David Levy – An Update on the Environment Bill – Jul 21

What has been a new experience for me is watching both the live and recorded debates in The Houses of Parliament, and the ability to fast forward and select passages of interest at will.   For my granddaughter this facility proves to be a trifle, but for this septuagenarian, a true revelation of discovery.

What was revealed by this experience was the real work being done in the House of Lords.

Their Lordships covered all the major points of failure which the current version of the Environment Bill is festooned with and they provided, in detail, the solutions.   They did so in a civilised and almost deferential manner, the latter being probably one of their failings.

Decades of lost investment and poor planning decisions have resulted in run-off rain water being channelled into an already over extended sewage network.   This has maxed out the capacity of the sewer network and its treatment works, thus causing overflow storm discharges which have not been properly controlled by regulation, licensing or enforcement.

All of this has been happening on the watch of successive governments of all political complexions, and someone has to say enough is enough.

So what has been the response so far by the present DEFRA Minister, Lord Zac Goldsmith?

His speedy if rather contemptuous rejection of all of their Lordships’ amendments (improvements) to the Bill so far leaves me wondering if he has any empathy for the environment, or whether he is more concerned with his efforts to climb the tricky, greasy pole of politics.

I have to qualify this statement by saying that the Lords are looking to amalgamate the Committee Stage amendments, choosing the best and those that are most acceptable to all following debate and discussion, and then to subsequently press for change via amendment of the Bill at its Report Stage in September.   To be honest, I don’t fully understand this process — I would accept all these amendments in principle and then develop a hierarchy of action on them, with urgency being the watchword.

The Duke of Wellington, who presented our amendments, has put on a good show and he generally seems to be well received by their Lordships and to be in receipt of their support in debate.   But I have a fear that the bargaining over matters of reform will ultimately settle upon Philip Dunne MP and his antiquated, not fully reasoned Private Members Bill as many Lords and Ladies have their loyalties invested in it.

Several times during the Bill’s Committee Stage debate Surfers Against Sewage and Philip Dunne MP have been praised for raising this issue of rampant sewage pollution — but I have to say, do the Surfers and Philip Dunne amendments go far enough and solve the situation as it currently is?

And even more importantly, are their proposals fully fit for purpose in the 21st Century?

The reason for Marinet’s involvement in this Bill and our amendments is that we do not believe the Surfers and Philip Dunne proposals go far enough.   That is why we push for better.

So at the end of July, that’s where we currently stand — awaiting private meetings and the Report Stage in September with its mixing bowl of amendments which the Government may accept and agree to as improvements, and or decide otherwise and not.

Like being an England football supporter, I am always enthusiastic and ever hopeful — and God knows one day we may live with success.

However, do not hold your breath.

David Levy