Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

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spent in Paris to do almost exactly the same thing, and on what the German Government are having to do to deal with an outdated system on the Rhine-Ruhr.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

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

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I do not oppose the Bill at all, but may I just alert my right hon. Friend to something? Leaving aside the arguments about whether there should be a full tunnel or another solution, which I hope to address if I am called to speak, there are concerns about the Government giving money to a company such as Thames Water. It is not a very transparent organisation, being a private equity-funded company that has 10 layers of corporate structure, including in tax havens in some parts of the world. The Government should attach tough conditions to support for any water company if this is to be seen as transparent and good value for money.

[Mrs Spelman]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that there should be rigour in this exercise, and I have just talked about the safeguards we are seeking. I can also assure him that we have been advised by Ernst and Young that the projected cost of this project does represent value for money, but the rigour will continue to be maintained throughout the elaboration of the project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

That is an excellent point. That is why we were interested in the Government’s consultation, which talked about a national affordability scheme and offered the potential to absorb the costs of WaterSure. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on that in his closing speech, and I am sure that we can work together on that.

[Simon Hughes]

I do not mean to pre-empt what the hon. Lady might say on the other aspects of bills for water rate payers, but are she and her colleagues concerned—I put this point to the Secretary of State—that the value to water rate payers in London of the Thames tunnel, which is now priced a £4.1 billion, might not be what it was when the previous Government thought it was a good idea? There are big questions about whether it represents value for money for water rate payers and is the best solution in the light of the evidence.

[Mary Creagh]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

The Minister knows that some of us have been asking for that process to be followed, and we look forward to such a motion coming before the House. I therefore endorse the hon. Lady’s request, which I think will have widespread support from all parties.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure the Secretary of State, wherever she is, and my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

In our report on the Thames tunnel, we did not consider aspects of affordability, which are rightly covered in an earlier report to which I will turn shortly.

I am delighted that DEFRA accepts that the remaining site-specific sections have been improved and that the Government have, as recommended by the Committee, moved to change the definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to include sewerage transfer and storage projects such as the Thames tunnel in the process for deciding applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Committee welcomes that. I hope that we have discharged our duties comprehensively, given that this was one of our first opportunities to do so under the Planning Act.

[Simon Hughes]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Select Committee. May I make an unashamed, but well-linked plug? Next Tuesday, 6 March, at 7 o’clock in Committee Room 11, I will be hosting a meeting to discuss the state of the issues that relate to the Thames tunnel. I hope that she or one of her colleagues will be able to come and listen to what is said.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful. If it does not clash with our Committee meeting, all of us who are available will endeavour to be there.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) about there not being an impact assessment. The explanatory notes state that because the Bill is concerned solely with public expenditure, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Clearly, it is not just about public expenditure; a substantial amount of money is being requested by the water companies, through the Government, to give a £50 reduction. The Minister will be aware that some of those who live in and represent the south-west are concerned that increases in inflation will wipe out the £50 reduction.

Today, the Select Committee took evidence from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who is responsible for providing policy advice. He told us that an impact assessment is meant to look at the environmental impact of a project. I am not suggesting that the Bill is defective because it does not have an impact assessment, but I would like to record my personal disappointment that there is no impact assessment. It would have allowed the House to perform proper scrutiny on Second Reading and in subsequent parliamentary stages. It should have been incumbent on the Government to produce an impact assessment on the implications for the water companies of the reduction of water bills in the south-west of England and on the impact that the Bill will have on Thames Water.

The Select Committee produced an excellent first report of this Parliament, if I may describe it as such, entitled, “Future flood and water management legislation”. It is right at this moment to pay tribute to the work of the previous Government. There was all-party support for the Pitt report and its recommendations. There was also all-party support for, and obviously positive scrutiny of, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The fact that we are having to wait for the draft water Bill, which will cover all the other aspects, is a source of concern. We are approaching apace 30 June 2013, when the Association of British Insurers will look to replace its statement of principles on the provision of flood insurance. There will also be a host of other measures to consider.

Perhaps in responding, the Minister could explain what he is doing about insurance. I want to record my personal resistance to any state funding of insurance. There are hard cases, which many of us will have in our own constituencies, where houses remain at a substantial or high risk of flooding. I can think of examples such as Thirsk, Pickering, Malton in the past, and Sinnington at the moment. There are therefore insurance aspects that need to be considered. However, as soon as a Government introduce an element of state funding or state insurance, it leads others who are on a low or fixed income to argue that they have concerns about their ability to pay insurance. I know from the visits I made as shadow floods Minister to parts of the country such as Cumbria that there is real concern, particularly when properties are rented, about whether those on low incomes can afford even contents insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I certainly would not wish to denigrate or diminish in any way the importance of successful British companies. Where a company provides a good basis for investors, I celebrate that, along with others. I am simply commenting on the reality of the situation of water companies in relation to all other private companies, which ply their trade in a much more risky environment. That is simply a matter of fact, not of debate.

[Simon Hughes]

There is a link between the experience of colleagues and constituents in the south-west and that of people in the Thames area, because Kemble used to own South West Water and it now owns Thames Water. When it owned South West Water the bills were significantly high and there were a lot of complaints. People are fearful that some of the practices it used then, which included paying out dividends greater than its income—that seems to be not about saving the capital—might be being applied at the moment.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

On the question of the high water bills in the south-west, let me put on record the fact that in 2010-11, bills for South West Water customers were, on average, £486, which is certainly higher than the average bills in the rest of the country, which were £339. Unmetered customers had much higher bills, of course, at a rate of £721, whereas bills for metered customers in the south-west were £394 on average. As I and others have said, that was the focus of the Anna Walker inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who rightly concentrated on matters in the south-west.

May I say, as I have said in other policy areas, that as a London MP I fully support the Government’s proposal, derived from a Liberal Democrat election commitment, to assist people in the south-west? Over the years, I have campaigned with colleagues to improve water quality in the south-west and to clean up sewage on its beaches—I and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) helped with the Surfers Against Sewage campaign. I am also clear that there is a collective responsibility for Members across the UK to legislate to end disparities in water prices. As a London MP, therefore, I do not resent our legislating to assist colleagues in a beautiful part of the country where bills have been disproportionate compared with ability to pay and the justice of the case.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from a south-west perspective, this is truly a cross-party initiative? I cannot think of another example where every major political party has campaigned on the water issue.

[Simon Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

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

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

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

[Simon Hughes]

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

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Slaughter]

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

[Simon Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Blaiklock concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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