My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments in the names of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to which I have also put my name. As we have heard, they seek to strengthen the new clauses that government Amendment 165 introduces. As the noble Duke said, it is completely unacceptable that, in the 21st century, we are discharging raw, untreated sewage so regularly—or indeed at all—into our rivers. I also welcome the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, which has similar objectives and, as we have heard, takes up the initiative of Philip Dunne’s Bill in another place.
There are other important amendments in this group, including Amendment 161A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Chidgey, who made a powerful case for the amendments as a whole, but particularly for his, on the issue of septic tanks and rural connections to mains sewerage, which is a very important issue. He mentioned that, in continental Europe, septic tanks are progressively being phased out. I am lucky enough to have regularly visited a village that is beside the River Charente in south-west France, and I can confirm and attest that, some six or seven years ago, they phased out all septic tanks there and put the whole village on the mains sewerage system. The beautiful cleanliness of the Charente is testimony to the effectiveness of that: it is a great place to swim—unlike some of our own rivers, I fear.
Amendments 170A and 188D, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Teverson, need to be addressed by the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, they highlight the important role of catchment
partnerships and the need for their key role to be recognised in the Bill. I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the need to reduce domestic demand, but, as he said, that issue will be dealt with in other groups that we will come on to.
It is welcome that the Government have at least acknowledged that the existing Bill was substandard in the important area of discharges into rivers, and have brought forward an amendment to tackle that. However, from the debate that we have had this evening, it is abundantly clear that the amendment put forward by the Government falls woefully short. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, it is a very pale imitation of Philip Dunne’s Bill, which it is supposed to take the place of, in some way. As we have heard, it does not impose a duty on water companies to take all reasonable steps to prevent sewage outflows; it aims only to reduce the frequency, duration and volume of discharges and has no ambition to eliminate them. It also does not set any specific targets for reductions.
It does require the Secretary of State to prepare a plan, but, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, it provides only that that plan “may” include proposals to reduce
“the need for anything to be discharged by … overflows”
or to treat “sewage that is discharged”, or “monitor water courses”, or “obtain information”. It is all “may”—there is no requirement that the plan must include these critical elements. In the previous group we were speaking on, I was not convinced at all by the Minister’s explanation, nor indeed by the explanation in the letter that we received ahead of this Committee stage, on “must” and “may”. We know that “may” puts the power in the hands of Ministers, and they may decide not to do any of the things that we wish them to do. So, that “must” is very important.
9.15 pm
The amendments from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, address many of the weaknesses that have been highlighted this evening—as does the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, albeit in a different way. Noble Lords have spoken eloquently in introducing these amendments, so I will not dwell on all of the issues that have already been tackled, but I do want to focus on one specific aspect of the government amendment that Amendment 174, from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, seeks to address. That is the exemptions from the already very limited reach of the amendment for
“discharges occurring as a result of … electrical”
or
“mechanical power failure at sewage … works,”
or “rising main failure”, or
“blockage of any part of the sewage system downstream of the … overflow.”
Let me just give one example of why this is so manifestly wrong. I am lucky enough to live about a mile’s walk away from the Hogsmill River, which is one of the earth’s rare and precious chalk streams. It is a beautiful haven for plant life and wildlife, and a place that was a particular source of enjoyment for me and many others in the local community during the
period of the Covid restrictions. On 26 May this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, cited, Judge Francis Sheridan fined Thames Water £4 million for what he described as the “utterly disgusting” pollution caused by Thames Water when untreated sewage was discharged into the Hogsmill and into a local park.
This case underlines exactly why the exemptions must not apply. The discharge occurred because of a power failure at the local sewage works. The local sewage works is not manned at night, so, over a period of five hours, almost 50 alarms were set off, which should have sent an engineer immediately to the treatment works to try to fix the problem. Every one of those alarms went unchecked and was ignored. As a result, 79 million litres of sludge escaped, which took 30 people over a month to clean up and caused much distress in the local community.
While the power failure may not have been the water company’s fault, its failure to respond to the warnings most certainly was. It should be noted that, in making its judgment, the court also took into consideration other offences of discharging into this precious chalk stream river, the Hogsmill, in January and October 2018, and other discharges in September 2019 from the sewage works. So providing exemptions such as those proposed in the government amendment will simply disincentivise water and sewage undertakers from having the necessary back-up systems and proper mechanical upkeep to ensure that such discharges do not happen, with such an appalling impact on the local environment. I feel that there is no justification whatever for these exemptions.
Like other noble Lords, I am deeply disappointed by the very modest amendment that has been brought forward by the Government. Ahead of Report, I very much hope that the Government will think again and bring back an amendment, in consultation with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that can satisfy the House. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, this is absolutely not a partisan matter; it is a matter of fixing something that has to be fixed. If the Minister is unable to come forward with a government amendment, I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Duke, between them, would be able to come forward with an amendment that would command the support of the whole House.