💧 Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

• Bill Overview: The Water (Special Measures) Bill aims to reform the water sector in England and Wales, focusing on improving water quality and addressing issues related to water poverty and infrastructure management.

• New Clause 18: This clause amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to include special provisions in charges schemes, enabling automatic enrolment and cost-sharing among water companies for supporting vulnerable customers. It also facilitates broader information sharing and imposes a consultation requirement for future schemes.

• Government Amendments: The government tabled several amendments, aiming to commence certain provisions on Royal Assent, ensure Ofwat’s rules can be implemented swiftly, and support customers facing water poverty without impacting others’ bills adversely.

• Opposition and Amendments: The opposition criticized the bill for not being ambitious enough and proposed several amendments. Notable among them were:
  • New clause 16 to establish a Water Restoration Fund from fines on water companies, aimed at improving freshwater environments.
  • New clause 19 for equivalent bill reductions when fines are imposed on water companies.
  • Amendments to prevent bailouts of water company shareholders and creditors.

• Public Concerns and Health: The debate highlighted public dissatisfaction with the state of rivers, lakes, and seas due to sewage pollution. Many MPs expressed concerns about the impact on community health and the environment, particularly in areas used for aquatic sports and tourism.

• Financial Mismanagement: There were discussions on the financial mismanagement of water companies, with calls for stricter regulations on companies’ borrowing and debt levels to protect consumers from bearing the cost of water companies’ failures.

• Regulation and Ownership: A key point of contention was the role of Ofwat and the current water industry model. Some MPs suggested abolishing Ofwat and moving towards public or mutual ownership to address systemic failures and improve service delivery.

• Environmental Focus: Several amendments focused on environmental protection, such as requiring companies to reduce pollution incidents and to publish plans and strategies for improving water quality and preventing chemical pollutants.

• Third Reading: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs emphasized the government’s commitment to a complete reset of the water sector, mentioning immediate steps taken and future legislative plans based on the upcoming Cunliffe review.

• Debate Constraints: The session was criticized by some MPs for being constrained in time, not allowing adequate debate on this critical issue.

• Vote Outcomes: Proposed amendments, including the establishment of the Water Restoration Fund and equivalent bill reductions for fines, were voted down, while government amendments concerning the commencement of certain clauses were passed.

• Next Steps: The government anticipates further reforms following the Cunliffe commission’s report, which will review the entire water system and possibly lead to additional legislation.

The session on the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] displays a moderate level of disagreement, as evidenced by several key points of contention and exchanges among parliamentarians. Below is a detailed breakdown of the disagreements displayed during the session, along with specific examples:

1. Disagreement on Amendments and New Clauses: There were several proposed new clauses and amendments that sparked debate. Notably, Conservative Members proposed New Clauses 16 and 19, which aimed to establish a Water Restoration Fund and require equivalent bill reductions for fines imposed on water companies, respectively. Both were rejected, demonstrating a clear disagreement with the Government’s position. For example, the Conservative Member Dr. Neil Hudson expressed disappointment and urged the Government to reconsider their rejection of these amendments.

2. Political Debates and Criticisms: There were numerous political criticisms and debates between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition, as well as with the Liberal Democrats. For instance, the Conservative shadow Minister criticized the Labour Government for the lack of ambition in the Bill and for not adopting their proposed amendments. The Opposition pointed out that much of the Bill’s provisions were previously initiated by them, and accused the Government of delaying action. These exchanges highlighted disagreement over the handling and origins of the Bill’s measures.

3. Financial and Regulatory Measures: Amendments related to financial and regulatory measures, particularly those concerning Ofwat and water company management, showed notable contention. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment to abolish Ofwat and establish a new regulator was rejected, indicating a fundamental disagreement on regulatory frameworks. Additionally, debates over performance-related pay and the involvement of environmental NGOs on company boards, as critiqued by Liberal Democrat members, underscored differences in regulatory approach.

4. Public Ownership and Water Industry Model: Disagreement over the water industry model, particularly around public ownership, was clear. The Labour Government firmly opposed nationalization, whereas some members, including Liberal Democrats, argued for exploring alternative models, such as mutual ownership, as proposed in their New Clause 26.

5. Time Allocation for Debate: The time allotted for the debate was another source of disagreement, highlighted by the concluding point of order from the Conservative Member Jerome Mayhew. He expressed concern that the Government’s scheduling limited proper consideration of the Bill, indicating procedural disagreement. The Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, refuted this claim, asserting that the time allocation was not intentionally curtailed by the Government.

These examples illustrate that while there was agreement on the need to address water issues, several specific aspects of the Bill, its amendments, and the broader approach to water management were sources of considerable disagreement. This level of contention justifies a rating of 3, reflecting a moderate to high level of disagreement that, while significant, did not prevent the Bill’s passage into law.