Charlie Maynard MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We all welcome one another, but I meant the fact sheet. I really appreciate your going to the trouble of putting it together; I thank your team as well. I have read it diligently and done my best, but I have a quiz question for you. The first bullet point refers to giving “the power to recover HMG funding should there not be sufficient funds to pay HMG back at the end of a SAR.” Then, under the heading “Context”, the penultimate bullet point states: “If this shortfall occurred, and Ministers decided to use this new power, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must launch a consultation prior to this power being used. This will ensure that those affected (e.g. water billpayers) are able to provide their views. It will also ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is implemented in a way that means costs are recovered fairly.” To me, that completely confirms paragraph 69 of the explanatory notes published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says that the Government will make the bill payers, as opposed to the creditors, pay for the costs. Please confirm, if you could.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. Using West Oxfordshire as an example again, we have installed Grampian conditions, which I encourage other Members to look into, where we have said, “You may not occupy this house.” We could not stop the houses being built by arguing that there was insufficient capacity, but we could put a Grampian condition in force that says, “Those houses may not be occupied. Any buyer knows this, so they will not buy them.” It is flagged to any buyer so that they do not buy a house they cannot occupy, which will continue until the capacity has been added. That puts some heat underneath the water companies to get on and increase their sewage treatment works capacity. I really encourage the Government to look into those. We have vast amounts of housing that will be built, and under the current law, they will be steamrolled through and the capacities will not keep up. That is a real problem for everybody, and it puts more pressure on our rivers.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. There are only three new clauses to go; I will highlight the key parts of new clause 33. Subsection (2)(1A) states: “When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide full and accurate information, and an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1)” Subsection (3)(2C) states: “Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.” What does that mean? It means that if an undertaker does not have sewage treatment work capacity, they must commit to draw up a plan to install it by a relevant time. The “relevant time” means that if 200 or 2,000 houses are being added and the sewage treatment works do not have sufficient capacity, then the undertaker will be saying, “By the time those houses are occupied, we will have increased capacity by the amount required.” This is all very common-sense, but many hon. Members will have been district councillors in their time—I currently am one—and I am sure they will have seen it happen time and time again in planning committees where, guess what, the response from the water utility is: “Fine, no problem. Hook ’em up.”

• 16 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These timelines are too slow. Setting the date at 2035 for monitor installation will mean that this is done at a much slower rate than the rate over the last seven years. That is disappointing. Targets set for 2045 and 2050 are too far away. We do not need to, and should not, move that slowly. We must do better.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, it is pretty worrying that we do not have maps of sewer networks around the country. That is a pretty fundamental thing that we would want a water utility company to have. I acknowledge that they do not, though, and nowhere in the new clause am I proposing that the network is mapped. I am simply saying that we should take the existing maps and get them into the public domain by default. Currently, it is necessary to make a freedom of information request to access them. I suggest that the Minister might be being a little disingenuous in saying, “We’re just being asked to monitor, but we want to act.” The Government can do both. It is not the case that if we are monitoring, we are not acting; there is plenty to be acting on and plenty to be monitoring. Also, when I hear, “If we put in flow monitors then we would need to cover the quality,” I think, “Yes—all of it. Let’s do it now.” It is not an either/or, and I do not like the occasional suggestion that there may be an either/or. Having said all that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 12 Environmental duties with respect to chalk streams “(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows. (2) After section 4, insert— ‘ 4A Environmental duties with respect to chalk streams (1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect on chalk streams, that undertaker must— (a) secure and maintain high ecological status of such chalk streams, and (b) clearly mark chalk streams which are of high ecological status. (2) In this section “high ecological status” relates to the classification of water bodies in The Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.””— (Tim Farron.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Rules about performance-related pay “(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows. (2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert— ‘ 35E Rules about performance-related pay (1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks. (2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include— (a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person; (b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition; (c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)— (a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given; (b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person— (i) is a chief executive of the undertaker, (ii) is a director of the undertaker, or (iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”— (Tim Farron.) This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 Prohibition on bail-out of water company shareholders and creditors “(1) The Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Treasury must not directly or indirectly discharge, assume, or guarantee any debts of legal entities in any water company group subject to proceedings under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions), except in accordance with subsection (2). (2) The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending. (3) The prohibition set out in subsection (1) and the reduction of debts set out in subsection (2) must not include pension, wage and other obligations owed to employees, excluding any past or current member of a board of directors, within the water company group.”— (Charlie Maynard.) This new clause aims to allow up to 100% of debts to be cancelled in the event of special administration proceedings, taking into account the scale of investment required to hit the future targets established by the Authority. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We have covered this already, so I will be brief. I highlight subsection (2): “The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.” We have already discussed this. I am not going to go through it further, and I am not going to push it to a vote, so I will leave it at that.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I question what value regulated capital value, given how completely out of whack it is with reality, is bringing to the table. I do not have all the answers, but I question whether this has any utility to the conversation. What is happening here is that a business is generating £1.2 billion of cash flows, and it has this enormous balance sheet and this enormous regulated capital value. Because of those essentially false premises—I believe that we do not actually have assets of that value—regulated capital value is essentially a figment. We are grappling with things that have no basis, and we would do well to reconcile and to look at the facts—at what these assets are actually worth—and then to build out from there.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have the name of one here: Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Holdings Ltd. Why Cayman? If I say “Cayman”, people say “tax haven”. That is why it is there. We should be doing our best to stop that. Last I looked, London was still a financial capital, and equity and debt could still be raised in this country, and I sincerely hope that remains the case. So I do not see a good reason to have holding companies offshore. Hon. Members might be happy to hear that that was all I wanted to say on new clause 19. New clause 23 is also being considered in this tranche, and I will highlight proposed new subsection (2DZB)(b), which refers to “a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime”. We have to spend a huge amount of money on our water utility companies, because they have not been spending enough over the last decade or two. When a special administrator is appointed in such instances, the goal is to ensure that the special administrator takes that future spend into account in considering how much debt needs to be cut. We do not want to come out of special administration with debt that is still high, which will prevent the investments from being made that will be required over the next. That is the goal of the new clause.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is very kind of the Minister to have so much faith in, and be so charitable towards, Ofwat, given its record over the last decade or two, particularly with regard to its management of water companies’ financials. We will not press new clause 23, but would like to call a vote on new clause 19. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is a very nuts and bolts thing. I believe we are here to try to make a better water sector. I will rattle through the clause, which would mean that each relevant undertaker “must publish a map of its sewage catchment networks”, and that maps published under the provision “must illustrate…pumping stations, pipes and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network…must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act…must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.” I am a district councillor as well as an MP and in my ward of Standlake Aston and Stanton Harcourt, parish councillors, members of the public and campaigners have grappled for information and failed to find it. Many people do not know how to do a freedom of information request. This means that people do not know where the sewage is going from and to, and that leads to confusion and means that the problems are further away from us. Putting these maps in the public domain, making them easily accessible and making sure that not only the pumping stations and the treatment works but the pipes connecting them all—which are not automatically clear —are always in the public domain and always easily accessible means that we are getting to a solution quicker. That is all this new clause is about. I am probably going to get a response saying, “We have to wait for the water commission”, in which case I would express some disappointment, because these things do not cost any money and they mean we move quicker to solve problems. I would really like a culture of, “If that’s a good idea, let’s do it”.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak first to new clause 19, which has three parts. Proposed new section (2DZA), which I will cover very quickly, essentially ensures the financial stability of water or sewerage undertakers. I think we discussed that at length in the debate on new clause 4, which I will not rehash, as I think we all know each other’s views. Proposed new section (2DZB) has two subsections, (a) and (b). Subsection (a) is “a prohibition on water or sewerage undertakers having offshore holding companies”. Why would a UK-regulated water company need an offshore holding company? Maybe to dodge some tax? Maybe to make it as untransparent as possible? I would like a straight answer as to why we are not going to kill this possibility off today. Do we really need to push this out another six, maybe 12 or maybe 24 months—until maybe never—with the water commission? I do not know. I think each of us could just find our way to saying that offshore holding companies are not good for our rivers, our citizens or our country. I really hope we get there. It is getting a bit late, but there is something I would really like Members to engage their brains on. It is a difficult and complicated subject, but it is the key to understanding what is going wrong with our water companies. It is called regulated capital value. What is in proposed new section (2DZB)(b)? It would introduce “a requirement that the Regulated Capital Value for each undertaker is annually reconciled against the market values of the undertaker’s equity and debt.” What on earth is regulated capital value? The key thing to remember is that it decides how much money the water companies make, so a higher regulated capital value is good for water companies. The bizarre thing is that regulated capital value has not really been a proxy for enterprise value, which basically means the equity value of the company—what the shareholders’ value of the company is worth—plus the net debt. That was set up—this is really one of the original sins—back in the mists of time, around 1989 and beyond, when the companies were originally privatised. It has been carried forward every year: “Take last year’s, and add a bit for inflation and a bit for capex. Never, never, never reconcile it with reality.” That is what has gone on for decades. Now we have this thing called regulated capital value, which is the critical thing the water utility companies are focused on: “This is how we make money, so we want this number as big as possible.” What we are advocating here is taking that apart, because of the reality on the ground. I will take Thames Water as my usual guinea pig. Many, many of Thames Water’s equity shareholders have declared that their holding in Thames Water has no value. That includes OMERS—the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System—and the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme, and I think the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority may have done it as well. They have said, “Our equity is toast. It’s written off.” The debt is not that hard to calculate either, because people can just look at what Thames Water is trading at; these are bonds, and people can see what discounts they are trading at. People can add that up, and they have a number that is much, much smaller than the regulated capital value of Thames Water today. But if it is a water company or Ofwat, they say, “Let’s just put a big pair of mufflers on and ignore that fact,” because it is safer to be in fantasyland.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, I feel that we are living in parallel universes. I will take Thames Water as an example, whose debt is 14 times the level of its cash flows. The Minister is saying that financial resilience could be threatened, but I spent 25 years in finance, and that ratio is very threatening. Is Ofwat closely monitoring that? Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have put Thames Water into junk bond ratings—seven ratings under the investment grade—and we are pedalling on regardless. Could the Minister give a view on Thames Water’s levels of debt, and whether they are threatening to the company?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The whole thing is reverse engineered—I am completely in agreement on that—and that is not necessary or useful in terms of where we are getting to, and that is causing a lot of the trouble. I would like to find a way out of that, and I would really recommend that the water commission digs into this to find a way out. I am on the Business and Trade Committee and I will be asking the Financial Reporting Council, which oversees the accounting body, to ask these accounting firms whether they actually think those numbers—those incredibly slow depreciation periods of 150 years—are valid and, if so, why.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. We just want to highlight the five-year price review and the shoehorning in of that time period. It might have worked for Lenin—maybe not—but we do not think it works well in the water sector, so we want to see whether we can release ourselves from it. We will come to new clause 35 later, but in certain situations we will all be better off if we look over a longer time period. We have some really big problems and we need to think about reducing them not just over the next five years, but over a 10 or 15-year period. We need to work towards some really big fixes over a longer period. If we are always locked into these five-year cycles, we are not serving ourselves well. That is the point of new clause 21. New clause 29 states that “the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.” At the moment, how companies do is not very well linked to their reward. Most of the time, with water companies, everybody is thinking about sticks—I certainly am—but we ought to think a little about carrots as well. Let us say that ultimately we do good things such as setting pollution reduction targets. If companies beat those targets, we should work towards a solution whereby they do well out of that. They could have a carrot as a reward for doing well, as opposed to endlessly being given the stick. That is the point of new clause 29. We will not push either new clause to a vote.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The change in wording would mean that the clause states: “The Secretary of State may make modifications of the conditions of the company’s appointment so that they include conditions requiring or enabling the company…to recover from its creditors such amounts as may be determined by or under the conditions”. Let us talk through the special administration regime and what happens. I would like this to already have happened but it has not When a company is put into special administration—I would like this to already have happened, but it has not—a court appoints a special administrator. A special administrator looks at the creditors. It looks at the debt and the other creditors involved, and it will prioritise, according to the seniority of that debt and those creditors, who is senior to the other. Suppliers will be a lot more senior.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister is confirming that consumers will pay for that shortfall. We are advocating that the creditors should pay. We are not looking to rewrite the Insolvency Act. Whatever the special administrator decides in terms of the hierarchy, fine—that is up to the special administrator. I think the Minister has just confirmed what paragraph 69 in DEFRA’s explanatory notes says, which is that a company is required to “raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers” —that is, the bill payers—for that shortfall, rather than the creditors. That is the bit that we are getting at. We think that the special administrator should take into account that hit that the Government have taken and take it out of the creditor’s pocket rather than the customer’s.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are seeking for the debt providers to take the hit. They have gone into this process and been part of the problem that has led to the state of our rivers today. They should be taking the hit ahead of the customers. That is our direction of travel, and I think that is fair and reasonable. What the clause does is the opposite, and that is what we are going after. We fully support the losses being recovered by the administration process—we have no issue with that—but if we support the clause as drafted, we will find a very large bill on the customer’s account. That is something we want to avoid. I am keen to hear the Minister’s view as to why it is reasonable for the customer to be paying rather than the lenders.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 31 would make the process of putting a company into special administration much easier and clearer. There are two steps in the provision: making it easier to apply for special administration and giving more guidance to judges on whether to grant special administration. Proposed new section 24(1B) of the Water Industry Act 1991 states: “Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee…is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…fails to comply with that requirement, the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.” That states that if a company does not have investment grade credit ratings, the Secretary of State will apply for special administration. Proposed new section 24(2)(ca) of the 1991 Act states that special administration may be granted if a company “is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…has failed to comply with that requirement.” That gives guidance to the judge. It says, “You’ve got to have those credit ratings. If you don’t, special administration is much more likely to be granted.” At the moment, we have some bizarre situations. Thames Water, which I will use as my standard example, has £17 billion of debt and cash flows of £1.2 billion; its debt is 14 times higher than the cash flow it generates every year. By financial standards, that is somewhere between ludicrous and ridiculous. In an unregulated sector, the company would have gone bankrupt long ago. I believe—people may contest this—that our Government are keeping it alive because they are worried about being sued by the bondholders if they put it into special administration, because the criteria are not very clear. If we are serious about fixing our rivers, we have to deal with the debt. We cannot spend the money our rivers require if we do not fix the debt, but we are still digging. Thames Water’s proposed £3 billion of special restructuring is going through the courts right now, so we are adding even more debt—an even bigger millstone around that company’s shoulders. Its debt will go from £17 billion to £20 billion. The Government have the opportunity to say, “That is the last Administration’s trick. We are going to do something different,” but at the moment they are not saying that. I really hope that we will change course. If we do not, all we will do is add more debt on to these companies; that will keep them alive for another 12 or 18 months, but we will be back in the same place again. Customers in Witney and in every constituency are paying through the nose just to cover the interest expenses. Ofwat has just thrown Thames Water the great big juicy bone of a 35% price increase. That is great news for lenders, but not such great news for customers. It means that instead of 46% of my bill covering the lenders’ interest expenses, it will be only 38%, but I will be paying 35% more. I do not believe that is helping, so the purpose of the new clause is to make it easier to get water companies into special administration.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak about clauses 12 and 13 together, with clause 12 covering England and clause 13 covering Wales. Clause 12 relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to recover losses incurred by the state in a special administration regime—many Members might know that as bankruptcy. What is being proposed by the Government is set out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ explanatory note 69: “The modifications can require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers”— I repeat “the consumers”— “and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall and may include a requirement that amounts be held on trust pending payment to the Secretary of State.” What we are talking about here are costs associated with a bankruptcy and the Government want to make good those costs. There is no issue with any of that. What I find completely extraordinary is that a Labour Government are proposing that the consumers pay for that rather than the creditors who put us there in the first place. The management and the creditors are the people who are responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in in the water sector.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are going backwards and forwards. I have made my point. The note here is clear—the Secretary of State is looking for moneys from the customers. I think the special administrator should follow the insolvency rules, but that the hit should come from the creditors, not the customers. I will park it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question put , That the clause stand part of the Bill.