hazylavender/hi huggingface dataset:
Date: 2023-04-25
Katherine Fletcher: My father is a civil and structural engineer and I have engaged with him regularly on the subject of sewage pollution, but I think that one of his more familial aphorisms is particularly important: "To fix a problem, you have to know about it." Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we now have the 90-odd per cent. knowledge of what is going on that allows us to prioritise plans is one of the Government's key achievements?
Date: 2023-04-25
Therese Coffey: What can I say? When the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) ran for the leadership of the Labour party, he suggested that there should be common ownership, which I would describe as nationalisation. We are seeing   yet another flip-flop from the Labour party when its members realise that it is one thing to get into power and another thing actually being in it. We need to continue with what we are trying to do to cut sewage discharges. We have heard about the target of 90% by 2030, and it is a headline-catching figure, but there has been no credible, costed plan in any previous media scrutiny or, indeed, today. That is why I suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is detached from reality and trying to pull a fast one with the public. Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan outlines the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, and will deliver the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills, transforming our Victorian sewerage infrastructure. The plan sets targets that will be underpinned by legally binding changes to company permits, designed to front-load action in particularly important areas such as bathing waters. To ensure that these ambitious targets are realised, I have also asked the water industry to produce a detailed action plan for every single storm overflow in England by June. A critical element in the development of these targets and our plan was an assessment of technical deliverability and cost, which is why the Government published a full impact assessment and an additional report on the costs of eliminating discharges from storm overflows. If the shadow Secretary of State wants to deliver a 90% reduction by 2030, it would have been helpful for him to inform the House how he plans to practically deliver PS56 billion worth of capital projects in the next seven years, let alone separate enough combined pipes to go almost two and a half times around the earth in those seven years, or indeed build the equivalent of 40,000 Olympic-size swimming pools of additional storage capacity. What will the Labour party's proposals really mean for customers' bills? Even the hon. Gentleman is not naive enough to think that there is a magic money tree to pay for this.
Date: 2023-04-25
Therese Coffey: I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will continue to ensure that the licence fees and the costs of permits cover inspections, and we will consider further what additional funding changes might be needed for that purpose. Perhaps Labour intended to introduce a sewage tax or something similar, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, although it would take such a tax some 500 years to fund the level of investment required. That is, dare I say, another classic Liberal Democrat policy--all soundbite but detached from reality. Meanwhile, we have an ambitious, credible and realistic plan. As for mandatory sewage outlet monitoring, the Government are already doing that; 91% is already in place, and the rest will be completed by the end of the year. The Environment Agency will also ensure that water companies carry out monitoring in line with their  permit conditions. The monitoring requirements introduced by the Government have been instrumental in enabling the regulators to undertake the largest criminal and civil investigations of sewage discharges in water company history, covering more than 2,200 treatment works. Through powers in our landmark Environment Act, we are also making it a legal requirement for the near real time data on discharges to be available to the public, and the consultation on those regulations is live now. We are going even further by placing a duty directly on water companies to monitor the water quality impact upstream and downstream of all their assets--not just storm overflows but wastewater treatment works as well.
Date: 2023-04-25
Andrew Gwynne: This is not just the responsibility of the water companies, because it is not just water assets that discharge into our rivers. Within a short section of the River Tame in Greater Manchester there are three water assets, but there are also Johnson brook and Wilson brook. Johnson brook regularly discharges raw sewage into the Tame because of a misconnected sewer somewhere along the reaches of that brook, and Wilson brook regularly discharges chemicals into the Tame because of industrial processes. The Environment Agency's actions are appalling. What more is the Secretary of State doing--
Date: 2023-04-25
Chris Evans: In September 2021, I stood in this place and called for an investigation into the activities of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. I asked for Ofwat and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to investigate its practices. I did this because it has responsibility for parts of the Wirral, Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. My request was based on an appalling record that has seen communities having their water cut off for days and their rivers being polluted with sewage. I am sad to report not only that these calls have been met with a deafening silence but that things have got worse. The Rivers Garw, Tawe, Teifi, Usk and Taff and even the River Wye are six of the most polluted rivers in UK. What they all have in common is that they are the responsibility of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. Last month, research found that raw sewage was discharged in Islwyn for more than 9,179 hours in 1,850 sewage dumping events. Natural Resources Wales has said that there will be no salmon in Welsh rivers within 20 years. What is Dwr Cymru's response to this record of shame? It is to reward its chief executive, Peter Perry, with a bonus of PS232,000, on top of his basic salary of PS332,000. This is a company serving some of the most deprived and isolated communities in the country. When I wrote to him to query his pay, he was proud to tell me that he had worked his way up from being an apprentice. He said: "My pay is not determined by me. It is not influenced by me." He went on to claim that he was pretty much the lowest paid of his peers in England and Wales. Try telling that to the customers who are struggling to pay the second highest bills in the country. Just over the border, Severn Trent Water has some of the lowest bills. The worst thing is that it is impossible to switch suppliers. Mr Perry is not an isolated case. In 2020-21, three executive directors were paid bonuses of PS931,000. At the same time, raw sewage was dumped into Welsh rivers 100,000 times. It all adds up to the same thing: Dwr Cymru Welsh Water is profiting from pollution.
Date: 2023-04-25
Chris Evans: I think the hon. Gentleman will have to refer that question to the Welsh Government, but I thank him for that little bit of mischief and for the extra minute he has just given me. It is my sincere hope that, if this motion passes, we will see the end of these unwarranted, unfair bonuses while imposing uncapped fines on the companies that are polluting our beautiful rivers. For me, this goes much deeper than simple profiteering. I grew up along the River Taff, and as I looked into the river, I would see the colours of the rainbow. To my young mind, it seemed that rainbows lived in the river. But they were not rainbows; they were the thick film of oil polluting our rivers. That was over 30 years ago. Since then, our Welsh valleys have become green and beautiful, with our newly emerging tourism industry. It is not uncommon to see people fishing, kayaking and wild swimming, but all those activities are at risk. It is amazing, when we have spent so long cleaning up our rivers, that all that work is being undone by the work of one company. Although I have to hand it to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water: it is good at crisis communications. According to the chief executive, in the past year the company has spent over PS800,000 on advertising and public affairs. When I spoke out about this 18 months ago, the public affairs officer sent an email defending the company's practices within minutes of me sitting down. It is certainly busy sending endless emails to politicians.
Date: 2023-04-25
Alun Cairns: I understand and share many of the concerns the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but does he recognise that the legislative responsibility for restrictions in this area lies with the Welsh Government? Does he share my concern and disappointment that the restrictions in Wales are nowhere near as tight as those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is proposing to introduce in England? Does he agree that we should introduce a common system adopting the high standards that she talked about?
Date: 2023-04-25
Chris Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is probably enjoying my speech because he thinks that this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but it goes much deeper than that. This pollution affects us all; it affects our children, it affects everybody. We have to find a way to work together on this. I am not going to stand back and allow Dwr Cymru Welsh Water to carry on like this just because it hides behind the fact that it is a non-profit. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now. That means working in partnership with this Government and the Welsh Government. I will support any measures to work together on this because it goes much deeper than what we are doing at the moment. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water likes to send out tweets highlighting schemes to save customers money. It also runs television adverts with helpful tips for saving money, under the banner "For Wales", giving the impression that it is somehow linked to the Welsh Government. To top off my frustration with the company, I recently had a request from the polling company Ipsos MORI, as many of us do. The companies that fund the surveys remain anonymous, but it did not take much to deduce who it was when I was asked such questions as "How would you rate Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's performance?" and "Do you know about its plans to end pollution in Wales?" It did not take a genius to work out who had funded that survey. When I complained, I was told by the public affairs department, with an apology, that I should not have been contacted because of my views on the company. The money spent on this type of work would be better used to improve its service rather than its reputation. As I have said, it is difficult to speak out on this matter but I genuinely believe that things need to be done now. Mr Perry told a Senedd Committee that sewage discharges "are not where we want to be". People are paying an average of PS499 a year for their bills and they desperately need a return on those bills. I hope that by supporting this motion today we can give them some sort of recompense for what they are going through.
Date: 2023-04-25
Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I welcome what he said about trying to work cross-party to solve this problem. That is what I have been doing since this Parliament began. I do not want to dwell on the private Member's Bill that I introduced over three years ago, but it is surprising that it has taken the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) three years to come up with his own private Member's Bill. Having read it, it seems to me that he has not read the Environment Act 2021, introduced by this Government a year and a half ago. The Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill is one of the weakest documents I have ever seen, and it was clearly concocted and manufactured purely for the purposes of this debate. As he said in his opening speech, the Bill was introduced to benefit Labour candidates in the next parliamentary election, whenever it comes, and in next month's local elections. The political opportunism is shameful. However, in the spirit of seeking to focus my remarks on something useful, I will dissect some of the specific errors in the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill. First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, clause 1 talks about water quality monitoring requirements. Two years ago, the Environmental Audit Committee's "Water quality in rivers" report specifically called for the improved monitoring of our waterways. We have heard that Lord Benyon, the Conservative rivers Minister at the time, introduced monitoring as a result, and we are nearly at 100%. We called for upstream and downstream monitoring of the impact of discharges into rivers, which is precisely what was included in the Environment Act. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to accelerate the measure to bring it into effect from 1 October, which is completely unrealistic. We have not yet agreed the technical specifications to be able to test water for the four parameters, so there is no supply chain in place to do that. Hopeless. Clause 2 of the Bill talks about adverse impacts and seeks to accelerate and define the progressive reduction of sewage discharges, which are also covered by the Environment Act, to try to prevent 90% of such discharges by 2030. The Secretary of State has said there is no clarity on how much that would cost, but we know that it could cost hundreds of billions of pounds, adding PS1,000 to customers' bills and diverting the entire construction industry to fix the problem. Over the next seven years, which hospitals and schools would not be built as a result of Labour's proposal?
Date: 2023-04-25
Philip Dunne: I will come on to that in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes the valid point that there is not enough dividend income for the water companies to pay for the billions of pounds in the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, as the Labour party fancifully suggests. The companies cannot pass the whole bill on to customers, so they have to be able to go to the markets, which are actively looking to invest in green projects of this nature. The money is there, but it will only be delivered through the private sector. Clause 3 of the Bill talks about financial penalties. Labour is calling for penalties for the use of storm overflows. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a question of degree. We already have penalties, and it is the Conservatives who introduced the water restoration fund, on which we are currently consulting, so that the proceeds of any fines resulting from the 2,000 permit breaches that are currently being investigated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency, as a result of this Government's direction, will make the polluter pay. That is happening. The Labour motion suggests that it could happen instantly, but that would put the entire water system in disarray. This is another completely unrealistic proposition. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is calling on the Government to produce a discharge strategy, so he clearly has not read the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that the Government published a year ago. He also calls for a legal obligation to consult Welsh Ministers. Frankly, we have just heard about the appalling performance of Welsh Water under this Welsh Government. For further clarity, the 83,000 spills in Wales represent almost 22% of the total number of spillages across England and Wales. The last time I looked, Wales represented about 5% of the UK population, not 22%. That is a hopeless example, and the last thing we should do is take advice from the Welsh Government.
Date: 2023-04-25
Dan Jarvis: Parliament debated sewerage in the summer of 1858, during the great stink. In every respect, it beggars belief that, after 165 years of technological advancement and social progress, we are still debating sewage pollution in our waterways, but we are because something is going terribly wrong. The status quo is not working, and it is time to consign sewage pollution to history. Water is not just another commodity. It is a vital public resource, and we should manage it for the public good. I accept that the task of reforming the water industry for the public good is huge, and we have to work together to get it right. Water is essential but, let us be honest, filth is found in nearly every UK waterway. In Barnsley, for example, Yorkshire Water pumped raw sewage into our rivers and streams for 13,228 hours in 2022, and that figure is almost certainly an underestimate because monitoring budgets have been cut. It has not helped that, due to ever tighter budgets, the Environment Agency's role in monitoring and, where necessary, prosecuting illegal dumping in our waterways has been curbed. Since 2010, environmental protection funding has dropped by 80% and enforcement funding by 40%. Although England's main water companies were cautioned or fined hundreds of times for sewage dumping between 2010 and 2021, the total fines amounted to just 0.7% of their profits. Water companies paid PS57 billion in dividends between privatisation in 1991 and 2019. Combined with the servicing of debt, those shareholder payouts have added around PS93 to average yearly bills. This is not some operational issue that can be solved by small tweaks to the failing system; it is a systemic problem that requires transformative action and an approach that sees water as a basic necessity rather than as a commodity. The current arrangements for regulating the water industry mean that the regulator is simply not equipped to tackle the challenges we face. We need a reformed regulator that is focused on protecting the environment and the public. It should have a social and environmental mission, and a responsibility for helping to push through a co-ordinated plan to address climate change, pollution and infrastructure upgrades. Crucially, a reformed regulator should bring together stakeholders, including local and regional government, community groups, businesses and experts. Campaigners should also be included, not least Feargal Sharkey, who has worked tirelessly to clean up our waterways. Regulating water for the public good means safe, sewage-free waterways and affordable bills that provide value for money to consumers. Cleaning up our water has always been a political choice, and it is in the Government's gift if they think it is time for fundamental change. I hope they do, but I strongly support Labour's motion because it is past time that we stopped managing our public resources for private profit. Instead, we should support them for the public good.
Date: 2023-04-25
Oliver Heald: This is an important issue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that all parties in this place should work to improve what is a very difficult situation for our constituents and the country. My constituency has eight chalk streams, and I have been campaigning for many years to improve their quality, often with support from Labour Members such as Martin Salter--he is a keen angler--and cross-party members of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, which I helped to set up. I was shocked when two of my substantial chalk streams, the Beane and the Mimram, ran dry in 2007. I took the Labour Minister to see them, and he was shocked by their condition. The World Wide Fund for Nature joined me and others in starting a campaign, "Rivers on the Edge", to reduce the huge amount of water being abstracted from these streams. We were successful in that campaign, although by then the Government had changed. It then became clear that not only were these poor streams being abstracted, but they faced pollution, problems with agricultural practice next to them, with nitrates going into them, and all sorts of other problems, including sewage overflow. I pay tribute to Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who has been involved in all the campaigns, including those against pollution and soil erosion, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), whose Bill I supported; we both rebelled slightly against the Government on one occasion over that issue. Charles chaired Catchment Based Approach in producing a restoration strategy for chalk streams, which is a good document that the Government support. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) came to its launch by the River Mimram  in my constituency, and it sets out a national chalk streams strategy. Although many of its recommendations are not about the problem of sewage overflows, it does cover that. The Government have taken powers in the Environment Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020 that would enable a catchment-based approach to tackling the range of issues involved in river quality. The water plan, which has been released recently, shows where the investment would be, with fines imposed and money reinvested in improving water quality. One of the main recommendations was to have some sort of protection and priority status for chalk streams. I know that the Secretary of State is concentrating on water generally, but Lord Trenchard has tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and I wonder whether she would be prepared to consider it. We know that the state of our rivers and streams is not what it should be, but between 2000 and 2010 we really did not know that, because the monitoring did not take place. It came as a shock that our rivers were in the state they were in. I welcome the fact that the Government are now being transparent, are committing to targets and are really taking this on.