Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

249 published records · newest first.

Speeches

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.
14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think he jumped in before I had finished the sentence, which was on the creditors and the management. Who is responsible for this? Yes it is the management, yes it is the regulators and prior Governments, and yes it is the creditors who have provided the debt—they have gone into that with eyes and ears open and they have made that decision to provide that debt willingly. Therefore, they have put that money at risk and they have to take responsibility for that. That is what debt is. I am not talking about Government debt, but about a loss and who is making good that loss. The Government are proposing that all the consumers pay for that—in other words, the bill payers. That is wrong. The bill payers should not be paying for this; the creditors should be, because they have put in, in Thames Water’s case, £17 billion—soon to be £20 billion very likely—which has saddled those companies with vast amounts of debt. More than a third of the bills of the bill payers of Thames Water is just being spent on paying interest on that debt.
14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 12, page 16, line 11, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 13 and insert “recover from its creditors”.
14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Well, compared with the creditors, but I am advocating that the debt providers take the hit.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman said that 100% of outflows are monitored, but I am afraid that is not correct. In fact, 100% of the 14,000 storm outflows are monitored—he did not mention storm—but 7,000 emergency overflows are not currently monitored. On the other aspect that he just mentioned, Ofwat was entirely devoid of looking at the balance sheets of the companies under the Conservatives’ watch. That is the root of all our trouble, and it would be beneficial to acknowledge that.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is fairly standard on boards today to have directors and officers insurance; indeed, all board members have it. What is the problem with the new people also having D&O insurance?
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
I rise to explain amendment 22. On 11 July, the Environment Secretary issued a press release on the reform of the water industry that stated: “Water companies will place customers and the environment at the heart of their objectives. Companies have agreed to change their ‘Articles of Association’—the rules governing each company—to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective.” However, that commitment is not currently in the Bill. The amendment simply seeks to bring that commitment into this legislation.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Perhaps, since I am standing, I will make the other two points I want to make. We have touched on Government amendment 2 already, but I think it is important. I was very pleased to see the wording coming in about bonuses. Proposed new section 35B(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 says: “Rules made for the purposes of imposing the prohibition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) (“the pay prohibition”)”. That is the ban on bonuses. While the explanatory statement says that it is to prevent the need for a statutory instrument—which the Liberal Democrats support and seek to do in further amendments—the impact of the Government’s change is also to remove the requirement for the rules to be published by Ofwat within six months. That we find very odd. I take it in good faith that the Government are keen to have the measures implemented, so we do not understand why they would take the timeline out. The Government want to ensure that it happens, but as currently stated, they are removing the timeline. Taking it on good faith that Ofwat will publish the rules is less strong than keeping in that commitment to six months. I will correct the hon. Member for Epping Forest on our amendment 21. Our amendment relates to the same aspect of the Bill as Government amendment 2. However, we want to retain the need for Ofwat to publish the rules on bonuses within six months but remove the option for that to be kicked into the long grass by requiring the Secretary of State to lay a statutory instrument to bring them into effect. By taking out that provision, we remove that risk. That is the purpose.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
I have a question for you, Mr Vickers. This is my first Bill Committee and I am trying to understand how everything works. There are six amendments to clause 1, and our task is to do line-by-line scrutiny. My ambition is to understand why the Government support or reject each of those amendments. At the moment, in our debate of clause 1, we are swimming quite happily between those amendments. I would love your advice, Mr Vickers, as to how we work to understand what the story is on each amendment in turn, because I am not clear on that.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Does that mean the beginning or the end of Q2?
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
First, it is up to each individual to sign up or not; they do so of their own free will. Secondly, this is standard insurance which almost all boards have in the UK and internationally nowadays, which protects board members. It would not be specifically for those board members; it would be for all board members. To say that that is a concern, and that we should not make this provision on those grounds, seems odd.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will just express disappointment. The Bill currently sets a deadline of six months, which is not exactly a moment in time; six months is a long time to get something done. I respect what the new Government are doing by trying to go after the bonuses and hold people to account, but to take a step back and say, “Actually, we are going to weaken the Bill”, which is what amendment 2 is doing—the Government are taking out the deadline—is retrograde and a real mistake.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
I am very happy with looking at monitors upstream and downstream. That is fine, but I want them all to be in, and I want them done quicker. In the last seven years, 14,000 monitors were put in. As per the House of Commons Library briefing on clause 3, we are currently being signed up to a much slower installation of monitors—it does not matter if they are EDMs or flow meters. The briefing states: “The reporting duty on discharges from emergency overflows would be phased in, with water companies expected to achieve 50% monitoring coverage by the end of the next price review in 2030 and 100% by 2035, the end of the following price review.” Why would we go slower? That is a lot slower than what has been done over the last seven years. We should be moving much faster. I find it rather depressing that I suspect this information came out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why is there this desire to slow the whole thing down if possible? We have a huge problem, so why are we not moving faster to deal with it? Frankly—I am not looking at the crew opposite—the DEFRA mindset is profoundly depressing. That’s that. Amendment 16 covers the installation rate. What we are trying to do there is get the rate much faster. We have asked for 12 months, and I will try to quantify this; I have a business background. How much do flow monitors cost? How much they cost matters. Flow monitors are £500 to £2,000 per unit. We have 15,000 across the country, so we are talking £85 million or whatever it might be. That is if we have £2,000 as the unit cost. If we take the higher level of the unit cost and say that each of them will cost £2,000 to install, it is quite a lot of money. We did it much cheaper in west Oxfordshire and Witney. Well done to the Witney flood mitigation group. It got 10 installed for a fraction of that, so that is doable. Let us just talk £84 million. Does that sound like a lot of money? Frankly, it does not to me, and I will try to quantify that. The £84 million is between 10 or so water companies. Thames Water alone has £17 billion of debt. We are talking about £84 million. It is a fractional number, and if we are serious about fixing our problems, we have to go there.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
We are here for another week or so. I take the point about apples and pears, but if the information is already in DEFRA’s hands, would it be helpful, if DEFRA can move fast enough—I do not know whether that is possible—to have a little grid circulated to Committee members about storm and emergency installation periods, whether that is quality, flow or EDM? With that data we could talk about it decently and honestly.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Amendment 13 is about volume. It would add volume to the list in clause 3, which includes “the location of the emergency overflow…when the discharge began…when the discharge ended.” The Liberal Democrats seek to add the volume of discharge to that list, and that is common sense. As many Members have said, we want to know how much sewage is coming out, and we are looking for help from all Members to get the amendment into the Bill. If we are serious about solving the problems in our rivers, we need to know how much sewage is coming down.
9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
The Minister said from 2025, which is great, but over what timeline? Is that the Library’s 10 years, or is that another timeline?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →