Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Roborough and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.

Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.

Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.

We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.

However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.

The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.

Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.

I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.

My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.

Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.

For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.

I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.

As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.

Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.

I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.

This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.

Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that

“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.

The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.

Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.

Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.

I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.

What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Roborough and Earl Russell

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are very supportive of these measures and I very much welcome the Government bringing them forward as part of addressing an ever-growing problem. As the Minister rightly highlighted, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with the 50 million tonnes currently generated globally predicted to grow to 75 million tonnes by 2035. The United Kingdom is the second-biggest generator of this waste per person in the world, so it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing forward measures to address it. I welcome the fact that this will be part of Defra’s wider circular economy strategy.

As has been said, we all buy and consume these things and try to recycle them, which can often be difficult to do. Many of these items are designed to be used once and then thrown away, and they are designed in such a way that it is almost impossible to take the batteries out of them. I call for further work to make sure that items are available on the marketplace from which it is actually possible to remove the batteries. I would really like to see a universal standard for that, particularly for vapes.

This statutory instrument applies to vapes and secondary online marketplaces, but the thread running through both of those is that the polluter should pay. We agree with that principle and it is welcome that it is here.

We agree with the Government’s plans for vapes to be put under the new categorisation 7.1. It was not correct that the toy and board-game industry was in part subsidising the recycling of vapes, which are far more dangerous and complicated to recycle.

I have tabled an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to set minimum pricing for vape products. Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, I welcome the fact that Defra has brought forward measures to ban single-use vapes, but the truth is that manufacturers are finding ways around that by putting in a rechargeable point and a reusable coil. I have seen vapes selling online for as little as £2.99 which the manufacturers say pass the ban. To me, the answer is putting in minimum pricing and making sure that we have proper vaping products with long battery cycles that are designed to be reused, and keeping these products away from pocket-money prices and our children. I encourage the Minister to go further on those measures as part of the work of the Circular Economy Taskforce. That is an issue, but we welcome the measures in these regulations.

I turn to the second part, on the online marketplace and overseas sales. On the issue of dealing with the freeloading problem of online marketplaces that have been exempt from the regulations and have not been meeting the costs of the e-waste that they generate, whereas our bricks-and-mortar sellers have been, it is right that that will change and we welcome it. We also welcome the reclassification, which is good. Just for context, it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes of electronic waste are added to the UK marketplace each year via these platforms. That is a lot of stuff, which they need to be responsible for. Some have worried that this could impact online suppliers and that some might withdraw from the UK market. We do not share those concerns. We think these measures are properly set out and see no reason why they cannot be absorbed.

I conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. While we welcome the measures, they are quite complex and are being introduced quite quickly, and they will involve a lot of reporting, monitoring and verification and compliance mechanisms, which are required under the regulations. My questions to the Minister are as follows. Are there enough resources available within Defra? Is there enough time for doing this stuff? Does it have the appropriate staff available? Does it have the right procedures in place to monitor the impacts to make sure that enforcement is properly done?

With that, we welcome the regulations, and we look forward to this Government going further in these areas.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and outlining its objectives. The ambition to ensure that all producers contribute fairly to the costs of collecting and treating waste electrical and electronic equipment is one that few would dispute. Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in full support of these regulations.

This instrument makes two key changes. First, it makes online marketplace operators responsible for the WEEE obligations linked to electrical goods sold into the UK by non-UK sellers using their platforms. Secondly, it creates a new, separate category for e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products, removing them from the broader toys and leisure equipment category. Both are necessary steps to address long-standing imbalances.

Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall pose a number of questions that I hope the Government will consider as implementation progresses. First, on making online marketplace operators responsible for waste costs, what analysis has been conducted to assess likely compliance rates among these operators? Ensuring that the law translates into meaningful change is essential, and enforcement should be at the heart of that.

Secondly, how confident are the Government that enforcement will be sufficiently resourced, especially given past difficulties with online sellers who fall outside UK jurisdiction, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering? While it is logical to shift responsibility to platforms with a physical or legal UK presence, is there a risk that some operators may still find routes to avoid liability, either by reclassifying their service or by restructuring seller arrangements?

Thirdly, on the methodology for calculating the volume of electrical and electronic equipment sold through online platforms, how prescriptive is the guidance expected to be? Will methodologies be subject to review or audit by regulators to ensure transparency and comparability?

I turn to the creation of a dedicated vape category— I should declare an interest as a 15-year vaper myself—which we are told will allow for more targeted collection targets and financial obligations. How clearly defined will this new category be in practice, given the rapid evolution of vaping and nicotine delivery technologies? Will the Government commit to regularly reviewing the scope of this category to ensure it remains fit for purpose?

I would also welcome the Minister’s views on the transitional provisions. Are the timelines, particularly 15 November and 31 January, realistic for smaller operators, especially those newly brought into scope? What communication plans are in place to ensure these businesses are fully informed? Effective communication here will be important to the success of the instrument. I note that smaller producers that place less than 5 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment on the market remain exempt from full financial obligations. Does this de minimis threshold continue to strike the right balance between supporting small business and ensuring environmental responsibility? I was hoping the Minister could help explain how the Government reached this threshold, which seems rather large.

In conclusion, we welcome the intent behind these regulations to create a fairer, more enforceable system, but, in doing so, we must ensure that compliance is not only a legal requirement but a level playing field. That requires clarity, transparency and, above all, careful oversight. I look forward to hearing how the Government will monitor these reforms and respond to the questions they inevitably raise.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Roborough and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment, and I might have a slightly different take on it. To start with, the amendment requires the Crown Estate to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this issue and for the interest he has sparked in it across the House. His partnership with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is an unexpected one.

The noble Lord, in his personal conversations with me, as he has had with others, has spoken about his personal journey on these issues. He has gone from a time when he was in government and supported these farms to a time now when he recognises the damage that they do. I do not disagree with him at all on that. There is a real need to protect animals; there is a real need for animal welfare; there is a real need to look at the associated pollution and at the escape of farmed salmon and the impact on natural salmon that happens as a result of these farms. As far as all that goes, I have no problem with this amendment.

However, the issue here is that the Crown Estate is devolved in Scotland, so I have had to turn to the philosopher George Berkeley to try to analyse this amendment. He came up with the question: if a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound? My response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: if his amendment protects no salmon, is it helping the salmon? There are literally no salmon farms in England. I have an assurance from the Minister personally that there is no intention from the Crown Estate to start producing salmon farms in English waters. In fact, I do not think those waters are able to support salmon. I do not think that is happening. I listened to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are legislating for the longer term—that is an issue —but, again, I see absolutely no plans for this to happen.

This matter is devolved. My strong suggestion to everybody in favour of stronger protection for salmon and the environment is to raise these matters with the Scottish Parliament, which is responsible for these matters. Noble Lords can put this in the Bill, but it will be overturned in the Commons. If not, it will have no impact on any salmon. I fail to see the point of this amendment.

On these Benches we are not able to support this amendment, not because we do not support animal welfare but because this simply does not impact any fish. There is no point in making bad, pointless legislation; that just makes us all look foolish. It does not do anything to increase animal welfare standards if the standards do not apply to any animals. It is pointless.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as an owner of fishing rights and president of South West Rivers Association. I will also speak briefly, as the arguments have been well made by many noble Lords.

We have heard from noble Lords around the House that this is an important amendment that strikes at the heart of our care for the environment and animal welfare. It imposes reasonable obligations on the Crown Estate to take responsibility for environmental damage caused by salmon farming on its property, and for the welfare of the fish being farmed. As I understand it, there is only one salmon farm in our waters, off the coast of Northern Ireland, although there are 210 in Scottish waters. But this amendment will ensure that any future salmon farms are developed with those obligations in place.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted existing legislation and regulations that cover the salmon farming industry. However, given that the wild Atlantic salmon in our country is now on the IUCN red list, and given the sometimes dire conditions that farmed salmon are kept in, it is hardly surprising that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean continues to press this amendment. We are disappointed that the Government have so far failed to see its merits, and we hope for a more constructive reaction from the Minister today. We on these Benches will support my noble friend if he decides to test the opinion of the House.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Lord Roborough and Earl Russell

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the independent commission led by such a respected figure as Sir Jon Cunliffe. However, after 14 years of criticising our government policy in this area, why did the new Government not have clear ideas of their own to fix this industry by the time they took office?

As has been discussed at Second Reading and in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, there is concern over the timetable for bringing forward legislation for a full reform of the water industry after this review is complete. Will the Minister make commitments on the timing of that legislation for noble Lords’ consideration when deciding whether to press their amendments that might increase the breadth of the Bill’s impact? The Secretary of State has given a commitment that the review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. In another place, it has been suggested that the review would not, therefore, lead to legislation that takes effect before 2029. Does the Minister agree?

It is reassuring to see the Government adopt our own previous policy of removing rights to bonuses for water company directors; however, will the Minister inform the House of the total amount of performance-related pay within the sector since privatisation and what percentage of total investment that is? Taking away bonuses will not change the finances of the water industry. It is most pressing to ensure that the industry is properly capitalised to undertake the investment programme that this country needs to deliver clean water at an affordable price. How much has been ring-fenced for that in the agreement between the Secretary of State, the industry and Ofwat announced on 11 July?

It was disappointing that only the last of the terms of reference addressed financial resilience at all. It is critical, given the parlous state of some companies in the sector and the need for investment to deliver clean rivers, lakes and beaches, that this issue is addressed quickly and effectively. My own amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill limiting water company leverage was not much liked by the Minister. What other measures are the Government taking to restore financial stability in the short term? It has also been reported that the Government will consider forcing the sale of water companies in England to firms that would run them as not-for-profits. Can the Minister confirm whether this is part of the Government’s review, and is she willing to give the House some examples of this kind of approach working elsewhere? For example, does she consider Welsh Water’s record in Labour-run Wales to be a good one?

It has been a source of much frustration to this House that there is a lack of accountability to this House for the actions and inaction of the regulators. We welcome the terms of the review to clarify regulators’ relationships with Parliament. Does the Minister agree that, when she is speaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the regulators, it might be desirable that they were more accountable to her and to this House?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and thank the Minister for this Statement updating the House on the launch of the independent water commission. There is much that we on these Benches welcome, most importantly that this Government, through the Water (Special Measures) Bill presently being considered by this House and the launch of the water commission, have given a clear signal that they are determined to try to fix our broken water system. The intent is a welcome step change, and I am thankful for it.

That said, there is a time for reviews and commissions and a time for calm, direct and decisive government action to fix systems that have been broken for far too long. The Government talk proudly about their longer-term approach, when the electorate is keen for more radical and immediate action. My friendly warning to the Labour Government is that the people who voted for them did so with the expectation that real action would be taken to resolve this mess, at scale and at pace. Labour has had many years in opposition; quite frankly, we expected the Government to be better prepared and to have come up with the necessary plans and answers by now that are urgently needed to fix these problems.

The water industry is a mess, and the sewage scandal was a critical issue at the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are determined to put the protection of our precious natural environment at the heart of everything we do. In 2023, water companies dumped 54% more sewage into our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounts to 464,000 incidents and 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Meanwhile, water bills are set to rise by some 40%. We are clear that we would abolish Ofwat, create a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority and replace the failed private water companies with public benefit companies.

The Government have taken a different policy direction. My worry is that the magic trick of making Ofwat fit for purpose, securing investment while keeping consumer water bills low and protecting our environment lies way beyond the measures contained in the Water (Special Measures) Bill and that, when further legislation finally arrives, it will be too late. I welcome the Minister’s engagement, but I call on the Government to work with all sides to make the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill more radical and robust. Our environment cannot wait while Labour decides on the real systemic reforms that are the only solutions to this crisis.

Only 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. With the commission taking at least a year to consider evidence and report back to government, and with further legislation only then to be prepared and debated in Parliament, the radical change required appears unlikely to be implemented before 2028-29 at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge a growing sense of concern on all sides of the House that the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill are not enough to fix the problem and that further legislation derived from the conclusions of the water commission will just not arrive in the urgent timescales required.

The 30% by 2030 target for protection of nature is coming up urgently. How will this review help support that process? My understanding is that the water review will not report until 2025, which leaves a short timeframe for making the necessary changes and requirements to meet our targets. Further, if we find after the Water (Special Measures) Bill is passed that problems in the water industry persist and we are still in the gap before the water commission finishes its work and is ready, are the Government prepared to put forward additional urgent legislation to help fix any remaining problems?