The House of Lords has voted 184 votes to 147 to support an amendment to the Environment Bill imposing a new legal duty on water companies to "take all reasonable steps" to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows into inland waters.

Opening the debate to table two amendments to the Bill, which is currently at Report stage in the House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington commented:

“The amendments simply seek to write into an Act of Parliament a legal commitment to clean up rivers. It is surprising, shocking and indeed revolting that, in the 21st century, in a civilised and developed country, there were, according to the Environment Agency, in 2020, 400,000 discharges of sewage in England and another 100,000 in Wales; that is more than half a million discharges of sewage into rivers in England and Wales.”

The peer moved amendment 60 to insert the following text:

“141ZA Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows

(1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.

(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.”

Amendment would also require water companies to demonstrate continuous improvement and progressive reductions in harm caused by discharges

He told fellow peers that the amendment would also require water companies to demonstrate continuous improvement and progressive reductions in the harm caused by the discharges.

Proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 60 also addressed another problem, he explained, saying that there was “considerable evidence that the Environment Agency and others are not prosecuting most of the discharges, even though many are apparently illegal.”

“I understand that one of the reasons why the Government are reluctant to place a legal duty on the water companies to take all reasonable steps to prevent discharges is that they have been advised that this might affect the investment decisions of the water companies and put sewage treatment ahead of other possible investments. I do not find that argument at all persuasive - in fact I think it demonstrates the absolute need for the amendment and the necessity of placing a legal duty on the companies to bring to an end these damaging discharges.”

According to the Duke of Wellington, the necessity was “no better demonstrated” than by a press release from Ofwat announcing a new water sector investment of £2.8 billion into the green recovery of which only £157 million—just over 5% of the investment—was to help to eliminate the harm caused by storm overflows.

“Only a legal duty would move these investments higher up the list of priorities,” he commented.

The peer added that it should be possible to find a formula that involves “some modest grants, some long-term borrowing, reduced dividends and above-inflation increases in wastewater or sewerage charges to residential and commercial users.”

He told the House of Lords:

“We surely cannot allow water quality to be compromised by regular discharges of untreated sewage into the aquatic environment. The Bill aims, and government policy is, to leave the environment for future generations in a better state. I cannot believe that any Defra Minister does not want to clean up our rivers, and the only way to ensure that is to include in the Bill a legal duty to prevent discharges. Not including such a duty will inevitably lead to delays, more plans, excuses and further delays.”

Conservative peer Baroness Altmann voiced her support for the amendment, saying:

“Research on sewerage from Professor Peter Hammond and Professor Jamie Woodward of Manchester University has found clear evidence that untreated sewage or wastewater are being routinely discharged outside the conditions allowed by the Environment Agency permits. ….I find it difficult to understand why the Minister and his department are so reluctant to put a duty now on the water companies directly to ensure they reduce and ultimately eliminate discharges of raw and partially treated sewerage into our rivers and waterways.”

"Tackling storm overflows in England is a government priority"

Responding on behalf of the Government, Lord Goldsmith described tackling storm overflows in England as a government priority, saying the Government was “acting decisively through this Bill.”

He went on to bring forward three government Amendments to add further duties on water companies and the Government. Two of the amendments are designed to increase the accountability on water companies and to provide greater transparency for the public on the frequency and impact of storm overflows.

The water companies will be required to report on storm overflows in near real time, meaning within an hour of them occurring, in a way that is easy for the public to access and understand. They will also be required to monitor continuously the water quality upstream and downstream of both storm overflows and sewage treatment works.

Lord Goldsmith said:

“This will give regulators and the public crucial indicators of the health of our waters, including dissolved oxygen, ammonia, temperature and pH values, and turbidity. The information obtained from these two duties, along with the annual reporting required by the amendment that I introduced in Committee, will finally require full transparency from water companies about their impact on our waters.”

"Not right to say Government are reluctant to influence investment decisions of the water companies"

He went on to tell peers:

“With respect to the noble Duke, it is not right to say that the Government are reluctant to influence investment decisions of the water companies. That is exactly what we are doing.”

“We will also make it clear in the guidance that we will shortly be giving to water companies regarding the preparation of their drainage and sewerage management plans. These are a statutory requirement under the Bill and we expect them to include considered actions for reducing storm overflows and their harm.

“ I am confident that this action, driven by the Bill, is the right approach. However, as I said in Committee, if those plans are not sufficiently ambitious, the Government will not hesitate to use our direction-making power under Clause 79 to require them to take more action. This is a direct power over the water companies and, as I said, we will not hesitate to use it.”……

“I know that the noble Lord and many others are keen to see a road map towards the complete elimination of storm overflows, as am I and my colleagues in Defra. I want to be clear that in the government plan, we will absolutely commit to pushing as far as it is possible to go.”

Initial assessments suggest elimination could cost more than £150bn 

However, he cautioned that the initial assessments suggested that elimination could cost more than £150 billion, which would “likely mean increased customer bills and trade-offs against other water industry priorities.”

Amendment 63 requires the Government to investigate and map out the actions needed to eliminate storm overflows and to report to Parliament, before 1 September next year, on how elimination could be achieved and the corresponding benefits and costs.

“The point about the report is that it will provide the public, Parliament and the water industry with up-front, clear and comprehensive information on the feasibility and cost of elimination.”

Lord Goldsmith also confirmed that the Government’s report on eliminating storm overflows would consider the feasibility of the widespread separation of foul water and surface water systems. However, he explained that the Government anticipated that complete separation may require “the laying of many thousands of miles of additional pipework through towns and cities” and the Government took the view that it was better to reduce the volume of rainwater entering foul sewers in the first place, rather than to separate the existing combined systems.

The Government also intends to amend the Flood Risk Management Functions Order 2010, to ensure that drainage and sewage management plans are captured as a flood risk management function.