Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the reasons for the delay in water companies producing plans for
dealing with sewage discharges.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, in August the Government published the Storm Overflows
Discharge Reduction Plan to tackle the unacceptable use of storm
overflows. The plan will see £56 billion of capital investment
over 25 years. We have allowed water companies slightly more time
to develop their drainage and wastewater management plans to
incorporate the new strict storm overflow targets. Water
companies remain on track for developing their plans for the next
price review period and for commencement on 1 April 2025.
(GP)
That is a bit odd, because the water companies have already had
all the money they needed for infrastructure improvements but did
not use it for that; they gave it in dividends to their
shareholders. The Minister knows that I like to help the
Government if they are floundering around, confused and out of
ideas, so perhaps I may suggest to his department that it
instructs Ofwat to ensure that no dividends are paid to
shareholders or large bonuses to senior executives until further
notice, until this problem is fixed and water companies stop
pumping sewage into our chalk streams and rivers and on to our
beaches.
(Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware of the very strict new
conditions set by Ofwat on water companies about how they reward
their senior staff and shareholders, and of the absolute
imperative, driven by the regulators and the Government, to
reduce massively the effect of storm overflows. The letter that
Ofwat wrote in October sets out quite clearly that:
“Company plans on storm overflows are lacking”;
there is “insufficient evidence” to support the positions that
they have previously taken; and there is a “lack of ambition”
and
“a lack of focus and maturity in partnership solutions.”
We are therefore giving them an extra two months, from March to
May, to come up with better plans, and we will make sure that
they are implemented on the original timescale as the next price
review period starts.
(Lab)
My Lords, I shall take a somewhat harder line than the noble
Baroness, Lady Jones. When there are repeat offenders, we should
not condone them but punish them. Surely the water company heads
should be sent to jail, not have a gentle ticking off. Is it a
lack of power on the part of Ofwat or a lack of willingness to do
something about it? We cannot sit by as beautiful places like
Lake Windermere are polluted beyond use.
(Con)
The noble Lord will be aware of some very extensive fines issued
to water companies. A £90 million fine was imposed on Southern
Water recently. There are 100,000 reports a year to the
Environment Agency of allegedly illegal outflows. Those are
investigated and action is taken. The Environment Agency has
taken severe actions against them. Those fines cannot be dumped
on the customer; they have to be paid for out of what would have
gone in dividends or indeed in pay.
The (CB)
My Lords, although I thank the Minister for his answers and I am
pleased that Ofwat appears to be becoming more active, does he
share my frustration and that of many others in this House that
there has been so little progress since the passing of the
Environment Act last year in reducing storm overflows and various
other sewage discharges into our rivers? This seems to continue
despite the efforts of the Government. We must introduce a
greater sense of urgency about this matter.
(Con)
I assure the noble Duke that there is a great sense of urgency in
my department. It is an obsession of Ministers; my wife tells me
I talk sewage all the time, but I may have misunderstood the
point she was making. There is an absolute determination to
resolve this matter. We have to recognise that it is not just
water companies. There are point source and diffuse pollution
incidents caused by farming, individual households with poor
connections, poorly maintained septic tanks and individuals
pouring chemicals, paints, oils and greases down drains—which
they should not do. It is a much more complex issue than just
water company bashing. Ministers are prepared to give water
companies a bashing where it is necessary and that is what we are
doing, in incentives and enforcement. It is absolutely vital that
policymakers are looking right across the piece when it comes to
the quality of our waterways.
My Lords, this is not just causing devastation in our rivers—not
least in our wonderful chalk streams in Hertfordshire and
Bedfordshire in my diocese—it is also a public health issue.
Noble Lords may have seen the story of Jayne Etherington, a 22
year-old who went swimming in Pembrokeshire, caught E. coli from
sewage and landed up in hospital with serious damage to her
organs. What does the NHS think about this as a health hazard
which is affecting a significant number of people and stopping
them getting exercise by swimming in the sea?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate’s question is very well linked to the
point made by the noble Duke, the . The urgency of these
matters is reflected in the urgency with which we are intending
to deal with them. I would hate any noble Lord to be of the view
that some of the dates in legislation, such as the Environment
Act and in other measures to control this, mean that we are going
to continue to allow pollution in the belief that it is suddenly
going to drop off a cliff at the end. We are tackling the most
important public health areas, such as bathing waters, the chalk
streams that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned and the
most precious environments—some of which have overlaying
international designations. It is right that we have public
health to consider, but we also have the health of our natural
environment. We are tackling the problems where they are worst
and where we can make the most difference as quickly as
possible.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Duke, the , talked about the lack
of progress and frustration. The Minister talked about the storm
overflow reduction plans, but they are not due to be completed
until 2050. This is hardly “urgency”. Why do the Government seem
happy to crack down more heavily on environmental protestors than
they do on environmental polluters?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is usually much more devastating in her
attacks than that. She knows that 2050 is a date by which we hope
to see the problem completely resolved. We are going to move very
fast on many of the areas where the problem is greatest. As for
the idea that we are going to continue to leave this to future
generations, that is not the case. The Environment Act is one of
the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation
anywhere. It has water quality at its heart. The drainage and
wastewater management plans will be reviewed again in 2027 to see
if our ambitions are being fulfilled. We can change them with
government direction through the water regulators, the
Environment Agency, Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, to
make sure that we are getting this problem sorted. It is not a
question of making a decision between people gluing their fingers
to a road and solving this. This is a problem we can solve now,
and we are doing so.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that water running off the
roads into the combined sewers is contributing to sewage going
into watercourses? Will he make sure that the highway authorities
are held responsible for rainwater run-off?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. The recent outflow at St
Agnes in Cornwall, which rightly had a lot of publicity, lasted
for 10 minutes, and there may have been some sewage in it. After
12 hours of rain, the vast majority was probably soil run-off
from farms and run-off from roads. We are bringing in measures to
continue to improve farming policy and soil management, and we
are putting a lot of resources into this. But she is absolutely
right that highways authorities and others have responsibilities
to make sure that we look at this holistically, not just in one
particular sector.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, despite heavy fines, water companies carry on
discharging sewage into our waterways. Communities affected by
this practice are at their wits’ end. There is a danger to
aquatic wildlife and children playing close to infected water.
Fines do not appear to be a sufficient deterrent. I have heard
the Minister’s reassurances, but surely the timeframe is far too
long to solve this noxious problem.
(Con)
I would like to know when the noble Baroness thinks we should
precisely say we will end this. We have had a piece of research
that says that we can resolve this in its entirety if clean water
is divided from dirty water—but the water flowing off our roofs
and driveways is going into sewers. If we do that, it would have
an impact of £800 on the average bill, taking water bills from
just over £400, or more than that, to about £1,230 a year. We
have to think of people, particularly those who are nervous at a
time of increasing household costs, and we have to get this
right. It is easy to come here and say that Ministers should be
doing more, faster. We are working really hard to resolve this
problem, but we have to be mindful of people’s bills.
