Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Bills have obviously had to increase in the latest price review because we have had record levels of under-investment in our infrastructure. However, new clause 18 is intended to ensure greater fairness. It is important for struggling customers that he, as the local Member of Parliament, is talking to the water companies to ensure that they are informed about the support mechanisms that are available, and about how they can access them and everything else to which they are entitled.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will know that just 7% of outfalls were monitored when Labour last left office. I am pleased to say that that figure is now 100%. Does she not agree that new clause 16 would ensure that the fines collected from polluting water companies through the water restoration fund, which was founded by the Conservatives in 2022, are used to improve and prevent further deterioration of our waterways, including our precious chalk streams? Will she now do what we all look to Ministers to do, which is pirouette at the Dispatch Box, recognise the rightness of the cause and change course?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed an eager beaver. As much as I do not wish to pour water on his enthusiasm, I will of course respond to all the amendments at the end of this stage of the Bill, as protocol expects. I hope he is able to contain his excitement, and is looking forward to my final comments on that area. And I shall be practising my pirouettes in anticipation.

I wish to pay special thanks to the Welsh Government, the Deputy First Minister and the officials who have worked so openly and collaboratively with the UK Government throughout the development and passage of this Bill. I also thank the Senedd for their consent, which we received on 21 January. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Welsh counterparts to protect our rivers, lakes and seas, particularly those that cross our borders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

To follow up the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that money will ultimately come from water bill payers. It will be ordinary families across the country who must contribute to the £100 million fines or whatever is imposed on our water companies. For that to be taken and then swallowed by the Treasury, rather than used to improve water, would be a disgrace. Does he not agree that the Government must accept new clause 16?

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to an amendment we have also tabled to ensure that if fines are levied on water companies, customers’ bills go down accordingly, so that taxpayers and bill payers are not penalised for water companies doing the wrong thing.

The Government have made ejections in this House and in the other place to the principle of ringfencing the funding and have stated the need for the Treasury to have flexibility on how it spends that money, but in this specific case, their argument still does not stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure that the Treasury can have the spending power it needs to deliver that spending, but here we are talking about something very different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less of a guarantee regarding the amount of money they will bring in. To rely on those funds for day-to-day Treasury spending does not make sense. Ringfencing those penalties for our water restoration fund is a sensible measure that enables Governments to guarantee they can meet a specific need. Water companies pay the fines for the damage they have done, and the local communities affected are empowered to have their local waterways restored.

It is worth repeating the finer detail of our amendment; it should not go ignored that this will also improve chalk streams. It was incredibly disappointing that over Christmas, the Government revealed that they had abandoned plans by the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams. Given that England is home to 80% of the world’s chalk streams, a failure to act on this issue neglects a vital duty to protect a key part of our environment. In light of this, we believe that the Government need to think again about rejecting our important amendment, which is a matter of principle, a matter of justice in righting wrongs, and a fundamental commitment to water quality.

When it comes to improving our waters, it is supporting those who are most affected when water companies fail to abide by their duties that are at the heart of the Opposition’s concerns —the British public, as individual consumers, bill payers and members of local communities. Customers must not pay the price for water companies’ failure to do their duties, whether financial, environmental or otherwise. As such, the Opposition have tabled new clause 19, which would require the DEFRA Secretary of State to provide that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers.

This is very important, as a toxic cocktail of poor behaviour by water companies and rising bill prices has led to many people feeling that they are receiving poor value for money and not getting the quality water services that they deserve. A concomitant reduction in customer bills that people will see directly on their statements will be a real and tangible sign that poor behaviour is not going unchecked. The Government have previously rejected the proposal, but we urge them to think again about this simple yet effective amendment that would do so much to underpin all the work that is being done and protect bill payers.

I turn to some of our further amendments. Our concerns about the water industry and finances extend to what is in the Bill as it stands—in particular, the provisions for special administration orders in clauses 12 and 13, which the Opposition have raised in the other place and in Committee. Those clauses would give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills. My Conservative colleagues in the other place sounded the alarm on this issue, and I put on record again my thanks to them for doing so. If water companies require the Government to place them in special administration through their own failure, why should consumers foot the bill for failures they have had no influence on or responsibility for? That is particularly the case if a customer’s bills will rise as a result of mismanagement by a company whose services they do not even rely on.

This proposal runs contrary to the nature of all the action taken in recent years to improve water quality, whereby companies that are responsible for failing to get their affairs in order must take responsibility. We have all been starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of Thames Water, and as many will know, Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report in November identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. We acknowledge that the Government believe that they expect to use special administration orders as a last resort and in limited circumstances. However, it is the Opposition’s firm belief that an injustice remains, with people having to pay for companies that they have no connection to. We have therefore tabled amendments 26 and 27, which would explicitly forbid the raising of prices for consumers who do not use the services of the water company that is in special administration. We believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise that the Government should accept, so that we can work to improve the water industry’s financial practices.

We have also tabled new clause 17, which would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding limits on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company. Regrettably, the Government rejected this sensible measure in Committee, so we have tabled it again to ensure that water companies do not excessively borrow money, which is ultimately bad for bill payers. When we talk about financial resilience, the heart of the issue is concern about borrowing, and the resultant over-leveraging in the industry. We will be pushing that new clause to a Division. We will also be supporting the measures on nature recovery that we tabled in Committee.

We will be looking very closely at some of the amendments from the Liberal Democrats. New clause 2, which they tabled in Committee, would abolish Ofwat. At that stage, we pointed out that the new clause was not explicit about what it would transition to, so we do not believe that is a sensible way forward.

New clause 18 would grant the Government a power to create a unified scheme of charging arrangements for customers in need of support regardless of the specific supplier, and introduce a consultation for that purpose. Although the Opposition welcome looking at that, can the Government please ensure that others consumers do not face rising bills as a result? It will be interesting to see what the Government do with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

That is my personal view; I put that on the record.

These companies have legal obligations first and foremost to their shareholders, which means short-term profit maximisation. When water was privatised, to quote from Unison’s recent report on this matter, to

“ensure the commercial success of the companies, the government wrote off all the existing debts of the RWAs”—

regional water authorities—

“(£6.5 billion in total) and gave the private companies £7.7 billion of public subsidies in tax relief on profits.”

It has come to my attention that even some former chief executives of water companies fear for the future of the industry, because good investors have by and large exited it. It is now the Macquaries and vulture capitalists of this world that dominate shareholding.

This issue goes far beyond regulation. Indeed, our own regulator, Ofwat, has been found wanting, as its own growth duty prioritises business as usual. In other areas, the Government have quite rightly recognised and embraced the value of public ownership, such as in rail and with Great British Energy. Unfortunately, when it comes to water companies there seems to be an inconsistency in Government policy. Many of us on this side of the House ran on a manifesto commitment to reduce the cost of living, and that commitment is one that I think every Labour MP believes in. However, the cost of corruption and of extraction by a private water company should under no circumstances, as is currently configured in the Bill, land on the heads of our constituents should any of these companies go bust or be taken into special administration.

Water is a monopoly industry, which means that bill payers and taxpayers are the same. What message would it send to our constituents if they are asked to pay, via their bills or via tax, to make a payout for the mistakes and excesses of privatised water?

[Graham Stuart]

Doubtless the behaviour of the privatised firms should be looked at closely, but one of the fundamentals of having a state-run system for such long-term assets was that they were chronically under-invested. They could never win out in the political battle between schools, hospitals and long-term water infrastructure, and only privatisation allowed the record investment that has gone in since. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that in trying to get the balance right.

[Clive Lewis]

I do recognise that, and not for one second am I calling for nationalisation, which is the model the right hon. Member was talking about. There is a plethora of possibilities for public ownership, from mutualisation through to giving regional authorities more scope, and even working with the private sector. We must ensure that the public have a critical say over the future of water, and there are multiple forms that public ownership can take. I am not necessarily in favour of 1970s-style nationalisation, which is pretty much what they have in Scotland at the moment.

I will, however, ask those on the Front Bench to consider new clause 8 and ensure that our constituents—the people we came into politics for—do not foot a single penny more for the failures of privatised water. Investors, shareholders and creditors should be the ones who take the haircut. They should be the ones who foot the bill because of what they have done to our water. This should not be landing on the heads of our constituents. This is a political choice, and I urge my Government to make it clear that we will always back the public, not the private companies that have got us into this mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.

New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon.