A second debate on South West Water’s record was hurriedly arranged to take place before MPs break up yet again. 

As a consequence of verbose schoolboy debating antics from the proposer, Mr Liddell-Grainger MP (Bridgwater and West Somerset), and nothing new from the Minister replying to him, the debate ran out of time and lapsed. 

Mr Liddell-Grainger’s seat is being redrawn and he is now the prospective Tory candidate for the new Tiverton & Minehead constituency, which may explain a lot.

The debate achieved nothing more than puff a few Conservative egos.

For example Mr Liddell-Grainger managed to insert this piece of totally irrelevant electioneering propaganda into his speech:

“That reminds me that there is in Tiverton an almost dead building firm called 3 Rivers Developments. It was conceived by senior officers in Mid Devon District Council, next to the Exe. They thought it would solve their financial problems. They have never built a Lego house, never mind a real one. They do not have a clue. Six years and £21 million later, the company is stony broke.”

What prompted this urgent debate?

A couple of weeks ago ago Owl reported that Mr Liddell-Grainger MP had made a scathing attack on South West Water (SWW) and its Chair, saying, in Parliament:

“She is running a mob that has convictions for polluting rivers, pays its top gun criminal bonuses and, despite the wettest July on record, still has a hosepipe ban. It is operating like a mafia.

“This is absolutely appalling. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on these ruddy water companies, who are blackmailing their customers and parliamentarians to stop the truth coming out?”

Mr Liddell-Grainger, remember, was the chair of Simon Jupp’s previous February Westminster Hall debate on SWW, used by both of them to indulge in political point scoring, thereby also achieving nothing of consequence.

The Debate (Link to Hansard)

On Tuesday 19 September Mr Liddell-Grainger (Landed Gentry according to Wikipedia) was granted a half hour slot for another Westminster Hall debate.

His opening harumph which did no more than repeat SWW’s well known failures in the style of a schoolboy from the lower fourth debating society took half of the 30 minutes allotted to the debate. 

The other half was taken by a “reply” from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Rebecca Pow. She listed all the actions the Government has taken (mostly only recently). Here is a sample quote: 

“No Government have ever done as much as this Government are doing to tackle storm overflows. In 2013, the Government set out expectations that water companies must monitor the vast majority of those combined sewer overflows, as I referenced earlier. It is that monitoring that has meant that regulators understand the scale of combined sewer overflow discharges and can take stronger action within the existing legal framework.

In 2022, the Government launched the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. Our strict targets will see the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills and will require water companies to deliver the largest infrastructure project in water company history—that is, £56 billion by 2050….”

In between, the only other speaker in the “debate”, Richard Foord, managed to put his finger two relevant issues but didn’t get answers.

At around half time when Richard Foord asked Liddell-Grainger if he would “give way” he did so saying:

“I give way to the Member for the women’s auxiliary ballerina corps.”

Yes, seriously, it’s on the record – Owl

Richard Foord’s point was:

“The hon. Member is giving a bombastic speech of which the late Lord Flashheart would have been very proud. What does he think of the actions of the Government in this space? Although he seeks to shift the blame on to water companies or regulators, the Government ultimately have the responsibility for the regulation of South West Water and for holding it to account.”

This was met by more bluster.

At one point the Minister said:

“The Environment Agency is investigating that (discharge at Harlyn bay, Cornwall). Clearly, action can be taken only if we have the evidence and if there is an issue. There is a permit system and there are exemptions for extreme weather—we know why that is in place—but I have asked the CEO to ensure that, should pollution be identified, signage is put on the beach so that it is made very clear to bathers and surfers alike. They have taken up my point.”

So Richard Foord asked this question:

“I heard the Minister say a moment ago that enforcement action can only take place where there is evidence. Is it the case that the Minister does not have sufficient evidence for enforcement action to take place against South West Water?”

Here is the Minister’s response:

“it would need to stand up in court if the EA chose to prosecute any of the cases raised by the BBC. If it stands up in court and the information is there, of course the EA will take action if it finds non-compliance.”

Owl’s take

The Tories are still in denial over the consequences of privatisation and the effect austerity cuts have had on regulators, trying to blame everyone else.