Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, including as a farmer. The removal of half of inheritance tax relief over £1 million under agricultural property relief and business property relief is an attack on all family-owned businesses. Working family farmers are the least able to afford this tax due to high asset values and low incomes. How can the Minister defend this tax to the family farming community and all family businesses, where investment, entrepreneurship and aspiration are now undermined?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, we understand farmers’ anxiety at changes to agricultural property relief. However, the vast majority of those claiming relief will not be affected by the changes. The latest data available shows that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief in 2021-22 accounted for 40% of the cost of the tax relief, with the top 2% accounting for 22% of the cost. Most families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

70: Clause 6, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(8A) All fines imposed on the undertaker or its employees under this section by—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Welsh Ministers, or(c) another relevant authoritymust be gathered together and once per annum be used to reduce all customers’ bills by an equal amount per customer.(8B) Any reduction applied under subsection (8A) must be separately disclosed within the customer’s statement of account.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, back to her place. Her contributions have been missed on earlier days in Committee.

The main focus of the Bill is on improving the health of our rivers, and that aim will likely lead to a larger number of punishable offences. In its manifesto, Labour set out its plans to impose severe fines on water companies that failed to meet the expected standards, but it did not establish what would be done with that additional income. Amendment 70 seeks to put in place a system whereby the fines imposed on water companies and their employees—by this Government, the devolved Governments or, in fact, any other relevant authorities—are collected. Then, once a year, the income from these fines could be used to reduce customer bills.

In government we created the water restoration fund, which sees the money collected by the Treasury from fines and penalties and then channelled into improving the water environment. However, we sit here today with consumers facing pressure on their water bills as part of the inflationary environment that has created the cost of living crisis, as well as the cost of investing to improve water quality. It seems appropriate that fines and penalties should be returned to those consumers and identified by a separate line in their bills, making it clear that the regulator is taking action to punish wrongdoing and that money is returned to the consumer as a consequence.

An amendment such as this would benefit so many individuals and resolve how additional income from stricter fines is applied. It is not a subject that the Bill adequately addresses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has recognised in other amendments. Does the Minister agree that the money from the fines should be used to benefit the consumer through mechanisms such as the water restoration fund that we implemented when in government or by using the sum to reduce customer Bills, as this amendment suggests? As such, will the Minister confirm that the penalties will not return to the Treasury under this Government? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee and the Minister for my absence on the first and second days in Committee. I regret that an attack of Covid meant that I was confined to quarters and unable to travel to London. I did, however, watch the debate on both days on parliamentlive.tv and was therefore able to hear the nuances of the contributions, which you do not always get by reading Hansard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his comments.

A seminar of all the devolved Administrations once a year, to discuss how to return all fines to the relevant customers, will do nothing to fix the problems of inadequate investment in crumbling and inadequate infrastructure. I am sympathetic to the need to keep customers’ bills to an acceptable level. Consumers should not have to pay for the inadequacies of the water boards to ensure that problems are fixed. I do not see why an annual gathering of the devolved Administrations or other authorities will be sufficient to refund bill payers in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising this important issue and tabling Amendment 70, which speaks to the administration of fines. I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, back to her rightful place. I hope that she is now completely recovered, but I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on doing such a sterling job in her absence.

I emphasise that the money from civil penalties imposed by the Environment Agency and fines issued by the court go to the Government’s Consolidated Fund. This is in line with other enforcement regimes under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. On the use of penalty funds, the water restoration fund, which launched in April this year, is reinvesting water companies’ environmental fines and penalties into projects to improve the water environment. Up to £11 million of funding from fines and penalties accrued since 2022 was made available on a competitive basis to support a range of water restoration projects. Defra is continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury regarding the reinvestment of water company penalties and fines, because while the Budget has of course now been announced, decisions have not yet been taken on all departmental spending.

I assure noble Lords that there are existing procedures in place to ensure that customers are reimbursed for poor performance. As the economic regulator, Ofwat sets specific performance targets for water companies and, where these are not met, companies must reimburse customers through lower water bills in the next financial year. I will give an example: as a result of Ofwat’s annual performance assessment process, it is requiring 13 companies to return £157 million to customers for underperformance in the financial year 2023-24.

Ofwat also has powers which ensure that companies return money to customers for failings related to specific breaches. For example, in 2019 Southern Water returned £123 million to its customers as a result of an Ofwat enforcement case. I hope that the noble Lord is therefore content that this amendment is not necessary, as we believe it would duplicate existing protections.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments from the Minister. It is perhaps not the fullest reassurance that I was looking for about the future destination for fines and penalties. Amendment 70 is, by its nature, a probing amendment and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97, 99 and 102. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on her speech. I fully support Amendment 97.

It is interesting that, following an article in the Telegraph, on 19 September, the Government issued a press release in which they said:

“These powers would never be used to pay bondholders, shareholders or creditors … we do not expect customers to pay the price for water companies’ mismanagement … The new measures in the Water Bill will protect taxpayers”.


At the same time, the Explanatory Notes state, on Clause 10, that the Secretary of State “may provide financial assistance” to companies. It is hard to see how these statements can be reconciled. I hope the Minister will tell us what kind of financial assistance the Government envisage providing to water companies while they are being restructured. Their being restructured means that they are already financially, environmentally and morally bankrupt, so why provide financial assistance?

In the debate last week, the Minister said that water companies are “private companies”. If they are, they should be fully exposed to the laws of capitalism, with absolutely no bailout of any kind. Why are we making these special provisions to indulge them and, presumably, write down some of the debt? This was a key assumption made by the last Government in what was code-named Project Timber. Information leaked out that it was talking about how the Government, presumably, may write the debt of Thames Water down to merely 40% of the amount owed.

Whenever we talk about not bailing out shareholders and bondholders, or refer to public ownership, the Government’s immediate response is to say that it will cost billions of pounds. I once again invite the Minister to show me the Government’s calculations—I will happily critique them for free and talk about whether those numbers make any sense. Will the Minister accept my challenge and please publish the numbers?

The Government also say that it would be hard to reintegrate the companies. We are doing it for railway companies, so why can we not do it for water companies? What exactly would be the hardship? Every day, there are numerous mergers and takeovers in the corporate sector, and they are easily integrated and rewired. I hope that the Minister will explain this. I would particularly like to see the calculations of what the cost of public ownership would be, so that we can then start looking at this and talking about the optimum solution.

I hope the Minister will not refer me, as she did previously, to the 2018 Social Market Foundation report. It fetched a number out of thin air and said it was worth about £90 billion—the following year, this was contradicted by Moody’s, which said it was only £14.5 billion. Since then, as we know, a lot of shares of water companies have become worthless and the debt has junk status, so it is easy to let the normal rules of capitalism apply.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on Amendment 99. I will say a little more about Amendment 102. Currently, water companies can violate rules and legal limits on sewage dumping ad infinitum. They can easily do cost-benefit analyses and see that it is cheaper to pay fines for illegal practices than to invest in infrastructure and act responsibly. This boosts profits, dividends and executive pay, while the public picks up the cost of unplugged leaks, sewage dumping, health hazards, and the destruction of biodiversity and marine life. To some, such costs are just externalities, but the public sees this as abuse, as clearly shown by yesterday’s mass demonstration in London.

The puny financial penalties have not curbed the predatory practices. The Minister promises us that there will be more and says that the executives may be prosecuted—that is, if they can wait another 20 years to have their cases heard, as there is already a backlog of 60,000 cases in the Crown Court. The result is that the whole industry is now under the control of entities that have criminal convictions. Wastewater companies in England and Wales have been convicted 1,109 times since 1989. The dismal roll-call is as follows: United Utilities has 205 convictions, Thames Water has 187, South West Water has 174, Anglia Water has 128, Yorkshire Water has 125 and Southern Water has 119. Perhaps the Minister would care to name a pristine water company—never mind pristine water, just a pristine water company. That would be helpful.

There are no pristine, honourable, responsible or ethical water companies, but successive Governments continue to indulge them and give them monopolies in an essential public good. What would happen if 10 major food or medicine companies were convicted of 1,109 crimes that they knowingly committed? They would be shut down and consumers would sue them, but regulators in the water industry do no such thing. Indeed, Ministers make excuses, and successive Ministers have done nothing.

My amendment requires that habitual offenders be placed into special administration, if two or more criminal convictions are secured in a five-year period. This is akin to yellow and red cards in football. The first yellow card is a warning, effectively saying, “Don’t do it again. Mend your ways. Clean up your act”. If no heed is taken, the second yellow card, which is effectively a red card, would follow, and the companies would be placed into special administration.

It is often claimed that shareholders are passive. The threat of special administration for abusive practices would encourage them to actively invigilate companies and their boards and take an interest in their governance. For far too long, companies have got away with abuses; my amendment would ensure that there were serious consequences for them. If the Minister does not accept my amendment, can she say how many convictions water companies need before they are considered unfit and improper to own crucial infrastructure?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 73, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thank the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their contributions.

On these Benches, we have grave concerns about these amendments. While it is important that the water sector operates with integrity, we fear the amendments may have unintended consequences that could destabilise the industry and ultimately be detrimental to the public and the environment.

On Amendment 73, the power to revoke a water company’s licence is one of great consequence and must be exercised judiciously. An abrupt removal of a licence, without sufficient consideration of the ramifications for infrastructure and service continuity, could leave customers vulnerable and lead to service interruptions. It would also be a very substantial barrier to private sector investment. Investors must be able to have confidence that they will be able to enjoy returns on their investments without elevated risk of loss of licence. Should such an amendment be included in this Bill, it would lead to a much higher cost of capital for the industry and higher consumer bills as a consequence. While we appreciate the intent to hold companies accountable, we suggest exploring whether there are more balanced approaches to achieving compliance, without risking instability.

Amendment 97 raises further concerns. The possibility of cancelling debt in the event of special administration proceedings could create moral hazard. This amendment, while aiming to protect consumers from the fallout of financial mismanagement, might inadvertently incentivise risky financial behaviour by companies under the impression that their debts could be forgiven in times of crisis. The bankruptcy route already allows debt to be repaid in part or renegotiated in an orderly manner, respecting the contractual rights of all creditors. This would not be desirable.

As for Amendment 98, this is a matter of significant complexity. We must not overlook the potential costs and operational challenges associated with such transfers. The water industry requires immense resources, infrastructure investment and technical expertise. A shift to public ownership would strain government resources and create operational challenges. We support the Government in not wishing to see a return to public ownership of the industry.

I wish to address Amendments 99 and 102. These amendments would empower the Government to put companies into special administration if they breached certain environmental conditions or held criminal convictions. While we wholeheartedly support stringent environmental standards and rigorous compliance, it is essential that these mechanisms do not inadvertently undermine the ability of water companies to continue their core operations. The amendments could place companies in special administration for relatively minor infractions, which may not warrant such a severe response.

We must be careful not to adopt measures that could disproportionately impact employees, customers and investors who depend on the water industry. I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments and regret that we cannot support them—and could not even before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, gave her views on my party.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the suggested amendment in relation to water company ownership.

I come first to Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The intention of the amendment is to provide Ofwat with the power to remove a water supply or sewerage licence with six months’ notice. I want to emphasise that the Government’s priority is to ensure that customers have a safe and stable supply of water. We are concerned that the proposed amendment could jeopardise this.

There are already established measures to replace an existing sewerage undertaker, by way of licence removal, under certain scenarios. For example, while it is true that an undertaker’s appointment is made for a period of at least 25 years, I can reassure noble Lords that it is not true that appointments cannot be terminated until 25 years have passed. If an undertaker cannot carry out its functions, Ofwat has powers to terminate the appointment, provided that a replacement can be identified and that the undertaker consents.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 10 risks unfairly burdening consumers with costs likely stemming from earlier regulatory and management failures. Involving consumers to compensate for governmental losses would turn customers into de facto guarantors for companies, which contradicts consumer protection principles. As my noble friend Lord Remnant argued earlier in Committee:

“Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify a water company licence in order to recover any shortfall in costs for the Government from its consumers. New subsection (4) extends this recourse to all other companies in the sector”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 1000.]


My noble friend addressed his comments to concerns over the impact on other companies in the sector, with which we agree. My concerns today are with the impact on consumers.

The clause provides no substantial safeguards to prevent excessive or unjustified charge increases. It grants broad powers to the Secretary of State to implement

“such amounts as may be determined”,

without clearly defined criteria or caps on those amounts. This vagueness opens the door to unlimited increases in bills for consumers at a time when cost of living pressures are high. Consumers rely on water services as a fundamental utility and trust is paramount in sectors with limited provider choice. By involving consumers in recovering losses associated with government interventions, the clause risks eroding public trust in the water industry. Why should the Government be able to depart from a consumer pricing model that the regulator has determined to be adequate for providing the service? Why should the consumer face surcharges due to the fault of others?

Clause 10 lacks clarity on how funds raised from consumers will be used or justified beyond the broad purpose of offsetting special administration order loss. Consumers have a right to transparency in any additional costs that they face, particularly when those costs arise from governmental action rather than direct service improvements. Without a clear, transparent breakdown of how these funds will be applied, consumers may view these measures as an arbitrary tax rather than a justified expense.

Permitting the Secretary of State to intervene in pricing to recoup government-incurred costs sets a disturbing precedent. It also highlights the importance of this debate in that the Government feel able to set themselves undefined and unaccountable pricing powers that are not available to the private sector. Is this not why the sector must remain privately owned and accountable rather than in the hands of government or some mysterious public benefit structure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his interest in Clauses 10 and 11 and also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support for them standing part. A special administration regime—or SAR—enables a company that provides vital public services to be put into administration in certain circumstances to ensure that the public service will continue to be provided pending rescue or transfer to new owners. An SAR would be required only when there is evidence that a company is insolvent or in serious breach of its statutory duties. It is the ultimate enforcement tool in Ofwat’s regulatory toolkit and, as such, as I said in the last debate, the bar is set high.

Although government has had the powers to place water companies into special administration for over three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect modernisation of law and experiences in other sectors. If a SAR occurs, government funding would be required to cover the costs of a special administration, including both operational and capital expenditure—for example, ensuring that statutory environmental obligations were met, as well as for paying the cost of the special administrator.

In the unlikely event that the proceeds of a sale or the repayments agreed as part of a rescue at the end of a SAR are insufficient to cover repaying government funding, there is a risk of a funding shortfall. Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a flexible power, allowing the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to recover any shortfall in funding in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances. They allow for modification of water company licences to recover any shortfall in financial assistance provided in a water industry SAR. These clauses will align the water industry SAR regime with the energy sector. Without this power, there is a risk that taxpayers will foot the bill for the water industry SAR.

The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers will be able to decide whether or not they should use this power and the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers. This will include which group of customers it should be recovered from—for example, all water company customers, a subset of the sector, or only customers whose water company went into a SAR.

Although the power is flexible, the design of a recovery mechanism will be subject to consultation with all relevant sector stakeholders. The Government must consider these views and explain our approach accordingly. If a SAR occurs and this power is ever required, this will allow a decision to be made, and be consulted upon, on what the fairest cost recovery option is, based on the evidence and circumstances at the time.

I reiterate that the shortfall recovery mechanism does not mean that customers end up paying for water companies’ failures. Any intervention that would increase customer bills would be considered very seriously and as a last resort. In the first instance, the Government would seek to recoup all the funds spent on financing the SAR through the sale or rescue of the water company after the administrators’ conclusion. This new power would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover what the Government spent funding the administration. If there was a shortfall, Ministers would then decide whether they felt that it was appropriate to exercise this power.

This power would allow the Secretary of State to decide, subject to consultation, the rate at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers and which group of customers it should be recovered from, as I just mentioned. This will ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is always implemented in a way that ensures that costs are recovered fairly. I hope that noble Lords agree that this power is essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR, and that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, may have misunderstood me. Far from speaking in favour of the water industry, I am seeking additional protection for the consumer and companies that have not fallen into a SAR.

The Minister has not fully reassured me that the powers in this clause are necessary. The Government perhaps should stand as guarantor, not the innocent. That this measure is very unlikely to be used is not in itself reassuring to me, but at this stage I will not press my opposition to the clauses standing part.

Clause 10 agreed.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

57: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting of impact on pollution(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on the overall level of pollution caused by the activities of sewerage undertakers within 3 months of the Act coming into force.(2) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the actual impact of the Act on the overall level of pollution caused by the activities of sewerage undertakers within 3 years of the Act coming into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to publish their expectations of the impact of the Act on pollution and the actual impact of the Act 3 years after it comes into force.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 57 and speak to Amendments 105 and 106 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

I thank His Majesty’s Government for publishing the impact assessment for this Bill. This is certainly helpful in giving the Committee a clear view of what the Government expect to achieve with these measures, but there is still no provision in the Bill for an assessment of the actual impact of the Act. Our proposal is that in three years’ time the Government should produce a report on the effects of the Bill, so that Parliament can reassess the effectiveness of these measures. Can the Minister give an assurance today that the Government are willing to undertake such an assessment, to give Parliament the opportunity to discuss the impact of this Bill once its measures have been in place long enough for their effects to be measured?

The impact assessment released highlights the need to continue with these amendments. On overall impact, it reveals that there will likely be a negative monetised impact on businesses, including the cost of regulator enforcement recovery, improved monitoring and adjusted penalty systems. These impacts may be acceptable if they drive up water company performance and result in reduced pollution, but Parliament should be given the opportunity to debate this.

I will speak briefly to Amendments 105 and 106. We welcome the assessment of the impact of the justice measures that has been published in the Government’s impact assessment but share my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s concerns about these measures, given the pressure that our prison system is currently under.

We have seen that the Bill could impose a custodial sentence on water company executives. Given the overcrowding of prisons and the recent release of thousands of violent offenders, it seems to us that the Government have got their priorities wrong. Surely the Government should seek to ensure that violent offenders, including domestic abusers, are serving their full custodial sentences before Ministers consider imprisoning water company executives. Polluting a river is of course a serious offence, but we must ensure that our prisons, which are already under strain, are not further challenged by the introduction of new custodial sentences for water company executives. I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 105 and 106 were commencement blocks when laid that sought to ensure that the Government published an assessment of the justice impact of the Bill before it could come into effect. I thank the Government for publishing their impact assessment, which makes it clear that there will be a small additional burden on our already strained prison estate as a result of the custodial sentences included in the Bill. I am satisfied that the Government’s impact assessment covers the justice impacts of the Bill, so I will not press my amendments.

That said, this is a good opportunity to raise the question of the Government’s priorities. We know the burden on our prisons will be small but is it not the wrong priority to sentence water executives to up to two years’ imprisonment at a time when the Government are releasing violent criminals early? Equally, there is the question of necessity. The Government’s own impact assessment states:

“Defra assumes there could be one case every two years with the maximum sentence of a two-year imprisonment based on the fact there has been four historic cases”.


So is this provision truly necessary? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns in her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the Government have fully assessed the potential impacts of the Bill on the justice system and understands why the Government will not be able to accept this amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her constructive response to this debate, and I am most encouraged by her commitment to future assessment of the impact of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

63: Clause 4, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
“(5K) The water undertaker or sewerage undertaker must provide relevant officers under subsection (5J) with mandatory training on subsection (3E) and how it relates to their powers and duties described in subsection (3D).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that relevant officers receive training from the undertaker on the penalties for offences related to impeding investigation by environmental regulators, as well as how these offences relate to their powers and duties as undertakers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell I will speak also to Amendment 64. As we have discussed in the previous group, many within the water industry will now be captured by statutory responsibilities and be subject to custodial sentences if they make wrong decisions. This is a considerable liability and the goal of this Bill must be in part that no one goes to jail or is fined because no criminal or civil act has been performed.

There are similar responsibilities on all investment professionals within the financial services industry and for that reason annual training on anti-money laundering law and market manipulation and insider trading law is compulsory. Having left the industry over two and a half years ago, I am still completely aware of that law and my responsibilities under it. The main reason for this is to prevent a breach of the law, but subsidiary reasons are to rule out that non-compliance with this law is due to ignorance and is either negligence or criminality. That helps to protect both individuals and firms.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell are intended to ensure that this annual training must take place to avoid or minimise any impedance of investigations by the regulators. It should also make clear the powers that the regulators and authority have to those employees to avoid any doubt. If we are to ensure that this remains an industry that the 100,000 employed within it want to build their careers and advance in, it is unhelpful if those towards the top of the organisation are locked up while claiming they had no knowledge of the law.

The Minister may offer that, rather than putting this into legislation, it can be dealt with by rules from the authority or the regulator. As we have discussed in earlier groups, confidence in those bodies is not as high as desired. I believe it is critically important that we also offer what protection we can to employees within this legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for speaking to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his absence. Amendments 63 and 64 relate to guidance and mandatory training for water company employees on obstruction offences.

One thing that it is important to emphasise on this matter is that Clause 4 amends only existing offences. It does not create any new obligations on companies, so employees should already have some understanding of that in the first place. To be clear, the existing offences are obstruction of investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Prosecutions have already been brought against companies and individuals under Section 110 of the Environment Act 1995. On that basis, we believe that companies should already be very well aware of their obligations under that section of the 1995 Act, and of the obligations to their staff to ensure that they are properly trained to engage in this area.

I reassure the noble Lord that the obligations of companies are set out as well in the Environment Agency’s enforcement and sanctions policy, so it should be very clear. I hope he understands why we do not think it proportionate to put this into legislation.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the reply from the Minister. I am not sure that I am necessarily entirely satisfied with it, but—as I have not yet had a chance to say it today—I am most grateful to the Minister for the constructive engagement that she has had with us, as well as all parties in this House. That will continue and perhaps we can discuss it then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn now to the amendments that we are making to Clauses 5 to 8. Government Amendments 68, 71, 76, 77 and 83 are minor and technical amendments to clarify who is within scope of the measures in Clauses 5 to 8. The inclusion of water and sewerage undertakers remains unchanged by these amendments.

Ofwat issues water supply and sewerage licences, which give the holder rights to provide water or sewerage retail services—for example, billing—or certain services using the public water and wastewater networks. In this remit, businesses are operating as water companies. The amendments make it clear that the measures relating to penalties and the recovery of enforcement costs apply to licensees only in relation to their water supply and sewerage licensed activities. This clarification means that companies can be subject to these measures where this is relevant to their licensed activity.

As businesses with these licences often operate in other sectors alongside the water industry, wider business activities unrelated to the licensing regime should not be brought within scope of Clauses 5 to 8. These amendments ensure that this is the case. For example, a food manufacturer may hold a water supply licence that is issued by Ofwat and permits them to provide billing and metering water services only. Unrelated permitted or licensed activity, regulated by the Environment Agency and undertaken by this business, such as abstraction of water for food manufacturing, would not be in scope of the Bill measures. This is because these activities, which are already regulated and enforced, are not relevant to the company’s operations as a water company.

These amendments minimise impacts on wider businesses and their regulation and ensure that enforcement regimes are consistent within sectors, while still ensuring that water companies are better held to account where they have failed to deliver for the environment. I commend these amendments to the House.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group. It is essential that the way that this Bill applies to the activities of licensees is clearly laid out, and we are satisfied that the amendments brought by the Minister are necessary to achieve this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is very widely drawn. As I read it, it would ban the Secretary of State from taking advice from anyone who was a director or an employee of a water company, and that seems rather absurd.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for introducing this group on the duties and running of the water regulator. Before I address the amendments, I would like to ask my question from the repeat of an Oral Statement yesterday again; it was also echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Will the Minister make some commitments on the timing of the legislation that will follow the independent commission? As I mentioned, that timing will have a significant bearing on noble Lords’ commitment to their amendments going into this Bill to address shortcomings of the industry that are blatant now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I also referenced the commitment by the Secretary of State that this review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. That would seem to indicate that any new legislation could not come into effect until the end of this decade. Does the Minister agree?

I turn to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on conflicts of interest. We on these Benches feel that propriety in the water sector is crucial and there should clearly be appropriate rules for all employees of Ofwat. That said, it is not clear to the Official Opposition that this should be placed on a statutory footing and I agree with my noble friend Lord Remnant that there are implications outside the water industry from this kind of move.

It is right that the Government should take steps to ensure that Ofwat is run in a manner that appropriately prioritises the consumer and environment, and the majority of amendments in this group address the failures of Ofwat and the need for improvements. Amendments 79 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Amendment 81 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendments 84 and 85 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, all address the fundamental need to reform the way we regulate our water sector.

The Government have not yet told us when they will bring forward whole sector reform. I am grateful that we have an opportunity to discuss reform of the regulator today, and it may not be an issue that disappears from the debate on this Bill until we have confidence that this further reform will be delivered in an acceptable timeframe. While it is worth noting that any transition period would most likely be disruptive, there are certainly important failures that must be addressed at Ofwat. Whether the Government choose to reform our existing regulator or, as has been suggested by a number of noble Lords, abolish and replace it with something better, it is clear that the British people deserve better.

I was going to raise further evidence of the failure of the regulators but the Committee may have heard enough on that. As far back as 2011, the Gray review into Ofwat found:

“Many stakeholders told us that Ofwat was not sufficiently accountable either to Parliament or to stakeholders in general”.


This situation has not changed. As I noted yesterday, it is welcome that the review will address accountability.

On the creation of public benefit companies, which has been hinted at by the Government and mentioned in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it is very much the view of the Official Opposition that the continuation of the role of private capital in the water sector is imperative. Recently, the Thames Tideway tunnel was completed, which modernised the Thames sewage system and has made it fit for the 21st century—a feat that would not have been possible without private investment. This project shows the value of innovation, which is considerably harder to prioritise under a nationalised or public benefit system. When there are market incentives, better financial decisions are made. As such, the existence of private stakeholders and investment allows for a more successful sector.

We recognise that, to prevent water companies from causing further damage to our rivers, lakes and beaches, the regulator must be reformed and we hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments from across the House today as the Government look to finalise their wider plans for whole sector reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 32, 39 and 40 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The case has already been put very well that there is absolutely no point in having these plans drawn up and published if there is no requirement for the companies to implement them and no sanctions if they do not. This seems a bit of a no-brainer. I suggest to the Minister that, if there is some legal impediment to these plans being implemented, we should do away with the requirement to draw up and publish them. That would be the most honest thing to do, if there will be no requirement to implement and no sanctions if they do not; otherwise, they are just dangling in mid-air, of neither use nor ornament.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing this group of amendments and for the strong case that she and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have made regarding the importance of publishing and, crucially, implementing pollution incident reduction plans, or PIRPs. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 31; I would have published our own equivalent had the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not been so swift with her pen. Without a requirement to implement, a pollution incident reduction plan would, frankly, be of little use.

Moving on to Amendment 34A, and declaring my interest as a landowner within Dartmoor National Park, while I approve of the sentiment behind the amendment, I would be reluctant to make our national parks a special case. We treasure our entire country. My preference would be for the water companies to focus on the worst pollution incident risks, which I imagine will be a consequence of their pollution incident reporting plans, particularly if compliance with those plans becomes strengthened through this group of amendments. We are committed to decreasing the impact of pollution incidents, and in government we committed to creating the water restoration fund, which would have seen the money collected from fines and penalties directly channelled into improving the water environment. We proposed a plan to improve water systems and, as such, we recognise the importance of creating and adhering to these PIRPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving her amendment. I am glad that she has tabled amendments that address some of the underlying causes of sewage spills, such as excess rainwater run-off overwhelming sewerage systems. My noble friend is right to look at the root of the problems faced by this industry in order to ensure that the legislation deals with underlying causes, rather than just surface-level symptoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for moving her amendment. I am pleased she has tabled this amendment, which rightly seeks to include a greater focus on nature-based solutions within this industry. She and I share the objective of restoring nature—unusually, perhaps she thinks for a Conservative Member of this House—and biodiversity. Having seen that she also supports my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, I hope we can share some of the means of achieving that objective.

I first remind the Committee of my interests set out in the register as a farmer and land manager, as well as an investor in various natural capital businesses and developer of carbon-enabled forestry and restoring peatlands. I should have also declared in the previous group that I share my lands with a beaver.

I agree with the principle of Amendment 37. However, I fear that, in its current form, it is too loose an obligation that is being created, and it would be too easy for water companies to pay lip service to.

Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both seek to put water companies under additional obligations towards national parks and chalk streams. I do not believe that it benefits this Bill or industry to prioritise these more glamorous and beautiful natural environments over less high-profile environments that may be in much worse condition. Of course pollution incidents in Lake Windermere or the River Misbourne are heartbreaking, but are they worse than what is routinely happening elsewhere in this country’s lakes, rivers and beaches?

I also believe that special administration as a punishment for non-compliance in national parks is a very extreme measure and may have more to do with the Liberal Democrat position of wanting all companies under government control rather than being a fair penalty.

Independent Water Commission

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the independent commission led by such a respected figure as Sir Jon Cunliffe. However, after 14 years of criticising our government policy in this area, why did the new Government not have clear ideas of their own to fix this industry by the time they took office?

As has been discussed at Second Reading and in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, there is concern over the timetable for bringing forward legislation for a full reform of the water industry after this review is complete. Will the Minister make commitments on the timing of that legislation for noble Lords’ consideration when deciding whether to press their amendments that might increase the breadth of the Bill’s impact? The Secretary of State has given a commitment that the review will not make recommendations that affect the 2024 price review. In another place, it has been suggested that the review would not, therefore, lead to legislation that takes effect before 2029. Does the Minister agree?

It is reassuring to see the Government adopt our own previous policy of removing rights to bonuses for water company directors; however, will the Minister inform the House of the total amount of performance-related pay within the sector since privatisation and what percentage of total investment that is? Taking away bonuses will not change the finances of the water industry. It is most pressing to ensure that the industry is properly capitalised to undertake the investment programme that this country needs to deliver clean water at an affordable price. How much has been ring-fenced for that in the agreement between the Secretary of State, the industry and Ofwat announced on 11 July?

It was disappointing that only the last of the terms of reference addressed financial resilience at all. It is critical, given the parlous state of some companies in the sector and the need for investment to deliver clean rivers, lakes and beaches, that this issue is addressed quickly and effectively. My own amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill limiting water company leverage was not much liked by the Minister. What other measures are the Government taking to restore financial stability in the short term? It has also been reported that the Government will consider forcing the sale of water companies in England to firms that would run them as not-for-profits. Can the Minister confirm whether this is part of the Government’s review, and is she willing to give the House some examples of this kind of approach working elsewhere? For example, does she consider Welsh Water’s record in Labour-run Wales to be a good one?

It has been a source of much frustration to this House that there is a lack of accountability to this House for the actions and inaction of the regulators. We welcome the terms of the review to clarify regulators’ relationships with Parliament. Does the Minister agree that, when she is speaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the regulators, it might be desirable that they were more accountable to her and to this House?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and thank the Minister for this Statement updating the House on the launch of the independent water commission. There is much that we on these Benches welcome, most importantly that this Government, through the Water (Special Measures) Bill presently being considered by this House and the launch of the water commission, have given a clear signal that they are determined to try to fix our broken water system. The intent is a welcome step change, and I am thankful for it.

That said, there is a time for reviews and commissions and a time for calm, direct and decisive government action to fix systems that have been broken for far too long. The Government talk proudly about their longer-term approach, when the electorate is keen for more radical and immediate action. My friendly warning to the Labour Government is that the people who voted for them did so with the expectation that real action would be taken to resolve this mess, at scale and at pace. Labour has had many years in opposition; quite frankly, we expected the Government to be better prepared and to have come up with the necessary plans and answers by now that are urgently needed to fix these problems.

The water industry is a mess, and the sewage scandal was a critical issue at the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are determined to put the protection of our precious natural environment at the heart of everything we do. In 2023, water companies dumped 54% more sewage into our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounts to 464,000 incidents and 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Meanwhile, water bills are set to rise by some 40%. We are clear that we would abolish Ofwat, create a new, unified and far more powerful clean water authority and replace the failed private water companies with public benefit companies.

The Government have taken a different policy direction. My worry is that the magic trick of making Ofwat fit for purpose, securing investment while keeping consumer water bills low and protecting our environment lies way beyond the measures contained in the Water (Special Measures) Bill and that, when further legislation finally arrives, it will be too late. I welcome the Minister’s engagement, but I call on the Government to work with all sides to make the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill more radical and robust. Our environment cannot wait while Labour decides on the real systemic reforms that are the only solutions to this crisis.

Only 14% of our rivers and streams are in good ecological health. With the commission taking at least a year to consider evidence and report back to government, and with further legislation only then to be prepared and debated in Parliament, the radical change required appears unlikely to be implemented before 2028-29 at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge a growing sense of concern on all sides of the House that the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill are not enough to fix the problem and that further legislation derived from the conclusions of the water commission will just not arrive in the urgent timescales required.

The 30% by 2030 target for protection of nature is coming up urgently. How will this review help support that process? My understanding is that the water review will not report until 2025, which leaves a short timeframe for making the necessary changes and requirements to meet our targets. Further, if we find after the Water (Special Measures) Bill is passed that problems in the water industry persist and we are still in the gap before the water commission finishes its work and is ready, are the Government prepared to put forward additional urgent legislation to help fix any remaining problems?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will address my comments to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree with him that financial restructuring of companies has led us to where we are now, with Thames Water potentially on the brink of collapse—who knows who is going to have to fund the huge injection of capital that has apparently now been agreed. Other water companies are heavily indebted. Ofwat, which is after all the economic regulator, did not query, question or challenge those decisions made in the early years of water company privatisation.

The consequence is that anything the Government now attempt to do is basically closing the stable door after the horse has bolted—and raced to the other side of the world—because the companies are where they are. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that any future restructuring ought to be put under the microscope of the economic regulator, the current situation is leading us to a potentially very grave position, which the Government are trying to address with the other financial clauses in the Bill. I read the clause referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, as being directed pointedly at a particular water company.

I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I suppose it is better to change the situation now than leave it as it is, but what has happened already is unfortunate.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 92 is very simple. Had it been in place when the water companies were privatised, it would have prevented the aggressive financial engineering that has led to the financial distress we see regularly reported in the press, which has provoked much anger in this House and elsewhere over the years.

Before I address Amendment 92, I will briefly comment on Amendment 10 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It coexists neatly with my amendment, allowing regulators to be better informed on issues with the financial structures of the companies they regulate, and to be aware of future problems. I am pleased that the noble Lord has moved this amendment, and I broadly agree that the regulator should have better information about the financial structuring of water companies in the interests of protecting their viability and preventing circumstances in which they become overleveraged.

I will speak to the dangers of overleveraging and the problems we have as a result of the weakness of the regulator, but we on this side of the Committee are interested in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which takes a fairly moderate step towards having a better-informed regulator. That said, it may be possible to go further, either by reforming the way the regulator works in the water sector or, as I propose in Amendment 92, by implementing statutory rules on borrowing for water companies and taking effective steps to prevent capital being taken out of companies that are overleveraged. We need to make the water sector attractive to investors so that they bring more capital into it to fund investment in cleaner and better water infrastructure.

I add my whole-hearted support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Remnant. It seems grossly unfair that a company that has behaved responsibly should be penalised by the actions of another in the sector. I am aware of precedent in the financial services sector, but that is to protect the integrity of the financial system, which is in all participants’ interests. In this case, each water company is a unique entity whose actions have little or no impact on others. Without this amendment, one bad actor could contaminate the industry.

I add my concerns about the wording that my noble friend Lord Remnant seeks to remove from the Bill. This new subsection as drafted applies the duty to render “relevant financial assistance” to any other company that holds, or held, an appointment under this chapter. This seems to me yet another example of retroactive effects that are littered throughout the Bill and which we will discuss in later groups. Could the Minister explain to the Committee what the Government’s intention is with this retroactive element in the Bill? Will there be a maximum period of time since the relevant company held an appointment for this duty to apply to it? This seems to us to be a concerning power, and we would seek clarifications from the Minister on both the unfairness at the core of this subsection and its retroactive element. I thank my noble friend Lord Remnant for introducing his amendment, and hope that he continues to make progress on this unfairness which exists in the Bill as drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

14: Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the new rules from overriding existing employment contracts.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 14, I will speak also to my Amendment 15.

As I mentioned in an earlier debate this evening, there are a number of areas in this Bill where its effects are retroactive on existing agreements, but the Bill fails to set out the exact limits of these powers. On these Benches, we have been clear at every stage in the passage of the Bill that we want to see tougher measures to hold water companies to account and to ensure that we have better outcomes for consumers and our environment. However, it would not be right for us to approve this Bill because it has a worthy goal, without scrutinising those areas where it is deficient. We have already spoken about Ofwat’s failures, and noble Lords across the Committee will surely admit that there are improvements to be made to the way that Ofwat itself works. Giving unclear levels of retroactive powers to the regulator is not something that should be accepted by Parliament, and we will scrutinise the Bill very closely on its retroactive impacts.

My Amendment 14 seeks to remove the lines from Clause 1 that seek to empower Ofwat to void existing agreements, including employment contracts. The Bill gives Ofwat the power to issue these rules without proper scrutiny, and in this part of the Bill we see how powerful those rules can be. Retroactively overriding employment contracts may be necessary for the Government’s objective to implement a blanket set of rules on remuneration for senior officers of water companies, but it is surely not an acceptable way to go about regulating the sector. I ask the Minister: what message does it send to a talented person working in the water sector today, as they build their career, to see measures such as this retroactively changing the rules of the game? We on these Benches fear that many talented people may choose to pursue a career outside the sector, for fear that the Government may yet again move the goalposts retrospectively.

I have intentionally tabled my related Amendment 15 separately, to probe whether the Government are willing to move at all on the retroactive impacts of the Bill. Amendment 15 seeks to remove the part of Clause 1 that enables the retroactive deprivation of performance-related pay under the rules. It is surely not right to implement rules now that have effect from the beginning of the year. Our concern is that the lines in the Bill that we seek to remove allow the Government to renegotiate unilaterally an employment contract that has been freely entered into between a third-party employer and a third-party employee. While it is customary that employment legislation often does just such a thing, there is very limited precedent for picking on one class of employees in one particular sector.

This is a very unfortunate precedent to set, which opens the door to a Government inserting themselves into employment contracts across other sectors to achieve the outcomes they want. That smacks of overreach. Should we seek to remove performance-related pay from software company managers if their software crashes; from insurance industry executives if we do not like their handling of claims; or from airline executives if their flights are late? I am sure that there may be some noble Lords across the Chamber nodding their heads that the Government should be doing just that; however, that is completely against the Government’s claims of being business-friendly. No competent executive would ever want to work for a UK-based company were these kinds of rules to be brought in.

Our amendment does not suggest a better alternative but simply suggests that the current method is unacceptable, and that the employed and the employer also need to be cognisant of the law and agree that these contracts be amended or replaced with agreement to reflect the intent of the Bill.

There is also the issue, which my noble friend Lord Remnant may address in greater detail in his comments, of interference in multiyear contracts, where portions of that payment may already have been earned and yet could potentially be prohibited under the Bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Explanatory Notes provided to the House by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Paragraph 79, under “Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights”, says:

“Provision relating to remuneration of water company executives is also not considered to result in ‘deprivation’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as the provision relates to future income. Such income will only constitute a possession once it has been earned”.


I suggest that income in prior years in multiyear contracts has already been earned, just not yet paid. Therefore, I question the Minister on how compliance with the ECHR can be guaranteed in this case.

My amendments are, by their nature, probing. Given that they address an election manifesto commitment, they are designed to produce convincing answers from the Government on how these issues can be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that Amendment 26 in my name falls into the same grouping as those in the name of my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra. Although I very much regret that your Lordships’ time is having to be spent on potentially amending proposed legislation that has retrospective effect, it gives me the opportunity very much to support the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Roborough in support of Amendments 14 and 15.

It cannot be right retrospectively to override contract law with respect to employment contracts freely entered into by company and individual in line with relevant legislation and regulations in force at the time. Similarly, to the extent that, today, pay can be recovered from senior individuals under malus and clawback provisions in listed companies’ remuneration policies, such a draconian power can rightly be exercised only in extremely limited circumstances known in advance by the individual. The proposed exercise of the pay prohibition in the Bill retroactively goes way beyond accepted remuneration practice, and unacceptably so.

On my own amendment, I will not repeat the general arguments made by my noble friend against the principle of retroactive or retrospective legislation. I am no lawyer, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I perhaps erroneously use the terms interchangeably. The offending principle, though, remains the same. The general rule in this country, and indeed in most modern legal systems, is that legislative changes apply prospectively. If we do something today, we feel that the law applying to it should be the law in force today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it.

The Bill proposes that the provisions about performance-related pay apply from the financial year beginning 1 April 2024. We are currently some seven months into that financial year, and the Bill will not be enacted for some months hence. In effect we are talking about backdating the provisions for the best part of a year. The remuneration arrangements entered into between senior individuals and their employer will have been agreed under remuneration policies agreed by shareholders well before April for them to take effect from 1 April 2024. It surely cannot be right, whatever the merits of the Bill, for its provisions subsequently to alter those arrangements and the remuneration paid, or to be paid, under them.

Few things concern investors more than retrospective legislation, and listed companies will need to consult with and seek approval from shareholders on changes to remuneration policies at their AGM. Requiring retrospective changes risks companies breaching shareholder-approved remuneration policies. More fundamentally, it will undermine investor confidence at a time when they are being asked to fund a record investment programme.

My amendment would simply change the date from which the performance-related pay provisions come into effect from a historic 1 April 2024 to a mildly prospective 1 April 2025. Is that really too much to ask, to avoid breaching a fundamental legal principle? I do not think so and I hope that the Minister will agree with me.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have stuck with us this evening and carried on the debate. We know that the public have been clear that they want to see change and that where performance is poor, executives should not receive large salaries or bonuses.

I will start with Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The conditions of existing employment contracts may not align with Ofwat’s new rules. Our concern is that Amendment 14 may prevent Ofwat being able to apply its rules even when performance has not met the required standards. On Amendment 15, it is also right that where companies breach Ofwat’s rules on performance-related pay, Ofwat should be able, if it considers it appropriate, to require the company to recover any payment made in breach of the rules. Linking pay to performance should incentivise decision-making, resulting in improved outcomes for customers in the environment. I reiterate what I said earlier: should companies meet their performance expectations, executives can still be rewarded. So I hope that the noble Lord will understand why we will not accept his amendments.

I turn to Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. This legislation will ensure that Ofwat is able to implement rules on performance-related pay in the current financial year. However, I listened really carefully to the speech that the noble Lord just made introducing his amendment. I would really like to understand his concerns better, so I wonder whether he would welcome further discussion on this matter so that we can look at it in more detail. I would very much appreciate it if the noble Lord was prepared to do that. But currently we are not going to accept the amendments as we feel that they would prevent meaningful implementation of the rules.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. We respect that this is an election manifesto commitment and therefore needs to be in the Bill in some form, but my noble friend Lord Remnant and I would both like to discuss further with the Minister, if possible, how we can help to improve this part of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

19: Clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) Rules made for the purposes of determining standards of fitness and propriety mentioned in subsection (2)(b) must include criteria that help the undertaker to assess—(a) whether persons have the knowledge, skills and experience to perform the specific role that they are intended to perform;(b) whether, in assessing a candidate for a position within the management body of the undertaker, the management body as a collective possesses adequate knowledge, skills and experience to understand the undertaker’s activities;(c) how relevant and important any matters which suggest a person might not be fit and proper are;(d) whether appointed persons on temporary absence continue to meet the standards of fitness and propriety.(5B) The criteria in subsection (5A) are to be treated as guidance and may be applied in general terms when the undertaker is determining a person’s fitness and propriety.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will attempt to be brief, in view of the hour.

Amendment 19 provides a clear definition of the criteria that will be used in determining whether someone is fit and proper to hold a responsible role in the water industry. As currently drafted, there is no definition and, as such, it is likely that everyone consulted would have their own different definition of what “fit and proper” might look like. There is precedent in another industry for such a test, which was undoubtedly in the back of the drafter of the Bill’s mind, in the financial services industry. My amendment is an edited version of the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition of a “fit and proper person”. As I was previously a senior manager in an investment management business under the FCA’s senior manager regime, I have first-hand experience of this test.

Even as laid out by the FCA, there was considerable debate about the application of the tests. I also question whether Ofwat is really the right place for such an assessment to be made. In the financial services sector, it is for the member firm to make its own determination and express its view to the FCA when seeking to register a new employee. The FCA could then query that view and potentially overturn it. Should Ofwat be required to do this, it is likely to use less professional help and real-world experience in forming that view and will require dedicated infrastructure to process applications. If the undertakers are responsible, overseeing those applications becomes relatively straightforward.

This may not be a long debate, with only one amendment, but it is an important amendment to consider when giving effect to the Government’s intentions in this Bill. In providing clarity to the undertakers, what is intended by this provision? I am most interested in the Minister’s response and hope that, if she is not happy with my amendment, she might set out who she considers a fit and proper person and how that will be communicated to Ofwat and the industry. I am also most interested to hear why the Bill’s proposal for how to implement this is different from the financial services industry, despite a reasonably long and moderately successful record within that industry. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, how nice to have a quick last group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for introducing the last group of today with his Amendment 19, which seeks to specify the criteria to be covered by the rules on fitness and propriety, ensuring that senior leaders meet the public’s expectations.

I have mentioned Ofwat’s consultation on remuneration and governance before, and I would just like to confirm to the noble Lord that this consultation references similar criteria to those proposed by his amendment. Ofwat’s consultation seeks views on whether it would be appropriate to include a concept of “ability” in the new test, defined as an individual having adequate knowledge and understanding of the duties of the undertaker. Ofwat has stated its intention to design a fit and proper person test with criteria that will improve public trust and company culture in the water sector, having considered how other sectors are regulated around these same principles. I hope this captures the noble Lord’s concern that standards of fitness and propriety will need to be relevant and encompass concepts of knowledge and understanding. Of course, we feel that Ofwat’s independence is an important part of the trust that companies have in the regulatory regime.

The noble Lord asked why we felt Ofwat should be setting these criteria. We think it is right that Ofwat has the opportunity to consult on these criteria and that companies then have the opportunity to respond and perhaps propose different criteria. It needs to be a situation where Ofwat can then tailor these fitness and propriety standards to the water industry, rather than having prescriptive standards set out within the primary legislation. It is important that Ofwat’s independence is clearly upheld, because it will support its ability to hold senior officials to account for their actions.

Ofwat also notes in its consultation that the 16 largest water companies have a licence condition that requires them to meet the four objectives of its board, which are leadership, transparency and the governance principles. These objectives include the requirement for boards and board committees to have the appropriate balance of skills, experience, independence and knowledge. I hope the noble Lord is content that this is already being looked at; I hope that he will look at the consultation and therefore see that his amendment is no longer necessary.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, and it is certainly very helpful. Perhaps something I could have brought out more in my initial comments were the concerns over accountability. When I look at the FCA’s senior manager regime, and the fit and proper tests, none of that is here—nowhere is there any accountability to Parliament. We will take the Minister’s comments away and give this further thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

I am asking the Government to ensure that the dividends cannot be paid without a disclosure of the distributable reserves by these companies. These dividends need to be approved not just by the regulator but by other stakeholders. We need to have customers sitting on these companies’ boards, and they must vote on this. We need to have employees sitting on these companies’ boards, and they must also approve these things. At the moment the authority does absolutely nothing. If the Government are really interested in improving the financial resilience of companies, I hope they will accept this amendment towards that purpose.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the lead amendment in this group. I will speak to Amendment 27 in my name.

Amendment 27 seeks to set a timeframe of six months within which the authority must publish rules regarding remuneration and governance, and it ensures that these rules are scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation. This amendment is necessary to ensure that water companies are able to review the rules that Ofwat intends to implement within six months of the Act coming into effect. The amendment will also ensure that there are mechanisms for raising any concerns within which Ministers and Parliament can scrutinise them fully.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, which simply deletes new subsection (5)(c) on page 2. It seems to me that we cannot allow the authority—whatever it may be in the future, after the review, or even from now on—to start getting involved in the remuneration of those below board level. That really becomes too much intrusion into the way a company is run.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is entirely correct that, in the end, a director of a company is a director, whether executive or non-executive, as covered by the Bill; it mentions “a director” of the company. It seems to me that, while senior role remuneration should have some guidance from the authority, that should be restricted to the chief executive and other executive board members. There is no point entering into a discussion about non-executive directors, who clearly do not participate in performance-related pay or bonuses or anything like that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, is right; it would be appropriate to delete new subsection (5)(c) and include in this clause only the chief executive and any other executive director.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for moving Amendment 4. It is right that the Government should take steps to put appropriate pressure on water and sewage companies to reduce the frequency and scale of water pollution incidents, and imposing financial penalties on board-level executives is a powerful way of disincentivising unwanted behaviours in the sector. But if we are to have financial penalties targeted at water executives who do not meet the standards expected of them, we must ensure that these are appropriate. As we discussed in the last debate, it is crucial that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise the rules that Ofwat will be implementing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name. As this is my first contribution on an amendment of my own, I thank the Minister for meeting me, for the fact sheets and the letter, and for the good news that the commission and the review are taking place. We all appreciate that. I support the Bill and welcome the commission review to come.

I turn to the amendment. As touched on by other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in the debates on the second and third groups of amendments, company employees require appropriate remuneration, just as investors need a return. But the financial engineering introduced previously by investors and company directors—for example, debt levels, transfers to parent companies and other practices that were forensically set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka —has enabled opaque enrichment, and has subsequently brought some water companies close to bankruptcy. That is not what monopoly water companies are for, and I believe it lies at the very heart of the current problems of the water companies.

The amendment enables the authority to include rules or guidance, as we may decide, with regard to a company’s structuring and its transparent reporting. It is deliberately left as “may” rather than “must” because the authority may want some flexibility here. Nevertheless, the amendment would act as an overt reference to the responsibility of the authority and water company employees to evaluate clearly the company’s financial structures and changes to them, and how those would impact on the distribution of financial benefits across investors, employees, directors and, indeed, consumers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, yet again for introducing this group and raising these matters for consideration when the Government are establishing the regulations surrounding performance, pay and bonuses.

Amendment 17 seeks to clarify the definition of what constitutes performance-related pay. There are many ways in which companies can create performance-based incentive schemes. That can include multiyear programmes containing cash bonuses, share awards, restricted stock units, share options and pension contributions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, it rarely includes chauffeur-driven cars, private schooling or any other benefits in kind, which tend to be part of the base package.

Is the intention to capture all forms of performance-based rewards within the powers of the Bill? If so, would it not be better to be exhaustive in defining them in the Bill? It is vital that such a definition be as clear as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its intent to punish senior executives who are not fulfilling their obligations to us all in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches.

In the Bill as drafted, the rules are not clear enough as to what financial components could make up the bonus of a senior water company employee in a given financial year. The amendment is therefore necessary to prevent water companies redesigning performance-based awards to take them outside the scope of the Bill. This is not to suggest any nefarious activity, but anyone currently captured by the Bill would choose not to be if they were able. It would then become impossible for a water company not to offer schemes outside the scope of the Bill if they wanted to attract the best talent.

I understand the intention of Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It is indeed important that we ensure that water companies have no incentives to continue polluting our rivers. We have looked at this issue in our own amendments. Amendment 27 would ensure that any rules relating to pay and governance will be suitably scrutinised, so I believe the issue could be solved without the inclusion of Amendment 5.

Additionally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whether he has considered the impact that this amendment would have on the hiring process of water companies. I think it unlikely that many people would respond to a job advert indicating that you may have a salary but that there is a chance that by the end of the year it could be taken away from you. If the total remuneration of senior roles is included in the Bill, it is inevitable that water companies will lose people with relevant skills and experience in the sector. That will worsen the leadership and perhaps lead to more serious issues within the sector.

It is also possible that the water companies would be forced to delegate their own management to third-party consultants outside the scope of the Bill entirely, in order to find the necessary expertise to run the companies. Have the Government given thought to how to cope with the possibility of such third-party consultants not captured by the Bill?

On Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I agree that both legal and illegal dumping of sewage lead to undesirable outcomes. As such, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. In 2022 we published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which put in place targets to reduce the release of the overflow of sewage and in fact to stop it, except in situations with unusually heavy rainfall, by 2050. So we recognise that the issue is a pressing one and that action must be taken to ensure our rivers are kept clean. However, in order to stop the legal release of sewage, a substantial investment of money and time is necessary, and the amendment does not allow for such provision of time.

Our sewerage systems are a result of Victorian infrastructure design, and the increasing population and heavier, more frequent storms have led to increased pressure on this system. The suggested penalty will make it even less desirable to hold a senior role in a water company. As such, it will further decrease the number of people with skills and expertise at senior levels. This is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the water system for consumers, which is ultimately the aim we share across these Benches. I fail to see how we can support the noble Baroness’s amendment, despite the case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would require executives to take personal liability through their performance-related pay for unspecified structuring or restructuring that may put companies at financial risk. This would appear to us to be too vague to have much bite. It also potentially means that executives’ performance-related pay would be contingent on issues over which they might not have responsibility because they could be overridden by shareholders.

As I mentioned earlier, in response to an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 92 in my name in a later group, which would be a clear-cut prevention of payments to shareholders where there are potential issues of financial distress.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will tighten up the definition of performance-related pay in line with our amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 100. The water authorities in Berlin and Paris are publicly owned and have stakeholder-elected directors. In most European countries, large companies have stakeholder-elected directors in them, as either a substantial proportion of the unitary board or a German-style two-tier board where one board is supervisory, and the other is executive. On the supervisory board, directors are directly elected. There are plenty of precedents for stakeholder-elected directors on company boards, and in many ways the UK is an outlier.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving the amendment. I want to speak in support of Amendment 22, from my noble friend Lord Remnant, as well as Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

My noble friend is right to note that the decision whether to be on a board, panel or committee is the job of the company rather than any kind of external regulator. By allowing the company to make that decision, it can decide based on its own business needs. If this was left to Ofwat, not only could it lead to a situation where the board, panel or committee did not fit well into the company structure but it might harm relationships between those forums and the board of the company.

It seems unlikely that a regulator would ever have access to all the information needed to make decisions on how a company’s decision-making systems should be structured, and it is surely the responsibility of the company itself to ensure that it has the right processes in place to make the correct decisions according to its needs. Indeed, as we have heard from many noble Lords, it is clear that the regulator has failed to get important decisions right in the past, to the detriment not only of companies but of the environment. Yes, of course, the regulator should have its role in holding companies to account for their decisions, but the moment regulators are involved in decision-making, it surely takes some responsibility for those choices too.

We are concerned that having consumer representatives on the board or their being involved in any decision-making within the company creates a blurring of responsibility. There is already the risk of some confusion, given the role of regulators, but they are at least experts in the industry and well informed about their roles, acting within well-defined parameters.

I agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on sectional interests and the effective working of a board. Consumer representatives on a board lay themselves open to the responsibilities of being a company director and in some cases a director of a listed company. Do the Government really want such consumer directors to be open to fines or prosecution for failing to deliver accounts on time, trading while insolvent or even insider dealing? It is not clear to me as the Bill is drafted that those consumer representatives could not also be subject to fines or prosecution by the regulator. If a consumer representative proposed an action that led to penalties from the regulator, how could they not be responsible?

Turning this around to the perspective of the existing board and management, if consumers are part of decision-making, then it is conceivable that they could cause or prevent an action by the company that created regulatory breaches and punitive action. How would this coexist with the responsibilities and liabilities of professional managers and board directors? How could this not create liability for the consumer representative?

My comments about consumer representation apply equally, if not more, to the environmental experts proposed in Amendment 9 by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I understand and applaud the sentiment behind the amendment, of environmental representatives representing the stakeholder that has no natural voice, the environment. However, environmental campaigners already have a strong voice. There are obligations already present for companies, and others may be imposed through amendments to the Bill. I also agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that environmental representatives, alongside consumer representatives, should be limited to panels.

Allowing the company to decide the forum in which such representatives take part would benefit both sides of the agreement. If the company has taken this decision, then it becomes clear that the company, its managers and employees remain jointly responsible for decisions. I am not clear from the Bill exactly how the Government intend that its proposals should work. Both my noble friend Lord Remnant’s Amendment 22 and Amendments 21 and 23 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, have considerable merit. While there is a contradiction inherent between them, both are good solutions to creating the involvement of consumers that the Government want.

I thank all noble Lords for their involvement in this spirited debate. I ask the Minister to explain exactly how she sees consumer involvement working in practice under the Bill. I also ask that she give serious thought before Report to the amendments that I have addressed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has come across clearly that there is no agreement about who should sit on the boards. We want to rebuild trust in the water sector, and to do that we are giving Ofwat new powers to issue new rules on remuneration and governance.

I turn first to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The powers on remuneration and governance outline a requirement for Ofwat to set rules on companies for including consumers in decision-making. We feel that it is appropriate for Ofwat, as the independent regulator, to determine how this is implemented. Water companies have a range of legal environmental obligations that they are required to meet, and actions related to these obligations will already be informed by specialists in the company.

We believe that introducing requirements to include environmental experts on company boards would take the focus away from involving consumers in water company decisions, which do not have the same level of legal requirements as the environment does. Environmental issues should already be a key consideration in water company decision-making. Importantly, my officials in Defra have worked to secure agreement with companies to update their articles of association, to place both customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions. I hope that this clarifies to noble Lords that the Bill ensures the prioritisation of consumer representation on company boards and that they feel able not to press their amendments.

Waste: Incineration

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point around food waste: it is a real challenge. I know from talking to my counterparts in the department that, as part of our review of how we manage waste going forward, looking at food waste is critical, because there are so many different complex aspects to it, such as what is included, what is not included, and how we work with supermarkets and with local government. She is absolutely right to raise that issue and I will be discussing it further with my department.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in line with the Government’s climate commitments and, given energy from incineration is now our most CO₂-intensive generation, will the Government consider prioritising incineration plants for their £21.7 billion package of carbon capture and storage funding? Is it not better to fix an existing problem than create new problems around hydrogen production to fix?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the noble Lord knows that we have the new CCS—carbon capture and storage—facilities open. We see that as a critical funding decision that we need to be working on to move forward in this area. It is also important to think about how we regulate in this area going forward and how we recover the energy from this. It a very big picture that DESNZ is working on to ensure that we have sufficient energy capacity in the future, particularly around industry, and that that energy capacity is produced in a way that fits in with the circular economy and decarbonisation, so that we can meet our climate change targets.

Rural Communities

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming and land interests in Devon and Scotland as set out in the register. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, on his maiden contribution, in an area where he clearly has significant expertise. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have made contributions.

It is clear today that those living in rural communities have little idea what His Majesty’s Government regard as priorities for their benefit and desperately need reassurance. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned, the Government have made several significant commitments to developing renewable energy and energy transmission, as well as new housing. How can this be achieved while ensuring that local voices and rural areas are still heard in those decisions? I add my request to the Minister for an update on the land use framework and the NPPF.

The rural economy needs greater investment by the Government, rather than the rumoured cuts, in the short term to address food security and water quality, adapt to climate change and deliver our nature recovery obligations. I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister to fight to protect and increase the Defra budget and to commit to the continued rollout of ELMS, including the advanced SFI options that appear to be making limited progress. This is a critical segue into introducing private capital into creating these public goods. The Government can act as a catalyst for private sector investment, reducing that call on the Government in the medium to longer term and creating greater rural and societal prosperity providing they invest now as we work through our green finance strategy, ELMS and other measures.

The rural land-based economy has a tremendous opportunity from the introduction of private finance into natural capital. To allow this, Governments have to step in and create these markets to help to turn public goods into something the private sector will pay for. The fundamental requirement to develop these markets is that standards have integrity and can adapt to improving technology that allows better targeting and monitoring over time.

Our Government were working with the British Standards Institution on developing these standards. We had already created the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code, which stand level with best standards globally. It is critical that the Government commit to similar standards for other aspects of natural capital that underpin market confidence. In a Written Answer, the Minister stated that this is:

“Subject to the outcome of the Spending Review”.


That is somewhat disappointing, and words we may hear repeated later today.

Confidence in payment for developing key aspects of natural capital follows from the integrity of the standards. If the WCC and PCC enter into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, land managers can have confidence that there will be a liquid market for the carbon management we are undertaking. We were told in a Written Answer from the Minister that we must wait until 2025 before we receive the government response to consultation on this. Please can we move faster?

We need similar financial incentives for other goods such as flood prevention and water quality. Can we provide incentives for the water companies to buy these goods and services from land managers? Can we require corporates, under the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, to invest in nature recovery?

Land managers are businessmen, and if we enable the right incentives they will act accordingly. In the words of my noble friend Lord Benyon, Defra must

“weaponise farmers and land managers”,

as they are the ones who will deliver sequestered carbon and biodiversity, and aid better water management. The most efficient and effective way of doing that is to enable trustworthy and liquid markets for those goods. A thriving natural capital market will bring a new advisory and financial services industry that we can lead the world in, and export high-value, rural, private sector jobs and tax revenue. I urge the Government to move at pace to continue investing and developing these markets.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Roborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak at Second Reading of this important Bill, which is being followed closely by concerned members of the public across our country. I thank the Minister for her exemplary engagement with me and all Peers with an interest in this area. I am sure that we can continue to have these conversations to make the Bill as effective as possible.

We on this side of the House are committed to cracking down on pollution by water companies and we will support the Government to deliver effective measures that bring polluters to justice. While government can always do better, we are proud of our record. We increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 7% in 2010 to 100% today. The Thames Tideway tunnel is now complete. This is a £4 billion project that happened because our Government faced down opposition from Ofwat and others, including Members of this House, in guaranteeing the scheme by Act of Parliament. Aided by improved monitoring, we took firm action against persistent polluters, delivering the strictest targets ever on water companies to reduce pollution from storm overflows. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences. The effectiveness of these measures was shown this week when water companies in England and Wales were told to pay £158 million in penalties to customers, having failed to meet their targets.

In this Bill, we intend to work with the Government and the House to create the right balance of stakeholders’ interests. While the Government may not be willing to accept all our proposals for the current Bill, we hope they will get further attention in the promised further legislation.

Consumers have a right to expect affordable, clean drinking water and clean rivers, lakes and beaches. Our overall concern for consumers in this Bill is that it will add significant compliance costs to the industry that will then need to be passed on to those consumers. There is not enough clarity in the Bill on the potential fees that regulators and the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be able to charge, and we would like to understand what those fees will be and how they will impact consumer bills.

The measures on special administration orders appear to give the Government the power to change a water company’s charges paid by consumers to whatever level they wish to recover costs. It will be important to understand what work the Government have done to establish the impact these measures might have on consumer bills. The Minister mentioned that increases would be taken very seriously, but we may need more reassurance than that.

It is also relevant to raise the question of to whom water companies should pay their fines. We on this side of the House would be interested to hear whether Ministers agree that when water companies fail to deliver a service to customers that is safe and does not pollute our rivers, they are failing their customers and should compensate them accordingly. Ofwat already acts on behalf of the consumer, so can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the impact of consumer involvement on decision-making? What responsibility will those consumer representatives take for such involvement given the dire consequences of failure laid out in this Bill? The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made a number of suggestions which we are likely to be interested in supporting.

Our natural environment deserves to be treated better than it has been for many decades and the industry must continue to clean up its act. It is clear that those who focus on protecting our natural environment are not wholly impressed by this Bill. There have been a number of representations from River Action, Surfers Against Sewage and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, eloquently pointed out in respect of the River Wye, among others on how the Bill could be improved. We will monitor those and other suggestions with interest.

On pollution incident reduction plans, we agree that water companies need a clear plan of action to deliver positive change. However, it would be useful to know what assessment the Government have made of the practical benefits of the plans to ensure those documents have the desired effect.

We will also be looking at the measures to increase reporting of overflow events. Do the Government intend to make any distinction between events caused by third parties, such as run-off from roads, and those that are a result of failure within a water company?

I turn to employees. This sector creates livelihoods for 100,000 of our fellow countrymen and women, and we must ensure that this remains an industry that is an attractive place to build a career, while we also root out offenders. We support tough sentences for those who break the law but, to slightly repeat my noble friend Lord Remnant’s point, can the Minister explain why sending water executives to prison, under the measures in Clause 4, is really the best use of our prison capacity when current pressure on our prison estate has led to the Government implementing a prisoner early-release scheme? I ask the Minister to publish the Government’s justice impact assessment to understand the impact of this clause.

Clause 2(4) places a serious obligation on those qualifying as being authorised by the agency, and in turn will require a significant compliance effort to ensure that all those impacted are aware of the law and what their obligations are. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has spoken about a number of other measures that touch on justice-related matters, and it is important we get this right in the Bill. I will not repeat his arguments, but we will certainly be looking to improve the Bill in those areas as it passes through your Lordships’ House.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the measures in this Bill on remuneration and performance-related pay are designed to be retroactive, to take effect from the beginning of the financial year prior to the Bill becoming law. In addition, how will this interference in existing employment contracts work in practice? I would also agree with my noble friend Lord Remnant’s points— echoed by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sikka—about unintended consequences, as seen in the financial services industry, that this may simply mean that basic salaries increase dramatically.

The Bill also lacks clarity on the fit and proper person test for senior water executives. I am very familiar with how this works in the financial services industry but, in relation to this industry, I ask the Government to publish exactly how it will work, before the Bill reaches Committee. It is crucial we have more clarity on these issues, as water companies may now need compliance departments to comply with additional regulations. This will also have an impact on customer bills. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of introducing a fit and proper test and these other regulatory requirements on consumer bills? As other noble Lords have pointed out, shareholders and debt holders are essential to providing the long-term investment the industry needs, with £88 billion targeted. Returns must be sufficiently attractive and predictable to attract that capital.

We are concerned that the offences specified under Clause 6 are not listed in the Bill. The Government need to include these in the Bill rather than setting them down later in secondary legislation which noble Lords cannot amend. We would very much like to see a draft of these offences prior to Committee. As other noble Lords have pointed out, there are significant delegated powers provided in this Bill, and I echo all the comments for “More disclosure, please”.

As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller and many others mentioned, Ofwat and the Environment Agency may not be the right bodies to deliver the additional monitoring, penalties and enhanced regulatory regime required by this Bill. We would be very grateful to know what assessment Ministers have made of the performance of Ofwat and the Environment Agency before pressing ahead with a Bill that grants those regulators more powers. I particularly take note of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on this subject.

We are concerned that, under the recovery of costs provisions in a special administration regime, the Government may be able to recover costs incurred in action on one company from the wider industry. That represents a risk that shareholders should not be exposed to, and I would welcome clarification from the Minister on this point.

While the Bill makes significant provisions to increase the accountability of directors, companies and employees to the Government, we would really prefer to give this accountability of management, and performance-related pay, to shareholders, by adding more clarity to the impact of regulatory actions on shareholder returns. That is likely to lead to more coherent and efficient thinking throughout these businesses and less onus on government enforcement. It is also far more likely to achieve the change in culture that many noble Lords have demanded.

The Government should not be placed in a position where they may be forced to step in and correct market failures. Given the failures of regulation to protect the industry from aggressive financial structures, we think it is appropriate to introduce a cap on the leverage that a regulated water company can have within its operating company. Should shareholders and debt investors choose to put additional leverage on these companies above the operating company level, it will be at their own risk as we cannot allow these regulated monopolies providing essential services to be threatened in that delivery. Contributions from many Members suggest this might be a welcome move.

While not within the scope of the Bill, we would also like to see water companies incentivised to work with land and waterway managers on ecosystem restoration, bringing cleaner water and better flood resilience. I very much support the comments and questions on this area from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Within that context, I also draw the House’s attention to my interest as a land and river owner.

In conclusion, we on these Benches firmly support the Government’s ambition to deliver the cleaner rivers, lakes and beaches we all want, but we will be holding Ministers to account on the measures in the Bill in Committee, to ensure there is more clarity both for noble Lords and for the sector before the Bill goes for scrutiny in the other place. Once again, I thank the Minister for her engagement to date and I look forward to much constructive discussion about the Bill in the coming weeks.