Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to this meeting of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee. We are moving on to the third item on our agenda. We are continuing with our work of receiving evidence on water quality, and, joining us for this next session, we have representatives from Natural Resources Wales, and I want to extend a warm welcome to Gareth O'Shea, executive director of operations at Natural Resources Wales, and to Mark Squire, who is principal adviser strategic projects with Natural Resources Wales. Time is against us—we only have 40 minutes for this session today—but we'll start straight away with Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. You'll be aware from the headlines, and also from our feisty debate yesterday, that there's a lot of unrest now about the number of illegal Dŵr Cymru CSO operations. So, what is your view and how are you working to ensure that these breaches are minimised considerably?

Thanks for the question. Just be to be really clear, we share the public's concern. We are concerned ourselves about the situation we're facing, and, obviously, as a regulator, we want to see that situation improving. There are several different aspects to the regulatory piece, so, if I focus particularly on—. There are two types of storm overflows—the one with the flap valve, which you all understand, and the one with the storm tanks at the sewage treatment works. So, if I focus on the latter, and we'll pick up our regulatory approach to storm overflows as we go through the session. We're in contact, obviously, in a regulatory capacity, with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water; we've required them to put monitors on the works. They already have now 350 monitors on the 800 works. Not all will require monitors. We are investigating 51 of the sites, we know there are issues at a further 138—and I think these numbers were shared earlier—but, within those numbers, we have identified 45 sites where we've made improvements. Obviously, I've focused there on just that type of overflow, because I think that's what the question was on, but I'll come back to the wider performance later if I can.

And I'm sure will be picking up on those, yes. Joyce. Oh, sorry, Janet. Okay, briefly, Janet, yes.

Yes, just in terms of enforcement, though, there doesn't seem to be much to satisfy me that you're taking enforcement seriously on these.

I can come back on the enforcement stats later, probably, when we have the metric discussion.

Okay.

And if I don't, please remind me to do so.

We certainly will, yes, don't worry. Joyce.

I'm going to ask you about Cardigan and the breaches that were well reported there. So, my question is this, to try and get underneath it: when were those first reported to you, and what action have you taken, not only just then, but going forward?

Thanks for the question. And I make no excuses in saying this, but Cardigan is a complicated site. We first became aware of it back in July 2015. We became aware of it via the operator self-monitoring process—so, the company were aware and we were made aware. We visited the site at the time, as you'd expect. It wasn't working, obviously, as we'd expected. There was an issue with sea water infiltration affecting the membrane, as you'll understand, and we ended up issuing, at that point, a warning letter to resolve the issue. In 2016, then, the issue still hadn't been resolved, and it required further investigation, so the water company were doing further investigation there. That led us to issuing what we call a regulation 36 notice—the first one to the company. They complied with the requirements of the notice, but it didn't resolve the issue at the plant. So, we subsequently issued another regulatory notice, requiring them to do further work at the site. Again, that didn't resolve the issue. We got to a position where we recognised the issue at the site was unresolvable without a full reconstruction of the plant and investment. I think you'll know now that that investment has been announced for the next asset management plan period.

So, our position would be that the regulatory process has worked in getting the investment into the system, and the plant will be delivered, but I do recognise that there will be a view that other regulatory processes, such as prosecution, as mentioned, is a tool. We chose not to do that at this site, on the factors available to us and on the fact that we believe this was the best way of securing the best outcome for the environment in Wales. All I would say is that the site obviously remains under investigation as well.

Can I just—? So, it took eight years to decide that you couldn't fix what you couldn't fix the year before, the year before and the year before that. I know work has happened, because we've just spoken about it, and I understand the reasons why you didn't fine them, because there's less money to invest—we get that. But why has it taken so long? The sea has been there all the time; I know the area well. So, that's not new. That didn't arrive in 2015. Why is it taking all this time to recognise that you've got a problem that you can't resolve unless you invest in it?

We recognised that problem a couple of years ago, to be fair, which is why the last notice was issued, but we recognise that it is taking some time. As I said, it was a complex site. We thought the notices—or we wouldn't have served them at the time—would have resolved the problem, but obviously they didn't. But we kept going via that mechanism because we believed it was the best way of securing the outcome.

It wasn't. It wasn't.

Janet, back to you.

We know from speaking to Dŵr Cymru earlier—they said there were less than 200 sites known to be operating in breach of their permits. What do you believe is the real action to address these?

Do you want to take that?

I think, if we look at the action that's been taken, as we say, we've brought 45 back into compliance through the action that we've taken through the monitoring. The action then that Welsh Water takes brings those sites back in. Of those 138, they're going through that process at the moment, so it's the monitoring, the assessment by Welsh Water, what stage will it then be resolved—is it a long-term capital maintenance programme, or can they do it through maintenance? We are looking and we are carrying our audits now, on the back of some of the sites that were highlighted. We were doing this anyway, I'd like to just add; it's not on the back of the article. So, in places like Cardigan, we've got 11 audits going to be carried out against those sites. That may then lead to regulatory or enforcement action. So, we are looking a lot closer at the sites, and I think Gareth also mentioned there are more monitors going in. So, in terms of the number of sites we need to look at, that will, potentially, exponentially increase over the next couple of years.

Thank you.

Thank you. Huw, did you want to come in briefly?

Yes, just a small follow-up. We've heard a lot this morning in our earlier evidence session about the team Wales approach going forward. Not only you, but the Environment Agency in England, have faced a lot of criticism for not being more assertive in enforcement and fines and so on. And, look, we know that fines ultimately come back onto the water bill payer, one way or another; they don't come off shareholders, if there are shareholders, or whatever. But let me just ask you genuinely: the team Wales approach, does that mean we will see less hard enforcement, fewer fines? Because if it's all working together for the greater good, who holds the feet of Dŵr Cymru to the fire?

So, for environmental regulation, Huw, it's ourselves. We clearly hold Welsh Water's feet to the fire. In a team Wales approach moving forward, it's a multi-sphere issue, as you will understand, and from your debate yesterday, and it needs far greater input than the water companies' input, as we know. But, for environmental regulation, we are the regulator.

So, why do you and the Environment Agency seem to, for a lot of the public, take a step back from this, and say, 'Not yet; we're not ready to enforce, we're not ready to fine'?

You may have that impression; we don't feel like that. I've been going into water company performance reviews for the last six to eight years, and they are not the sort of conversations we have. I don't think the data we have supports that. Obviously, we can always do more regulation, and, as the situation has manifested, we'll need to change regulatory approaches.

But you asked the question about when we move forward. I can't predict what the enforcement levels will be, or what the outcome of enforcement levels will be, but what I can say to you is, where regulation needs to play its part, the team Wales approach doesn't change our role as a statutory regulator within Wales, and, where action needs to be taken to protect the environment, we will take action.

Could I just add, in terms of the team Wales approach? If you look at the guidance we've just issued on storm overflows, we've done that collaboratively, but the water companies won't like it—the guidance and the direction of travel—but we all understand. So, to us, team Wales is not always about agreeing everything; it's about understanding the position of each of the organisations and moving that forward. And we will use our enforcement powers, and our range of them, as and when we need to.

Thank you. Joyce.

You've issued a report that there's a declining environmental performance of Dŵr Cymru. So, what are the plans to work with them to improve that situation?

So, you'll be referring to the report that's in the evidence pack, and that you'll have discussed with the company earlier. As I said, I've been in there for several years, where the performance has oscillated between 3—. They've had one year of good, 4, performance, but, since, it's dropped to 3 and 2, for the reasons mentioned earlier. We'll make no excuses in there. We want the environmental outcomes. We don't agree with the water company on that their numbers are getting lower and so it's better. We want—. Our ambition for them is clear. We want zero serious pollution incidents. We want more self-reported incidents. So, we use that process. We have a tripartite meeting with Ofwat, a regulatory meeting, once a year. We're really clear on our position on that. We get invited to the sub-group of the Dŵr Cymru board, and we're quite challenging in that environment about what—. Now, we seek assurances. We want to assure the committee that we are not happy with a 2-star performing company, and we are not happy with the impact of that on the environment in Wales.

Well, we're all unhappy, but what are you going to do about is the question. We can all say we're unhappy, because we are.

So, what that has led to—and I know you've talked about the figures earlier on—is that—. That framework leads to the investment programme, the AMP programme, the five-year investment programme. Through that regulatory process, through that performance, that's led to record investment. I would say a figure of £1.2 billion of capital investment; I know why the water company would use a £3.5 billion figure, because they'd include maintenance. But that's at record levels to deal with some of the issues that we're getting, and it is that regulatory process that has got us to that.

One point two billion pounds as capital.

One point two billion pounds capital investment, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Back to Janet.

Let's face it, you are regulators. You also have enforcement powers. So, how do you respond to the fact that Dŵr Cymru has breached its permit conditions more than 200 times in the last six years, and they've only been fined twice? Why is that?

If I set out some figures for you that are kind of verified at our end and we've used previously. So, if I go back to 2016, and if you tie that in with the performance report that you'll have read, I'll answer the question, I hope, Janet. There have been 70 breaches of the numeric conditions on the permits, which are covered under the environmental performance assessment metric, since 2016. Our enforcement since 2016 has resulted in six prosecutions, 19 formal cautions, 8 enforcement undertakings, a civil sanction, and over 340 warning letters. So, there is a regulatory response there. Obviously, there's a lag between the incidents and the enforcement. So, there are some numbers in the most recent ones that won't have come through our enforcement processes yet.

But it takes me back to the question. There have been five serious incidents. But 340 warning letters to only have two fines tells me that the warning letters themselves may not be fit for purpose.

But your question talks to my point, really; the five recent incidents will still be in the system and under investigation. So you can't marry those two numbers, which is why I gave the numbers over—

Okay, let's go back to the basics then. You've sent 340 warning letters and there's been just under 200 breaches, but only two fines. It doesn't stack up.

No. There have been six prosecutions over that time.

Six prosecutions.

Yes. There have been 19 formal cautions, and the evidence test for those is the same.

Let's be honest, companies only start to really take things seriously if they feel that they are going to be fined. What was the result of those prosecutions then?

NRW's regulatory response has prosecutions as part of it, and rightly so, and prosecutions are a deterrent. But our toolbox is much broader than that.

'What comes out of the prosecutions?' is what I'm asking.

What comes out of a prosecution will be reputational issues for the water company. The money, the fine, would go back into the central Government pot and go off to London. It wouldn't go back the environmental issue on the ground. That's different with enforcement undertakings, but we can only use enforcement undertakings at present in Wales where it's linked to a Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 offence. Sorry to get technical on it, but where it leads to a fish kill.

Doesn't the fact that the money goes back to Westminster—? That's academic, really, isn't it? If you're using that as a reason not to fine somebody, then what's the point of having a fine?

Sorry, I shouldn't have made that suggestion.

Okay. I'll give you the chance to clarify.

Thanks for correcting me. Obviously, the decision to prosecute or not comes down to a balance and a test of whether we have the evidence, whether the evidence justifies prosecution, and you do have to have evidence to get it to court to justify the prosecution.

Of course, of course.

And then, as part of that, there's a public interest test, and we make a judgement as to what's the best outcome in the case with the evidence we have. Sometimes it results in prosecution, sometimes it doesn't.

So, when we're told on television that that money’s better spent on infrastructure than on utilising a fine, you're suggesting a different approach there.

We would follow our enforcement and prosecution policy, so we wouldn't be afraid to take something through to prosecution if it was a serious breach or resulted in a fish kill or resulted in environmental harm. So, that option is always open to us. Officers will go through those steps of warning letters, serving notice. If they feel that the operator—Welsh Water, but if could be anybody—is taking it seriously, has got a plan in place for bringing back to compliance, it will probably stop at that point, and that may be done. We'd have to look at those 342 individual cases to see why it didn't go further from warning letter. It could be that it was resolved.

Okay. Delyth wants to come in on this point particularly, and then I'll come to Janet. But we are halfway through our time slot already. Delyth.

Diolch. And forgive me, Janet, if you were about to ask this, but it's often commented on that NRW is underfinanced, and you've said to us in the past that there are lots of things that you would like to be doing as an organisation if you had more funding. Has that had any implication for any of this? If you had more money, would there be more times when you might have taken a different action?

I don't think money is a factor in our decision making, as Mark has outlined there. But in terms of funding, we've been grateful to receive the £18 million gap in funding to our baseline. We've welcomed the extra funding over the next two years of £2.5 million for the control of agricultural pollution regs. We've welcomed the capital funding of £15 million that's led to some great water quality projects on the ground—

So, it's 'no'.

In our baseline services, if we call them that—our core monitoring, our core incident response and our enforcement—we recognise we sit in the context of the public sector. We have faced real challenges in this over the last decade, and we have considerably less in this area. But it doesn't affect our decision making on individual cases.

No. You're right, and it's absolutely fair that you make that point. Janet, did you want to have a final word? And then we'll come to Jenny.

I'm still not convinced that you've got the teeth, or you do have the power but you're not using that power. At the end of the day, the numbers just do not stack up. I was hoping today that you'd reassure me that, actually, you do have this criteria that's set. It just sounds to me as though Dŵr Cymru, and maybe other organisations that you're involved with where you are a regulator and where you are an enforcement body—. I don't think you're taking the enforcement side seriously enough. How can you convince me otherwise?

Okay. Sorry, Janet. I think what we're saying is, basically, there's a carrot-and-stick approach, but you never use the stick.

Exactly.

We would argue that we do use the stick; we believe we have the full range of regulatory tools. I mean, we've just outlined some of the approaches we've taken, and they are considerable cases. I can't go into other cases that will follow through, but they're under investigation at the minute because of the numbers involved. But we do have the tools available, and we will and do use them.

Thank you. Okay. We'll have to move on to Jenny.

I agree with you that reputational risk is a more effective tool than fines, because it just reduces the amount of money in circulation. But I think the public is getting the impression that the citizen scientists are doing a better job than you are, because Professor Hammond and these environmental information regulation requests are revealing things that you ought to be knowing already. These Windrush Against Sewage Pollution figures are saying that most of the discharges were either on dry days—a small number—but mostly—96, nearly 97 per cent—were early discharges when the treatment flow was below capacity at some point during the spill—i.e. it wasn't raining so heavily and the capacity of the plant to process the sewage treatment didn't require them to chuck it into the river. So, did you not know about this, and if not, why not? What action were you taking before Professor Hammond revealed all this?

Professor Hammond has been great. We've talked to Professor Hammond about the sites and the work he's done and how that correlates with some of the work we've done. In honest truth, we were looking at some of the sites, but not all of the sites that he picked in the article that was done. We've tightened our guidance, which was sent as a pack, our new storm overflow guidance; it talks about when discharges are allowed, i.e. not on a dry day, and it sets those definitions, which are now being worked through by the company to assess the discharges but also then to categorise them—whether they're satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or substandard. That's a big piece of work that needs to be done. But the information that Professor Hammond requests is the same information that we use for our compliance. And as I said earlier, in instances like Cardigan, we've got 11 investigations under way using similar data, but obviously we have to look at that data separately to Professor Hammond.

I understand that, but I think the impression that's been given is that you're simply not—. Basically, what we're trying to do here, isn't it, is not to chuck any untreated or partially treated water into the rivers and seas. And if we've got evidence that people are doing it on days when they're not overwhelmed by very large rainfall, it just feels like you're not doing your job properly.

If it's discharging on a dry day into a river and causing an impact and pollution, then we have the powers to take—. It would be a pollution incident and we would use those powers. If it's breaching its permit but we're not seeing the impact, then we're pushing the companies to do the assessment as to what the impact is, why it isn't 'working to modern standards'—that's the term we use—and bring that discharge up to modern standards. We have the right to take that to prosecution if we feel it meets all the tests to take it through the court system.

Okay. Can you just very briefly tell us what's your strategy for bringing all unpermitted overflows into the regulatory regime?

There are two aspects. There's the unpermitted, which is around 200 in number, and there is also the guidance, which is around storm overflows. The assessments that companies need to do are set out in that guidance, and that will ensure that they are assessing them, putting forward the criteria that they need to bring them up to standard, or if they are up to standard, that's fine. And any that are unsatisfactory, as I heard Peter say, need to be resolved in the next AMP. Alongside that sits the process for unpermitted discharges they need to go through, to bring them (1) up to modern standard, and (2) ensure that they're satisfactory. So, we won't be permitting them tomorrow, because if you permit something and you don't understand why you're permitting it, that is a perverse way to go about it. So, they need to do the assessment, and they will then be in a place where they can apply for the permit, with what action they need to take. And we will issue an enforcement notice alongside that to hold them to that.

Okay. So, the timescales: the public are saying they want action and they want to know by when you're going to put a stop to all this.

On anything unsatisfactory, we're expecting the company—and, obviously, there are cost and affordability implications—to do those assessments by 2027, and to look to ensure anything that's unsatisfactory is programmed to be resolved by 2030, on a 'prioritise harm reduction' basis.

And meanwhile, the biodiversity in our rivers and seas is just deteriorating by the day.

We've picked up, in the assessments that we're expecting the company to carry out, biological surveys, to help us prioritise those. We know, if you look at the Stantec report, in terms of the cost of delivering this, it's billions. So, as a fair regulator, we've got to take account of how long this would take to bring everything up to modern standard. But we will expect the company, as fast as they can, to deal with those that are unsatisfactory and have a programme, over the next couple of AMPs, to deal with the substandard assets.

Okay. I'll come back on matters related.

Thank you. Huw.

Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask you a big, broad question right at the outset? We've seen remarkable success in previous decades in cleaning up things like bathing water quality and so on. You're sitting in front of us as the environment regulator in Wales—you're the only people we can go to on these issues. Not just you, but Dŵr Cymru, who were in front of us before, the regulator, ourselves as politicians, whatever, we have categorically failed on river quality, haven't we, on sewage and other aspects. We have not anticipated what could be foreseen, which is Victorian infrastructure, which are things that would break down and crumble, which is overloading of housing capacity on an already overloaded sewage system, which is climate change getting us to have more discharges into narrow river valleys. But we could have foreseen this. Do you accept, as the environmental regulator, that you have failed, but we have failed as well? This might be an unfair question for you; it should be to the chief executive, I guess. But we have failed.

I accept the broad point you make, Huw. I think it's right that you recognise the progress made with 100 per cent compliance of bathing waters and 40 per cent good WFD compliance, or 44 per cent in rivers. I don't think we've foreseen the speed of climate change and the impact it has on an antiquated system, as a society more generally, and I think everyone has to play a part in that. I think we are dealing with it now. I think we have to move quickly. I think the water company has to move quickly, the wider sector has to move quickly. That's why I'm really pleased that we're part of the phosphate summit, that we've got the better river water quality, because we do need to modernise, we do need to modernise responses. I wouldn't say we failed because of where we are today, but I would recognise more broadly that the pace of things has caught up with us.

Could I just add as well, if we look—? We've mentioned the data that Professor Hammond is using; all that data has gone in in the last 10 years. The regulator has asked for that information, because we know that the system needs to improve and we need to tackle the problems that we see now. So, I would say we haven't failed; we've come to a point where we know we need to now invest, and we probably need to invest quicker—

No, no—we have failed. Let's go on to the ecological status of our rivers, let's look at what's happening there. We have failed to take the pre-emptive action that could have mitigated some of this. You're saying we couldn't have seen as much this traumatic, rapid increase within climate change, but we certainly knew there was an antiquated sewerage system. Now, the regulator will have to answer for this as well.

Yes.

The evidence on the ground is, and the indicators are, that our rivers are in dire straits—not all of them; every river catchment is different. We're focusing on sewage today, but, equally, I mentioned in the previous evidence session, in Joyce's area, the Cleddau river, and that's a different kettle of fish, then. Sorry, I'm mixing metaphors here. [Laughter.] But you've mentioned phosphorous, nitrate management schemes, and so on—all of this has to be tackled.

I think we need to recognise where we are. I think we need to recognise we're doing some really positive stuff, across the board, moving forward. We did make great strides over the last decades. It has been a difficult decade, hasn't it, on many fronts, but we are moving together forward now. It doesn't make any difference, but we are in a better position with the compliance figures in Wales, despite us facing some huge challenges as well in terms of topography and impact.

Okay. So, just tell me briefly, looking forward, where are we now on something that's close to my heart, which is this issue of driving up the ecological status of all our rivers, recognising that every one is different? And this will take us not only into the area of CSOs and discharges of sewage and the antiquated system, and whatever, but also phosphorous, nitrate management, and so on. Where are we on target setting and timelines for improvements to the ecological status of our rivers in Wales?

So, we've got the target demonstrator catchment, which is looking across everything within the catchment and how we tackle that. So, that will give us the evidence and a footprint, not just for SAC rivers, but for our other rivers. We've got our river restoration programme, which is a huge programme, looking at ecological impacts and what we can do there, and it's gathering the evidence then to feed that out, as regulator and in a team Wales approach, with other sectors, about how we move that forward.

We do recognise that our monitoring programme needs to be expanded. We do recognise and will publish something, as part of the better river water quality taskforce, around the better use of citizen science, et cetera, because we are an organisation that wants to be evidence led, and we need to follow the evidence, we need to follow the harmful impact. On the example that I think Jenny raised, we don't want plants discharging on dry days, which is why they need to discharge as they're designed to do, in higher flow conditions, where the impact is far less.

But I could reiterate, Huw—it probably wouldn't be helpful—we're playing on several different arenas here. The phosphate forum and the summit are really, really important. We'll be taking a proposal, and I think Mark alluded to it—. We're doing a piece of work in the Teifi, and we've picked the Teifi purposely because of the phosphorous issues, because of Dŵr Cymru's large role there. We're gathering stakeholders on the ground, to take a holistic and a collective view around how a team Wales approach may work. We'll be updating on that in the summer. We're implementing, as part of the separate storm overflow work, the work that Mark referred to, which has been done by gathering together the key players in the better river water quality taskforce. We'll keep pushing on that. We'll keep pushing with our regulatory framework, inside the PR24 process—the regulatory process—and we will continue with some terrific projects that I know some Members have been to on the ground, with the capital funding as part of our river restoration programme.

Okay. Thank you. Where am I going next? Bear with me. Joyce. Jenny. Jenny, apologies.

Okay. I want to talk about the need to reduce phosphate going into the watercourses altogether. What is your view about the Minister's decision to have an enhanced nutrient management approach rather than the licensing scheme, and what is the significance of that decision on reducing phosphate in our waters?

So, I take that to refer to the control of agri pollution regs.

Yes, absolutely.

We welcome the approach. I said we welcome the additional funding. We've set up a team—two teams, actually, in north and south Wales—that will get out into the farms. The training's been done. They'll get out into farms on the ground across Wales, and we think it will make a difference in working with farmers.

Okay. On the specific scheme that was mentioned by Dŵr Cymru, which was the Clwydian scheme, I'm not familiar with it, but they said they were waiting on your approval to get this going, because they were working with farmers to have an alternative way of dealing with this.

Yes, there was specific reference to Clwyd and Tremeirchion, that they'd been waiting three years for permitting, so, you know—

So, why are they waiting? Or is it because you're not satisfied that it's actually going to do what it says on the tin?

Partly. So, Tremeirchion works has a permit. We've got the proposals to replace the existing works with a wetland solution. So, there is a lot of evidence around the world around how wetlands work, and we want Wales evidence, so we've entered an agreement with Welsh Water to treat that and Pont-y-felin, which is a storm overflow, as a trial. So, we will look to gather the evidence from those sites. Tremeirchion will be run as a trial. If the wetland is successful, then that can be rolled out, and I think, off the top of my head, Welsh Water have got something like 30 or 40 more proposals. On the back of that, they want to look at catchment proposals and interventions, which we can't—. We wouldn't stop Welsh Water or anybody working with farmers or agriculture to do interventions, but linking them back to a permit is something we need to look at through the trial process.

So, it's potentially three years; it depends how we evaluate the evidence for Tremeirchion as it goes through, and we're just about to kick off those meetings with Welsh Water in terms of boots on the ground. They've acquired the land. It'll give us some good intel and evidence as to whether, for sewage treatment, wetlands are the way forward. We need to do it on a 'no regrets', because what we can't have, or we'll be back in the room here, is saying, 'It didn't work. Are we going to invest more? We're going to have to re-instigate works', and we want a 'no regrets' policy.

Okay. So, leaving that to one side, what else are you doing to actually really tackle this issue? We know it's really complicated and it's down to our propensity to chuck phosphate at absolutely everything, and that's going back 70 years. What else is happening? What's your contribution to this, given that it's such a significant issue?

We're working as part of the nutrient management board. We're supporting each of the nutrient management boards. We've supported the Wales nutrient calculator work. We are, as I said, regulating in the water companies sphere. We are gathering partners together. I think you recognised in your debate yesterday that it's a wider societal and sectoral issue, so we're grabbing—. We are planning to use the Teifi to—

Okay, that you were mentioning earlier.

Yes, to give us a more holistic understanding and getting everyone to put their contribution on the table, and to see what other options we can use, et cetera.

What role does NRW have in educating farmers as to when and whether it's necessary put phosphate on the land, given that there's so much of it stored out there already?

That's part of the role of the new officers that are coming—I think there are 20 in total—through the funding. They'll be going out to farms to educate as well as enforce against inspections. And just to mention the other—. We are reviewing 170 of Welsh Water's permits that currently don't have phosphate limits, to ensure that they're—. We call them the 'backstop limit', so that the company then has to perform at that level so we don't see a deterioration. So, that work is under way and is due to complete in 12 months.

Okay. I think, basically, this committee, as opposed to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, is pretty upset at the watering down of the proposals to have a licensing scheme. I just wondered if you could just briefly tell us what is the impact of that decision, because the recommendation—. The Minister has now reflected on that and delayed that licensing scheme.

Could we take that away? I think both Gareth and I aren't close enough to some of that work and the recent announcements.

Okay. We'd appreciate a note on that, then.

Yes, that's fine.

We are out of time, but I am going to take the liberty of asking one final question, because I've been reflecting on this balance between the carrot and the stick, and you've been telling us that you're confident that you have the tools in your box to be able to perform your role effectively. But then again, of course, you have downgraded NRW's environmental performance from four star to three star to two star—

Dŵr Cymru's—

Now, that suggests to me that either the tools are deficient or you're not using them effectively enough.

Well, I would argue that, in downgrading them, we are dealing with the issues that are in front of us. We don't think the water company is ambitious enough in addressing those issues, or the performance wouldn't be downgrading. But, as I said, if we look at the most recent data, you can't extrapolate an enforcement response, which is effectively what you're talking about, to some of the issues that would still be in the system. That's why I tried to drag the time frame out from 2016 to 2023, so you start to see a more rolling picture. But I would argue, Chair, that we're really clear on the performance in terms of the incidents. We're not happy with that performance. We think the ambition needs to be clear. There are instances—you can argue there should be more instances. Everyone's entitled to a perspective on that. We think that we have the tools to take action where we need to take action, and action that is proportionate in the cases that we come across.

Okay. Sincerely, thank you for appearing before us this morning. We really appreciate the evidence you've given us, and, again, it will all go into the melting pot with the other evidence that we've received. So, with that, can I thank you for your attendance and remind you that there will be a transcript of the Record, a draft copy, available for you to check for accuracy?

The committee will now break for another five minutes, if that's okay, so that we can reconvene at 11:20, when we'll be receiving evidence from Ofwat in our final session this morning. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Welcome back to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. We're coming to the fourth item on our agenda and a further evidence session on water quality. Joining us for this particular session are Ofwat, so welcome to David Black, chief executive, and Gwenllian Roberts, director of Wales.

Again, this will be a fairly short session, but hopefully that will help us to focus on sharp questions and answers. So, I'll start.

I'll just kick off with a general question, I suppose, about the price review process and the process's role, if you like, in driving investment in environmental improvement. Because, clearly, there are balances to be struck all over the place, and I suppose it's your call as to where those balances lie.

Thank you. Every five years we set a price control for all water companies across Wales and England, and part of that is an investment package in terms of new investment that's made, as well as what we'd call base or routine running costs of a company, an allowed rate of return and a set of performance expectations.

We work in collaboration with Natural Resources Wales. As part of this process there's a 25-year planning process for both water resources and waste water management. In particular on the waste water side, there's the Natural Resources Wales national environment plan, and that will specify, scheme by scheme, every significant environmental investment that's to be made in that period. And then that is reflected in the company's business plan. They submit that to us, we assess those plans, issue a draft determination for consultation and then a final determination.

So how would you characterise that process specifically in relation to Dŵr Cymru, maybe relative to your experience with other water companies?

We're obviously at the very beginnings of the process. There are some very specific issues in Wales that need to be addressed, particularly in the Dŵr Cymru area. Clearly they've got major issues to address in terms of their waste water investment, but equally some important investments on improving the resilience of their networks and treatment systems.

Stepping back a little bit, we're concerned about the performance we're seeing from Dŵr Cymru. You may have seen that our recent water company performance reports identified them as a lagging company, alongside a number of other companies in England. And so there's a set of performance issues that need to be addressed, which we're engaging with them on.

But the price review is about looking forward, setting the investment package, and we've seen from Natural Resources Wales a huge step up in the environmental investment programme. So, we'll be looking at the business plan, looking at how Dŵr Cymru's addressing affordability issues, but equally important how they're managing the potential deliverability constraints on their supply chain.

So, it's not just about identifying the set of investments that are to be made, but we need to be satisfied that ultimately the supply chain's there and the skills are there to deliver on this investment programme. That's particularly an issue at the 2024 price review because of the scale of investment that's made in Wales but also across England, and also wider infrastructure as well.

And we'll be digging into some of those specifics in a minute. But, just again, as a general observation, obviously you have accountability to the UK Government and the Welsh Government in different ways. There's always a risk with dancing to different tunes, but the Welsh Government has, of course, its strategic policy statement, so how are you utilising that and how is that being reflected in the assessment work that you're doing relating to Dŵr Cymru?

It's a vital part of the process. Unlike other economic regulators, the strategic policy statement is something we need to give effect to; it's not just something we give account to. So, it's something that we take very seriously. We obviously engage with the Welsh Government when they're setting the strategic policy statement so we understand both the context as well as the content of the statement. And we do see different priorities in Wales, so clearly focused on climate change, a focus on resilience, but also on the way that we set the price control as well. We can talk further about that, but in terms of the approach to PR24, we have something called the PR24 forum in Wales, and that's really designed to make sure that we are fully engaging with the Welsh Government but also stakeholder groups, that we're all working together as a team Wales approach. It's part of the way that we do the price review that's different in Wales to the way it's characterised in the English context.

Diolch yn fawr. I'll bring Janet in now.

Now that you've found Dŵr Cymru to be 'lagging' in your recent water company performance report, how are you going to hold Dŵr Cymru to account for its missed performance measures? And will that current Dŵr Cymru performance be considered in evaluating its PR24 business plan?

Excellent question. In terms of Dŵr Cymru's performance, you're right; they've met just 5 of their 12 key performance targets in the most recent year, delivering on their PR19 programme, and so that is a cause for concern. There are automatic awards and penalties built in to the price review process, and so, as part of that, we issue an annual determination of revenues, and that will claw back money for customers to reflect the failure of Dŵr Cymru to provide a service. We will also look at enforcement action, should we think that their failures actually cross the line and mean they're failing to comply with their legal obligations. We're interested in effecting change. We're interested in seeing Dŵr Cymru turn around its performance. It's not just about holding them to account; we want to see them improve, we want to see them deliver for customers and the environment in Wales. And so, as part of that, we require them to prepare for us a service improvement plan, which goes into what's driving their failures, really getting behind what's underlying their failures, and then getting Dŵr Cymru to commit to addressing those performance issues.

Do you believe you are doing your very best in terms of robustness as a regulator? Or are there limitations to your regulatory role, given Dŵr Cymru's not-for-profit business model?

We regulate a range of companies with different financial structures, different models. Dŵr Cymru do have a different model—the not-for-dividend model—so their holding company, or the company that owns Dŵr Cymru, is run on a not-for-dividend basis, and there are clearly some advantages to that model. It does mean that any returns, if you like, can be recycled back for the benefits of customers and the environment. But equally, it does raise risks around the absence of a shareholder to drive and hold managers to account, so that's obviously something that the board of Welsh Water attempts to address. We are looking in particular to make sure that Welsh customers are protected against any lack of efficiency or drive to improve performance. We think the regulatory framework we've got can and does work for Dŵr Cymru, but, equally, like any company, they can get into a situation where they're not performing as they ought to be for customers and the environment, and that's when we'll step in. We do that for Dŵr Cymru, but we also do it in England. We're also dealing, as you may well be aware, with a number of companies there that are not performing as they ought to be as well.

My question goes back to you: do you believe that you're doing absolutely the very best that you can as a regulator?

Yes. We're looking at every regulatory instrument we've got at our disposal. That's both in terms of the price review process itself but also the performance commitments that we're setting. So, as part of the price review process, we'll be looking at making sure that, looking ahead, Dŵr Cymru face stretching but achievable performance service levels, we'll be looking to make sure that they're understanding what's ultimately behind their performance issues, and we'll be looking at our tools around board governance and leadership to make sure that they've got the appropriate arrangements in place there. We'll leave no stone unturned to try to drive better performance in Wales, but ultimately, obviously, there is an element of this that is down to Dŵr Cymru and its leadership team to address these challenges.

Joyce wants to come in on this as well.

I just want to pick up something that you said. You talked about accountability, a board versus shareholders, and you said they haven't got shareholders to hold them to account. Everything I've read ever has told me that shareholders are actually interested in their shares and they're not particularly interested in investment, unless it increases the value of the share, of course. So I just want you to clarify that so that it isn't misunderstood when we look at the record.

Sure. You're right that there is a challenge with privately owned companies or listed companies. They've got shareholders and they've got duties to those shareholders, so that may lead them to focus on things like dividends and returns to shareholders. But equally, if we associate the shareholders' interests with good performance, then that creates a pressure on management to drive better performance. And the concern that we have is that, without shareholders around the table, there isn't any challenge or counter to—

There's a board, though.

There is a board, yes, but what sits behind the board in terms of driving the board?

Well, you'd have looked at that, wouldn't you, as a regulator?

We do, but it's just a difference in ownership model. So, I'm not saying that one ownership model is better than another, I'm just saying that each—

Well, that seems to me—sorry, Chair—what you were saying—

No.

—and that is why I asked the question. It seems to me that you've repeated the same point.

Well, let's hear you try again, then.

I'm saying that there are differences between the two,—so there are differences between a for-profit ownership model and the Dŵr Cymru model. There are some benefits to the Dŵr Cymru model, which I've noted, in terms of the ability to recycle returns back to customers, but there are some gaps in the model as well. So, as a regulator, we need to be conscious of that when we're regulating the company, and we are.

So, what are those gaps, for example?

This is about what's driving management to perform better, and so, if they're inefficient, what are the consequences. In a privately owned company, those consequences will come back to shareholders, and similarly, if they're falling short on performance commitments, that will be detrimental to shareholders' interests. In Dŵr Cymru's case, that doesn't happen, and so—

But it's not coming back to the shareholders.

Okay. So, there's no explicit criticism of that; you're just noting the fact that there is something there that you, as a regulator, need to be mindful of.

Yes, that's right.

Okay. Go on then, Jenny. I'll come back in after.

In your PR24 framework, you say that you're going to be setting clear requirements for dividends and executive pay policies. There are no dividends going out the window with Dŵr Cymru, but executive pay policies—. I mean, the top man is getting about six times what the First Minister's getting. What's the justification for that and what do you do to try and ensure that all companies actually have the customer at the top of their priorities?

This is an important issue. Just yesterday, we released our view on companies' performance-related pay. We're very clear that companies' performance-related pay needs to be linked to performance for customers and the environment. We're not happy that, when we look across companies in both Wales and England, we see both insufficient linkages between company performance and the environment and insufficiently stretching performance requirements set. So, even when they've got commitments for customers and the environment, they're not sufficiently stretching enough. And we see a lack of transparency. So, we're changing our regime so that from next year onwards, when we see companies that fail to sufficiently demonstrate that what they're paying their executive team is linked to performance, we will intervene to stop customers paying for it.

It's the role of the board to set executive remuneration, it's our role to make sure that the board is appropriately discharging those responsibilities, and that's our focus—to try to drive up the levels of governance around executive pay. In summary, our latest year's findings found that companies weren't sufficiently demonstrating how pay was linked to performance. They weren't setting sufficiently stretching performance requirements, and that was a particular problem with the Dŵr Cymru arrangements. Companies have committed, in all cases, to addressing these issues and we're expecting to see changes in the year ahead. The level of pay, though, is still a matter for the board and not for us as a regulator.

Okay, but some would say that Ofwat's been sleeping on the job, because this has been going on, this wholesale export of all the profits elsewhere—. They're gone. You know, these are all foreign companies in the main, apart from Dŵr Cymru. And so you're very late to the party. And meanwhile, these companies are depleted and full of debt.

I would challenge that characterisation. Indeed, it's interesting when you compare outcomes in Wales. Obviously, there haven't been any dividends back to shareholders since 2002 in Wales, so they've had 20 years. Yet when we look at the performance of Welsh Water, its bills are the third highest across the country and its environmental performance is lagging and nowhere near where it ought to be. So, I don't observe that the difference in those models provides that.

The second point I would make, when we look at that the the level of debt and look at what's happened, is there's been £200 billion of investment in both England and Wales over that period. Debt has risen to £64 billion, so there's been a huge amount of investment, the investment has been mainly financed by debt and, in some cases, we do point to companies where we've got concerns about our debt levels. But, in the main, that debt level has driven a huge amount of investment, and one of the successes, actually, of the private initiative model is that it has secured considerably more investment than was going into the sector in the decades ahead of that.

Okay, sticking with Dŵr Cymru, they told us that although they have very expensive bills, they have one of the cheapest water bills, that it's the sewage bills that drive up the costs, and that they and south-west England have these very high costs related to the particulars of where they are operating. I just wondered whether that has credibility, in your book.

Yes, there's definitely something in that, that their environmental investment programme is driven by the environmental challenges in their region, and there have been significant levels of investment, particularly in coastal areas, and that does explain the level of investments in Dŵr Cymru's area, but also in other parts of England, like South West Water face. So, there is certainly something in that in terms of, historically, there's been huge investment and then, ultimately, it's paid for by customers over time, and so the investment decisions of, say, 20 years ago are still reflected in bills now, and likewise, if we invest more today, it will raise bills in the future and in the long term as well. So, there's something in that.

Okay, and a related issue is that, in 2011, the UK Government transferred all these assets to Dŵr Cymru, but no money went with them, from what I got to understand yesterday from the Minister. What role do you have in ensuring that the UK Government is fairly reapportioning responsibility and the money follows with it?

When the assets were transferred, and this is the adoption of private sewers—

Yes, of these private sewers.

Yes. There was a process of working through, of saying what responsibilities companies were taking on and what funding they would need, and then that was included in the price review. So, we accept it's an issue for companies to address, but it was something that was done on an agreed basis, and it's not an excuse for poor performance. So, those assets, they do require upgrades. There was an explicit provision in the price reviews at the time for companies to invest in those assets.

Okay, so it is true that absolutely no money went with this additional responsibility.

So, they are part of companies' responsibilities that are funded by customers ultimately, yes.

Okay.

Just coming back to this tension, then, between the different company models—the not-for-profit against the private shareholder model—to what extent would you say there's a greater societal tolerance or leeway given to Dŵr Cymru because of its model?

I think that may well be a factor. It's difficult to get hard evidence on that, but, certainly, I think customer perception of Dŵr Cymru is positive, and I think it is linked to their quality of customer service, which is generally good. But I do think there's something to be said in terms of people recognising that they feel that that model connects with their values, and so it's probably something that does work in Dŵr Cymru's favour.

And you would tell us that that has absolutely no bearing on your considerations, because your role is much more focused and clinical and it shuts all of that out, does it?

Ultimately, we do care about a company's reputation and performance, and so that's part of the broader context. What we're trying to do is make sure that they're going to deliver for customers and the environment, and there are certainly some benefits to the model, as we've referred to, and there are some challenges as well. We think it's a positive element, but it shouldn't excuse poor performance and it shouldn't excuse inefficiency.

No. So, is part of your role maximising the potential of the different model in Wales, or supporting them in realising all the potential benefits around that, and, conversely, maybe minimising any risks that come with it?

Yes. I think that's a good characterisation. So, for example, there are clearly benefits in terms of the money, in terms of generation of what would have been profits have been used to support social tariffs, and so social tariffs are stronger and better in Wales than they are elsewhere. That's obviously a great outcome from a customer perspective.

But that also reflects a necessity in terms of the demography that they represent, I suppose, does it?

It does, but, without that ability to draw on funding from what would have been shareholder funding, there would be greater costs, I guess, and so that would raise a challenge. So, I agree that, with higher bill levels and significant deprivation, to address its importance, and particularly as we look ahead, with bills likely to increase, we need to look at how that regime can support customers, many of whom are facing really challenging cost-of-living issues right now.

If I may, as well, on the point about society and the societal question, I think it's worth also highlighting that, at PR24, I think this is the price review where we've required the most genuine and meaningful customer engagement. We've set policies defining the minimum standard we expect of water companies in terms of how they are seeking customer views. That policy also explains what assurance we expect companies to be providing with regard to that customer engagement, and we ourselves as well are conducting a lot of research in that space. So, I think it's just important to flag that, in this price review, the voice of the customer and ensuring that companies are genuinely listening to that voice and that plans are reflecting what customers think is important is a key factor for us this time around.

That's an important point, because getting that sort of consultation and that engagement right in all spheres constantly comes to this committee, from planning and other things. It's very often people don't feel that they've had that opportunity to contribute. So, if you can ever find the perfect formula, let us know. But, certainly, that needs to be done to the greatest extent possible.

Just on the balance, then, between investing in the social tariff and investing in capital investment, Dŵr Cymru is right to make much of the fact that it does have a social tariff and that much of its return of value is earmarked towards that, but is there a danger sometimes that that can mask underinvestment elsewhere?

Yes, one of the challenges we do face at price review is not just assessing the investment that the company puts to us, if you like, and so what's the main business plan, but it's the investments that are not being made, I guess, that are probably the larger challenge we face as a regulator, because the company and the environmental regulator, in Natural Resources Wales, are well placed to assess investment needs. But it's obviously more difficult for us to ascertain what's not being invested. And so, in particular in the water sector, there are questions about asset health, asset management, and that's really important. So, these assets have very long lives. The way that they're maintained and operated obviously has a significant impact on that, and so one of our challenges is to make sure that companies are not just operating and managing for the near term, but they are addressing longer term challenges, and we do that through endeavouring to look and scrutinise companies' long-term plans. So, at PR24, we've required companies to prepare long-term delivery strategies. That's bringing all their plans together, looking ahead and looking at various scenarios, bringing in adaptive planning—so, what might trigger more investment, what might trigger changes in circumstances. We've also got a set of measures around asset health to try to understand the state of a company's assets, and where it's got issues and where they might be addressed. And then we're also working with the sector in terms of how we can get more forward-looking measures on areas like asset health.

In terms of resilience, we're obviously looking at the resilience of their services and systems. We have measures for that, but we're very interested in how companies assess the risks, what they are understanding the operational risks are, what are their risks from climate change, and how they build that into their investment plans as well. So, I think that's an important part of the process.

In terms of the social tariff itself, that is ultimately set in terms of Government guidance, in terms of the level that there can be a cross-subsidy from one group of customers to another, and then the ability of Dŵr Cymru to draw on returns to support that. And so, there is a question, which I think we look to Governments on, which is in terms of the scale and extent of social tariffs, and then I wouldn't see that as offsetting the need for investment, but I think the challenge with investment is to know whether they are investing in the right issues at the right time and do they really understand the risks that they're facing and are they putting in place appropriate mitigations over time.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. Delyth, you've been very patient. I'll come to you next.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Good morning. I think we can all agree that Dŵr Cymru have to improve with this, but I wanted to ask you about some of the infrastructure and whether your targets are the most appropriate structure for them to be following, particularly because of, as I understand it, the relative size of some pipes. So, correct me if I've misunderstood this, please, but Dŵr Cymru has a lot of very small pipes and each spill, even if it’s through a very small pipe, will count for the same as a huge Thames Water mile-long pipe or something. Now, as I understand it, you have refused Dŵr Cymru’s proposals for their targets to be the Welsh Government standard of reducing environmental harm, and instead you’ve asked for their target to be 'reducing the number of spills', and that would coincide with the DEFRA and Westminster target. Do you think that, by refusing to allow Dŵr Cymru to follow that Welsh Government target instead, they’re complying with something that might not be the appropriate thing for them to be measured against, as much as, obviously, they do need to improve?

Sure. So, I think there are a number of issues there, so let's try to work through some of those issues. Firstly, in terms of the price review process, they've submitted a business plan to us and we're considering that, and as part of that, we will consider their performance package, so this is by no means the end of the story as yet.

In terms of spills targets, there are clearly spills targets set by the UK Government, and there is a different approach in Wales and we’re very mindful of that. But that’s not the only provision that applies on spills. So, as the economic regulator of Wales, we also have a set of requirements under the Water Industry Act 1991 and the associated 1994 regulations, and that applies to the companies' performance on storm overflows alongside sewage treatment works, and, in a nutshell, that says that companies should only discharge in exceptional circumstances, unless there’s a compelling economic case to say that that would be disproportionate to remedy those issues. So, there is a set of legal requirements that are on Dŵr Cymru now that we are responsible for enforcing, and that does relate to the volume and level of spills. Now, you’re absolutely right to say that the number of spills isn’t, clearly, the only measure that matters, and so the impact from spills matters—the volume and level of spills, and the duration of discharge matters as well. But, at present, across England and Wales, there is no comprehensive system of monitoring the impacts of spills. So, Dŵr Cymru point to the impacts of spills based on a very limited number of samples. So, they're talking about a limited number of samples. They've got spills operating three or four times a week, and the levels of samples are probably that amount of a year. So, the question is how much do we know about the harm from CSOs? And there's clearly some information on that, but it's far from complete. And so, in a world where we don't have good measures of impacts on the environment, and in a world where spills do matter under the law that we administer and the law that applies in Wales, then, we think a spill target is certainly a relevant consideration. It's not the only consideration and we should make sure that the environmental programme is addressing the environmental impact of spills.

The other point I would also make is that it's not just the environmental impact, or the ecological impact, if you want to put it that way, but you might have seen that Professor Sir Chris Whitty commented recently about the impacts on human health from sewage discharges into rivers. And so, that's something that needs to be taken into account in the mix as well.

So, it's a complex issue. We think it's absolutely right to say that spill targets are not the only answer. But in a world where we've got information on spills—and we do now have 98, 99, 100 per cent of spills monitored—where we have limited information on the harm from spills, we think it's right that, among other targets, Dŵr Cymru do have a target to reduce the level and number of spills. And I am very concerned that they have been much less ambitious in this area than companies in England.

Thank you very much for that. That was a really comprehensive answer. And just to make clear, I absolutely agree with you that reducing spills has to be a measure to look at across all different water companies. But would you agree, then, because you had said that this is by no means the end of the conversation, would you agree to maybe look again at whether you could find a way of improving that data that you have about environmental harms alongside Dŵr Cymru to see if that could be another measure that could be added into the mix?

Yes, so, we're looking at—. One of the questions is: should there be monitoring installed at waste water treatment works and on storm overflows in terms of measuring the environmental impact? That's certainly something that's being looked at as part of PR24. There is a cost to doing that, of course. It would make sense certainly, I think, to get that monitoring equipment rolled out, particularly in areas where we have the most concerns about the potential impact on the environment. It's also true to say that there are quite a number of CSOs that are not discharging or discharging very rarely and so, in that case, there's a perfectly sensible case that you wouldn't prioritise those for either monitoring or for targeted action.

Thank you.

Just to highlight as well, I think the monitoring point is crucial, and it also reflects the need for a wider coming together as well. Clearly, there are requirements and expectations in terms of companies, but I think it is worth commending some very good work happening in Wales in terms of looking across sectors, linkages across the Welsh Government and academia in terms of how to combine monitoring and really target that effort. And also, as part of PR24, I think it's an enabling framework as well—a significant increase in the allocation of innovation funding, and that's certainly an area where we would very much expect and hope to see companies targeting to deliver those wider benefits.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Joyce.

Finally from me, what would you say to the Office for Environmental Protection's finding that Ofwat may have failed to comply with environmental law?

Yes, so, the Office for Environmental Protection issued information notices to Ofwat, DEFRA and the Environment Agency in England about the enforcement of environmental law, and this relates to the provisions I was just talking about on CSOs. So, they issued an information notice alleging failures to comply. We have responded to that information notice; in our view, we are complying with the requirements. And to give evidence of that, we've got the largest ever investigation we have had and enforcement cases against six waste water companies in terms of their failure to comply with those explicit provisions. So, we are very active in enforcing the law, and it is a huge priority for us. We've secured more resources to expand our enforcement capacity, and we're very clear with companies that they do need to improve their performance in the space. We're very clear about the statutory obligations and the importance of companies responding to that. So, it's an ongoing issue. We've responded to the Office for Environmental Protection; the ball is now back in their court to reach a view on this issue.

So, you don't agree with their report.

So, 'no' is the short answer, but obviously it's a live issue. We'll continue to engage with the Office for Environmental Protection and we'll hear from them in due course as to what their views are. Whatever position they reach, we'll obviously give very careful consideration to. They're an important part of the law and the enforcement process in England and, obviously, if there's any work with the Interim Environmental Protection Assessor for Wales, then we would also look to work closely with them to resolve any issues in this space.

Would any of that be linked to a lack of resource for yourselves or also complicated by a lack of power?

So, I think the issue of storm overflows and spills is a challenging issue, a complex and challenging issue. Up until very recently, there simply wasn't the monitoring in place, and so the roll-out of monitoring, which has taken some time, but there are 15,000 CSO points across England and Wales, some of them very remote to get the monitoring equipment in place but also to get better monitoring equipment at waste water treatment works—. So, in England, we work closely with the Environment Agency in that regard. So, getting better data on the issue has been, I think, one of the key challenges. Now that the data and the transparency in roll-outs are there, that does enable enforcement action to take place. Where we thought we needed more resources in terms of enforcement, we have sought approval for that from UK Government. They've given that. It obviously also depends on, in England's case, the Environment Agency, and, in Wales, Natural Resources Wales, their capacity and their resources. And I know in the case of England, the Environment Agency has said that they were resource-constrained in their ability to follow up on these issues, but that's a matter for them. So, I think it's about data and it's also about some of the real challenges in actually bringing down spill levels. So, you know, it sort of sounds easy, but there's a risk that we just build bigger concrete tanks at the end of pipes and that does address the issue in a narrow sense, but, equally, there are huge carbon impacts from that and limits to that as a solution. So, we need to get much better at getting a cross-catchment understanding of what's driving storm discharges, a better understanding of what's going on in the network for waste water companies and how they might be mitigated through smarter networks, better utilisation of the capacity that's there, better operation of networks.

So, one of the other, I think, interesting points that has come through the early work on CSOs is that operation and maintenance of waste water systems is also driving some of the issues with excess levels of discharges. So, I think it's been more about the ability to get good data on this—and, you know, that was recognised some time ago, but it has taken time to get that monitoring in place. I think the sector's been slow to respond, so it's been overly complacent, and I don't think there's been enough urgency in addressing the issues; I think that's starting to change, but there's still a long way to go.

When you say 'the sector', because we're looking at Dŵr Cymru—

Yes.

—are you talking England or Wales, or are you talking specifically Wales?

I'm talking across England and Wales, actually.

Okay. I just wanted clarification.

Sure. Did you want to pick up on—?

Okay, yes. I'd just like to—. We've taken evidence separately from the Office for Environmental Protection, Glenys Stacey—I was impressed with her approach: forget the fines, go for the enforcement. How much is Wales lacking in enforcement heft as a result of the fact that, at the moment, we've still only got an interim environmental protection assessor, and we haven't made the time, as yet, to implement our own regulator. How much does that hamper your enforcement role?

I don't think it's a direct constraint on our enforcement. Obviously, there are important checks and challenges in the process. It's early days yet with the Office for Environmental Protection, but I think it's a big step forward since the previous framework within the European Union, actually, which relied on EU action against UK Government, and it was kind of a—. It was more difficult to feed that into the day-to-day processes of the regulators themselves. And, equally, there are challenges, because the same enforcement team that I've got operating to chase down waste water companies is also responding to the OEP. So, there are challenges for us in this space, as well, but we do think it would be an important addition to the framework in Wales. It's obviously a matter for the Welsh Government more than for us as a regulator, but Gwen would—.

Yes. I think as well, on the sort of coalface, I think it's worth also spotlighting that I think the relationship between regulators, certainly between ourselves and NRW, has significantly deepened and strengthened over recent years on a number of different fronts, whether it's on PR24, the national environment programme or policy, but also in terms of enforcement, and we certainly have, I think, shared ambitions to keep building upon that in terms of how we're more aligned in monitoring company performance, but also how we're able to align any sort of regulatory or enforcement action. So, there's a good foundation there in terms of the way we work with our fellow regulators, which is a significant help, especially because of the resourcing constraints, I think, across the board in a Welsh context.

Okay.

Okay, fine.

Any further questions or points Members wish to raise? We're coming to the end of our allocated slot. There we are.

Okay. Could I thank you very much, both of you, for your presence? We are very grateful for what you shared today. There will be a draft of the transcript for you to check to make sure that it doesn't misrepresent anything that's been said. So, thank you for your work and thank you for your attendance here today. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

So, we'll move on to item 5, papers to note. We will note all of the papers together if you're happy to do so? Everyone's happy with that. Thank you very much.

Item 6 is the motion under Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public for the remainder of today's meeting. Are the Members content with that? Content. There we are. Then we will pause for a second as we move into private session. Thank you very much.