Tuesday 15th January 2013

(11 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked By
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the costs to the consumer of the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Lord De Mauley Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, for Thames Water’s 13.8 million domestic sewerage customers, the tunnel is estimated to have an average maximum annual impact on bills of £70 to £80 at 2011 prices. This includes the cost of financing the project. The exact profile and duration of the cost to customers continues to be analysed. Spread over several decades, bills could gradually be affected from 2014-15, with the maximum impact estimated from around 2019.

Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the Minister, and glad that they are still looking at the finances. Does he agree that if Thames Water had paid a reasonable dividend appropriate to a utility for the past 12 years and Macquarie Bank had not taken £48 million a year on management fees, this project could have been funded out of Thames Water’s assets without any extra charge on the customers? Will he therefore instruct the regulator Ofwat to look at all this again—to look at alternatives such as a sustainable drainage system—so that customers can perhaps get a reduction in their fees rather than this horrendous increase?

Lord De Mauley Portrait Lord De Mauley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, Ofwat has ensured that the regulatory ring-fence in Thames Water’s licence was tightened following its acquisition by Macquarie. The ring-fence licence conditions on Thames Water already include a condition requiring Thames Water to ensure that its dividend policy will not impair the company’s ability to finance its functions. As for alternatives to the tunnel, studies have looked at all kinds of alternatives over the past decade but none has shown a viable cheaper solution that would simultaneously address the current sewer overflow problems within a decade, deliver value for money and meet environmental objectives.