Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register.

This is an interesting little Bill. Among the first bits of advice I had from my illustrious predecessor, the great Willie Whitelaw, when I became an MP in his place, was, “Remember, David, in Parliament always distinguish between activity and achievement because there are those who run around being highly active but achieve nothing”.

I understand where the Government are coming from with this Bill. There are problems in the water industry—that is not the fault of privatisation, which has been successful, but of inadequate regulation by Ofwat. Those problems were addressed by the previous Government in the extensive Plan for Water, and the new Secretary of State, in his speech to the water industry on 5 September, seemed to repeat most of the items in that plan. He ruled out nationalisation and said that water companies need to attract private investment. He said he wanted to address catchment-level water solutions, and to that end intends to run a full review and seek a reset of the industry and a new partnership. He also wanted nine more reservoirs built, along with pipelines and peatlands, to help store water. These are very important issues. If that could be delivered then that would be a major reset and a real achievement. We all want to see that review conducted as speedily as possible, especially since the Plan for Water, published by the previous Government in 2023, set out most of what seems to be on the Secretary of State’s agenda.

Then we come to the Bill and what it will achieve. In launching the Bill and the proposal to double compensation for water cut-offs, the Secretary of State used phrases such as “crack down” and “toughen up” as he outlined measures to send executives to prison, automatic fines by the regulator, changing the burden of proof and a whole new range of unspecified powers for the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency. To me, it sounded very much like a remake of Tony Blair’s

“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”—


which did not work then, despite the rhetoric. That is a lot of activity, but where is the impact assessment by the Government to show what it will achieve? The Government hope that automatic fines and the changed burden of proof will free up the Environment Agency to pursue the larger and more complex cases. If that is the case then we should see the calculations leading to that belief.

Will the measures in this Bill improve water quality? Charles Watson, the chair of River Action, said that while it was a “relief” to see the new Government acknowledge problems in the water sector, only a “comprehensive and holistic review” of regulation would fix matters. James Wallace, the chief executive, said:

“Talking about CEO bonuses is not going to sort things out. What we really need to see is a regulator, the Environment Agency, with its teeth given back and its funding given back”.


The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, while welcoming the review, said it is of paramount importance

“that this review cuts right across the activities of all government departments. From Defra, through housing, transport, energy, health and more. It mustn’t be kept in a Defra-sized box, or it will fail to match Reed’s ambitious pitch”.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the review will cut across all those different government departments and agencies.

Those I have just quoted welcome the Bill as a little step forward, but the real achievement would be if the Government could deliver on the Secretary of State’s vision in the review. That is why I conclude that the Bill is good political talking tough, but it might achieve little; it is possibly activity over achievement. However, we shall examine it fairly and seek to improve it, while asking some key questions.

First, I want to look at new Section 35B of the Water Industry Act 1991, which introduces the concept of “specified standards”. The existing Section 35A already deals with remuneration. The company has to base it on meeting “standards of performance,” in the wording of Section 35A of the 1991 Act. The water services regulation authority, Ofwat, will be given the power to draft rules on what these specified standards are, including whether someone is a fit and proper person to be a senior officer,

“or in respect of other matters”.

That is quite a wide-ranging power. How will it interface with the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which provides extensive powers to disqualify a director? The Financial Conduct Authority also has rules on what is a fit and proper person.

In future, we could see water company executives who will have satisfied all the company law criteria to be a director, but their remuneration will be subject to new so-called “specified standards”. Those standards will include

“consumer matters, … the environment, … the financial resilience of undertakers, and … the criminal liability of undertakers”,

and

“any other matters that the Authority considers appropriate”.

Who on earth will ever want to be a director of any water company with those potentially onerous conditions? We have no idea yet what those conditions will be, and it is essential that we have some indication of that before we get to Report. The Secretary of State has to be consulted under new Section 35C. Since the Government have specifically made a big fuss about these new rules, the Government must have some idea of what they want in them and cannot say, “Oh it is not up to us; it is entirely up to the authority in due course to invent the rules”.

Punishing directors for carrying out the wishes of the shareholders is surely the wrong approach. When Macquarie had 48% of the shares in Thames Water, jacked up the debt by £2.8 billion and took out £1.1 billion in dividends, do we really think that the managing director and directors could have stopped that? The majority shareholder, I submit, was in the driving seat. Macquarie and other shareholders would have rapidly replaced those directors and executives if they tried to limit dividends and spend more of the profits on infra- structure. There is no question on these Benches of us seeking to let water companies off the hook. Where they have failed to deliver, they should suffer sanctions and penalties. However, penalising the management is targeting the wrong group; it is the shareholders who should lose out financially for company wrongdoing, however that may be defined. The description of a person in a “senior role” includes

“such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified”.

We need to know a little more about who those people might be. That is something we shall need to explore in Committee.

I turn to Clause 4, which amends Section 110 of the Environment Act 1995 with a new imprisonment provision, of which the Government have made a big thing. Sections 110(1) and (2) of the Act sets out the offences of knowingly obstructing “an authorised person” from carrying out lawful duties, of failing

“to comply with any requirement”,

of preventing

“any other person from appearing before an authorised person”

or of failing to “provide facilities” for an investigation. That person shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty is a summary fine or imprisonment to the maximum of the magistrates’ court levels. On indictment, it could be a fine and/or up to two years in prison.

That is the current law, so how does Clause 4 change it? It makes not a single change to the offences in Sections 110(1) and (2). It makes not a single change to the fines and imprisonment. I am very happy to be corrected by the Minister, and I hear what she said about there being a difference. I am happy to be educated on that in Committee, but it seems that the Government here are dancing on the head of a pin—making a big thing about a tiny little change. I think these offences were included in the past. This clause seems to replicate existing provisions to let the Government boast that they are taking tough action against water undertakers, to make a political point.

I instinctively dislike civil penalties imposed by government or arm’s-length bodies or other organisations, whether it is the Inland Revenue or a parking fine company. It avoids due process. I leave it to the noble and learned Lords in this place to give their opinions on the dangers of changing the burden of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to just “the balance of probabilities”. I have no problems if a company has genuinely committed the offences and deserves the penalties, but changing the balance of proof could mean that some were unjustly penalised. That could result in large fines and damage to the company’s reputation.

I have similar concerns with Clause 6, on automatic penalties for specified offences that will be created by the Secretary of State. At least those have to be laid before Parliament under the affirmative procedure, and we will have a chance to debate them. As the noble Baroness pointed out on the delegated powers, the Bill gives enormous powers to government agencies. I look forward to reading the Delegated Powers Committee’s report to see what it says about the powers in the Bill and whether it agrees with the Government that the scrutiny they propose is adequate. I also want to see more of the Government’s thinking on the regulations they propose. They cannot say that it will be up to Ofwat and the Environment Agency to invent the rules, and that it is nothing to do with them. They have clear ideas about what they want in the regulations, and we need a steer.

We will also want to explore the Government’s thinking on the involvement of consumers in board decision-making. The Bill is exceptionally vague on that. Clause 1(3) requires a water company to involve consumers in any decisions

“likely to have a material impact”

on consumers. I suggest that any decision made is likely to have an impact on consumers, so what is the Government’s definition of “material”? Clause 1(3) also says that consumer views may be represented by someone being on a “board, committee or panel”. These are radically different concepts, from executive decision-making to an advisory panel. Again, we would like to hear more of the Government’s thinking.

The Secretary of State made a major speech to the water industry on 5 September, and committed the Government to building nine new reservoirs, multiple large-scale water transfer schemes and 8,000 kilometres of water mains pipes, and to upgrading 2,500 storm overflows. As the noble Baroness said, Ofwat costed that at £88 billion. The Secretary of State, in his interview last Sunday, was adamant that every penny of that money would be raised in the private sector and invested within the next five years. As the Secretary of State is clear that these things need to be done—a lot of them were set out in the Plan for Water of 2023 —and it would be a real achievement to do them, why are they being kicked into a long-term review? That is what we should be discussing in this House as soon as possible—the balance between investment and increasing water bills.

The Secretary of State’s endorsement of privatisation and bringing in private investment was interesting. He said that his plans would

“unlock the biggest ever investment in our water sector, and the second biggest private sector investment into any part of the economy for the entirety of this Parliament”.

In other words, he was saying that privatisation worked, but proper regulation was inadequate.

Those are the big issues that will actually deliver a better water industry, not the presentational matters in the Bill. Nevertheless, we will explore it constructively, support it where it is right, and seek to amend it where necessary to ensure due process and clarity. We look forward to addressing all that in Committee.