Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

It is still not too late to excise Part 3 from the record, and with only four days allocated on Report in October, that would make our job much easier. The assertion yesterday at the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that this planning reform is going to speed up building is a confidence trick. I welcome Amendment 346E, as far as it goes, but it needs to go much further in contemplating the “how” as well as the “what” if we are not to stymie growth until the next Parliament.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as this is the first group, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stood up to remind us that this is a conversation, not a 10-minute monologue. As the noble Lord who spoke before me is new to this House, I shall tell him that civil servants cannot defend themselves in this Chamber. He arrived late at that meeting last week, so he was not there to have benefit the rest of us had of the information that they in good faith provided. I ask him in future discussions in this House to refrain from criticising people who cannot reply for themselves, and from making unnecessary comments about the Minister, who has shown to all Members that she is acting in good faith and will listen to our conversations—and, we hope, will come back on Report and offer us some changes based on the evidence.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 264A. My noble friend Lord Swire cannot be here. He has a particular theme running through on issues regarding pylons and he would appreciate a response from the Minister in regard to what he submitted. There is a broader point on how we are unfortunately going back to prioritising climate over nature, when they should go hand in hand. We hear comments like that from Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for DESNZ, about how climate change is the number one threat to nature; I am afraid that that is not what the scientists say. It is in the top five, but is not number one. When we are considering changes in this Bill more broadly—my noble friend Lord Swire reminds us of aspects of energy infrastructure—we should have that fully in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my two amendments in this group on the mitigation hierarchy—Amendments 251 and 275. I do not want to speak too long on this, in the interests of the Committee, but I think that this and the last group are the two key issues remaining in the Bill. To my mind, the Government have not made enough of a solid argument for removing the mitigation hierarchy system—a tried and tested system that works and can be relied upon. No doubt there are inherent risks with changing this new system, even with the best will in the world. Similar to the last group, I generally support all of the amendments in this group and I welcome them. However, despite the reassurances given by Ministers, there is still an air of concern around these issues across the Committee.

To my mind, the Government have not made the required level of argument as to why they need to remove the mitigation hierarchy. I want to look at that specifically in relation to housing, because—and I raised this in relation to the stand part group we had the other night—all the energy policy statements have recently been updated. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy—EN-1—has been updated and we have had new policies on renewables, new policies on the grid and new policies on nuclear under this Government. They all have the mitigation hierarchy at their core, and they are actually really good, solid documents. So, if this Government are able to deliver the energy transition with the mitigation hierarchy in place, why can the same Government not deliver new housing with it? It just does not make sense to me. That is something I will leave to be discussed.

My Amendment 251 seeks to ensure that Natural England accepts requests only when developers have properly applied the mitigation hierarchy and justifies projects due to there being no alternative solutions and no incorporated public interest grounds, especially for sensitive habitats. We believe that this basic safeguard is needed to embed our core principles of environmental protection in planning into the Bill.

My Amendment 275 seeks to intervene in Clause 58 of the Bill and is designed to inject rigour, accountability and genuine environmental protection into the heart of the new planning system. I am pleased that this amendment has the backing of the Wildlife Trusts. It mandates that Natural England, as a delivery body, must not only adhere to the mitigation hierarchy but demonstrate that any EDP will result in significant environmental improvement

“at an ecologically appropriate scale”.

Those words are important. Other Members have raised issues about the mitigation hierarchy. I recognise the commitments the Government have made, but I think there is still a need for reassurance on these matters.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I have been pleased to sign a number of amendments in this group, because the issue of the mitigation hierarchy is a big outstanding area of concern for those of us who want EDPs to be part of packages in the future but are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, have made the case, as has my noble friend Lord Russell, for our concern that the mitigation hierarchy does not remain for EDPs but does for other planning obligations.

I have one question for the Minister. Both Ministers provided a letter today that said that,

“an EDP can include planning conditions to avoid or reduce impacts on the site … before they can access the benefits of an EDP”.

I can see that that is an attempt to soften concerns that the mitigation hierarchy does not apply for an EDP, but I think the Committee needs quite a bit more information in the Minister’s summing up, and certainly before Report, about what exactly that means. I note that the letter says that an EDP “can”, not that an EDP “must”. I do not see how it is going to work.

The helpful chart drawn up by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, makes it clear that, for an EDP, there is absolutely no compulsion for an assessment of the environmental impacts by a developer of the site that they are going to develop before they can go straight to an EDP. How can you have planning conditions for a site where you do not even have an obligation to identify what the environmental impacts are?

We have heard from meetings with civil servants that they have been drawing up plans for two EDPs on nutrient neutrality and newts, so they must have some idea of what the type of planning conditions might be. I would like a bit more information about how the planning condition process might work and what it might be in order to give noble Lords more information before we get to Report. I have to say that I feel that being able to move straight to pass “Go” and avoid the mitigation hierarchy is a massive hole in this new system. As my noble friend Lord Russell has said, other parts of government have managed to find ways to incorporate it in equally important areas of infra- structure development.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming earlier that the environmental principles policy is still in place. That matters in this particular group in terms of the mitigation hierarchy. When the Bill came through, the OEP expressed significant concern about the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy. I am not aware of its opinion on subsequent government amendments in that regard, but, of the five principles set out in the Government’s policy statement, “prevention” is a key element and “Rectification at source” is another one of the five principles.

We are trying to make sure this is crystal clear in the Bill and locked in because of comments made by the Minister in the Commons about flexibility. It is fair to say that, frankly, Clause 66(3) completely sets aside the mitigation hierarchy; to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, it is cash for trash —basically, you can do what you like if you are prepared to pay for it. In that regard, it matters that the Government think again and put this in place in primary legislation. Despite that, Amendment 256ZA in particular is very useful where it talks about “reasonably practicable”. That is an element that, if necessary, can be tested in the courts in due course. But we need to correct this in this House, putting it very firmly instead of saying, as in the words of the Minister, “Our flexibility is fine”.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with retailers and manufacturers about stopping the use of plastic in chocolate selection boxes for Christmas? It will not be long before they are stacked up in supermarkets again, demonstrating the mountains of unnecessary single-use plastic being used.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We talk regularly to supermarkets and other retailers, plus organisations that actually package the goods in the first place. We need to reduce the amount of damaging packaging that goes into our environment because, as I have said before, recycling is great—we encourage it—but it is better if do not need it in the first place or if we can reduce the need for recycling. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: Christmas chocolate boxes are a good example of overpackaging, but Easter eggs are another. We need to work with the industry to reduce this packaging in the first place.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Water companies are private companies so, on that basis, no, they would not require ministerial approval.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, there are 83 recommendations from the report on which the Government have yet to decide what view they will take. Some of them are quite small wins—for example, the recommendations by Sir Jon on rainwater harvesting to address the shortages in housing. That could be sorted out, before a White Paper, in the Planning and Infra- structure Bill. Will the Government take all reasonable opportunities, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to address some of the sensible recommendations outlined in the report?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a sensible suggestion by the noble Baroness. I am happy to discuss those considerations with the Water Minister and the Secretary of State to see if we cannot move things forward as quickly as we can.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure agreement to a global treaty to counter plastic pollution.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government are committed to securing agreement to a global treaty on plastic pollution when the negotiations resume in August 2025. At the UN Ocean Conference in June, the UK joined over 95 signatories of the Nice wake-up call statement to demonstrate support for an ambitious treaty. We are working with other countries, including allies in the High Ambition Coalition, to develop text options to facilitate an agreement.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In the last 20 years, global plastic production and plastic waste have doubled, despite national and voluntary initiatives, so it is fantastic that the Government have signed up to the Nice declaration. Can I press the Minister to ask exactly what conversations and discussions are being had to ensure that the minority of low-ambition countries and narrow interests do not derail the opportunity for a legally binding, ambitious plastics treaty in Geneva?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really important question. We are high ambition, but we are working closely with low-ambition countries—some are developed countries, and there are others such as the Gulf states. We made progress previously, and it is important that we continue to do so. We are doing a number of things, particularly Minister Hardy as the leader on this. She is working closely with others to develop a shared position on how we can finance the treaty and take the lead on engaging with the private sector, for example. We are doing some co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design. We are co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. Minister Hardy co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN Ocean Conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries with different positions and ambition levels to look at how we can move forward. She hosted an interesting round table last week attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, who is the INC chair. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to ensure we get the best possible result out of next month’s conference.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, now that all cats and dogs have to be compulsorily microchipped, the number of microchipping databases has shot up to 23 but none of them talk to each other, so it is really hard for rescue centres and local authorities to rehouse the animals or find the owners. What plans do the Government have to introduce a portal to link up these databases, so that cats and dogs can be rehomed quickly?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware that there are some digital challenges within the department, and we are looking at that very carefully.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee noble Lords across the House made it clear that, although they were supportive of the new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, they wanted further assurances that the measures in the plans would be duly implemented. I have listened carefully to the points raised in Committee and to the views shared on this issue during a number of very constructive meetings with several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, among others, and I thank them for their time and consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked for further explanation as to why we believe annual reporting is more appropriate than more regular reporting for pollution incident reduction plans. The measures in these plans are typically programmes of ongoing maintenance that will need to continue on an ongoing basis. Examples include regular cleaning of wet wells at sewage pumping stations to remove detritus that could lead to blockages or replacing rising main sewage pipes. We want companies’ focus to be on delivering the measures they have set out in their plans rather than on preparing reports for publication to talk about delivery. More regular reports also may lead to a focus on the wrong metrics to show progress for progress’s sake rather than the work necessary to reduce pollution incidents.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, I am pleased to propose a group of amendments to enhance and strengthen Clause 2 of the Bill. I turn first to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 31, all tabled in my name, which will expand the scope of pollution incident reduction plans to encompass water supply system-related incidents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, specifically raised this in Committee when she tabled an amendment which would require that water-only companies as well as water and sewerage companies produce pollution incident reduction plans. She made very persuasive points which we listened to carefully and, on reflection, we agree that including water supply incidents in scope would strengthen these plans. While pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system are less frequent than incidents attributable to the sewerage system, they have the potential to be equally serious. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to this in Committee. Such incidents could include a burst clean-water main leading to erosion and then silt pollution in the watercourse or the addition of chlorinated or fluorinated water into the watercourse.

The amendments tabled in my name will mean that water companies will have a duty to develop and publish measures to reduce pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system as well as the sewerage system. This duty will apply to all relevant companies, including water-only companies as well as water and sewerage undertakers. We believe this will support the overall intent of Clause 2 in further reducing the frequency and impact of pollution incidents from the water sector. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and all who spoke in support of this topic in Committee for their constructive approach.

I now move to Amendments 29, 34 and 35, also tabled in my name. These amendments create personal liability for chief executives to ensure that pollution incident reduction plans are published and implemented in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. A key aim of this Bill has been to hold water company executives to account for pollution caused by the water industry. As a core part of their role, water company executives should be acting to minimise pollution incidents and ensuring that their infrastructure is fit for purpose and resilient to pressure, including from climate change and population growth.

This is why Clause 1 of the Bill will enable Ofwat to ban bonuses for executives when water companies fail to meet environmental standards. But we want to build on this by making chief executives personally liable for the production of pollution incident reduction plans. This will mirror the personal liability which accompanies the duty for directors of a company to publish accounts and a company report under the Companies Act 2006. This will emphasise that minimising pollution incidents is a central aspect of a water company chief executive’s role. Under this group of amendments, the chief executive must personally ensure that the company produces a plan each year which meets all legal requirements. The chief executive must also personally approve the plan before it is published.

If the company fails to publish a compliant plan by the deadline each year, the chief executive—as well as the company—will have committed an offence. The regulator will be able to prosecute against this offence and, if the courts find the chief executive guilty, they will issue a fine.

To ensure that this measure is proportionate, imprisonment will not be available as a sanction. Furthermore, we have provided a defence to ensure that chief executives are not penalised if non-compliance arises due to circumstances that are—I emphasise—genuinely out of their control.

Through bringing forward these amendments, we will ensure that the production and publication of pollution incident reduction plans is overseen at the highest level, reflecting the importance of water companies bringing forward measures to meaningfully reduce pollution incidents.

I turn now to Amendments 19, 32 and 37, tabled in my name. In Committee, noble Lords made it clear that they wanted to see a clearer mechanism to ensure that water companies implemented their pollution incident reduction plans. We have listened very carefully and now propose a group of amendments to further ensure that companies implement the measures in their plans.

However, before I describe these amendments, I would like to recap why we do not think imposing a direct duty for water companies to implement the plans—as is proposed in Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—is helpful. First, at present, it is rightly the responsibility of companies to produce these plans and to decide the steps they will take to reduce pollution incidents. A direct duty to implement the measures in the plans could therefore result in companies setting enforceable duties for themselves. This would create a confused regulatory system, which could ultimately make it more challenging for the regulators to enforce legal requirements for pollution reduction.

For example, regulators would need to disentangle measures that water companies have put in their plans from pre-existing regulatory duties. This could make investigations and enforcement action more challenging and add complexity and confusion to the regulatory system.

Secondly, a direct duty may inadvertently reduce companies’ ambition. To manage the risk of enforcement, companies might be persuaded to make a commitment only when highly confident they could deliver.

Thirdly, this direct duty may force companies to continue implementing measures, even when they have realised it is not the most effective way to reduce pollution incidents. Companies should have the flexibility to learn and iteratively improve their approach. Sometimes, this may mean companies ceasing implementation of a specific measure and taking a different approach. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to create a legal duty for water companies to implement the measures they have set out in their plans.

I will now turn to the government amendments themselves and explain how they will ensure that water companies reduce pollution incidents and are held to account for delivery of their plans. First, this group of amendments introduces a duty for companies to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans. Companies will be required to set out where they have and have not implemented the measures they planned to implement in the preceding year. Companies must then set out the reasons for any failure to implement their plans and the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.

This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to scrutinise the extent to which companies have implemented their plans. Requiring companies to set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future will ensure that companies cannot continue to make the same excuse year after year.

Secondly, we are also amending the Bill to ensure that the environmental regulators take into account companies’ track records in implementing their plans when undertaking regulatory activities. This means that the regulator will consider the extent to which the company has implemented its plan when considering its enforcement response to a pollution incident, or when planning its schedule of investigations. This may well mean that a company will face more severe enforcement action for a pollution incident if it has failed to sufficiently implement those plans.

I hope the House will agree that, collectively, these amendments represent a significant strengthening of the Bill, and will ensure that companies are firmly held to account for implementing the measures outlined in their pollution incident reduction plans.

I will conclude by speaking to Amendments 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 60 and 63. I am delighted to move this suite of amendments to extend the application of the provisions introduced by Clause 2 of the Bill to Wales. Upon reviewing the requirements imposed by Clause 2 of the Bill, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales have requested that Clause 2 be extended to apply in Wales. This was announced by the Deputy First Minister on 16 October and these amendments seek to deliver on that request.

I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with our counterparts in Wales, and indeed with all of the devolved Governments, to tackle shared problems relating to the water industry and water quality more broadly.

I once again thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and input to discussions around the new requirement to produce pollution incident reduction plans, and hope that noble Lords agree that these amendments will significantly improve and strengthen this new requirement. I move that these amendments form part of the Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

On behalf of these Benches, I thank the Minister for listening to the cross-House comments made on the pollution incident reduction plans in Committee. The whole House welcomes the fact that the Government are bringing forward these plans. They can be an important contribution to dealing with the sewage crisis which we have seen for too long; water companies have let the public down.

On that point, it was a disgrace in the last week to see that United Utilities—which has been so responsible for all the sewage pollution that has gone into Windermere, as we referred to in Committee—has increased its dividend to shareholders. It is an absolute disgrace, so these measures cannot come soon enough.

We thank the Minister for listening to the very real concerns we had on two fronts: first, that water companies were excluded from the provisions in the way that water and sewerage companies were not. Although they are a smaller number of the 16 and may be proportionally less important, they are still very important. We thank the Minister for that.

On a slightly broader point, we hear what the Government said on not accepting the amendment proposed in Committee, about adding “and implement” into the Bill, which I see that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has brought back today. We are satisfied with the numerous amendments the Government have brought forward to address the two main points: first, that the plans will have to be annually and publicly reported, so we can see what the companies are doing. As the Minister made very clear, it is not just what they have done; they have to make absolutely clear what they have not done and what they are going to do about it, so that we the public—and indeed the regulators—can hold them to account.

The second point, which the Government have moved on significantly—which we very much welcome—is that the chief executives have become personally liable for the production of both the plans and the reports and have some legally binding responsibility which can translate into sanctions, which we believe are strong enough. We thank the Government for bringing forward these pollution incident reduction plans and for listening so constructively to the comments which were made. This is a major improvement to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I fully echo the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in thanking the Minister both for her engagement during the Bill’s progress and also, specifically, for listening to the House on the implementation of the pollution incident reduction plans. We also welcome these government amendments.

I tabled Amendment 15A simply as a reminder of how understanding and accommodating the Government have been. This was originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in Committee. As I said then, we would have tabled it ourselves had she not been so swift with her pen. It is crucial that pollution incident reduction plans are more than a wish list, and actually have real obligations for implementation.

We are most grateful to the Minister for listening to this House and creating a structure for making water companies responsible for implementing these plans and reporting on that implementation. The Minister explained clearly the issues around that responsibility, relating to interference with the other statutory obligations of those companies, and we are very pleased that she and her officials were able to design a methodology that would work.

We agree that making the CEO of the relevant undertaker responsible for signing off the plan and liable for its implementation creates significant incentives to ensure that these pollution incident reduction plans will be implemented. I thank the Minister, yet again, for her further explanation of why annual reporting is appropriate in this instance, and I accept that. We on these Benches are supportive of these government amendments and I will not press my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, a lot of this comes down to the language from the Minister, which I hope will build on what the Government have done in their movement today.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, this is an interesting group of amendments and we on these Benches welcome them. I do not wish to replicate what has been said but I have a few reflections.

Government Amendment 48, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, is extremely welcome. It could go further, but we on these Benches welcome it. We accept that the Bill is an interim measure and that the independent water commission is just that: independent. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government at this point in time are making a marker in the sand that the regulator should have greater regard for climate and environmental targets. That is extremely important and is the additional reason why on these Benches we welcome it.

Amendment 44 was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. You would expect that we on these Benches, as Liberal Democrats and liberals, would welcome anything that enables local people to have more say on decisions that affect their lives, particularly the environment and climate decisions, because we know that, if they get involved and are caring about their environment, they will help protect it better. So we think that this is an extremely welcome amendment and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.

On the final group of amendments, on nature-based solutions, which we participated in in Committee, I think there is broad agreement. Everybody understands that we need water companies to look less at concrete and far more at green solutions. Government Amendment 42 is extremely welcome. The only point that I would make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when introducing his Amendment 55: there is an area where it could have gone a bit further. The noble Lord’s amendment talks powerfully about water storage and flood prevention; the Government’s amendment is welcome, but it excludes that. We on these Benches would like to hear a little more about how the Government see themselves taking that forward —mindful that it is not in their amendment. Having said that, we welcome these amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving the first amendment in this group. I shall speak to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s Amendment 55 as well as government Amendments 42 and 48.

Amendment 55 is a powerful, concise amendment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on his commitment to, and passion for, making the case for nature-based solutions within the water industry. My noble friend’s amendment has two parts— both are important for the future of nature-based solutions in the water sector. The first would require water companies to give due consideration to nature-based solutions for meeting their statutory obligations. The second would prevent the regulator blocking the use of nature-based solutions.

The Minister has two amendments in this group that make significant additions to the Bill around the use of nature-based solutions. Amendment 42 requires undertakers to explain the contribution from nature-based solutions. Amendment 48 is a broad amendment that could also contribute towards nature-based solutions being used for their wider benefit to nature restoration. I am most grateful to the Minister for her constructive engagement on my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, and for these government amendments. It is clear from these discussions that the Minister cares deeply about nature recovery.

However, I ask the Minister to clarify the approach taken by Ofwat to the use of nature-based solutions within the water and sewage industry. I am aware that £2 billion of investment is included within the draft determinations. However, we on these Benches wish to be reassured that, where suitable and at no additional cost to consumers, further nature-based investment is possible within this determination and beyond. To echo my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would also like reassurance that nature-based solutions will be used not just in drainage and sewerage but throughout the water supply and treatment network, including catchment restoration for flood prevention, drought mitigation and water quality.

I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This would appear to be captured within our Amendment 55 as a specific case but also potentially within the government amendments. The water companies are perfectly positioned to stimulate nature restoration at scale and without using the public purse. We welcome these government amendments and look forward to the Minister explaining how impactful she believes they will be.

Biodiversity Net Gain

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the biodiversity net gain provisions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is almost nine months since biodiversity net gain became mandatory for most developments. We are pleased to see stakeholders embracing this opportunity to deliver much-needed development while improving the environment at the same time. Officials are monitoring implementation closely and engaging with sectors, including developers and local authorities. We have updated guidance to provide clarification on areas of concern and will continue to refine the policy to ensure that it achieves intended outcomes.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She may know that analysis has shown that only 7% of planning applications are identifying a need for biodiversity net gain, which is massively lower than all of us, including the Government, expected. I am very pleased to hear that officials are monitoring the situation, but will they be reviewing the exceptions, some of which are proving to be rather large loopholes, to ensure that biodiversity net gain builds nature’s recovery and the sustainable homes that we need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is referring, I assume, to the exemptions in place for applications that have no or a very limited impact on biodiversity. That was brought in to ensure proportionality and to keep the planning system moving. However, Defra is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review planning statistics and specific applications.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Oh!

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

That is not true.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry. Thank you; it is lovely to see the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back in her place.

All three of my amendments are intended to be helpful—that is, to help the Government regulate the water industry properly and end the 30 years of fleecing bill payers while dumping sewage into our waterways. It is an absolutely unforgivable three decades of abuse of the system.

Amendment 97 would prohibit the Government bailing out shareholders and creditors of water companies in the event of special administration. Amendment 98 would allow the Government to take back control with public ownership of water companies, but it is only an option. It is an option that I believe the Government could use as a lever in their negotiations with the water companies, so I think it is worth putting it back in the Bill. Amendment 99 would allow water companies to be put into special administration for failing on environmental issues, such as leaks and sewage spills.

What strikes me about these issues is that the public are demanding that this is sorted, but the Government are giving us half measures. I am concerned that that will not bring the sort of change we need. There is a democratic shortfall here because polls tell us that 82% of the public want to end privatised water, but only a few of us in Parliament are willing to consider it. To me, this suggests that the Government are out of step with the public, which is very concerning for me; I would like the Labour Government to last longer than one term because I really do not want to see another Conservative Government in my lifetime. There is, of course, a fear among many campaigners that this Bill will raise their water bills by enabling the Government to bail out and reward the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for signing Amendment 97. It is essential that the Government do not bail out the water companies in such a way that they simply hand money to shareholders and creditors and let them start afresh, behaving in the same way but perhaps with a little more regulation. Amendment 97 would prohibit this so that the public purse does not underwrite the casino capitalism and financial engineering that has been going on in the water sector. We have a ridiculous situation where the debt is being traded by hedge funds, which are gambling on water bills going up in future to finance a bailout. If these companies fail, let us instead bring them into public ownership and democratic control. The shareholders and creditors took a gamble on greed when the companies used £75 billion since privatisation to pay dividends rather than invest. Let them take the hit.

Amendment 98 would allow the Government to set out how they will bring water companies into public ownership. The Greens are deeply disappointed that the Government have ruled this out. I do not understand any sort of ideological addiction to private ownership of a public service such as this, particularly when it is not even a competitive market. It is a monopoly, and it is time it stopped.

I have heard the Government say that private investment is essential, but it is simple maths that, if we stop paying dividends and debt payments, that frees up 40% of people’s water bills to be invested in fixing the sewerage system and building more reservoirs. The Government have been using overinflated estimates from the water industry—a figure of some £90 billion—to claim that public ownership would be too expensive, but actually, it is the complete opposite: it is privatised water that is too expensive to continue. Water company shareholders have spent decades sucking out the profits while loading debt on to the balance sheets and hiking people’s bills. That is inevitable, as free market economics simply does not work without competition. Thatcher turned a public monopoly into a cash cow for people who are greedy. Unless amended, this legislation does nothing to stop that continuing for another decade. I want the Government to at least have the power to bring the companies into public ownership. If they rule out that option, the Government will make any taxpayer bailout a lot more expensive, as a potential buyer has the upper hand in all negotiations.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to introduce the amendments in this group. They all seek to create, strengthen or delete regulations. Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks review of the environmental permits. Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks to impose duties on the regulator to provide clean water. Through Amendments 79 and 80, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seek to abolish the water authority and create a clean water authority. Through Amendment 81, the noble Earl seeks a regulatory review of the water industry. Through Amendments 84 and 85, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove the regulator’s growth objectives and make environmental protection a statutory duty. I am sure that they will have plenty to add when they speak.

Meanwhile, I should like to speak to Amendment 29, which is about the prohibition of possible conflicts of interests. The key principle is that regulators must not only be independent of the regulated entities and personnel but be seen to be independent and free from any conflicts of interests. They must avoid cognitive capture. Individuals from regulatory bodies are in demand by the regulated entities because they can open doors and help to secure favours, and enable water companies to game the regulatory system.

No matter how vehemently such charges are denied, that is how it will always appear to the public at large, and public perceptions matter. Thanks to the wage freeze and the real wage cuts over the past 14 years, too many regulators are poorly paid. While in regulatory positions, they begin to look for greener pastures or are targeted by water companies for enrolment. In fact, every interaction they have with a water company is a potential job interview. There is always a temptation to go easy and be extra helpful to a potential employer, as that can help to land a much better-paid job. No one wants to sour that potential by being tough, awkward or robust with their potential employer. That applies to the regulators’ employees too.

There is plenty of evidence about the merry-go-round between the core regulators and water companies. A report last year noted that at least 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry, which they helped to regulate, subsequently began to work for water companies, mostly in senior positions. Six water and sewerage companies in England have hired directors of corporate strategy or heads of regulation from Ofwat. They were the insiders. One celebrated name, Cathryn Ross, at one time interim joint chief executive of Thames Water, was a former head of Ofwat. Several former Ofwat senior people now work at Thames Water. In addition to Ross, there is Jonathan Read, who is a director of regulatory policy and investigations. There is also Giles Stevens, director of regulatory strategy and innovation. Another executive from a regulator was recruited by Thames Water as recently as March last year as a “regulatory engagement lead”. At Severn Trent Water, there are at least nine employees who were previously at Ofwat. They include Shane Anderson, director of strategy and regulation, and Jonathan Ashley, head of economic regulation. Both previously worked as directors at the regulator that oversees water and sewerage firms in England and Wales.

I add for clarity that none of these people has broken any rules; I am not accusing them of doing so. It is simply that the rules are inadequate or, if they exist, incredibly poorly applied and permit this merry-go-round.

Amendment 29 requires that senior staff who work at the regulator cannot and must not have a potential conflict of interest by being lured into a job at a regulated company. It also requires that the Secretary of State must have no conflict of interests or appearance of a conflict: for example, by accepting gifts, free tickets for football matches, or even possibly tokens to buy new suits. None of that should be permitted. All regulators must be seen to be above any reproach, and there must be no question whatever about their integrity. An enforceable statutory framework is needed, and that is what this amendment seeks. We do not need voluntary codes, because they cannot be enforced by any court of law. We need legal backing. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 78 and to return to the issue we covered on the first day in Committee around the duty of the water regulator, Ofwat, and the fact that at the moment it does not have a core duty which comprises a public interest. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who again is unwell and cannot be with us today, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their support for this amendment.

It is quite clear that the public feel extremely strongly about how the regulator is ensuring, not ensuring or unable to ensure that companies perform their duties towards the public interest correctly. If we have any doubt of that, we saw the strength of feeling in the general election, we see it every day in the newspapers, and I am sure we will see it on the streets of London this Sunday with the March for Clean Water; I declare my interest as stated in the register.

However, if anyone were to sit down and read the Water Industry Act 1991, they would be amazed that there are no duties for Ofwat with regard to the public interest, to promote public health or to ensure the protection and conservation of our environment. They would see it as an absolutely astonishing omission. What they would see is a core duty to ensure the “long-term resilience” of water company services and sewerage systems. That is effectively a “keep the taps on” clause—which my local water company, Thames Water, seems to be unable to do on quite a regular basis, although that is beside the point. Then there is a whole swathe of legally binding economic duties which ensure that Ofwat absolutely focuses the water companies on making a profit. I am not against making a profit; of course they should make a profit. However, Amendment 78 says that we should look for a triple bottom line: for profitability, environmental returns and social outcomes.

As this returns to an issue that we looked at on Monday which is fairly similar to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which talked about taking all reasonable steps to contribute to the environment and climate change targets, I made sure that I read the Minister’s reply carefully in Hansard because I thought I might get the same sort of reply myself. She made three points. She says that the amendment is not necessary because it overlaps

“with existing government requirements, Ofwat’s core duties and our ambitions for the future”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 939.]

The Government do not have of themselves the mechanisms to deliver on all these targets; they rely on other bodies to work with them. Giving Ofwat this duty would enable it to support those government requirements and targets.

Secondly, on the point about Ofwat’s core duties, I strongly but respectfully disagree with the Minister. There is no evidence in Ofwat’s existing core duty of any public interest duty. Thirdly, the Minister talks about our ambitions for the future, by which I think that, rightly, she means the water industry commission. I shall quote again from her response on Monday. With regard to the independent water commission, she said the Government would put the environment

“at the heart of what we are doing”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 939.]

Great, fantastic—but, as we discussed on Monday, once we get the commission done, we will have to wait for legislation and time is rolling on, while our environmental and climate targets are here and now. We cannot wait. We should be using this opportunity in the meantime to strengthen the duties for Ofwat to ensure that our water companies can support the Government in the very necessary task of protecting our environment and delivering clean water for the public.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendments 56, 79, and 80, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bakewell, to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 81 in my name.

Amendment 56 would require the Environment Agency to review permits applying to water and sewerage companies every five years rather than “periodically”, as regulations currently dictate. It brings in measures to ensure that a review of environmental permits happens on a regular basis rather than the ad hoc arrangements that are currently in force. Current Regulation 34 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 requires the Environment Agency only to

“periodically review environmental permits”,

including those attached to water and sewerage works. The reality is that many of these permits are unfit for the intended purposes and do not properly protect our rivers, lakes and coastal waters from pollution incidents. It has been a long time since the system was fully reviewed in any meaningful way. The system is outdated, not really fit for purpose and clearly not working as it was intended. The Bill offers an opportunity and it would be wrong not to make use of it.

“Periodic review” could mean absolutely anything. It could mean that there are regular reviews in place, with systems for a review after serious pollution incidents up and working well. Equally, it could mean that water companies conduct reviews only once every 10 years, regardless of the number of incidents that happen over that time. The language we use in the Bill is of the utmost importance. We have an industry that is not abiding by the rules and a regulatory framework that is underresourced and low on morale and has not been able to prevent, contain or stop persistent breaches of environmental regulations. The public are fed up to the back teeth with illegal sewage overflows that no one seems to be taking seriously. They want action and they want it now.

While it can be argued that at least every five years is not often enough, it is a clearly defined requirement that can be monitored and enforced. We must also bear in mind that the Environment Agency is operating under such budgetary pressures that insistence on more frequent reviews would put it under a fair amount of strain. We need to be realistic about where we are and what we can enforce. This is put forward as a compromise that we feel best achieves those two aims. It is important that we set targets that are both achievable and operable. The amendment proposes that the Environment Agency should be placed under a duty to review permits applying to water companies every five years. Ideally, this should be done in advance of each periodic review, to reflect other legal obligations on sewage pollution and water quality and therefore drive investment.

Amendment 79 seeks to abolish the Water Services Regulation Authority. Amendment 80 establishes the “clean water authority” and provides it with duties concerning the water companies’ governance and performance standards. It is well known that the Liberal Democrats do not believe that Ofwat in its current form, alongside an underfunded Environment Agency, can achieve the change necessary to prevent continued sewage overspills, provide a return to clean water running in our streams and rivers, and achieve the reversal of biodiversity decline currently found across our natural environment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

30: Clause 2, page 4, line 30, after “Each” insert “water and”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that both water-only providers and sewerage providers are required to prepare pollution incident reduction plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In moving Amendment 30 I will introduce it and seven other amendments in this group. I say immediately that a number of them are consequential, and I am very mindful of the time—so do not panic. They are all about pollution reduction.

Amendment 30, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is specifically around the issue of pollution incident reduction plans, which I think the whole Committee welcomes. She is seeking to highlight that, at the moment, it is only water and sewerage companies that they apply to; they do not apply to water-only companies. Yet five out of the 16 regional water companies are water-only companies, and they are in areas of high ecological importance, including some that have some of our most precious chalk streams—and we have had plenty of debates in this House explaining how they are of global significance.

I wanted to quote what Ofwat said this summer about water companies. It stated:

“We recognise that water only companies … can be responsible for serious pollution incidents and intend to hold them to account”.


Making water-only companies subject to this provision, as well as water and sewerage companies, would allow it to do just that.

Amendment 32 is in my name and that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington; I thank him for his support. Also in this group are Amendments 31, 39, 40 and 36. They all deal with the issue of the water companies having a duty to publish these pollution incident reduction plans but having no obligation to actually implement them. We are saying that they should have a duty to implement them.

I raised this issue at Second Reading. In response, the Minister said to me about pollution incident reduction plans:

“A specific duty to implement the plan would make enforcement more difficult, we believe, as it would cut across the wider legal requirements for pollution reduction”.—[Official Report, 9/10/2024; col. 2072.]


I want to unpick that a bit, because I have a couple of issues with it.

First, the Water Industry Strategic Environmental Requirements, a document drawn up in 2022 by the Environment Agency and Natural England, sets out that pollution incident reduction plans can be a mechanism for water companies to discharge their pollution reduction obligations, and says that if they do that then they must be implemented. Secondly, it is fairly common practice in the corporate world that, if there is a duty to undertake an action plan or similar, it should be implemented. The most recent example I could find was in the financial sector, where last year a consumer duty was placed on financial companies, to be overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority, whereby they have to draw up specific action plans, and there is a duty in the law that these must be implemented. If it is in law elsewhere, why is it not appropriate here?

I tried to think whether there was any other reason why the Government might not want water companies to implement these plans. I thought they might be worried that the water companies would use them as a bargaining chip in the price reviews, or with local authorities when they sought permission for various planning applications: they could say, “You’ve got to give us this permission or allow us to spend this money—we’ve got a legal duty and you have to succumb”. I have more faith in local authority members not to accept that position. Equally, as we have just discussed, given that Ofwat does not really have that many environmental duties, I think that it will keep clear of that as well. But even if it is still an overriding concern of the Government, it is not insurmountable. Between now and Report, I think we could come up with some wording that said that, subject to the necessary permissions, the water companies must implement these plans.

These plans are really important. If we do not put it in the Bill that the companies must implement them, it begs the question whether the Government really want them implemented. We know that pollution levels are stubbornly high, and we know that the water companies are not doing enough. Unless they have an explicit duty to follow through on them, we are missing something of a trick.

Finally, Amendment 34A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, picks up the important issue of pollution in national parks. I know that a number of local noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and indeed the Minister herself, raised this at Second Reading. There are stubbornly high levels of pollution in our iconic national parks and the Broads. It is a travesty that not one of the rivers, lakes or streams in our national parks is in good ecological state—that is appalling. It was only earlier this month that we found out that United Utilities had discharged 140 million litres of sewage illegally into Lake Windermere. Frankly, it beggars belief.

This amendment very reasonably proposes that the companies must come up with plans to deal with these pollution incidents by 2030. I think that most members of the public would think that an entirely reasonable request. They have had just about enough of these companies constantly making our rivers, streams and lakes in national parks filthy and stinking while, in many cases, making themselves filthy and stinking rich. I beg to move.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I support some of the detail in Amendments 30, 31 and 32—I have added my name to Amendment 32. Amendment 30 makes a very good point and I would be surprised if the Minister was not prepared to devise her own amendment that would cover all these points. Obviously, water-only and sewerage undertakers should be included in the scope of this clause.

Amendments 31 and 32 are very similar. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has already said, it seems extraordinary that a water company could publish a pollution incident reduction plan without intending to implement it. It would then be just a nice idea but nothing more would happen. I would be very surprised if the Minister did not accept it; I cannot quite understand that there is a legal argument for not accepting it. My hope from this short debate is that the Minister will agree to look at these points carefully. I am sure that, with the benefit of parliamentary draftsmen who help on these matters, she could come up with an amendment of her own that would cover the points. Clearly, there is support for what I would say are the rather obvious points made in these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will react accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely understand. This is not a straightforward area, and I would be absolutely delighted to meet the noble Lords to see if we can find a way forward.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her responses to the numerous amendments in this group on pollution incident reduction plans, which I think everyone in this Committee believes is one of the really valuable steps in the Bill. I will pass on her comments about a meeting to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Water-only companies are responsible for a number of pollution incidents, particularly around drinking water treatment, but I will leave that for that later discussion.

Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, I just did not find the Minister’s comments very convincing, but it was not just that. I am not a lawyer, so I did not really understand what a sub-delegation of powers was; I am humble theologian, so I will have to go away and think about that and take some advice from people who know about it. However, the offer made to talk about this further is an important step forward. She will have noticed that everyone across the Committee believes that these are important steps we need to take to ensure that the ambitions that the Government rightly have in this regard are carried out as fully as they need to be.

In making that point, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his comments. His phrase—that the Bill in this area does not ask enough of water companies to deliver on the ambition of pollution incident reduction plans—was absolutely spot on, so I thank him for that.

I hope that my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville will be reassured by the Minister’s comments about the Government taking pollution seriously in national parks. I am sure that if she has any further matters to discuss with the Minister when she is well—next week, I hope—she will be in a position to come to the Minister’s door, which we all know is an open door, and we thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it specifically refers to the UK carbon budget framework and the Climate Change Act. We discussed this very briefly in the Water (Special Measures) Bill yesterday during the environment amendments. The biodiversity targets set within the Environment Act are certainly ways to deliver the changes that we need and I suggest that anything that is currently in law is something that the commission would be discussing.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will pick up the point that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made about regulators. While we welcome very much the independent water commission and what it will look at in its scope, last week the Secretary of State introduced another review by Dan Corry of the Defra regulatory framework, which will report before the independent water commission. I did not want to think that that might preclude any of the broader structural issues that we know need to be addressed in the water industry. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what relationship will there be between the Dan Corry review of Defra’s regulatory framework and the independent water commission?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really good question. I have met with Dan Corry and spoken with him about this. He is doing a very broad overview of everything; it is not limited to the water industry. His review is entirely separate from any work that the commission is doing. If there is any overlap on the effectiveness of the water industry regulators, I am sure that it will be fed into the commission as part of its discussions.