Water Companies: Private Ownership
Debate between Baroness Grender and Lord Katz
Lord Katz (Lab)
The Government have indeed published our analysis of the cost of renationalising the water sector, which I believe is what my noble friend is getting at. Our analysis is that—on the basis of regulated capital value, which takes into account not just equity but debt—it would cost at least £100 billion to renationalise the water industry. We are not going to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment and sewage pollution would only get worse. We believe that the answer is better regulation. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act, which has already hit bonuses for 10 water executives and toughened the rules so that bosses face up to two years in prison for covering up sewage spills. Following the Cunliffe review this year, we are taking forward a number of reforms to the sector, chiefly the creation of a powerful new water regulator.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister regret that average household water bills will rise by £123 a year from this April? Given that so many families already spend more than 3% of their income on water, what can be done to reverse years of shareholder and executive bonuses without improved services and genuine reinvestment? Why is it that customers even now, even after the Cunliffe review, are still having to bear the cost of historic underinvestment?
English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging
Debate between Baroness Grender and Lord Katz
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while extending the ban on destructive bottom trawling is very welcome indeed, can I ask whether the Government considered a full ban, given the urgency expressed in the Labour Party manifesto on this issue? While the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has asked for a timetable—I think it is reasonable to get some sense of a timetable—can I ask how a timetable will take place for comprehensive protection? Can the Minister outline to us how enforcement will prevent exemptions or delays and ensure that our MPAs are genuinely safeguarded as marine biodiversity?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, we are not undertaking a blanket ban, because it is important that we can support fishing and other marine activity where it is not damaging marine ecosystems. One of the reasons that we are having the consultation is to understand the detail of it, but there are some MPAs that are not about fishing activity but other protection. We are looking in a proactive way to understand how best to protect water column activity, for instance, as well as to ensure that our seabeds are protected. I will not be drawn any further on the timetable, but we are clear about the importance of proceeding at pace while taking the fishing industry, marine conservation organisations and the wider community along with us. The Wildlife Trusts called the Secretary of State’s announcement the other day a “great step forward”. Oceana UK said it was a
“golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries”,
and, frankly, I agree with them.