Thames Water Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Lord Birt
Main Page: Lord Birt (Crossbench - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Birt's debates with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Thames Water
Lord Birt Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we need to see the water Bill to see the detail on that and many other issues that people have a particular interest in. The Government are clear that we do not want to have overburdensome regulation. That is important. The regulator is there to help support the industry and make sure that it works properly for customers and the environment. I am sure that the detail of that will be considered in the Bill, but it is not the Government’s approach to make regulation more difficult for consumers and organisations.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the dire position of Thames Water is, above all, a regulatory failure. Does the Minister accept that Ofwat’s record as a regulator has been absolutely woeful? Above all, it failed to require water companies to invest over a long period of time in appropriate infrastructure of all kinds.
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.