Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened not just to Members of your Lordships’ House but to the thousands of campaigners, because the amendments tabled in her name are actually of great value. However, I feel they do not go far enough, and a lot of people—though probably not those here—might agree with me.

I have co-signed two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I will vote for them if any of them are put to the vote. There are lots of other helpful amendments, but those three are the most useful.

I cannot help but feel that, if we were talking about benefit claimants who had behaved in the way that water companies have, we would not just slap them on the wrist in the way that we have the water companies; we would crack down on them, claw back the money and take them to court. The water companies have got off so lightly in this whole process. That really does not seem fair to bill payers or to taxpayers.

Amendment 2 goes to the heart of the issue. Water companies have been ripping us off with financial engineering, and I do not think that the Government’s action plan will resolve this. The water companies have been saying that they invest all the bill payers’ money in infrastructure, but they then take out loans and pay themselves dividends. With this legislation—even with the amendments—the Government are missing the opportunity to crack down on predatory capitalism.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister yet again for her engagement at every stage of the Bill’s progress and for the significant improvements that have been made to it as a result. I will speak to my Amendments 11 and 58, to Amendments 4, 7 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, and to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

Amendment 11 is a simple amendment that would give the Secretary of State greater influence over the drafting of the rules on remuneration and governance. We all know that it is the Government who will be held to account in this House and across the country for their record on water quality and pollution reduction. It seems only right that Ministers should have the ability to shape these rules. Indeed, given the importance of getting them right, Amendment 11 would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, giving Parliament its own role in approving these rules. I intend to test the opinion of the House on this, depending on the Minister’s answer.

Amendment 58 relates to limits on water company borrowing. I will not reiterate the arguments I made in Committee and, having listened to the Government’s concerns about the possible impact of a hard statutory limit on current negotiations between the sector and prospective investors, I have tabled an altered amendment here on Report.

It is clear to His Majesty’s Opposition that water companies have failed to take a sustainable approach to borrowing, and the current safeguards are insufficient. The amendment simply gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations under the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation, limiting water company flexibility and returns to shareholders when leverage becomes excessive. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for stating the current leverage ratios of the industry, and I agree with many of his comments, if not his amendment.

Nothing in the amendment forces the Government to do anything; we are merely seeking to give them the tools they need to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing, given the inability of the regulator to do so historically. The Minister will no doubt tell us that borrowing will be considered in the wider review of the water sector, and we welcome this. However, in the meantime, Ministers need tools to take appropriate action now. If the Government do not feel that a borrowing limit is necessary, nothing in the clause requires them to act, but we on these Benches feel that it would be a missed opportunity to let the Bill pass without giving Ministers powers that they may need to ensure that water company borrowing is at sustainable levels while we await the conclusion of the Government’s review. Subject to the response of the Minister, I am also minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, which we spoke positively of in Committee, have a great deal of merit. They would ensure that board members are the individuals subject to the rules on remuneration and governance, as well as preventing consumers being inadvertently subject to these rules and other penalties as members of a water company’s board. This can be left to the company to decide.

Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to which I am also a signatory, complements my Amendment 58 on water company borrowing. Greater clarity on water companies’ financial engineering is important. Should he seek to test the opinion of the House, we would support his amendment.

Finally, following the Minister’s constructive response, I did not bring back an amendment on the requirement to provide training to employees on their specific legal obligations within the water industry both before and after the implementation of the Bill. I would be most grateful if she could confirm that the Environment Agency will give guidance to the industry on how employees will be informed of these legal obligations.

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to be back in the Chamber, continuing to debate a very important piece of legislation. I once again thank all noble Lords for their interest in the Bill and their constructive engagement. We may not always agree— I may not always be able to accept amendments—but it has been very useful to have good, constructive discussions, which have helped to inform the amendments. Before I start my response, and before I forget, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked in his last question.

Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, consider the views of environmental groups. I fully support his intention to increase the voice of environmental experts and company decision-making processes. However, we do not feel that these are necessary amendments to the Bill, and I shall explain why.

Environmental issues are already a key consideration in company decision-making. Water companies have a range of environmental obligations that they are required to meet, from ammonia limits to phosphorus reductions, and actions related to those obligations. If they break the law, regulators must enforce against them. Ensuring that these obligations are properly met is why we are giving the commission the opportunity to do a full review of regulation.

I agree that we need a step change from water companies. I remind noble Lords that, after only seven days in office, the Government called in all water companies to negotiate and require them to update their articles of association—the fundamental rules that govern each company—in order to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary and fundamental objective. These updates will place customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions, and we expect the majority of companies to have updated their articles of association by the end of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I apologise to the House for not having been able to participate in previous stages. I will briefly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and these amendments. How come the Government, when in opposition, supported introducing mandatory sustainable drains in major new developments but now seem not to wish to do so? If no drains, soakaways or culverts are constructed to take the excess, flood-water will go into combined sewers, potentially then bubbling up and leaving sewage in housing developments. This causes a health hazard by flooding homes with sewage.

The amendment asks simply for a report on how developers have implemented Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. There was cross-party support for that in this House, and I hope the Minister can reassure us or find a way to meet the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving this amendment. In Committee, we discussed the implementation of the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. As my noble friend has said previously, the last Government accepted the recommendation of a sustainable drainage systems review to implement Schedule 3. We share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact of additional run-off from developments. If the Government seek to deliver the homes we need for the next generation and to drive the economic growth they promised, we need to get sustainable drainage right.

Although I understand that the Government have concerns about whether these amendments should be in the Bill and which department should be responsible for this policy area, I hope they will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s concerns and be able to reassure her. However, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but we will not be able to support Amendment 43.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for continuing to raise this important issue, and for tabling her Amendments 3 and 43, which speak to the implementation of Schedule 3. I thank her for her passion and persistence on this matter—she has never let it drop, which is important because this stalled 14 years ago. I also thank her for taking the time to meet me and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Minister in MHCLG, to discuss this matter in some detail and to look at how we can improve delivery.

On Amendment 3, the standards introduced under Schedule 3 would be designed specifically for relevant approval bodies to use when determining applications for sustainable drainage. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, such applications would be submitted mainly by developers, not water companies—obviously, for SUDS, that is who implements the developments. Because of that, the Government do not consider Schedule 3 standards to be appropriate to use when we are establishing the rules on remuneration of pay prohibitions. That is why we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Amendment 43 is the important, indeed critical amendment in this group. As I have previously said, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments. We are not looking to renege or backtrack in any way. We are committed to this; it is about the most effective method of delivery.

There are specific outcomes that the Government want to achieve. We want to see an increase in quantity, with more SUDS being built, but we need to see better design qualities that do what we want them to do. We need effective adoption and maintenance, to ensure the new SUDS being built are long-term and keep their quality for the long-term. We need an increase in sustainable drainage in more developments. We need to ensure that, when we are improving the design, they are designed to cope with our changing climate; that is critical, as we are seeing more and more water, often followed by drought, which compounds a lot of the problems. We need to make sure that anything we bring in delivers wider water infrastructure benefits by reducing the levels of rainwater entering sewers, which noble Baronesses have mentioned, and helps improve water quality, while enabling economic growth and delivering the biodiversity and amenity benefits that we need.

Surface water run-off was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It is important that we look at how we tackle all aspects of drainage and surface water. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned her house in Devon. We live in a very old stone-built house in Cumbria. Our house has also flooded in the past. There is much that we need to work on in this area. I am also very aware that there are occasions when new build, if not done properly, can have a knock-on effect on houses that have never flooded before. There is a big picture question in the planning system around how we approach this and tackle it most effectively.

While I am on the subject of surface water, the noble Earl asked about the amendments coming up on nature-based solutions. That is absolutely part of the package of how we tackle this going forward. He asked whether all the areas that we are looking at will continue to be input into the review. Anything we have discussed here that is still outstanding or of concern will absolutely be looked at and will be within the scope of the review going forward.

Having said all of this—the noble Baroness knows this because we discussed it with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—we believe that our ambition for SUDS delivery can be achieved in different ways. It can be achieved through improving the current planning-led approach, and using powers through that route, or by commencing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, as the noble Baroness requested. If we are going to get this to work in the most effective way possible, and get the kinds of results that we need, we need to work hand-in-glove with the MHCLG. Ultimately, this is about development and developers, and getting them to make the right kind of connections and drainage decisions in new developments.

As we discussed, we are looking at planning reforms that can deliver improved sustainable drainage. The National Planning Policy Framework is out for consultation at the moment, until the end of the year. We have asked specific questions around SUDS, from Defra, in that consultation. If noble Lords are interested in inputting to that, it is currently open for consultation.

The MHCLG is looking at the best approach to this, through the NPPF consultation, and there is going to be planning and infrastructure legislation coming up. That is why we cannot accept the amendment at the moment. There are a number of delivery paths. We want to deliver this and we want to deliver it well, so we need to get the delivery path correct. That is why we are unable to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

11: Clause 1, page 4, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) The first rules issued under section 35B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as inserted by subsection (3)) must be published by the Authority within six months of this Act coming into force and provided to the Secretary of State and do not take effect until the Secretary of State has made regulations made by statutory instrument to bring them into effect.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, as I said previously in Committee, consultation with the Secretary of State, as described in the Bill and again by the Minister today, is simply not enough to ensure accountability of this rule-making power, so I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

On behalf of these Benches, I thank the Minister for listening to the cross-House comments made on the pollution incident reduction plans in Committee. The whole House welcomes the fact that the Government are bringing forward these plans. They can be an important contribution to dealing with the sewage crisis which we have seen for too long; water companies have let the public down.

On that point, it was a disgrace in the last week to see that United Utilities—which has been so responsible for all the sewage pollution that has gone into Windermere, as we referred to in Committee—has increased its dividend to shareholders. It is an absolute disgrace, so these measures cannot come soon enough.

We thank the Minister for listening to the very real concerns we had on two fronts: first, that water companies were excluded from the provisions in the way that water and sewerage companies were not. Although they are a smaller number of the 16 and may be proportionally less important, they are still very important. We thank the Minister for that.

On a slightly broader point, we hear what the Government said on not accepting the amendment proposed in Committee, about adding “and implement” into the Bill, which I see that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has brought back today. We are satisfied with the numerous amendments the Government have brought forward to address the two main points: first, that the plans will have to be annually and publicly reported, so we can see what the companies are doing. As the Minister made very clear, it is not just what they have done; they have to make absolutely clear what they have not done and what they are going to do about it, so that we the public—and indeed the regulators—can hold them to account.

The second point, which the Government have moved on significantly—which we very much welcome—is that the chief executives have become personally liable for the production of both the plans and the reports and have some legally binding responsibility which can translate into sanctions, which we believe are strong enough. We thank the Government for bringing forward these pollution incident reduction plans and for listening so constructively to the comments which were made. This is a major improvement to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I fully echo the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in thanking the Minister both for her engagement during the Bill’s progress and also, specifically, for listening to the House on the implementation of the pollution incident reduction plans. We also welcome these government amendments.

I tabled Amendment 15A simply as a reminder of how understanding and accommodating the Government have been. This was originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in Committee. As I said then, we would have tabled it ourselves had she not been so swift with her pen. It is crucial that pollution incident reduction plans are more than a wish list, and actually have real obligations for implementation.

We are most grateful to the Minister for listening to this House and creating a structure for making water companies responsible for implementing these plans and reporting on that implementation. The Minister explained clearly the issues around that responsibility, relating to interference with the other statutory obligations of those companies, and we are very pleased that she and her officials were able to design a methodology that would work.

We agree that making the CEO of the relevant undertaker responsible for signing off the plan and liable for its implementation creates significant incentives to ensure that these pollution incident reduction plans will be implemented. I thank the Minister, yet again, for her further explanation of why annual reporting is appropriate in this instance, and I accept that. We on these Benches are supportive of these government amendments and I will not press my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, this is an interesting group of amendments and we on these Benches welcome them. I do not wish to replicate what has been said but I have a few reflections.

Government Amendment 48, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, is extremely welcome. It could go further, but we on these Benches welcome it. We accept that the Bill is an interim measure and that the independent water commission is just that: independent. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government at this point in time are making a marker in the sand that the regulator should have greater regard for climate and environmental targets. That is extremely important and is the additional reason why on these Benches we welcome it.

Amendment 44 was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. You would expect that we on these Benches, as Liberal Democrats and liberals, would welcome anything that enables local people to have more say on decisions that affect their lives, particularly the environment and climate decisions, because we know that, if they get involved and are caring about their environment, they will help protect it better. So we think that this is an extremely welcome amendment and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.

On the final group of amendments, on nature-based solutions, which we participated in in Committee, I think there is broad agreement. Everybody understands that we need water companies to look less at concrete and far more at green solutions. Government Amendment 42 is extremely welcome. The only point that I would make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when introducing his Amendment 55: there is an area where it could have gone a bit further. The noble Lord’s amendment talks powerfully about water storage and flood prevention; the Government’s amendment is welcome, but it excludes that. We on these Benches would like to hear a little more about how the Government see themselves taking that forward —mindful that it is not in their amendment. Having said that, we welcome these amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving the first amendment in this group. I shall speak to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s Amendment 55 as well as government Amendments 42 and 48.

Amendment 55 is a powerful, concise amendment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on his commitment to, and passion for, making the case for nature-based solutions within the water industry. My noble friend’s amendment has two parts— both are important for the future of nature-based solutions in the water sector. The first would require water companies to give due consideration to nature-based solutions for meeting their statutory obligations. The second would prevent the regulator blocking the use of nature-based solutions.

The Minister has two amendments in this group that make significant additions to the Bill around the use of nature-based solutions. Amendment 42 requires undertakers to explain the contribution from nature-based solutions. Amendment 48 is a broad amendment that could also contribute towards nature-based solutions being used for their wider benefit to nature restoration. I am most grateful to the Minister for her constructive engagement on my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, and for these government amendments. It is clear from these discussions that the Minister cares deeply about nature recovery.

However, I ask the Minister to clarify the approach taken by Ofwat to the use of nature-based solutions within the water and sewage industry. I am aware that £2 billion of investment is included within the draft determinations. However, we on these Benches wish to be reassured that, where suitable and at no additional cost to consumers, further nature-based investment is possible within this determination and beyond. To echo my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would also like reassurance that nature-based solutions will be used not just in drainage and sewerage but throughout the water supply and treatment network, including catchment restoration for flood prevention, drought mitigation and water quality.

I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This would appear to be captured within our Amendment 55 as a specific case but also potentially within the government amendments. The water companies are perfectly positioned to stimulate nature restoration at scale and without using the public purse. We welcome these government amendments and look forward to the Minister explaining how impactful she believes they will be.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for the discussion on this group, for their amendments and for the thoughtful consideration that we have had since Committee on these issues regarding the environmental duties of water companies and the regulators.

Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 55 by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require water companies to consider further opportunities to use nature-based solutions. I thank noble Lords for meeting me to discuss these amendments and nature-based solutions more broadly.

One thing the Government are clear about on these amendments is that water companies need to be encouraged to increase their use of nature-based solutions. In line with that, I am very pleased to see that Ofwat has proposed an allowance of over £2 billion for investment in nature-based solutions in the draft determinations at price review 2024. Alongside this, Ofwat has been clear, publicly, that it remains open to companies to identify where additional nature-based solutions can be delivered. We very much support this approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned the catchment approach. Again, that is something we are very supportive of. If we are to make a real difference in our water quality, and our approaches to our waterways, we need a whole-catchment approach.

Ofwat’s £200 million innovation fund aims to grow the water sector’s capacity to innovate. Since 2020, the fund has awarded funding to 93 collaborative projects where water companies work with different sectors to solve the water sector’s biggest challenges. The main- streaming nature-based solutions to deliver greater value project is one example that is working to overcome barriers to the adoption of nature-based solutions.

What I am trying to get across is that the nature-based solutions the Government are supporting are not just about what is in the Bill; it goes much broader than that. That is important, because we need to look at this approach right across the board. I hope that helps to reassure noble Lords and answer some of their questions.

The regulators have, for example, recently approved several new and innovative nature-based solutions. One example is the use of sustainable drainage systems in Mansfield to manage flood risk. That is a £76 million scheme and includes over 20,000 sustainable additions to the built environment in the area, including rain gardens, planters and permeable paving, creating the equivalent of 23 Olympic-size swimming pools of storage and protecting 90,000 people from flood risk. Again, this is about much more than just what is in the Bill. There is further funding proposed for nature-based solutions alongside this—for example, reed beds and wetlands—and the Government are also supporting water companies trialling nature-based solutions for groundwater-induced storm overflows. There is a lot of work going on in this area.

Having said that, we recognise the strong support in this House for the Government to do more to ensure greater use of nature-based solutions across drainage and sewerage systems specifically. I am therefore pleased to table Amendments 42, 61 and 64, which require sewerage undertakers in England and Wales to address how nature-based solutions have, or will, contribute to the resilience and development of their network within their drainage and sewerage management plans. I thank noble Lords who have expressed their support for these amendments today.

Drainage and sewerage management plans are the key planning mechanism for the entirety of the sewerage undertakers’ wastewater network. This new requirement will ensure that water companies consider the use of nature-based solutions at the very start of the investment planning process. In this way, they embed solutions into delivery.

We intend to commence this new requirement very quickly—two months after Royal Assent—and it will apply also in respect of the next round of drainage and sewerage management plans, which will be published ahead of the 2029 water price review. Sewerage undertakers will need to demonstrate that they have addressed the use of nature-based solutions in their draft, and final, drainage and sewage management plans and will be held to account if they fail to do so, because there is no point in bringing forward amendments if they are not going to be delivered as swiftly and as effectively as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked whether the review would look at things such as adaptation and further environmental matters around reservoirs. Absolutely: the review has a very broad scope in these areas. I remind the House that in our manifesto we pledged to build new reservoirs, because we know how critical they are.

I hope that noble Lords agree that these government amendments will support the future exploration, development and delivery of nature-based solutions by adding this requirement into existing planning frameworks.

I turn to Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for introducing it on her behalf. It looks to improve public access to real time and operational water company data. I will explain why the Government do not support the amendment; I had a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about this. I know that the noble Baroness has questioned this, but we believe the amendment would duplicate existing requirements for transparency from water companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relate to the publication of data on sewage overflows in a form that is readily accessible to the public. The public are concerned about sewage spills, and they want to know when and where they are occurring. They also want to know what is being done about preventing further spills in their area. The amendments help to redress the current balance on availability of information.

Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, relates to the failure of electricity supply which affects a sewage overflow outlet. I agree completely with the noble Duke. If an overflow outlet is reliant on an inefficient electricity supply, it is up to the undertaker to work with the electricity company to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The electricity supplier, similarly, will know when there is going to be a planned outage and should notify the undertaker in advance so that alternative arrangements can be made. If the electricity supply which serves an overflow outlet is inclined to break down, the undertaker should plan to have a generator on standby, as the noble Duke said, to take over when the electricity supply is down. This is common sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, first an apology: in my excitement in the last group on the government amendments, I forgot to refer to my register of interests, including as a landowner across a number of river catchments and an investor in several natural capital-related technology companies.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving his amendment. I recognise how hard he has worked to improve the Bill, in consultation with the Government. We agree with the spirit of his Amendments 39 and 40 in that we also want more transparency from water companies on pollution incidents. This is an important principle that runs through the Bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to the noble Lord’s argument and seek to strengthen transparency in the water sector where this is appropriate.

I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his Amendment 41. While we do not agree with it, we do agree that water companies should take some and more responsibility for the resilience of their power supplies. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can offer in reassurance.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling their Amendments 39, 40 and 41, which speak to the publication of data from monitoring networks and emergency outflow permits. I also thank the noble Lord and the noble Duke for the time they took to meet with me between Committee and Report to discuss these topics and the wider industry that they were concerned about.

Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We agree that it is essential for companies and the regulators to have a clear understanding of the cause of discharges from emergency overflows. That information is important to ensure that the regulators can assess the compliance of emergency overflows and for companies to invest in the right improvements to prevent discharges from reoccurring.

It is important to note that all discharges from emergency overflows should be reported as pollution incidents. Once the Environment Agency has been notified of a pollution incident, it will request follow-up information as to the cause of the incident and any remedial action being taken.

For some discharges, establishing the cause may be straightforward. However, for more complex or more serious incidents it may take longer to identify the cause. When more serious incidents occur, the Environment Agency may need to complete on-site visits and investigations into the cause of the discharges. Since it will not necessarily be known at the time of the incident occurring how long these investigations will take, it is not practical to set a date by which the cause will be identified.

Furthermore, Clause 2 will also require companies to provide information on the causes of pollution incidents annually, as the noble Lord referred to from our discussions, as part of their pollution incident reduction plans. That is to ensure that water companies are transparent about the causes of pollution incidents and the measures they have taken to reduce the likelihood of further incidents.

Requiring water companies to publish a date by which they would inform the public of the cause of an individual discharge would likely result in water companies either rushing investigations to meet an arbitrary deadline or setting themselves lengthy timelines that they know would be achievable. Following our discussions and what I have said now, I hope that the noble Lord understands why we consider the amendment unnecessary and that he will be content to withdraw it. I am of course always happy to discuss matters with him further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has set out the case for this group of amendments with his usual clarity and passion for sorting out the obligations which Ofwat needs to impose.

The money collected from fines from sewerage and water companies needs more clarity over its destination. At the moment, it would appear that the money from fines imposed by Ofwat does not go back into ensuring that investment occurs to correct the defects which allowed sewage spills in the first place. Much of the money from fines goes into the Treasury coffers and supports other government departments. This is not what the public want. They want the money from fines to go into making good inadequate and out of date sewerage systems and helping to create new reservoirs. A transparent and obvious way to achieve this is to set up a water restoration fund. This group of amendments requires all fines for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for this fund.

I understand that the Treasury is not in favour of this as it is hypothecation. I understand where it is coming from. However, it is necessary, due to the appalling performance of the water industry, for the public to be able to see just where the money from fines is going and how it is being used to improve the service they are paying for in their water and sewerage bills. We are, therefore, very keen to see such a fund set up without delay. There are undoubtedly going to be large fines coming down the line which water companies will have to pay. These fines cannot just evaporate into the ether so that customers cannot see what is being done with the money. Restoring public confidence in the water and sewerage industry is key to moving forward and a water restoration fund is a vital element of achieving this.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for introducing this group. I also take the opportunity to thank him for his tireless commitment to clearing up the water industry. I have no doubt that the fact that we are considering this Bill in this Chamber at this time owes much to his hard work.

In government, we made progress on work to ensure that fines charged to water companies would be reinvested into the infrastructure of the water sector to reduce pollution and tackle flood risks. Given the very clear concern of the public about the health of our rivers, lakes and beaches and the impact of pollution, it seems only right that the proceeds of fines levied on water companies should be invested in tackling pollution, so we support the spirit of Amendments 46 and 47 in principle.

While there is clearly disagreement on how best to achieve the goal of reinvesting the funds raised through fines on water companies, we hope the Minister will listen to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and ensure that proceeds from water company fines are reinvested in the sector.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendments and the points raised in relation to penalties and the water restoration fund.

First, I will talk to Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. While I acknowledge the intention behind this amendment, which seeks to strengthen Ofwat’s enforcement powers, we do not believe that automatic penalties are appropriate for the obligations which Ofwat is responsible for enforcing. Ofwat’s role as the economic regulator is distinct from the role of environmental regulators and from the permitting regime for environmental activities. Offences that may be subject to automatic penalties and outlined on the face of the Bill, such as pollution control, abstraction, impounding and drought, fall within the remit of the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. Extending the enforcement of these areas to Ofwat would therefore duplicate the responsibilities of the regulators and create more complexity in the current system.

Furthermore, Ofwat’s investigation and enforcement activities relate largely to breaches of core licence conditions, which are highly complex matters that are not fixed to singular assets or permits but rather systemic failings right across the company’s operations. Investigations often require significant and detailed evidence to be gathered, potentially from a number of sites, to establish whether a breach has occurred. This can take months to conclude and does not lend itself to an automatic penalty.

Ofwat has existing appropriate powers to impose financial penalties. For example, the Water Industry Act 1991 enables Ofwat to take enforcement action, including imposing financial penalties on companies if they are in breach of their statutory duties or licence conditions.

Finally, I remind the House that the independent commission will consider the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators and how we can ensure our regulators operate as effectively as possible. This is something that may be discussed in some depth by the commission. The Government will therefore not accept this amendment, but I hope the noble Duke feels reassured on the points about automatic penalties.

I will take Amendments 46 and 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, together. I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but we do not believe it is necessary to define a mechanism for spending the money received through fines in law. A water restoration fund was launched in April this year, and this arrangement does not require legislation. As we have heard, the water restoration fund serves as a mechanism to direct water company fines and penalties into water environment improvement projects. We feel that defining a water restoration fund in law would instil inflexibilities regarding the scope of the fines available to include within the fund and how the money gathered from fines could be spent. We believe that retaining flexibility is important to ensure funding programmes deliver value for money.

As for the devolved elements of the noble Duke’s amendment, water is a devolved policy area, so it is for the Welsh Government to determine the extent to which a water restoration fund should apply in Wales.

What has come across in the debate, and what came across strongly in Committee, is the recognition that investment in the water industry will be absolutely critical to improving the existing poor standards. The Government are continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury on the continued reinvestment of water company fines and penalties in water environment improvement. We are working with the Treasury on this specific issue because we recognise its importance. As this is ongoing work and discussion, we will not be able to accept the amendments today. I thank noble Lords for the debate, and hope that they have been reassured by my comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is the last group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, has introduced Amendment 50 on recovering costs from water companies. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has Amendments 51 and 52 to leave out Clauses 10 and 11. We did not support these amendments in Committee and have not reconsidered our view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken to Amendments 53, 54 and 59, dealing with water companies that have been taken into special administration. Under Amendment 53, 50% to 100% of the debts of the company would be cancelled. Under Amendment 54, the Secretary of State would place a water company into special measures for breach of environmental conditions. Amendment 59 requires an assessment of costs to bring water companies back into public ownership. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is very articulate and passionate, I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of Lord Sikka, to which he has spoken very eloquently, seeks to prevent companies from operating where they have criminal convictions in a five-year period. I have listened to the noble Lord’s arguments on this amendment and will listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but at the moment I am not convinced of the efficacy of Amendment 56.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to leave out Clauses 10 and 11 from this Bill. These would also have the effect of rendering unnecessary Amendment 50 of my noble friend Lord Remnant.

Our concern on these Benches is that the consumers are left as the providers of funding of last resort to the water industry. In the event of a company going into special administration and there being losses incurred by the Government, these clauses allow the Secretary of State to recover those losses by putting consumer bills up above the levels that have been determined by Ofwat—not just customers of that undertaker but also of others.

This does not seem fair or just. Surely the ultimate responsibility resides with the Government who created the system of regulation that must have failed in this scenario. I intend to test the opinion of the House on my amendment; we do not believe that the Government should grant themselves this power.

I would also like to briefly address Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We on these Benches agree with her that a bailout of creditors or shareholders by the Government would be completely wrong. It is not for the Government to make professional or retail investors whole when their investments have gone wrong. However, we are unconvinced that this amendment needs to be in the Bill, given that there does not appear to be any mechanism where the Government could be called on to bail out investors. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House that this is the case.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussion on the important topic of ownership and management structures of water companies. I turn first to Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I understand his concern about the aspect of the clause that allows for socialisation of shortfall recovery. We had some discussion around that, as he mentioned. However, I reassure him again that this element is necessary for the shortfall recovery power to function effectively and safeguard the interests of taxpayers and water customers.

We do not expect to have to use this power—the noble Lord mentioned that we had talked about this—and I stress that it would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover all the funding provided by Government over the course of a special administration; that is, in the event of a shortfall. It is only at that point that Ministers would decide whether to exercise the shortfall recovery power. Water sector stakeholders, including the Consumer Council for Water, would be consulted about any decision to exercise the power. It is therefore not entered into lightly.

All water customers benefit from the use of a special administration regime, as it ensures that services continue in the event that a water company fails. This power already exists within special administration regime frameworks for other essential service sectors, such as energy, where there is a well-established principle of socialising these costs across the sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, asked specifically about why we think the powers are needed, so I will provide an example. There may be an occasion where government funding, provided during a special administration regime, contributes towards water sector infrastructure—such as a reservoir—that goes on to benefit several different water companies. In other cases, a particularly small water company, with a limited number of customers, may enter special administration. In this scenario, it is vital that a decision can be made about recovering a shortfall from more than one company, to ensure fair allocation of costs and to prevent customers of a single, small company facing unmanageably huge bill increases.

In all scenarios, a failure to deal with a shortfall fairly, or to prevent impacts unduly falling on a single company, risks increasing the cost of capital for the whole sector. This is because investors will price in the risks of excessive shortfall costs falling on a single company. The ability to recover a shortfall from multiple companies is therefore necessary both to ensure that it is possible to recover government funding in the event of a shortfall and to safeguard the sector from any wider cost impacts. I reiterate that we see it as very unlikely that this will ever happen. For this reason, the Government will not accept the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. While I thank her for her engagement on this clause, the Government must reject this amendment because it would jeopardise the main purpose of the water special administration regime, which is to ensure the continuation of water and sewerage functions in the event of a water company insolvency or failure.

The role of the special administrator, once appointed, does not include a power to cancel debt, so does not serve to bail out water company creditors or shareholders. When a water company exits from special administration, via either a rescue or a transfer, the special administrator determines the level of repayment to creditors in accordance with the statutory order of priority. The level of repayment that creditors and shareholders may expect will be in accordance with the order of repayment clearly set out in statute. Any power to cancel debts outside of a restructuring plan agreed as part of a special administration, or a scheme where there is built-in court supervision, would be a material departure from long-established insolvency principles of fairness and treating creditors equally according to their rights. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why the Government must therefore reject this amendment.

I will turn next to Amendment 54, also tabled by the noble Baroness, and Amendment 56 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. He mentioned dividends. I assure him that Ofwat is able to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience, and can take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. I just wanted to make that point clear.

Amendments 54 and 56 are already covered by the existing legal framework for insolvency and special administration regimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, specifically asked why a SAR can be used in only financial circumstances. However, that is not the case. A water company can already be placed in special administration on performance grounds where it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties, or an enforcement order, that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Both the amendments would limit the powers of the Secretary of State and Ofwat by forcing their hand to take specific action, thereby limiting their ability to respond appropriately to individual situations. As part of an application to the court for a special administration on performance grounds, the Secretary of State and Ofwat must consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including its record of criminal convictions. Under the current framework, a company must take actions to address performance issues, including those involved with poor performance. Any failure to do so would form part of any assessment by the Secretary of State, or Ofwat, of the appropriateness of that special administration in the first place. Special administration must be a last resort, and proportional and appropriate to the circumstances. An automatic threshold for special administration, such as outlined in these amendments, would limit the ability of the Government or regulators to act. It would also likely undermine the confidence of actual and potential investors, and bring instability to the wider sector.

The Government are already taking action to strengthen the regulatory system through the recently launched independent commission into the water sector and its regulation. The regulators’ roles and responsibilities, including on enforcement, will be reviewed as part of this. We expect that recommendations from this review will form the basis of future legislation. The rigid approach in these amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising their powers to respond to the details of individual cases. For this reason, the Government will not accept these amendments. However, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my explanation.

Regarding Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have already spoken at length about the costs of nationalising the water sector. It would require a fair price to be paid to shareholders and debt holders. This would come to over £90 billion. I know that noble Lords have disputed this figure, but it is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value figures for 2024. I have also spoken about the benefits—or lack thereof—of nationalisation.

Research commissioned by the Consumer Council for Water, an independent organisation that represents customer interests, found that a substantial change to the industry and company ownership would not address the main problems experienced. We also see a variety of ownership models in the UK and internationally, with clear mixed performance. For these reasons, the Government have been clear that nationalisation is not on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

51: Leave out Clause 10
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent consumers in England from being charged higher water bills to cover any losses incurred by the Government as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision to make a special administration order.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that His Majesty’s Government do not expect to use these powers in Clause 10. I struggle to believe that any noble Lord listening to the noble Baroness describe socialising these losses across consumers can feel comfortable, however unlikely it is. If the clause is not to be used, I would like to test the opinion of the House on whether it should stand part.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I understand why the changes to these regulations have been brought forward, in order to take account of changes to scientific and technical progress, and to stay in line with amendments to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The UK is a party to this critical convention, and it is important that we ensure that the country and the public as a whole are protected from toxic substances.

The four qualifications for substances being classed as a POP are that they are persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative and subject to long-range environmental transport. This SI makes amendments to the lists of substances in annexe A of the convention. The SI lists these substances as UV 328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor. The instrument also lists unintentional trace contaminant UTC limits for those substances, and adds two new POPs to this category which are already prohibited under the ordinary POPs regulations: hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol. There are other substances named which are covered by the SI, but I readily admit that, not being a chemist or a scientist, some of the detail is outside my experience.

Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to certain POP waste being permanently stored in designated hazardous waste landfill or salt mines when destruction is not the environmentally preferred option, as the Minister referred to. I assume that the salt mines referred to will be depleted and never brought back into use. Can she provide reassurance on this matter?

The SI also expands the scope for three offences under the POP regulations of 2007, but neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the SI says what the penalties for the offences are. Can the Minister provide clarification on this?

An eight-week public consultation took place from 3 March to 23 April 2023. There were 58 responses. Of those, 14—24%—were from industry associations, 16% were from large businesses of 250 or more employees, 16% were from local authorities, 9% from charities, 5% from small and micro-businesses of less than 50 employees, 3% from medium businesses of 50 to 249 employees, 2% from NGOs, 2% from a government body and 2% from a consultancy. There was also 9% from “other”. I wonder who the “other” were, as the website did not say. This is a very wide range of responses on quite a specialist area. The consultation response and the Government’s responses are very detailed and are on the website. I am therefore satisfied that those who will have to implement these regulations know what is likely to happen.

The regulations come into force 21 days after the day on which they are made, which I imagine will be one day next week. Can the Minister confirm this? This is a very specialist subject, but it is important that toxic substances receive adequate regulation. I believe the SI does this and I am happy to support it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee and for opening this debate. We wholeheartedly support the Government in their work to build on our strong track record of tackling pollution and effectively managing substances that are persistent pollutants.

These regulations amend EU regulation 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and Council on persistent organic pollutants to alter the rules for the management of certain substances under the persistent pollutant regime. It is important that the Government have the right rules in place for the management of substances that can pollute our environment over many years because they break down slowly. We welcome these regulations.

What assessment have the Government made of our pollutant regulation regime since they took office? Can the Minister confirm whether they have identified any areas of pollution where Ministers intend to change our existing regime or whether they feel that it is currently satisfactory? Can she give some idea of current trace levels of these persistent pollutants and how they compare with the limits in this instrument? Further to that, can she reassure this Committee that these new limits will ensure that none of these pollutants can be intentionally introduced in manufacturing, except for the specified products?

The Minister set out exemptions for the use of these chemicals. Can she explain why these exemptions are necessary given the awful long-term consequences of allowing any production of these chemicals and compounds? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to monitor the levels of “forever chemicals” in our environment to ensure that these levels are within a safe range?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their support for this SI. It is very much appreciated. This was a small but perfectly formed debate on something complex but nevertheless important, because these draft regulations ensure that existing legal provisions for the prohibition and restriction of the manufacture, placing on the market and use of POPs will be extended to the new substances, and they also amend the annexes.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about waste. As I said, waste containing POPs above the specified waste concentration limits must be diverted from landfill or recycling because it is important that they are destroyed—for example, through high-temperature incineration. The noble Baroness asked about salt mines in particular. I probably need to get back to her on that and her question about penalties. I have not got the detail on salt mines in front of me, and there is a range of options for penalties, so it might be helpful to lay that out in a letter to the noble Baroness and share it with the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Have I missed anything? It was such a short debate.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

Has the Minister any more information on trace limits as a result of historic manufacturing of these persistent pollutants, compared to the limits in the instruments? That would be interesting and I completely understand if that might need a letter rather than an answer now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an extremely important point, and it is probably part of the research currently being carried out in this sphere. I will check and we will get back to anyone with any outstanding questions.

Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

Secondly, have the Government considered establishing a hotline for traders to report transgressions to help boost compliance? Finally, how will the enforcement regime be funded and will it be at risk in financially strained local authorities? It could be that the £200 or more fines imposed are destined to go to local authorities as recompense for their work in this area. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this SI. It has a vital role to play not only in the health of our young people but in reducing unnecessary, unsightly and dangerous waste.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this instrument. I declare my interest as a user of multiuse vapes for well over 10 years and that I have not smoked for well over 10 years. It is right that the Government are building on our work to deliver regulatory measures that not only restrict the sale of single-use vapes but put in place systems for proper disposal and recycling.

In government, we allocated £3 million of additional funding for trading standards to support the seizure of illegal vapes. This funding was aimed at tackling the importation and sale of non-compliant products. I urge the Government to honour this commitment and ensure that this funding is not only maintained but effectively used to support enforcement operations. Can the Minister give that undertaking today?

This April, my Government created a specialised illicit vaping enforcement team, Operation Joseph. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress made by that team? I would hope that making the sale of all single-use vapes illegal will make these unregulated vapes easier to identify and control. However, there is a risk that it will drive previously legal users to supply channels that breach the law. What additional steps will the Government take to control this potential black market?

As we regulate single-use vapes, we must also address the growing issue of battery waste. The batteries in these devices, whether single-use or rechargeable, present an environmental hazard if not disposed of properly. Without proper recycling systems in place, these batteries can contaminate the environment with toxic chemicals as well as presenting the dangers the Minister highlighted with her friend’s haulage operation. Many consumers are unaware of the environmental dangers posed by batteries disposed of improperly. Public awareness campaigns are crucial to educate the public about how to dispose of batteries safely and where they can drop them off for recycling. What measures are the Government taking to improve the level of recycling of batteries, particularly those from electric vehicles, whether they be cycles, scooters or cars?

Finaly, I emphasise that our regulatory efforts must not undermine smoking cessation efforts. Vaping has been shown to be a crucial tool for helping people reduce or quit smoking. It is essential that any regulation focuses on eliminating the environmental harm caused by single-use vapes while ensuring that safer alternatives remain available to those who rely on them to quit smoking. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of the relative merits of multiuse vapes as regards smoking in her introductory remarks.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I shall go through some of the questions, and I thank noble Lords for their support for this ban.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the date of 1 June for implementation. We need to act swiftly but we have to be practical, as she said, about how we bring this in and allow businesses sufficient time to run down their stocks and adapt what they are doing. That is why we think that six months is a reasonable transition period. It is also a standard transition period in line with international obligations. But we are not just going to do this and leave it for six months. We will use the lead-in time to put in place guidance for businesses, to ensure that there is support for local authority trading standards officers and to communicate details of the ban among stakeholder networks and the public. The idea is to use that time effectively to ensure that, when the ban comes in, it is adhered to and is as effective as possible.

The noble Baroness also asked about funding for enforcement. While I cannot give a specific figure for funding, enforcement will clearly be critical. There is no point having legislation if you do not have anything to enforce it with. We need to consider enforcement for single-use vapes alongside other types of illicit vape, because there is a black market in other kinds of vape as well. We will look at how we can work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other relevant enforcement bodies to understand the best way to make sure that the ban is enforced. That is work we will be doing between now and 1 June.

On enforcement, the noble Lord and, in particular, the noble Baroness asked about the £200 fine up to a prison sentence. It is important to say that imprisonment would apply only in cases of persistent non-compliance. It would be the very top end, if someone is continually refusing to comply after they have broken the law on a number of occasions.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about the black market. We are discussing with local authority trading standards how we can best support them on black market issues, particularly around underage and illicit tobacco and vapes. There will also be a focus on intelligence sharing between enforcement agencies such as Border Force, HMRC and trading standards to ensure that agencies understand what they need to do to stop this activity and that they work together and share information.

The noble Lord asked about improving the recycling of batteries. At the moment, we are considering proposals to reform batteries regulations. We want to set out some new steps on how we go forward with this, so we will keep noble Lords informed.

On success in tackling illicit vapes, which the noble Lord asked about, in April 2023 the previous Government announced £3 million of investment over two years to enhance work on illicit vapes enforcement, which was led by National Trading Standards. I am sure he is very aware of that. The current actions and activities include intelligence sharing on illegal products and sales, market surveillance and ports enforcement, because we need to be able to catch them when they come in. There is also Operation Joseph. When we know more detail, we will be happy to share that information with noble Lords.

I think I have probably covered everything. If I have missed anything out, I will get back to noble Lords. I beg to move.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, including as a farmer. The removal of half of inheritance tax relief over £1 million under agricultural property relief and business property relief is an attack on all family-owned businesses. Working family farmers are the least able to afford this tax due to high asset values and low incomes. How can the Minister defend this tax to the family farming community and all family businesses, where investment, entrepreneurship and aspiration are now undermined?

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

My Lords, we understand farmers’ anxiety at changes to agricultural property relief. However, the vast majority of those claiming relief will not be affected by the changes. The latest data available shows that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief in 2021-22 accounted for 40% of the cost of the tax relief, with the top 2% accounting for 22% of the cost. Most families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

70: Clause 6, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(8A) All fines imposed on the undertaker or its employees under this section by—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Welsh Ministers, or(c) another relevant authoritymust be gathered together and once per annum be used to reduce all customers’ bills by an equal amount per customer.(8B) Any reduction applied under subsection (8A) must be separately disclosed within the customer’s statement of account.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, back to her place. Her contributions have been missed on earlier days in Committee.

The main focus of the Bill is on improving the health of our rivers, and that aim will likely lead to a larger number of punishable offences. In its manifesto, Labour set out its plans to impose severe fines on water companies that failed to meet the expected standards, but it did not establish what would be done with that additional income. Amendment 70 seeks to put in place a system whereby the fines imposed on water companies and their employees—by this Government, the devolved Governments or, in fact, any other relevant authorities—are collected. Then, once a year, the income from these fines could be used to reduce customer bills.

In government we created the water restoration fund, which sees the money collected by the Treasury from fines and penalties and then channelled into improving the water environment. However, we sit here today with consumers facing pressure on their water bills as part of the inflationary environment that has created the cost of living crisis, as well as the cost of investing to improve water quality. It seems appropriate that fines and penalties should be returned to those consumers and identified by a separate line in their bills, making it clear that the regulator is taking action to punish wrongdoing and that money is returned to the consumer as a consequence.

An amendment such as this would benefit so many individuals and resolve how additional income from stricter fines is applied. It is not a subject that the Bill adequately addresses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has recognised in other amendments. Does the Minister agree that the money from the fines should be used to benefit the consumer through mechanisms such as the water restoration fund that we implemented when in government or by using the sum to reduce customer Bills, as this amendment suggests? As such, will the Minister confirm that the penalties will not return to the Treasury under this Government? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee and the Minister for my absence on the first and second days in Committee. I regret that an attack of Covid meant that I was confined to quarters and unable to travel to London. I did, however, watch the debate on both days on parliamentlive.tv and was therefore able to hear the nuances of the contributions, which you do not always get by reading Hansard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his comments.

A seminar of all the devolved Administrations once a year, to discuss how to return all fines to the relevant customers, will do nothing to fix the problems of inadequate investment in crumbling and inadequate infrastructure. I am sympathetic to the need to keep customers’ bills to an acceptable level. Consumers should not have to pay for the inadequacies of the water boards to ensure that problems are fixed. I do not see why an annual gathering of the devolved Administrations or other authorities will be sufficient to refund bill payers in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising this important issue and tabling Amendment 70, which speaks to the administration of fines. I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, back to her rightful place. I hope that she is now completely recovered, but I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on doing such a sterling job in her absence.

I emphasise that the money from civil penalties imposed by the Environment Agency and fines issued by the court go to the Government’s Consolidated Fund. This is in line with other enforcement regimes under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. On the use of penalty funds, the water restoration fund, which launched in April this year, is reinvesting water companies’ environmental fines and penalties into projects to improve the water environment. Up to £11 million of funding from fines and penalties accrued since 2022 was made available on a competitive basis to support a range of water restoration projects. Defra is continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury regarding the reinvestment of water company penalties and fines, because while the Budget has of course now been announced, decisions have not yet been taken on all departmental spending.

I assure noble Lords that there are existing procedures in place to ensure that customers are reimbursed for poor performance. As the economic regulator, Ofwat sets specific performance targets for water companies and, where these are not met, companies must reimburse customers through lower water bills in the next financial year. I will give an example: as a result of Ofwat’s annual performance assessment process, it is requiring 13 companies to return £157 million to customers for underperformance in the financial year 2023-24.

Ofwat also has powers which ensure that companies return money to customers for failings related to specific breaches. For example, in 2019 Southern Water returned £123 million to its customers as a result of an Ofwat enforcement case. I hope that the noble Lord is therefore content that this amendment is not necessary, as we believe it would duplicate existing protections.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments from the Minister. It is perhaps not the fullest reassurance that I was looking for about the future destination for fines and penalties. Amendment 70 is, by its nature, a probing amendment and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97, 99 and 102. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on her speech. I fully support Amendment 97.

It is interesting that, following an article in the Telegraph, on 19 September, the Government issued a press release in which they said:

“These powers would never be used to pay bondholders, shareholders or creditors … we do not expect customers to pay the price for water companies’ mismanagement … The new measures in the Water Bill will protect taxpayers”.


At the same time, the Explanatory Notes state, on Clause 10, that the Secretary of State “may provide financial assistance” to companies. It is hard to see how these statements can be reconciled. I hope the Minister will tell us what kind of financial assistance the Government envisage providing to water companies while they are being restructured. Their being restructured means that they are already financially, environmentally and morally bankrupt, so why provide financial assistance?

In the debate last week, the Minister said that water companies are “private companies”. If they are, they should be fully exposed to the laws of capitalism, with absolutely no bailout of any kind. Why are we making these special provisions to indulge them and, presumably, write down some of the debt? This was a key assumption made by the last Government in what was code-named Project Timber. Information leaked out that it was talking about how the Government, presumably, may write the debt of Thames Water down to merely 40% of the amount owed.

Whenever we talk about not bailing out shareholders and bondholders, or refer to public ownership, the Government’s immediate response is to say that it will cost billions of pounds. I once again invite the Minister to show me the Government’s calculations—I will happily critique them for free and talk about whether those numbers make any sense. Will the Minister accept my challenge and please publish the numbers?

The Government also say that it would be hard to reintegrate the companies. We are doing it for railway companies, so why can we not do it for water companies? What exactly would be the hardship? Every day, there are numerous mergers and takeovers in the corporate sector, and they are easily integrated and rewired. I hope that the Minister will explain this. I would particularly like to see the calculations of what the cost of public ownership would be, so that we can then start looking at this and talking about the optimum solution.

I hope the Minister will not refer me, as she did previously, to the 2018 Social Market Foundation report. It fetched a number out of thin air and said it was worth about £90 billion—the following year, this was contradicted by Moody’s, which said it was only £14.5 billion. Since then, as we know, a lot of shares of water companies have become worthless and the debt has junk status, so it is easy to let the normal rules of capitalism apply.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on Amendment 99. I will say a little more about Amendment 102. Currently, water companies can violate rules and legal limits on sewage dumping ad infinitum. They can easily do cost-benefit analyses and see that it is cheaper to pay fines for illegal practices than to invest in infrastructure and act responsibly. This boosts profits, dividends and executive pay, while the public picks up the cost of unplugged leaks, sewage dumping, health hazards, and the destruction of biodiversity and marine life. To some, such costs are just externalities, but the public sees this as abuse, as clearly shown by yesterday’s mass demonstration in London.

The puny financial penalties have not curbed the predatory practices. The Minister promises us that there will be more and says that the executives may be prosecuted—that is, if they can wait another 20 years to have their cases heard, as there is already a backlog of 60,000 cases in the Crown Court. The result is that the whole industry is now under the control of entities that have criminal convictions. Wastewater companies in England and Wales have been convicted 1,109 times since 1989. The dismal roll-call is as follows: United Utilities has 205 convictions, Thames Water has 187, South West Water has 174, Anglia Water has 128, Yorkshire Water has 125 and Southern Water has 119. Perhaps the Minister would care to name a pristine water company—never mind pristine water, just a pristine water company. That would be helpful.

There are no pristine, honourable, responsible or ethical water companies, but successive Governments continue to indulge them and give them monopolies in an essential public good. What would happen if 10 major food or medicine companies were convicted of 1,109 crimes that they knowingly committed? They would be shut down and consumers would sue them, but regulators in the water industry do no such thing. Indeed, Ministers make excuses, and successive Ministers have done nothing.

My amendment requires that habitual offenders be placed into special administration, if two or more criminal convictions are secured in a five-year period. This is akin to yellow and red cards in football. The first yellow card is a warning, effectively saying, “Don’t do it again. Mend your ways. Clean up your act”. If no heed is taken, the second yellow card, which is effectively a red card, would follow, and the companies would be placed into special administration.

It is often claimed that shareholders are passive. The threat of special administration for abusive practices would encourage them to actively invigilate companies and their boards and take an interest in their governance. For far too long, companies have got away with abuses; my amendment would ensure that there were serious consequences for them. If the Minister does not accept my amendment, can she say how many convictions water companies need before they are considered unfit and improper to own crucial infrastructure?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 73, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thank the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their contributions.

On these Benches, we have grave concerns about these amendments. While it is important that the water sector operates with integrity, we fear the amendments may have unintended consequences that could destabilise the industry and ultimately be detrimental to the public and the environment.

On Amendment 73, the power to revoke a water company’s licence is one of great consequence and must be exercised judiciously. An abrupt removal of a licence, without sufficient consideration of the ramifications for infrastructure and service continuity, could leave customers vulnerable and lead to service interruptions. It would also be a very substantial barrier to private sector investment. Investors must be able to have confidence that they will be able to enjoy returns on their investments without elevated risk of loss of licence. Should such an amendment be included in this Bill, it would lead to a much higher cost of capital for the industry and higher consumer bills as a consequence. While we appreciate the intent to hold companies accountable, we suggest exploring whether there are more balanced approaches to achieving compliance, without risking instability.

Amendment 97 raises further concerns. The possibility of cancelling debt in the event of special administration proceedings could create moral hazard. This amendment, while aiming to protect consumers from the fallout of financial mismanagement, might inadvertently incentivise risky financial behaviour by companies under the impression that their debts could be forgiven in times of crisis. The bankruptcy route already allows debt to be repaid in part or renegotiated in an orderly manner, respecting the contractual rights of all creditors. This would not be desirable.

As for Amendment 98, this is a matter of significant complexity. We must not overlook the potential costs and operational challenges associated with such transfers. The water industry requires immense resources, infrastructure investment and technical expertise. A shift to public ownership would strain government resources and create operational challenges. We support the Government in not wishing to see a return to public ownership of the industry.

I wish to address Amendments 99 and 102. These amendments would empower the Government to put companies into special administration if they breached certain environmental conditions or held criminal convictions. While we wholeheartedly support stringent environmental standards and rigorous compliance, it is essential that these mechanisms do not inadvertently undermine the ability of water companies to continue their core operations. The amendments could place companies in special administration for relatively minor infractions, which may not warrant such a severe response.

We must be careful not to adopt measures that could disproportionately impact employees, customers and investors who depend on the water industry. I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments and regret that we cannot support them—and could not even before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, gave her views on my party.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the suggested amendment in relation to water company ownership.

I come first to Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The intention of the amendment is to provide Ofwat with the power to remove a water supply or sewerage licence with six months’ notice. I want to emphasise that the Government’s priority is to ensure that customers have a safe and stable supply of water. We are concerned that the proposed amendment could jeopardise this.

There are already established measures to replace an existing sewerage undertaker, by way of licence removal, under certain scenarios. For example, while it is true that an undertaker’s appointment is made for a period of at least 25 years, I can reassure noble Lords that it is not true that appointments cannot be terminated until 25 years have passed. If an undertaker cannot carry out its functions, Ofwat has powers to terminate the appointment, provided that a replacement can be identified and that the undertaker consents.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 10 risks unfairly burdening consumers with costs likely stemming from earlier regulatory and management failures. Involving consumers to compensate for governmental losses would turn customers into de facto guarantors for companies, which contradicts consumer protection principles. As my noble friend Lord Remnant argued earlier in Committee:

“Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify a water company licence in order to recover any shortfall in costs for the Government from its consumers. New subsection (4) extends this recourse to all other companies in the sector”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 1000.]


My noble friend addressed his comments to concerns over the impact on other companies in the sector, with which we agree. My concerns today are with the impact on consumers.

The clause provides no substantial safeguards to prevent excessive or unjustified charge increases. It grants broad powers to the Secretary of State to implement

“such amounts as may be determined”,

without clearly defined criteria or caps on those amounts. This vagueness opens the door to unlimited increases in bills for consumers at a time when cost of living pressures are high. Consumers rely on water services as a fundamental utility and trust is paramount in sectors with limited provider choice. By involving consumers in recovering losses associated with government interventions, the clause risks eroding public trust in the water industry. Why should the Government be able to depart from a consumer pricing model that the regulator has determined to be adequate for providing the service? Why should the consumer face surcharges due to the fault of others?

Clause 10 lacks clarity on how funds raised from consumers will be used or justified beyond the broad purpose of offsetting special administration order loss. Consumers have a right to transparency in any additional costs that they face, particularly when those costs arise from governmental action rather than direct service improvements. Without a clear, transparent breakdown of how these funds will be applied, consumers may view these measures as an arbitrary tax rather than a justified expense.

Permitting the Secretary of State to intervene in pricing to recoup government-incurred costs sets a disturbing precedent. It also highlights the importance of this debate in that the Government feel able to set themselves undefined and unaccountable pricing powers that are not available to the private sector. Is this not why the sector must remain privately owned and accountable rather than in the hands of government or some mysterious public benefit structure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his interest in Clauses 10 and 11 and also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support for them standing part. A special administration regime—or SAR—enables a company that provides vital public services to be put into administration in certain circumstances to ensure that the public service will continue to be provided pending rescue or transfer to new owners. An SAR would be required only when there is evidence that a company is insolvent or in serious breach of its statutory duties. It is the ultimate enforcement tool in Ofwat’s regulatory toolkit and, as such, as I said in the last debate, the bar is set high.

Although government has had the powers to place water companies into special administration for over three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect modernisation of law and experiences in other sectors. If a SAR occurs, government funding would be required to cover the costs of a special administration, including both operational and capital expenditure—for example, ensuring that statutory environmental obligations were met, as well as for paying the cost of the special administrator.

In the unlikely event that the proceeds of a sale or the repayments agreed as part of a rescue at the end of a SAR are insufficient to cover repaying government funding, there is a risk of a funding shortfall. Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a flexible power, allowing the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to recover any shortfall in funding in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances. They allow for modification of water company licences to recover any shortfall in financial assistance provided in a water industry SAR. These clauses will align the water industry SAR regime with the energy sector. Without this power, there is a risk that taxpayers will foot the bill for the water industry SAR.

The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will be able to decide whether or not they should use this power and the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers. This will include which group of customers it should be recovered from—for example, all water company customers, a subset of the sector, or only customers whose water company went into a SAR.

Although the power is flexible, the design of a recovery mechanism will be subject to consultation with all relevant sector stakeholders. The Government must consider these views and explain our approach accordingly. If a SAR occurs and this power is ever required, this will allow a decision to be made, and be consulted upon, on what the fairest cost recovery option is, based on the evidence and circumstances at the time.

I reiterate that the shortfall recovery mechanism does not mean that customers end up paying for water companies’ failures. Any intervention that would increase customer bills would be considered very seriously and as a last resort. In the first instance, the Government would seek to recoup all the funds spent on financing the SAR through the sale or rescue of the water company after the administrators’ conclusion. This new power would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover what the Government spent funding the administration. If there was a shortfall, Ministers would then decide whether they felt that it was appropriate to exercise this power.

This power would allow the Secretary of State to decide, subject to consultation, the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers and which group of customers it should be recovered from, as I just mentioned. This will ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is always implemented in a way that ensures that costs are recovered fairly. I hope that noble Lords agree that this power is essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR, and that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, may have misunderstood me. Far from speaking in favour of the water industry, I am seeking additional protection for the consumer and companies that have not fallen into a SAR.

The Minister has not fully reassured me that the powers in this clause are necessary. The Government perhaps should stand as guarantor, not the innocent. That this measure is very unlikely to be used is not in itself reassuring to me, but at this stage I will not press my opposition to the clauses standing part.

Clause 10 agreed.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is very widely drawn. As I read it, it would ban the Secretary of State from taking advice from anyone who was a director or an employee of a water company, and that seems rather absurd.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for introducing this group on the duties and running of the water regulator. Before I address the amendments, I would like to ask my question from the repeat of an Oral Statement yesterday again; it was also echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Will the Minister make some commitments on the timing of the legislation that will follow the independent commission? As I mentioned, that timing will have a significant bearing on noble Lords’ commitment to their amendments going into this Bill to address shortcomings of the industry that are blatant now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I also referenced the commitment by the Secretary of State that this review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. That would seem to indicate that any new legislation could not come into effect until the end of this decade. Does the Minister agree?

I turn to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on conflicts of interest. We on these Benches feel that propriety in the water sector is crucial and there should clearly be appropriate rules for all employees of Ofwat. That said, it is not clear to the Official Opposition that this should be placed on a statutory footing and I agree with my noble friend Lord Remnant that there are implications outside the water industry from this kind of move.

It is right that the Government should take steps to ensure that Ofwat is run in a manner that appropriately prioritises the consumer and environment, and the majority of amendments in this group address the failures of Ofwat and the need for improvements. Amendments 79 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Amendment 81 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendments 84 and 85 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, all address the fundamental need to reform the way we regulate our water sector.

The Government have not yet told us when they will bring forward whole sector reform. I am grateful that we have an opportunity to discuss reform of the regulator today, and it may not be an issue that disappears from the debate on this Bill until we have confidence that this further reform will be delivered in an acceptable timeframe. While it is worth noting that any transition period would most likely be disruptive, there are certainly important failures that must be addressed at Ofwat. Whether the Government choose to reform our existing regulator or, as has been suggested by a number of noble Lords, abolish and replace it with something better, it is clear that the British people deserve better.

I was going to raise further evidence of the failure of the regulators but the Committee may have heard enough on that. As far back as 2011, the Gray review into Ofwat found:

“Many stakeholders told us that Ofwat was not sufficiently accountable either to Parliament or to stakeholders in general”.


This situation has not changed. As I noted yesterday, it is welcome that the review will address accountability.

On the creation of public benefit companies, which has been hinted at by the Government and mentioned in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is very much the view of the Official Opposition that the continuation of the role of private capital in the water sector is imperative. Recently, the Thames Tideway tunnel was completed, which modernised the Thames sewage system and has made it fit for the 21st century—a feat that would not have been possible without private investment. This project shows the value of innovation, which is considerably harder to prioritise under a nationalised or public benefit system. When there are market incentives, better financial decisions are made. As such, the existence of private stakeholders and investment allows for a more successful sector.

We recognise that, to prevent water companies from causing further damage to our rivers, lakes and beaches, the regulator must be reformed and we hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments from across the House today as the Government look to finalise their wider plans for whole sector reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 32, 39 and 40 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The case has already been put very well that there is absolutely no point in having these plans drawn up and published if there is no requirement for the companies to implement them and no sanctions if they do not. This seems a bit of a no-brainer. I suggest to the Minister that, if there is some legal impediment to these plans being implemented, we should do away with the requirement to draw up and publish them. That would be the most honest thing to do, if there will be no requirement to implement and no sanctions if they do not; otherwise, they are just dangling in mid-air, of neither use nor ornament.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing this group of amendments and for the strong case that she and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have made regarding the importance of publishing and, crucially, implementing pollution incident reduction plans, or PIRPs. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 31; I would have published our own equivalent had the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not been so swift with her pen. Without a requirement to implement, a pollution incident reduction plan would, frankly, be of little use.

Moving on to Amendment 34A, and declaring my interest as a landowner within Dartmoor National Park, while I approve of the sentiment behind the amendment, I would be reluctant to make our national parks a special case. We treasure our entire country. My preference would be for the water companies to focus on the worst pollution incident risks, which I imagine will be a consequence of their pollution incident reporting plans, particularly if compliance with those plans becomes strengthened through this group of amendments. We are committed to decreasing the impact of pollution incidents, and in government we committed to creating the water restoration fund, which would have seen the money collected from fines and penalties directly channelled into improving the water environment. We proposed a plan to improve water systems and, as such, we recognise the importance of creating and adhering to these PIRPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving her amendment. I am glad that she has tabled amendments that address some of the underlying causes of sewage spills, such as excess rainwater run-off overwhelming sewerage systems. My noble friend is right to look at the root of the problems faced by this industry in order to ensure that the legislation deals with underlying causes, rather than just surface-level symptoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for moving her amendment. I am pleased she has tabled this amendment, which rightly seeks to include a greater focus on nature-based solutions within this industry. She and I share the objective of restoring nature—unusually, perhaps she thinks for a Conservative Member of this House—and biodiversity. Having seen that she also supports my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, I hope we can share some of the means of achieving that objective.

I first remind the Committee of my interests set out in the register as a farmer and land manager, as well as an investor in various natural capital businesses and developer of carbon-enabled forestry and restoring peatlands. I should have also declared in the previous group that I share my lands with a beaver.

I agree with the principle of Amendment 37. However, I fear that, in its current form, it is too loose an obligation that is being created, and it would be too easy for water companies to pay lip service to.

Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both seek to put water companies under additional obligations towards national parks and chalk streams. I do not believe that it benefits this Bill or industry to prioritise these more glamorous and beautiful natural environments over less high-profile environments that may be in much worse condition. Of course pollution incidents in Lake Windermere or the River Misbourne are heartbreaking, but are they worse than what is routinely happening elsewhere in this country’s lakes, rivers and beaches?

I also believe that special administration as a punishment for non-compliance in national parks is a very extreme measure and may have more to do with the Liberal Democrat position of wanting all companies under government control rather than being a fair penalty.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

57: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting of impact on pollution(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on the overall level of pollution caused by the activities of sewerage undertakers within 3 months of the Act coming into force.(2) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the actual impact of the Act on the overall level of pollution caused by the activities of sewerage undertakers within 3 years of the Act coming into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to publish their expectations of the impact of the Act on pollution and the actual impact of the Act 3 years after it comes into force.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 57 and speak to Amendments 105 and 106 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

I thank His Majesty’s Government for publishing the impact assessment for this Bill. This is certainly helpful in giving the Committee a clear view of what the Government expect to achieve with these measures, but there is still no provision in the Bill for an assessment of the actual impact of the Act. Our proposal is that in three years’ time the Government should produce a report on the effects of the Bill, so that Parliament can reassess the effectiveness of these measures. Can the Minister give an assurance today that the Government are willing to undertake such an assessment, to give Parliament the opportunity to discuss the impact of this Bill once its measures have been in place long enough for their effects to be measured?

The impact assessment released highlights the need to continue with these amendments. On overall impact, it reveals that there will likely be a negative monetised impact on businesses, including the cost of regulator enforcement recovery, improved monitoring and adjusted penalty systems. These impacts may be acceptable if they drive up water company performance and result in reduced pollution, but Parliament should be given the opportunity to debate this.

I will speak briefly to Amendments 105 and 106. We welcome the assessment of the impact of the justice measures that has been published in the Government’s impact assessment but share my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s concerns about these measures, given the pressure that our prison system is currently under.

We have seen that the Bill could impose a custodial sentence on water company executives. Given the overcrowding of prisons and the recent release of thousands of violent offenders, it seems to us that the Government have got their priorities wrong. Surely the Government should seek to ensure that violent offenders, including domestic abusers, are serving their full custodial sentences before Ministers consider imprisoning water company executives. Polluting a river is of course a serious offence, but we must ensure that our prisons, which are already under strain, are not further challenged by the introduction of new custodial sentences for water company executives. I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 105 and 106 were commencement blocks when laid that sought to ensure that the Government published an assessment of the justice impact of the Bill before it could come into effect. I thank the Government for publishing their impact assessment, which makes it clear that there will be a small additional burden on our already strained prison estate as a result of the custodial sentences included in the Bill. I am satisfied that the Government’s impact assessment covers the justice impacts of the Bill, so I will not press my amendments.

That said, this is a good opportunity to raise the question of the Government’s priorities. We know the burden on our prisons will be small but is it not the wrong priority to sentence water executives to up to two years’ imprisonment at a time when the Government are releasing violent criminals early? Equally, there is the question of necessity. The Government’s own impact assessment states:

“Defra assumes there could be one case every two years with the maximum sentence of a two-year imprisonment based on the fact there has been four historic cases”.


So is this provision truly necessary? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns in her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the Government have fully assessed the potential impacts of the Bill on the justice system and understands why the Government will not be able to accept this amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her constructive response to this debate, and I am most encouraged by her commitment to future assessment of the impact of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

63: Clause 4, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
“(5K) The water undertaker or sewerage undertaker must provide relevant officers under subsection (5J) with mandatory training on subsection (3E) and how it relates to their powers and duties described in subsection (3D).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that relevant officers receive training from the undertaker on the penalties for offences related to impeding investigation by environmental regulators, as well as how these offences relate to their powers and duties as undertakers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell I will speak also to Amendment 64. As we have discussed in the previous group, many within the water industry will now be captured by statutory responsibilities and be subject to custodial sentences if they make wrong decisions. This is a considerable liability and the goal of this Bill must be in part that no one goes to jail or is fined because no criminal or civil act has been performed.

There are similar responsibilities on all investment professionals within the financial services industry and for that reason annual training on anti-money laundering law and market manipulation and insider trading law is compulsory. Having left the industry over two and a half years ago, I am still completely aware of that law and my responsibilities under it. The main reason for this is to prevent a breach of the law, but subsidiary reasons are to rule out that non-compliance with this law is due to ignorance and is either negligence or criminality. That helps to protect both individuals and firms.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell are intended to ensure that this annual training must take place to avoid or minimise any impedance of investigations by the regulators. It should also make clear the powers that the regulators and authority have to those employees to avoid any doubt. If we are to ensure that this remains an industry that the 100,000 employed within it want to build their careers and advance in, it is unhelpful if those towards the top of the organisation are locked up while claiming they had no knowledge of the law.

The Minister may offer that, rather than putting this into legislation, it can be dealt with by rules from the authority or the regulator. As we have discussed in earlier groups, confidence in those bodies is not as high as desired. I believe it is critically important that we also offer what protection we can to employees within this legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for speaking to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his absence. Amendments 63 and 64 relate to guidance and mandatory training for water company employees on obstruction offences.

One thing that it is important to emphasise on this matter is that Clause 4 amends only existing offences. It does not create any new obligations on companies, so employees should already have some understanding of that in the first place. To be clear, the existing offences are obstruction of investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Prosecutions have already been brought against companies and individuals under Section 110 of the Environment Act 1995. On that basis, we believe that companies should already be very well aware of their obligations under that section of the 1995 Act, and of the obligations to their staff to ensure that they are properly trained to engage in this area.

I reassure the noble Lord that the obligations of companies are set out as well in the Environment Agency’s enforcement and sanctions policy, so it should be very clear. I hope he understands why we do not think it proportionate to put this into legislation.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply from the Minister. I am not sure that I am necessarily entirely satisfied with it, but—as I have not yet had a chance to say it today—I am most grateful to the Minister for the constructive engagement that she has had with us, as well as all parties in this House. That will continue and perhaps we can discuss it then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn now to the amendments that we are making to Clauses 5 to 8. Government Amendments 68, 71, 76, 77 and 83 are minor and technical amendments to clarify who is within scope of the measures in Clauses 5 to 8. The inclusion of water and sewerage undertakers remains unchanged by these amendments.

Ofwat issues water supply and sewerage licences, which give the holder rights to provide water or sewerage retail services—for example, billing—or certain services using the public water and wastewater networks. In this remit, businesses are operating as water companies. The amendments make it clear that the measures relating to penalties and the recovery of enforcement costs apply to licensees only in relation to their water supply and sewerage licensed activities. This clarification means that companies can be subject to these measures where this is relevant to their licensed activity.

As businesses with these licences often operate in other sectors alongside the water industry, wider business activities unrelated to the licensing regime should not be brought within scope of Clauses 5 to 8. These amendments ensure that this is the case. For example, a food manufacturer may hold a water supply licence that is issued by Ofwat and permits them to provide billing and metering water services only. Unrelated permitted or licensed activity, regulated by the Environment Agency and undertaken by this business, such as abstraction of water for food manufacturing, would not be in scope of the Bill measures. This is because these activities, which are already regulated and enforced, are not relevant to the company’s operations as a water company.

These amendments minimise impacts on wider businesses and their regulation and ensure that enforcement regimes are consistent within sectors, while still ensuring that water companies are better held to account where they have failed to deliver for the environment. I commend these amendments to the House.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group. It is essential that the way that this Bill applies to the activities of licensees is clearly laid out, and we are satisfied that the amendments brought by the Minister are necessary to achieve this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support.

Independent Water Commission

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the independent commission led by such a respected figure as Sir Jon Cunliffe. However, after 14 years of criticising our government policy in this area, why did the new Government not have clear ideas of their own to fix this industry by the time they took office?

As has been discussed at Second Reading and in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, there is concern over the timetable for bringing forward legislation for a full reform of the water industry after this review is complete. Will the Minister make commitments on the timing of that legislation for noble Lords’ consideration when deciding whether to press their amendments that might increase the breadth of the Bill’s impact? The Secretary of State has given a commitment that the review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. In another place, it has been suggested that the review would not, therefore, lead to legislation that takes effect before 2029. Does the Minister agree?

It is reassuring to see the Government adopt our own previous policy of removing rights to bonuses for water company directors; however, will the Minister inform the House of the total amount of performance-related pay within the sector since privatisation and what percentage of total investment that is? Taking away bonuses will not change the finances of the water industry. It is most pressing to ensure that the industry is properly capitalised to undertake the investment programme that this country needs to deliver clean water at an affordable price. How much has been ring-fenced for that in the agreement between the Secretary of State, the industry and Ofwat announced on 11 July?

It was disappointing that only the last of the terms of reference addressed financial resilience at all. It is critical, given the parlous state of some companies in the sector and the need for investment to deliver clean rivers, lakes and beaches, that this issue is addressed quickly and effectively. My own amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill limiting water company leverage was not much liked by the Minister. What other measures are the Government taking to restore financial stability in the short term? It has also been reported that the Government will consider forcing the sale of water companies in England to firms that would run them as not-for-profits. Can the Minister confirm whether this is part of the Government’s review, and is she willing to give the House some examples of this kind of approach working elsewhere? For example, does she consider Welsh Water’s record in Labour-run Wales to be a good one?

It has been a source of much frustration to this House that there is a lack of accountability to this House for the actions and inaction of the regulators. We welcome the terms of the review to clarify regulators’ relationships with Parliament. Does the Minister agree that, when she is speaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the regulators, it might be desirable that they were more accountable to her and to this House?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and thank the Minister for this Statement updating the House on the launch of the independent water commission. There is much that we on these Benches welcome, most importantly that this Government, through the Water (Special Measures) Bill presently being considered by this House and the launch of the water commission, have given a clear signal that they are determined to try to fix our broken water system. The intent is a welcome step change, and I am thankful for it.

That said, there is a time for reviews and commissions and a time for calm, direct and decisive government action to fix systems that have been broken for far too long. The Government talk proudly about their longer-term approach, when the electorate is keen for more radical and immediate action. My friendly warning to the Labour Government is that the people who voted for them did so with the expectation that real action would be taken to resolve this mess, at scale and at pace. Labour has had many years in opposition; quite frankly, we expected the Government to be better prepared and to have come up with the necessary plans and answers by now that are urgently needed to fix these problems.

The water industry is a mess, and the sewage scandal was a critical issue at the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are determined to put the protection of our precious natural environment at the heart of everything we do. In 2023, water companies dumped 54% more sewage into our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounts to 464,000 incidents and 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Meanwhile, water bills are set to rise by some 40%. We are clear that we would abolish Ofwat, create a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority and replace the failed private water companies with public benefit companies.

The Government have taken a different policy direction. My worry is that the magic trick of making Ofwat fit for purpose, securing investment while keeping consumer water bills low and protecting our environment lies way beyond the measures contained in the Water (Special Measures) Bill and that, when further legislation finally arrives, it will be too late. I welcome the Minister’s engagement, but I call on the Government to work with all sides to make the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill more radical and robust. Our environment cannot wait while Labour decides on the real systemic reforms that are the only solutions to this crisis.

Only 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. With the commission taking at least a year to consider evidence and report back to government, and with further legislation only then to be prepared and debated in Parliament, the radical change required appears unlikely to be implemented before 2028-29 at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge a growing sense of concern on all sides of the House that the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill are not enough to fix the problem and that further legislation derived from the conclusions of the water commission will just not arrive in the urgent timescales required.

The 30% by 2030 target for protection of nature is coming up urgently. How will this review help support that process? My understanding is that the water review will not report until 2025, which leaves a short timeframe for making the necessary changes and requirements to meet our targets. Further, if we find after the Water (Special Measures) Bill is passed that problems in the water industry persist and we are still in the gap before the water commission finishes its work and is ready, are the Government prepared to put forward additional urgent legislation to help fix any remaining problems?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

I am asking the Government to ensure that the dividends cannot be paid without a disclosure of the distributable reserves by these companies. These dividends need to be approved not just by the regulator but by other stakeholders. We need to have customers sitting on these companies’ boards, and they must vote on this. We need to have employees sitting on these companies’ boards, and they must also approve these things. At the moment the authority does absolutely nothing. If the Government are really interested in improving the financial resilience of companies, I hope they will accept this amendment towards that purpose.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the lead amendment in this group. I will speak to Amendment 27 in my name.

Amendment 27 seeks to set a timeframe of six months within which the authority must publish rules regarding remuneration and governance, and it ensures that these rules are scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation. This amendment is necessary to ensure that water companies are able to review the rules that Ofwat intends to implement within six months of the Act coming into effect. The amendment will also ensure that there are mechanisms for raising any concerns within which Ministers and Parliament can scrutinise them fully.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, which simply deletes new subsection (5)(c) on page 2. It seems to me that we cannot allow the authority—whatever it may be in the future, after the review, or even from now on—to start getting involved in the remuneration of those below board level. That really becomes too much intrusion into the way a company is run.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is entirely correct that, in the end, a director of a company is a director, whether executive or non-executive, as covered by the Bill; it mentions “a director” of the company. It seems to me that, while senior role remuneration should have some guidance from the authority, that should be restricted to the chief executive and other executive board members. There is no point entering into a discussion about non-executive directors, who clearly do not participate in performance-related pay or bonuses or anything like that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, is right; it would be appropriate to delete new subsection (5)(c) and include in this clause only the chief executive and any other executive director.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for moving Amendment 4. It is right that the Government should take steps to put appropriate pressure on water and sewage companies to reduce the frequency and scale of water pollution incidents, and imposing financial penalties on board-level executives is a powerful way of disincentivising unwanted behaviours in the sector. But if we are to have financial penalties targeted at water executives who do not meet the standards expected of them, we must ensure that these are appropriate. As we discussed in the last debate, it is crucial that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise the rules that Ofwat will be implementing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name. As this is my first contribution on an amendment of my own, I thank the Minister for meeting me, for the fact sheets and the letter, and for the good news that the commission and the review are taking place. We all appreciate that. I support the Bill and welcome the commission review to come.

I turn to the amendment. As touched on by other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in the debates on the second and third groups of amendments, company employees require appropriate remuneration, just as investors need a return. But the financial engineering introduced previously by investors and company directors—for example, debt levels, transfers to parent companies and other practices that were forensically set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka —has enabled opaque enrichment, and has subsequently brought some water companies close to bankruptcy. That is not what monopoly water companies are for, and I believe it lies at the very heart of the current problems of the water companies.

The amendment enables the authority to include rules or guidance, as we may decide, with regard to a company’s structuring and its transparent reporting. It is deliberately left as “may” rather than “must” because the authority may want some flexibility here. Nevertheless, the amendment would act as an overt reference to the responsibility of the authority and water company employees to evaluate clearly the company’s financial structures and changes to them, and how those would impact on the distribution of financial benefits across investors, employees, directors and, indeed, consumers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, yet again for introducing this group and raising these matters for consideration when the Government are establishing the regulations surrounding performance, pay and bonuses.

Amendment 17 seeks to clarify the definition of what constitutes performance-related pay. There are many ways in which companies can create performance-based incentive schemes. That can include multiyear programmes containing cash bonuses, share awards, restricted stock units, share options and pension contributions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, it rarely includes chauffeur-driven cars, private schooling or any other benefits in kind, which tend to be part of the base package.

Is the intention to capture all forms of performance-based rewards within the powers of the Bill? If so, would it not be better to be exhaustive in defining them in the Bill? It is vital that such a definition be as clear as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its intent to punish senior executives who are not fulfilling their obligations to us all in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches.

In the Bill as drafted, the rules are not clear enough as to what financial components could make up the bonus of a senior water company employee in a given financial year. The amendment is therefore necessary to prevent water companies redesigning performance-based awards to take them outside the scope of the Bill. This is not to suggest any nefarious activity, but anyone currently captured by the Bill would choose not to be if they were able. It would then become impossible for a water company not to offer schemes outside the scope of the Bill if they wanted to attract the best talent.

I understand the intention of Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It is indeed important that we ensure that water companies have no incentives to continue polluting our rivers. We have looked at this issue in our own amendments. Amendment 27 would ensure that any rules relating to pay and governance will be suitably scrutinised, so I believe the issue could be solved without the inclusion of Amendment 5.

Additionally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whether he has considered the impact that this amendment would have on the hiring process of water companies. I think it unlikely that many people would respond to a job advert indicating that you may have a salary but that there is a chance that by the end of the year it could be taken away from you. If the total remuneration of senior roles is included in the Bill, it is inevitable that water companies will lose people with relevant skills and experience in the sector. That will worsen the leadership and perhaps lead to more serious issues within the sector.

It is also possible that the water companies would be forced to delegate their own management to third-party consultants outside the scope of the Bill entirely, in order to find the necessary expertise to run the companies. Have the Government given thought to how to cope with the possibility of such third-party consultants not captured by the Bill?

On Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I agree that both legal and illegal dumping of sewage lead to undesirable outcomes. As such, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. In 2022 we published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which put in place targets to reduce the release of the overflow of sewage and in fact to stop it, except in situations with unusually heavy rainfall, by 2050. So we recognise that the issue is a pressing one and that action must be taken to ensure our rivers are kept clean. However, in order to stop the legal release of sewage, a substantial investment of money and time is necessary, and the amendment does not allow for such provision of time.

Our sewerage systems are a result of Victorian infrastructure design, and the increasing population and heavier, more frequent storms have led to increased pressure on this system. The suggested penalty will make it even less desirable to hold a senior role in a water company. As such, it will further decrease the number of people with skills and expertise at senior levels. This is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the water system for consumers, which is ultimately the aim we share across these Benches. I fail to see how we can support the noble Baroness’s amendment, despite the case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would require executives to take personal liability through their performance-related pay for unspecified structuring or restructuring that may put companies at financial risk. This would appear to us to be too vague to have much bite. It also potentially means that executives’ performance-related pay would be contingent on issues over which they might not have responsibility because they could be overridden by shareholders.

As I mentioned earlier, in response to an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 92 in my name in a later group, which would be a clear-cut prevention of payments to shareholders where there are potential issues of financial distress.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will tighten up the definition of performance-related pay in line with our amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 100. The water authorities in Berlin and Paris are publicly owned and have stakeholder-elected directors. In most European countries, large companies have stakeholder-elected directors in them, as either a substantial proportion of the unitary board or a German-style two-tier board where one board is supervisory, and the other is executive. On the supervisory board, directors are directly elected. There are plenty of precedents for stakeholder-elected directors on company boards, and in many ways the UK is an outlier.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the amendment. I want to speak in support of Amendment 22, from my noble friend Lord Remnant, as well as Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

My noble friend is right to note that the decision whether to be on a board, panel or committee is the job of the company rather than any kind of external regulator. By allowing the company to make that decision, it can decide based on its own business needs. If this was left to Ofwat, not only could it lead to a situation where the board, panel or committee did not fit well into the company structure but it might harm relationships between those forums and the board of the company.

It seems unlikely that a regulator would ever have access to all the information needed to make decisions on how a company’s decision-making systems should be structured, and it is surely the responsibility of the company itself to ensure that it has the right processes in place to make the correct decisions according to its needs. Indeed, as we have heard from many noble Lords, it is clear that the regulator has failed to get important decisions right in the past, to the detriment not only of companies but of the environment. Yes, of course, the regulator should have its role in holding companies to account for their decisions, but the moment regulators are involved in decision-making, it surely takes some responsibility for those choices too.

We are concerned that having consumer representatives on the board or their being involved in any decision-making within the company creates a blurring of responsibility. There is already the risk of some confusion, given the role of regulators, but they are at least experts in the industry and well informed about their roles, acting within well-defined parameters.

I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on sectional interests and the effective working of a board. Consumer representatives on a board lay themselves open to the responsibilities of being a company director and in some cases a director of a listed company. Do the Government really want such consumer directors to be open to fines or prosecution for failing to deliver accounts on time, trading while insolvent or even insider dealing? It is not clear to me as the Bill is drafted that those consumer representatives could not also be subject to fines or prosecution by the regulator. If a consumer representative proposed an action that led to penalties from the regulator, how could they not be responsible?

Turning this around to the perspective of the existing board and management, if consumers are part of decision-making, then it is conceivable that they could cause or prevent an action by the company that created regulatory breaches and punitive action. How would this coexist with the responsibilities and liabilities of professional managers and board directors? How could this not create liability for the consumer representative?

My comments about consumer representation apply equally, if not more, to the environmental experts proposed in Amendment 9 by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I understand and applaud the sentiment behind the amendment, of environmental representatives representing the stakeholder that has no natural voice, the environment. However, environmental campaigners already have a strong voice. There are obligations already present for companies, and others may be imposed through amendments to the Bill. I also agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that environmental representatives, alongside consumer representatives, should be limited to panels.

Allowing the company to decide the forum in which such representatives take part would benefit both sides of the agreement. If the company has taken this decision, then it becomes clear that the company, its managers and employees remain jointly responsible for decisions. I am not clear from the Bill exactly how the Government intend that its proposals should work. Both my noble friend Lord Remnant’s Amendment 22 and Amendments 21 and 23 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have considerable merit. While there is a contradiction inherent between them, both are good solutions to creating the involvement of consumers that the Government want.

I thank all noble Lords for their involvement in this spirited debate. I ask the Minister to explain exactly how she sees consumer involvement working in practice under the Bill. I also ask that she give serious thought before Report to the amendments that I have addressed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has come across clearly that there is no agreement about who should sit on the boards. We want to rebuild trust in the water sector, and to do that we are giving Ofwat new powers to issue new rules on remuneration and governance.

I turn first to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The powers on remuneration and governance outline a requirement for Ofwat to set rules on companies for including consumers in decision-making. We feel that it is appropriate for Ofwat, as the independent regulator, to determine how this is implemented. Water companies have a range of legal environmental obligations that they are required to meet, and actions related to these obligations will already be informed by specialists in the company.

We believe that introducing requirements to include environmental experts on company boards would take the focus away from involving consumers in water company decisions, which do not have the same level of legal requirements as the environment does. Environmental issues should already be a key consideration in water company decision-making. Importantly, my officials in Defra have worked to secure agreement with companies to update their articles of association, to place both customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions. I hope that this clarifies to noble Lords that the Bill ensures the prioritisation of consumer representation on company boards and that they feel able not to press their amendments.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will address my comments to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree with him that financial restructuring of companies has led us to where we are now, with Thames Water potentially on the brink of collapse—who knows who is going to have to fund the huge injection of capital that has apparently now been agreed. Other water companies are heavily indebted. Ofwat, which is after all the economic regulator, did not query, question or challenge those decisions made in the early years of water company privatisation.

The consequence is that anything the Government now attempt to do is basically closing the stable door after the horse has bolted—and raced to the other side of the world—because the companies are where they are. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that any future restructuring ought to be put under the microscope of the economic regulator, the current situation is leading us to a potentially very grave position, which the Government are trying to address with the other financial clauses in the Bill. I read the clause referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, as being directed pointedly at a particular water company.

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I suppose it is better to change the situation now than leave it as it is, but what has happened already is unfortunate.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 92 is very simple. Had it been in place when the water companies were privatised, it would have prevented the aggressive financial engineering that has led to the financial distress we see regularly reported in the press, which has provoked much anger in this House and elsewhere over the years.

Before I address Amendment 92, I will briefly comment on Amendment 10 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It coexists neatly with my amendment, allowing regulators to be better informed on issues with the financial structures of the companies they regulate, and to be aware of future problems. I am pleased that the noble Lord has moved this amendment, and I broadly agree that the regulator should have better information about the financial structuring of water companies in the interests of protecting their viability and preventing circumstances in which they become overleveraged.

I will speak to the dangers of overleveraging and the problems we have as a result of the weakness of the regulator, but we on this side of the Committee are interested in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which takes a fairly moderate step towards having a better-informed regulator. That said, it may be possible to go further, either by reforming the way the regulator works in the water sector or, as I propose in Amendment 92, by implementing statutory rules on borrowing for water companies and taking effective steps to prevent capital being taken out of companies that are overleveraged. We need to make the water sector attractive to investors so that they bring more capital into it to fund investment in cleaner and better water infrastructure.

I add my whole-hearted support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Remnant. It seems grossly unfair that a company that has behaved responsibly should be penalised by the actions of another in the sector. I am aware of precedent in the financial services sector, but that is to protect the integrity of the financial system, which is in all participants’ interests. In this case, each water company is a unique entity whose actions have little or no impact on others. Without this amendment, one bad actor could contaminate the industry.

I add my concerns about the wording that my noble friend Lord Remnant seeks to remove from the Bill. This new subsection as drafted applies the duty to render “relevant financial assistance” to any other company that holds, or held, an appointment under this chapter. This seems to me yet another example of retroactive effects that are littered throughout the Bill and which we will discuss in later groups. Could the Minister explain to the Committee what the Government’s intention is with this retroactive element in the Bill? Will there be a maximum period of time since the relevant company held an appointment for this duty to apply to it? This seems to us to be a concerning power, and we would seek clarifications from the Minister on both the unfairness at the core of this subsection and its retroactive element. I thank my noble friend Lord Remnant for introducing his amendment, and hope that he continues to make progress on this unfairness which exists in the Bill as drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

14: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the new rules from overriding existing employment contracts.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 14, I will speak also to my Amendment 15.

As I mentioned in an earlier debate this evening, there are a number of areas in this Bill where its effects are retroactive on existing agreements, but the Bill fails to set out the exact limits of these powers. On these Benches, we have been clear at every stage in the passage of the Bill that we want to see tougher measures to hold water companies to account and to ensure that we have better outcomes for consumers and our environment. However, it would not be right for us to approve this Bill because it has a worthy goal, without scrutinising those areas where it is deficient. We have already spoken about Ofwat’s failures, and noble Lords across the Committee will surely admit that there are improvements to be made to the way that Ofwat itself works. Giving unclear levels of retroactive powers to the regulator is not something that should be accepted by Parliament, and we will scrutinise the Bill very closely on its retroactive impacts.

My Amendment 14 seeks to remove the lines from Clause 1 that seek to empower Ofwat to void existing agreements, including employment contracts. The Bill gives Ofwat the power to issue these rules without proper scrutiny, and in this part of the Bill we see how powerful those rules can be. Retroactively overriding employment contracts may be necessary for the Government’s objective to implement a blanket set of rules on remuneration for senior officers of water companies, but it is surely not an acceptable way to go about regulating the sector. I ask the Minister: what message does it send to a talented person working in the water sector today, as they build their career, to see measures such as this retroactively changing the rules of the game? We on these Benches fear that many talented people may choose to pursue a career outside the sector, for fear that the Government may yet again move the goalposts retrospectively.

I have intentionally tabled my related Amendment 15 separately, to probe whether the Government are willing to move at all on the retroactive impacts of the Bill. Amendment 15 seeks to remove the part of Clause 1 that enables the retroactive deprivation of performance-related pay under the rules. It is surely not right to implement rules now that have effect from the beginning of the year. Our concern is that the lines in the Bill that we seek to remove allow the Government to renegotiate unilaterally an employment contract that has been freely entered into between a third-party employer and a third-party employee. While it is customary that employment legislation often does just such a thing, there is very limited precedent for picking on one class of employees in one particular sector.

This is a very unfortunate precedent to set, which opens the door to a Government inserting themselves into employment contracts across other sectors to achieve the outcomes they want. That smacks of overreach. Should we seek to remove performance-related pay from software company managers if their software crashes; from insurance industry executives if we do not like their handling of claims; or from airline executives if their flights are late? I am sure that there may be some noble Lords across the Chamber nodding their heads that the Government should be doing just that; however, that is completely against the Government’s claims of being business-friendly. No competent executive would ever want to work for a UK-based company were these kinds of rules to be brought in.

Our amendment does not suggest a better alternative but simply suggests that the current method is unacceptable, and that the employed and the employer also need to be cognisant of the law and agree that these contracts be amended or replaced with agreement to reflect the intent of the Bill.

There is also the issue, which my noble friend Lord Remnant may address in greater detail in his comments, of interference in multiyear contracts, where portions of that payment may already have been earned and yet could potentially be prohibited under the Bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Explanatory Notes provided to the House by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Paragraph 79, under “Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights”, says:

“Provision relating to remuneration of water company executives is also not considered to result in ‘deprivation’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as the provision relates to future income. Such income will only constitute a possession once it has been earned”.


I suggest that income in prior years in multiyear contracts has already been earned, just not yet paid. Therefore, I question the Minister on how compliance with the ECHR can be guaranteed in this case.

My amendments are, by their nature, probing. Given that they address an election manifesto commitment, they are designed to produce convincing answers from the Government on how these issues can be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that Amendment 26 in my name falls into the same grouping as those in the name of my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra. Although I very much regret that your Lordships’ time is having to be spent on potentially amending proposed legislation that has retrospective effect, it gives me the opportunity very much to support the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Roborough in support of Amendments 14 and 15.

It cannot be right retrospectively to override contract law with respect to employment contracts freely entered into by company and individual in line with relevant legislation and regulations in force at the time. Similarly, to the extent that, today, pay can be recovered from senior individuals under malus and clawback provisions in listed companies’ remuneration policies, such a draconian power can rightly be exercised only in extremely limited circumstances known in advance by the individual. The proposed exercise of the pay prohibition in the Bill retroactively goes way beyond accepted remuneration practice, and unacceptably so.

On my own amendment, I will not repeat the general arguments made by my noble friend against the principle of retroactive or retrospective legislation. I am no lawyer, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I perhaps erroneously use the terms interchangeably. The offending principle, though, remains the same. The general rule in this country, and indeed in most modern legal systems, is that legislative changes apply prospectively. If we do something today, we feel that the law applying to it should be the law in force today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it.

The Bill proposes that the provisions about performance-related pay apply from the financial year beginning 1 April 2024. We are currently some seven months into that financial year, and the Bill will not be enacted for some months hence. In effect we are talking about backdating the provisions for the best part of a year. The remuneration arrangements entered into between senior individuals and their employer will have been agreed under remuneration policies agreed by shareholders well before April for them to take effect from 1 April 2024. It surely cannot be right, whatever the merits of the Bill, for its provisions subsequently to alter those arrangements and the remuneration paid, or to be paid, under them.

Few things concern investors more than retrospective legislation, and listed companies will need to consult with and seek approval from shareholders on changes to remuneration policies at their AGM. Requiring retrospective changes risks companies breaching shareholder-approved remuneration policies. More fundamentally, it will undermine investor confidence at a time when they are being asked to fund a record investment programme.

My amendment would simply change the date from which the performance-related pay provisions come into effect from a historic 1 April 2024 to a mildly prospective 1 April 2025. Is that really too much to ask, to avoid breaching a fundamental legal principle? I do not think so and I hope that the Minister will agree with me.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have stuck with us this evening and carried on the debate. We know that the public have been clear that they want to see change and that where performance is poor, executives should not receive large salaries or bonuses.

I will start with Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The conditions of existing employment contracts may not align with Ofwat’s new rules. Our concern is that Amendment 14 may prevent Ofwat being able to apply its rules even when performance has not met the required standards. On Amendment 15, it is also right that where companies breach Ofwat’s rules on performance-related pay, Ofwat should be able, if it considers it appropriate, to require the company to recover any payment made in breach of the rules. Linking pay to performance should incentivise decision-making, resulting in improved outcomes for customers in the environment. I reiterate what I said earlier: should companies meet their performance expectations, executives can still be rewarded. So I hope that the noble Lord will understand why we will not accept his amendments.

I turn to Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. This legislation will ensure that Ofwat is able to implement rules on performance-related pay in the current financial year. However, I listened really carefully to the speech that the noble Lord just made introducing his amendment. I would really like to understand his concerns better, so I wonder whether he would welcome further discussion on this matter so that we can look at it in more detail. I would very much appreciate it if the noble Lord was prepared to do that. But currently we are not going to accept the amendments as we feel that they would prevent meaningful implementation of the rules.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. We respect that this is an election manifesto commitment and therefore needs to be in the Bill in some form, but my noble friend Lord Remnant and I would both like to discuss further with the Minister, if possible, how we can help to improve this part of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

19: Clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) Rules made for the purposes of determining standards of fitness and propriety mentioned in subsection (2)(b) must include criteria that help the undertaker to assess—(a) whether persons have the knowledge, skills and experience to perform the specific role that they are intended to perform;(b) whether, in assessing a candidate for a position within the management body of the undertaker, the management body as a collective possesses adequate knowledge, skills and experience to understand the undertaker’s activities;(c) how relevant and important any matters which suggest a person might not be fit and proper are;(d) whether appointed persons on temporary absence continue to meet the standards of fitness and propriety.(5B) The criteria in subsection (5A) are to be treated as guidance and may be applied in general terms when the undertaker is determining a person’s fitness and propriety.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will attempt to be brief, in view of the hour.

Amendment 19 provides a clear definition of the criteria that will be used in determining whether someone is fit and proper to hold a responsible role in the water industry. As currently drafted, there is no definition and, as such, it is likely that everyone consulted would have their own different definition of what “fit and proper” might look like. There is precedent in another industry for such a test, which was undoubtedly in the back of the drafter of the Bill’s mind, in the financial services industry. My amendment is an edited version of the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of a “fit and proper person”. As I was previously a senior manager in an investment management business under the FCA’s senior manager regime, I have first-hand experience of this test.

Even as laid out by the FCA, there was considerable debate about the application of the tests. I also question whether Ofwat is really the right place for such an assessment to be made. In the financial services sector, it is for the member firm to make its own determination and express its view to the FCA when seeking to register a new employee. The FCA could then query that view and potentially overturn it. Should Ofwat be required to do this, it is likely to use less professional help and real-world experience in forming that view and will require dedicated infrastructure to process applications. If the undertakers are responsible, overseeing those applications becomes relatively straightforward.

This may not be a long debate, with only one amendment, but it is an important amendment to consider when giving effect to the Government’s intentions in this Bill. In providing clarity to the undertakers, what is intended by this provision? I am most interested in the Minister’s response and hope that, if she is not happy with my amendment, she might set out who she considers a fit and proper person and how that will be communicated to Ofwat and the industry. I am also most interested to hear why the Bill’s proposal for how to implement this is different from the financial services industry, despite a reasonably long and moderately successful record within that industry. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, how nice to have a quick last group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for introducing the last group of today with his Amendment 19, which seeks to specify the criteria to be covered by the rules on fitness and propriety, ensuring that senior leaders meet the public’s expectations.

I have mentioned Ofwat’s consultation on remuneration and governance before, and I would just like to confirm to the noble Lord that this consultation references similar criteria to those proposed by his amendment. Ofwat’s consultation seeks views on whether it would be appropriate to include a concept of “ability” in the new test, defined as an individual having adequate knowledge and understanding of the duties of the undertaker. Ofwat has stated its intention to design a fit and proper person test with criteria that will improve public trust and company culture in the water sector, having considered how other sectors are regulated around these same principles. I hope this captures the noble Lord’s concern that standards of fitness and propriety will need to be relevant and encompass concepts of knowledge and understanding. Of course, we feel that Ofwat’s independence is an important part of the trust that companies have in the regulatory regime.

The noble Lord asked why we felt Ofwat should be setting these criteria. We think it is right that Ofwat has the opportunity to consult on these criteria and that companies then have the opportunity to respond and perhaps propose different criteria. It needs to be a situation where Ofwat can then tailor these fitness and propriety standards to the water industry, rather than having prescriptive standards set out within the primary legislation. It is important that Ofwat’s independence is clearly upheld, because it will support its ability to hold senior officials to account for their actions.

Ofwat also notes in its consultation that the 16 largest water companies have a licence condition that requires them to meet the four objectives of its board, which are leadership, transparency and the governance principles. These objectives include the requirement for boards and board committees to have the appropriate balance of skills, experience, independence and knowledge. I hope the noble Lord is content that this is already being looked at; I hope that he will look at the consultation and therefore see that his amendment is no longer necessary.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, and it is certainly very helpful. Perhaps something I could have brought out more in my initial comments were the concerns over accountability. When I look at the FCA’s senior manager regime, and the fit and proper tests, none of that is here—nowhere is there any accountability to Parliament. We will take the Minister’s comments away and give this further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.