Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many registered companies have failed to declare their persons with significant control.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
49,521 companies have not provided details of any current persons of significant control (“PSC”) or any PSC statements giving us information about their current PSC status.
764 companies that have not provided details of any current PSCs, have submitted a statement showing that they believe they have at least one, for which they are not yet able to provide the full details.
919 companies that have provided details of at least one current PSC, have also submitted a statement showing that they believe they have at least one, for which they are not yet able to provide the full details.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to remarks by Baroness Hayman of Ullock on 29 January (HL Deb col 251), what is the breakdown of the £150 million in fines issued to water companies since 2015.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Environment Agency prosecutes Water and Sewerage Companies (and the courts hand down fines) for environmental offences under the Environmental Permitting Regulations and other offences including polluting discharges to water and land, breaches of environmental permit conditions and obstruction of investigations.
Below is a breakdown of the 150 million in fines issued to water companies since 2015, as mentioned in Baroness Hayman of Ullock’s remarks on 29 January.
Water and Sewerage Company | Sum of Total Fine (£) |
Anglian Water | £5,475,000.00 |
Northumbrian Water | £807,000.00 |
Severn Trent Water | £4,056,000.00 |
South West Water | £3,406,834.00 |
Southern Water | £92,024,000.00 |
Thames Water | £37,721,000.00 |
United Utilities Water | £2,816,000.00 |
Yorkshire Water | £4,678,750.00 |
Grand Total | £150,984,584.00 |
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many sub-postmasters wrongfully convicted because of flawed Horizon computer evidence are yet to have their convictions overturned, and to receive compensation.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
All convictions which met the conditions of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 (and that were not overturned by the Courts prior to the legislation coming into effect) were overturned at the point of Royal Assent.
As of 28 February 2025, all 111 individuals on the Overturned Convictions scheme had received an interim payment, of which 68 individuals had reached a full and final settlement. On the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme, 407 individuals had received an interim payment, of which 273 individuals had reached a full and final settlement.[1]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-office-horizon-financial-redress-data-for-2025/post-office-horizon-financial-redress-data-as-of-28-february-2025
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action has been taken, if any, against Gofer Mining Plc and its directors for failure to file annual accounts at Companies House since 2019.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
His Majesty’s Government takes the failure of companies to file statutory accounts seriously.
Companies House routinely takes prosecution action against company directors who fail to file their company’s accounts. In addition, financial penalties are applied when accounts are delivered late. These actions are aimed at ensuring that companies meet their statutory obligations. Over 97% of companies meet their obligations to file statutory accounts.
Companies House are aware of concerns that have been raised about the highlighted company. Companies House will look into these matters further and, where necessary, take appropriate action.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to political parties in receipt of Short Money in respect of (1) their policy-making, and (2) their fundraising activities.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Registered political parties are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in respect of any of their functions.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 5 February 2024 (HL1819), when Dame Linda Dobbs's review began; what period it covers; when the review was originally scheduled to be completed; when the review is now expected to be completed; when an interim report was published; and how many victims of fraud at HBOS and Lloyds Banking Group have given evidence to it.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Dame Linda Dobbs Review began in April 2017. The review was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of 2020. It is now expected to be completed in 2025.
The review, and appointment of Dame Linda Dobbs, has been instigated by Lloyds Banking Group. No interim report is planned and the number of victims giving evidence has not been made public.
The review has stated it will cover the period from the acquisition of HBOS in 2009 to 2017, and examine relevant evidence from before 2009 to assess what ought to have been known at the time of the HBOS acquisition.
Once completed, the review’s findings will be shared with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which will then consider what action is appropriate to take.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of acquiring control of England’s water companies.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Government has no intention to nationalise water companies.
Nationalisation would put a huge burden on the public purse at a time when public finances are already stretched and would not fix the root of the problem.
If the whole industry was nationalised, shareholders and debt holders would need to be compensated, which could cost over an estimated £90 billion [this is based on Ofwat’s Regulatory Capital Value 2024 estimates]
Instead, this government is focused on tackling the public’s immediate concerns to clean up the nation’s polluted waterways and turn around the sector’s performance, focusing on improving the privatised regulated model.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was (1) the total amount paid out for each benefit administered by the Department for Work and Pensions, (2) the total monetary amount of alleged fraud for each benefit, (3) the total number of prosecutions in each case, and (4) the total amount recovered, in 2023–24.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Total estimates of benefit expenditure and estimates of fraud and error across all benefits can be found at: Fraud and error in the benefit system - GOV.UK
As outlined in DWP Annual Reports and Accounts 2023 to 2024 on page 103, there were 655 prosecutions but a breakdown by benefit is not available.
Debt Management Unit’s total recovery in 2023-24 amounted to £2.81 billion (excluding Housing Benefit recovered by local authorities but including £46 million Housing Benefit debt recovered by DWP), page 133 of the DWP Annual Reports and Accounts 2023 to 2024.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government how Ofwat adjusted the regulatory capital value of each water company to take account of (1) capitalisation of interest payments, and repair and maintenance costs, and (2) intragroup debt and interest payments.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) of a water company represents the net stock of investment that has been contributed by debt and investors over time in delivering their investment activities. This is used by Ofwat for the purposes of setting its regulatory determinations.
Ofwat calculates an efficient totex (total expenditure) allowance for each company, covering operating, maintenance, and enhancement costs. Totex is funded in one of two ways; pay-as-you-go expenditure funded through revenue allowances, or long-term investment funded through the RCV and run-off from the RCV over time. Pay-as-you-go expenditure generally reflects forecast operational costs. Capital costs are generally added to the RCV, with the RCV run-off allowance providing companies with a funding allowance for carrying out activities such as maintenance.
As the RCV represents only the net stock of investment for delivering investment activities, it takes no account of intragroup debt and interest payments. Ofwat set the allowed return for companies on the basis of a notional capital structure which makes no assumption about the need for intragroup debt and interest payments. Where such arrangements exist, these arrangements are not funded in the determinations that are set by Ofwat and are matters for companies and their investors.
Asked by: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government why Ofwat did not use actual gearing levels of water companies in its calculation of weighted average cost of capital for the 2024 pricing review.
Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
In all of Ofwat's price determinations since privatisation, Ofwat has set the allowed return by reference to a notional capital structure. Ofwat uses a notional capital structure as it protects customers from bearing the risk of companies' actual financing decisions and it sets a signal to companies and investors on regulatory expectations about the allocation of risk within the capital structure. The use of the notional structure means it is companies and investors, rather than customers, that bear the risks of their capital and financing choices where the financing arrangements depart from the notional structure.