MPs press the water minister for clarity on integrated regulation and Thames

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has pressed water minister Emma Hardy for more details on how a single integrated water regulator will work in England.

In a letter from chair Alistair Carmichael – asking follow up questions and chasing information promised when Hardy appeared before the Committee in September – the MPs pressed for answers by 16 October to the following questions:

• What assessment has the Department made of the risks of splitting environmental regulation and how will these risks be addressed? This was on the basis that: “Given that all aspects of the environment – water, air and earth – are greatly interconnected, we are concerned that there is a risk of creating new tensions in environmental regulation” by splitting out the water functions. 

• Will the new water regulator have the same status and level of independence as the Environment Agency and how will they work together to deliver positive outcomes?

• How will this new regulator be financed and how will the Government ensure that its funding is commensurate with the responsibilities it will have? 

• How will the Government secure the independence of this regulator so that unsustainable bill suppression does not occur again? 

• Will the regulator be able to offer salaries outside of public sector pay controls and will other important regulators be offered similar opportunities to ensure a level playing field? 

• What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that Parliament, including the EFRA Committee, can hold both a shadow and final water regulator to account? 

The letter went on to seek clarification on the Government’s criteria for putting Thames Water into special administration, given during Hardy’s evidence session, she “stated that Thames Water has not met the threshold for being placed into special administration. You suggested that the threshold is as serious as water not flowing from taps. You also listed various performance metrics that also might be cause for special administration if not met (Q1174) and stated that Thames Water has not met the threshold of failure on these matters (Q1178). However, as you will know, Thames Water is already failing to meet many of its performance targets and has breached some licence conditions.” The questions were: 

• What metrics and thresholds does the Government have in place that would justify an application for a special administrator for a water company? 

• How is Defra monitoring Thames’ performance against these metrics? 

• Are you satisfied that these thresholds are set at the right level to protect the continuous provision of essential water and wastewater services? 

Finally as regards water, the EFRA Committee raised poor enforcement of abstraction licences and plans to bring abstraction licences into Environmental Permitting Regulations (albeit no deadline for this has been given). It asked: 

• What is your assessment of the monitoring and enforcement regime for abstraction licences

• What are your plans for reform of abstraction licences and how will these tackle the issues identified with the current licensing process?

• According to campaigner River Action, the environment secretary has said a policy setting out the circumstances or criteria by reference to which a court would be asked to put a water company into special administration does not exist. It was reporting Defra’s response to its legal challenge that the environment secretary has acted unlawfully by failing to publish a policy on when the High Court would be asked to put a water company into the special administration regime. River Action reported the department had said: “There is nothing for the Defendant to publish.” It said this was “despite clear indications that a policy exists in some form”  – most strikingly, from Hardy’s evidence to the EFRA Committee. River Action awaits a High Court decision on whether its claim can proceed to a full hearing.