Large-scale Waste Crime

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dems next, then from my noble friend.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Environment Agency’s exceptional decision to progress works to entirely clear the site at Kidlington of waste followed new information and advice from the fire and rescue services that indicated that there was an increased possibility of a fire at the site, which is why it moved in to do it. It was the scale of that fire risk that set it apart from other illegal waste dumps in England. That is why it became an overriding public imperative. Regarding the other site, investigations and work are going on there, so it is difficult for me to comment specifically, but I am happy to look at what I am able to share with the noble Baroness and put it out in writing.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, there is waste crime in plain sight. For decades, England’s water companies have illegally dumped sewage in rivers, lakes and seas. Companies have nearly 1,200 criminal convictions, but their directors receive mega bonuses and rewards. Despite promises, no director has been prosecuted or disqualified from acting as a director. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to indulge criminal entities and elites?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend knows that water companies are private companies. He also knows that we have a criminal justice system that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice work in. The law is there to be used when appropriate, and I would hope that it will happen.

Energy Market Reforms

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, one of our key priorities is to reduce bills for consumers, particularly for vulnerable customers. We will look at all aspects of how best to do that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, energy companies made £30 billion profit last year, which is over £500 per household. This fuels inflation and poverty. Some 128,000 people die in fuel poverty each year. There is an urgent need to end profiteering by excluding gas-generated electricity from Ofgem’s marginal pricing formula. Can the Minister explain why, after 35 years, Ofgem’s pricing formula has not been reformed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks about marginal pricing and refers to gas, because gas and electricity prices have been coupled together for many years. The market currently operates on the principle of marginal pricing, and the cost of electricity often tracks the cost of gas because gas generation frequently sets the wholesale price. It is a complex area. There are good reasons why the electricity market operates on that basis. Comparable countries tend to operate in this way as well. Over time, we need to rely less on gas, which means that electricity prices will become increasingly detached from the price of gas and be more frequently set by other generation, such as renewables. We see that as the way to bring prices down to support vulnerable people and to enable them to pay their bills. That is why our focus is on increasing renewable energy.

Deforestation

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is a very good question. We have to look at what waste from forest is used for. We are supporting the timber industry in this country; that is important, because at the moment we import an enormous amount of timber. It needs to be easier, quicker and more financially viable to grow trees in this country, so that is one aspect of reducing the waste that comes from importing. At the same time, we need to ensure that we manage the waste from our own imports and our own homegrown timber effectively. We relaunched this year the Timber in Construction Roadmap. We need to be able to meet demand, but at the same time manage the waste issues to which the noble Lord refers.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, successive Governments have facilitated deforestation abroad. A good example is Drax, which has received billions in subsidies for burning wood pellets to produce electricity that is twice as expensive as electricity produced from gas. Drax has a record of lying about the use of primary forests for burning wood. The company reported a profit of over £1 billion last year, paid out £97 million in dividends and another £300 million in share buybacks to shareholders. Can the Minister explain why this company continues to be subsidised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Electricity generators—and that does include Drax—receive subsidies only for the electricity they generate from biomass which has demonstrated compliance with the Government’s sustainability criteria. We have strengthened the sustainability criteria for large-scale biomass generation by increasing the proportion of biomass that must be obtained from a sustainable source from 70% to 100%, excluding core material from primary forest and old growth areas, and by tightening greenhouse gas emission requirements in line with European best practice.

Plastic Pollution

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Our ambition at the moment is to try to get the global treaty that we have been pressing for. We believe that the more countries that we can bring into that treaty, including those that produce the plastics and the materials for them, the more likely we are to have a larger global impact. But we are considering all options, because we need to move forward in this space.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the pros and cons of requiring road builders to replace some of the fossil fuel-based bitumen with plastic pellets?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At the moment, I am not aware of Defra having had such conversations. It may be that the Department for Transport has, so I will go back to my department, ask for more information on this subject and write to the noble Lord.

Independent Water Commission

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct: we have ruled out nationalisation. But if she would like to share the paperwork, I would be more than happy to look at it.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers claim that public ownership of water would somehow cost £100 billion, which is a totally unsound claim. Let me explain. The £100 billion figure is generated by Ofwat, which calls it “recognised capital value”. It is calculated by taking the value of the company at the time of privatisation, adding the annual investment and multiplying it by the annual rate of inflation. It adds that 35 times—that is, over 35 years—and comes up with the figure of £100 billion, which does not represent anything. On the same basis, a £10,000 Reliant Robin bought by Del Boy in 1990 would now have a value of over £50,000. There is no way that Del Boy would be able to sell it for £50,000, because that figure has absolutely nothing to do with value. So, can the Minister explain why the Government consider £100 billion to be a credible figure for the cost of public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would just say to my noble friend that we have discussed this on a number of occasions, including with officials in the department. I am sure that we will continue to discuss it.

Thames Water

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Any future operating model will be part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review that is currently taking place—I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the interim report is out. That will be part of the work being carried out by Sir Jon and others.

The big issue is that fundamentally this a private company. It for the company to solve the issues of financial resilience. It is not for us to tell a private company how to manage its finances. That is really important. But, having said that, we have to be prepared for all eventualities across regulated industries and Thames Water has clearly had some pretty serious problems. If it comes to a SAR, creditors cannot ask the debt to be repaid during that special administration regime. If it did come to that, there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR and that would take away the creditors’ ability to enforce any debt repayments.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government are dithering about the future of Thames Water, its debt has increased by £3 billion, it is spending £200 million a year on its business advisers and one-third of a customer’s bill basically covers the interest payments. Is it not time that the Government recognise that privatisation has failed and that the only way of giving the water industry firm footing is through public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.

Thames Water: Bids

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what guarantees they expect to give to, or receive from, any bidder for Thames Water.

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

I had almost relaxed then.

My Lords, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment in detail on a company’s commercial regulations. Ofwat notes that the company has now moved to the next stage in its equity raise process, and it continues to engage with the company to ensure the delivery of the financial and operational turnaround that both customers and the environment deserve. Any investors will be expected to show that Thames Water will meet its statutory and regulatory obligations.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Let us look at the facts. Thames Water was put on the road to ruin by private equity. Now its shareholders have designated KKR, another private equity group, as their preferred bidder. KKR’s business model is profiteering, high leverage, low investment, asset stripping and high cash extraction. That will inevitably multiply Thames’s problems. The Water Industry Act 1991 gives the Secretary of State powers to vary the licensing conditions. We need to know precisely what the Government will demand from the new owners of a company that already has 187 criminal convictions.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding the company choosing KKR as its preferred bidder in the ongoing equity raise process, clearly Thames Water is a commercial entity engaged in a public equity raise, and it would therefore be completely inappropriate for the Government to comment on that. However, I note that the company had a number of potential bidders to choose from, which indicates that a market-led solution to the financial resilience of the company is a possibility.

Thames, Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water: Ofwat Proposed Fines

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many of the £168 million fines proposed by Ofwat on 6 August 2024 against Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, and Northumbrian Water have been collected.

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

My Lords, it is important to make clear when answering this Question that we are talking about proposed fines, and legislation specifies the process that Ofwat must follow before it can impose the fines or an enforcement order. Ofwat has the option of accepting regulatory settlement in lieu of imposing an enforcement order and/or fine. If Ofwat decides to impose a fine, it will issue a notice to the company specifying the date of payment. This must be after 42 days from the date that notice is served on the company.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We seem now to have a category of fines which are not really fines. A £168 million fine for past sewage dumping was announced nearly six months ago but has still not been agreed and collected. The normal practice is that habitual criminals are not permitted to negotiate the extent and timing of fines with judges or anybody else. These three water companies between them have over 400 criminal convictions, but they are being allowed to negotiate the amount and timing of their fines. Why does the Minister think that this is a good and moral practice?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to be clear that Ofwat has to act within existing legislation. It is also important to point out that the Government are absolutely clear in wanting to clean up the water industry, which is why we have set up the commission. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 66 prosecutions against water companies, which has secured record fines of over £150 million. Meanwhile, in the last five years, Ofwat has secured a total of around £38 million in rebates to customers, in addition to another £150 million in other undertakings, as a result of its enforcement action.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

The Government have indicated that this is not going to happen. The amendment is an attempt to bring forward a different model of governance. The proposal is for 25% of board members to be chosen by local authorities. Local authorities are struggling with social care, looked-after children, education and people with learning disabilities. They certainly do not need this added to their “to do” list.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 9.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 57 is highly workable, because it advances democracy and public accountability of the regulatory bodies. As we have it now, the regulators of the water industry have failed the people, mainly because they are too close to the very interests that they need to regulate and far removed from the welfare of employees, customers and citizens, who bear the ultimate cost of regulatory failure. I am pretty sure that the Government will soon be asking customers to chip in more money to restructure water companies and taxpayers to pay more to reconstruct them. That is just one part of the cost which people will bear.

All regulatory bodies need to be guided by effective watchdogs and guide dogs, but Ofwat has neither any watchdog nor any guide dog; it just seems to be running loose and doing whatever it wishes. There is no mechanism for preventing capture of water regulators. The executives of Ofwat pass through revolving doors and join the water companies with dizzying speed and great regularity, undermining the independence of the regulatory bodies. Regulatory bodies must be seen to be independent rather than just claim that they are independent. At the moment, a director of Ofwat, a former Conservative Minister, is spearheading a campaign that would make it harder for consumers to sue water companies that breach legal sewage limits. Should a regulator be doing that—or should it be more even-handed between the regulated and consumers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have three amendments of my own in this group and I have co-signed Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.

I spoke earlier about the Government’s plans not being strong enough to get a grip on these out-of-control water companies. The amendments in this group, including my Amendments 53, 54 and 59, are illustrative of what could be put in place to really force the water companies to clean up their act. There does not seem to be any protection whatever at the moment against a water company simply going through the special administration process and then hiking bills up on the other side. The moral hazard is obvious.

I am going to take my amendments out of order, and noble Lords will see why. My Amendment 54 would create a special administration process for environmental failures, such as persistent sewage dumping. I do not understand why only financial failure should lead to special administration, when a much bigger failure is the sheer amount of sewage pumped into our rivers and on to our beaches. Thames Water, for example, will come out of special administration still in private hands, but with the bulk of the debt paid off by higher bills. My amendment would change this by giving the special administrator the power to write off the bulk of the debt where it has been used to pay for dividends and where the company has failed to deliver the investment to fix the sewage system. Those powers are not in the current rules and the Government have the chance to change that. Otherwise, we will reward the failures and greed of companies such as Thames Water and will be blamed for it.

I will take my Amendments 53 and 59 together only because I would actually have liked to press them to a vote. They are two amendments I care about very much, on issues that I think the general population cares about very much, and it staggered me that there has not been more support for them in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for supporting me: it is two Greens and him who have proposed this.

Essentially, my Amendment 53 would prevent water companies being bailed out by either the public purse or via consumers’ water bills. This is because I am quite suspicious that the whole Bill is a tactic to support the water companies, at vast expense to bill payers and eventually to taxpayers. I simply do not understand why profits are privatised but losses are not. We, the public, pay for the losses but do not get the profits.

My Amendment 59 would require the Government to conduct a full assessment of the costs of bringing water companies into public ownership. So much of the public ownership debate is dismissed based on dubious industry figures about how expensive it would be. These conveniently miss the fact that some of these companies are now distressed assets facing bankruptcy. I at least ask the Treasury to do a proper costings exercise which discounts the fact that water company valuations are based on expectations that taxpayers or bill payers will underwrite the future profits of the water companies. Given the total failure of water privatisation, the Government need to seriously plan to bring water back into public ownership. The public are crying out for it, and it would actually be good value for money. The first step towards that is to work out the real costs rather than regurgitating figures from a biased industry.

It will be a race against time whether we can pass this Bill before Thames Water fails. All the experts agree that Thames Water is going to collapse, so why are the Government not taking it into special administration immediately? My genuine fear is that this Government will find themselves in a political storm over the big rise in water bills to finance a new private company taking over. The Government would have three regrets: first, that they did not refuse a bailout; secondly, that they did not listen to the public and change the powers of the special administrator to write off shareholder-accredited debts; and thirdly, that they ruled out public ownership as an option and boxed themselves into a corner. I deeply regret this aspect of the Bill, and I wish there were support in your Lordships’ House for no bailout and public ownership.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 53 and 56, with some trepidation. At 4 pm today my heart soared, because the Railway Minister said that government policy was to bring these monopolies into public ownership. But by 5 pm the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—said no, and that water companies must remain in private hands. It is nearly 9 pm now, so I do not know whether the policy has changed again. It would be interesting to know.

Water companies and shareholders and lenders have extracted vast sums of money, and under no circumstances must they be bailed out. We are now almost reaching the endgame and maybe the beginning of a new chapter in water companies. Thames Water is an interesting case. All nine of its shareholders have declared the company to be a basket case and are refusing to invest, after extracting billions of pounds in dividends and inflicting massive, real-term price hikes on customers. The value of those shares has been written off; the value of debt has also taken a haircut in the marketplace.

The interesting thing is that Thames Water is now going to borrow more money, which does not make any sense; I do not know how the Government have made any sense of it. Thames Water already has a debt of about £18 billion, and its gearing, as I said earlier, is already over 80%, compared to Ofwat’s idealised ratio of 15%. Thames Water is now negotiating a £3.5 billion new loan at 9.75% for two and a half years. This new loan will require it to pay £800 million over two and a half years, with interest and various fees, to intermediaries, after which it will also have to repay the loan of £3 billion. That is £3.8 billion—which it will probably try to recover from customers. It has 16 million customers, so that works out at a charge of £95 per customer simply to service this debt. This simply is not viable. There would be riots in the streets if water companies went ahead and squeezed the customers even more. It is simply and utterly unacceptable.

The company will continue to discharge tonnes of sewage in the rivers. Water leaks will still go unplugged. We are talking about not just investment in infrastructure; Thames Water has also neglected other investments such as investment in IT. Some of its IT systems date back to the 1980s and are obsolete. According to whistleblowers, some of its essential systems still use Lotus Notes software from the 1980s and 1990s, which cannot be updated any more.

Thames Water will run out of cash soon and will inevitably pass to its lenders. But that will not solve the problem either, because the lenders, as the new equity holders, would still want a massive return on their investment, so we are back to the territory of massive new bill hikes. The Government’s delay and dithering are not helping to clarify the situation. They need to bring this company into public ownership. Private equity and hedge funds are lurking—they are the new hyenas ready to feed on the carcass of Thames Water and grab whatever assets it has left. I have been told that they are especially after land. They are counting on some kind of government bailout so that the value of their investment soars.

Thames Water is not alone. The same scenario is being repeated at Southern Water. The Minister said today that Ofwat’s approval is needed to pay dividends, so it is interesting that today Severn Water declared six-months profits, which have nearly tripled in six months, and has increased its dividends from 46.74p per share to 48.6p per share. It would be interesting to know when Ofwat approved this. Can we have some public evidence to show that Ofwat approved this higher rate of dividend?

It is a matter of concern to me and others that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to dip into the public purse and also levy massive charges on customers to restructure the companies. That is effectively a bailout by another name. Through this process, the Government may possibly write off the debts of these companies and possibly take on the liabilities and costs associated with cleaning rivers, seas and lakes. So there is nothing of any value in this for the customers at all, because they will end up paying more and the citizens will end up paying more as well. The bottom line is that public money should not be used to bail out any of these investors, whether they are lenders or shareholders. Hopefully, the Minister will give that commitment.

I tabled Amendment 56 previously, but I got some strange responses so I want to return to it. In any civilised society, a key requirement is that all businesses, especially those that control services essential for life, must be operated by organisations that are law-abiding, ethical and responsible. But none of that applies to water companies. The whole industry is controlled by organisations with criminal convictions galore. It is not one or two, and it is not that somebody forgot something or perhaps there was an innocent oversight. There are 1,109 criminal convictions, and there is not a single water company without a criminal conviction.

This is the result of deliberate planning in company boardrooms: the directors decided to violate laws, lie and cheat. The field of these convictions is led by United Utilities, with 205; Thames Water has 187 convictions; and South West Water has 174. None has shown any sign of mending their ways; if they had, these convictions would have stopped years ago, but they continue. Just last month, the BBC reported that United Utilities dumped more than 140 million litres of raw sewage into Windermere between 2021 and 2023—at that time, it was not permitted to do so. A BBC investigation found that illegal discharges had been taking place for more than three years—far longer than the discharges in the four months the company retrospectively reported. In other words, it lied.

There is no effective fit and proper person test in the UK to decide whether somebody ought to be allowed to run or control a water company or a wastewater disposal service. If there were, none of these companies would pass it. But, rather than punishing companies engaged in criminal activity, successive Governments have protected them. They ask people, year after year, to hand more money to these organisations, which obviously continue with their pattern of behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord has reached the time limit.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Sorry, I did not realise. I was just beginning to enjoy that.

Just to finish off—not long to go now—the question is: why should these criminals be allowed to remain in charge? These things are not minor infractions. Last time we debated this, the Minister said that there were

“significant consequences for a company’s investors. Investors would not have the confidence to invest money if the special administration regime could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify any performance issues”.—[Official Report, 4/11/24; col. 1373.]

That is, again, a very strange argument that we should allow criminals to continue because somehow it might upset the market. On that basis, it would open the doors to criminal activities everywhere—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am so sorry, but we have reached time. Thank you.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

This legislation is a set of political choices, and I am very concerned that the next election will be tough on the Labour Government if this all goes through in the way they seem to predict it will. If they try to get water bill payers to carry the debt from all the decades of privatised failure, that will not be popular with the wider population. So I hope the Government have a proper think about this and make the choices that put them on the side of bill payers and the environment.

[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.