Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 5. The clause strengthens the penalty for obstructing the investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies blocking the regulators’ investigations.

In 2019, the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure Members will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable. Currently, the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s investigatory powers—under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995—is punishable only by a fine, and can only be heard in the magistrates court. There is also no mechanism for prosecuting executives where obstruction of those powers occurs under their guidance.

The offence of obstructing the Drinking Water Inspectorate is already triable in the Crown court. That too, however, only carries a maximum penalty of a fine. I am sure Members will agree that it should never be preferable to accept a fine rather than face the full consequences of lawbreaking, and where lawbreaking occurs with their involvement, executives should be held accountable. Clause 5 makes the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s powers under section 108 of the 1995 Act triable in the Crown court. It expands the maximum penalty for obstructing Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations to be up to two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

Clause 5 will address a notable justice gap and further deter the offence of obstruction. In turn, it should better enable our regulators to carry out their investigations uninhibited and hold water companies to account accordingly.

Will the Minister give way?

I am just about to finish. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that clause the clause can stand part of the Bill.

I think this is technically now a speech rather than an intervention. I am supportive of the content of the clause, but I have one technical question: if we choose to move a penalty from a fine to imprisonment, there has to be a person to apply that penalty to, rather than a body corporate. The question that obviously arises out of that is: is it the intention of the Government to apply the penalty to the controlling mind, or to a member of an organisation who may be several layers below that of the controlling mind? Who is it intended that the criminal offence should be applied to, and how will the Government ensure that there is no misunderstanding and uncertainty based on the current drafting? It is not at all clear.

We will assume that that was an intervention, and I will give the Minister a chance to respond.

Individuals can already be prosecuted, under section 110 of the Environment Act 1995, for obstructing Environment Agency investigations. However, that legislation does not allow executives to be prosecuted where obstruction has occurred with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. The Bill will remedy that omission by adding a consent, connivance or neglect provision to the Act, meaning that executives or other relevant officers may face imprisonment if obstruction occurs as a consequence of their actions.

The Opposition have no formal objections to the clause, but I do have a couple of clarifying questions. I realise I am getting into territory with which I have no familiarity. I am not a lawyer; I am a veterinary surgeon. When we are changing offences to make them more criminal, there are implications for the courts and for individuals. Although expanding the options available to the court when sentencing offenders who have not followed the rules is welcome, how have the Government ensured that the offences are clear, so that those who commit them face the full punishment if and when required?

In terms of modelling the potential impact downstream, what work have the Government done to look at the situation retrospectively? If this provision had been law over the last few years, how many offenders would have been caught by it and potentially imprisoned? I realise that that is quite a technical question, but I wonder if the Government have looked at that at all. When we bring in laws, we need to ensure that we are aware of their implications and know how the legal and judicial system can exercise them. However, we have no formal opposition to the clause.

Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far.

We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.

I want to raise one minor point. Public confidence in us restoring our water systems is the reason we are here, scrutinising this Bill. Feargal Sharkey—a main campaigner who many people up and down the country listen to—recently wrote an article saying that no water boss would ever go to prison as a result of this legislation. Will the Minister comment on that to give confidence to people watching this proceeding?

I am obviously a bit of a fangirl of Feargal Sharkey, not least because of his musical career before entering the field of environmental campaigning.

We do not expect this measure to materially impact on court case numbers. The intention is to deter offending. Not all cases will go to the Crown court, but it is right that that is a possibility. Obstruction of the Environment Agency’s emergency powers, under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, is already triable in the Crown court. The EA will consult on updating the enforcement sanctions policy to ensure that that is absolutely clear. Although this is not a new offence, we are talking about changing the maximum penalty because of the justice gap that I have mentioned. Previously, it was punishable only by fine and heard only in the magistrates court, and we are moving it to be punishable in the Crown court and including a prison sentence.

I am pleased that there is lots of agreement on the importance of the clause. We are talking about something very serious: obstructing the Environment Agency or the Drinking Water Inspectorate in going about and collecting the evidence that they require. This is a serious matter, and it deserves a serious penalty. I thank hon. Members for their views on the clause, but nothing that has been said detracts from the importance of addressing the justice gap. I am pleased that there is agreement, which has, on occasion, has been exploited by water companies. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.