Agenda item

To debate a Petition presented by Councillor Steve Masters on sewage discharge by Water Companies.

Councillors may present other petitions which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate body without discussion.

Councillors Graham Bridgman and Tom Marino left the meeting during consideration of this item due to their declarations of interests on this matter.

The Council considered a Petition for Debate which had initially been presented by Councillor Steve Masters to its meeting on 2 December 2021. It related to sewage discharge by water companies, contained 1,769 signatures, and had been agreed by the Group Leaders as a subject of real significance locally to the people of West Berkshire and its immediate surrounding area therefore triggering this debate.

Prior to debate on this item the Vice-Chairman explained that in accordance with paragraph 1.4(f) of Appendix C (Procedure Rules for Dealing with Representations) to Part 13 (Codes and Protocols) of the Constitution, the petition organiser would have five minutes to introduce the petition and the petition would be debated by Council for a maximum of fifteen minutes. This time limit was specified in the Constitution and could not be extended during the meeting.

The Vice-Chairman continued by explaining that Council had three options for dealing with Petitions for Debate:

1.    To take the action the petition suggested;

2.    Not to take the action for the reason(s) put forward in the debate; and

3.    To commission a further investigation into the matter.

Members could propose one of the options which, if seconded, would be put to a vote. The vote on any proposal which had been seconded would take place at the end of the debate to ensure that Members could consider all comments prior to voting.

Based on proportionality, the Conservative Group would be allocated eight of the fifteen minutes, the Liberal Democrat Group six minutes and the Green Party one minute.

The Vice-Chairman concluded by drawing Members attention to the wording of the Petition for Debate which was set out on the agenda:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Council to request a formal explanation from our local MP’s as to why they voted down Lords Amendment 45 to the Environment Bill which would have placed a legal duty on water companies in England and Wales to make improvements to their sewage systems and demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage. MPs Laura Farris and John Redwood voted to defeat the Lords amendment (Alok Sharma did not vote). We also petition the Council’s OSMC to robustly question Thames Water at their scheduled appearance in March 2022. OSMC should focus on the amount of discharge in local waterways and the proposed investment in improvements to infrastructure. West Berkshire residents urge the Council to condemn the discharging of raw sewage into our waterways and call upon all stakeholders to work together to end this environmentally destructive practice which also damages public health.”

The Vice-Chairman invited Councillor Masters to introduce the Petition for Debate.

Councillor Masters explained that sewage in rivers could happen for a number of reasons, but the main reason was a Combined Sewer Outflow (CSO). This was only meant to occur under exceptional circumstances but some CSO's had been recorded discharging raw sewage into rivers when it had not rained for days. Councillor Masters stated that current arrangements were not working with underinvestment, overdevelopment, and regulators having little power to sanction offenders. This had resulted in local rivers and coastal waters having become contaminated to levels not seen for more than 30-40 years. He advised that since 2016 the monitoring budget of the Environment Agency had fallen by 55% and it was therefore relying to a great extent on the water companies self-reporting. Court actions against polluters had also fallen by 98% between 2002 and 2020.

Councillor Masters confirmed that there were approximately twelve sewage treatment works in West Berkshire and the majority of these had a number of large spills recorded in the most recent data published in 2020. He referred to the request in the petition for a formal explanation as to why the local MPs had voted down the Lords amendment which would have placed greater legal duties on the water companies in England and Wales to make improvements to sewage systems and demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage. He also noted that Laura Farris MP had recently voted in Parliament against a requirement to record the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result of polluted rivers. The government had also just announced that the national target for all rivers to be in good health had been scrapped as there were no plans for new goals for the overall quality of rivers after the current targets expire in 2027. Mr Richard Benwell, the Chief Executive of the Wildlife and Countryside Link, had stated that the current targets miss the major sources of pollution from water and sewage companies that depend on unreliable methods of measurement, and they also set no ambition for the overall quality of rivers.

Councillor Masters closed by referring to the request in the petition to examine and scrutinise the plans of Thames Water to help ensure that the waterways in the district are clean and healthy, both for enjoyment and leisure and for the natural environment. He invited Council to support the people of West Berkshire and vote in favour of the actions the petition suggested.

Councillor Lynne Doherty believed that no Member would argue that the level of sewage discharge by water companies was acceptable, but her Group felt unable to accept what they viewed as a political petition and an attack on the Conservatives under the pretence of acting in the best interests of all residents in West Berkshire. She stated that local MP's were entitled to keep residents informed in a manner they chose, and had seen accounts from them which demonstrated they had listened to the widespread and shared concerns on this issue. Councillor Doherty referred to what she believed was an unacceptable personal attack within Councillor Master’s letter of the 11 November to the Newbury Weekly News and bullying tactics through his social media. She felt that if Councillor Masters had wanted a cross party position on the topic and was serious about co-operation then the petition would not have been made political. Councillor Doherty highlighted the Motion submitted by Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter which would help the Council continue to work constructively with its partners on this issue.

Councillor Jeff Brooks noted the public disquiet about this topic given that the number of leaks and major incidents appeared to be rising. He felt it was reasonable for the Council to ask local MP's to explain themselves as doing so was not an attack on them. He also felt it reasonable to expect the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission to robustly question Thames Water but did not think it should have been included in the wording of the petition. In closing, he indicated his Groups support of the petition.

Councillor Carolyne Culver did not believe that the petition was radical as it simply asked for Thames Water to be scrutinised by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission, and for an explanation from two of the local MPs as to why they rejected the Duke of Wellington’s amendment to place a new duty on water companies to make improvements to their sewerage systems. She asked Council to remember that this was not a Green Party Motion but a public petition, and voting against it meant rejecting the wishes of more than 1700 members of the public who had signed it.

MOTION proposed byCouncillor Carolyne Culver and seconded by Councillor Steve Masters:

“To take the action the petition suggested.”

The Motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.

MOTION proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty and seconded by Councillor Ross Mackinnon:

“Not to take the action the petition suggested for the reasons put forward in the debate.”

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

There were no other Petitions presented to Council at the meeting.