Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

That used to be the province of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps saying two different things, depending on whether one is at the top or the bottom of the hill, in the House or in one's constituency, is contagious. We should all take the necessary precautions, but such indiscipline would never have been allowed when I was a Government assistant Whip. There remain, however, a number of hurdles to clear, not least that of the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who has an effective veto over the tunnel, so DEFRA support alone will be insufficient. We see the tunnel, in addition to its environmental benefit, as an opportunity to create up to 4,000 direct jobs for Londoners, to expand apprenticeships and to regenerate London. With the provision of financial assistance, we expect not just those apprenticeships but higher-level training to be a non-negotiable part of the deal. In an infrastructure project of this scale, complexity and duration, we should be setting targets not just for apprentices but for the number of young people who will achieve Masters-level civil engineering qualifications over the project's lifetime, as well as encouraging local and national procurement to secure growth and the economic recovery in London. No impact assessment has been produced alongside the Bill. The rather short explanatory memorandum states that this is because the Bill is associated with public expenditure, but clearly there will be burdens on water companies when administering any schemes under clauses 1 and 2, so what conditions will South West Water have to fulfil? Presumably, there will be an audit process, so what will the company's administrative costs be, or has it agreed to waive them? Of more concern, however, is the fact that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill to require potentially large sums of taxpayers' money to be spent transparently and accountably. Clauses 1 and 2 state that undefined ““terms and conditions”” can be attached to the use of public money, but that falls well short of making clear exactly what will happen, and we believe that certain safeguards should be specified in the Bill. I had a little look at the Water Industry Act 1991 this morning, and section 152 states that the Government can pay out money to water firms only"““in the interests of national security.””" So it is clear that infrastructure projects of the scale and cost of the one before us were simply not envisaged at the time of privatisation. Today's Bill shows those limitations, and section 154 of the 1991 Act also states very clearly that if any financial assistance or guarantee is given,"““the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament””" and"““as soon as possible after the end of each financial year…lay before each House of Parliament a statement relating to that sum.””" The right hon. Lady says that the subsidy to South West Water will continue until the end of the next comprehensive spending review period, but that again is not in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum, and we want to see those things guaranteed.