Thames Water
Debate between Lord Cryer and Baroness Hayman of Ullock(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest to the noble Lord that the fact that we are talking about removing Ofwat and bringing in a single, more powerful regulator in the water Bill answers his question. It is not just about who the regulator is but about what the regulator’s priorities are: what is it setting for water companies to achieve? There has not been enough investment in infrastructure, and that has been one of the failures of regulation over the past 20 years.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, when the water industry was privatised over 30 years ago, it was almost entirely debt-free. Since then, as the Minister said, debt has been racked up. The Minister said that there will be provisions in the new water Bill for creating a new regulator. Further to the previous question, because of Ofwat’s pathetically inadequate attempts to regulate the tide of corporate greed, will the new regulator be able to check racking up greater and greater debts, unless it is specifically for investment to serve its customers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The detail of the regulator will be in the new Bill. The noble Lord has mentioned this to me a number of times. That companies have been allowed to generate debt to use the money has been a cause of many of the difficulties that we see today. The way that water companies have been able to increase the debt is not acceptable. That is one of the key things that we want to work on. If there was not as much debt, we would not have so many problems. That is one of the reasons why water companies are failing on all sides—whether investment or customer support.
Thames Water
Debate between Lord Cryer and Baroness Hayman of Ullock(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Duke makes an extremely important point. The Cunliffe report is pretty damning on how the regulators have overseen what has happened. Clearly, it has not been good that water companies, particularly Thames, have been allowed to get into so much debt. We will absolutely be considering these matters very seriously.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I was a London MP for 22 years, and I can say with some conviction that Thames Water was one of the worst and most contemptible organisations I have ever dealt with—and that is up against some pretty stiff competition. Can we scotch this myth that has been put out by Thames Water for years that it has not been paying dividends? It has been paying what are, in effect, dividends to the parent company. Technically they may not be dividends but, in effect, they are. When Thames Water makes these claims, we should call it out for what it is doing: telling lies to the British public.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is really important that we have clarity and honesty from our water companies, because there are so many problems. If we are genuinely going to sort this out, we need to have a proper understanding, and there should not be little tricks and ways of paying money—whether through dividends or otherwise—that circumvent what we would consider to be best behaviour.