💧 Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

• The session focused on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, specifically considering amendments made by the House of Lords.

• The government proposed insisting on Commons Amendments 1 and 2, which the Lords had disagreed with, and introduced new amendments (a) and (b) to replace the Lords’ changes.

• Key discussions centered on improving the transparency and accessibility of water companies’ financial reporting. The government proposed that water companies provide an annual intelligible overview of their financial position, including share capital and debt, to be published online.

• There was debate over the Lords’ suggestion for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by an affirmative statutory instrument, which the government opposed, citing potential delays and concerns over Ofwat’s independence. Instead, the government proposed that Ofwat provide draft rules to the Secretary of State seven days before they are issued.

• Opposition members expressed disappointment that the government rejected several proposed amendments, including those related to financial resilience, a statutory instrument requirement for Ofwat’s rules, and a water restoration fund using fines from water companies.

• The Liberal Democrats supported increased transparency but felt the Bill did not go far enough. They also advocated for more scrutiny over Ofwat and supported an amendment for six months’ notice of Ofwat’s approval of water company bonuses, rather than the government’s proposed seven days.

• The government emphasized that the Bill would help restore public trust in the water sector and enable swift implementation of Ofwat’s rules.

• Amendments were voted on and agreed to, with the Commons insisting on its original amendments and implementing new ones in place of the Lords’ changes.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, which is reflected in the debates on specific amendments and the general approach to the Bill’s provisions. The following points detail the reasoning behind the rating:

1. Disagreement on Financial Reporting and Debt Levels: There is a clear disagreement between the Government and members of the Opposition concerning the transparency and regulation of water companies’ financial structures. For instance, Barry Gardiner from the Labour Party questioned the Government’s willingness to enforce action on water companies with high debt levels, to which Emma Hardy responded that the Bill focuses on transparency rather than setting debt limits (lines 15-25). This highlights a divergence in what they consider to be the Bill’s priorities.

2. Debate on Lords Amendments: The Government’s rejection of Lords amendments, such as requiring Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by a statutory instrument, is another significant point of contention. Dr. Neil Hudson criticized the Government’s approach, expressing regret over missed opportunities to strengthen the Bill’s accountability measures (lines 56-68). The Opposition’s opposition to the Government’s stance is clear, but the session does not escalate to extreme levels of conflict, suggesting a balanced disagreement.

3. Opposition to Government Amendments: Both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour opposition express dissatisfaction with the Government’s amendments, viewing them as insufficient. For instance, Tim Farron suggested that the Liberal Democrats’ amendments were more ambitious and comprehensive (lines 138-145). However, the level of opposition does not lead to blocking government motions, indicating a manageable level of disagreement.

4. Political Tension and Critique: There is evident political tension, with exchanges between members such as Tim Farron and Dr. Neil Hudson showcasing criticism of both past and present government actions. These criticisms are pointed but remain within the typical bounds of parliamentary debate (lines 169-184, 203-208).

5. Overall Tone and Outcome: Despite the disagreements, the session does not collapse into chaos, and the debates maintain a degree of civility. Ultimately, the Government’s amendments are approved, indicating that the disagreements, while present, did not prevent the continuation of the legislative process.

In conclusion, the disagreements in the session are significant but do not represent extreme or obstructive conflict, resulting in a rating of 3 out of 5.