🚰 Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

• Pollution Incident Reduction Plans:
  • The session focused on amendments to enhance transparency and effectiveness of water companies’ pollution incident reduction plans.
  • Amendments proposed requiring water companies to consider the impact of pollution incidents, not just their occurrence. However, these were not supported as the government felt existing rules already cover this.
  • An amendment to specifically protect national parks was debated but rejected, as the government believed all areas should be equally protected, not just national parks.
• Transparency and Reporting:
  • Amendments were proposed to ensure that implementation reports of pollution reduction plans are easily accessible to the public, suggesting they be published on water companies’ websites. These were withdrawn after discussion.
  • Discussions emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in how water companies report on pollution incidents and their efforts to reduce them.
• Emergency Overflows:
  • Amendments aimed to mandate tracking the volume of sewage discharged during emergency overflows, but they were rejected citing high implementation costs.
  • The government instead focused on water quality monitoring, arguing that volume alone isn’t sufficient to assess impact.
  • The session saw debates on the speed and feasibility of installing monitoring equipment, with suggestions for faster timelines being criticized for practicality and cost concerns.
• Nature-Based Solutions:
  • There was a consensus on the benefits of using nature-based solutions for water management and sewage treatment.
  • An amendment to prioritize nature-based solutions was not supported, with the government preferring a balanced approach where such solutions are considered but not automatically prioritized over other methods.
  • Discussions also covered the broader application of nature-based solutions in flood prevention and the role farmers can play in implementing these solutions.
• Legal and Penal Measures:
  • Clauses were introduced to strengthen penalties for obstructing environmental investigations, expanding the maximum penalty to include up to two years’ imprisonment.
  • The government aimed to deter serious offenses by water companies and their executives, emphasizing the need for robust legal measures to enforce environmental regulations.
• Civil Penalties Standard of Proof:
  • A proposal to lower the standard of proof for civil penalties from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities” was discussed to enable faster and more cost-effective enforcement for minor to moderate offenses.
  • The government plans to consult on specific offenses this would apply to and the potential caps on these penalties.
• General Consensus and Moving Forward:
  • There was general agreement on the need to improve water quality and reduce pollution incidents, with debates centering on the best methods and regulatory frameworks to achieve these goals.
  • The government and opposition both expressed commitments to ongoing assessments and potential adjustments to ensure water companies are held accountable and can effectively manage environmental responsibilities.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, centered around specific amendments and clauses of the Water (Special Measures) Bill. There is evident disagreement on issues such as the inclusion of volume measurements for sewage discharges, with amendments being proposed and debated but ultimately rejected. Despite these disagreements, the session also shows a considerable degree of consensus and agreement on the importance of addressing sewage pollution, the need for nature-based solutions, and enhanced regulatory powers. Divisions were called on several amendments, with votes recorded, but the overall tone remains one of constructive dialogue and a shared goal of improving water quality, albeit with differing views on the methods and specifics. The disagreements, while notable, did not escalate into significant conflict, hence the rating of 2.