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

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dr Rupa Huq, † Martin Vickers

† Aldridge, Dan (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)

† Dollimore, Helena (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)

† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Fookes, Catherine (Monmouthshire) (Lab)

† Hack, Amanda (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)

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

† Hayes, Tom (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

† Hazelgrove, Claire (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)

† Hudson, Dr Neil (Epping Forest) (Con)

† Kirkham, Jayne (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

† Maynard, Charlie (Witney) (LD)

† Paffey, Darren (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)

† Pakes, Andrew (Peterborough) (Lab)

Ramsay, Adrian (Waveney Valley) (Green)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

Simon Armitage, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Water (Special Measures) Bill

Clause 2

Pollution incident reduction plans

Amendment proposed (this day): 23, in clause 2, page 5, line 9, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.—(Tim Farron.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 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.”

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”

Clause stand part.

No one was trying to catch my eye before we broke for lunch, so I call the Minister to respond.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

4|0|5|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Amendment proposed: 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”—(Dr Hudson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

5|0|5|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 3

Emergency overflows

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

“(e) the volume of discharge.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible; and

(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”

With your permission, Mr Vickers, I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to speak to the bulk of these amendments. I will focus on amendment 17, which requests that we insert into the Bill a position of Minister with responsibility for issues relating to the coast. That is something that the all-party group for coastal communities, chaired by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), is fully in favour of.

Coastal communities face a unique set of environmental and economic challenges, which are spread across Departments. It is therefore common sense to have a Minister to bring them together under one portfolio and champion those communities in Government. The specific needs of coastal communities were raised in the annual report of the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in 2021, and we particularly highlight those communities. In my own part of the world, we have the Lancashire over the sands part of my constituency and south-west Westmorland, but there are also coastal communities in places such as North Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere. As I said, there is cross-party support, through the APPG for coastal communities, for this proposal.

Let me make a quick reference to my own constituency. Among the challenges that the communities around Morecambe bay face is the pollution of the environment around them. In 2023 alone, one treatment works in Grange-over-Sands pumped sewage into the Kent estuary channel on 79 occasions for 73 hours. Across the water in Arnside, another pumped 42 times for 147 hours.

As well as the environmental and water-related issues that affect coastal communities, there are economic, health and other issues of great importance to them. We believe that there is a strong case for having a person in Government whose specific responsibilities are to take care of our coastal areas, and that the Bill is an opportunity to establish that. My support for the other amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats can be taken as given, but I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to make the case for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of clause 3, which deals with defining emergency overflows and reporting requirements. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, I have the great fortune to live on the south coast and the great misfortune of being in the area where Southern Water is a local provider.

Order. We are debating amendment 13 specifically, so please restrict your comments to that. I call Charlie Maynard.

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.

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?

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.

On the questions that the hon. Gentleman is asking around the type of monitors we have on sewage outlets, is he aware that the Environmental Audit Committee looked at this very issue in the last Parliament? It recommended the approach currently being taken by the Bill, which is to look at monitors upstream and downstream that look at the water quality. The Committee regarded that as the best way to assess this issue.

I am very happy with looking at monitors upstream and downstream. That is fine, but I want them all to be in, and I want them done quicker. In the last seven years, 14,000 monitors were put in. As per the House of Commons Library briefing on clause 3, we are currently being signed up to a much slower installation of monitors—it does not matter if they are EDMs or flow meters. The briefing states:

“The reporting duty on discharges from emergency overflows would be phased in, with water companies expected to achieve 50% monitoring coverage by the end of the next price review in 2030 and 100% by 2035, the end of the following price review.”

Why would we go slower? That is a lot slower than what has been done over the last seven years. We should be moving much faster.

I find it rather depressing that I suspect this information came out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why is there this desire to slow the whole thing down if possible? We have a huge problem, so why are we not moving faster to deal with it? Frankly—I am not looking at the crew opposite—the DEFRA mindset is profoundly depressing. That’s that.

Amendment 16 covers the installation rate. What we are trying to do there is get the rate much faster. We have asked for 12 months, and I will try to quantify this; I have a business background. How much do flow monitors cost? How much they cost matters. Flow monitors are £500 to £2,000 per unit. We have 15,000 across the country, so we are talking £85 million or whatever it might be. That is if we have £2,000 as the unit cost. If we take the higher level of the unit cost and say that each of them will cost £2,000 to install, it is quite a lot of money. We did it much cheaper in west Oxfordshire and Witney. Well done to the Witney flood mitigation group. It got 10 installed for a fraction of that, so that is doable. Let us just talk £84 million. Does that sound like a lot of money? Frankly, it does not to me, and I will try to quantify that. The £84 million is between 10 or so water companies. Thames Water alone has £17 billion of debt. We are talking about £84 million. It is a fractional number, and if we are serious about fixing our problems, we have to go there.

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.

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.

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

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—

Order. Amendment 17 is not in this grouping.

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.

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.

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.

Would the Minister be willing to give information on the breakdown of that £6 billion? That would be very helpful. Also, I think we are all in agreement and of course we want to know the quality. As has been said, if that is the case, surely the plan is to go there. By all means, have flow meters with the quality meters installed, rather than not going there. I think the Minister was proposing not putting in flow meters and not putting in any quality meters either, or is she planning on putting in flow and quality meters? If so, when and how?

I am very happy to give a breakdown of the numbers that we have worked out. To reiterate the point I made before the intervention, that is why the Government believe that it is the measurement of water quality that is required. Water companies have been instructed to begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows and waste water treatment works from April 2025 onwards, so they have been told to put in those water quality monitors from April 2025. That will provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will see that amendment 13 is not needed and feels able to withdraw it.

The Minister said from 2025, which is great, but over what timeline? Is that the Library’s 10 years, or is that another timeline?

I want to make sure that I am not giving the hon. Gentleman inaccurate information, so I will find out the answer to his question and return to it, if that is okay. I do not want to give him the wrong information. The main point we are making is that it is not the volume that is having the impact; it is the toxicity. We think that, by focusing on measuring water quality, we can accurately see the damage being done to our environment by what is being discharged, and I think that is the point. If we are choosing where to put the monitors, we think that focusing on water quality and how damaging it can be is more important than focusing on how much there is.

We talk about citizen scientists and the hard work they have to do to uncover what is going on within the data. We are talking about putting lots of different monitors on lots of infrastructure up and down the country, which is going to spew out lots of different information that is going to be quite hard to dig into. Could the Minister give a view on whether there will be an approach to the standardisation of data, to make it easier to view for people?

The hon. Member is pre-empting my responses to the next amendments on transparency, which I am just about to turn to. Before we move on from volume, I re-emphasise the point. This is something that I looked at seriously because a number of colleagues have spoken to me about it, so I really do not want hon. Members to feel like it has been dismissed out of hand—I did look at this seriously. One of the other points made to me was about lots of the pipes being different sizes. If we are going to be able to calculate the volume, we have to be able to calculate the size of the pipe, which might require standardising the size of all pipes to work out the volume coming through them, so we can measure how much is coming out at one moment.

That is where we get to the £6 billion figure; it is not just the cost of putting the monitors on but ensuring that, if we are measuring the amount of sewage flowing past something, we can understand the size of it. The hon. Member for Witney is looking at me and I can see that I have work to do to convince him of this. I am probably doing a complete injustice to the person who explained this all to me, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a proper explanation. The upshot of the conversation was that this is going to be really expensive, and what we all want to know is: how damaging is what is coming out of those pipes to our environment? That is why we are focusing on water quality. [Interruption.] I have had inspiration from behind me and an answer to the question of when continuous water quality monitoring will be rolled out. They have requested to begin installing continuous water quality monitors at 25% of storm overflows and sewage treatment works outlets at price review 2024. The sites selected for the first stage of roll-out have been prioritised to include sensitive sites such as chalk streams.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We are here for another week or so. I take the point about apples and pears, but if the information is already in DEFRA’s hands, would it be helpful, if DEFRA can move fast enough—I do not know whether that is possible—to have a little grid circulated to Committee members about storm and emergency installation periods, whether that is quality, flow or EDM? With that data we could talk about it decently and honestly.

I think that might be really helpful. It has been an interesting but slightly muddled conversation. We were going to produce a factsheet to explain the difference between emergency and storm. Maybe we can include as much information as we can for Committee members by the end of Committee or before Report, if that does not put too much on my hard-working officials.

On the annual data being analysed, the proposed amendments are unnecessary and I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. On amendment 16, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and which is about the speed of delivery, the need to deliver the installation of monitors on emergency overflows must be balanced with practical constraints and with due consideration for the cost of rolling out so many monitors, especially as those costs are ultimately passed to consumers through water bills.

Water companies have been instructed to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030. This represents a doubling of the previous Conservative Government’s target of 25% of emergency overflows monitored by 2030. The Environment Agency will agree with water companies which emergency overflows will have monitors installed over the next five years based on priority areas, such as those that impact designated bathing and shellfish waters. As set out in the impact assessment, we expect the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows to cost £533 million over a 10-year period. We believe that pace of roll-out strikes the right balance of recognising the urgency—this Government are doing double what the previous Government promised—while ensuring that companies have the capacity to progress other improvements and balancing customer bill impacts.

To speak frankly, it is very important to monitor, but it is also very important to fix the causes of some of the problems that we see. There is always a balance between monitoring and fixing the problem, and we believe that we have got that balance right.

Requiring a faster roll-out of monitors could undermine the delivery of other improvements that water companies must make in price review 24—I would not want to be in a situation at the end of the price review where we monitor everything and fix nothing. That includes upgrades to wastewater treatment works and sewerage networks to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. Where companies can move further and faster to achieve the roll-out of monitors at emergency overflows, they will of course be encouraged to do so, but we cannot accept this amendment to require water companies to install all monitors within 12 months. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney for his detailed points and for the Minister’s replies to them. We will not seek to press the majority of the amendments to the vote. Nevertheless, we stand by all that we have said and we do wish to press amendment 13 to a vote. The reality is that duration monitors only do so much good. Asking for volume to be added to duration is not to the exclusion of quality. In fact, it is part of an attempt to try to get to the bottom of it. Again, off the top of my head, earlier last year there was a sewage overflow into Coniston Water from 22 August, which lasted just over a week, and a sewage overflow around Easter time in Windermere, which lasted a matter of hours. The former was more of a trickle—still unacceptable—and the latter was a deluge. The difference in terms of quality was significant as well as in terms of volume. We therefore ask that the Committee considers amendment 13, which we seek to press to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

6|0|2|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

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.

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

(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.”.

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.

Members will wince because I am going to come up with some dental analogies. By giving teeth to the statutory duty of water companies to publish emergency overflow data, with the threat of prosecution for failure to do so, the message is sent beyond doubt that water companies must comply with the requirements being placed on them by the Bill.

It is by giving teeth to regulation on water pollution that we have seen progress on the issue in the last few years. We accept that more needs to be done, but I hope that Members across the House will acknowledge, as some have already started to do today, that progress has been made. We want to work together collectively to make sure that the teeth that have been given are sharp and big enough, and that enough of them are in place, to do the work that we want them to do.

The previous Government gave stronger powers of enforcement to Ofwat and the Environment Agency, including removing limits on the amount that water companies could be fined for violating water pollution laws and creating new powers that ban big bonuses and payouts to chief executives of water companies that have failed to do the right thing. We also drove through an increase in the number of inspections that water companies can expect to see—from 4,000 a year by April this year to 10,000 a year by April next year. Introducing a criminal offence for violation of emergency overflow reporting duties will enable us to expand upon that exact approach, which creates positive change in water quality. I commend the amendment to the Government and the Committee.

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.

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.

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

(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.”

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.

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.

I want to point out something that is probably blindingly obvious, because I want to support the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Beaconsfield. When emergency overflows happen in rivers near places where people may engage in aquatic sports, that is one thing and it is unacceptable, but it is worth bearing the lakes in mind—I will pick Windermere for an example. A drop of water that enters the north end of the lake takes nine months to pass through the River Leven and out into Morecambe bay. The consequences of an overflow in a lake—in the Lake district or elsewhere—are so much greater than in other waterways. I also have 30 outdoor education centres in my constituency, many of them on lakes. They are much more affected by overflows than any other form of spillage, which is why I think the amendment is worth pursuing.

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.

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.

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

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.”’

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak about the importance of clause 3. Monitoring and reporting on discharges from sewage outlets provides important transparency around the frequency and duration of sewage discharges, to support enforcement action and policy development and to direct investment to reduce discharges. English water companies have installed monitors at 100% of storm overflows. Near real-time information on storm overflow discharges in England is available on company websites and the national storm overflow hub, which provides a national map of all storm overflows. However, emergency overflows are currently not fully monitored, and data from emergency overflows is not published in near real-time.

There are 7,000 emergency overflows in England, and it is vital that we better understand the frequency and duration of those discharges so that action can be taken to reduce the harm they cause to the environment. The clause will close the monitoring gap across sewage outlets by requiring that discharges from emergency overflows be published within an hour. The near real-time information on discharges from emergency overflows will be independently scrutinised by the regulators, making it easier and quicker to investigate and punish wrongdoing. That information must also be published in a format that is both accessible and understandable to the public. If there are any specific requirements regarding that information, we can of course pass that to the Environment Agency.

To support implementation of this measure, we have instructed English water companies to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030, and 100% by 2035. During implementation, monitors will also be independently certified to ensure that they are correctly installed and maintained at emergency overflows. I hope the Committee agrees that that duty is essential to meet our manifesto commitment of ensuring independent monitoring of every sewage outlet.

I turn to new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. We agree that it is vital to understand the scale and impact of sewage discharges. That is why clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in real time. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say about the issue. I will respond to and provide reassurances about the amendment in detail in my closing speech.

I will keep this short. I am looking forward to the factsheet, but the Minister will note that new clause 25 focuses on overflows, not emergencies or storms. Frankly, it does not make much difference to a bug, a bunny or a bather whether they get whacked by an emergency overflow or a storm overflow—they are still getting whacked by the sewage. Trying to unify things and get all the issues into one table would be really helpful.

We have already been denied one amendment about flow; I recognise that and will not go on. But quality and flow are important. I am afraid that I find the Government’s position—“We really need to focus on quality, so let’s not talk about flow or install flow meters”—to be spurious. I mean no offence, but it feels like a real let-down that we are not going there now. I do not see any reason why we cannot; respectfully, I think the Government are being flim-flammed by the £6 billion figure.

We talk about sewage treatment works, pumping stations and so on. I have mentioned them already but really want to push the point home because we want to be capturing every overflow, wherever it is. Too often, people talk about works but forget pumping stations and the overflows on the network itself. We look forward to seeing that being covered in the legislation: overflows, works, pumping stations and the network. We will not press the new clause to a Division.

I call Darren Paffey.

Thank you, Mr Vickers—so keen was I to support the clause that I tried to speak to it too early. I appreciate your forbearance.

Clause 3 has my full support. As I mentioned, I live in an area served by Southern Water. The citizen scientists on the River Itchen have done such good work that they regularly and consistently show that there are unacceptably high levels of faecal matter in the river, even when there has been no storm or emergency. The fleshing out of the requirement for monitoring so that there can be greater accountability is hugely welcome.

Furthermore, my area is entirely relevant to new clause 25 because of the aquatic sports, particularly during the pandemic. A great wild swimming group use the river, and there are also paddle boarders, canoeists and kayakers. I have the greatest respect for them: they go where I would not be willing to at the moment because the levels of illness that people have reported. The stench of what goes into the river also affects local schoolchildren, who cannot play outside. There are all kinds of reasons why the clause will deal with the issues being experienced in my constituency.

We want bathing water status in the area, but that is almost an impossibility at the moment because of the water quality. Again, clause 3 will guarantee the openness, monitoring and forcing of accountability in the area. I welcome the clause and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. The Bill takes action and makes achieving that status much more likely. People in my constituency and beyond, across not only Southern Water’s area but the country, will welcome it too.

Does my hon. Friend share my horror at our current situation, in which constituents are getting ear and eye infections from swimming in the sea or rivers? One constituent of mine even attributes their deafness in one ear to an infection they got in the sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is desperately needed for our constituents?

I share my hon. Friend’s shock and disgust at not only what people are suffering, but the entirely avoidable reasons why people are becoming ill. There are so many benefits to what the clause and the wider Bill can achieve, not just on the issues that Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in relation to trust in our water companies and the use of public money, but for public health. How much more public health benefit could people across all our constituencies experience if they were able to engage with aquatic sports or just enjoy the park areas that surround so many of our rivers, beaches and waterways? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful that her point adds even more weight to why this clause is absolutely necessary.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate on clause 3. I reiterate my promise to provide a factsheet and information about the numbers we have used. We have had an interesting debate about the different types of monitors. To clarify, we have emergency overflows, storm overflows, water quality monitors, event duration monitors and volume monitors, which we have discussed. We will make sure that the factsheet provides clarification so that we are all on the same page and understand the debate clearly.

Putting all that to one side, I think we ultimately all agree that it is important to better understand the frequency and duration of discharges from all the emergency overflows. We all think we need to improve transparency and inform investigations by the regulators into potential non-compliance.

Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, clause 3 will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and, importantly, the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred and how long it lasted. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulators. We have discussed our concerns about volume monitors being more difficult and costly to install. I gave a rather garbled explanation of the difficulty owing to the pipework in the majority of overflows requiring modification. As I said, I will provide further information on those numbers.

Such a large programme of work would take much longer than 12 months. We do not think that 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—measurement of the water quality is required for that. To repeat a point, I do not want to be a Minister in a few years’ time who has perfected the art of monitoring and done nothing to deal with the causes. That is why the water companies will begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows, as set out in the price review ’24, to provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality.

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 4, page 10, line 4, leave out—

“use that is to be made of”

and insert—

“priority that is to be given to”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 5—Licence conditions about nature recovery—

“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—

‘17FC Nature recovery

(1) It is a condition of all licences granted under section 17A (water supply licences) that relevant undertakers must give due consideration to nature-based solutions targeted at reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.

(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”

You will be delighted to hear that I will not say very much about this, Mr Vickers. Amendment 26 relates to nature-based solutions for these broader issues, and many of my points were covered under amendment 24. I simply want to point out the value of nature-based solutions. They are cheap, they are low input, they provide potential income for farmers and other land managers, they are environmentally friendly in and of themselves, and they involve very light engineering to install and maintain. They are also less complex, not labour-intensive and much quicker to achieve and install, as well as having very clear ecological benefits and alleviating pressure on more conventional forms of sewage treatment. I make those points just to add to the importance of prioritising nature-based solutions to tackling sewage treatment.

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.

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.

I want to be fair to the Government and welcome their movement on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage in the other place. I thank the Minister for her engagement and Baroness Hayman for the collegiate way in which she worked with colleagues. There is a spirit of consensus when we talk about the importance of nature, nature recovery and using nature-based methods to try to help in these situations. I welcome the Government’s approach in the other place, which has led to the measures we are discussing in clause 4.

I welcome the work done in the other place by my Conservative colleagues, and I will name-check, in particular, Lord Gascoigne. However, we again believe that despite the movement from the Government, there is still room for further movement and improvement—I hope that the Minister will consider some of this—to ensure that we benefit from the power of nature-based solutions to water-related problems.

Everyone in this room will be acutely aware that flooding is becoming a much more regular phenomenon across the United Kingdom—I see Government Members nodding their heads. We all have experience of representing constituencies where flooding is becoming increasingly apparent, with extreme weather events and the impact of climate change. We had a statement on flooding on Monday from the Minister, and we talked about the issues that people face. I reiterate my sympathy to those who have been affected by flooding. As I said during those exchanges with the Minister—a bit of repetition is not bad on this particular subject—we must not underestimate the mental health impacts of flooding. I pay tribute to people on the frontline, in the emergency services, the Environment Agency and local authorities, as well as the volunteers who do so much to help people in these challenging times—not least, as the Minister and I said in the Chamber this week, during the flooding and extreme weather that we have seen in recent days and weeks. Sadly, I think our exchanges will go on and on, but I think we can agree on constructive measures to try to mitigate the impacts of flooding and on using nature to help with that.

Nature-based solutions can have a significant impact on flooding, such as the recreation of bends in rivers, re-wiggling rivers and the creation of wetlands that slow the flow of water. Although this is not the amendment’s specific purpose, I quickly suggest that the Government look at financially supporting farmers who implement such nature-based solutions. This was introduced through the environmental land management scheme. It would help if the Government took that forward and acknowledged farmers, land managers and landowners who are doing the right thing to try to help their communities and also restoring nature in the process.

I must ask the Government to clarify their formal position on nature-based solutions. I see lots of nodding heads, and it would be great to get clarity on that from the Minister. If the Government are not content with this proposal from His Majesty’s Opposition, why do they not believe that it complements clause 4 in some way? We would like to hear what the Government feel about it. We have chosen to table new clause 5 because we believe that it does complement clause 4.

At present, clause 4 mandates that nature-based solutions be considered in drainage and sewerage systems and their drainage and management plans. Our new clause, however, strengthens that by directly connecting the need for nature-based solutions to the very conditions of holding water licenses. This is an important distinction, as it follows a process of reform that has led to the improved position in the sector in recent years.

We all agree that more needs to be done, and there are still drastic things happening. We are hopefully acknowledging that some progress has been made, but we need to hold water companies’ feet to the fire in making more progress, such as through the licensing law changes in paying dividends to shareholders, which we have already discussed today. Further still, we have widened the scope in which nature-based solutions must be considered to include flood risk. As I mentioned, that can be vastly improved on, including by using nature-based solutions, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned.

Even more so, proposed new section 17FC(2) of the Water Industry Act 1991 explicitly states that Ofwat cannot take any steps that discourage any water company from investment in nature-based solutions. By making such an explicit statement, we are ensuring that the regulator does all that it can to advance the nature-based solutions that can make a real difference. Given all that, we encourage the Government to look at the new clause closely, and if they are not keen to support it, to explain why not and what they are going to do with nature-based solutions. We feel that this particular constructive amendment is complementary to the clause. We would like to hear from the Minister, but notwithstanding that, we will be likely to take this to a vote.

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this debate and the careful consideration of the amendments tabled to clause 4. We are in danger of having a bit of a love-in with so much agreement in this room.

I turn first to amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I was genuinely really pleased to see clause 4 added on Report in the Lords, as a result of the collaborative cross-party approach to strengthening the Bill so that it further encourages greater use of nature-based solutions by water companies, and I appreciate the kind comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. This is why clause 4 requires sewerage undertakers to address, in their drainage and sewerage management plans, the use that is to be made of nature-based solutions in their networks.

Sewerage undertakers already have existing obligations under section 94A of the Water Industry Act to address the sequence and timing for the implementation of measures proposed in their drainage and sewerage management plans. We believe that these obligations sufficiently require sewerage undertakers to address the relative prioritisation of the proposed measures in their plans. Nature-based solutions are one of a diverse range of potential solutions to complex drainage and sewerage issues. Clause 4 will ensure that sewerage undertakers highlight the proposed role of nature-based solutions within their network. It is right that undertakers have due flexibility to consider the full range of solutions available to them and to work with stakeholders to identify the right solutions.

As much as I love nature-based solutions—and so does everyone in the room, it appears—I am sure we all accept that it is not appropriate to prioritise nature-based solutions ahead of other available options in every circumstance. We believe, however, that the provisions in clause 4 will have sufficient positive effect in supporting greater exploration and development of nature-based solutions without posing operational challenges for the sewerage undertakers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to withdraw his amendment.

I will add to the words I have already said, but not by very many, I promise. The simple bottom line of our proposal is that nature-based solutions offer great value for dealing with sewage. As has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, they also have a significant impact on flood prevention. I am bound to crowbar this in, but it is a reminder that among the things that we should be enormously grateful to those who work our uplands—our hill farmers—for is that their work, if we support them properly, prevents people who live in towns, villages and cities from being flooded.

Another part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief is the environmental land management scheme, and how we can look to further support those working in the uplands—our land managers and our upland farmers, both tenants and owners—to be able to deliver those nature-based solutions to protect millions of homes and avoid billions of pounds of damage, as well as being part of the solution to dealing with sewage.

We will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5

Impeding investigations: sentencing and liability

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

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 5. The clause strengthens the penalty for obstructing the investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies blocking the regulators’ investigations.

In 2019, the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure Members will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable. Currently, the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s investigatory powers—under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995—is punishable only by a fine, and can only be heard in the magistrates court. There is also no mechanism for prosecuting executives where obstruction of those powers occurs under their guidance.

The offence of obstructing the Drinking Water Inspectorate is already triable in the Crown court. That too, however, only carries a maximum penalty of a fine. I am sure Members will agree that it should never be preferable to accept a fine rather than face the full consequences of lawbreaking, and where lawbreaking occurs with their involvement, executives should be held accountable. Clause 5 makes the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s powers under section 108 of the 1995 Act triable in the Crown court. It expands the maximum penalty for obstructing Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations to be up to two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

Clause 5 will address a notable justice gap and further deter the offence of obstruction. In turn, it should better enable our regulators to carry out their investigations uninhibited and hold water companies to account accordingly.

Will the Minister give way?

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.

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.

We will assume that that was an intervention, and I will give the Minister a chance to respond.

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.

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.

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.

I want to raise one minor point. Public confidence in us restoring our water systems is the reason we are here, scrutinising this Bill. Feargal Sharkey—a main campaigner who many people up and down the country listen to—recently wrote an article saying that no water boss would ever go to prison as a result of this legislation. Will the Minister comment on that to give confidence to people watching this proceeding?

I am obviously a bit of a fangirl of Feargal Sharkey, not least because of his musical career before entering the field of environmental campaigning.

We do not expect this measure to materially impact on court case numbers. The intention is to deter offending. Not all cases will go to the Crown court, but it is right that that is a possibility. Obstruction of the Environment Agency’s emergency powers, under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, is already triable in the Crown court. The EA will consult on updating the enforcement sanctions policy to ensure that that is absolutely clear. Although this is not a new offence, we are talking about changing the maximum penalty because of the justice gap that I have mentioned. Previously, it was punishable only by fine and heard only in the magistrates court, and we are moving it to be punishable in the Crown court and including a prison sentence.

I am pleased that there is lots of agreement on the importance of the clause. We are talking about something very serious: obstructing the Environment Agency or the Drinking Water Inspectorate in going about and collecting the evidence that they require. This is a serious matter, and it deserves a serious penalty. I thank hon. Members for their views on the clause, but nothing that has been said detracts from the importance of addressing the justice gap. I am pleased that there is agreement, which has, on occasion, has been exploited by water companies. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 6

Civil penalties: modification of standard of proof

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Written evidence reported to the House

WSMB01 Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC)

WSMB02 Worshipful Company of Water Conservators

WSMB03 Mike Owens

WSMB04 BedsGOVET

WSMB05 C D Cutcliffe

WSMB06 End Sewage Convoys and Pollution Exmouth (ESCAPE)

WSMB07 Wildlife & Countryside Link

WSMB08 Havant Climate Alliance and Havant Friends of the Earth

WSMB09 38 Degrees

WSMB10 Mayday!

WSMB11 Sarah Reisz

WSMB12 Geoff Crawford