Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Naturally, Thames Water will be one of the water companies looking at a company social tariff. That provides a means, as with Severn Trent Water and every other water company, of really helping the most vulnerable customers. It is important, too, to put in context what Thames Water customers, probably including some hon. Members, pay now. Unlike South West Water, Thames Water currently has significantly below average water bills. The average combined water and sewerage bill is £356 a year. South West Water ratepayers pay £517 a year, whereas Thames Water’s ratepayers have a combined bill of £319 a year. We are starting with Thames Water’s ratepayers who have a significantly below average bill.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Spelman]

Let me make a little progress, if I may.

We need a solution that prevents sewage from entering the Thames in the first place. Today, the proposed Thames tunnel offers the most timely, comprehensive and cost-effective solution to the combined sewer outflow problems. We are very aware, though, of the impact its construction would have on local communities. Thames Water has just finished its second public consultation on its proposals, and will consider the responses it has received. It plans to publish its response in the latter half of May. Thames Water will continue to work hard with those potentially affected to minimise the impact where practicable.

We recognise that the large and complex Thames tunnel project comes at a cost, which will impact on Thames Water sewerage bills, but we are confident that the bills would still remain below the current national average and below the average bills of Southern, Anglian, Wessex and Severn Trent Water customers—and well below those of South West Water customers.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does the Secretary of State agree that

“the cost of the tunnel is too large to justify the environmental benefits”,

and that the

“Projected costs ... outweigh the advantages of a cleaner river”?

[Mrs Spelman]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his party is not in favour of trying to clean up the sewage out of the Thames? He will know that the initial study on the Thames tideway was launched when his party was in power—in 2001—and that a significant amount of time was spent looking at alternatives and carefully assessing with the greatest rigour what the costs of such a complex project might be. Just to put this in context, the proposed cost for the Thames tunnel is comparable to the amount having to be spent in Paris to do almost exactly the same thing, and on what the German Government are having to do to deal with an outdated system on the Rhine-Ruhr. So I do not accept his argument that the expenditure on cleaning the sewage out of the Thames is not justified.

The objective of our approach is to help relieve the extent to which households in London are being asked to contribute. As I said in my written ministerial statement on 3 November 2011, the Government believe that the private sector can and should finance this project, but we accept that there are some risks that are not likely to be borne by the private sector at an acceptable cost. We are willing, in principle, to provide contingent financial support for exceptional project risks where this offers best value for money for Thames Water’s customers and taxpayers. However, I will want to be assured that, when we offer this contingent support, taxpayers’ interests remain a top priority. We are working with Ofwat, Infrastructure UK and Thames Water to ensure that the financial structure for the proposed Thames tunnel includes safeguards, so that the likelihood of Government support being called on is minimal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I wish to make a little more progress.

We believe that simply having this power available will help us to maximise private sector investment in the tunnel and keep the cost of financing down. The Bill in 1858 that provided the money to construct a new sewer scheme for London, and to build the Embankment in order to improve the flow of water and of traffic, was rushed through Parliament and became law in a mere 18 days. Although we do not anticipate such swift progress, we need to ensure that assistance is provided promptly to South West Water customers and, similarly, that Londoners can be assured that the power to provide contingent financial support is in place while we work with Thames Water and other stakeholders to plan for the financing and structuring of the tunnel.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Mrs Spelman]

I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

As the Bill contains just two simple spending powers to implement intentions that the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement, our intention is that the Speaker be able to certify it as a money Bill. I am, however, mindful of the limitations that would place on discussions in the other place and of the desire to debate the need for the Thames tunnel, in particular. The need for the proposed Thames tunnel will no doubt be discussed in detail if, as I expect, the waste water national policy statement is debated before the end of March. We will also shortly be laying a draft order before Parliament to amend section 14 of the Planning Act 2008. This section 14 order would enable a major sewer such as the Thames tunnel to be included as a nationally significant infrastructure project, and we look forward to hearing any concerns that hon. Members may have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

We believe that the allocation of sums, guarantees, indemnities, or whatever form the financial assistance takes, should be done with full parliamentary oversight, and I will address that when I move on to clause 2.

We believe that the tariffs should be paid for by cracking down on bad debt, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her speech. Ofwat’s website states:

“More than five million households currently owe money on their water bills and over the last five years the amount owed has increased by more than 50%.”

In 2010, £1.6 billion was outstanding, three times the amount of bad debt for gas and electricity bills, despite the fact that water bills are much lower. As she said, the people who cannot or will not pay add an average of £15 a year to the bills of consumers who play by the rules. Bad debt arises in part because landlords are under no legal obligation to provide their tenants’ details to water companies. Rather than a voluntary approach, the Government should compel landlords to share their tenants’ details with water companies, and I know that the consultation is ongoing and is due to close fairly soon. If we reduce bad debt, we can reduce everyone’s bills and fund social tariffs that help those struggling to pay.

Clause 2 creates financial mechanisms and guarantees to support the construction of the Thames tunnel. Why do the Government avoid using the words “Thames tunnel”? Are they trying to avoid a proper discussion of the merits? Labour supports the project. Our Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduced a “provision of infrastructure” regulation, creating the framework for the tendering, designation and building of such projects. However, costs have risen and time scales have stretched. The Government need to show leadership and make a clear commitment to the project and ensure that the right vehicle for managing and delivering it is put in place. The consultation process for the tunnel is vital for ensuring that sites are placed correctly and the environmental impact of the work on residents is minimised.

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Thames tunnel, and to that extent I agree with the Secretary of State. However, had the Secretary of State not chuntered through her speech in such a cursory manner on an issue that is very important to London Members, I could have told her that the virulently anti-tunnel comments that I quoted were not mine, but those of my neighbouring Tory MP, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who happens to be a Government Whip. This is just another example of members of the Government saying one thing in the House before going back to their constituencies and saying the exact opposite.

[Mary Creagh]

That used to be the province of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps saying two different things, depending on whether one is at the top or the bottom of the hill, in the House or in one’s constituency, is contagious. We should all take the necessary precautions, but such indiscipline would never have been allowed when I was a Government assistant Whip.

There remain, however, a number of hurdles to clear, not least that of the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who has an effective veto over the tunnel, so DEFRA support alone will be insufficient. We see the tunnel, in addition to its environmental benefit, as an opportunity to create up to 4,000 direct jobs for Londoners, to expand apprenticeships and to regenerate London. With the provision of financial assistance, we expect not just those apprenticeships but higher-level training to be a non-negotiable part of the deal.

In an infrastructure project of this scale, complexity and duration, we should be setting targets not just for apprentices but for the number of young people who will achieve masters-level civil engineering qualifications over the project’s lifetime, as well as encouraging local and national procurement to secure growth and the economic recovery in London.

No impact assessment has been produced alongside the Bill. The rather short explanatory memorandum states that this is because the Bill is associated with public expenditure, but clearly there will be burdens on water companies when administering any schemes under clauses 1 and 2, so what conditions will South West Water have to fulfil? Presumably, there will be an audit process, so what will the company’s administrative costs be, or has it agreed to waive them?

Of more concern, however, is the fact that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill to require potentially large sums of taxpayers’ money to be spent transparently and accountably. Clauses 1 and 2 state that undefined “terms and conditions” can be attached to the use of public money, but that falls well short of making clear exactly what will happen, and we believe that certain safeguards should be specified in the Bill.

I had a little look at the Water Industry Act 1991 this morning, and section 152 states that the Government can pay out money to water firms only

“in the interests of national security.”

So it is clear that infrastructure projects of the scale and cost of the one before us were simply not envisaged at the time of privatisation.

Today’s Bill shows those limitations, and section 154 of the 1991 Act also states very clearly that if any financial assistance or guarantee is given,

“the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament”

and

“as soon as possible after the end of each financial year…lay before each House of Parliament a statement relating to that sum.”

The right hon. Lady says that the subsidy to South West Water will continue until the end of the next comprehensive spending review period, but that again is not in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum, and we want to see those things guaranteed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point that will be a matter for scrutiny in Committee. I expect it to be raised in Committee in due course.

East London assembly member John Biggs and I are seeking Thames Water’s latest considerations, and obviously the Bill would affect the building of the Thames tideway tunnel. The local community is resolute on this issue. My only concern about the choice between the Heckford street site and the Thames foreshore site is that building the interceptor to the sewer on the foreshore would mean much more traffic by water, on the Thames. If Heckford street is chosen, there will be several thousand heavy goods vehicles on the streets of Tower Hamlets and further east for several years. That would not be a welcome dimension, but these things are in the balance, and obviously we are pressing for the best possible outcome for the local community.

The second issue that I want briefly to mention is fire sprinklers. I pay tribute to the Minister, who is always courteous and efficient. I am grateful for the meeting that he afforded me and the officers of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue to discuss the matter only four to five weeks ago. There is a myth perpetrated by the media—mostly in adverts on TV and in the cinema—that when a fire in a building activates the sprinkler system, every sprinkler right across the building is activated and the whole place is doused in water and damaged. The reality, of course, is that the only sprinkler activated is the sprinkler head immediately above the seat of the fire, as the heat generated by the fire melts the soldered link, causing the blockage to fall away and allowing the water to act as an extinguishing agent. The problem with the myth is that people are frightened of sprinklers, because they think that if they install them in their building and they are inadvertently activated—we know that smoke detectors can go off because of burning toast—their home would be damaged. However, that is not the case, and the cost to society of not installing sprinkler systems in buildings includes the hundreds of millions of pounds lost to schools damaged by fire every year—a cost that is often passed on to local council tax payers, as most local authorities self-insure.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about a matter that was brought home to me recently. Hon. Members will remember the serious fire that closed Wood lane, opposite the BBC in Shepherd’s Bush—perhaps that is why it got so much publicity. The consequence of such events in major buildings with no sprinkler systems is not just the risk of loss of life, but often the permanent loss of jobs where buildings cannot reopen and the huge damage to industrial and public buildings.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I am coming to, immediately after I make the point that when a school burns down, the problem is not just the damaged building, but the disruption to the education of the students at that educational establishment and the impact on parents, who have to take their kids to schools further away, with disruption to friendships and the rest of it. As for the point that he correctly makes, when there is damage to an industrial or commercial premises, there is not only the damage to the building, but the cost of insurance for the company, a loss of production and, more often than not, unemployment costs to the individuals who work on those premises, because it takes months and sometimes longer to rebuild or replace, if at all possible.

Most critical of all is the loss of life. Fire deaths affect the most vulnerable in society. The majority of people who die in fires are the most vulnerable—the old, the sick, the young, people with social difficulties or people with addiction problems. The most vulnerable are the ones who predominantly die in fires. Tragically, we have recently seen a number of major multiple fatalities across the country, most recently in London—in what was formerly Brent East—where a mother and five children died in a fire. However, the experience of local authorities where fire sprinklers are the norm is entirely different. There is a district in Arizona called Scottsdale—one of Phoenix’s five districts—that is the fire sprinkler capital of the world, as I am sure the House will be pleased to learn. Scottsdale has had a city ordinance for 30 years that says that if someone builds something, they have to install a sprinkler system. One person has died in a fire in Scottsdale in 30 years. Scottsdale has 250,000 people. They smoke, they cook, they burn candles and they probably have heating too, despite the desert climate. Sprinklers save lives. That is now becoming the UK experience. More local authorities, more registered social landlords and more developers are recognising the benefits of sprinkler systems.

There has been extensive correspondence between the all-party group and DEFRA on the Water Industry Act 1991. If I may, I shall quote from a letter from former chief fire officer Ronnie King, who is a highly regarded officer in the fire service, as well as being the active administrative secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue and the chair of the water liaison group. In reference to the Act, which the Bill amends, he says:

“To this end I outline in this letter a proposed change to section 57 on the provision of water for firefighting. Section 57 covers the duty to provide water for firefighting and currently this duty is limited solely to providing water from designated fire hydrants. Increasingly householders are seeing the benefit of installing sprinkler systems, which will lead to significant reductions in fire deaths and injuries if they could be more widely used. Under the current legislation such supplies are classified as non-domestic supplies and are subject to agreement of terms and conditions on a case by case basis. An amendment of section 57 to include as firefighting water that taken from service pipes connected to a sprinkler system will clarify the status of connections to the water system for automatic fire sprinkler purposes. The current ambiguity is a barrier to the proliferation of sprinkler systems.”

I acknowledge that the Minister has asked his officials to examine that matter and to report on it. If nothing can be done in this Bill, we would be grateful if it could be considered for the water Bill that is coming along not far behind it. I also want to acknowledge that the vast majority of the water companies already do the right thing in co-operating, without the legislative clarity that the proposed amendment would provide. An amendment to the Water Industry Act 1991 in the Bill would be welcomed by the fire service and the fire industry as another major step towards a safer society, but I recognise that that might not be possible yet. School fires are increasing, and I am told that 10% of schools are affected by vandalism involving fires each year. More fires are occurring during school hours, and it is only a matter of time before there is a major tragedy. Most fire legislation is reactive and retrospective, drafted on the back of a major loss of life. The amendment that I have suggested could take us forward significantly, and protect our children in the future.

In conclusion—and as a complete aside—we really need to hold a fire evacuation drill in this place at some point, because we need to give leadership to the rest of the country on these issues. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, as I have much experience of both South West Water and Thames Water, However, I must say that my perceptions of the two companies differ widely. They appear to operate at different ends of the spectrum: South West Water levies one of the highest surcharges in the UK and has the lowest number of consumers, while Thames Water levies one of the lowest surcharges and has the highest number of consumers.

The Bill is about a decade overdue. The shadow Secretary of State said that many of the problems are the result of privatisation, but that is an erroneous assertion. If we look at the value of the water companies before privatisation, we will see that Anglian Water was worth £357 million, North West Water £458 million, Severn Trent £476 million and Thames Water £558 million, but South West Water was worth a lowly £106 million. In general terms, at the time of privatisation South West Water had the lowest amount of assets per property, and since privatisation the company has invested about £2 billion, in 2007 prices, to bring its infrastructure to the same level as that elsewhere in England and Wales.

At privatisation, South West Water’s bills were about £50 higher than the national average. This disparity was exacerbated by the impact of the bathing water directive and, of course, the urban waste water treatment directive. As the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office recognised in 1992, privatisation of the water industry was an unprecedented task, with 10 utility monopolies floated on the stock market at the same time after years of restricted investment and an obligation then to spend more than £24 billion in a decade in order to catch up. Any perception of failure now can be attributed only to the lack of governmental interest in the industry 10 years after privatisation and, in the case of South West Water, in the 19 years its consumers have had to wait for the Walker review.

If greater interest had been shown, one industry practice that is causing problems across the country would have been identified: the use of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are intended to act as release valves at times of higher operational use. When Sir Joseph Bazalgette first planned the sewers for London, he gave every person a sewage production allowance and decided the diameter of pipe needed to remove it. He then doubled that diameter. We should all be grateful that he did so; had he not, the smaller size of the sewers would have ensured that they overflowed in the 1960s.

However, the Metropolitan Board of Works said that the cost of Bazalgette’s plans was too high, so he proposed and installed the combined sewer overflow system. This ensured that when it rained the accumulation of rain water that enters the sewerage system can be released through the CSOs, taking the sewage with it. London’s current population is estimated to be about 8 million and rising. In a typical year, 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage is discharged into the River Thames with as little as 2 mm of rainfall. To put that in perspective, that is enough to fill the Royal Albert hall 450 times, and the discharges occur about once a week on average.

The emerging effluent contains not only sewage and storm water, but biochemical oxygen demand material, pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, oils and suspended solids. In short, London’s Victorian sewers can no longer cope, which is why London desperately needs the super-sewer, or Thames tunnel. The CSOs discharge into the river not only chemical and biological contaminants, but nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year, including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other flushable items. I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) accompanied Thames Water on a trip, as I did, where he saw for himself the problems at the pumping station at Fulham. The hidden dangers of the effluent that goes into the river include pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E. coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci.

Due to the ebb and flow of the tide, it can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames to reach the sea. That is a problem in itself, but the persistence of infection is a real problem. Around 50% of typhoid bacteria are destroyed in an aquatic environment in one to three days, and 90% is destroyed in three to 13 days, but the most resistant can remain for weeks and retain their power of infection, which has an impact on not only the people who use the river, but those who live around it.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he is right to say that I visited a pumping station, although it was the Hammersmith one. When most people think about pumping stations, they think that some form of treatment is going on there. On the contrary: a structure that is probably half the size of this Chamber fills up with raw sewage, which is then pumped straight into the Thames, and that happens on at least a weekly basis. Does he agree that it is highly irresponsible to say that we should clean up the Thames so that it is so clean that salmon can thrive and prosper in it? We need to clean it up because it is an essential health matter.

[Mr Offord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am probably aware who he is citing, and, having had conversations with the former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not agree on this subject, though we may agree on many others.

The super-sewer in London is essential to ensure that the UK complies with European environmental standards and, most particularly, the urban waste water treatment directive. All British taxpayers are at risk of having to fund hefty EU fines if the UK is confirmed to be in breach of that directive.

It is not just London and Thames Water that need to take action, however. All water companies have a contract with their consumers not only to provide them with clean water, but to remove their sewage and to treat it responsibly, but that is not happening. The water quality of Britain’s beaches is being jeopardised by thousands of unregulated overflow pipes that dump raw sewage into coastal waters and rivers. It has been estimated that 3,500 pipes operated by water companies pump unlimited amounts of raw sewage into more than 80 rivers and along sections of our coastline. That comprises more than 60 operated by South West Water, including pipes on the River Torridge, which flows to a popular Devon beach; more than 250 outlets operated by Yorkshire Water, including sewage flowing into the North sea; sewage overflows on the River Don, where thousands of fish were killed by sewage pollution in 2006; and an overflow, operated by United Utilities near Manchester, which was blamed for polluting a fishery in 2005.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely accept that. I was not disputing the cross-party nature of the campaign. I was trying to support my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House by saying that those of us who do not come from the south-west have supported them too.

A pledge made by the Liberal Democrats bas been honoured, and a pledge made by the coalition Government has also been honoured—generally, then, this is a good proposal.

The second part of the Bill is the one that preoccupies those of us with London constituencies and constituencies served by Thames Water. It is the largest water company in the country and covers a significant number of colleagues with constituencies in the Thames valley as well as in the capital. That relates to clause 2. I support the general proposal that the Government should be able to assist major infrastructure projects, and I am aware that last year and the year before, the Chancellor rightly identified a set of infrastructure projects around the country to get people back into work. Good, long-term, viable infrastructure projects are a good thing, and we should support them.

There is always a danger, however, that infrastructure projects start with one price tag but end up with another. When the Thames tunnel scheme to deal with sewage in the Thames—the system built in the Victorian era by Bazalgette is no longer fit for purpose—was first proposed, the general cost was said to be between £1 billion and £2 billion, but everybody now accepts that, at 2011 prices, the Thames tunnel would cost £4.1 billion or more. That excludes financing costs, as the notes to the Bill explain, but includes £900 million for risk and optimism bias. So this is a big project that will cost a lot of money.

In 2006, the water regulator warned potential buyers of Thames Water that it would not allow them to saddle the company with high debt levels and pass financial risk on to the customers. I want to concentrate my remarks on the financing, and the financing structure, but I also want to place on the record my position on the project. I have supported the general position that we need to deal with the infractions on air quality and water quality in London that have brought us before the European authorities. That is what we are facing in relation to water and air quality; therefore, we need to act.

I have started from the proposition that the Thames tunnel, as proposed by Thames Water, is the right answer. When it was endorsed by the last Government it had my support, but I am increasingly troubled that it looks as if it may not be the answer that everybody once thought it was. Therefore, when I recently made a full submission as part of the consultation process, I asked—I am also about to write to the Secretary of State to ask this question, after this debate and after a meeting on Monday—whether, at least between now and the point in the normal timetable when Thames Water might be in a position to make an application, there could be a final independent review of the viability of the current project.

Those driving the project have an interest—Thames Water has an interest, and there are others with an interest. It is important not just to have a battle between those with an interest in favour and local authorities such as mine—[Interruption]—and that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who is about to intervene on me—which, because of the effect on their constituents, have become opposed. At the moment we have a dialogue of two different interested groups, and I think we need to get some people involved who do not have a vested interest. There are people in the European Commission who do not have a vested interest, there are people in international environment agencies who do not have a vested interest, and there are also people who do not have a price interest. Before they commit their support to a project that is rapidly increasing in cost—I will say why that is a danger for the Government, as well as for everybody else—I think the Government would be wise to commit themselves to one last review. I hope I can persuade colleagues over the next few weeks that this can be done in a way that is compatible with the timetable in general terms.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman took part in a Westminster Hall debate last September—less than six months ago—at which I think I was also present, when he said:

“The Thames tunnel is the best direction.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 316WH.]

Is he saying that he has changed his mind since then? If he is saying that he has reservations about cost or individual sites, I would say that I probably share them—if I get a chance to speak, I will probably address them. Is he, however, saying that he has now changed his mind about the project as a whole?

[Simon Hughes]

The answer is that there is a proposal on the table for what is called “the full tunnel”. I am not as certain now that what is called the full tunnel is the right solution. There is already the tunnel being built in the east—that is well under way—and there is an argument for a smaller tunnel and other measures. I just think we need to satisfy ourselves before we go for the full tunnel that that is the right solution. There are also site issues, of course, but I regard those as secondary, although in my constituency, as in the hon. Gentleman’s, they are hugely important to our constituents, not least with a major site being planned in the middle of my constituency affecting thousands of people, thousands of homes and two or three major schools.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous. When he says “not the full tunnel”, I should point out that the context of his remarks last September was his objection to the wholly inadequate Selborne report, which proposes a partial tunnel—a disastrous tunnel—in west London. I hope he is not saying that he supports that.

[Simon Hughes]

Rather than have a long dialogue, I will let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of my submission to Thames Water later, so he can read my full views. However, let me summarise, as I did in my submission:

“I am now clear that, since the end of the first round of consultations in 2011, the arguments for a review of the full tunnel proposal and possible alternatives have substantially increased. There has been a growing amount of opposition against the full tunnel from my constituents and other constituents in greater London.”

I go on to say that we should therefore give that argument greater weight.

Let me turn to the substance of the financial issues, which are dealt with in this part of the Bill. Back in 2007, a memorandum was submitted to the Treasury Committee by a Mr Martin Blaiklock—consultant, infrastructure and energy project finance—on the subject of Thames Water specifically, but also on equity-type investment generally. He said:

“Over the last 12 months I have be keeping a particularly close watch on the activities of Thames Water, not least because I am a Thames Water customer, but also because it is one example,—and a good example,—of Private Equity involvement with public services. The case of Thames is significant as it is the UK’s largest privatised water utility, serving the Capital and 13 million customers, and also a monopoly service provider...Thames Water Utilities Limited…is the utility licensed by OFWAT. However, Thames Water Utilities Limited is 5 or 6 times removed from the controlling investor group…of whom a number are based offshore in Luxemburg…Is this the ‘transparent’ corporate structure expected of a UK monopoly public service provider?”

I cannot put this on the record, but there is a helpful graph in that memorandum to the Treasury Committee showing Thames Water Utilities Ltd at the bottom. Above it are lots of holding companies, including Thames Water plc, Thames Water Holdings plc, Kemble Water Ltd and Kemble Water Holdings Ltd, and intermediate holding companies. The list goes right up to non-Macquarie investors and then to Macquarie, and shows the purchase of part of the company by the Chinese state finance organisation and others. That shows an organisation that does not do transparent finance. We therefore need certain safeguards to be put in place to protect any taxpayer investment and Government support.

The company also has considerable activity in the Cayman Islands. I am not sure whether that is the most appropriate way for a major utility company to spend its money. The tax arrangements of Thames Water, having been bought by Kemble, have involved setting up a subsidiary financing branch in the Cayman Islands, based at Ugland House, which has 18,856 other businesses registered at it. There is a real question of transparency for Thames Water, and the Government need to have a public debate on it. We need to look at this matter in Committee and on Report to determine exactly how the financing arrangements are arrived at. There is at the moment no proposal from Thames Water as to how it will raise the £4.1 billion to finance the project, and I am concerned that the cost might ultimately be borne by the Thames Water ratepayer, which might not provide the best value for money for our constituents who pay their bills.

Mr Blaiklock concluded:

“There is no doubt that the introduction of Private Equity-type investment into the privatised UK public services has sharpened up the financial management of such enterprises. However, such Private Equity investment has also

(a) introduced a lack of transparency in the control, governance and, therefore, the accounts of such utilities. Some utilities, such as Thames Water, are effectively owned and controlled offshore, possibly by companies with limited liability and domiciled in tax havens. Corporate information is, not surprisingly, hard to come by for such Private Equity investments! Hence, in the event of operational failure by such utilities…it is quite possible that the controlling company and its directors cannot be called to account, notwithstanding OFWAT’s Conditions P and F licensing requirements…

(b) increased the leverage and, thereby, decreased the financial strength of such utilities, at the expense of customers and the security of service; and

(c) introduced corporate uncertainty. The investment horizon for Private Equity is traditionally three to five years, which is short for public service utilities, which require long-term capital and financial stability. The only balancing feature has been the increased intervention, as direct investors, by pension funds and life insurance companies—as principals, not clients—albeit some are offshore owned and controlled. Such investors have longer time horizons and are ideal investors for such public service utilities.”

The other activity that is certainly questionable is the way in which Thames Water has managed its affairs in recent years. Extremely high dividend payments have been made over the past years, representing a direct transfer of income and capital out of Thames Water to private investors. At the financial year end in 2011, Thames Water made £225.2 million in profits, but it distributed £271.4 million in dividends. This high dividend policy is a recent development, but it is not limited to last year. In 2010, the unadjusted common dividend payout ratio, in percentage terms, was 141.5%—that is, nearly half as much again, on top of profits, was paid out. The figure for 2009 was 126.7%—a quarter as much paid out again as was made in profits, and in 2008, 61.3% was paid out. That contrasts with Anglian Water’s dividend ratio of 81.%, Southern Water’s 58.7% and South East Water’s 48.4%. The policy of paying higher returns to investors started immediately after the company was purchased by the consortium behind Kemble Holdings in 2007. The company paid out £535 million in dividends in 2007, and £233 million in 2008.

All this has happened while the company has vastly increased its debt position. In the financial report of 2008, the change in the amount of debt held by Thames Water was more than £1.5 billion. Ofwat warned the bidding companies to keep a good debt ratio, advising that 45% would be appropriate. The ratio is now at 80%. We—Parliament—and the Government need to ask why Thames Water has increased its debt holding by so much when it is known that it has an extremely large capital project coming up, which will need a substantial amount of borrowing.

My question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is whether the Government have investigated whether Thames Water would have been able to make a greater contribution to any scheme from its own funds if it had not spent the last few years borrowing money in order to pay itself. Both the financial policy and the tax arrangements of Thames Water seem to me to be appropriate for us to debate.

My conclusion is that we might need to insert conditions into the Bill regarding any financial arrangements whereby the Government underwrite the borrowing by Thames Water, making it clear that they should be transparent, ethical and accountable so that Thames Water users, those of us who represent people in the Thames Water area and everybody else in the country can understand that there has been some pretty strange organisational finance going on in the last five years. We must make sure that the objectives do not feather the nests of the equity investors rather than benefit Thames Water users, so we must ensure that we have the right financial vehicles if we are to go ahead with infrastructure projects like this one. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate the project itself on other occasions, but I hope that the Secretary of State will be sensitive, as I know the Treasury is sensitive, to these real concerns about how Thames Water runs its financial affairs.