(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument implement a limit on borrowing by a relevant undertaker.

(2) Where a relevant undertaker has total borrowing exceeding the limit set by regulations made under subsection (1), the relevant undertaker may not make a payment of dividends, capital, assets, or interest to shareholders or controlling entities.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”—

This new clause would enable limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water or sewerage undertaker, and prevent an undertaker who has exceeded such limits from being able to pay dividends to shareholders.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

New clause 4 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding the limits to the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company, which the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be able to enact by means of statutory instrument. Although we have discussed statutory instruments in Committee, the Opposition hope that the Government will recognise that this proposed statutory instrument power needs to be made.

New clause 4 ensures that water companies are not excessively borrowing money, as that is ultimately bad for bill payers. At the heart of our concern about financial resilience is the borrowing in the industry and the over-leveraging because of that borrowing. It is clear that there is a direct link between financial resilience, problems connected to borrowing and the very survivability of the water firms. That should be of huge concern to all of us.

Consumers are concerned that the provision of their water is at risk, and we as legislators must work out how to deal with the issues, including the financial implications, relating to the risk of nationalising the water companies that have no other way of providing services. That can reverberate back to the consumers again, who may face increased costs because of the financial support that the Government have to provide to keep water companies afloat. In other words, tackling the choices that water companies may have made, and will make in the future, including borrowing choices, is an issue that we are required to correct for the very future of our water industry.

I reiterate my profound respect for the way that both the Minister and Baroness Hayman have conducted themselves in this debate. I note that Baroness Hayman expressed concern in the other place that putting a fixed percentage limit on borrowing could be a risk to investment at a crucial time for financial resilience and investment in the water industry. That is why my Conservative colleague, Lord Roborough, revised his amendment on that in the other place to give the Secretary of State the power to set limits by means of a statutory instrument. I pay tribute to my colleague and friend Lord Roborough for working so hard to raise the issue of financial resilience in the other place through this amendment.

We are not saying that a hard limit has to be set on borrowing levels, but merely giving the Secretary of State the option to do so if they feel it necessary to protect consumers from the negative effects of the water industry. I come back to the point I made in previous sittings: giving the powers to the Secretary of State, a democratically elected Minister in His Majesty’s Government, through statutory instrument, improves democracy and accountability for the water companies. I do not think the Labour Government need to shy away from this constructive amendment, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to hold the water companies to account, as we all want to do.

If the Minister does not see the need for the amendment —I am not pre-empting her, but I imagine that is how her response will go—can she clarify how much borrowing the Government consider acceptable for a water company, and what they will do to reduce the impact on the consumer of excessive borrowing and spending? The new clause also limits the amount of dividends that can be paid out to shareholders if the water company has exceeded the borrowing limit. Should a limit be set, it would therefore make water companies fairer in their practices to bill payers, as when a company borrows it will have less of an impact on consumer bills.

While in government, the Conservatives gave Ofwat the powers to link performance to payouts to shareholders and water company management. New clause 4 further aims to protect consumers from companies that are failing to prioritise their customers. Considering those points, the Opposition believe that the Government could move a bit on this, and enact democratic accountability with the statutory instrument. We hope that they will look on new clause 4 favourably.

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling the new clause, which would implement a limit on borrowing by water companies. I note that Baroness Hayman had multiple discussions with Lord Roborough on the similar amendment that he put forward in the House of Lords, and that Lord Roborough was satisfied with our reasoning for not introducing restrictions on borrowing in the Bill.

Debt has been rising in companies since privatisation, and it of course accelerated under the previous Administration. In some instances, levels of debt have reached a point at which the financial resilience of companies could be threatened. We have been clear that Ofwat must continue to have a strong focus on company financial resilience to secure efficient long-term investment and deliver long-term value for money for customers and the environment.

I assure the Committee that Ofwat is already taking steps to closely monitor debt levels as part of its annual monitoring financial resilience report, and it will take action where the financial resilience of a company is threatened. Ofwat published its final determinations for the 2024 price review in December, which included a confirmed £104 billion upgrade for the water sector. Investment in the water sector is financed up front by investors, and repaid by customers over time to smooth the impact on bills. Borrowing is therefore a key part of the process.

I agree with many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest on debt. He raised the serious question of how much debt is too much. Does Ofwat have a firm number on how much companies should be borrowing, and at what point it should intervene?

I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention to look at what the borrowing and debt limits should be. We think that placing new borrowing limits on companies at this late stage in the price review process would disrupt business planning. However, taking on board the points that have been made and the concerns about companies’ levels of debt, I refer Members to the fact that we have announced an independent water commission, which will be a more appropriate vehicle for considering longer-term reform options such as the proposals from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Company financial structures are one of a number of areas that could be explored under the commission, and we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission through this new clause.

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?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood. There is certainly no desire from me to keep pedalling. Instead, what we want to do is look at the entire financial situation of companies—he knows that we have had that conversation outside this room. We need to look at some of the longer-term reform options for how companies are structured financially, which is why we have the deputy governor of the Bank of England leading our review, and using his knowledge and expertise to look at how companies are structured.

I do not think that the new clause is the appropriate place to pre-empt the outcome of the commission before it has had an opportunity to report, or even to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest through the call for evidence that is yet to be announced. I want to stress that I support sentiment of the hon. Member for Witney, but I express caution around the risks of putting through changes of this magnitude without giving full and proper consideration. We believe that the commission is the appropriate way to do that.

Okay, perhaps the Minister is right—perhaps the detail of what percentage of debt or what multiple of revenue is appropriate should be established by the commission and the wider review—but surely the principle can be established now. From any investigation in this area, we can say that the principle will be that debt will need to be capped or managed, or have some oversight, because we have seen what happens—particularly with Thames Water—when there is no cap or oversight. Does the Minister not agree that the new clause just sets out the principle, and the amount would be set out by an SI?

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s contributions on matters of finance, and I recognise his knowledge in this area. However, I think he would probably acknowledge—even if not publicly—that using a new clause to determine the level of debt that we think is appropriate is not the best way to make legislation for our country, or for the financial resilience of the water sector. I am entirely confident that the best way to look at this seriously, taking contributions and recommendations from all the wider stakeholders, is through the water commission. The commission might draw similar conclusions but it is not for us to pre-empt them now, without having first taken on board the opinions of many other stakeholders. I trust that the hon. Member for Epping Forest is reassured by the steps being taken by the Government, and by Ofwat, and I ask him to withdraw the clause.

I thank the Minister for the constructive tone with which she has engaged in this whole debate, but I think we are going round in circles. We are trying to hold the water companies to account, and the Government are saying, “It is okay, Ofwat can do that,” but we have heard contributions saying that Ofwat is not using its powers and we need to give it more powers.

All we are doing, with this new clause, is putting in place the principle that the Secretary of State has the capability to oversee that. If the Secretary of State and the Government felt that Ofwat was doing what the legislation intended, they would not need to activate the new clause’s provisions. If, however, they did not feel that Ofwat was doing that, the new clause would give them that particular power. We are again talking about—I know the Government Back Benchers are going to wince—teeth. In this case, regarding Ofwat’s and the Environment Agency’s capabilities, we are saying to the democratically elected Government of the day that there is an extra tooth to hold over Ofwat, and that if Ofwat is not doing its job then the Government can, potentially, step in.

I take on board the comments about the commission but, to echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Witney about being impatient for change, if this issue is going to the commission, and the can is being kicked down the track, that is disappointing. With this new clause, we are trying, constructively, to give the Government and the Secretary of State of the day the capability to act if they feel that the processes set up under the previous Administration and the new Administration are not working well. I urge the Minister to think again on this matter, and we will press the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.