My friend and fellow Green New Deal Group member, Clive Lewis MP, will be tabling a bill for the reform of the water industry in the House of Commons today.
As he says of this in his own press release:
Labour MP's Private Members' Bill to overhaul failing water system
Clive Lewis, the Labour MP who came fourth in the Private Members' Bill ballot, will introduce a bill to overhaul the management of water in the UK on Wednesday 16thOctober.
Lewis' placement in the ballot means his bill is guaranteed debate time in parliament. His bill will have its second reading early in 2025.
The bill will set new water targets and objectives for water management, including in relation to ownership, and climate adaptation and mitigation.
But from my point of view, this is the most important part of the Bill:
The bill will establish a Commission on Water to advise the Secretary of State on achieving those targets and objectives.
The remit of the Commission will include looking at different models of water ownership, and what measures are needed to adapt the UK's water management to meet the demands of climate change. The Commission will also set up a Citizens' Assembly to undertake a public deliberation exercise exploring different models of water ownership.
As Clive says:
Through the bill, Lewis aims to promote a national conversation about the future of water management and ownership in the UK. It comes in the context of the climate crisis threatening the UK's water resilience, as well as growing public anger at ongoing sewage scandals and mismanagement by private water companies.
And he added in a more personal quote:
This bill establishes a blueprint for democratic practice: for creating an open conversation about the state of our water and its future management – particularly in respect of the deep climate adaptation required - drawing on all expertise and ideas available to us, and which leaves no rock unturned in examining the root causes of the current failure so mistakes are not repeated. This bill does not presume a particular end point, and aims to push the public debate beyond simplistic and unhelpful narratives of privatisation vs nationalisation.
This bill puts the conversation about the future management of water where it should be – in the hands of parliament and the public. This is a conversation that must take place in broad daylight, not behind the closed doors of boardrooms, or through opaque industry lobbying. Water belongs to all of us, so how it is managed is a question of economic democracy. This should not be difficult for any government to grasp.
I am delighted to see that Clive has adopted this approach, although the reality is that he had little choice but to do so. Private Members' Bills may not be what is termed 'Money Bills' by the House of Common authorities, meaning that they are not allowed to mandate additional government expenditure of any significant amount.
We knew this when Clive and Caroline Lucas developed what was called the Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill in the last parliament, which was more commonly called the Green New Deal Bill. I wrote the structure of that Bill, suggesting that instead of committing the government to spending, the Bill required that the government commit to an inquiry into the need for that spending. As a result, it got tabled when otherwise it might not have done.
Clive is replicating that approach in the current Bill, calling for an inquiry into means of future management of the water industry, which might include nationalisation, without directly demanding that outcome because other options might be better alternatives.
I warmly welcome Bill and Clive's initiative in tabling it. This debate is required, and what he has to offer is a vast improvement on the very weak Bill on water tabled by the government, which merely extends the penalties on water companies, which everyone knows do not work and cannot work without reducing their already small investment in water infrastructure.
This may not become law, but the government most definitely needs to take note of this Bill.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Sadly, I agree with everything you say Richard. A path to better Gradualism is the VERY best we can even hope for..
Pie in the sky is never as nourishing as ham where we am so put me down fora king-size helping please Clive.
Clive Lewis’ Private Members’ Bill refers to future water management and ownership in the UK, its relation to climate change, a Water Commission and a Citizens’ Assembly to explore “different models of water ownership.”
Ahem! Is this the use of “UK” when what is meant is “England”? The England as Britain and England as the UK narrative that we, in Scotland, have no truck with? Words matter and the misuse of them creates confusion. Perhaps Mr Lewis can take a closer look at his language and correct it to reflect the reality of the situation in the UK.
After all, it’s foreign-owned, English private water and treatment companies which are releasing sewage into England’s waterways and the seas around it.
Here, in Scotland, our water is publicly owned. We don’t need, or want, a narrative on who should own and manage it. Water, the most important necessity of life, should be free of the profit motive.
The current Welsh structure is dire and commercial water is privatised in Scotland. Both need to be included in any review, as do their governments.
Fair enough – “..our water is *largely* publicly owned.
It’s essentially accurate though the non-domestic water market was opened up to private sector competition in 2005 which supplies water for hospitals, schools, businesses and industrial companies.
Scottish Water – publicly owned – owns the treatment works and the water distribution network.
“Here, in Scotland, our water is publicly owned. We don’t need, or want, a narrative on who should own and manage it. Water, the most important necessity of life, should be free of the profit motive.”Here, in Scotland, our water is publicly owned. We don’t need, or want, a narrative on who should own and manage it. Water, the most important necessity of life, should be free of the profit motive.”
Sadly we do need a public debate about water here in Scotland. Scottish Water tell us water is ‘piped by us, owned by you’; but actually we are all pouring public money into the pockets of the water companies at public expense. How so?
When water was privatised in England, Scotland held onto a nationalised model. But the water companies somehow forced their way in anyway (I suspect through some sort of UK wide agreement that put shareholder value before the public interest, but no-one will admit to it).
Domestic premises pay water charges via the local authority to Scottish Water, a nationalised industry which operates like a private concern. Paying these charges via the local authority rates gives the false impression that the charges are a tax and that local authorities still have any role apart from acting as billing agents. They do not appear to derive any financial benefit from this; and there is no real democratic oversight of how much we all pay. Scottish Water charge whatever they like.
All non-domestic premises however are required to take part in a so-called ‘retail market’ for water. This is not a genuine market at all but a form of legalised protection racket. The same water companies that are just letting the entire infrastructure rot in England, pocketing the money and laughing all the way to their offshore banks are doing the same to us. But here they accept no responsibility for the infrastructure at all.
There is only one ‘wholesaler’, Scottish Water, which sources, treats, pipes all the water and processes and discharges the waste. The so-called retailers make their money by negotiating ‘wholesale’ prices from Scottish Water that are below cost, and passing on the savings to their corporate friends. Far from investing in our infrastructure they parasitise it. It is pure piracy. So industrial volume water users get cheap water at public expense. Small businesses are hit with so-called ‘deemed’ contracts and are made liable for non-negotiable standing charges in order to make up the shortfall. We are told that these are necessary to maintain the infrastructure – rather like the Post Office scandal, ordinary people are held liable for corporate criminality. And we all shovel public money into private pockets for nothing.
In my personal experience over several years, even small businesses without any water or drainage connection at all receive outrageous demands from English water companies to pay for ‘services’ neither requested, nor agreed to, nor delivered. Scottish Water have a ‘retail’ arm, but all my attempts to transfer the supply to my small cafe to them have been refused by the corporate pirates. Meanwhile the companies take no responsibility for delivering the services paid for – ‘roads drainage’ for example is a serious problem where I live, but the Highland Council (roads authority) flatly refuses to collect the revenue it should be due. So where does the money go?
Scottish Water have recently put up their domestic prices to pay for infrastructure upgrades; and they force small businesses to pour money into private pockets. But this is only because they absolutely fail to set ‘wholesale’ prices that cover their costs. The water companies, as in England, laugh all the way to their offshore banks, even more so in Scotland as they pass all responsibility to Scottish Water. And the public pick up all the costs – without realising what is going on.
Scotland is also run entirely for private profit at public expense. There is absolutely no justification for splitting non-domestic water into ‘wholesale’ and ‘retail’ sections except to fund unjustified overheads by ‘retailers’. Their claim to provide ‘customer and billing services’ is laughable. All they do is bully and extort. And local authorities who bill domestic users seem to derive no overhead at all. We need to restore local democratic oversight of water and drainage services and remove the water companies altogether. Businesses also need to be able to deal direct with Scottish Water – there is no excuse for private companies to take profits at all.
I have taken these issues up with water companies, Scottish Water, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, MSPs and the Scottish Government. They all remain silent, or at best respond that this is just how it is, get used to it. As far as I can see, they all seem to be either corrupt or too wee, too poor, too stupid to stand up for themselves and the public they are supposed to serve.
The public theoretically own the water in Scotland, but we are forced to pour our money into the overflowing pockets of international corporate pirates who treat us with the same contempt as they do the English. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland is the ‘market regulator’, but like all the other ‘market regulators’, the public are not seen as stakeholders – it appears to be completely controlled by the water companies who use it to force Scottish Water to agree to excessively low prices at public expense.
So any discussion about water does need to include Scotland.
Thank you for explaining what most of us probably don’t understand but all of us should.
As Richard states “commercial water is privatised in Scotland” and domestic water only escaped that fate by a whisker, largely thanks to some deft thinking and action by the then Strathclyde Regional Council. The full story is here: https://www.believeinscotland.org/scottish-water-a-victory-for-the-scottish-people-v-the-uk-government
This isn’t accurate though “commercial water is privatised in Scotland”. I was wrong at 11.47am to suggest that.
Water is publicly owned in Scotland – the distribution network and the treatment works being in public hands. The management of water provision to certain premises such as commercial and industrial concerns, schools and hospitals has been outsourced to a private company under contract but water and everything to do with it remains in public ownership.
Well done to the now defunct Strathclyde Region for their referendum. From Believe in Scotland:
“Strathclyde Regional Authority decided to hold an advisory referendum to test the strength of feeling. They held a postal ballot. There was a huge turnout with 71.5 percent of electors in Strathclyde returning their papers. An extraordinary 97.2 percent wanted Scottish water to remain in public hands. No to privatisation votes numbered 1,194,667 – yes votes just 33,956”
The referendum had no force but there was massive opposition to privatisation right across Scotland.
That was a time when English governments sometimes listened to the Scottish people – and it was a Tory government then!
Note how Clive’s honesty will be the undoing of him and how easily he will be fobbed off I imagine.
I wish him the best of luck – and us too.
But this is not how things are done. Unless we make television drama out of it maybe?
I want to point out that private water companies have no incentive in fixing leaks or cleaning up sewage leaks. This is because fixing them costs money and does not have any financial pay back.
A similar problem is with construction companies especially on ‘design and build’ and ‘cost plus’ contracts where taking longer and extra costs gives the contractor more money. There will be additional problems with cheaper substandard materials and quality of construction such as substandard concrete and skimping on compaction of earth works.
It is not just UK as the Dublin Children’s hospital original budget was 650 million and current forecast is 2.2 billion. There have been 14 extensions to the completion date.
As soon as I see the phrase “national conversation” I know this is a dead duck; which of course is the likely fate of any duck paddling near a water company overflow.
There are some things you can’t privatise; for example, you cannot pretend a monopoly supplier is a “market”. It is plain nonsense. To pretend it isn’t a monopoly when there are vested interests at stake, to say nothing of public health is at least indecent, if not plain corrupt. The test? What justifiable motivation can be offered for pretending an unavoidable monopoly is a “market”?
Can I refer you to a blog comment from November 2023
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/11/03/72741/
“Ditto citizens’ assembles – a deeply dangerous idea IMO”
What made you change your view so radically to now thinking with Clive Lewis that they should have a role in deciding something as important as who owns and runs of sewage and sanitation.
Is it any wonder that you’re the go to manchild for thoughts on public policy
If they’re part of a consultation I can live with them
If they are decision makers I cannot
Well John,
Regarding your little trap for Richard, and certainly others of us who contribute to this blog. We don’t like the status quo, yet are stuck with it.
I’m a sustainability, degrowth, social ecologist type.
I’m a participatory democrat, and see a role for citizens’ assemblies too.
Yet our society is full fat GDP growth, and ticks all the boxes of being an utterly unsustainable technocratic plutocracy.
I won’t stop critiquing that, or kowtow to the status quo.
Now the problem is for me, and others like me who have contrary visions of society, that I have to live in the world as it is, not as I would have it be. I can, and do, try to reduce my own environmental impacts but alone I cannot change the world to meet my sustainability yardsticks.
We can all hold beliefs contrary to the reality of the situation, and I would suggest that we have a Parliamentary system I cannot endorse, and clearly neither does Richard on this particular issue, so some kind of tolerating the intolerable results.
Not quite Popper or Berlin, but similar logic.
This paradox has obviously escaped you, and your logical fallacy as expressed fails even at the point scoring level which you intend.
Thanks
I disagree that we are powerless to change anything. I refuse to submit to extortion (in Scotland; in England, it is ‘blackmail’. And no amount of telling me ‘thats how it is, get used to it’, is going to change that.
I can’y understand why water users put up with this corporate bullying. Why don’t they simply refuse to pay until the water companies actually do what they are paid to do? A contract has to be an agreement between two or more parties. And any party can withdraw that agreement is another is in breach.
Consumers consent because they know where the power lies
Neoliberalism is all about maximising profits by minimising operation costs, and doing as little as possible in the way of investment in the business.
Once people understand this, they will understand the current politicking.
Profit before people.
The only two politicians I am aware of who understand this, is Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and Robert F. Kennedy in the USA.
For the many, not the few.
Any attempt to overturn the current ridiculous ownership and regulatory structure is welcome.
Having spent many years running global procurement functions for multinationals I’ve never been able to understand any rationale for creating a defacto monopoly supply situation but with margin added in.
Whether one believes competition will lead to consumer benefit or not the current structure is guaranteed to be lose:lose
Best of luck to Clive – but the shame is it needs a Private Members Bill.
@ Simon King
‘….Best of luck to Clive – but the shame is it needs a Private Members Bill.’
My thought too. This should have been in the manifesto. It really is important that we have clean potable water and that the natural waterways are passably clean too. (And the sea – though that is an altogether bigger problem).
Will Labour MPs actually support this bill through parliament? I have my doubts.
No, they won’t
But it airs the issue
That’s the best it can do
For whatever difference it might make, it is easy for members of the public to register their support for Clive’s endeavour here:
https://actionnetwork.org/forms/add-your-name-to-the-water-bill?