Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

Welsh legislative consent granted.

20:13

Motion on Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 8

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group and to the Motions tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra.

I am delighted to be back in the Chamber debating this important legislation. I thank all noble Lords for their continued interest in this Bill. In recent weeks I have met noble Lords from across the House to discuss changes made to the Bill during its passage through the other place, and I am grateful for the insightful questions and views shared with me and my officials in advance of our debate today. I am also grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for accompanying me on an interesting day we spent at two emergency overflows operated by Anglian Water. Although Clause 2 is no longer in scope of our discussions on the Bill, I hope the noble Duke found his visit helpful in bringing to life some of the issues we considered during previous debates.

I turn to today’s debate and to the first group of amendments that the House must consider. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for the very constructive way in which they have worked with me and my officials to strengthen the Bill during its passage through this House. Although I am sure the noble Lords were somewhat disappointed to see the Commons overturn their amendments, which were voted into the Bill at Lords Report stage, I am grateful to them for meeting me over the past weeks and months to discuss the reasons why and to try to find alternative means of realising the intent behind their amendments.

I will now take some time to share the key points from these discussions with other noble Lords here today. Commons Amendment 1 removes from Clause 1 the requirement for Ofwat to set rules on the reporting of water company finances. This requirement was removed because it would duplicate existing processes and requirements set out within water company licences, which I will briefly summarise now.

Water companies are already required under their licences to publish, by a set date, financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. These metrics include interest on their borrowings, financial flows and an analysis of their debt. Condition F requires water companies to keep appropriate accounting records, while condition P requires them to report material financial issues to Ofwat and includes restrictions on dividend payments. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.

I hope that noble Lords can therefore see why additional, detailed financial reporting requirements, such as those that would be introduced as a result of Motion 1A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would not be a necessary addition to the Bill. However, having further discussed the intention behind the previous amendment with the noble Lord, the Government now understand that he has been seeking more transparent and accessible reporting on the key financial metrics. Indeed, I believe that this is what Amendment 1B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to do.

Ensuring that key financial information is presented in a format that is easy for the public to understand is vital, particularly if we are to rebuild public trust in the sector, and we agree with the noble Lord that there is room for improvement in making financial data more accessible. From studying a range of water company financial reports, it is evident that some water companies provide information much more clearly than others, so to achieve our shared objective to improve accessibility, in recent weeks my officials have worked closely with Ofwat and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to identify the most effective way of ensuring that data on water company finances is presented in a simple format. The Government and Ofwat believe that this outcome can be achieved through the use of water company annual performance reports, which must be produced in line with Ofwat’s regulatory accounting guidelines.

As previously outlined, Ofwat requires companies to keep appropriate accounting records through licence conditions. Crucially, Ofwat can also specify how this information is presented through its regulatory accounting guidelines. Ofwat is due to consult on changes to these guidelines this year, which will provide an opportunity to update how financial information is presented in annual performance reports. These updates could include, for example, a requirement for a summary table of financial information, such as debt levels and financial restructuring, among other things, to be presented at the front of the report, all on one page.

Using Ofwat’s regulatory accounting guidelines ensures flexibility and means that requirements around data presentation can be updated to reflect changes in the public’s priorities and interests. Ofwat can also use its guidelines to help ensure consistent presentation of financial information across all water companies’ reports. Updating these guidelines would quickly and effectively achieve the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to achieve.

I understand that other noble Lords across the House also want to see improved transparency around water company financial reporting, and I encourage noble Lords to think about how we can most effectively achieve this outcome. We believe that a dynamic approach using existing powers, rather than a non-specific legislative requirement, would be more effective because it can respond to the changing needs and expectations of the public.

If the House agrees with the Government’s proposed approach, Ofwat stands ready to consult on the necessary changes to its reporting guidelines and the change will be made in time for the 2025-26 annual performance reports to be published. However, I am not able to ask Ofwat to proceed with this approach if water companies are separately required to meet a new legislative obligation. Therefore, I kindly ask all noble Lords to carefully consider the options I have outlined here today.

I now turn to Commons Amendment 2, which removed the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under Clause 1 to be brought into force by statutory instrument and within six months of the Act coming into force. I will take this opportunity to speak to Motion 2A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which does the reverse. As the noble Lord is aware, the Government understand the need to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward as soon as possible. Indeed, that is why the Government tabled Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which collectively will ensure that the duty on Ofwat in Clause 1 to make rules commences on Royal Assent.

Motion 2A would require publication of Ofwat’s rules within six months of this Act coming into force. This timing obligation is rendered unnecessary as a result of Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which amend the commencement provisions for Clause 1 so that Ofwat will now have a statutory duty to issue the rules without significant delay following Royal Assent. I hope noble Lords can understand why we believe that this aspect of Motion 2A is no longer appropriate. I am also pleased to report to the House that Ofwat has been making good progress towards developing its rules and had already completed its initial policy consultation at the end of 2024.

The other key element of Motion 2A requires that rules made by Ofwat under Clause 1 be brought into force by statutory instrument. Existing powers in the Water Industry Act 1991 for Ofwat to make rules adopt the same approach to scrutiny as in Clause 1 and do not require confirmation by statutory instrument. Further, I am concerned that the additional scrutiny process in Motion 2A would lead to a delay in bringing the rules into force. I have also previously outlined that this additional legislative process risks compromising the independence of Ofwat, which must be protected. The necessary secondary legislation would also need to be prepared by government, and therefore represents significant government interference in the independent regulatory process. This kind of interference has the potential to have adverse impacts on investor confidence and confidence in the regulatory regime.

I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reviewed and reported on the appropriateness of all powers in the Bill, excluding the new clause on support schemes, and did not recommend additional parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat’s rule-making processes. While the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, does not necessarily agree with the Government on this point, I know we agree on the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that parliamentarians have sufficient oversight of Ofwat’s rules.

On that basis, my officials have worked with the team of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and Ofwat to find an alternative way of providing parliamentarians with the opportunity to scrutinise Ofwat’s rules. I am pleased to say that, as a result of this collaborative approach, Ofwat has offered to hold a drop-in session in Parliament where it will answer questions on its proposed rules on remuneration and governance. This session would provide all interested Peers and MPs with the opportunity to ask Ofwat questions about the rules and raise any concerns before they are finalised.

Ofwat has provided a draft of a letter stating its intention to hold this drop-in session and stands ready to finalise and issue this letter to formalise its commitment to doing so should the House be supportive of this approach. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in light of what I have just laid out, to reconsider whether his Motion is now needed. As I am sure he would understand, Ofwat cannot reasonably be expected to offer its drop-in session if additional, legislative processes are required in this space.

I once again thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their continued and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill and for drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made and on which the Government have responded, as I have laid out. I hope the noble Lords, and indeed all noble Lords across this House, will see that the alternative proposals put forward by the Government and Ofwat present a more effective means of achieving the intended outcomes. On that basis, I hope that both noble Lords feel able to not press their Motions. I beg to move.

Motion 1A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

1A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 1 and do propose Amendment 1B to the words so restored to the Bill—

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert “, and to present such information on structuring and debt prominently, including on the website of the undertaker, in a format that can be readily accessed and understood, including by bill payers.””

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion 1A and Amendment 1B together and would like to put on record how very grateful I have been for the discussions with the Minister and her team, her recent letter to all Peers about my amendment and the nice things she has said today—although I thought there was a bit of a threat to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, at the end there.

Although there is much that we agree on in principle, and what the Minister has outlined today is not obstructed in any way by Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, it is my firm belief that the amendment as presented today in Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, in plain language, needs to be included in the Bill. I suggested that the Government bring forward their own amendment setting out what she has suggested today, but they have chosen not to do so.

The original amendment required water companies to report annually on their financial structuring or restructuring and their debt levels and associated risks. I therefore regret its deletion by the Commons which, as I will address in a moment, perhaps misunderstood the need for and purpose of the amendment. That is why I have added the further wording at Amendment 1B to ensure that the information is sufficiently prominent and accessible.

The background to the amendment remains the same. The water industry and, in particular, several companies within it have both failed to invest sufficiently and got into financial difficulties because of distorted financial engineering, including overloading with debt and what I might politely call accounting sleight of hand. This has come to light not because of the regulator Ofwat, which went along with these corporate behaviours either because it simply did not understand them or, so long as the water kept flowing and the prices were low, chose not to look closely at what was going on. What was going on was an almost complete failure to invest at anything like the rate that was needed to secure a sustainable water and sewerage management system, while at the same time extracting moneys conveniently rebadged so that they were not classed as dividends. It was not Ofwat that blew the whistle on this but rather civil society, individuals and some in the media. The Industry and Regulators Committee of this House, on which I had the honour to serve, also played a part in highlighting the matter in its critical report on the water industry.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the rest: polluted rivers, excessive executive bonuses and some water companies close to bankruptcy. Once the scale of underinvestment came to light, we were told that the water companies would raise money from investors and the City to catch up—albeit over a 25-year period—on the neglect of the water and sewerage infrastructure, but we have seen that protestation fail to reach anything like the scale of money needed. Indeed, in the case of Thames Water, different classes of bondholders have fallen out with each other and the company is in court seeking £3 billion more of expensive debt, in part from hedge funds, to add to its existing £19 billion of debt, to which should be added an estimated bill of £800 million to £900 million in interest by next year.

20:30

Further, Thames Water has estimated that its legal bill alone is running at £15 million per month and openly stated that restructuring is expected, the advice costs for which will take the bill for that restructuring to above £200 million. Meanwhile, groups of MPs are writing letters urging that the company be taken into special administration. I will leave it there, as the matter is now in the courts. However, I see that the company claims that these costs will not be passed on to customers. I can note only that its experience to date of raising investor money, as we were promised, has not been nearly successful enough. The water companies are now imposing, with Ofwat’s agreement, very substantial increases in water rates for bill payers, who have no choice but to pay up or somehow learn to live without water.

All this was able to take place because information on financial structuring and debt accumulation lurked, if at all, in the back pages of large and complex annual reports. I recently read the most recent annual report of one water company which has financial engineering and debt issues. There was no reference to that in the chairman’s report or in the chief executive’s report—surely, the two people who should take ownership of such matters. Finally, more than 100 pages in, I found a single line in the financial report that stated just one figure as the amount of debt. In subsequent discussions with the Minister’s team, I was presented with what was felt to be a better annual report from another water company. On a page heavy with small print, there was indeed a small diagram of its ownership structure, but where was this? It was on page 108.

Motion 1A and Amendment 1B are simple. They require that, once a year, the financial structuring and debt of the water company are reported in a prominent and clear way that is understandable by bill payers and civil society, who are not equipped with expensive forensic accountants to dig out and explain what lies beneath. Noble Lords will remember that the original amendment was strongly supported in this House but, although praised in the Commons by several speakers as sensible and valuable, it has been removed. On what grounds was that? The grounds were that the information required is already in the annual reports—albeit buried many fathoms deep, as I highlighted just now—and that its repetition might cause confusion. Those making this argument have maybe never heard of key facts being repeated in an executive summary. I fear they must also be rather easily confused.

I have been told that the information the amendment requires is already in the annual reports but, at the same time, that regulatory guidelines mean we cannot include this information. I am sorry, but it cannot be both already included in the reports, albeit almost impossible to find, and not possible to include. That is a direct contradiction. It is also simply not credible that a company cannot make the information more prominently or intelligibly displayed in its reporting, rather than folded away after 100 or so pages. I know that the Minister agrees with me on this, hence her proposal just now. For clarity, I should finally point out that the amendment proposed requires the company to report annually on its financial engineering and debt; it does not specify that this has to be in the annual report.

I say again that I, like all in this House, have enormous respect for the Minister. I am genuinely very grateful to her for the courteous discussions we have had and again for her suggestions today, but this is not about good will between transitory individuals. It is about ensuring within the Bill public transparency to assist society and regulators in holding more effectively to account the companies entrusted with what is, after all, the most vital resource we all need to survive. They need that simple, publicly accessible check on the factors that have brought them to their current mess—not after a further review or by words from the Dispatch Box, but now. I will listen with care to what the Minister says but I believe that, before the matter passes out of our hands, I may need to ask this House to ask the Commons to think again on this. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion 1A by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to amend Commons Amendment 1, and my own Motion to disagree with Commons Amendment 2. Before I begin, my noble friend Lord Roborough and I remain very grateful to the Minister for her excellent engagement and spirit of openness throughout the discussions on this Bill. We are also grateful to her excellent team of officials, who have been very helpful throughout. Where we have agreed, there has been fruitful progress and where we have disagreed, I hope that we have done so constructively.

I speak first in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has argued convincingly for improved financial reporting and transparency by water companies. We support his amendment. On Report, the noble Lord explained:

“This amendment is not complex or onerous, but it is vital. It requires simply that water companies report annually on their financial structuring, debt levels and any associated risks”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 236.]


He emphasised the need for this to be set out in plain language and prominently displayed.

We all know that debt levels in the water industry are simply too high. Last year, the BBC reported that water companies have a combined debt level of £60 billion; the cost of servicing that debt has grown significantly in recent years. Most notably, Thames Water faces serious financial difficulties. Although the Government have previously argued that the noble Lord’s amendment is duplicative, his Motion today makes his objective even clearer. Yes, existing reporting requirements are already in place for water companies but we know that they are not working. Stronger reporting and transparency requirements are a step in the right direction.

The Minister has accepted that debt levels are being monitored by Ofwat already. On Report, she conceded that

“more can be done to ensure that debt levels are more closely monitored in future”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 249.]

We agree with her; more can be done, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given us that opportunity today. The official Opposition will support him in his Motion, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House.

Turning to the Motion in my name, I am seeking to restore the wording of my noble friend Lord Roborough’s amendment to the Bill following the decision in the other place to remove it. The Bill as drafted allows Ofwat to set rules on water company governance and remuneration for executives without appropriate oversight. Our Motion would ensure that the first rules are provided to the Secretary of State by Ofwat and put before Parliament through the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

I am grateful to the Minister for sharing the Ofwat letter with us but, if I may say so, it is a wee bit feeble. A drop-in session for Members of Parliament is not enough. Parliament, without being arrogant about it, deserves the right to greater scrutiny than that.

My noble friend Lord Roborough’s Motion strikes at the heart of what is wrong with our water industry today: the failure of our regulator to tackle problems in the sector and the inability of Ministers to intervene on the independent regulator.

In opposing our Motion, the Government have effectively argued that Ministers and Parliament do not need additional powers to hold the regulator to account. At the same time, Ministers have told us that whole regulatory framework of our water industry needs to be reviewed, and have already started work on that review. So, which is it? Either the water industry is not properly regulated, and therefore Ministers and Parliament need appropriate powers and processes to challenge and scrutinise the regulator, or the sector is regulated well, and these powers are not necessary.

The Minister said that the Government say that they do not want to interfere with the independence of Ofwat, but I was under the impression given by the long-term review that the Government intend to interfere in a mega way and possibly scrap Ofwat. The Government have recognised that the sector is not regulated as well as it needs to be, so it follows that we should put additional oversight in place.

I do not think we can wait for the Government’s review to conclude. Ofwat is not performing as it should, and this House should have a role in scrutinising its plans under this Bill. I believe our Motion delivers that much-needed scrutiny, and I intend to test the opinion of the House when my Motion is called.

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

I declare my interest, having been a non-executive director of Severn Trent, the largest of the listed water companies, for eight years between 2014 and 2022, chairing the board’s remuneration committee during that time.

I support Motion 2A in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and will address the reasons given by the Minister in the other place, and essentially repeated just now by the Minister, for objecting to the clauses this Motion this seeks to reinsert. Those reasons are that the additional process of requiring an SI risks compromising Ofwat’s independence, that it would represent significant government interference in the independent regulatory process, and that that kind of interference could have adverse effects on investor confidence.

These arguments have little merit. Ofwat is a government department, and the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing, and has the power to remove, the chair and members of the board. In no way is Ofwat independent of government; nor can the Government escape association with and responsibility for the rules generated by Ofwat, and their consequences. Ofwat is directly accountable to Parliament. If that is so, why should it not account to us for these rules when drafted?

In any event, independence is a red herring when considering the impact on investor confidence. Investors will focus on the rules themselves and their effect on the ability to attract and retain management, and so on the investability of the water sector. In this, they have legitimate cause for concern. The Government are choosing to abrogate their responsibility in this area to Ofwat—an economic regulator, the core competence of which is certainly not the setting of rules on remuneration, and for which it is unsuited.

There are already signs that Ofwat’s approach will be unduly punitive, particularly regarding its retrospective application. However, I thank the Minister for her letter to me at the end of last November following Report, when she confirmed that Ofwat would look closely at the impact retrospectivity has on long-term incentive plans, but the intent was for the provision to cover performance for the 2024-25 financial year onwards only.

None the less, taken as a whole, these rules may discourage the best people from working in the industry, restricting water companies in rewarding good performance and, which is just as important, penalising poor performance. They are likely to force companies away from bonuses and long-term incentive schemes linked to performance, towards a compensating increase in fixed pay. Thames Water has already indicated that this is the line it is likely to take, and others will surely follow. Is this really the result we want to achieve? At the very least, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the proposed rules and assess for itself the potentially damaging impact on future investment in the sector.

The scale of investment required to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure is unprecedented. Institutions have a choice of where they invest. In such a heavily regulated sector, they will make a critical assessment of the quality of management tasked with the delivery of the financial plans underpinning that essential capital programme. If Ofwat gets it wrong, it risks starving the water sector of the investment it desperately requires and which all noble Lords wish to see. At best, it will increase the returns investors demand, with the cost inevitably passed on to consumers.

Given the stakes, it must surely be right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the relevant rules before they come into effect, so I am very much in favour of Motion 2A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I have listened closely to what the Minister has said this evening, but the opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions in a drop-in session is a poor substitute for further parliamentary scrutiny.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on his work. I will briefly lend my support to my noble friend Lord Blencathra and put a question to the Minister in regard to the letter that she sent to us on 31 January, where she says that she wishes

“to give parliamentarians the opportunity to engage with Ofwat”,

but she prefers “alternative, non-legislative means”. It is more appropriate to put this in the Bill, as in our original amendment. I urge the Minister to respond favourably, in that regard, to Motion 2A.

20:45

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill, which is ping-pong, not Report. I was satisfied with the progress we made on the Bill while it was completing its passage in this Chamber before going off to the other place. I am naturally disappointed that the amendments we voted on were removed. However, I understand the rationale for this. I am grateful to the Minister for her time, and that of her officials, in providing a briefing ahead of ping-pong. This helped to set the scene for moving forward.

From the outset, the Government made it clear that the Water (Special Measures) Bill was the first step in a series of changes that the Government were considering to improve the water industry generally. Yesterday morning, I attended a briefing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is chairing the water commission, which is looking into a wide range of aspects of the water industry on behalf of the Government. The water commission will call for evidence towards the end of this month, and a period when submissions will be made and received will follow. At the right time, Sir Jon will publish his report. At that stage, there will no doubt be a series of debates and discussions around the recommendations contained in that report.

Given that the Government’s stated aim is to look at the water industry in its entirety, I believe that there is wisdom in waiting for the water commission to report, so that we can see where the Water (Special Measures) Bill fits into that scenario. We could then understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together and have a more complete picture of how the water industry is to be taken forward for the benefit of both the consumer and the water companies as a whole.

Turning to Motions 1A and Amendment 1B, in lieu of government Amendment 1, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to have transparency and clarity over the issue of water company debt. He is looking for this to be in the Bill. It is not acceptable for water companies to hide their level of debt in the depths of their financial reports, where it is unlikely that many water bill payers will be able to find it. Transparency is essential for consumers to grasp the level of debt that water companies are carrying. If the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not satisfied with the Minister’s response this evening and decides to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.

Motion 2A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seeks to amend the government Motion on Amendment 2, would require the Secretary of State to bring in regulations relating to Ofwat via statutory instrument. The use of statutory instruments to bring in legislation is a slow, cumbersome and not very transparent way of moving forward; perhaps that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. These Benches did not support the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, when he moved his original amendment on Report. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that Ofwat will hold drop-in sessions, and we will not support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their further contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, for providing further detail around their concerns. I would like to make it clear that the Government have carefully considered all non-government amendments tabled throughout the passage of the Bill, and that, where we agree with the intent behind a given amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward.

It is in that spirit that I reviewed Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As previously explained, the Government agree that it is of utmost importance to ensure that members of the public can easily access and understand information on water company finances. However, I do not agree that the approach proposed by Motion 1 A and Amendment 1B is the most effective way of achieving this outcome. I am disappointed that, after considerable engagement on the Government’s alternative approach, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is still dissatisfied with the suggested way forward.

The noble Lord has previously spoken to me about the need to specify how data is presented. I want to be clear that the specific metrics that he wants to see in reports are already required to be included through licence conditions. Indeed, he has pointed that out himself; the information appears in the annual Water Company Performance Report. What is missing, and what we agree with him on, is better formatting and clearer presentation with this information readily available right at the front of these reports, which is exactly what we propose can be achieved through regulatory accounting guidelines.

The noble Lord’s amendments require only that the data is presented in a format that can be “readily accessed and understood”, which is arguably open to interpretation by water companies. Having listened closely to him, we agree that data should be presented in this way, but the approach proposed by government would be more specific and could include, as I mentioned before, a summary table of financial information right at the front of the annual Water Company Performance Report. As such, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, I maintain the view that primary legislation is not the most effective means by which to achieve the intended outcome. I therefore urge Members of the House to support Commons Amendment 1 and the non-legislative proposal put forward by government and Ofwat.

I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for continuing to raise the need for sufficient parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules. These rules will be central in driving improvements in the culture of water companies, which of course we all want to see. As such, it is right that we, as parliamentarians, do what we can to ensure the rules are robust, without compromising the regulatory independence of Ofwat. That is why I was pleased to receive Ofwat’s offer of a drop-in session, which would give noble Lords and MPs an opportunity to further understand and raise concerns on the rules before they are finalised. I therefore urge all members of the House to support Commons Amendment 2 and enable Ofwat to move forward with arrangements for that session.

To finish, I reiterate that the Government strongly agree with the need to ensure increased transparency and accessibility of water company data and ensure sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance. I believe that the approaches that I have outlined today demonstrate the commitment of government and Ofwat to effectively and comprehensively address the concerns raised by noble Lords on these topics. I therefore ask that all noble Lords support Commons Amendments 1 and 2 and, in conjunction, the non-legislative proposals put forward by the Government.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the hour is late. I thank the Minister for her kind, helpful and almost persuasive words. I do not think that anything that she has proposed is precluded by my amendment—in fact, it could be a way of implementing it. Had I put it down in such detail, I would have been told that it was too prescriptive. However, for the reasons I set out earlier, I am afraid that my amendment needs to be in the Bill, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

20:53

Division 4

Ayes: 168

Noes: 112

21:03

Motion on Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.

2: Clause 1, page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (5) and (6)

Motion 2A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 2)

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

2A: Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

21:04

Division 5

Ayes: 123

Noes: 117

21:15

Motion on Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.

3: Clause 10, page 15, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
“(a) sections 205A and 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (pollution incident
reduction plans and implementation reports),”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Commons Amendments 4 to 9.

I will begin by speaking to Commons Amendments 5 to 7, which amend the commencement provisions for Clause 1. These amendments will see Ofwat’s duty to set rules on remuneration and governance brought into force on Royal Assent, rather than through the use of commencement regulations. This emphasises the Government’s expectation that Ofwat’s rules should be in place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, as well as providing greater certainty to Ofwat and water companies as to when Ofwat’s duty will come into force.

I know that many noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—previously spoke to the importance of ensuring that Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance will be set promptly after Royal Assent. I hope that these amendments provide further reassurance that the Government expect these rules to be brought forward at pace, and I hope that the House is supportive of them.

Commons Amendment 3 is another minor and technical amendment, this time to Clause 10. It ensures that the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s cost recovery powers are broad enough to enable the recovery of costs associated with the enforcement of the requirement on water companies to produce implementation reports.

Noble Lords will recall that this requirement was added to Clause 2 on Report following calls from across this House to strengthen requirements around the implementation of measures set out in water company pollution incident reduction plans. However, an expansion in the regulators’ cost recovery powers—as set out in Clause 10—was not enabled at the same stage, which left a potential funding gap. Commons Amendment 3 addresses the gap, ensuring that the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales can recover all costs associated with the enforcement of the new requirements introduced by Clause 2.

Commons Amendment 3 also clarifies that cost recovery powers concerning pollution incident reduction plans and the implementation reports are available for plans covering areas that are wholly or mainly in Wales, as well as plans covering England. I again hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment, which will help to ensure the regulators can carry out their enforcement duties and functions effectively.

I will speak now to Commons Amendment 4, which introduces a new clause to the Bill, and Commons Amendment 8, which is consequential to Commons Amendment 4. During the Bill’s passage through this House, many noble Lords voiced concerns about vulnerable customers and their ability to absorb forthcoming increases in their water bills. I thank all noble Lords who shared their views on this critical matter, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who worked with her team to ensure that the discussion continued in the other place.

I reassure the House that the Government absolutely recognise and share these concerns. That is why the Government introduced Commons Amendments 4 and 8, which add to existing powers for water companies to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. This will enable water companies to provide consistent support for water consumers right across the country, replacing the current postcode lottery of existing support schemes, which vary from company to company.

The new clause will allow for the possible automatic enrolment of vulnerable customers on to future schemes, enabling them to get the full support to which they are entitled without having to proactively apply. This will be enabled through improved information sharing between public authorities and water companies.

The details of any scheme brought forward will be established through consultation, as required by the new clause and secondary legislation. In the meantime, existing schemes will continue to operate to ensure that vulnerable customers across the country are supported. Separately, we remain firm on our expectation that water companies will hold themselves to account for their public commitment to end water poverty by 2030 and will work with the sector to ensure appropriate measures are taken to deliver this. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this addition to the Bill and will support the Government in ensuring that the necessary powers are in place to enable support to be brought forward through secondary legislation.

Finally, briefly, Commons Amendment 9 was tabled simply to remove the privilege amendment made in my name in this place. Tabling such an amendment is standard practice; I therefore believe no noble Lord will oppose the Government doing so.

I again thank all noble Lords for the time and attention that they have given to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 4 and the consequential Amendment 8. I support the Government in this regard. I put a question or two to the Minister on the correlation between energy poverty and water poverty. Is this something that her Government will look at closely? The Minister wrote to me with the level of bad debt, which is a staggering figure: between 2019 and 2024, it cost the water sector £2.2 billion. Will this be addressed by the amendments that she has brought before the House? That would be very welcome indeed. Obviously there are those who can pay but will not pay, but there are those vulnerable customers to which she referred, and I welcome the fact that continuity of support will be secured by these amendments. Although I lend my support, I would be grateful if the Minister could address those two brief points.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for not voting against anything that we are proposing.

On the questions put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, obviously, money owed by customers is bad debt and anything that we do to address the amount of money that is owed for vulnerable customers will clearly have an impact, so these amendments will affect the issue that she raised. I appreciate the point she makes on energy costs and water poverty. Poverty needs to be addressed in all sorts of ways. I am pleased that I am a member of the Government’s child poverty task force; these are the kinds of issues that it is looking at and considering how best to address, because there is no point looking at the issue in just one place. You have to look at it right across the piece. That is what we hope to address in this case. With no further ado, I thank noble Lords very much for their time on the Bill so far.

Motion on Amendment 3 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 4 to 9

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4 to 9.

4: After Clause 11, insert the following Clause—
“Consumer charges
Special provision in charges schemes
(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 143A(3)(b), after “regulations” insert “or, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State (rather than the Welsh Ministers), by which that entitlement is otherwise to be established”.
After section 143A insert—
“143AA Special provision under section 143A: financial arrangements
(1) Subsection (2) applies if regulations under section 143A impose on relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England requirements of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a scheme for the purpose of distributing among the relevant undertakers that are subject to the requirements all or part of the costs incurred by them in complying with the requirements (with the distribution to be on such basis as is provided for in the regulations).
(3)The scheme may operate by way of—
(a) direct payments between relevant undertakers, or
(b) payments into and out of a fund established and maintained under the regulations.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply if a scheme is established under subsection (2).
(5) If the Secretary of State or the Authority makes price control provision, they must design the provision with a view to not preventing the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision about how the Authority is to comply with subsection (5);
(b) modify the effect of any price control provision made by the Authority with a view to enabling the passing-on of costs as described in subsection (7).
(7) The passing-on of costs occurs when a relevant undertaker is able to recoup its relevant net costs by charging additional amounts under section 142(1).
(8) An undertaker’s relevant net costs are the total of its costs incurred in—
(a) complying with the requirements referred to in subsection (1), and
(b) complying with the requirements of the scheme, less any payments it receives under the scheme.
(9) In this section, “price control provision” means provision made by or under—
(a) regulations under section 143A,
(b) rules under section 143B, or
(c) a condition of a relevant undertaker’s appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2, that restricts the amount that may be charged by a relevant undertaker under section 142(1).
(10) Where a determination within section 12(3) (determination by CMA provided for by undertaker’s appointment) involves the making of price control provision, subsections (5) and (6) apply in relation to the CMA as they apply in relation to the Authority.
143AB Special provision under section 143A: consultation
(1) This section applies to—
(a) regulations under section 143A that, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, make provision of the sort described in subsection (2)(d) of that section, and
(b) regulations under section 143AA.
(2) Before making regulations to which this section applies, the Secretary of State must (subject to subsection (3)) consult—
(a) the Authority,
(b) the relevant undertakers to which the regulations would apply, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) But the Secretary of State does not have to consult if— (a) the regulations only amend earlier regulations, and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that the amendments are sufficiently minor that consultation is unnecessary.”
(4) The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In section 38 (disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people”;
(b) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) A person is “eligible” for the purposes of this section and section 39—
(a) if the person is living in water poverty, or
(b) in the application of the sections to a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in England, if the person is among those for whom special provision is required to be made by regulations within subsection (3)(a).”
(6) In section 39 (disclosure of information by water and sewerage undertakers), in subsection (2), for “people living in water poverty” substitute “eligible people (see section 38(9A))”.”

5: Clause 15, page 21, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) section 1 (rules about remuneration and governance);”

6: Clause 15, page 21, line 34, leave out paragraph (a)

7: Clause 15, page 22, line 7, leave out paragraph (a)

8: Clause 15, page 22, line 21, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Special provision in charges schemes);”

9: Clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11)

Motion on Amendments 4 to 9 agreed.