Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Debate between Karen Buck and Rebecca Pow

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely right: whatever the Opposition say today, one of the measures they did not vote for in the Environment Act 2021 was to enable Ofwat to hold water companies to account where they do not demonstrate a link between dividends and performance. They must have sound performance and be performing for their customers, otherwise they cannot pay out their dividends.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The staggering complacency we are hearing from the Minister will come as no comfort to my constituents who were flooded out three years ago in the west London floods, which were the second 100-year event in less than a decade. If Ofwat has been doing such a good job in holding the water companies to account, as she is now apparently telling us, why are we in this situation? What exactly has Ofwat been doing?

[Rebecca Pow]

It has to be remembered that privatisation occurred in 1989. We have had a succession of different Governments during that time, and it has been this Government who have accelerated clamping down on water companies and opening up transparency. The hon. Lady asks what Ofwat has done, and I will name just a few things. Since 2020, Ofwat has updated the licences so that if a water company loses its investment credit rating, it is barred from making payouts to shareholders. In July 2022, it set out additional proposals to increase financial resilience, including companies having a stronger credit rating. In March, it announced that it would take enforcement actions against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. We have done more than any Government before to ensure that we have a fully functioning, strong regulator.

Impact of Floods in North Westminster

Debate between Karen Buck and Rebecca Pow

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

As ever, it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir David.

I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing this important debate. The issue has clearly affected so many people’s lives, as we saw in the news during the summer. I pay tribute to all those who helped: the emergency services, and in particular the Environment Agency and the fire services, who really led on this emergency.

My heart goes out to all those people who suffered; I come from Somerset, so I know about flooding. I have also visited a great many people around the country, so we know how devastating flooding can be for people. I do not underestimate what it is like, and nor do the Government: we have doubled flood funding to £5.2 billion in the next spending period, which will put in place more than 2,000 new defences around the country.

The hon. Member for Westminster North has focused very much on surface water flooding, and in the new Budget we have escalated the importance placed on that issue. Approximately a third of that spending will be on surface water flooding schemes, so although it did not help the hon. Lady this July—although there are some schemes within her constituency—that issue is going to receive much greater emphasis going forward, and rightly so. Surface water flooding is the most widespread form of flooding in England, with around 3.2 million properties at risk. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the effects of climate change combined with population growth mean that we are expecting more of these related issues.

However, everybody—not just the Government—has a responsibility for managing water effectively. In England, the statutory responsibility for managing flood risk falls to the risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency and the lead local flood authorities. The Environment Agency has a strategic overview role for all sources of flooding, and although it does not lead on surface water flooding, it does provide support and advice on risks and facilitates effective partnerships.

I have just been on a visit to Merseyside and West Yorkshire, and have seen some very good examples of those partnerships working to get over some of the problems that people are facing. The lead local flood authorities—county and unitary councils—have the lead operational role in managing all local flood risks, including surface water, and are responsible for identifying the risks and managing them as part of the local risk management strategy. Alongside this, the highways authorities have responsibility for the road network, which includes highway and road drainage maintenance, and water and sewerage companies are responsible for maintaining the public sewer network to ensure that the area is well drained.

As the hon. Member for Westminster North said, we saw devastating flooding this summer, not just in Westminster but around the world. Here, we had those incidents in July and August: the Met Office recorded over a month’s worth of rainfall in just a few hours, and the localised nature of the downpours meant that certain areas were incredibly badly affected while neighbours were not affected at all. It was quite extraordinary, as I think the hon. Lady will agree. The flooding witnessed in north Westminster was primarily due to surface water. This kind of event occurs with extreme rainfall, where the water simply cannot drain away as quickly as it is arriving.

[Ms Buck]

I want to stress one of the central points of the argument: Thames Water built a £17 million flood alleviation scheme, completed just six years ago, to deal with exactly this problem in exactly this area, yet it failed catastrophically. We have been unable to get Thames Water to properly respond to us about why that happened—whether it was a planning issue or an operational one. That is one of the key things that I would like the Minister to help me get Thames Water to respond to.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I hear what she says. Measures were put in place when the Met Office gave its warnings, but of course it was all so quick: the fire brigade swung into action, but those things that the Environment Agency could whizz into place, such as trash screens, just could not cope with that flooding or the sewage overflows and so forth. That is what the Thames tideway tunnel project is going to address, and I have a meeting with those involved later this afternoon. However, the hon. Lady is right that questions need to be asked about that new development. As she referred to, a big public meeting was held with Westminster City Council after the flooding.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

Debate between Karen Buck and Rebecca Pow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

I do, although that issue is also outwith the scope of the Bill. The Bill proposes one important tool for tenants, but there are many others, some of which are being introduced. We will continue to lobby for others in the future. I certainly congratulate Newham Council on its active work in respect of its rogue landlord sector.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for making a strong case on an issue about which she is very passionate. Is it not key to the Bill that social tenants currently have no effective means of redress over poor conditions, as local authorities cannot enforce the housing health and safety rating system against themselves? The Bill will give them a tool to compel local authorities to carry out the repairs.

[Ms Buck]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is one of the purposes of the Bill. Social council tenants do not have the same right as private and housing association tenants, who can go to the local authority, which may or may not enforce. Council tenants cannot do that, and the Bill will extend to them the right to seek remedy.

As we know, the law in this area is generally outdated and restrictive. I started by saying that there is currently no obligation to ensure that the property is fit, as opposed to the obligation to deal with disrepair, and that there are therefore a range of fitness issues about which tenants can do nothing at all. That used not to be the case. The fitness obligation was set in law, but that has ceased to have effect as the law has developed over many decades.

The concept of housing fitness—of homes being fit for human habitation—stems all the way back to the Victorian era and the work leading up to the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885. Lord Salisbury, the then Conservative Leader of the Opposition, made the case that the shocking condition of housing was injurious to both health and morals and was promptly attacked, even by The Guardian, for propagating state socialism.

The royal commission established prior to the passage of the 1885 Act proposed that there should be a simple power by civil procedure for the recovery of damages against owners or holders of property by those who have suffered injury or loss by their neglect or default in sanitary matters. That is exactly what happened. The remedy was granted to tenants, subject to what was then a relatively generous rent limit, but as time passed and laws changed, overlapped and melded together, the rent limits ceased to be updated and the ability of tenants to seek a remedy when their homes were unfit lapsed.

Eventually, the impact of that led to a 1996 report by the Law Commission, “Landlord and Tenant: Responsibility for State and Condition of Property”. The commission criticised the fact that the right of civil remedy for tenants against their landlords in cases of unfitness had been allowed to “wither on the vine”, as the rent limits had remained unchanged for 40 years. It concluded that removing the rent limits would be the preferred way to give tenants a civil remedy. Two Court of Appeal judgments supported the same conclusion.

More broadly, “Closing the Gaps”, a joint report commissioned by Shelter from the Universities of Bristol and Kent last year, concluded:

“The law relating to health and safety in people’s homes is piecemeal, out-dated, complex, dependent upon tenure, and patchily enforced. It makes obscure distinctions, which have little relationship with everyday experiences of poor conditions.”

Apart from that, I am sure it is fine.