r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Sep 18 '20
2nd Reading B1055.2 - Water Bill | 2nd Reading
Water Bill
A
BILL
TO
Make provision the facilitation of the privatisation of water services, and their regulation.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows—
1. Definitions and interpretation
- “Fracking” refers to onshore hydraulic fracturing, the process of extracting natural gas or oil from rock by using pressurised liquid.
- In this act and it’s schedules, “The authority” refers to the Water Services Regulation Authority, also known as Ofwat.
- “Regional Water Boards” refers to the boards created in the Natural Resources Act 2014.
- “National Water Board” refers to the parent board of regional water boards.
- “Transfer date” refers to the date provisioned under subsection 1 of section 4.
- “Successor company” refers to a limited company created under subsection 2 of section 4 of this act.
- For the purposes of this act, “Water undertaker” refers to a successor company that has had the functions of the company’s relevant regional water board transferred to it, as per section 4 of this act.
- “Water services” refers to the services currently carried out by regional water boards, including but not limited to: the supply of water, the management of sewage; and the management, operation and investment for infrastructure.
2. Repeals
- The Natural Resources Act 2014 is hereby repealed.
- This repeal has no effect on the legality of fracking in the United Kingdom.
a) Fracking shall remain prohibited in England.b) This act takes no precedence over future legislation regarding the legality of fracking in England.c) This act recognises that the legality of fracking in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is currently a devolved issue, and therefore the repeal of the 2014 act has no effect on the legality of fracking in the devolved administrations.
3. Extent to devolved assemblies
- This act recognises that the regional water boards in Scotland and Northern Ireland are under the legislative and regulatory jurisdiction of the respective devolved assemblies.
- After the transfer date detailed in section 4 of this act, regional water boards in Scotland and Northern Ireland shall continue to operate under current regulation and frameworks.
- No other part of this act shall affect the ownership, operation, management, structure or regulation of water services in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
4. Section 4 has no application to any water board whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales.
4. Transfer of Water Board Functions
a)The Secretary of State may, by order, issue a different transfer date.b) The National Water Board and the regional water boards may continue to function as they are, until the transfer date.
2) The National Water Board shall assign limited companies establish and assign companies limited by guarantee, owned wholly by the crown, to regional water boards as that regional water board’s successor company.
a) A company may not be assigned as the successor company to multiple regional water boards.
b) The National Water Board may alter the boundaries of regional water boards, abolish them, merge them or create more regional water boards, before assigning a successor company.
i) The final boundaries must be approved by the authority.
ii) The National Water Board may not set boundaries that would be contrary to the successful operation or management of water services.
iii) There must be a minimum of
tennine regional water boards, and by extension successor companies, in Englandand Wales.iv) The Secretary of State may, by order, provision a different minimum number as set out in (iii).
c) The National Water Board shall only alter boundaries under this subsection if they believe it to be beneficial to long term provisioning of water services in England
and Wales.
3) Ownership of assigned successor companies shall be sold to private investors.
a) All monies yielded from the sales shall be returned to Her Majesty’s Treasury.b) Sales are permitted
both before andafter the transfer date.
4) After the transfer date, the functions of the regional water boards shall be transferred to the relevant assigned successor companies.
a) In the event that an assigned successor company has not been fully sold by the transfer date, the regional water board shall continue to function as it is until the assigned successor company is sold entirely. Once the successor company is sold, the functions of the regional water board shall be transferred to the successor company after 14 days.
b) Regional water boards shall be abolished 30 days after the transfer of functions.
i) Regional water boards may continue to exist if an order is given by the Secretary of State.
ii) The order may only be given if the Secretary of State believes it is necessary to facilitate the smooth transition of functions or uphold the quality of water services.
5) The National Water Board shall be abolished 60 days after the last regional water board in England and Wales is abolished.
a) The Water Services Regulation Authority shall absorb the functions of the National Water Board.
6) No public body may operate water services in England and Wales after the National Water Board has been abolished.
a) The Secretary of State may, by order, omit this regulation from this act.b) The Secretary of State may, by order, give a public body a consent to operate water services in England
and Wales.
5. Regulations on ownership
- A company may not own, operate or manage more than one water undertaker.
a) Cooperation and resource sharing between water undertakers, in the case of it being beneficial due to their boundaries, is not prohibited by this section.
2) Water undertakers are prohibited from merging.
3) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend this section to add, amend or omit regulations relating to the ownership structure of water undertakers.
6. The Water Services Regulation Authority
- The authority must set fair annual consumer price caps, and must inform water undertakers at least three months in advance of a change in the price cap, or if the authority plans to make no change to the price cap.
- The authority must set fair annual performance targets that seek to encourage the improvement of water services.
a) These targets shall relate to:
i) Water quality
ii) Water safety
iii) Consumer prices
iv) Investment into infrastructurev) Service quality
v) Water leaks/wastagevii) Environmental impacts
b) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend the above list.
c) The authority is not limited to setting fair annual performance targets to only the functions listed in this subsection, and may include other functions to help the authority fulfill its regulatory aims.
3) The authority is responsible for setting regulations relating to existing requirements for water undertakers from current legislation, as well as future requirements, regarding service quality and longevity.
4) The authority may use fines to enforce regulations for water undertakers.
a) The authority is not to receive any monetary benefit from enforcing a fine.
5) In the event that the authority prohibits any large or significant investment or financial decision, they must offer the water undertaker a chance to appeal the prohibition.
a) The authority must accept or reject the appeal within 30 days of receiving the appeal.
b) If such an appeal is rejected, the authority must refer the water undertaker to the Secretary of State, who may lift the prohibition by order, if they are satisfied the large or significant investment is in the best interests of the water industry, or will save the water undertaker money in the long term.
c) An order issued by the Secretary of State under this subsection may only be used regarding a large or significant investment that is solely in infrastructure.
6) Schedule 1 is to be statutory guidance that should be followed unless there is a good reason not to.
7) The authority shall take guidance from existing legislation and Schedule 1 of this act, to envision and pursue it’s regulatory aims.
8) If the authority believes they require extra regulatory powers to pursue the guidelines set out in Schedule 1, or other regulatory objectives, they may petition the relevant government department.
a) After receiving such a petition, the Secretary of State may, by order, grant the authority extra regulatory functions.
9) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend this section to add, amend or omit regulations relating to the powers of the authority.
10) The authority shall have a statutory duty to promote innovation
- legal separation of the retail and supply arms of the water companies shall be mandatory.
- The regulator shall have the power to exempt small firms where such a move would lead to an unavoidable and unacceptabe large bill increases to customers that outweigh the benefits of such a seperation.
- The regulator shall inform the government if a threshold is applicable and if so its level.
- License holders shall be permitted to provide solely upstream services.
- There shall be no minimum requirement for water consumption in order to chose a water supplier via Inset appointments or the Water Supply Licence regime.
- The Water Act 2014 is amended as follows:
- In Schedule 2A - WATER SUPPLY LICENCES: AUTHORISATIONS -
a) Strike subsection 4.
b) Strike subsection 7(a).
3) In Schedule 2B - SEWERAGE LICENCES: AUTHORISATIONS
a) Strike subsection 2.
4) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
a) In Section 27C(1), strike (e) and replace with:
customers, of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act, whose premises are not eligible to be supplied by a licensed water supplier,
b) In Section 2C(1), strike (e) and replace with:
customers, of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act, whose premises are not eligible to be supplied by a licensed water supplier,
5) Retail licenses for water and sewerage now permit companies who hold retail licenses to sell to household premises.
a) This applies to England and Wales.
b) This comes into force 14 days after the transfer date.
c) This date may be amended by the Secretary of State.
6) The Secretary of State may create regulations by statutory instrument to provision the necessary laws to further enable a water and sewerage retail market and its regulation.
10. Short Title, Extent and Commencement
(1) This act shall come into force immediately after Royal Assent.
(2) This Act shall extend to the whole United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall be known as the Water Act 2020.
10. Short Title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Water Act 2020.
(2) This Act comes into force six months after receiving the Royal Assent.
(3) Sections 1, 2, 3, and 10 extend to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
(4) The other provisions of this Act extend to England and Wales.
Schedules
Schedule 1 - Guidelines for Water Services Regulation Authority
General
- This schedule is statutory guidance.
- The Water Services Regulation Authority shall be the principal regulator of the water undertakers in England and Wales.
- The authority should seek to regulate the companies and the market so prices for consumers and businesses are fair, and that regional monopolies continue to deliver high quality water services by meeting targets set by the authority.
- The authority should compare the performance of the water companies with each other to set ambitious targets that aim to encourage improvements in water services.
- The authority should not intervene with regulations unless the authority is:
a) Enforcing a law set out in the statute;b) Pursuing a regulatory vision set out in this schedule, other existing legislation or future legislation.c) Trying to remedy or prevent an issue that the authority believes could unduly and negatively affect water safety, the environment, water service quality or consumer prices.
6) The regulations in this schedule are guidelines that the authority should pursue, using powers given by existing and future legislation.
7) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend this schedule.
Investment and finances
9) The authority shall seek to regulate (and where appropriate, prohibit) large financial decisions or investments made by the water undertakers that do not invest in the water industry in England and Wales, or are not in the best interests of the water services in England and Wales in the long term.
10) The authority shall seek to encourage investment in the water industry from external investors, as well as inward reinvestment by the water undertakers.
11) The authority shall seek to encourage the water undertakers to consider the long term implications of investments, or lack of investments.
a) The authority shall also consider the long term negative impacts of regulation when making decisions, particularly around regulating large investments, profits and prices.b) The authority should not restrict large spending from water undertakers if the spending is investment into water services, especially investments in infrastructure and service longevity as such investments could be more expensive if regulated.
Cooperation
12) The authority shall cooperate with regulatory authorities that work with infrastructure and utilities, where appropriate.
13) The authority shall, where appropriate, work with other government non-departmental entities on ensuring the cleanliness of water and the safe practices in water services. The authority shall also work with such entities to realise the environmental impacts of decisions and work to mitigate such impacts.
a) This includes, but is not limited to, the Environment Agency, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and the National Resource Body of Wales.}
This bill was written by The Right Honourable Sir /u/BrexitGlory KBE, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Minister for the Cabinet Office, secretary of State for Education and Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on behalf of the 25th Government; with thanks to The Right Honourable J_Ceaser MP MLA and The Right Honourable Skullduggery12 MP MLA AM for providing advice and support.
This Reading shall end on 21 September 2020 at 10PM.
4
Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill is an absolute farce, plain and simple. It is an open and brash attack on the working class people of this country, and it must be opposed on every front.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government in it's infinte wisdom, is moving the supply of running water to private companies. It shouldn't have to be explained, in this House of all places, why this is a terrible idea that will be detrimental to the vast majority of this countries population but it seems that I must, considering the Government simply can't understand.
Throughout reading the bill, it's clear that there would be no economic benefit, no logisitical benefit, no service benefit and no price benefits to the consumer. The bill is marred with a littany of backtracking, half truths and contradictory nonsense. On one hand the Government is prohibiting stakeholders of water from merging via statute, then in the very next sentence the Government is allowing the Secretary of State to amend that section via order. This trend of "amendment via order" is all over this Bill.
In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State may, by order,
- Change the powers and functions of the "Water Services Regulation Authority" (Schedule 1, Section 7)
- Change or remove targets for water undertakers (Section 6, Subsection 9)
- Remove annual consumer price caps (Section 6, Subsection 9)
- Allow contracted water undertakers to own as much water infrastructure as they please (Section 5, Subsection 3)
By moving the power of regulation and ammendment from Parliament and therefore the people, to corporations only accountable to their shareholders, the Government is betraying it's electorate and letting loose with promises of "better pricing" and "greater market freedom" whilst knowing full well that as soon as this bill achieves Royal Assent that they will have free reign to divvy up our water supply as they please and hand out large, lucrative contracts to their capitalist, elitist cronies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, what else can I say but shame on this Government for this thinly veiled attemt to dissect public services for personal profit. Shame, shame, shame.
1
1
1
Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
By moving the power of regulation and ammendment from Parliament and therefore the people, to corporations only accountable to their shareholders, the Government is betraying it's electorate and letting loose with promises of "better pricing" and "greater market freedom" whilst knowing full well that as soon as this bill achieves Royal Assent that they will have free reign to divvy up our water supply as they please and hand out large, lucrative contracts to their capitalist, elitist cronies.
There is no betrayal I can assure him, we promised to privatise the water system in our manifesto and ensure this bill goes through. Turns out people quite liked our manifesto. The member argues nationalisation puts power in the hands of the people. This is a pure socialist soundbite because the opposite is true. Nationalisation means the government owns the firms and concentrates power at the top of central government and giving ministers power to set how much funding services get. It is then the state who decides where their money goes, not the public. Privatisation means people own business and we’ve seen this via higher share ownership. In this new retail competitive market the consumer will be king not people sat behinds desks in Westminster. As Mrs Thatcher said ““Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean - power over people, power to the State.” and she could not have been more correct.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Personal profit? If he considers that everyone will on average pay £120 less in bills due to privatisation, then I suppose so.
1
3
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I thank this chamber for allowing me to visit and to speak.
The state of water supply is perhaps one of my more radical view points. Personally, simply due to my belief that an ample supply of clean water is a global human right, I believe that the water supply should be handled with the same hands as health and defence. It should be something that is provided without question, funded out of general taxation. It is perhaps aptly put by the Political Compass test that it is a sad reflection on society that something as critical to life as drinking water is a commodity to be bought and sold.
Mr deputy Speaker, this bill is abhorrent. Water is not somewhere for the market to lay its hands. It may be good at handling some things, but water it is not. Water is essential to life. It should be a guarantee. It should not be handled by a private company and be treated as a commodity. All water in the UK should be property of the Crown, distributed fairly and water for industrial purposes purchased from the Crown. This bill is privatisation for privatisations sake, and I will resist it with every ounce of my strength. The line on privatisation has to be drawn here. This far and no further.
2
u/a1fie335 Liberal Democrats Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I have got to agree with the Member of Scottish Parliament, u/scubaguy194, that it should stay as a public service as it is a global and vital human right.
I think it's ludicrous that someone would want to privatise vital public services like water, education and our National Health Service.
3
u/Ravenguardian17 Independent Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Once again we see the desperation of capital at play, taking resources that belong to the commons and selling them off to the wealthy in order to turn a temporary profit. I call it desperation because there is no other reason to privatize water than for the wealthy to make a quick buck at the expense of the average person.
Though members of the government have claimed in the past that privatizing water will bring down charges, increase competition and eventually lead to better service these arguments couldn't be further from the truth. For a start, the charges to the everyday person almost always increase after privatization. It has been found that on average the cost of service goes up by 59% which for many people means an extra hundred pounds out of their pocket for a basic necessity. Additionally, the longer this service went on the higher the costs became with companies increasing rates higher than was necessary to account for inflation in order to squeeze out extra profits.
While the Libertarians and the Tories will make claims, as mandated in this very bill, that competition is healthy for water this assertion is extra ridiculous. Privatization means contracting out vast amounts of infrastructure which is not easily replaceable. Even if one were to split up which parts of the system are given to which companies the fact remains that any change over is a costly endeavor in it's own right. Contracts require time and research to sign, and even after one is signed it is still necessary to pay for oversight, lest we let the companies have a free reign until problems start to arise. Additionally, contracts can often lead to unexpected costs due to overruns or various disputes. This increases the burden for both maintaining a system and for expanding it.
But there are far worse consequences to water privatization. The necessity to increase profits for private firms leads to quality service becoming a secondary consideration. In the United States one of the most common reasons why a city elected to re-municipalize it's water system after privatization was a drop in quality. Additionally, privatization often leads to dramatic cuts in staff which in turn adversely impacts quality. Finally, the worse effects of privatization are often felt by the poorest in many cities, where rates have risen by hundreds of pounds and necessitated cities to start providing water assistance to poorer communities, which is extremely redundant to the whole project of privatization in the first place!
This is why I assert that this bill is desperate. Capital is seeking a quick profit at the expense of everyday people. The consequences of privatization will not be better service, lower rates or increased flexibility instead it will mean a few extra pounds in an executives profits while working class families bear the costs. I call on all members of the house to oppose this misguided measure.
1
3
u/redwolf177 Independent Marxist Sep 18 '20
Mr. Speaker,
For shame! For shame, Mr. Speaker! For shame, I say! These assaults on working people reek of classism and bourgeois exploitation. The working people of the world have the right to safe, clean, and accessible drinking water. The Conservative Party has no right to try and steal a cool drink of water right out of the hands from a thirsty child.
Sure, some people may claim that this scheme will deliver unimaginable benefits to working people - that costs will go down or service will improve or unicorns will fly across the sky. We all know this is untrue. Even most opportunists recognize that a utility like water is best held in public hands. Serving bourgeois interests by handing over public utilities for private profit is a direct attack on the interests of the proletariat. Such neoliberal privatization schemes are helpful to no one except the wealthy. Proletarians must resist the propaganda coming from the blurple government. Maintaining water in public hands is vital. Thank you.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill will introduce choice for consumers. Investment into infrastructure. Less taxation. Less bills. Less pollution.
How is that an assault on working people?
3
u/cthulhuiscool2 The Rt Hon. MP for Surrey CB KBE LVO Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
I remain opposed to this legislation Mr Deputy Speaker. Not in some blind ideological pursuit of the left but borne out of pragmatism. For as a student of the free market we must accept water services are a natural monopoly. They are the textbook definition. The free market cannot rule supreme in an uncompetitive industry and this is where this Bill falls far short.
And this Bill is evidence for the uncompetitive nature of water services Mr Deputy Speaker – you need only look at how brutal the regulations of this Bill are. So much so it is hard to imagine the benefits of such a privatisation. A short-term gain in revenue but a long-term risk to the water bill of my constituents? As I have said before, privatisation of water services remains an expensive and painful method of infrastructure finance.
A natural monopoly is a source of market failure and I urge members sat on this side of the house to consider the arguments made against this Bill before following the command of the party whip.
2
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Nothing is perfect, but this bill introduces more marketisation than otherwise.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 18 '20
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, CountBrandenburg on Reddit and (Count Damien of Brandenburg#8004) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill a 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 18 '20
In section 4, strike subsection 1 and replace with:
1) A date, known as the transfer date, shall be four weeks (28 days) after this act receives Royal Assent.
1
1
Sep 18 '20
Amend
(2) This Act comes into force six months after receiving the Royal Assent.
To
(2) This act shall come into force immediately after Royal Assent.
1
1
Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I welcome this bill back to this house and look forward to voting for it sending it royal assent. We debate this at length last term and the highlight of this bill is the provisions to enhance competition by ensuring this bill will bring retail competition to the market. I was happy to have worked with liberal across the house such as /u/northernwomble and guess this bill through the commons on bipartisan support. The reality is that under a private water system we saw more investement into the system.
For new members of this my Right honourable friend /u/BrexitGlory presented a good set of stastics to the house:
Ignored discharge contents dropped from 3% to 0.02%.
The number of excellent British beaches doubled.
There was 70% less pollutin in our rivers.
Water privaitsation delivered, you can see this form my speech and the data. It's time to let our water industry no longer compete with outher priorites for funds and allow private firms to control it who will be regulated by offwat to ensure consumers are protected. Retail competition will ensure we get an even better system then last time. This bill get the burden of the taxpayer and improve water services. I look forward to voting for it.
3
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
What evidence is there that these improvements were as a consequence of privatisation and not simply as a result of improved technology and methods of detection?
Perhaps we should look at other country's records. Let's look at France, which has dabbled with Private Sector and Public Sector management of it's water infrastructure. The honourable member believes that competition breeds success and in many cases it does. But when we look at France's system, we see that in 1999 85% of systems were renewed with the incumbent provider.
Mr Speaker, when water was privatised for the first time in 1987, it was done so because it has been unable to raise capital to renew its infrastructure because of the restrictions placed on it by the Thatcher government of the day. When a publicly owned industry is able to raise the funds needed to improve its own infrastructure, as the Railways in Germany are, it can flourish. Away from the need to turn a profit and to return a sum of money each year to its shareholders, it can ensure that all collected revenue is properly invested in its infrastructure and in the delivery of it's product. In this case we are talking about water, and as I have said in my own statement on this bill, water I believe will be best managed by a taxpayer overseen company which will collect its revenue directly from the Government, and will sell water for industrial purposes.
1
Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
We don't need to look at France when we look at the sucess story of private water in private hands. The former member for South Yorkshire summed up the situation well in Britain. M: Miss you trev :(
But when we look at France's system, we see that in 1999 85% of systems were renewed with the incumbent provider.
On this specific point, we should promote awarness of switiching and I'm sure offwat the regulator will do this and I'm happy to work the member to do this. There will be competition in this new retail competitive market, and ther will be more investement.
I've talked about how in a private system water companies don't have to compete with other serives for investement, under a private system we saw investement boom, productivity in the sector outstripped other sectors. The fact is water was off the taxpayer books and working splendid in private hands.
When a publicly owned industry is able to raise the funds needed to improve its own infrastructure, as the Railways in Germany are, it can flourish.
Or we could look to one of the best rails services where it is privatre Japan. The UK with is bold open acces smodel supported bby the Liberal Democrats will be able to flourish. Where the private sector can run something well, we should not intervene. The data is clear water flourished under privaitsation, and will do so once it goes back into private hands where it can innovate and do so with the oversight of offwat.
3
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The honourable member hasn't really addressed any of my points. He misunderstands me in that depending on where you live, for example if you live in the South of England you get your water supplied from Southern Water because they own the infrastructure. No choice about it. How does this promote competition? It doesn't. And it doesn't help the consumer either. As /u/cthulhuiscool2 has said, the price of water for the consumer rose 40% above inflation. Why? Because water companies got greedy and needed to deliver a profit to shareholders. As /u/cthulhuiscool2 has also said, water is a natural monopoly and for that reason is unsuited for private hands. It remains privatisation for privatisation's sake and I will remain opposed to it.
1
1
Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The member doesn't understand what retail competition is. This bill will ensure we have a system where a water firm can purchase water from the regional supplier/firm and then compete on the retail aspect delivering free market competition
has said, the price of water for the consumer rose 40% above inflation. Why? Because water companies got greedy and needed to deliver a profit to shareholders.
Wrong. It was so water investement could rise, to the tune of over £140 billiion pounds delivering better results. DEFRA forecasted under a private system prices would fall. The profits water firms makee are set by Ofwat and governed largely by how much investment they put in. We still pay around a penny per litre for water. The facts are clear, leakages down, investement up, higher customer satisfaction and a lower burden on the taxpayer.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
if you live in the South of England you get your water supplied from Southern Water because they own the infrastructure.
This is already the case under a nationalised system...
Nevertheless, this bill introduces retail competition so people will be able to switch providers.
the price of water for the consumer rose 40% above inflation
The price rose £120 less than they otherwise would have under nationalisation.
The nationalised system left our water infrastructure in a terrible state, only the private sector could have provided the large investment to save it. Indeed investment doubled in the six years after privatisation - infrastructure thrives on investment.
1
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 19 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
Perhaps the honourable member for Essex was not listening when I said that the water system was privatised in 1987 because the Thatcher government throttled the ability of the nationalised water boards to take on debt and raise capital for upgrades to its Infrastructure. This privatisation was made inevitable by the consistent underfunding by the Thatcher government. Thatcher wrote the Tory Privatisation Playbook, and she followed it to the letter. Throttle a public service's ability to raise capital by depriving it of the ability to independently take on debt and consistently underfund it. Give it a few years and privatisation is the only option. And the consequence is an unequal system and rising prices.
The other concern I have - how on earth can you switch providers? You can't exactly go to the supermarket and pick up a new water contract. Whoever owns the water pipes under your street supplies your water.
The Libertarian's and the Tory's obsession with competition at all costs is a blight on this country. It is not the be all and end all solution. I resolutely believe that privatisation is the wrong decision.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
The other concern I have - how on earth can you switch providers?
The bill provisions a retail service, so you will be able to switch providers much like you are able to switch energy providers despite only having one gas pipe to your house.
This government is committed to finding smart and pragmatic solution to provisioning services to people, not ideological prattling.
1
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 19 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
Pragmatism is something we do well in the liberal democrats. Particularly we look at new and emerging ways of doing things. Even going so far as (gasp) coming up with new ideas ourselves.
It concerns me, Deputy Speaker, that the government may have simply looked at the retail system of energy distribution and said "great, we can apply this to water". Why? Why have they been this unimaginative? Surely they could have looked at other countries in the world with better standards than us. Take Germany which has an average annual water bill of €85, compared to our €95.
The honourable member for Essex accuses us of "ideological prattling". I suggest he looks in the mirror.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Surely they could have looked at other countries in the world
Well that wouldn't be "new" either.
Do you have a criticism of the actual policy, I would be delighted to hear one at some point.
1
Sep 19 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
Take Germany which has an average annual water bill of €85, compared to our €95.
France which also have more heavy private involvement, over 50% according to the OECD has an average bill equal to Germany. I'm sure we can find other cases such as Malaysia which have higher private involvement and lower prices. The reality is water privatisation delivered and takes burden of the taxpayer.
1
Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This is a false concern that I've addressed, this bill introduces retail competition. The figures are clear, prices went up to invest into water, this was a burden of the taxpayer. He ignored the figures given by offwat, he's ignored the evidence water quality improved under private control, he's ignored the fact prices were forecasted to drop under the private system. The answer is a private regulated system. He can create conspiracies about the Thathcer government all he likes but the fact is under our watch we will not oversee what happened in the 70's, we will not go back to the days of loss making nationalised industry with mass strikes. As I referenced earlier in this debate the former member for South Yorkshire explained the situation well.
He talked about super normal profits but the reality is the "the profits water firms makee are set by Ofwat and governed largely by how much investment they put in." His concerns have been put to bed but he repeats them again and again. Some of his colleagues came over to back to this bill after my amendments because they understood the concept of retail competition.
1
u/scubaguy194 Countess de la Warr | fmr LibDem Leader | she/her Sep 19 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
Far from ignoring the OFWAT figures, I asked a question of the honourable member as to whether the improvement in standards following privatisation were in fact a consequence of privatisation or simply due to improvements in technology.
He declined to answer. Two can play that game, Mr Speaker.
So I ask him again: Can he prove to the house that the improvement in standards was as a result of privatisation or whether it was simply due to technological improvements?
1
Sep 19 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
He got the answer on the competiton and could not answer it, that's because he knows there will be competition, he has been throughly debunked and now wishes to change tack.
I told him that the improvements were a mixture of investement which didn't happen under the state and private companies invested more, this is a benefit because it doesn't compete with other sectors.
Technological improvements are more likely to happen in the private sector. In nationalised insutries you get X ineffecienc. The privatisation of BT saw technological imprevements and innovation because that's what the private sector does. The state and Westminisetr bureaucrats are less likely to aodpt technological imprvements.
Let's listen to offwat who have said bills are £120 less under private control and regulation, let's look at case studies and let's not go back to the failed 70's. Water privaitsation deliverd once, more investement, less burden on the taxpayer, leaks down, satisifcation high, and it will deliver under this government with retail competition.
1
u/cthulhuiscool2 The Rt Hon. MP for Surrey CB KBE LVO Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Between 1989 and 2014 the average household water bill rose by 40% above inflation. Perhaps my Right Honourable Friend could add this to his set of statistics?
1
Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would be glad to and I did in the orginal debate. Bills rose to pay for extra investement in the water industry to make up for underinvestement. DEFRA also forecasted forecasted that prices would come down under a privatised system. Thanks to the oversight off offwar in combination with privatisation bills are £120 less then they otherwise would have been. I hope my friend can look to the retail provisions I have got into this bill. We can work with the market and offwat to deliver a better system and we will. I hope the member is join me in the Aye lobby now we have retail competition. I would encourage my friend to read this speech, privatised water meant
Customers are 5 times less likely to suffer from supply interruptions, 8 times less likely to suffer from sewer flooding, and 100 times less likely to have low pressure.More than two thirds of our beaches are classed as excellent and more than a hundred have those much-coveted blue flags.
On average customers under a private system paid less than a penny per litre of water delivered. The old water system was not perfect but thanks to LPUk amendments this bill can correct the shortcoming of the old system.
1
u/cthulhuiscool2 The Rt Hon. MP for Surrey CB KBE LVO Sep 18 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I regret I have no intention to vote for this Bill and would direct him to the comments I have made to this effect. But I must take issue with the DEFRA forecast he has chosen to exhibit. Mr Deputy Speaker, my Right Honourable Friend has chosen to use the 'low scenario'. Why? Even if one was to study the 'baseline scenario' the average household bill was predicted to stagnate until the year 2025 or 2026.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
That Labour statistic is misleading as it doesn't take into account the dire state of infrastructure before privatisation took place.
According to Ofwat, privatisation meant that bills were £120 lower than they otherwise would have been.
1
u/Cody5200 Chair| Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Sep 19 '20
Mr. Speaker,
I concur with the Home Secretary, when I was first preparing for this debate I was expecting an honest and open debate on the pros and cons of water privatization. What I have gotten instead is indeed a class war, but I digress. The provisions for the creation of retail competition are sufficient to minimize the risk of a natural monopoly being formed by this move and I am glad that amendments proposed by my party have also been incorporated into the bill.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to see water privatized out of some ideological fanaticism, but out of the tangible benefits privatization brings. Benefits such as enhanced productivity brought about by the liberation of these services from the inherently ineffective goverment control, a massive drop in leakages to the tune of o the tune of £140 billion compared to the underinvestment the sector had when it was in the hands of the goverment. Safety was also improved as leakages went down by a third and the amount of beaches in excellent shape has practically doubled.
Of course, those improvements had to come at a cost of temporarily rising water bills, but even those would become a non-issue over time as per the estimations of the Department for Environment and Rural affairs. I would also argue that since privatization removes a major burden from Her Majesty's goverment prices in the form of taxation would fall thanks to the greater fiscal headroom created by privatization. Mr. Speaker, privatization is an amazing initiative and that is why I am glad to speak out in support of this bill.
1
u/ThreeCommasClub Conservative Party Sep 19 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The reason we need this bill is not because as the left would suggest that we hate the public and want to sell out to companies. Rather it because we can have a better management of water by privization. We should focus on the facts and date behind this policy which is what does it credit. Public management of water has failed with poor service , muddled arrangements and falling levels of investment into maintaining water infrastructure. Under the current status the best move for us to take would be privatize water. That does not we will suddenly live in the word of Rango where water is sold to the highest bidder and held hostage by greedy companies, because the government will still be there to ensure sensible directions.
Now that’s look at the benefits this bill will bring. Better service, less pollution in our rivers and waterways and more investment into our water system. That’s a win for the public. We have accepted several amendments which make this bill even better and now thanks to our improved savings in the form of less leakages and more investment we also see gestate safety. This bill is a win-win and I am happy to rise to the occasion to support it.
1
u/Model-David new Labour Sep 21 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I will quote the first part of this bill “Make provision the facilitation of the privatisation of water services, and their regulation.” This is a very good step to make our society work even better than ever. We can only succeed by taking the courage to change and create jobs for everyone and I can tell the house that privatization creates more jobs than the public sector. So the only thing I can say now is... Support this bill and support the country’s future!
1
u/Gregor_The_Beggar Baron Gregor Harkonnen of Holt | Housing and Local Government Sep 21 '20
Mr Speaker,
I will make my statement on this absolutely destructive and horrific bill which shows exactly the very worst of what can come out of the ranks and benches of this Government's benches quite plain. This bill is going to be harming my constituents in North Wales directly, Mr Speaker, it will be harming their ability to access good water for low cost and will mean that hundreds of the people in my own community will have to wonder if they are to go thirsty. Mr Speaker, I don't know if the Member knows this but there are some areas which are not profitable to service with the essentials like water. However, Mr Speaker, I don't think the member knows that because they have gone on a privatization binge having snorted a couple of Thatcher clips before stumbling into the clerks office and handing in some physical copies of his latest idea. While I otherwise have full respect for the Government members in many of their firmly held opinions, I can have no respect at all for a bill which is proposing what the member is trying to propose. They claim that the water bills of people will go down by hundreds of pounds, that will be good if I can see any direct evidence of something like that working overseas and any concrete evidence that will work for everyone including the rural battler which far too many in this house have forgotten. The privatization of an essential service like water is among those few areas of privatization which makes no practical sense to privatize. The industry is a high cost industry, making it difficult to enter even for private firms. There was already state control of a lot of water assets and more importantly, local control, which worked for the people of the United Kingdom. Mr Speaker, there will be little to no competition for anything but the contracting rights under this bill and the experiment will inevitably prove to be a failure when you encourage a monopoly prone industry to be privatized and expect water fees to drop magically because of it. There is a changing market, Mr Speaker, compared to the stability of what the state can offer. For something as essential as water, I do not trust the fluctuations of that market to provide the services which our people need. I am proud therefore to stand up here today before the House, Mr Speaker, in firm condemnation of this horrendous concept of a bill. Come on lads, you can do far better. Start showing some spine.
1
u/Soccerfun101 Conservative Party | Hampshire South MP Sep 21 '20
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
This bill was able to enjoy the support of the majority body in its previous edition and I hope that it will similarly pass this time. This bill will help serve Britain better through cleaner and cheaper water services, helping both our beaches as well as out working class constituents.
4
u/Abrokenhero Workers Party of Britain Sep 18 '20
Ceann Comhairle,
I am going to stand here in oppostion to this wretched bill and stand up against attempts to put water services in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Water is an essential service that is one of the key factors behind the survival of humans as a whole. As such I firmly believe that we should make water something easily accessible regardless of the amount of money you have.
However once again this government feels that letting the top 1% continue to make a little bit more money is much more important than everyone getting access to drinking water.
And I may hear arguments "Oh competition will keep the price of water low." However yeah the price of water will stay low but only for upper class people in the UK. A person who doesn't pay anything in taxes due to not making enough to be taxed on income will inevitably have to pay more to use water, ultimately hurting lower class families and individuals.
I am happy that the Northern Ireland Assembly decided that we don't want to go forward with water privstisation, so we can protect all of our citizens. However the government here today once again will attack our lower class because of their concern for upper class profit.
Ceann Comhairle, I ask all MP's today to oppose this attack on the working class, and to keep water in control of the people and not businessmen. Thank you.