow within a one-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The consequences for water companies and their chief executives for failure to comply with this duty are set out clearly and are consistent with amendment 4, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for proposing amendment 10, which seeks to make it an offence for sewage undertakers to use an emergency overflow in areas used for aquatic sports. I will mention how much I enjoyed meeting the Clean Water Sports Alliance just last week to hear about its fantastic work to get us all up, out and active, although I have so far resisted the temptation to don a wetsuit and join in.

I agree that it is vital for us to reduce the impact of sewage pollution, so that our children and their children can make the memories that we did enjoying our waterways. However, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It risks duplicating existing requirements to limit pollution for emergency overflows, as well as protections for bathers that are already in place. Emergency overflow discharges are permitted only in very strict circumstances and as a last resort, such as in the event of mechanical breakdown or a downstream blockage. That factsheet on the different circumstances might help.

Should an emergency overflow discharge occur outside permit conditions, the Environment Agency is able to take robust enforcement action, including fines and criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they should not be happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

As I say, I wholeheartedly agree with the intention behind the amendment, but I note that later on we will be discussing the importance of chalk streams as well. The amendment would create a hierarchy between what is important and what is not. My argument is that emergency overflows are a problem wherever they are, and they should not be used unless it is, as the Bill says, an absolute emergency.

Measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they are happening. Although emergency overflow discharge should occur only very rarely—when it says on the tin; it should be an emergency—it is not possible to eliminate them altogether, as they are important safety valves to protect businesses and home in time of emergency. Removing or blocking emergency overflow outlets could lead to excess effluent waste water being released elsewhere, including through manholes. That would have significant safety implications.

Significant protections are in place for designated bathing waters both inland and on the coast. The Government consult on and designate our bathing waters. The Environment Agency monitors them to ensure that the health of bathers is protected, and to assess what action is needed to improve water quality. Once designated, water companies are required to investigate and improve bathing water sites, including with upgrades and improvements to overflows where needed. As part of the storm overflow discharge plan—those are obviously different from emergency overflows—by 2035 water companies will have improved all storm overflows that are discharging near every designated bathing water. We have also recently consulted on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, including expanding the definition of “bathers” to include other water users.

A Government response to the consultation will be issued in due course, and if reforms are taken forward in future, that could mean that more bathing sites, including those used by aquatic sport users, will be subject to improvements. As such, we do not believe that the amendment is required.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the Minister for her comments and for acknowledging the importance of the safety of the waters in which people practise water sports. I also thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for supporting that concept—we must try to keep these waters safe. I confirm, happily, that we will not be pushing the amendment to a vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 25— Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network—

‘(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 94—

(a) after subsection (1)(b) insert—

“(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).”

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must—

(a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible;

(b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station;

(c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and

(d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”’

--- 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 ---

[Emma Hardy]

Individuals can already be prosecuted, under section 110 of the Environment Act 1995, for obstructing Environment Agency investigations. However, that legislation does not allow executives to be prosecuted where obstruction has occurred with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. The Bill will remedy that omission by adding a consent, connivance or neglect provision to the Act, meaning that executives or other relevant officers may face imprisonment if obstruction occurs as a consequence of their actions.

[Dr Hudson]

The Opposition have no formal objections to the clause, but I do have a couple of clarifying questions. I realise I am getting into territory with which I have no familiarity. I am not a lawyer; I am a veterinary surgeon. When we are changing offences to make them more criminal, there are implications for the courts and for individuals. Although expanding the options available to the court when sentencing offenders who have not followed the rules is welcome, how have the Government ensured that the offences are clear, so that those who commit them face the full punishment if and when required?

In terms of modelling the potential impact downstream, what work have the Government done to look at the situation retrospectively? If this provision had been law over the last few years, how many offenders would have been caught by it and potentially imprisoned? I realise that that is quite a technical question, but I wonder if the Government have looked at that at all. When we bring in laws, we need to ensure that we are aware of their implications and know how the legal and judicial system can exercise them. However, we have no formal opposition to the clause.

[Tim Farron]

Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far.

We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Regulators can currently impose civil penalties where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. The civil penalties are imposed by the regulators, rather than through the courts. The criminal standard of proof is appropriate for severe offences—for example, where there is a major impact on human health, on quality of life or on the environment. A high investigatory burden is not proportionate for minor to moderate offences that have a lower impact. Clause 6 will allow these offences to be enforced more quickly, cost-effectively and proportionately by enabling penalties to be imposed using the civil standard of proof, which is

“on the balance of probabilities”.

The penalties will be in addition to existing enforcement options that can be imposed only using the criminal standard of proof, including prosecution and unlimited variable monetary penalties, which will remain unchanged. Of course, the most serious cases will still require criminal proceedings. The Government will consult on the specific offences for which the civil standard of proof may be used and on the cap for the new lower standard of proof for variable monetary penalties. There are no plans to remove unlimited penalties for severe offences. Parliament will then debate and vote on secondary legislation before any changes are made.

The clause will strengthen the power of the water industry regulators, driving improved performance in the sector, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that clause 6 would grant the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers the power to introduce secondary legislation concerning fixed and variable monetary penalties, as confirmed by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It would likewise change the condition of imposing these penalties from “beyond reasonable doubt” to

“on the balance of probabilities”.

Although His Majesty’s Opposition have no problems with the clause, we believe it would be beneficial for the Minister to make some clarifications to aid the reading of the clause in the future. First, how often does the Minister think that secondary legislation may be required for the fixed monetary penalties? During the last Government’s period in office, we knew that sometimes penalties needed to be adapted to get regulation of our water industries right. As I discussed in previous debates, the Conservative Government saw fit to amend the amount that water companies could be fined for violating the water quality rules.

As was also mentioned earlier, Baroness Hayman in the other place highlighted the importance of flexibility in changing rules on the water industry. The Opposition agree that flexibility is important, but for there to be flexibility, there also needs to be consistency, and awareness and monitoring of the issue so that we know exactly what flexibility is needed. Could the Minister therefore comment, now or in due course, on whether the Government will be continuously updating and monitoring to ensure that monetary penalties are having the desired outcome, that they remain aware of any potential issues and that they can determine whether they need to modulate and change things?

Does the Minister support the use of secondary legislation to increase scrutiny? As we have already discussed, the Government have sought to avoid the responsibility of accountability at ministerial and Government level by using statutory instruments for things like Ofwat’s remuneration and governance guidance. Can they not see that a bit of a discrepancy remains? If they are willing to use available powers to make change but not enhance powers, they might need to do that on other issues that we have discussed. Barring those comments and clarifying questions, we have no formal objections that we wish to raise.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for his contribution to the debate. I think the point my hon. Friend, and friend, Baroness Hayman made in the Lords is that we do need some flexibility, and that it would be inappropriate to set out the details of implementing these powers in the Bill, because that would result in a fixed power that would not be adaptable to the industry’s circumstances. We would like to be able to continue to adapt it.

I think the shadow Minister is trying to make sure that we set things in the right way and at the right level. That is why Ofwat will be doing a consultation. We want the level to be a deterrent rather than something that water companies can easily dismiss, but it needs to be set at the right level. It is important that that is done properly and through consultation.

I am grateful that everybody supports the clause. By strengthening the powers of the water industry regulators, we will drive improved performance in the sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeff Smith.)