Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Before the noble Lord sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, takes the Floor, the answer is 12 months—but that is 12 months after the Bill comes into force. Apparently it will take two months for the Bill to go through to Royal Assent, so the maximum is 14 months. However, the message that I was trying to impart to the Committee is that we are determined to get on with this, push ahead and find workable solutions in that time.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister is procedurally correct to say that I have the first amendment. She has the first amendment in this group, which she can move at this point. Although mine is the first amendment on Clause 42, it is not the first one in this group. If she is asking whether she has said enough for me to roll over in relation to her own amendments, the answer is probably, “Almost, but with great regret”.

She has said that she is prepared to talk to all the parts of the industry involved, and she has done that in a very generous way. However, when she went through this clause by clause, there seemed to be fairly clear opposition to all the areas of concern that had been expressed by me, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape. If she is prepared to say that all these things are open for discussion before we get to Report, I suppose that the sensible thing for me to do would be to say that I did not object to her clause. While I was clear on the conciliatory tone at the beginning, when it came to any individual item it seemed to be the firm position of the department to oppose it. However, it is not really my position to object at this point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Okay. I welcome the lecture on procedure and apologise for not getting it right. As a new Minister, I am learning. The answer is yes, we are very open to discussion. What I was trying to do, I thought, was to be helpful in going through our thinking about why the various provisions were set out in the way that they were. I have already indicated that there are one or two places where I can see that the points made today would lead to further discussion. The answer is that we are open-minded and are keen to find a workable way forward, and are happy to do that in discussion in this House. I beg to move.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, owing to other commitments. I associate myself with the noble Lord’s question about costs in relation to the new company.

I also have another question: will this new company be able to raise money in a way that the Highways Agency is not currently able to do? That would of course potentially enable important infrastructure investments to go ahead even in times of stringency. I also associate myself with the comments about the A303, having lived off the A303 all my life and having seen probably 50 years’ worth of proposals for Stonehenge—none of which has so far come to fruition.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the proposal that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, as it queries whether the clause—which is the whole proposition here—is sufficiently coherent and clear as to what it intends to do. As a Roads Minister, I was responsible for at least one of the proposals for the A303 and remember that we talked to everybody in the community, including several different sets of druids, and told them that the Stonehenge tunnel would be built. However, as I said at Second Reading, no sod has yet been turned and all they have done is close one road.

I understand the Government’s intention to create a steadier position through having a slightly more arm’s-length relationship, but this is half-baked. It is neither fish nor fowl. This will be a company that is wholly owned by the Government and which—to address the point that has just been made—cannot raise its own money. The Minister has made that clear to me, both in writing and in person. I thought the main advantage of having the hive-off would be that the body could raise its own funds, even if subject to broader controls from the Treasury, but the Minister makes it clear in her letter that its situation will be no different to the current one of the Highways Agency. That seems to undermine the main advantage of establishing an arm’s-length body. The Government’s proposal incurs all the costs, all the confusion and all this great legislation in the Bill and all the schedules attached to it, but it does not, of itself, provide the funding, the strategic intent or the independence from Government and, crucially, from the Treasury. It will not avoid what has been a stop-go process for the past 30 years.

If the Government were proposing a new corporation that was properly set up and run and which, although still owned by the Government, had its own structural basis and accountability, as well as the ability to finance its activities in various different ways, I could see that there would be a significant advantage. With this halfway house, which is not even a halfway house, I see very few advantages. Therefore, I think that the Government would be more sensible to leave the Highways Agency where it is, give the agency more money and give that over a longer period of time—if that is the Government’s priority—and, if necessary, think up a fuller, clearer, more comprehensive proposition for what kind of highways organisation we need in this land. The answer to that might well be in the territory that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, because what we perhaps actually need is a transport infrastructure company rather than one that deals with simply 2% of our roads.

If we were to do that, we could start to deliver the investment required for a genuinely integrated transport policy, whereas the Bill, as I am afraid I have said before, seems to be about changing the names on the doors without changing much else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about cross-modal being an important issue. There is a later amendment on the need for co-operation, on which I am sure we will agree. I have some concerns about the notion of duty in that context, because duties impose rights and that can lead to problems. I am also not sure that rail is necessarily the model for road. I always think that when you are looking at a regulatory framework, judgments need to be made in respect of the sector that you are looking at. You need to be careful that they work for that sector, and circumstances are different.

That leads me to my main point. I am always concerned about perverse effects. The clause that is the subject of Amendment 13 could have some quite perverse effects, particularly if it were introduced in this form. Duties, effectively, are like legislation and will give rights, and rights can then generate judicial review, and you could have arguments about whether particular things are sustainable or not. You could then make this process a lot more complicated and expensive, and it would not produce the better agency that is the purpose of the Bill. Will my noble friend comment on this aspect of the proposed amendment?

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 40 in this group on precisely the subject of the duty to co-operate. This very much builds on the Localism Act, under which local authorities have a duty to co-operate with each other. I understand that part of the department’s argument on this will be that the new company—the present Highways Agency—is already a traffic authority and a highway authority and is therefore covered by the Localism Act’s provisions. I am not sure whether that is entirely clear. If it is, then some of the objections that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to would have to apply to the Localism Act as well. If that is the case, can we somehow cross-refer to it?

The Highways Agency has only 2.4% of the road mileage of the country. All of its roads create traffic for the local network and all of the local network piles out on to the motorway at various points. Sometimes the most congested areas of the motorway are congested largely because it is being used as a local road by people for just two exits. There is an important need for the Highways Agency and the traffic authorities to co-operate and that needs to be reflected in the Bill.

However, in view of the environmental and safety aspects, there is also a need to co-operate with the safety authorities and with the Environment Agency, which is concerned with emissions, air pollution, water run-off and so forth. The HSE’s duties on the roads will relate only to employee drivers, but it does have some, and there must therefore be a cross-over.

We have briefly mentioned the interface with Wales. Obviously, at the far end of the network there is interface with Scotland as well, and there needs to be some co-operation with the devolved Administrations. I also referred to the police and traffic commissioners because, in practice, a lot of the traffic management of the Highways Agency is conducted by the police. Therefore, the police should have at least some mention here, although I am not entirely clear whether the duty to co-operate under the Localism Act actually covers police authorities as well. In one sense, even if it does, we should cross-refer to it.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, rather late in the day we are approaching a rather important issue, which concerns the powers of Ofwat to reopen a price review within five years if circumstances change or if information received from companies on their performance raises serious issues. Considering Ofwat’s role in a more dynamic market, this seems very important.

At present, we set the price maxima for five years. Companies can reopen the five-year settlement if circumstances change; for example, if they need to expend more capital than was allowed for in the price review, they can go back in. Thames Water went back in to see Ofwat about additional money for the super-sewer. It was knocked back by Ofwat but it had the right to ask. I imagine that companies do not do it more often because if the company reopens the price settlement, Ofwat has the right to reopen it as well. It is not a big feature but I am arguing that there should be an equivalence.

Ofwat does not have the power to initiate a reopening. It uses informal powers, and has been quite successful in negotiating with some companies over the current five-year period for reductions in prices because of changed circumstances—mainly reflecting the fact that the cost of capital was significantly less in practice than had been allowed for when the price review was concluded. In reality, as my noble friend Lord Hanworth has pointed out more than once, that allowance for capital has permitted a significant degree of profit enhancement and dividend enhancement by companies, and it is important that Ofwat keeps an eye on this.

Amendment 137 would allow Ofwat to reopen the settlement if it thought that the way in which it was operating was no long appropriate to the economic circumstances, or that the company’s own behaviour gave it cause to reopen it because the terms of the settlement were no longer appropriate. Amendment 146 would provide some background for this. It would require water undertakers to provide information to Ofwat on a regular, annual basis on their financial affairs. This could be dealt with separately from the other amendment, but we have grouped them together for these purposes and there is an interrelationship. If this is a different provision from the very detailed cost breakdown that Ofwat now requires from companies in advance of the price review every five years, and if we move to a more competitive market, the details of that form of regulation may not have to be so onerous over time.

This amendment looks at how companies perform during the price period. It will provide a big picture of how the financial operation as a whole is working out. As we have constantly reiterated, there is a problem in this industry of a vertically integrated regional monopoly, with higher levels of gearing, dividends—they have been at over 90% of income over the past few years—and rates of return on assets, in a relatively low-risk industry, paying relatively low levels of taxation. There are issues about the totality of the finances of the sector that a regulator ought to be free to query. It certainly should have information on it. Your Lordships may have heard a recent programme about this on the BBC’s “File on 4”. I did not agree with all of it, but it pointed out, for example, that some of these companies have at least seven levels of executive decisions before reaching the real decision-makers at ownership level. That applied to Thames Water in particular.

It is important that Ofwat can challenge the way in which these companies conduct their financial affairs. Amendment 146 would provide it with the information for doing so and Amendment 137 would allow it to reopen the price settlement if it saw that there were serious and endemic concerns about the way in which a company was operating, or about changes in the cost of capital or the level of corporate internal transfer pricing and so forth. It is important that Ofwat understands the total system and it is important that it has the ability to reopen the settlement. Of late, water companies have received fairly bad publicity because of their overall financial structure. At the moment, the regulatory system cannot really address that and does not have the information needed in order to address it. This is a gap in Ofwat’s powers that needs to be filled. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we should look very carefully at this proposal for an increase in regulation. Water and sewerage are long-term matters and the great need is to have investment in resilience, with the right and proper regulatory framework. Ofwat seems to have got tougher in recent times. It is right to have a five-year timescale or we will not get the investment that is needed for resilience. The entrepreneurs involved will assume that if profits go up, perhaps because they have improved efficiency, they will immediately get a call from Ofwat reopening the five-year settlement, triggered perhaps by articles in tabloid newspapers—the sort of thing that will not be good for investment in this vital industry.