Introduction

“The costs of cleaning up coastal waters, a national resource, have not fallen fairly across the country. Thirty percent of the cost has fallen on Devon and Cornwall, which have just 3 percent of the nation’s population.” Written in a policy paper in 1996 that still chimes today.(Richard Foord).

What was Simon Jupp’s aim in calling this third parliamentary debate so late in the electoral cycle when there is insufficient time for any meaningful government action?

Perhaps all that Tories can do at this stage is to come out fighting.

Simon Jupp sets the scene

“Thanks to this Conservative Government, we finally have the tools to hold South West Water to account. It is the biggest crackdown on sewage spills in history: the Government have introduced unlimited fines, accelerated investment plans, legal targets to reduce discharges from every single storm overflow and eliminate all ecological harm, as well as compulsory storm overflow monitors, and they have forced live spill data to be made public. I voted for all that…”

After a bit of finger wagging at South West Water (SWW) he turned his fire on EDDC:

“Councillors on East Devon District Council very much jumped the gun to sign off a further new town of 8,000 homes in our district—just weeks before the new national planning policy framework was announced, which provides the tools to challenge such housing targets, especially in these circumstances. That was spectacularly short-sighted and risks further challenges for the district’s water infrastructure.”

Steady on Simon, EDDC Leader Cllr Paul Arnott has already gone on record as questioning whether development can continue until SWW  has increased its treatment capacity.

But turning off the tap is not as easy as that. The 2013 Tory administration set East Devon an eighteen year target to build a minimum of 950 houses/year (17,100 in total by 2031).

Simon did not mention the fact that, uniquely amongst Devon councils, EDDC has just passed a vote of “no confidence” in SWW nor that one of his constituents, Jo Bateman, is suing SWW for loss of amenity. 

He then hinted at goodies to come by saying: The Government are looking to consult on whether to make water companies statutory consultees on major planning applications. I wholeheartedly support such a move, and I urge the Minister to press ahead with that as quickly as possible.

He also urged the Minister to get water companies to install monitors on all emergency overflows. [No commitment from the minister to do this was given].

That then set the scene – trumpet government action, hint at further action and blame everyone else.

Main Debate

There was a short discussion on water supply raised by Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con). She disclosed that in an email Environment Agency said that South West Water “were not honest, open and transparent with regulators about their drought projections”.

Had there been any direct representation by a Cornish MP this subject might have had greater prominence. 

Luke Pollard (Plymouth) (Lab) highlighted that since 2010, Environment Agency funding has been cut by over 50%

Richard Foord got to speak about half an hour in.

He started by saying that Since 1990, South West Water has paid out in dividends an amount equivalent to £2,931 per property. That is more than any of the other 13 English water companies.

He continued by remarking that: South West Water is a poorly performing water company, but we have to look at the environment in which it is working. The water companies are working to the incentives that their shareholders set for them, rather than for the public benefit and good.

“There were 146 recorded dry spills over a 12-month period last year. To recap, those are illegal spills made by water companies when there is no heavy rainfall. Just yesterday evening, I was talking to Jo Bateman from the East Devon constituency, who attended the End Sewage Pollution coalition meeting that I brought together. She explained to me that she is suing South West Water for those illegal dry spills. I am not at all persuaded that water companies will simply do the right thing without Government intervention. We know the Environment Agency has been denuded of resources in recent years. The agency had £235 million cut from its budget when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”

He pointed out that the government has only acted because of the level of public outrage and pressure from opposition parties such as the Lib Dems.

His main focus was on laying out the changes Lib Dems propose. Abolish Ofwat as it stands and bolster the Environment Agency so that we have a regulator with teeth and transform water companies into public benefit companies. Fantastic campaigners such as those he hosted the previous day need a voice at the board level of these companies, otherwise we will face the catastrophe of our tourist hotspots being struck with the affliction that is water pollution. According to Blue Flag, four of the 10 beaches most affected by pollution last year were in Devon, including Sidmouth, which endured over 600 hours of sewage spills.

“We need to see the end of operator self-monitoring, which is where water companies get to gather their data themselves before passing it to the regulator. It means that they can potentially vary the data they are collecting. Water companies are essentially marking their own homework. This is having a devastating effect on some tourist areas such as the ones in Honiton.”

Unfortunately a succession of conservative interruptions disrupted the flow of his arguments. What the Tories jumped on was the proposal to abolish Ofwat, when Lib Dem policy is to replace it with a tough new regulator with new powers to prevent sewage dumps.

They returned to this three times, but it’s not the Lib Dems who are in the dock.

Selaine Saxby drops a bombshell – Campaign group misrepresent the data!

At this point Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con), a surfer herself, dropped a bit of a bombshell claiming:

“A campaign group [clarified later as Surfer Against Sewage] has chosen to misrepresent the data it has, issuing sewage alerts when the combined storm overflows run and scaring people from entering our beautiful waters.”

She needs to do her research on the Environment Agency’s questionable testing methods and the fact that SWW data cannot yet be trusted. The “rules of thumb” adopted by Surfers Against Sewage are a much safer bet. (See “Is it safe to swim in Budleigh?”)

Labour’s View.

Mr Toby Perkins (Lab) shadow minister for rural affairs said, amongst other things:

“Yesterday, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I spoke at the launch of the election manifesto for the Surfers Against Sewage campaign. It was a shame that the Government were not able to send the Minister, although he was intending to go. It is an important coalition, because the issue is of huge importance to our constituents, particularly to the economy of the south-west. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reflected, we heard from Jo Bateman about the powerful campaign that she is fighting for the ability to swim in clean waterways, recognised as an amenity that should be available to us all.

In preparing for this debate, I was pleased to hear about the work of Jayne Kirkham and Perran Moon, Labour’s parliamentary candidates for Truro and Falmouth and for Camborne and Redruth, respectively. They have supported protests and started petitions that add to the community fight to preserve Cornwall’s waterways. Jayne stressed that the discharges into Cornwall’s rivers was impacting on tourism and costing millions alongside the environmental damage.

Many people are concerned that Ofwat’s new growth duty will further reduce its ability to be a force for environmental good. When the Minister responds, I hope that he can set out how he sees that duty working alongside Ofwat’s responsibilities to improve environmental outcomes. Does the Minister agree that the perception that our waterways are not fit to swim in is damaging to growth as it depletes tourist revenue? If so, will he confirm whether he has instructed Ofwat that its new growth duty must mean that no sewage discharge is liable to reduce tourist growth?”

Ministerial response

From: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore).

Moore recognised that SWW remains one of the worst performing companies particularly on pollution incidents and storm overflow discharges. “That is completely unacceptable. South West Water should be under no illusion: it must take urgent steps to reduce its pollution incidents significantly, as well as addressing other performance concerns, such as increasing resilience of the water supply.”

He mentioned the old news of the 2050 target for overflow reduction. And that we supposedly have 100% monitoring of storm overflows. Though in an interjection, Mr Perkins raised the big problem of “self-monitoring”.

Moore then mentioned SWW latest business plans of £2.8 bn investment to turn things around [but we have heard plenty of promises in the past – haven’t we?]

Last words from Simon Jupp

“As ever, Lib Dem policy is as clear as mud.“

So was this a debate about South West Water and pollution or a grandstand for electioneering? – Owl

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the performance of South West Water.

Westminster Hall debates are strictly timed. 

This one lasted an hour and involved the following speakers:

One Lib Dem, Richard Foord,

Two Labour MP’s, Luke Pollard (Plymouth) & Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) shadow minister for rural affairs; and 

Five Conservatives Simon Jupp (East Devon), who led the debate, Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot), Selaine Saxby (North Devon), Kevin Foster (Torbay) & Anthony Mangnall (Totnes). 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore) replied. 

Note there was no MP from Cornwall. 

Follow link to the Hansard transcript of the debate