Oligarchs and property in the UK, Water in the UK
When Vladimir Putin launched all-out war on Ukraine a year ago, the British government realised that letting Russian oligarchs buy large chunks of west London had been foolish. The long-cherished belief that the civilising air of Eaton Square might turn kleptocrats into democrats was finally - if belatedly - abandoned.
The fruit of the government's realisation is the register of overseas owners of UK properties, which ended the anonymity of oligarchs who hid their mansions behind offshore-registered shell companies. The register has had some teething problems... but surely the bigger picture is that this enduring loophole in our transparency rules is finally closed, and the playing field levelled, right? Wrong. A huge loophole still exists, which renders last year's reform pretty much meaningless, and which almost no politicians have noticed...
But it is a fundamental principle of the British justice system that if new regulations affect wealthy people, lawyers will seek ways round them. And so it proved...
While the number of offshore shell companies owning property had remained broadly flat for a decade, the number of overseas individuals had increased by 250% over the same period... This is not being driven by a sudden surge in the number of BV Islanders, [British Virgin Islands] Manxmen or Jersey women buying property here. They are acting as nominees for someone else; effectively offshore shell people doing a job once done by shell companies. And despite the promises made last year that the registry would "require anonymous foreign owners of UK property to reveal their real identities", we the public still have no idea who the proprietors of these properties are...
(Oliver Bullough, The Guardian, 2023)
Surely the lawyers drafting the documents concerning the register of overseas owners of UK properties would have latched onto this glaring loophole?
Water in the UK
Britain is unusual in having a privately run water industry. Margaret Thatcher decided that it would be more efficient than a state-run industry: and though she set a trend towards privatisation around the world, water has remained in state hands in most advanced countries.
Privatisation hasn't been a complete disaster. Water is safe and reliably delivered and for the first couple of decades under private ownership the water companies invested more than their state-owned predecessors. But recently they have failed to make the investment needed both to maintain their assets for the next generation and to keep the environment clean. They have also been borrowing heavily. In the three decades since privatisation, the companies net debt has increased from zero to £53 billion. In that time, they have handed out £50 billion in dividends to shareholders.
But private companies do not act primarily in the public interest. If we expect them too, we are bound to be disappointed. Companies aren't evil but they're owned by shareholders, and the people who manage them therefore tend to get fired if they don't put shareholders' interests first. That's how capitalism works. Hence the need to to regulate privatised utilities. The regulator's job is to ensure that the public interest comes first...
The industry has two regulators - the Environment Agency (EA), which monitors its effect on the environment, and Ofwat, which regulates its financial affairs, including its investments... Ofwat lacks teeth. It does not have the power to disbar directors of badly behaved water companies nor easily remove their licences...
(Emma Duncan, The Times, 2023)
 |
| The Mouth of the River Ogmore Parker Hagarty (1859-1934) Photo Credit:The National Library of Wales [Public Domain] |
Water company bosses must be jailed for serious pollution, the Environment Agency (EA) said yesterday, as it revealed English water firms had overseen shocking levels of pollution in the past year.
The agency said water firms' performance on pollution had declined to the worst level seen in years. It is calling for chief executives and board members to be jailed if they oversee serious, repeated pollution, saying they seemed undeterred by enforcement action and court fines for breaching environmental laws.
Emma Howard Boyd, the chair of the EA, said:
"Fines handed down by the courts often amount to less than a chief executive's salary ... Investors should no longer see England's water monopolies as a one-way bet."
... Southern Water and South West Water were given a one-star rating - which means a poor performance - while Anglian, Thames, Wessex and Yorkshire were rated only two stars, meaning they require significant improvement.
The EA report said ...
The sector's performance on pollution was shocking, much worse than previous years ... Company directors let this occur and it is simply unacceptable. Over the years the public have seen water company executives and investors rewarded handsomely while the environment pays the price. The water companies are behaving like this for a simple reason: because they can. We intend to make it too painful for them to continue as they are."
... The inquiry was initiated after the water firms admitted they may have been illegally discharging sewage into rivers and seas for years...
(Sandra Laville, The Guardian, 2022)
Another matter that has been dragging on for years without any serious action being taken on the perpetrators.
*The boss of a water company with one of the worst pollution records in England has been handed more than £1m in pay and bonuses. Anglian Water's chief executive, Peter Simpson, landed a "substantial" £337,651 bonus as part of a £1.3m pay package.
The reward comes despite English water companies overseeing such shocking levels of pollution that the Environmental Agency has said bosses should be jailed for serious offences.
Anglian Water recorded nearly a quarter of all serious pollution incidents last year, according to the agency.
... Simpson's base salary rose to £531,365 in 2021-22, up from £505,277 a year earlier.
... The utility company Thames Water is also facing heat for handing its chief executive, Sarah Bentley, £727,000 worth of bonuses despite its poor performance on pollution. The bulk of Bentley's bonus will be distributed as part of a £3.1m "golden handshake" sign-on payment.
... Andrew Speke of the High Pay Centre thinktank said: "When the Environment Agency is calling for water company bosses to be jailed over their record on pollution, boards of the worst offending companies should be taking serious action ... It's time for the government to intervene."
(Alex Lawson, The Guardian, 2022)
Government to intervene? There's no chance of that.
*Water company bosses should be banned from giving themselves bonuses until they fix their leaky pipes, the Liberal Democrats have demanded.
New figures uncovered by the party found that England's water and sewage company bosses had awarded themselves about £27m in bonuses over the past two years...
This is despite reports that they allow 2.4bn litres of water to be leaked in England every day...
The Lib Dems believe a freeze on bonuses could focus minds and speed up this target.
Their rural affairs spokesperson, Tim Farron said: "It is outrageous that whilst millions of people suffer from hosepipe bans, water company execs reward themselves with these bonuses despite not even bothering to fix leaks. It begs the question: what on earth have they done to deserve these bonuses? These are the very same execs who let their companies pump raw sewage into our rivers."
(Helena Horton, The Guardian, 2022)
Nationalisation
 |
Grange by Derwentwater, Cumbria, Robert Gwelo Goodman (1871-1939) Photo Credit: Atkinson Art Gallery Collection [CC BY-NC-SA] |
The Labour party’s plans to renationalise water companies in England could cost the government as little as £14.5bn, according to research.
…Water UK, which represents the companies, said Labour’s plans added up to a “multibillion-pound nationalisation bill for taxpayers instead of spending that money on people’s real priorities such as hospitals and schools.”
Labour has proposed renationalising the water companies after they were criticised across the political spectrum for prioritising dividends and executive pay over preventing leaks and improving water quality.
(The Financial Times, 2019)
Comments
Post a Comment