Water Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have total sympathy with that position. I am quite clear that as an aspiration universal competition is worth while. Our problem is that we want to take the first step and take the wholesale route, which will bring immediate benefits and real efficiencies to major businesses, but it is hard to move down to a household level, where the gains are much smaller because of the narrow margins, until we have universal metering. At the moment, metering is at about 40% and we need to move closer to universal metering before we can reach the position with which he and I have much sympathy.

Privatisation of the UK water industry has seen the sector attract £116 billion in low-cost investment, enabling our infrastructure to be upgraded and environmental standards to be improved. I saw that for myself when I visited Northumbrian Water’s waste treatment site in Howdon. Its investment in anaerobic digestion is enabling it to process 500,000 tonnes of sewage every day that was previously dumped untreated in the North sea.

Our rivers are now cleaner than they have been for decades. Rivers that were previously classified as sterile or biologically dead are now supporting otters and salmon. A substantial programme of investment has also led to more than 82% of our bathing waters meeting the highest EU standard this year. That is a great example of improving the environment and growing the economy.

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

The Secretary of State will know that there has obviously been general support for a clean Thames, but the proposals for the Thames tunnel are still controversial. Will he update the House on whether the Government have concluded their discussions and negotiations with Thames Water about the mechanism to ensure, if we are to have a tunnel after the planning inquiry, that people in the Thames area do not pay through the nose for the privilege?

[Mr Paterson]

I am fully aware that that is a matter of enormous interest to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. To put it bluntly, it is not acceptable that we continue to put 20 million tonnes of untreated sewage in the Thames every year. We have considered a range of alternatives—I know that he has been advising on this—and have concluded, as did the previous Government, that the tunnel is the best solution. We continue to negotiate in detail with Thames Water on the arrangements that will lead to the conclusion of the project.

We now need to build on our success. The Bill will shape the way the industry develops over the next decade and beyond. It will build on the strengths of the regime and use increased competition to drive greater innovation and efficiency, which will benefit customers and make sure that our water supplies and natural environment are resilient.

The Bill shows that we are tackling affordability for the long term.

Water Industry

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to the Chair. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity—I lobbied for it, so I am one of those responsible for securing the debate—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for introducing the debate. I apologise for being unable to hear his contribution—I was detained—but I have been present for much of the debate. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who has inherited the Water Bill. His predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), said that this issue has occupied him for the past three years. I thank him for always being courteous and engaging, not least on matters relating to Thames Water.

I received an encouraging piece of information a few weeks ago, as did other hon. Members who represent the Thames Water area. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said a moment ago, the provisional view of Ofwat is that it is minded to reject the latest application from Thames Water to increase prices. Given that we had previously been told by Thames Water that it expected to increase prices not just next year but every year by approximately £60 to £80 per household, to fund the Thames tunnel, that is a welcome relief. I understand that Ofwat has not made its final decision, but I hope it will confirm it this week. My constituents would be encouraged by that news.

It was also encouraging to hear the Environment Secretary this week tell water companies to be mindful that price increases should be imposed only where necessary, and remind them to introduce special tariffs for hard-pressed households. That takes me back to debates at the end of the previous Parliament when my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) tabled an amendment to the Flood and Water Management Bill to allow for social tariffs, which had never before existed in the water industry. There had been social tariffs in the energy industry, but not in the water industry. The Act became law on 8 April 2010—probably the last piece of legislation to sneak over the line before the general election. Since then, the Government have been positive about encouraging individuals to consider how they can get help with their water bills and ensuring that water companies introduce social tariffs. Since the Liberal Democrats have been in the Government, guidance on social tariffs was issued in June 2012 and water companies have been able to introduce their own social tariffs since 2013. I credit Thames Water with welcoming and responding to that opportunity.

Many families are often hard pressed by the cost of their water bills. For years, I and my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in Cornwall and the south-west campaigned for a reduction in south-west water bills, but the Government have now dealt with that and, in a welcome move, have legislated to reduce bills in the south-west.

For the benefit of those who follow our debates, I should add that there are two other schemes that provide help. The first is the WaterSure scheme, funded by water customers, which provides financial help to householders with three or more children under the age of 19, if on a water meter and in receipt of certain benefits—people should check which benefits and whether they qualify—and for those without children but in receipt of benefits and with a medical condition requiring excessive water use. That is important. Not everybody knows about it, but they should, particularly those struggling who might qualify. The other scheme, Water Direct, run by the Department for Work and Pensions, helps householders in receipt of certain benefits to manage debt with water companies. Under that scheme, the DWP acts as a broker to help make arrangements.

[Gavin Shuker]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

Before I give way, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did from the Opposition Front Bench and for his contribution a few minutes ago, which I heard and enjoyed.

[Gavin Shuker]

That is incredibly generous of the right hon. Gentleman. I am just checking I am not dead—people rarely speak nicely of each other in the House, so perhaps I am.

I wanted to be helpful, actually. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that neither of those quite good schemes is well known, partly because they operate regionally? In other words, there is no clearly identifiable social tariff scheme that the entire water industry can point to—although I appreciate that WaterSure is a national scheme—and there are patches of coverage, which is one reason why all water companies should have a social tariff.

[Simon Hughes]

I apologise if I phrased my remarks as if to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was the former Member for Luton South. He is clearly still the current Member, as I know, not least because when I last went to Luton on official business—to watch Millwall beat Luton Town—he was there to buy me a drink afterwards. I was very grateful—actually, I cannot remember whether I bought him a drink or he bought me one, but anyway it was a very nice pub, and I recommend it. Luton has good breweries, beer and pubs. But we, as the away team, were very well received by our hosts. [Interruption.] He wants me to stop rubbing it in. I apologise.

One of the dates in my diary this week, besides this debate, was that for making representations to the public inquiry into the Thames tideway tunnel. The latest date for written representations was yesterday, which was when I submitted mine. For my constituents and many others, not just in London but in the whole Thames Water region, it remains a live issue whether Thames Water’s current plans for the tunnel are the right ones, given the alternative ways of dealing with sewage in London, and the question whether the route is the right one. Obviously, the route will impact significantly on constituencies such as mine. For example, a big site on Chambers wharf is proposed for the drive shaft, but I and my constituents argue that it should be used for the reception shaft—if it is to be used at all—and that the drive shaft should be elsewhere.

We also have concerns about the financing. The hon. Member for South Swindon said that the debate was ongoing in government about what the right approach should be, if the Government are to respond to Thames Water’s approaches. My constituents think—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) probably shares this view—it is a bit rich for a non-public company to run down its assets and then ask the Government to underwrite it in borrowing significant amounts of money and expecting the taxpayer, the bill payer or both to pick up the bill, as is currently proposed.

I have regularly urged my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—before and after the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, took up his post—to be careful not to endorse a solution that appears to condone allowing water companies in England to run down their assets and then try to get Government support to bail them out. That would not send the right message. The water companies must understand that, if they make choices resulting in their profits going not to the consumer but to their shareholders in the form of dividends, they really cannot expect the Government to come to the rescue, even if that means that one company eventually has to be replaced by another. I am sure that there is no shortage of companies willing to enter the water market in England.

[Frank Dobson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be ludicrous to expect the British taxpayer to bail out a company that was partly owned by Chinese taxpayers? If Chinese taxpayers want to invest in Thames Water, they should bear the brunt of any charges that the company might incur. The scheme is going to cost £4 billion, but Thames Water’s shareholders have already benefited from £6 billion of dividends. None of that money came to the people of London.

[Simon Hughes]

I take a similarly hard line on this issue. If Thames Water does not have the money in its own coffers to do what it wants, it should not be doing the job, and it certainly should not be asking the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for help to do it.

I also want to flag up some proposals that I hope the Government will take on board. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to provide an immediate response of yes, yes, yes, but I know that he is alert to the questions I am going to ask about what Ofwat and the Government can do. I pray in aid a useful pamphlet, which I am happy to promote, that was recently published by CentreForum, a Liberal think-tank. It was written by George Turner, who used to run my office here. He became interested in the water industry during his time here because of the Thames Water issues. His pamphlet has the additional commendation of having had its foreword written by Sir Ian Byatt, the well-regarded first regulator at Ofwat.

I shall quote briefly from the pamphlet, then set out my recommendations for what I hope the Chancellor will say in his autumn statement on 4 December. The pamphlet refers only to England; Wales and Scotland have entirely different arrangements. It states:

“Water is one of the essential industries. We literally cannot live without it…There are allegations of widespread tax avoidance. The level of corporate borrowing is becoming unsustainable. The ownership structure means that there is very little public accountability. Most of our largest companies are owned by private equity funds and there are no public meetings where management can be held to account. The ownership structures are murky to say the least with strings of companies dotted around the world’s island secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens. This makes it difficult for the public to know what is going on with its water suppliers.”

The problem has come to a head in relation to Thames Water, which has got itself into this position over the proposed tunnel. I suggest that some of the ideas in the pamphlet should be picked up by the Government, Parliament, Ofwat and the Select Committee. First, we could introduce a water levy on highly geared water companies, which would take away the incentive to introduce risk by increasing gearing and removing financial flexibility. This was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).

Secondly, we could ask the Government to look at—I ask them to do so now—the tax treatment of debt in highly geared companies and to consider economies and systems such as the German ones, where there are earnings-stripping rules that prevent companies from taking out excessive loans with the intention of avoiding tax.

Thirdly, we could legislate—I hope the Minister will be sympathetic when the Water Bill goes through its stages—to make sure that water companies make the interests of the consumer much more central in their organisations, either through a consumer representative on the board or by placing a duty on the non-executive directors to report on how best to serve the consumer interest, or both.

Fourthly and importantly, we should amend the Bill to introduce mandatory annual customer meetings, where customers can hold management to account in companies that do not currently have annual general meetings in the UK. I would also hope to change the law through the Bill, so that, when restructuring companies which have gone into special administration, the regulator must always first consider non-profit companies, rather than putting them straight back into the private sector, as we saw in a recent example in the railway industry. I hope that the Government will also look at how different models of corporate ownership have impacted on the water industry, as they have not all been satisfactory.

I hope that Ofwat will also do four things—and soon. First, I hope it will report on all the companies in England, not just Thames Water, to establish whether more modest dividend and financial policies would have allowed them to have enough money to spend and to reduce bills. Secondly, it should look at how price cuts could be implemented at the next price review. Thirdly, it should change the licence conditions of companies to impose London stock exchange disclosure requirements on non-stock market-listed companies. Lastly, picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Ofwat should change the licence conditions to require public disclosure of all intermediate holding companies, ultimate controlling companies and all the beneficiaries of those companies, so that we know exactly where the benefits that go in dividends to shareholders end up in those many companies behind many of this country’s water companies.

We may have the best drinking water quality in the world, and we are soon to debate changes in the structure of the industry. I hope the Government will be responsive to amendments designed to enhance the interests of the consumer. I hope the water companies will understand that it is now time for them to stop stacking up money for profits to be paid out in dividends, and to put the interests of the consumer and the consumer’s bills first.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The House well knows that I very much look forward to the day when the Church of England can welcome women as bishops.

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

2. What discussions the Church of England is having with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the protection of religious minorities in Syria and Egypt.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit to the middle east in the summer, he met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in July to discuss the vulnerable situation of religious minorities in Syria and Egypt. The Church of England has made representations to Foreign Office Ministers to suggest appointing an ambassador at large for religious freedom.

[Simon Hughes]

That is a welcome bit of news, both about the meeting and the initiative. May I reinforce the point that in Syria and Egypt and across the middle east and north Africa the decline in Christian communities is alarming and they are feeling horribly oppressed, as they are in many other Muslim countries of the world? Will my hon. Friend ask the commissioners and the Church in this country to make that a priority in the years ahead? They need our help, and they need to know that the rest of the Anglican communion is on their side.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is difficult to underestimate what is happening. The International Society for Human Rights, a secular organisation based in Germany, estimates that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. The bishop of the Coptic Church in Egypt, based in London, has said that there is almost ethnic cleansing to eliminate Christianity and Christians in Egypt, so this is an issue to which we must all—the Church of England, the Foreign Office and civil society as a whole—give the highest priority. Whether it is people being murdered in Peshawar or churches being burnt in Baghdad, this is a terrible issue which must be addressed collectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

5. What support the Church Commissioners plan to give to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s initiative to promote credit unions; and if he will make a statement.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Archbishop Justin wants to see a more flourishing community finance sector, and he has asked those responsible at Church House to explore how the Church of England can support the credit union movement. The Church Commissioners have agreed to provide support for that initiative.

[Simon Hughes]

Following the welcome summit called by the Government on payday loan companies, and given the view of many in this House that there should be a cap on the interest that such companies can charge, will my hon. Friend suggest that an all-party group goes to see Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to encourage support for the Church’s credit union initiative and to persuade the Government that we need to cap the interest on payday loans?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Anglican Mutual credit union is raising capital from a number of sources to increase its capacity. I have been checking, and I think that practically every book in the Old and New Testaments exhorts against usury. In the other place, the Archbishop of Canterbury wisely stated:

“The Financial Services Act provides for a study of the consequences of a cap to be looked at and then for the cap to be brought in at an appropriate level. Caps are needed at a sensible level that does not choke off supply and send people into the hands of loan sharks…Caps are there to prevent usurious lending…We need to…cut out legal usury from our high streets.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 485.]

I entirely agree that we need to work out how we can prevent legal usury from continuing in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

6. What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Archbishop of Canterbury on his priorities during the early stages of his ministry.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

I am sure the House will wish Archbishop Justin well as he starts out on his public ministry to the nation. Early indications as to his priorities can be seen in a number of ways such as the appointment of new staff at Lambeth, the first ever woman chaplain to an Archbishop of Canterbury and a director of reconciliation. Other priorities clearly include his concerns for public spiritual renewal, peace building and reconciliation, as well as tackling economic deprivation and support for marginalised communities.

[Simon Hughes]

I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the new archbishop very well indeed. Have any discussions led us to understand that under his new tenure of office the Church will continue to speak out for the poor, the marginalised, the deprived and minorities, which the gospel made the clear and principal mission of the Church?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am sure that Archbishop Justin will remember the words of Archbishop Temple who observed that the Church of England is an organisation that exists for people other than for itself. Given the work done by Archbishop Justin when he was Bishop of Durham on credit unions and food banks, and his concern about issues such as payday loans, I have no doubt that he will be at the forefront of pursuing concerns about economic deprivation and supporting marginalised communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he discuss his concerns with the Bishop of Bradford, who I am sure will be able to reassure him that the Christian and Church of England mission in his constituency will in no way be diminished by these proposals? One of the greatest threats to the Church’s mission in his constituency is the continuing theft of lead from churches. No fewer than six churches in his constituency have had lead stolen from their roofs—St Peter’s church in Shipley has had lead stolen on four separate occasions, notwithstanding protections such as SmartWater. So may I take this opportunity to entreat my hon. Friend, as I know the Bishop of Bradford and the Archbishop of York will, not to frustrate the Third Reading of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill when it comes before the House soon?

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

2. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the likelihood of the Church of England making a decision on women bishops in 2012.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with Church of England bishops on the Women Bishops Measure.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The General Synod will resume on 20 November the final approval debate on the legislation to enable women to become bishops. I will be voting for the Measure, and I hope and pray that at least two thirds of the members of every house of the General Synod will vote to ensure that, at last, we can have women bishops in the Church of England.

[Simon Hughes]

May I associate myself and my colleagues with the thanks and the tributes to Sir Stuart Bell for his service in this area?

The message I hope this House will send via my hon. Friend to the Synod is that not only do we want the Synod to make a final decision this month that clearly says women can be bishops in the Church of England, as a legacy of the outgoing archbishop and as a tribute to his work, but we need the Church of England to catch up into the 21st century if it is to do a good job for everybody. I hope that there is no more shilly-shallying, that the Synod gets on with it and that we get a clear decision so that we can move to having women bishops.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. May I commend to his attention, and to that of other right hon. and hon. Members, an article written by the Archbishop of Canterbury in last week’s Church Times, which is available in the Library? He stated that

“a Church that ordains women as priests, but not as bishops, is stuck with a real anomaly, one that introduces an unclarity into what we are saying about baptism and about the absorption of the Church in the priestly self-giving of Jesus Christ.”

We have been waiting far too long to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England—now is the time to take action and resolve this issue, once and for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

6. What advice the Church Commissioners have given on the implications of a decision to agree to the appointment of women bishops.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

9. What representations the Church Commissioners have received on recent amendments to the Women Bishops Measure made by the House of Bishops.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

I made my own position very clear in a speech to the General Synod shortly after my appointment. I had hoped that the Synod would give final approval to the legislation for women bishops next Monday, but as a result of an amendment made by the House of Bishops in May, it is possible that the Synod will ask the House of Bishops to think again, in which case we may be in for a short period of ping-pong between the Synod and the House of Bishops.

[Simon Hughes]

Those of us such as the hon. Gentleman who have argued for a long time for women to have equality in the Church and to be able to become bishops are getting a bit frustrated. I respectfully say that the objective he should communicate to his colleagues on the Synod is that during this year—either at the forthcoming Synod or the autumn Synod—a final decision should be taken. If there has to be a bit of compromise, so be it—but not on the principle. The differences of view need to be respected, but we need a clear decision on women bishops to be taken this year while this archbishop remains in office.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree entirely with everything my right hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

2. What representations the Church Commissioners have made to Her Majesty’s Treasury on the proposed extension of VAT to approved alterations to listed buildings.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

The Bishop of London and I met my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. It was a helpful and constructive meeting. We made it clear why we believed it to be in the best interests of the community to continue to exempt alterations to listed places of worship from VAT. We gave the Chancellor a full written submission, a copy of which I have arranged to be placed in the Library. The Chancellor undertook to consider our submission carefully and made clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that listed places of worship are not adversely affected by the Budget proposal. I anticipate a further meeting with the Chancellor and the Exchequer Secretary in due course.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his actions, intervention and report. I have the privilege to be the Member of Parliament for two historic cathedrals—Southwark and St George’s—as well as many churches. Other colleagues share my concerns. Will he ensure that he continues to update us on this matter? I will continue willingly to apply pressure on this point, because it is important that the Government understand that simply extending the scheme’s remit to give money, when the budget has been cut, does not solve the problem, unless the rules are changed.

[Tony Baldry]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One reason we are keen that the Chancellor maintains the VAT exemption for church alterations is the certainty it brings. However much money is put into the listed places of worship scheme, it has its own inherent volatility and uncertainty, and no one is sure until after the event how much the refund will be. In the last quarter, for example, only just over half of the money for the listed places of worship scheme was refunded.

National Policy Statement (Waste Water)

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I think I got the gist of it. I will come on to cover the key points that were made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and to explain what the waste water national policy statement is. I think that I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I am happy to let him intervene again.

In laying the waste water national policy statement before the House for approval and in having this debate, we are meeting a Government commitment to mirror the new requirements of the Planning Act 2008 that will be brought into effect next month under the Localism Act 2011. Those procedures are intended to make national policy statements more democratically accountable to Parliament.

The Government are committed to making the planning system more open, transparent and fast, and to ensuring that all those who want to get involved in the process can do so, whether it relates to an application to extend a property or to a project of national significance, such as the Thames tunnel. The abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission brings democratic accountability back into the determination of nationally significant infrastructure projects by giving decision-making powers back to Ministers, who are answerable to Parliament. Ministers will also have regard to recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate.

National policy statements are a key component of a more open and accountable planning system. They will set out Government policy clearly on particular types of infrastructure of national significance, having been subject in draft form to both formal consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. National policy statements provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding development consent applications. This national policy statement is therefore primarily for planning purposes and does not claim to be a complete statement of Government policy on waste water.

Effective waste water infrastructure is vital, because without suitable treatment, the waste water we produce every day would damage the water environment and create problems for public health, water resources and wildlife. The proper collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, and the correct disposal of the resulting sludge, helps to protect, maintain and improve water quality in the UK.

The criterion that we have used in the national policy statement for the demonstration of the need for nationally significant infrastructure projects is that the projects have been included in the Environment Agency’s national environment programme. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that that issue needed to be clarified and I believe that our approach now addresses its concerns.

In addition to establishing the need for waste water infrastructure, our national policy statement sets out impacts that will be relevant for any waste water infrastructure, including details on mitigating adverse impacts. Those are issues that the Planning Inspectorate and Ministers will have to have regard to when examining and determining applications.

The national policy statement does not describe how any waste water projects of national significance should be developed. I think that this addresses in part the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). How such projects are developed is up to the project promoter before they place an application for development consent, which from April this year will go to the Planning Inspectorate.

The waste water national policy statement details two proposed projects of national significance: the sewage treatment works scheme at Deephams in north-east London and the Thames tunnel. The justification for both developments and the consideration of alternatives to the Thames tunnel are fully explained in the document.

Currently, only the proposed upgrade of the Deephams sewage treatment works can be considered a potential nationally significant infrastructure project, as it meets the criteria in the Planning Act 2008 for waste water treatment facilities serving a population equivalent of 500,000 people. We will shortly lay a draft order before Parliament for its approval, to amend section 14 of that Act to enable a waste water transfer and storage project such as the Thames tunnel to be classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

London’s sewerage is under considerable pressure, due to a system that is close to capacity, changing land use in London and population expansion. That leads to frequent spills of untreated waste water containing sewage into the tidal reaches of the Thames, which has a negative impact on its water quality. Resolving that problem has been the subject of extensive and comprehensive studies, including the consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions, for more than a decade. As a result, the Government are satisfied that the development of the Thames tunnel, when compared with the alternatives, is the most cost-effective and timely solution to the problem of untreated sewage discharging into the River Thames. That is demonstrated in the waste water national policy statement.

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

One of the arguments that the Minister has just made is that the proposed tunnel is the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problems in the Thames. Can he point me to any cost-benefit analysis that has happened in the last couple of years, since the initial study was made in 2006 and since the cost of the project has risen from £1.7 billion or thereabouts to £4.1 billion?

[Richard Benyon]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am concerned about the cost of the project. That is why my Department has instructed Ernst and Young to advise it in detail on the cost-benefit analyses that have been carried out to date, recognising, of course, that not far off a quarter of the estimated price is a contingency. It is important that throughout the process we are open about the figures that are arrived at. These matters concern not just his constituents and those of other London Members but 144 Members whose constituents pay Thames Water bills, of whom I am one.

I can assure my right hon. Friend that, as I said in last week’s debate, Ministers remain healthily sceptical about the cost of the project. We want to ensure that it provides value for money, and I am happy to tell him that cost-benefit analysis will be an ongoing process. I assure him that the alternatives that we have examined, which may be more attractive on the face of it, such as retrofitting sustainable urban drainage systems across London or separating clean water from dirty, cannot compare favourably with the cost of the tunnel. Indeed, one of the options that I have seen would come in at somewhere between three and four times the cost of the Thames tunnel scheme. I take the matter very seriously and will be happy to keep him informed of our progress.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, but I am conscious that it must finish at 10 pm and that the Minister will want a few minutes to respond to the points made, so I will ensure that he has that opportunity.

I endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) just said. I have taken an interest in this issue throughout my time as a Member of Parliament. The story began many years ago when a European Commission directive on urban waste water treatment focused attention on the fact that the Thames was non-compliant. It set a deadline for compliance: 31 December 2000. That deadline was clearly not met. The directive required that sewage—domestic, industrial and rain water run-off—should be collected and conveyed to plants for secondary treatment, and that overflows should be reduced and measures taken to limit the pollution of the tidal Thames and of the River Lee from sewage outflows.

The other directive to which colleagues have referred is the water framework directive. Compliance with the urban waste water directive is a precondition of compliance with the water framework directive, so there is external pressure on the UK. Just as with air pollution, unless we meet the directives’ requirements, we will be liable for fines resulting from action taken in the European courts. I have never doubted that—to use the shorthand cliché that my hon. Friend just used—something needed to be done, and I have always taken the view that the presumption should be that the tunnel is the best way forward. In the evidence I submitted to Thames Water’s first consultation, I said exactly that, in my answer to the second question:

“Like the government, I work from the presumption that the tunnel project is the best way forward, but I am aware that there are still arguments that it would be better to seek Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and I would request Thames Water to carry out a final assessment of the alternatives to a tunnel before proceeding with the tunnel option. Constituents of mine are also concerned that alternatives should be considered one last time in case they provide an environmentally preferable option.”

By that stage, the draft national policy statement had been produced, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for her work and that of her Committee, on which she has reported this evening. I remind the House of what the Committee, in paragraphs 63 to 66 in particular but starting in paragraph 62, wrote. In paragraph 63, the hon. Lady and her Committee make it clear that

“other witnesses considered the needs case as set out in the draft NPS to be overstated”.

Those other witnesses included the Greater London authority which, the report reminds us,

“rejected the Government’s assertion that failure to adopt the NPS would result in failure by the UK Government to meet obligations in the UWWTD”.

The report states:

“The GLA argued that not having an NPS did not mean that ‘poor decisions will be made, it just means that decisions will not have a single source of policy advice to follow’.”

Paragraph 64 begins:

“Witnesses also had reservations as to the adequacy of the draft NPS’s sections on alternatives to constructing new infrastructure”,

and London Councils’ evidence is then cited. Paragraph 65 is clear:

“The brief sections in the NPS on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel are not sufficient to prove the need for these large-scale projects, in particular the multi-billion pound Thames Tunnel project which will have impacts over a period of years on the lives and livelihoods of people living and working locally. Nor do the sections on the alternative approaches sufficiently address all of the potential options for achieving desired outcomes such as improved water quality.”

In effect, in March last year, the Select Committee said, “Slow down, be careful, remember that the evidence isn’t all in one direction.”

In paragraph 66, the Committee recommended that

“Defra include in any justification of new waste water infrastructure projects full explanation as to how they will help to meet national and European environmental requirements. The Department should also provide more detail on the potential alternative methods of achieving environmental outcomes, such as improved water quality, which new infrastructure is designed to achieve.”

The Government read that, took heed of that, and revised the structure of their policy statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, the two specific projects—Deephams and the Thames tunnel—were taken into the annexe, while leaving a rewritten section, notably in chapter 2. However, they did not change the presumption that in looking at the policy we are limited in our ability to raise questions about whether the Thames tunnel as it is currently proposed is the right option for London.

I want not only to make the obvious points that my constituents have made to me, and that my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour has made on behalf of his constituents and others, but to suggest a way forward that tries to square the circle and help us to get off a hook that we might otherwise find ourselves on. As I have said recently in debates on this issue in other contexts, since the first round of consultations, the arguments for a review have grown, first, because the cost has grown. The Minister has been very straightforward with the House, as he should be, in saying that he is sceptical about the cost. I am glad about that. An increase from between £1 billion and £2 billion to over £4 billion is considerable, given that the bills of water rate payers will be added to in order to pay for it.

Secondly, various other commentators, including Professor Binnie, have questioned the cost-benefit analysis mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Whatever one thinks about its progeny, the Thames tunnel commission, on behalf of the boroughs of mixed political hue that commissioned it, made some strong points about looking at the alternative. My concern now is how we manage to reconcile those concerns with the Minister’s desire to make sure that space is given for the project to move forward. I am conscious that there is still a bit more procedural work to do in this place. Following the Localism Act 2011, we have to transfer the responsibility for major sewerage projects so that they are national infrastructure projects—I do not disagree that that should be the case—and then there is the planning process.

I would like to suggest a possible way forward. It could be argued that the reviews by Ofwat, the Selborne commission, Thames Water and others are inevitably coloured by the views of those who commissioned them—clearly, the Selborne commission must have behind it the interests of the six boroughs. I do not ask the Minister to give a definitive answer on this tonight but merely to reflect on what he has heard from around the Chamber. Before Thames Water draws up its final plans or submits any planning application, there is time in the coming months for a review panel of people who do not have a vested interest to do some urgent work and then report to those with a direct interest—Government, Parliament, the Greater London authority with its new Mayor and Assembly, and London Councils. The second consultation has just ended; I, like others, have given my evidence. We have not heard Thames Water’s response to that. There is an opportunity for a range of people to contribute before the last round of consultation by Thames Water is concluded.

There are other people who can look in from outside. The United Nations has an environmental programme office that looks at big projects around the world. The European Commission has an Environment Directorate-General. The Environment Agency clearly has a continuing interest. Of course, the Greater London authority has an interest. The Local Government Association is neutral politically, as is London Councils. The Consumer Council for Water and political parties might want to have an input. The National Audit Office might wish to have an input, because there is a major financial question about value for money—that is probably the biggest question behind all the concerns.

I will not seek to divide the House tonight. There is clearly consensus between Opposition and Government Front Benchers that the national policy statement should be approved. That follows the position of Labour Ministers who held the portfolio and it is the position of my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues. However, we should not go automatically from approving the statement to pressing a green button that sends us through a set of procedures whereby we cannot consider any of the factors again.

To conclude, I will put on the record the questions that I think need to be answered. I will literally list them. First, there are serious questions about what the environmental objectives are that the tunnel will achieve. Clearing up the river is fine as a general statement, but we need a bit more scientific analysis. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked why the argument appears to be about the huge amount of discharge—39 million tonnes—when that is not the correct figure any more, for reasons that we know about, and when most of the discharge is water, not sewage. That question needs to be addressed. Furthermore, of the rubbish that goes into the Thames, 90% is general litter and only 10% is sewage. Thirdly, there is a question whether the most sustainable way of dealing with drainage and sewerage in London is the largest of the tunnel options, which is a concrete tunnel. That would see us literally flushing perfectly good rain water down the drain. Lastly, I share my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour’s view that when the cost of the tunnel has nearly tripled from £1.7 billion to £4.1 billion, it is bizarre that the cost-benefit analysis seems to suggest that there will still be the same relative benefit.

I hope that the Minister hears our concerns. He has offered always to engage with those of us with a direct interest and whose constituents are greatly concerned. I hope that he will collaborate with those of us who want to ensure that, over the next few months, the questions are answered objectively and are given to Thames Water, the Government and the regulator before any final decisions for planning or public policy purposes are implemented. I accept that we have to cross this threshold tonight, and I will not prevent that. However, we need to know where we are going. Over the next six months, there is a huge amount of work to be done. I think that colleagues from all parts of the House and people outside the House would value that collaboration, and I hope that we can all agree that it should happen.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 4, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) Financial assistance may only be given under subsection (1) if the financing of the infrastructure is being secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) Financial assistance must not be given to any company which has a debt to equity ratio of more than 65%.’.

Amendment 10, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State may only grant financial assistance after a business plan for the proposed infrastructure has been approved by Ofwat and the National Audit Office.

(5B) The business plan must demonstrate that the company carrying out the infrastructure has adequate capital resources to complete the infrastructure project.’.

[Simon Hughes]

This issue is of significant interest to those of us who live in the Thames Water area. Some 20% of the population of the United Kingdom do, so it is not an irrelevant issue to people across the country who pay water rates. Specifically, I am talking about colleagues who have constituencies in Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Kent, Hampshire and Greater London, and the issue raises broader questions about how the Government and Ofwat, the regulator, deal with water companies, their financing and, specifically, the financing of major projects.

I shall make some preliminary comments that relate to all three amendments. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for engaging with the issue; I am grateful for the engagement on Second Reading; and I am grateful for the correspondence that I have had with the Secretary of State since Second Reading. I shall refer to that and read some of it into the record.

First, in parts of London and, certainly, in my constituency, one of the most significant current debates is about whether there will be a Thames tunnel, and Thames Water’s proposal is that to address the current system’s inefficiency and inability to deal with London’s sewage, understandably because the system was created in the Victorian era, new infrastructure—a main sewer, in effect—needs to be built to cope with current and future needs.

There is an ongoing debate, which I do not propose to get into today, about whether the current plan for the proposed tunnel is the right answer. In summary, sewage capacity is already being built to the east of London, in the Lee valley; and there is a proposal—the projected costs of which have risen to £4.1 billion—for a long tunnel, travelling from west London not far from here, along my constituency and ending up at the sewage treatment works in east London.

Some people say that the only solution is the currently proposed tunnel; others say that it would be better to have a shorter tunnel and some other forms of sewage alleviation. That debate is ongoing, but in the end decisions will have to be made. There is a whole planning process for deciding whether the tunnel will be built.

Secondly, there is a debate—in constituencies such as mine and in boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, and Wandsworth—about where, if there is to be a tunnel, the main sites of activity should be. In the middle of Bermondsey, a very large site is proposed for drilling down to create the shaft from which the tunnel boring will happen, both west and east, at a place called Chambers wharf. In the first round of consultation, the proposed site was King’s Stairs gardens, by the Rotherhithe tunnel. That is a greenfield site, and the proposal was not at all popular. We have managed to persuade Thames Water that that is not a good idea, but there is a tale of unexpected, or unwished-for consequences, because having won a battle to save one site we then found that the company came up with another site next door, taking the pressure off one community but immediately transferring it not far away. That is a separate debate, and I do not propose today to get into the detail of where the sites should be. I see my constituency neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in the Chamber, and many of us have a constituency interest—big and small—in where the sites should be.

The third issue—the issue of the Bill—is whether the Government should, if necessary, provide financial support to Thames Water for such a project, and if so, the terms and conditions under which it should be granted. Clause 2, which all my amendments would change, is entitled “Financial assistance for major works”. I shall not read it all into the record, as people can turn to it, but it proposes the insertion into the Water Industry Act 1991 of a new provision, section 154B, of which I shall read the first proposed subsection:

“If the Secretary of State considers it desirable to do so, the Secretary of State may give financial assistance in connection with—(a) the construction of water or sewerage infrastructure, or (b) the carrying out of works in respect of existing water or sewerage infrastructure.”

In further proposed subsections, there are various conditions, one of which is:

“Financial assistance may be given in any form and in particular may be given by way of—…grant…loan…guarantee…indemnity…the provision of insurance, or…the acquisition of shares in or securities of a body corporate.”

My first amendment, amendment 4, proposes:

“Financial assistance may only given under subsection (1) if the financing of the infrastructure is being secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.”

I shall come back to that.

Secondly, I want to test the Government’s reaction to amendment 5 and my proposal:

“Financial assistance must not be given to any company which has a debt to equity ratio of more than 65%.”

That precise figure is relevant, but there is a much bigger issue about what the financial past and present of a company should be if it is to receive Government support.

My third amendment, amendment 10, states:

“The Secretary of State may only grant financial assistance after a business plan for the proposal infrastructure has been approved by Ofwat”—

the regulator—

“and the National Audit Office…The business plan must demonstrate that the company carrying out the infrastructure has adequate capital resources to complete the…project.”

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman’s debate is not entirely abstract, but on amendment 5 how would the Government be able to judge financial assistance on the basis of that debt to equity ratio? Presumably, assistance will come in different tranches, so any group company’s activity might at various times fall on either side of any category that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and any assistance might be for a specific project in different tranches. Does he not feel that his amendment would over-complicate what he is trying to achieve? Will he detail precisely how he thinks it would operate?

[Simon Hughes]

Some of this is quite technical, but these are important issues. The reason I chose that figure, which is not a matter of precise science but a starting point for debate, is a Financial Times article in 2006 suggesting that Ofwat’s expectation was that gearing levels for Thames Water should remain below 65% for any project. There was then a debate, in public, between Thames Water and its owners—they have a history in this matter—and the regulator as to what the percentages of borrowing against capital, borrowing against income, and borrowing against profits should be. The company should have sufficient capital to fund the project and should not be giving away its capital by way of dividends so that it has to look elsewhere for funding that it could have had if it had not been paying out capital that it had acquired previously from its investments.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Thames Water is looking to secure a large-scale investment from a Chinese sovereign wealth fund. Is he concerned that such an investment—this is a specific case, but it could apply generally to anyone who was getting such financial assistance—would help to distort, and could, at particular levels of investment, deliberately distort the debt to equity ratio in such a way as to negate any benefit created by the provision that he hopes to put into the Bill?

[Simon Hughes]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Thames Water has a very complicated corporate structure: the graphic picture shows that there are about 10 layers of corporate entities. At the top are investors Macquarie—an Australian company—and the new Chinese investor that was recently announced when the Chancellor was in China, and there have been other acquisitions.

We must not prevent Thames Water and its holding company, and its holding companies, from obtaining money from external investors; indeed, we need to encourage that. However, we, the Government and Ofwat must ensure that we do not condone, particularly in relation to Kemble Water, which is the relevant driving company, and Macquarie, a practice that is unacceptable in two respects. First, it allows the company to pay out in dividends to its shareholders very large profits while not retaining the money that it needs for its capital investment, thereby forcing it to come to Government and, in turn, to the taxpayer, to underwrite something for which it should not have had to come to the taxpayer. Secondly, these processes should not result in our corporate sector avoiding the taxes that we would expect it to pay. One of the issues for next week’s Budget is the need to ensure that people, personally and corporately, who can afford to pay their due taxes do pay those taxes. There has recently been a pretty unpleasant history regarding Kemble, Macquarie and Thames Water whereby people have paid far less tax than the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and I would believe to be acceptable. They have been using various onshore and offshore mechanisms to avoid tax liabilities involving money that should have come back into the Treasury to the general benefit of the taxpayer.

Ofwat has said that on the previous two occasions when it carried out price reviews, it assumed, for the purpose of setting price limits, a gearing within the range of 55% to 65%. It worked from that starting point, although it was simply an assumption for the purpose of price setting, not a requirement. My suggested figure is therefore also a starting point to see whether we should write in a figure that requires a balance between payment out of dividends and the retention of capital and earnings to ensure that there is no abuse of the relationship with the taxpayer, to the detriment of the consumer.

At the end of the day, this is about the level of water bills for people in the Thames Water area. The current projection is that as a result of the Thames tunnel project, bills will rise by about £80 a year indefinitely. I do not want Thames Water to charge every ratepayer roughly £80 a year extra and, at the same time, not pay much money into the Treasury by way of tax and indefinitely siphon off huge amounts of profits to national or extra-national investors while we are paying for something that we ultimately do not own. There are parallels in the history of the private finance initiative regarding public sector investment in projects where the money then goes off into the private sector. The M6 toll road, in which Macquarie had an interest, has not been a happy tale of investment benefiting taxpayer and users, with some people apparently creaming off the profit to the disadvantage of those taxpayers and users.

[Dan Rogerson]

My right hon. Friend has set out a number of measures relating to safeguarding public investment. Is it fair to say that he is seeking to bring a far greater level of transparency where matters are a little opaque, particularly because we might see an emerging relationship between private companies and levels of public subsidy, and that makes the need for transparency paramount?

[Simon Hughes]

That is exactly the position. I want us to address this now and not to discover, when the system gives planning permission for this big project, that we have a corporate financial structure that is not going to work for the interests of the water rate payer or the taxpayer. I have a double interest on behalf of the water rate payers of the Thames Water area—144 colleagues represent people in that position—and on behalf of the taxpayer. I want to ensure that we are not shelling out money when we should not be doing so and the private sector should be picking up the tab. Transparency is hugely important, and it is not helped by a corporate structure that has 10 layers of involvement where it is not clear who owns what, and where one of the layers at the bottom appears to be based in the Cayman Islands. That is not a place where I thought that we were encouraging schemes that we, as taxpayers, were supporting financially.

[Mark Field]

There is plenty of water around the Cayman Islands, but that may not be entirely what Thames Water had in mind. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making clear his concerns. I hope that he and I will both speak on Monday in the debate on the Government’s waste water national policy statement, specifically on the issues relating to the Thames tunnel, which concern many of us as Members of Parliament. It is rather distressing that a very small minority of us seem to be concerned about this, yet no fewer than 144 Members, many of whose constituencies are well outside London, but none the less within the Thames Water area, will be directly affected by the huge and ongoing increases in bills to which he refers.

[Simon Hughes]

I am not pretending that we are hugely disadvantaged in the Thames Water area at the moment. My colleagues in the south-west and their constituents have had hugely greater bills over very many years. I am not arguing that we should not have to pay more money as Thames Water ratepayers, but that if we are going to do so, we should be paying it for a project, if it is agreed, where we know that the taxpayer is not being fleeced and water rate payers are not paying more than they should be. This must not be seen as a method for allowing private sector companies—all the water companies are now, in effect, private sector companies—to export profits indefinitely, at a higher level than they ought to, when they should be putting that money into the project and making sure that bills are lower.

[Andrew George]

Bearing in mind that the probity or otherwise of Thames Water is outwith the purpose of the Bill, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that, as I understand it, Thames Water might not undertake this project and that the question then arises of what happens to the asset, which is the tunnel? Surely that is the key issue, and then there is the separate issue of the probity, management and proper regulation of Thames Water as a company.

[Simon Hughes]

My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps it would helpful if, rather than trying to go round the circuit twice, I quickly summarise my letter to the Secretary of State in which I set out my concerns and the history of the matter, summarise the key points of her response, which deal exactly with my hon. Friend’s point about the mechanism regarding the tunnel, and then raise the three specific issues that should be addressed before colleagues and the Minister speak.

The provisions could, of course, apply to any water company. I am talking about Thames Water because we know that the Thames tunnel is the big project that the Government have in mind. However, the Bill relates not just to Thames Water, but to financial assistance for major works by any water company throughout the country, so the issues could relate to any constituency across the United Kingdom.

I will give a brief history. Thames Water was previously owned by the German utility company RWE. As I well remember, at that time it had one of the worst records for leaks and failed to meet its agreed targets for remedying leaks for four consecutive years. Despite that, RWE raised the dividend that Thames Water paid out to the company by 52%, took £216 million from the company and simultaneously announced a rise in profits as it prepared to sell the company on. At that time, Thames Water had a debt to capital ratio of about 45% and an excellent credit rating with all the major rating agencies.

Thames Water was bought by Kemble Water in 2006 in a deal worth £8 billion. Kemble Water is a financial vehicle for a consortium of investors, primarily made up of private equity funds led by Macquarie, the Australian bank. The deal included £3.2 billion of debt, which was incorporated into the company through whole company securitisation. That was undertaken for a special purpose finance company that Thames Water set up in the Cayman Islands, presumably to allow the owners of Thames Water to avoid taxes on the income that they received from the interest raised. That increased the debt ratio sharply to 67.9% of regulated capital value. The company has continued to borrow heavily and the debt to capital ratio has now increased to 72.9%.

That has happened at a time when Thames Water has paid extremely high dividends, which have regularly exceeded its earnings. For example, in 2010, the ratio was 141.5%. In other words, it paid out in dividends nearly one and a half times as much as it received in earnings. By contrast, South East Water, to take another local example, had a payout ratio of 48%—just a third of that of Thames Water. That strategy has had a serious detrimental effect on Thames Water’s credit rating. It has fallen from a corporate credit rating of A plus on the Standard & Poor’s rating scale when the company was bought by RWE in 2000 to a position today in which some of Thames Water’s debts have been assigned a triple B rating, which is considered to be the lowest investment grade rating possible.

For 10 years, Thames Water has been owned by two companies that have sought to extract the maximum possible value from the company. It has prioritised that over the necessary prudential financial arrangements that would have allowed it to make the large, long-term capital investments that it knows it has to make. As a result, Thames Water no longer has the capacity to access the finance required to make large infrastructure investments. It is not as if this project is a new idea. It has been, excuse the pun, in the pipeline for a long time.

The company has therefore asked the Government to provide financial backing for its Thames tunnel scheme. It is not yet clear to me why our Government should help this company after its years of excessive and unjustified borrowing and extraordinary dividend payments, which have eroded the company’s capital position. At the end of the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the financial arrangements of the company were a matter for the regulator, Ofwat. That is in part true, but Parliament certainly has an interest and the Government must have an interest. If Ofwat’s controls are not sufficient, we need to address that. That is why I have raised this matter in the amendments.

Before the sale of Thames Water by RWE, Ofwat made a clear statement warning potential investors not to follow the very strategy that Kemble Water has since followed. Ofwat said that potential bidders should preserve Thames Water’s investment grade credit rating, which would have meant keeping the company’s debt to capital ratio below 65%. That is the link between solvency, external financial respect for the company and the percentage ratio, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster raised with me earlier. Since then, the regulator has, in effect, stood by and done nothing to prevent Kemble Water from further saddling the company with debt. Ofwat has stated that that is acceptable because the company has kept its investment grade credit rating. In fact, the credit rating has deteriorated to the lowest investment grade possible. Ofwat appears to have neglected the need for the company to incur more debt in the future to pay for large capital investments.

I am troubled that, unless we amend the Bill, there will be nothing to prevent that behaviour from continuing. I am trying to make the Government address how we will prevent it. I do not propose to force the amendment to a vote, but I want to hear the input of Members, if they want to contribute, and the Minister’s response. I am keen to ensure that we do not let go of this matter. My constituents want me to raise it now and the constituents of many colleagues in London have an equally strong vested interest in it.

[Mark Field]

It is important that we do not just see this as a problem with Thames Water. This is a fundamental issue about the financial structuring of a range of companies, many of which are getting ongoing financial assistance from PFI schemes, which often have years or decades to run. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope, however, that not only this Department, but other Departments that have responsibility for companies that have gone through this sort of financial restructuring and that are receiving ongoing financial assistance give serious thought to the matter.

[Simon Hughes]

That point is very helpful. I have raised this subject as a matter of general Government policy with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, because it is not just an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but an issue across Government and for the Treasury in particular. It is also a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, audit organisations and others. In a second, I will link the points that I have made with the PFI issue, which my hon. Friend just raised, and other places where we are spending public money on projects that are excessively encouraging or facilitating private gain to the disadvantage of the state and the taxpayer.

[Dan Rogerson]

My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points and shedding a little light on fairly shady areas of corporate restructuring. Sports fans are well aware of such things going on at their beloved sports clubs. He referred to Ofwat’s handling of the situation over a number of years. He has clearly raised the matter with the Department. In his scrutiny of these affairs, has he received any response from Ofwat on why it has not taken action up to now?

[Simon Hughes]

I have sought from Ofwat an explanation of its current policy. I have not sat down with Ofwat to go through what more it might do. I want to raise the matter here and see what colleagues think. There is a debate to be had about Ofwat and I hope that changes in what Ofwat does and how it behaves will come out of it. These issues also relate to other regulators, such as those for gas and electricity. This is an issue about regulators and private utilities.

The Secretary of State kindly replied to me, as the Minister knows. I will quote the key points from her letter that responds to the issues that I have raised in Committee. The first matter relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George):

“I would first like to point out that it may not be Thames Water Utilities Limited who carry out the project. We have consulted on provisions that would enable the project to be delivered by a separate Infrastructure Provider to be regulated by Ofwat separately from Thames Water Utilities Limited. Any contingent financial support will be directed at assisting the entity that is building the Tunnel—and so not necessarily Thames Water Utilities Limited.”

I understand that. It does not change things, but it is important to realise that although Thames Water may be the supplicant, it may not be Thames Water that does the building.

The Secretary of State continued:

“The level of gearing and the securitised structure of Thames Water Utilities Limited is similar to that of some other water companies. Our and Ofwat’s analysis shows that contingent financial support from government would be required for Thames Water Utilities Limited (or any other water company) to build a single project of the scale and complexity of the Tunnel whatever its financial structure (within the norms for water companies).”

I do not dispute that. I am not denying that this is a very big project, or that it may need the reassurance that comes from being supported nationally, rather than just being the project of a regional water company.

The Secretary of State went on:

“Our goal is to ensure that the level of this contingent financial support is kept to a minimum and that we achieve best value for money for customers.”

Amen to both of those things. We all have the same objectives. She continued:

“It is in that context that we are considering whether the Tunnel should be built by the Thames Water Utilities Limited or a separate entity.”

The Secretary of State then discusses the question of where Ofwat’s rules currently bite. She states:

“Ofwat regulates each water and sewerage company in England and Wales under the terms of its Instrument of Appointment…The licence contains conditions aimed at ensuring that each water and sewerage company has sufficient financial and managerial resources to carry out its functions and that the regulated company is operated separately from the rest of the group.”

That is quite important. She continues:

“These licence conditions are collectively known as the regulatory ring-fence.

It is Ofwat’s view that it is for the management of each regulated water company to determine its own optimal financial structure.”

Within limits, I do not dissent from that, but it seems to me that Ofwat is there to hold the reins properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

While the right hon. Gentleman is going through the financial figures, it would be useful to know what the level of reserves was during those years. Were they building up, or had Thames Water, in its own mind, already built up a war chest for the works that it is looking to do—or was it essentially draining its profits by more than 90% year on year?

[Simon Hughes]

I do not want to misrepresent the position, and I do not have with me the full accounts over those five years—the Minister may be able to help us with that—but my understanding is that the reserves have reduced over that five-year period. That is one reason for my concern about the balance of decisions on dividend payments and capital retention. That should trouble us and cause us to ask questions.

The figures that I have show that 2008 and 2009 were the only recent years in which dividends did not exceed profits. I understand that in 2010 there were £295 million of dividends and £237 million of profit after tax. Probably 30% or 40% more was paid out in dividends than received in income and earnings.

The Secretary of State rightly says that Ofwat does not enforce limits on dividend payments. I do not dispute that in principle, but she states:

“However the licence conditions of each water company’s licence include a requirement to ensure the dividend policy rewards efficiency and good management of economic risk, and will not impair the company’s ability to finance its functions as a water undertaker…Ofwat does not place a cap on levels of gearing. Instead, it determines a notional capital structure for an efficiently financed and operated company for the purposes of setting the cost of capital and assessing the financeability of the price limit it sets. This approach is consistent with the approach Ofgem has adopted in its regulation of the gas and electricity sectors. In the last two Price Reviews this nominal capital structure assumed that water companies would have gearing”—

the figure that I have mentioned before—

“in the range 55%-65%; this was a modelling assumption and not a requirement. The requirement was that they should maintain an investment grade credit rating, plus some headroom and it is this together with the regulatory ring fence that provides the protection for customers. Several of the large water and sewerage companies have a similar gearing ratio of around 80%.”

I pause there to note that if the licence conditions are meant to be about both the ratio and the credit rating, it seems to me that we again have cause for concern.

The Secretary of State continues:

“The regulatory ring-fence also requires a company to ensure that it, or any Associated Company, maintains an issuer credit rating which is an investment grade rating. If a company’s investment grade is threatened, the cash lock up provision within the licence means that if a company is placed at the minimum level for investment grade (i.e. BBB- or equivalent)…the Appointee cannot transfer cash or other assets to an Associated Company without the prior consent of Ofwat.”

Thames Water is moving slowly down towards that position. She continues:

“Moody’s provides a corporate family rating of Baa1 to the whole business securitisation that encompasses Thames Water Utilities Limited. Standard & Poor’s do not provide an equivalent rating for whole business securitisations; instead they rate individual bonds…These bonds are rated in the range A- to BBB…These credit ratings are very similar to other water and sewerage companies and provide headroom against the floor for investment grade credit quality.”

However, it remains the case that we have seen a drop in the credit ratings of Thames Water collectively, and some of its activities particularly. That should start ringing alarm bells with us.

The Secretary of State ends:

“Finally, discussions with Thames Water on financing the Tunnel are ongoing. Achieving best value for money for customers and safeguarding taxpayers are top priorities for Government”.

I wish to mention two other matters, if I may. I am conscious that this is a much longer speech than I would normally want to make, but I am dealing with all my amendments together and this is a fairly complex issue.

Ofwat’s statement of its position is that the ring-fencing licence conditions require a company to

“conduct its business as if the regulated business were substantially its sole business”

and

“have adequate financial, and facilities and management resources to carry out its regulated activities and to confirm each year that it will do so for the following 12 months.”

A further condition is that a company must

“ensure that its dividend policy will not impair the company’s ability to finance its functions”.

I am not sure that Thames Water has done that. It seems to me that its dividend policy has impaired its ability properly to carry out its functions, but it has put it in a position whereby it may not be able to finance on its own, or principally, a project that it knew it would want to finance.

Ofwat states:

“Our long established policy is that it is for each company and its management to determine a capital structure that is appropriate for its circumstances. But our view is that if investors choose to adopt highly geared structures, it is right for customers that both those investors and the companies bear the risks associated with their choice of financial structure.”

That is fine, but now the company is coming to the Government to ask for help to support it. Finally, Ofwat states that capital restructuring generally

“involves the replacement of equity capital with debt capital. This can have a tax benefit.

Consistent with our view that capital structures are a matter for the companies, we set the price limits for companies on the basis of a notional financial structure for an efficiently operated and financed company”.

The Secretary of State also made that point. Ofwat continues:

“We do not set the cost of capital on the basis of each company’s actual capital structure.

However, in setting price limits, we separate the treatment of tax from the cost of capital. This includes tax as a company-specific cost based on the company’s actual gearing projections.”

We could well do the following things. First, if we applied the equator principles, we would put in place a credit risk management framework for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in project finance transactions, which is recognised in this country and around the world. Equator principles financial institutions—there are four eminent ones in the UK, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and Standard Chartered commit to

“not providing loans to projects where the borrower will not or is unable to comply with their respective social and environmental policies and procedures that implement”

the equator principles. There are 76 financial institutions in 28 countries that have adopted the principles, covering more than 70% of international project finance debt in emerging markets. If we were to have that accountability mechanism, which would allow communities to have redress when companies do not meet environmental and social norms, that would provide added reassurance that companies involved in financing large infrastructure projects would uphold high standards. That would apply not just to the water industry but to public financing as a whole.

My amendment 5 suggests that no financial assistance be given to a company with a debt to equity ratio of more than 65%. That ratio is a measure of a company’s financial strength and demonstrates how much the company has borrowed against its assets. It has a direct effect on a company’s credit rating, and consequently on its ability to borrow on the financial markets. I appreciate the Government will not accept the principle of the amendment today, but they might do so in the other place or in another way. If they did so, they would send a message to water companies that if they want Government support to build new infrastructure, they will need to demonstrate that they have the financial strength to be a credible and reliable partner of the Government.

That is also the purpose of amendment 10, which would require any company seeking financial support to come forward with a business plan. Any bank or building society would ask that safeguard of any business in our constituencies. They would say, “Show us your business plan. We’ll then tell you whether we are willing to lend you the money.” A reputable bank involved in financing an infrastructure project would demand to see a business plan, but so far, Parliament is being asked—unless I am corrected by the Minister—to allow the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to water companies, which may include grants, loans, guarantees, indemnity or equity, without any obligation on the Government to seek such guarantees.

We should be concerned about that not just because of the recent history of Thames Water, but for the reason given a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and given the history of the private finance initiative. The previous Government went through a period of giving blanket permission—effectively—to engage in large-scale infrastructure projects financed by PFI, to build hospitals, schools and many other things. The Treasury Committee has made it clear that PFI projects often lead to higher costs and produce poorer-quality buildings and services. It has said that those costs are eventually borne by the taxpayer, and that PFI projects were unacceptable if the costs were simply diverted to private profits in the private sector for companies that pay little or no tax.

A further disadvantage of PFI—this was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives—is that the asset passes from the public or accountable sector into the private sector. We therefore lose the asset and the revenue stream to the public purse. We do not reduce the public’s payment, which in the end is more expensive.

[Mark Field]

An issue not specific to this debate is ongoing financial assistance from the public purse for many years to come, often through an artificially created special purpose vehicle rather than a more straightforward process. Such vehicles, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out, are often driven by maximising profits, potentially by minimising tax and all other returns to the Treasury.

[Simon Hughes]

To turn that into a picture, that could mean that the Thames tunnel will be built by a separate company, not Thames Water. The company will own the tunnel indefinitely, and rent, as it were, the use of the tunnel to Thames Water. It will collect the income indefinitely and do what it will in terms of distributing the profits, while we—the 12 million people in Thames Water constituencies—continue to pay charges, with no control over the profit being made by the owners.

The M6 is the best example I can find. The M6 toll road is currently the only cash motorway in the UK. In May 2003, Macquarie executive Dennis Eager boasted:

“'We can put up the tolls by whatever we like and start the tolls on day one at whatever we like. If motorists don’t complain about it being too high, we have done our job properly.”

I went through the toll the other day and paid £4.60 or something. That was the weekend rate, which is slightly cheaper, but cars using the toll during the week are charged £5.50, and lorries pay £11, making the M6 toll one of the most expensive toll roads in Europe. You, Mr Hoyle, may know the price more accurately than me because you have probably used it more frequently than I have.

Traffic using the M6 toll is declining, but it is soaring on the neighbouring non-toll M6. The number of cars using the M6 toll declined by 10% in the past year, meaning that it is ineffective at relieving traffic on the M6, which was its whole purpose. In 2005, the company operating the toll road had a net worth of £67 million and paid no corporation tax.

[Mark Field]

One concern with the Thames tunnel is that there is so little incentive for Thames Water to have a cost-effective scheme in place because of the nature of the payouts. Many hon. Members will recall that at the outset, the project was to cost £1.6 billion, but we are now looking at a £4.1 billion project. There seems to be no sense whatever of an incentive for Thames Water to have something that is more cost-effective, which would obviously benefit hard-pressed bill payers from 144 constituencies in the House.

[Simon Hughes]

That is exactly the point. I should have gone on for another paragraph before I let my hon. Friend intervene. I shall finish the figures on the toll and then address the point he makes.

In 2006, Macquarie Infrastructure Group, the owners of the M6 toll, cashed in £392 million in profits despite contributing only £1.5 in equity to the scheme. The link is that Macquarie is behind Kemble Water, which owns Thames Water. My concern is exactly that alluded to by my hon. Friend. There is an incentive to build the biggest, most expensive tunnel because the largest amount can then be charged to get the maximum revenue stream indefinitely, and no incentive to have a cheap, good-value product at the end of the day. My question to my colleagues in government is this: are we asking the serious questions as to whether the taxpayer should be putting up any financial support for the scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that prompt. Local authorities have woken up to the possibility of SUDS, albeit perhaps somewhat late in the day. Many are now insisting in planning applications that there should be no more paving over, while many are rightly taking enforcement action where those conditions are disobeyed. However, it is quite wrong to think that SUDS on their own will be a solution to the problem; rather, they offer additional assistance. The idea that we can suddenly convert road surfaces and pavements into permeable surfaces across London is highly impractical—look at the problems we had with simply replacing the water mains—and it would also cost four or five times more than the highest estimated cost for the tunnel. However, we must use SUDS, and indeed other measures

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his intervention, because he brings me back to the point that I was making. I was pleased to receive an invitation from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark to attend a meeting on 6 March in this place. This perhaps draws attention to the point that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) raised, because although probably 140 to 150 MPs would have been invited if the right hon. Gentleman had asked all those with an interest in Thames Water, I think only three turned up—me, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord), who is in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who was here a moment ago. That perhaps shows a certain lack of interest among some of our colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster would have been there, had he not had a more pressing engagement—I am sure that it was not the Campaign for Real Ale reception that was on at the same time, but there we go.

The invitation asked us to come and listen to Chris Binnie, the engineer who served as the independent chair of the Thames tideway strategic study steering group, which recommended the full tunnel solution. He was going to be present to explain

“why he now believes the costs have exceeded the benefits, and why there are quicker and cheaper solutions that should be considered urgently.”

I am familiar, as many Members are, with Mr Binnie’s proposal, which is what he has called the “Binnie Bubbler”, It is designed to aerate the Thames in a way that prevents the death of the fish and other livestock—if that is right phrase—in the Thames. I have read the arguments for and against the “Binnie Bubbler”, and I have always been rather sceptical about it, because I am not sure that it is suitable for the tidal Thames—it has apparently worked in Cardiff bay in a lagoon area—and also because I do not think it acceptable to allow raw sewage into the Thames at current levels and then simply to try to aerate it and possibly skim off the worst of it.

I therefore went along to the meeting—although I am sorry that I could not stay for the entire time—to see whether Mr Binnie had something more to say on that issue. It would be fair to say that he had something quite surprising to say. I appreciate that I am about to read from a note about the meeting that was written up by a supporter of the tunnel—I had left by this stage—but it says:

“Chris Binnie announced that he had changed his mind again and now supported Thames Water’s view that we should implement the single Thames Tunnel option. Wow! You could hear the gasps around the room and Simon Hughes’ chin nearly hit the floor.”

That might be slightly unfair: the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is unfazed even by things greater than engineers changing their minds, for the second time. However, this issue draws attention to an important point in the argument about the Bill, and brings us back to the financing. I think everybody—certainly everybody present in the Chamber today and most other Members of the House, albeit with certain exceptions, my neighbouring Member of Parliament being one of them—supports the idea that something must be done to relieve sewer flooding of the Thames in a substantive way that will last us, we hope, as long as the Bazalgette solution did.

[Simon Hughes]

I do not want to prolong this unnecessarily, but would like to say clearly that my presumption has always been that something needed to be done. I started from the view that the Thames tunnel was the right solution. However, I want to be sure—not just for myself, but for my constituents, for the reasons that have been set out—that we are not about to embark on an expensive project if it is not entirely needed and has not been objectively assessed to be the right solution. Hence, I come to this issue with a “Let’s check and be certain before we press the button” approach. That was my view before I went to the Binnie meeting and when I came out of it, and it remains my view today.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that clarification. I have never signed up to the concept of the tunnel uncritically or without reservations—or, indeed, at all—because I have always held open the option that there might be a better solution, and if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, then we are on all fours with each other. That is why I have looked in some detail at proposals such as the “Binnie Bubbler”, SUDS and the idea of separate rainwater and sewerage networks, which would also create the problem of huge disruption and much additional cost. Some of those projects, including water conservation, can be done and should be effective, both environmentally and from a cost perspective; the difficult thing is to find an alternative that does what the Thames tunnel would do.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have stated, I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to colleagues who have contributed, from both upstream and downstream. Both banks of the Thames have been represented, which is a good thing. I should probably have started by declaring two interests. I chair the Mayor of London’s Thames festival, which has a regular interest in ensuring that we celebrate our Thames, and I am a patron of the London Wildlife Trust, which has done lots of work on the Thames. I am also a supporter of Thames21, which has been applauded by Members on both sides of the House and has done fantastic work, as have other environmental bodies.

I join the Minister in celebrating the fact that another country’s sovereign wealth fund is interested in investing. That is a good thing. The announcement of the Chinese investment interest in the past few weeks was very welcome and I share his view.

I shall be brief and shall just pick up on the comments that have been made. The Minister has been very courteous and recognised that I was seeking to put on the agenda items that I and my constituents think that the Government ought to bear in mind as they take the Bill forward. I accept entirely that the Bill, as drafted, has a subsection of proposed new section 154B that allows the terms and conditions for any financial assistance to be inserted by the Secretary of State. The debate we are about to have, which will be initiated by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on behalf of the official Opposition, is a sort of halfway house. The proposal is that we do not get into the detail but that we have a mechanism—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Shall we wait until we start to discuss those amendments before we start referring to them? The right hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the amendments that he has tabled.

[Simon Hughes]

Thank you, Ms Primarolo, and of course I will.

I understand that the Minister realises what the issues are. I heard what the Minister said, and I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) that the equator principles are now well-established principles for finance companies that are lending nationally and internationally and they were the best form I could find of a benchmark of ethical standards for financial companies that are lending to utilities. Yes, they were developed in the context of the third world, or the developing world, but they do not just apply there. I understand the points that were made.

The negotiations to which the Minister referred are being conducted confidentially, of course, and I understand that, but I hope that after today’s debate we will be able to ensure—the Minister has offered to do so—that there is engagement across the parties and across the House, including with those of us whose constituents, like his, have an interest in our ending up with a rigorous system for ensuring that Thames Water is accountable. We have flagged up the wider issue, which we want to take elsewhere, with Government.

On the comments of Opposition Members, not least those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), about the meeting held upstairs, I am grateful that colleagues came to that meeting and others held in this and other buildings about Thames Water. My view is that an evidence-based conclusion should be reached about what the right systems are for dealing with what has been a growing problem for the Thames. We need to make sure that we are all confident that we come up with the right solution, and it is perfectly proper to call people who have views and experience to give evidence. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was slightly surprised that Professor Binnie appeared to move from a view that he had moved on to, back to a view that he had originally held. It is important not to ignore the principle that we should not overspend on a capital project if there are other ways of doing things that give better value for money.

I am grateful for the time we have taken to look at this issue, which is now on the agenda. I am determined that engagement with Ministers should continue and I hope that Ministers will be very positive about making sure that not only the Government but Thames Water and Ofwat engage. May I end by correcting one thing that I mis-said when I was talking about an example that should give us a warning? I was talking about the M6 project and the way it had been funded. I said that the company that ran the project, which is linked to the company involved in Thames Water, had a net worth of £67 million and paid no corporation tax, but I should have said that it had a net worth of minus £67 million. I hope that this makes my point a better one—that a company may appear not to have any money but can be paying out large amounts in dividends. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put that right and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Gavin Shuker]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

‘(6A) No financial assistance may be given under subsection (6) unless the Secretary of State has laid a draft of a statutory instrument setting out the terms and conditions including the duration of such assistance before, and such draft has been approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

On that important point, I know from my experience of the Jubilee line extension and other major projects that often the issue is not whether a deal is done that in theory ensures jobs, apprenticeships and training for local residents, but whether such a deal is then monitored and delivered. Often the will is there but it does not turn out that way in practice.

[Gavin Shuker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point explicitly and brilliantly. If the lessons of the past 20 years on major infrastructure projects where we have required special social benefits are to be learnt, monitoring is absolutely essential. That is why I think that our amendment’s approach is very sensible. It would require the Secretary of State to bring forward her plan, and an agreement with the infrastructure provider, so that it could be approved by this House. The additional level of scrutiny given would not just be an assurance in the contracts; there would be proper parliamentary accountability to ensure that the benefits, for Londoners in this case, are spread across the capital and give young Londoners a fair start.

We know that the Thames tunnel will be a huge infrastructure project, and we have all seen the bad news on youth unemployment today, so we are calling on the Government to ensure that young Londoners get a fair share of the 4,000 jobs the tunnel will deliver. In short, this is a real opportunity to help guarantee apprenticeships and high-level skills. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept both amendments, which would improve the Bill for Londoners now and for all households in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

Briefly, I too welcome our constructive debate over the past few weeks and the Minister’s helpful response. I have two things to say.

First, I want to flag up the important point, made by a Labour Front Bencher but supported by Members across the House, that as we do big infrastructure projects we absolutely have a general interest to ensure that they maximise the development and use of our home-grown talents and skills—I do not say that in a racist way; I mean those people who live in this country, who have skills to contribute and who are here—so that for generations to come, one generation’s learning, whether in engineering, building or all the rest, can be carried on. If the Thames tunnel goes ahead, either in its currently proposed form or as a variation on it, I hope that from the beginning we build in such a plan that, as it were, sweeps in the work force and the training with it. If we do that, it will command much more public confidence as well us giving us continuing skills and opportunities for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who is not in his place at the moment, was fully engaged in the earlier debate about the financing of major projects and asked me about the five-year cost-profit ratio figures for Thames Water. I could not answer him at that point, but I have since had the figures checked, and I will put them on the record.

In the year ending 2007, the cost-profit figure after tax for Thames Water’s activities was £234 million and the dividend paid was £594 million. That represented an excess of £360 million in dividend payments over income—exceptional, unusual and clearly not good precedent as normal practice. In the following two years, there was a much more normal pattern, with £382 million of cost-profit and £105 million of dividends, and therefore a net retention of profits of £276 million. In 2009, there was £285 million of cost-profit and £226 million of dividends paid out, thus retaining a sum of £58 million. In the past two years, the picture has slipped back to something much less healthy. In the year ending 2010, there was £237 million of cost-profit, after taxation, on activities, with dividends paid out of £295 million, and therefore £57 million more paid out than money retained. In the last financial year for which we have figures, cost-profit was £247 million and dividends paid out were £262 million, with therefore a net excess payout of £14 million.

I hope that those figures are accurate, as I am reliably informed that they are. They make the general point that when the Government are being asked to support private sector activity and private sector companies, we should ensure—whatever those companies’ relationships with each other in a collection of companies—that they have had disciplined financial activity that does not result in taxpayers, council tax payers or ratepayers being asked to foot bills that should be met by the companies themselves but are not being met because they have paid off the money elsewhere to shareholders who walk away with the profits. When they come to the table in future to say that they want joint enterprises, supported by Government, for major infrastructure projects, whether they be tunnels, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals or whatever else, we need to make sure that there has been ethical and appropriate financial accounting.

My plea is that we should learn these lessons across the regulatory activities and across public finance to ensure that the Treasury is not put into a difficult position. I hope that Thames Water and the other water companies all over the UK hear this message loud and clear: “We are watching you, and as a Parliament and, I hope, a Government we will be very insistent that there is good value for the taxpayer, council tax payer and water rate payer, and that you do not take out money from projects that should be there for investment, but pay your full and proper share.”