Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but it is also daunting, because she can speak without notes for eight minutes. I cannot do that because I have so many complaints about the Bill, so excuse me for reading notes.

We have heard about the organisation River Action a couple of times; I am on its board and it will be playing a role in giving advice to the Government on how the Bill can be improved.

I know that the Minister knows how much I admire her and trust her as a Minister and in her role today. But, at the same time, the Bill is deeply disappointing. It is disappointing to the point of being almost a joke, because it does not do what the majority of people would like it to do. It is about the regulation of a capitalist monopoly and the good management of a privatised cash machine that water bill payers subsidise. The money just goes straight out and we do not get a benefit. The Bill tries to regulate by using the same people and organisations that have failed for the past 30 years. How can that change? I do not see that that is possible.

The Bill also tries to threaten the top people with jail time using the same tools that have been failing to work for 20 years. What it does not do is get back the billions of pounds that these company shareholders have pocketed for decades, or even stop those same shareholders from pocketing billions of pounds of our money in the future. Nor does it stop the water companies dumping sewage in the waterways. Instead, we hear about Ofwat making backroom deals that will keep the private companies in business by weakening the enforcement of regulations. I do not understand how that can be happening.

We should enforce the regulations—if the businesses fail, they fail—and let the companies know that this Government want the work done. Ofwat has made clear that the water companies have had the money they need, so they must either get the job done or give us a refund. What the Government should not do is allow these companies to run up more debts in order to pay out more dividends. Those debts and dividend payments have already cost us four months-worth of water bill payments. In what other area of life are consumers paying out four months-worth of bills each year but getting nothing back in return?

We are not even being offered a guarantee of clean water or that the leaks will be fixed. In fact, we have the insanity of a country soaked in record rainfall arranging a deal that would use tankers to import Norwegian water in the event of drought. That is so lunatic that I cannot even finish my sentence about it. As other noble Lords have said, water is a basic of life. We need water—all life needs water—so why is it in private hands and subject to profiteering?

Much of this Bill is about what happens when a water company fails and goes into a special administrative regime. Ministers have said on several occasions that they will not bring water companies into public ownership because of the cost. They have been quoting a six year-old Social Market Foundation report, but they ignore the very recent calculations by Moody’s and the S&P credit rating agency that these shares are junk. Their estimate of how much it would cost is very different.

Professor Ewan McGaughey of King’s College London said:

“Special administration would not cost the Treasury or taxpayers anything ... special administration enables the Minister to put a plan before”


the High Court to cancel a company’s debt

“if continued payments to banks would interfere with properly carrying out the water company’s sewage or clean water functions”.

So why does the Minister not just do that? Special administration sounds great and very cheap. As Professor McGaughey said:

“The best way to clean our water is with more investment. Forty percent more investment would be possible if we stop bailing out banks and shareholders with billpayer rises. It will cost us over £12.5 billion this Parliament to keep paying shareholders and banks. … The right way to close this black hole is to make failed companies lose their licences, cancel the debt and transition to public water … This is all possible under the existing law”.


As for the debt that was accumulated to pay shareholder dividends, I understand that the Thames Water debt is now being traded by hedge funds. They are buying this debt on the cheap because they think this Government are stupid enough, or corrupt enough, to compensate them at a higher level. As much as I hate the idea of rewarding the parasites in our water industry with compensation for worthless shares, I dislike even more the idea of hedge-fund managers making a profit from a Labour Government’s ideological rejection of public ownership, so will the Minister give me an assurance that minimal compensation will be paid to the creditors of failed water companies and that our water bills will not be used to line the pockets of the hedge funds?

The Minister mentioned in her opening statement that this Bill had public support. I knocked on a lot of doors during the general election—I spoke to a lot of people in their homes and on the streets—and I think that a huge number of people, if not the majority, would support the following criteria for a more radical water Bill: no compensation for shareholders, minimal compensation for creditors, and public ownership being one of the options for these failed companies.

I will bring forward amendments to ensure that this Bill does not simply allow these failed zombie companies to continue extracting bill payers’ cash while loading huge amounts of debt on to the balance sheet. The Government need a serious look at the opportunity to bring these companies into public ownership, and this Bill should give Ministers the option to nationalise these companies where it makes sense.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 82 addresses a major question that the Bill does not address: why do water regulators fail? After all, they have been at it for many years—at least 35 years, some of them—yet they continue to fail. No proposal in the Bill addresses that. They continue to fail because they are isolated from the lives of the people affected by sewage spills, high customer bills, low investment and water simply leaking away.

The regulatory bodies are generally made up of former Ministers and executives. Someone who has done a stint at a water company disappears to Ofwat; Ofwat’s former chief executive is now director of a water company. There is a revolving door. These people have a world of their own which does not connect with that of the people directly affected by their activities. For any regulatory system to be effective, it must represent a plurality of interests, but our regulatory system and bodies are closely aligned with corporate interests. They are, in essence, captured. If this capture is not there—and is not the reason for their failures—then someone will have to explain why the water industry is in a mess and why the guiding hand of regulators has not been able to put it on a path to recovery, good practices or good behaviour.

The Bill seems to propose consumer panels, which are, in essence, toothless: they have no social constituency to report to because they are not really elected by anyone but simply co-opted on the basis that someone knows somebody and brings them in; they are not required to report to any constituencies; they cannot easily object to the practices of the regulatory bodies; and they can simply be bludgeoned into silence and just go along because that is the norm. We have heard that these amendments somehow propose something unusual and therefore we have to be bludgeoned into silence and simply go along, because tradition is oppressive and that is what we have to do.

My amendment calls for direct representation of elected representatives of employees and stakeholders on the board of the regulatory authority and to give them power to vote on executive remuneration. That would be the ultimate sanction when they disapprove of how the regulatory body is safeguarding or protecting the public interest. If they cannot vote on executive remuneration, they will simply be a shadow. The amendment seeks, in essence, to democratise regulation. I know that democracy is not very fashionable these days, so if the Minister opposes this democratisation of regulation, it would be helpful to know how the Government will check cognitive capture of regulatory bodies, because no other solution is being offered by anybody. If we were to expand on this, in the next group I could lay out a complete framework of what else needs to be done, but this is simply to test and, I hope, elicit a response from the Government.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 100. The issues of water pollution and the supply of clean water to everybody are ones I clearly care a lot about. But this Bill is just papering over the cracks. If we are going to paper over cracks, we could at least try a radical departure; perhaps we could try to bring some democracy into the regime.

I take issue with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I have chaired a board and it was extremely successful. Part of that was because I invited people who thought very differently on to the board. We had 20 members or so. It was called London Food and we were tasked with writing a report for the Mayor of London on a sustainable food strategy for the city. It was successful, I would argue, partly because of my charm—obviously —but also because we had extremely good reports from every single aspect of food and food supply for London. We had a member from the City who was obviously a Conservative, we had an organic farmer and so on. We had a huge range of people, but we agreed on the strategy and we came to some very useful conclusions. This is what we need: we need some democracy in the systems that try to keep us safe.

Honestly, given the scale of the challenge that the water industry faces at the moment, in trying to make a system work that has proved not to work, we need to ensure that there are some new voices that can represent other parts of society that use the water system and care very deeply about it. We should also involve the people who actually do the work. My amendment brings in people from the workforce.

At the moment, the CEOs and senior staff are more focused on delivering dividends than they are on delivering a quality service, so having worker representatives on the board would provide a constant voice for those whose job it is to provide a service. The regulators have been captured by the industry they are meant to be keeping an eye on, so they are almost useless. This system should not be a national scheme but one based on the geography of the water systems themselves.

I am a believer in democracy and this would be an extremely useful way of making sure that a crucial industry for our society has some resonance with people out there. I am sure that this would be welcomed by the majority of people, just as I am sure that the Minister is aware that polls suggest a majority of people would prefer public ownership. Failing that, however, let us get the public in there, talking and being listened to.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments, particularly those placed before us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. To the last speaker I have to say that there is a fundamental difference between chairing a committee to produce a report and running a business, which is what the water company has to be. She is absolutely right, however, that this Bill does not properly address the fundamental problem that we have two regulators and they have failed to produce a co-ordinated programme for the water industry.

I speak as somebody who knows a bit about it because, until 10 or 11 years ago, I was chairman of a water-only water company—so do not blame me about sewage as I never had anything to do with that. However, I do therefore know a bit about water companies. It was always impossible to meet the requirements of both the Environment Agency and Ofwat. Ofwat was under pressure from the Government to keep bills down and the Environment Agency, perfectly rightly, was saying that we should do more for the environment. As chairman of a water-only company, I was interested in doing something about the pollution of the water sources right from the beginning instead of having to clean them up, which is a very stupid way of dealing with it. Ofwat, however, would never allow one to do those things, whereas the Environment Agency was much more sympathetic.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

My amendment is intended to be a compromise. We are not saying that the review should do anything other than consider these as options. The review may well consider them as options and decide very early on that they are not helpful or a way forward for the water industry, but I ask the Minister not to rule them out by implication. My amendment is trying, gracefully, to be a compromise way forward. I ask the Minister and the Government to allow the parameters not to be so restrictive that other things, not just our amendment, are ruled out. I think it is best for the Government to have good, broad, free advice, which will help them make the correct strategic decisions.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is very useful because I agree very much with his last few statements. This is an incredibly helpful group. The Labour Government would be very well advised to take all these amendments. They are so helpful, reasonable and sensible and bring in issues that I think have been left out without any rational reason.

I deeply regret not having signed Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I agree with him completely. In fact, I support most of the amendments in this group. I signed Amendment 78 because who does not want regulators of a public service to work in the interests of the public? That is a very clear statement to make, I would have thought, and it is quite necessary, even though it seems so obvious.

Amendment 84 is in my name. I admit that when I tabled this amendment to remove the duty of economic growth from water companies and regulators, I had not really appreciated that if I looked at it from a completely different perspective, possibly from the perspective of the previous Government, it was a remarkable success story over 14 years because we had huge growth in sewage and pollution—well done, guys—and it had a multiplier impact on gross national product. It is so gross that other countries see it as indicative of the UK’s approach to running privatised services—that is, not very good. When we have a river full of dead fish, the authorities buy more fish to replace them. That is economic growth—a huge success. When E. coli is found in our water systems, we get a double hit of economic growth. There is the extra spending by the NHS on treating all the cases of gastro-enteritis and all the extra money spent on plastic bottles of water handed out when consumers cannot drink from the tap. We even have the prospect of a rain-soaked country like ours spending millions on hiring supertankers to import drinking water from Norway. That is extra spending and extra growth. I can see that growth is a success factor in the previous Government’s estimation. Of course, we also cannot forget the staggering growth in shareholder dividends and CEO salaries. When these private water companies take money out of the hands of bill payers and help the rich to buy new private jets, that also adds to GNP.

My problem is that this kind of GNP adds to most people’s unhappiness. In fact, that is why the promotion of growth for growth’s sake is complete nonsense. I do not understand why anyone would advocate that. The more that rivers are polluted, the unhappier the lives of everybody using that space, whether they are dog walkers, anglers, wild swimmers or nature lovers. The more money that shareholders and CEOs get, the less happy the bill payers are about 40% of their money being spent on debt repayments and dividends. Growth is not an indicator of happiness or of the economy being run for the benefit of many. It is a nonsense soundbite for the economically illiterate and needs to be deleted from this legislation.

On Amendment 85, if Ofwat had been given a duty to protect the environment when it was set up decades ago, we would not be in the mess that we are. There would have been a clear connection in Ofwat’s role between signing off bill payers’ money to fund environmental improvements and ensuring that those improvements actually happened. Ofwat needs two sets of books open on its desk all the time. The first would show the real state of the industry’s finances, including the accounts of the big financial businesses that own the water companies, and the second would show whether those companies were environmentally solvent. By that, I mean whether they are capable of meeting the environmental standards on clean water and the obligations to maintain the health of the waterways.

Whether Ofwat is competent enough to carry out this new duty, or any other duties, is a completely separate debate. We have to remember that Ofwat was meant to be looking after the interests of bill payers but has completely failed to do so. It has allowed the water industry to become owned and controlled by a superstructure of financial institutions that use clever scams to fleece the bill payer in ways that Ofwat has appeared to be completely oblivious to.

We know that if this Government allow Ofwat to remain the main regulator of private water companies over the next few years, its role must include the environment. Fixing the regular discharges of sewage into our waterways, along with the polluting run-off from agriculture, is by far the biggest financial challenge the industry faces. If Ofwat does not understand that duty, the regulation will not match up to the challenge.

I am afraid the Government did not turn out very well on climate change and our ecological crisis in the Budget. They do not seem to understand how climate change comes down to the lowest level and affects every single individual, and I would be really happy to help explain that. It is time to put this particular duty on the environment into the legislation.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, a thread that runs through many of these amendments is the divergence between the environmental objectives and the clean water consumption objectives. A number of times, we on these Benches have raised the issue that there are two regulators with those responsibilities separated between them. That is something with which the Minister is going to have to grapple in her reply. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who made the point that time is of the essence, and that waiting for the review may be too late. There is a choice to be made about giving Ofwat these objectives now or making a more fundamental structural change about who regulates the whole environmental question around water.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may be pleased to note in the Budget the increase in tax on people flying on private jets, which she referred to. Apart from that, I agree that there was not much coverage of the environment.

This thread keeps coming up and it needs to be addressed. Is it going to go into the Bill now or will it become part of the review later?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

37: Clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(7A) A sewerage undertaker must have regard to opportunities for nature-based solutions to be used to reduce pollution and to deliver other environmental benefits when preparing and publishing a pollution incident reduction plan.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require consideration of opportunities to use nature-based solutions to address pollution within pollution incident reduction plans.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open the debate on this group of amendments, which are focused on nature-based solutions to reduce pollution.

We know that nature is incredible and complex. Every living organism is nigh impossible for humans to replicate, and when those organisms all come together in an ecosystem they are even more complex—the complexity increases by many more degrees of magnitude. Human industrial processes, by comparison, are very crude. Unlike nature’s cycles and interactions, which have evolved over millennia, industrial processes are inefficient and almost always create some kind of waste product. So, while humans still struggle to comprehend the intricacy of those natural processes and cannot replicate them, it is much easier for us to mimic the natural world with nature-based solutions.

The fact is that it is better to protect what we have than to try to reproduce it. While I absolutely support rewilding and restoration projects, making sure that we do not do any more damage is of primary importance. Reed beds are a simple example: not only do they provide a wonderful home for wildlife—they are a priority habitat for nature conservation in the UK—but they are great at cleaning water, filtering out sediment, and buffering against pollutants from industry and agriculture. They also offer some protection from rising sea levels. Slimbridge Wetland Centre is a great demonstration site of that water treatment in action. It is a self-sufficient water treatment system that removes phosphates, nitrates and sediment, leaving just clean, fresh water for the nature reserve. It sounds like a dream.

I do not really need to rehearse all the arguments for nature-based solutions because, in the almost 11 years that I have been here, I heard Labour Peers calling on the then Government to put these solutions into action. Now the issues are the same but the Government are different, and so it is Conservative Peers who are lobbying on these issues and pointing out why it is so urgent for the Government to work with nature. I acknowledge that many Conservative Peers have said that in the past, but now their voices have the opportunity to be heard a little more loudly.

The Committee will probably support the whole concept of nature-based solutions. In that cross-party spirit, I hope the Minister will set out the Government’s plan to put these nature-based solutions at the heart of the recovery plan for our toxic and polluted riverways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and for a very interesting discussion. Clearly, it is very passionately felt as well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing her Amendment 37. I would also like to discuss Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord Gascoigne, because they are both about nature-based solutions.

As I mentioned on the previous group, the Government agree that nature-based solutions are an important tool for tackling the root causes of sewage pollution and addressing flood risk, while delivering wide ecological benefits. In line with this, I am pleased that Ofwat has proposed an allowance of over £2 billion for investments in nature-based solutions in PR24. I was pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, refers to catchments, because catchment and nature-based solutions are part of that £2 billion investment, and £1.6 billion is looking to reduce storm overflow spills through those solutions.

Ofwat has made it clear in its guidance for PR24 that it expects water companies to adopt more nature-based solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned reed beds, and it is important to say that the further funding includes money for reed beds and wetlands for nutrient removal. The Government are also supporting water companies with trialling different nature-based solutions. As I mentioned, this is obviously subject to the final determinations in December, but we hope to move forward in these areas.

At the same time, we need to recognise that nature-based solutions may not always be the most appropriate or effective means of improving water quality or flood risk. We need to ensure that water companies and Ofwat have sufficient flexibility to develop the right solution to deliver the best outcomes for customers and the environment. In a similar vein, although nature-based solutions may feature in pollution incident reduction plans, it is important to recognise that these may not be the most effective or available response to pollution incidents in every circumstance.

Having said that, we will not support the amendments, but I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we take this seriously. I am happy to have further discussions on this particular amendment, if that is helpful.

I turn to Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington-Mandeville. It is important to draw our attention to the impact of sewage pollution in our national parks. The Government agree that our national parks—Lake Windermere in the Lake District and the Broads have had particular attention regarding this matter—are a vital part of our environmental heritage, and everyone agrees that they must be protected better. For this reason, the Government will seek to use the powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to ensure that relevant authorities, including water companies, deliver better outcomes in protected landscapes.

I reassure noble Lords that existing plans are in place to protect high-priority sites from sewage pollution, including the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan. As part of that reduction plan, we expect water companies to tackle overflows discharging to high-priority sites by 2035. These sites include designated bathing waters, SSSIs, special areas of conservation and chalk streams. However, completely eradicating sewage discharges is not possible without a costly redesign of the whole sewerage system.

Similar issues may arise in relation to the proposed requirement for all water bodies in national parks to achieve “high” ecological status. Under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations, most surface water bodies have an objective to reach “good” ecological status, except where it is technically infeasible or disproportionately costly. I stress that “good” ecological status is a very high standard to achieve, and represents a thriving aquatic environment with only minor disturbance from natural conditions. In this way, it supports a diverse group of aquatic invertebrates, fish, mammals and birds.

“High” ecological status equates to water almost entirely undisturbed from its natural conditions, with almost no impact from human activity. Requiring this very high status would have wide-ranging impacts on any future planning developments and human interaction with national parks—that would include farming and fishing. The requirement would place achieving this demanding objective on only water companies, regardless of the pressures and sectors that are actually impacting on water bodies within the protected landscapes. It would also not allow for the consideration of costs, which would ultimately be borne by water bill payers, and any technical feasibility around this.

It is clearly important to reduce phosphorus levels— I have seen the damage that phosphorus can cause in the lakes near where I live. A reduction of phosphorus levels by 90% by 2028 goes significantly beyond the Environment Act target to reduce phosphorus loading by 80% by 2038—that is assuming that the baseline is at 2020 levels. This would require an extremely expensive and immediate increase to the number of phosphorus improvement schemes planned in the price review of 2024. We are concerned that that is a big jump, with a big extra investment that would immediately be passed on to bill payers. We do not want to risk the delivery of any wider environmental improvements through the price review of 2024.

Amendment 74 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I confirm that the Government are absolutely committed to the protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams. We recognise that these unique water bodies are not just vital ecosystems but a symbol of our national heritage: we in this country have by far the majority of chalk streams. This requirement would have significant implications for existing legal frameworks’ operational delivery, and would not necessarily result in environmental improvement for chalk streams. As discussed in relation to Amendment 55, requiring “high” ecological status would have the wide-ranging impacts that I mentioned.

The levelling-up Act brought in some protections for chalk streams. The independent water commission on the water sector regulatory system, already announced by the Secretary of State, is the appropriate vehicle for considering broader reforms, including to the current water system and overarching targets for the water sector. In the previous group we talked about better use of water and grey water. If we move forward with that through our review, that will reduce abstraction, which will help to support chalk streams better.

I hope the noble Earl therefore understands why the Government will not accept his amendment. However, he requested a meeting to discuss Blue Flag status as a possible way forward, and I am more than happy to offer him one.

Amendment 90 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I am grateful to her for this amendment. We are clear that water companies must improve on their delivery of water resources management plans. The independent commission will help to transform how our water system works and will inform further legislation. It would be more appropriate at the moment to consider how we make improvements to the water resources management planning process as part of the independent commission. I note that there are already requirements for the review process in Section 37A of the Water Industry Act 1991. Water companies must also report to the Secretary of State on their reviews annually. Defra works closely with the EA and Ofwat to review water companies’ delivery of their plans, and the EA recently published a summary of assessments of water company delivery and the actions that they must take to deliver their plans.

We are concerned that, in practice, a duty on water companies to deliver all measures simply would not work. Many measures, such as new reservoirs, need further permissions, for example, before they can proceed, and a water company cannot guarantee that it will get those permissions. That is why we will not support that particular amendment. I thank noble Lords again for this interesting and helpful debate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not think anyone in the Committee doubts her sincerity or her concern for nature—that is a given. I am afraid it is the Government I do not trust. I did not trust the last Government and I do not trust this one either—it must be something in my nature.

I supported two other amendments: Amendment 74 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and Amendment 104 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough. Chalk streams, for example, are incredibly important; they are so rare. We have the most in the world and we trash them. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, goes much further than my modest amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has never called anything I have ever done modest, so I look forward to his signing this same amendment on Report to show that he is sincere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about local engagement. Just this week, I hosted a group of 30 or 40 people from the Bengali community who are working on recovering mangrove forests in Sundarbans. They do it because they care about the local; they are losing culture, opportunities and so on. I really see that local activity is incredibly important, but the Government have to make that easy. This is the thing about the nature recovery schemes. They are obviously not the only way; they can be extremely effective, and sometimes quite cheap as well. It definitely engages the local community. I was up at Lake Windermere recently, and the local support there for cleaning up the lake was quite astonishingly broad.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is on water company ownership. In preparing for this Bill, my Whips’ Office briefing note said that, in some circumstances, Ofwat could take no fewer than 25 years to revoke a water licence. When I read this, I found it hard to believe that this was the case, so I had to go away and have a look at it myself.

I note that different conditions apply to household water companies and retail or business suppliers, as retail suppliers operate within a different market, and that this is an extremely complex area of legislation. I understand that Ofwat can take up to 25 years to revoke the licence of a water company in some cases where it is in breach of its licence conditions. My amendment is a probing one. I want to be certain that it is possible for licences to be revoked much earlier than 25 years for matters such as sewage spills and failures to invest in infrastructure. I am also interested in looking at whether six months is a feasible timeframe for revoking licences in the cases of the worst sewage spill offenders.

It is unacceptable that, in 2023, for example, water companies dumped 54% more sewage in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounted to some 464,000 incidents and some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, yet few water and sewage discharge licences have been revoked as a direct result of sewage spills.

The Government have given a clear commitment to make improvements, and this Bill contains many measures that we welcome. The framework for these proposed improvements is one where the Government are passing this Bill to bring in more immediate measures in order to hold the water companies to account and to strengthen the powers of the regulators. This is being done now while the water commission undertakes deeper, more fundamental thinking to make further recommendations in due course.

The Government’s argument is based on the belief that Ofwat can be supported, strengthened and remade to be an effective regulator. The arguments I want to discuss relate to the ultimate sanction of revoking water and sewage discharge licences. If Ofwat is to be effective, the ultimate sanction must act as a real deterrent against illegal and improper behaviour. I fully recognise that my suggestion of changing this to six months may not work and may need a rethink; I would be more than happy to discuss this with the Minister if it is of interest. I recognise that there is a need to balance the needs of water companies, their investors and customers, as well as to ensure continuity of supply.

I will be honest: I know that there are many different licences and conditions for revoking them, and that this is a complex area. The conditions for a quick termination, applying to the issues of a special administrator and bankruptcy, are welcome. My concerns relate more to the broader, far from general, form of deterrence for water companies doing what they have been doing up to now with no real comeback, such as siphoning funds off to shareholders while failing to meet the required levels of investments, falsifying self-reporting of sewage discharges and failing to prevent sewage spills.

I want this amendment to lead to a brief discussion on the licence conditions in place now. I seek reassurance from the Government that they will have a look at these powers, look at how they are used in practice and consider whether any changes are required as part of this Bill. I do this as there are no real changes to any of the licence termination conditions; I wondered whether this was a mistake or oversight. The imposition of tougher prison sentences and higher fines are welcome measures, but what happens if these measures alone failed to regulate companies’ behaviour?

For comparison, the revocation of licences in other regulated sectors appears generally to happen on a much quicker timescale. Can the Minister give the rationale behind leaving the 25 years in statute, and can she give examples of Ofwat acting much earlier in relation to lack of investment or pollution incidents? What is the average time for revoking a water and sewage licence?

I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group: Amendments 97, 98 and 99. This weekend saw tens of thousands of people marching for clean water in London. It was the most amazing event. It was a chance for me to speak to people who agree with me—as opposed to being here in your Lordships’ House, where not many people agree with me.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Oh!

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

That is not true.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry. Thank you; it is lovely to see the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back in her place.

All three of my amendments are intended to be helpful—that is, to help the Government regulate the water industry properly and end the 30 years of fleecing bill payers while dumping sewage into our waterways. It is an absolutely unforgivable three decades of abuse of the system.

Amendment 97 would prohibit the Government bailing out shareholders and creditors of water companies in the event of special administration. Amendment 98 would allow the Government to take back control with public ownership of water companies, but it is only an option. It is an option that I believe the Government could use as a lever in their negotiations with the water companies, so I think it is worth putting it back in the Bill. Amendment 99 would allow water companies to be put into special administration for failing on environmental issues, such as leaks and sewage spills.

What strikes me about these issues is that the public are demanding that this is sorted, but the Government are giving us half measures. I am concerned that that will not bring the sort of change we need. There is a democratic shortfall here because polls tell us that 82% of the public want to end privatised water, but only a few of us in Parliament are willing to consider it. To me, this suggests that the Government are out of step with the public, which is very concerning for me; I would like the Labour Government to last longer than one term because I really do not want to see another Conservative Government in my lifetime. There is, of course, a fear among many campaigners that this Bill will raise their water bills by enabling the Government to bail out and reward the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for signing Amendment 97. It is essential that the Government do not bail out the water companies in such a way that they simply hand money to shareholders and creditors and let them start afresh, behaving in the same way but perhaps with a little more regulation. Amendment 97 would prohibit this so that the public purse does not underwrite the casino capitalism and financial engineering that has been going on in the water sector. We have a ridiculous situation where the debt is being traded by hedge funds, which are gambling on water bills going up in future to finance a bailout. If these companies fail, let us instead bring them into public ownership and democratic control. The shareholders and creditors took a gamble on greed when the companies used £75 billion since privatisation to pay dividends rather than invest. Let them take the hit.

Amendment 98 would allow the Government to set out how they will bring water companies into public ownership. The Greens are deeply disappointed that the Government have ruled this out. I do not understand any sort of ideological addiction to private ownership of a public service such as this, particularly when it is not even a competitive market. It is a monopoly, and it is time it stopped.

I have heard the Government say that private investment is essential, but it is simple maths that, if we stop paying dividends and debt payments, that frees up 40% of people’s water bills to be invested in fixing the sewerage system and building more reservoirs. The Government have been using overinflated estimates from the water industry—a figure of some £90 billion—to claim that public ownership would be too expensive, but actually, it is the complete opposite: it is privatised water that is too expensive to continue. Water company shareholders have spent decades sucking out the profits while loading debt on to the balance sheets and hiking people’s bills. That is inevitable, as free market economics simply does not work without competition. Thatcher turned a public monopoly into a cash cow for people who are greedy. Unless amended, this legislation does nothing to stop that continuing for another decade. I want the Government to at least have the power to bring the companies into public ownership. If they rule out that option, the Government will make any taxpayer bailout a lot more expensive, as a potential buyer has the upper hand in all negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

Further, it is worth noting that performance in general, not just where poor performance has led to a prosecution, is already a criterion. My noble friend asked what financial assistance the Government would provide to a company under a SAR. I confirm that the Government would provide financial assistance to ensure the day-to-day operation of any water company under a SAR. However, we expect that many of these costs would be recouped through the sale of a water company at the end of the special administration, to minimise any cost to the taxpayer. I hope for these reasons that my noble friend will not move his amendment and I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I had better clarify: I want another Labour Government only if I cannot have a Green Government. On the issue about having monopolies where market forces do not operate, can she see that there are inherent problems in having monopolies on something such as water—or any public service that we all need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the noble Baroness’s point. I would hope that, when we do the review, we look completely across all the issues to do with a water company, including the way it behaves because of the way it is set up, and that that should be part of any consideration. By the time we have reported, I am sure the noble Baroness will be very happy to have another Labour Government.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her time over the period between Committee and now. I shall speak first to my Amendment 9, which deals with performance-related pay and, more specifically, with bonuses paid to CEOs and directors of water companies. Performance-related pay should be related specifically to how well the water company has carried out its functions, having regard to the environmental targets it has been set. These are likely to relate to the number of illegal sewage spills that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.

During the last year—and especially during the general election campaign—the issue of sewage overflows was in the news almost daily. We saw the outrage of local residents at the state of their streams, rivers and lakes due to sewage spills—many occurred when there had not been any heavy rain. I will not go through the arguments, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. What I and my colleagues on these Benches are looking for is a reassurance from the Minister that where a category 1 and/or a category 2 pollution incident has occurred, the management of the offending water company—including the CEO, directors and senior officers involved in decisions in respect of controlling pollution—will be prevented from receiving any bonus or other performance-related pay enhancement to their basic salaries. It is unacceptable to the public for those in a very senior position in sewage and water companies to be rewarded over and above their normal salary for allowing sewage and other pollution to take place and not to have taken any steps to rectify the situation in a reasonable timeframe.

On Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, environment groups have expertise to give to the water industry, but they should sit on boards. Consumers would also have a voice on boards. On our Benches are Peers who have in the past sat on water boards and contributed positively to their debates. This is a good and positive way forward. We support environmental groups and consumers being on boards and not being sidelined.

Amendments 2 and 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, are about reporting. Amendment 2 would set up annual reporting on financial restructuring, including debt levels. This would seem a sensible way to ensure that the sewage and water company was aware of its business. However, Amendment 8 would involve others in the work of the authority, which is likely to become a bureaucratic nightmare. I have in a previous life sat on such bodies and found them to be unproductive and ineffective—I am sorry. Expectations of the civil society representatives will be high, sometimes with little understanding or knowledge of just how long it can take to implement what may often seem like a trivial matter.

Amendments 4, 7 and 10, from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, do not align with our Amendment 9 and therefore we do not support them. However, I am conscious that whatever penalties the Bill hands out to directors and CEOs of water companies, they have to be proportionate, or it will be difficult to recruit people with the necessary expertise to sit on the boards of sewage and water companies.

Amendments 11 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would introduce an SI into the legal framework. SIs are a favourite tool of Governments to get the detail of legislation in place. They tend to get somewhat divorced from the original Act that they refer to, but the timeline proposed here should mean that the original Act will still be fresh in peoples’ minds.

Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is, I fear, unworkable. I know from previous debates that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prefer to be debating the renationalisation of water and sewage companies.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

True.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The time for the democratisation of regulation and the empowerment of stakeholders is with us. We ought to take that chance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to government Amendment 48. I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment, which reflects the substance of the amendment that I and others brought forward in Committee, and I am happy to support it by putting my name to it. That debate showed that there was a clear case for Ofwat doing more on environmental issues, and I thank the Minister and her officials for their extremely productive approach, openness in meetings and willingness to work together to address these concerns. I am really pleased that we now have on the face of the Bill a new duty for Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to our climate change and environmental targets when exercising its functions. It is so critical that this is factored into decision-making, so that opportunities to contribute to these targets are not missed or deprioritised.

While I am grateful for the progress we have made in seeking to redress the imbalance, it would have been preferable to have a stronger duty than “have regard to”. I know the reasons for using this language, but my previous wording, which would have obligated Ofwat to

“take all reasonable steps to contribute to”

our climate and nature targets, would have provided a stronger obligation without caveats. Therefore, I very much hope that the progress we have made today is just the start of wider changes to ensure better environmental outcomes in our water industry. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the question of how Ofwat will balance environmental duties and deal with the related trade-offs with other economic and consumer objectives will be looked at in detail as part of the water commission’s work.

I also want to raise the important issue of adaptation. My original amendment contained an additional limb which was intended to ensure that adapting to the current or predicted impacts of climate change, as identified in the most recent report of the Climate Change Committee, would also be part of Ofwat’s remit when exercising its functions. In discussions, the Minister said that adaptation is covered by the resilience strategic priority. However, this does not directly link back to current Adaptation Committee reports. I hope this too will be examined by the water commission, because in spite of having the resilience objective, this has not so far led to the new reservoirs we urgently need for housing and drought resilience. More clearly does need to happen, and I would be grateful for any assurances the Minister can give regarding adaptation.

I also welcome government Amendment 42. I hope that this will be a step forward in increasing the use of and spend on nature-based solutions, and lead to their greater and more systematic use to address adaptation issues such as flooding and drought.

Amendment 44, in the name of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies—is the same as the one tabled in Committee. It addresses the very real issue of water companies not being transparent with environmental data, and specifically does three things. First, subsection (1) would provide statutory underpinning to the Fish Legal case, making it beyond challenge that water companies are, and will remain, public authorities for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This is necessary because, if it is not in legislation, its overturning by a future ruling remains a distinct possibility.

Secondly, proposed new subsection (2) would cut through the delaying tactics and refusals by water companies to make it clear that effluent and wastewater treatment data must, as a minimum, be proactively published by water companies. The water companies will be required by law to publish it up front, without anyone having to ask. This would be consistent with the expectation of transparency that we are setting though the Bill.

Thirdly, proposed new subsection (3) would amend the appeal and enforcement provisions in the 2004 regulations to allow members of the public to complain directly to the Information Commissioner about data not being proactively published—which they cannot at present.

In Committee, in response to this amendment, the Minister said that, while the Government supported the principle of transparency, these

“specific proposals duplicate pre-existing provisions and would create practical difficulties”.—[Official Report, 30/10/24; col. 1186.]

However, we have looked, we cannot find these pre-existing provisions and we do not understand what the practical difficulties would be. All we are asking is for sewerage undertakers to publish data that they hold and which, under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they are meant to publish but do not because the regulations are effectively unenforceable.

Noble Lords and the Minister may have seen over the weekend an article in the Observer, which has already been mentioned, about precisely this issue. United Utilities has been fighting a legal challenge that has been brought upon it to not give the public access to environmental data on its—to be generous—“potential” pollution of Lake Windermere. First, it claimed that the phosphorus data was not environmental information, then that it was internal communication. Obviously, this is environmental. ICO agrees and has said that it should be published—but still it has not been.

In this example, we can see that some sewerage companies will not behave in the public interest unless forced to do so. In this amendment, we have an opportunity to address these refusals to be transparent. It would go some way to removing their supposed legal defence, forcing them to co-operate. I really hope that the Minister can get behind this today, as the only thing that will help here is words in statute. If there are specific concerns with the drafting, we would welcome her amending it at Third Reading.

In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister and her team. We have made important progress for climate and nature in this Bill and we will start to see delivery of better outcomes for our precious river and coastal ecosystems.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendment 49 puts a clear and unambiguous environmental duty on Ofwat. It gives the authority a primary duty to protect the environment. I am well aware that the Government probably will come round to the Greens’ way of thinking in 10 or 15 years and that perhaps this side of the Chamber might come round to our way of thinking in 25 or 30 years, but we have to care now about our environment and our planet. What we have passed so far, although very welcome, is just not enough.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, natural flood management is proving to be a cost-effective way of reducing flood risk, far cheaper than traditional construction involving lots of concrete. Water companies should be investing in these nature-based solutions to reduce the infrastructure cost of handling service water run-off, because every litre of water that soaks into the ground is a litre of water that does not flood into the water treatment system.

I have two requests of the Minister. Will the government amendments now provide a baseline so the Minister can take forward a piece of work to expand the use of natural flood management, especially where it is significantly cheaper than other methods? Secondly, will the Government please put these climate and nature amendments on the face of their Bills at drafting stage, rather than having to amend them down the line?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is always an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I was going to call her “my noble friend”—but not quite yet. I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 55. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has also signed the amendment, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee.

Like so many other noble Lords today, I join in the great “love-in” for the Minister. All I will say, speaking from experience, is “Enjoy it while it lasts”. I pay tribute to the Minister and the officials who have engaged with me over the last few days since we last met. Echoing words that have already been said, looking back to where we were in Committee on this amendment, and on nature and the environment as a whole, the Government have listened and moved quite a lot. Collectively, we pushed, and the Government have listened. I think a lot of this comes down to the Minister, who cares about it and gets it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to both Amendments 39 and 40 in my name. I am grateful for the kind support of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on Amendment 39 and of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on Amendments 39 and 40.

I am told that Amendment 39 is unwelcome because it is hard to determine when explanations can be expected. As the Minister knows, my catchphrase in Committee was “modest and proportionate”. I think that this very small amendment is modest and proportionate, but it is my further understanding from discussions that management plans will, once a year, give explanations of such discharges as part of their pollution plans. With numerous discharges happening across the year, that annual document will be a mighty task to compile and to read through. More importantly, it seems that people living with the discharges might have to wait 12 months or more simply to find out why a discharge has occurred and, presumably, what has been done to deal with it and prevent a recurrence. This invites not only discontent but accusations that nothing is being done and that people are being kept in the dark. Can the Minister take this away and see whether a government amendment can do better in addressing the concerns and rights to information of the public?

Amendment 40 in my name is essentially about trying to get information all in one place so that anybody from the public can access it. Since tabling this amendment, I have been advised by the Minister that Water UK, the body that represents the water companies, is to create a map of discharges that can be accessed by the public. That is very welcome, but unless the mapping is presented and run in a comprehensive and timely way, is sufficiently detailed to provide meaningful information and is periodically assessed for its quality of delivery, it will be of little use.

I have a number of questions which I would be very grateful if the Minister can address, either from the Dispatch Box or by letter. There are six of them—brace yourselves. Can the Minister clarify what information exactly this map will show? When will it be up and running? At that start date, will all future discharges be shown in close to real time? Who will have the responsibility for ensuring that Water UK receives the necessary information in real time? What will be the penalties for failure to supply the information and doing so in good time? Who will have the responsibility for auditing the online mapping performance of Water UK over time? Somebody needs to watch the watchers to ensure that this potentially rather colourful and enjoyable map is accurate, sufficiently detailed and up to date in real time.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I support these amendments. It is obvious that the public have a right to know when sewage is being dumped. Would the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, like to speak to his amendment first? If not, I shall carry on.

The water companies have this as real-time data and there is no reason why they cannot publish it in real time so that the public know whether the waterways are clean enough to swim in, paddle in, kayak in or even let their dogs run in. I simply do not understand why the water companies cannot provide that information. Well, I do know why—they will fight this tooth and nail because the true level of leaks of sewage discharges is so ridiculously high.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment. To be clear, it requires an explanation of why the discharge has occurred, not that it has. The Minister pointed out that that might take quite a long time to establish.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

In that case, the noble Lord’s amendment is not radical enough for me, but I hope it passes anyway.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

I speak to Amendment 41 in my name. It makes a simple point that I hope will find sympathy with the Minister and other Members.

I well remember, as other Members may, that during the passage of the Environment Act three years ago, there was a major spill by Thames Water somewhere in the London area. The excuse given at the time was a power failure. I remember thinking that that really was not a very good excuse. Those in charge of any infrastructure installation surely should have sufficient emergency generator capacity in place and maintained so that, should there be a power failure for an essential activity, it can be covered for a while. Clearly, if the power failure lasts for a day or two, the generator capacity will probably not have sufficient fuel to run that long—I understand that. Nevertheless, it seems too easy a let-out for a sewerage undertaker to be able to excuse an emergency discharge of any sort simply on account of a power failure.

I have therefore put down this amendment and hope that the Minister can assure me that water companies are required to have sufficient generator capacity in place and to keep it maintained so that they cannot simply say that there was a power failure and the generator did not work. That is just not good enough. I hope to get reassurance from the Minister about this; it is an important point, because otherwise we are giving too easy a let-out to the water companies.

--- 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 Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is okay for the railways but not for water. If it were within the remit, at least we could get some accurate figures. At the moment we do not have accurate figures. Also, a recent poll said that 82% of the general public would like water out of private hands and in public ownership again. That means that this Government are going against the grain.