Lib Dem will introduce his bill today. Due to lack of
parliamentary time, the Bill has no chance of going any further.
Bill to establish a new model of company structure for Thames
Water, to be called a public benefit corporation; to require that
public benefit corporation to consider public policy benefits,
including reducing leaks and sewage dumping, as well as returns
for shareholders; to limit the payment of dividends until a plan
is in place to cut the corporation’s debt; and to require
membership of the corporation’s board to include representatives
of local environment groups.
Urgent
question: Water Industry: Financial Resilience - Jun
28
(Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the
financial resilience of the water industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
Water is what makes life possible on our planet, and it is
essential for our health and wellbeing, as well as for our
economy, including the production of food and clean energy. The
Government are taking significant steps to ensure that the water
industry is delivering the outcomes that bill payers expect and
deserve. Water companies have invested £190 billion since
privatisation in 1989. In April, the Government published the
plan for water, bringing together more investment, stronger
regulation and tougher enforcement capacity for regulators in
relation to those who pollute.
Ofwat and the Government take the financial resilience of the
water sector very seriously. Ofwat is the independent economic
regulator for the water sector and has responsibility for its
financial resilience. The sector as a whole is financially
resilient. Ofwat continues to monitor the financial position of
all the key water and waste water companies. Ofwat reports
annually on the sector’s financial resilience, and Ofwat’s latest
annual monitoring financial resilience report shows that the
water sector is financially resilient.
Market confidence in the sector is demonstrated by new
acquisitions, such as Pennon’s purchase of Bristol Water, and by
shareholders being willing to inject new capital. Ofwat has taken
steps in recent years to strengthen the sector’s position. That
includes action to update the ringfencing provisions in water
company licences to better safeguard the interests of customers,
and barring water companies from making payouts to shareholders
and removing money or assets from the business if they lose their
investment grade credit rating. Ofwat has outlined that water
companies must be transparent about how executive pay and
dividends align to the delivery of services to customers,
including environmental performance. Since privatisation, total
capital investment has outstripped dividends by 250%.
On 20 March 2023, Ofwat announced new powers that will enable it
to take enforcement action against water companies that do not
link dividend payments to performance for both customers and the
environment. In December 2022, Ofwat strengthened its powers on
executive pay awards by setting out that shareholders, and not
customers, will fund pay awards where companies do not
demonstrate that their decisions or pay awards reflect overall
performance. We support Ofwat’s work, and we urge all water
companies to take this opportunity to review their policies.
The scale of Government commitment to the water industry is
highlighted by the integrated plan for water, and by our
commitment to the financial resilience of the sector in
delivering for customers and the environment.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, but it
is a concern that the Secretary of State did not proactively make
a statement to the House on an issue of such importance. Indeed,
where is the Secretary of State? One of the largest water
companies in Britain is potentially going to go to the wall, and
the Secretary of State is missing in action.
It was clear to anyone looking on that a culture that allowed
vital investment in ending the sewage scandal and tackling water
leaks to be sacrificed in favour of a goldrush for shareholders
was never sustainable. Just last year, as raw human sewage was
being pumped out across the country, £1.4 billion was paid out to
shareholders. Now, all that was warned about is coming to pass:
leaks are leading to water shortages; sewage dumping pollutes our
rivers, lakes and seas; and the only thing on the up is debt, at
£60 billion. The Conservative party’s cycle of privatising
profit, usually for multibillion-pound foreign sovereign wealth
funds, and nationalising risk is not sustainable, and neither is
it a fair deal for working people.
The news we are seeing is the result of the Conservative party’s
failed “profit above public interest” experiment, in which it
handed over the water industry at a knock-down price to private
enterprise, together with the entire infrastructure serving the
nation. That was almost unique to water. For instance, when rail
was privatised, the tracks were not sold off. With water,
however, the lot was handed over, with few safeguards for our
national interest, our national security or bill payers.
When was the Minister’s Department first made aware of the
financial situation at Thames Water? Has her Department had any
reason to believe that those responsible at Thames Water would
not be able to meet their licence conditions or legal
obligations? If this means a taxpayer-funded bail-out, how much
will that cost and how will it be paid for? What assessment has
she made of the liability of UK pension funds that are invested
in Thames Water, and in other water companies considered to be at
risk? Given where we are, will she confirm her confidence in the
financial regulator? Finally, given what we see with Thames Water
today, does she have concerns about any other water companies, or
does she consider this to be an isolated case?
In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we
have our individual portfolios, and I am the water Minister. The
Secretary of State has full confidence in her Ministers when
sending them to the Dispatch Box.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of debt. For information,
debt to equity fell last year by 4% in the water industry,
actually making it more resilient. Since privatisation, capital
investment in the water industry has been 84% higher than it was
pre-privatisation—we need to get that out there and on the table.
In terms of Thames Water, it is not for me to comment on the
individual financial position of a water company. We have an
independent regulator that is doing that; indeed, that is what
the regulator, Ofwat, is for. Water companies are commercial
entities, and it is for the company and its investors to resolve
any issues. The Government, of course, are confident that Ofwat,
as the economic regulator of the water industry, is working
closely with any company that is facing financial stress.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Sir (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Sewage treatment plants are all too often overwhelmed at times of
heavy rain. As well as installing stormwater tanks, such as the
new 4 million litre stormwater tank in Scarborough, does the
Minister agree that we should do more to encourage homeowners to
harvest grey water, which can buffer the effects of heavy rain,
and use that for such things as flushing the toilet?
I thank my right hon. Friend for broadening the scope of the
debate. We are in discussions with the Department for Levelling
Up, Housing and Communities—many of these issues involve working
with other Departments—on grey water harvesting and better using
the rain that does fall. A farmer in Devon whom I visited was
collecting all the water from his farm buildings roofs to supply
his animals.
Sir (East Ham) (Lab)
In assessing, as the Minister has explained, the resilience of
the water industry, what assessment is she making of the impact
on UK pension funds if a major company such as Thames Water
fails, as is being widely suggested in the press?
There is a structure and a process for working through this
matter. It is up to the individual water companies and the
regulator working with them to ensure that they are resilient.
That is why Ofwat reports annually on how resilient each water
company is. If that flags any issues, Ofwat works closely with
them, because we need our water companies to be fully
functioning. We need to attract investment—a huge sum of money
has been invested since privatisation, as I mentioned earlier—in
infrastructure to give our customers the kind of service they
deserve. We should also be mindful that it is not all piled on to
customers; we have to share the load.
(Keighley) (Con)
It is worth making the House realise that it was the Opposition
who voted against the Environment Act 2021, which gave Ofwat more
powers. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the water regulator
Ofwat will be able to clamp down on excessive cash payouts and
ensure that water companies put their customers first?
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely
right: whatever the Opposition say today, one of the measures
they did not vote for in the Environment Act 2021 was to enable
Ofwat to hold water companies to account where they do not
demonstrate a link between dividends and performance. They must
have sound performance and be performing for their customers,
otherwise they cannot pay out their dividends.
(Westminster North) (Lab)
The staggering complacency we are hearing from the Minister will
come as no comfort to my constituents who were flooded out three
years ago in the west London floods, which were the second
100-year event in less than a decade. If Ofwat has been doing
such a good job in holding the water companies to account, as she
is now apparently telling us, why are we in this situation? What
exactly has Ofwat been doing?
It has to be remembered that privatisation occurred in 1989. We
have had a succession of different Governments during that time,
and it has been this Government who have accelerated clamping
down on water companies and opening up transparency. The hon.
Lady asks what Ofwat has done, and I will name just a few things.
Since 2020, Ofwat has updated the licences so that if a water
company loses its investment credit rating, it is barred from
making payouts to shareholders. In July 2022, it set out
additional proposals to increase financial resilience, including
companies having a stronger credit rating. In March, it announced
that it would take enforcement actions against water companies
that do not link dividend payments to performance. We have done
more than any Government before to ensure that we have a fully
functioning, strong regulator.
(Ludlow) (Con)
On financial resilience, has the Minister taken the opportunity
to consider the hotchpotch of policies coming from Opposition
Front Benchers on the subject? Under their prescription, they
would seek to take all the profit of water companies to invest in
capital expenditure. That would undermine the financial
resilience of those companies that rely on private capital for
investment in tackling this problem. In the one part of the
country where Labour does have responsibility—Wales—has she
noticed that the sewerage overflows are almost double the rate
per overflow pipe as in England?
I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing that out; I cannot
support more strongly what he said. We have a private system, and
Ofwat says that it is financially resilient. We need investment
in these companies to make them function properly. Obviously, we
need to hold the companies to account, but we need to see
enormous investment. Everything in the Government’s plan for
water, including the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, is
fully costed. We are not pulling the wool over people's eyes; we
are telling them clearly what this will mean and how it will
deliver the water services that we need.
(Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thames Water, which is on the verge of going under, provides a
quarter of the population with their water supply. When was the
Minister told about its financial plight? What is the plan if the
worst comes to the worst and it does go under?
The hon. Member is right that Thames Water supplies an enormous
part of our population. Ofwat has been working closely with
Thames Water, as it does all water companies, and the Government
work with Ofwat, giving it our strategic policy statement on what
its priorities will be. Overall, the water companies are
considered resilient, and much work is going on behind the scenes
with Thames Water to ensure that customers will not be affected.
If necessary, there is a process in place to move us to the next
stage.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
Swindon residents will be concerned about the future of Thames
Water, so I ask my hon. Friend please to keep me and colleagues
updated on any issues relating to that. Underlying this issue,
Labour’s model will clearly never work—we must understand that
only the private sector will be able to invest. [Interruption.]
Labour Members bleat now, but they did nothing about it when they
were in government. Is the point not that where we have in effect
a private monopoly, the regulator must be as effective as
possible? Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure
that Ofwat is working in the full interests of customers? Aspects
of its operation do not seem to pass that test.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Thames Water is a big
water company that delivers on a wide scale. Ofwat is working
very closely with the company on its plans, which will be looked
over and submitted, and accounts will be submitted in due course,
so that we have a resilient pathway. Customers, including his
constituents, should rest assured that both their water and
wastewater supplies will be protected.
(Eltham) (Lab)
This privatised industry knows that, at the end of the day, the
banker of last resort is the British taxpayer. That is exactly
where we are with Thames Water, which has been taking profits for
the last 35 years and not investing for the future. Regardless of
what went on before, we must have investment in what is in front
of the industry, but Thames Water has failed to plan ahead. It
has taken money but not done the job expected of it while being
in charge of such an essential public service. What will the
Government do to protect consumers and ensure that we plan ahead
for the industry?
Ofwat is the independent regulator and, as the hon. Member will
know, the Government direct it through the strategic policy
statement. It is Ofwat’s job to ensure that in the price review,
when the water companies submit their plans—they are going over
the draft plans now—they demonstrate that they will deliver on
the Government’s targets on storm overflows, leakage and demand
reduction. It is for Ofwat to ensure that companies will be
resilient in delivering that infrastructure. There is a firm
structure in place. Ofwat also constantly monitors companies’
gearing—debt-to-equity—levels, and the Government are confident
that the regulator is taking reasonable measures to challenge
companies to reduce those gearing levels where appropriate.
(North East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
About a quarter of the country’s economic output is in sectors
under regulators, including the water industry. With Ofwat and in
other sectors with Ofgem and the Financial Conduct Authority, we
have seen regulators not performing to the standards that the
public, or indeed industry, would expect. If we are honest, we in
this House and in Parliament do not have the toolkit to assess
regulators’ performance on a systemic basis year in, year out.
Will my hon. Friend work with ministerial colleagues to see
whether we can improve the regular oversight of regulators such
as Ofwat so that we can take a more rounded view on such issues,
rather than have them come through urgent questions as brought by
the Opposition?
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is essential that we have
fully functioning regulators. Since the Government came to power,
Ofwat has done an enormous amount to streamline what it does,
improve transparency, change licences and make changes so that
dividends are not paid if any environmental damage is being
caused. The Government have directed that through the strategic
policy statement. Indeed, our targets will ensure that the
regulator enables the water companies to put the right measures
in place. He is right, however, that one should never be
complacent, and if things need to be improved through the
regulators, they should happen. But I assure him that a big
effort is being made.
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents are hugely worried about reports of
Thames Water being on the brink and what that could mean for
their bills. Thames Water has been managed appallingly: leaks
have not been dealt with, sewage has been continually dumped and
the former chief executive officer Sarah Bentley needed to be
asked to forgo her bonus. All the while, the Government have been
missing in action. Why are the Government yet again running to
catch up—nothing in the Minister’s statement gives confidence
that they have a grip—with our constituents paying the price?
Where water companies underperform and do not meet their targets,
a process is in place whereby basically they have to credit the
money back to their customers. Last year, £143 million was
credited back in that respect. So the regulator does have the
tools to do that. It has tightened up so many of its measures,
all of which will affect all the water companies.
(Witney) (Con)
The Minister will not be able to comment on Thames Water’s
finances in detail, but can she assure my constituents, who will
be really worried, that, whatever happens, their day-to-day
services will be protected and the much-needed upgrades will
still be delivered?
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right that customers come
first, and Thames Water customers will be assured their water
supplies and wastewater services. I am happy to meet him to
discuss that.
(Twickenham) (LD)
Residents in Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons will be
extremely worried to hear that Thames Water is on the brink of
collapse, but they are also fed up to the back teeth with this
company. Not only does it pump sewage into our precious River
Thames, but recently we have seen sewage flooding our streets at
times of flooding from rainfall, and there are now plans to pump
treated sewage into the Thames at times of drought. That is
indicative of the company’s underinvestment in fixing leaks and
being stripped to the bare bones while lining executives’
pockets. All the while, the Government have been missing in
action and the regulator has failed. Will the Minister back the
Liberal Democrats’ proposals to reform water companies into
public good companies, transforming their boards and priorities
in the interests of the environment and consumers?
I will highlight the Thames super-sewer—it will be ready to open
in the not-too-distant future—which is a tremendous project for
the people of London, including many of her constituents. We have
a privatised system, whose financial resilience, as I have
reported, has increased rather than decreased in the last year.
These companies attract money from investors so that we can get
what we need. The Government have costed plans. The Liberal
Democrats have no costed plans for what they suggest they might
do with the water companies, nor plans for where the money will
come from.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
It is worth pointing out to Opposition parties that 93% of all UK
coastal bathing waters meet good or excellent conditions. In
North Norfolk we have lost three blue flag beaches, which went
from excellent to good. But guess what? There is not a single
reason why they lost that flag. Under the Environment Agency’s
marking, it looks like it is down to not combined sewage
overflows but entirely natural phenomena. Could the Minister help
me get my blue flags back and hold the Environment Agency to
task, to ensure that it has a proper testing regime that
transparently shows that we have excellent bathing water quality
all over North Norfolk?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of bathing water
quality. Since privatisation we have virtually the best quality
water coming out of our taps of almost anywhere in the world. We
also have phenomenal results for our bathing water areas—93% are
classed as good or excellent. He has concerns about his area, but
I hope those beaches will soon be back up to blue flag status.
The Environment Agency works closely on individual cases where
concerns have been highlighted. I am happy to put him in touch
with the Environment Agency or work with him to find out what
those individual cases were, so that we can get those beaches
back up to the fantastic standard that they deserve.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
Today, not for the first time, most of my constituents have
little or no water supply. Two years ago, not for the first time,
hundreds of my constituents had their homes flooded with raw
sewage. Year after year, Thames Water has failed its customers
while obscenely rewarding its management and shareholders. No one
will miss the asset strippers at Thames Water if it goes under.
All we want is working infrastructure and good customer service
at a reasonable cost. Is that too much to ask?
That is what we want for all our customers. That is why we have
launched our plan for water to pull everything together to ensure
that we deal with any pollution incidents, water supply issues
and the future of the water industry. It is why we have set our
targets and produced our storm sewage overflow plan, and why the
water companies will have to spend £56 billion on capital
investment by 2050 to address that. Every water company,
including Thames Water, has to make an action plan for each of
its storm sewage overflows. Thames Water will do that.
Dame (Wallasey) (Lab)
When they were privatised, water companies had all the debt
written off, so they started with zero. Since then, they have
borrowed £53 billion, much of which has been used to help pay £72
billion in dividends. The investment has been made by borrowing
and putting it on to customers’ bills. Now, the ratings agency
S&P has negative outlooks for two thirds of the UK water
companies it rates, because they are over-leveraged and took out
too much debt in an era of low interest, which they now have to
pay back. This is not a triumph but a huge problem for the
resilience of our water industry. What will the Minister do when
water companies start falling over?
For information, Thames Water itself has not paid any dividends
for the last six years. Ofwat will rightly hold companies to
account when they do not clearly demonstrate the link between
dividends and performance. We made that possible through the
landmark Environment Act.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I want to bring the Minister back to the figures we have just
heard. Water companies had no debt when they were privatised.
Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has
been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Meanwhile, we
have an appalling sewage scandal, particularly in the south-east
of England. The failing company Southern Water, which my
constituents have no choice but to rely on, is considering
raising bills by £279 per year by 2030, largely to pay for the
investment that it should have been making in previous years.
Does that not show that the privatisation of water was a serious
mistake that needs to be permanently rectified?
Privatisation has enabled clean and plentiful water to come out
of our taps. It has unlocked £190 billion of funding to invest in
the industry. That is the equivalent of £5 billion annually, and
is double what we had pre-privatisation. I am not saying that
there is not still a lot of scope for improvement. I have stood
at this Dispatch Box many times, as has the Secretary of State,
to say that some actions of water companies are completely
unacceptable. That is why we have introduced the storm overflow
plan and our plan for water.
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
As two Members have said, funding and loans to the water
companies are a huge issue, as that is where they have paid their
dividends from. On shareholders, we have foreign investors taking
huge amounts of money away from this country, and we need better
fund managers who are able to assess where they put their money.
They should be held accountable, too.
Ofwat has not been doing what it is supposed to do. I believe
that the chief executive of Ofwat applied for a job at Thames
Water. That shows what the companies are doing and how Ofwat
works with them—rather than scrutinising them, people are looking
for the next job. We have to stop that and stop my constituents
paying more for water. They need decent water in their homes and
in the environment around them. That is what we want the
Government to ensure. This Tory policy has failed for years.
I am not sure what the question was. We want the same things:
value for customers, and clean and plentiful water. We want to
hold the water companies to account. We want them to invest the
money needed to deliver the right services. That is why we have a
plan for water, our targets and the measures in the Environment
Act. It is why the regulator Ofwat has taken all the actions I
mentioned to increase the transparency of water companies and to
ensure that money is not being paid out if there is any
environmental impact or performance negativity.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
In the last year, a number of my constituents on the Westfield
estate have had their homes and gardens flooded with raw sewage.
Yorkshire Water accepts that it is its sewage, but does not
accept responsibility to help with the clean-up. Will the
Minister look at the legal position to ensure that water
companies are held accountable? In the meantime, we should put
pressure on Yorkshire Water and others to pay for the clean-up
that my constituents are having to fund themselves.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have put huge pressure on
the water companies, which now have to invest £56 billion in
infrastructure to deal with sewage issues. If he wants to meet me
to talk about that issue, I will be happy to.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Back in January I asked the water Minister whether she thought
that the current system of regulation was fit for purpose, and
she said yes. I ask her again: does she still think that it is?
Yes.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
Water companies were sold with no debt when they were privatised
in 1989. In fact, they were given a £1.5 billion green dowry by
the Government. Since then, they have taken on borrowing of £60.6
billion, diverting income from customer bills to paying dividends
and interest payments. As a result, water bills have increased by
upwards of 40% in real terms. Does the Minister honestly think
that consumers hail privatisation as a success?
Ultimately, the customers pay for investment in the industry, but
over a very long period, as the hon. Lady will know. If a company
did not pay out dividends it would struggle to get access to
finance to fund future investment. That would limit the level of
investment and have an impact on future customers. Companies have
to pay up front for a lot of that investment, because they need
to secure a large amount of funding to pay for it. To avoid
customer bills increasing drastically to pay for that, companies
have to secure the money by raising debt or equity. She knows how
it works. The regulator has to ensure that that system is fully
functioning, the water companies are resilient and we have all
the resilient water supply that we require.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
It has been reported that the companies are drawing up their
business plans for 2025 to 2030 and that, on average, they are
looking at a 25% increase in bills. Given what we have heard
today, would billpayers in my constituency not think that rather
than paying extra to water companies, they may as well just flush
their money down the drain for all the good it will do to improve
water quality, services and investment in infrastructure?
All those plans are being assessed right now. The draft plans go
to Ofwat, where they are analysed with a fine-toothed comb. All
the things I have mentioned today will be scrutinised, so that we
can deliver the infrastructure that is needed and have the clean
and plentiful water supplies we require as well as a clean and
healthy environment, with no undue impact on customer bills. All
those things have to be taken into account to deliver the water
supplies that the people we meet and the people we serve deserve.
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
The British public should not be asked to cover the cost of
failures by the water monopolies and their shareholders. They
have borrowed extensively to pay dividends while failing to make
necessary investments in infrastructure and resilience. Does the
Minister agree that if the Government are compelled to take
Thames Water into public ownership, it should stay in public
hands?
I am not aware of the situation the hon. Gentleman is referring
to. Ofwat is working very closely with Thames Water to ensure
that the business is viable, that customers are not impacted, and
that water supply and waste water services are delivered. As I
mentioned, Ofwat has strengthened many measures so that we have a
much more resilient industry in the future. Indeed, those changes
and the fall in the debt to equity ratio demonstrate that we do
have a more resilient industry.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
We have seen bonuses and dividends put ahead of investment in
infrastructure or maintaining sufficient reserves. Our area of
Devon and Somerset is covered by South West Water; the company
has paid out £112 million in dividends this year, despite having
just £144 million in reserves, which is £2.5 billion less than it
had two years ago. This week, a water firm chief executive
officer has resigned, but no Conservative Minister has ever taken
responsibility. When will a Conservative Minister finally take
responsibility and get a grip, or step aside?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ofwat has announced new measures to
enable it to take action against water companies that do not link
dividend payments to performance. That is just not happening. I
think he needs to look again at some of the stats he has just
quoted, because I think they might relate to the wider Pennon
Group. I have just visited South West Water to have a really
forensic look at its systems and how it delivers water. That is
what we do with our water companies. It is Ofwat’s job to hold
water companies to account, and it has just got measures through
the Treasury so that it has another £11.3 million to tackle
enforcement.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. We are ever mindful that
house building is important, and development opportunities are
critical to the future as well, so with developers being charged
more and more to connect to the network but facing delays in
those connections being installed, what plans does the Minister
have to make the connection system for new developments more
affordable?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We always have be
mindful of costs, not just to customers through their bills but
to developers building houses. We are working closely with the
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on a range
of measures and on its planning guidance, so that we can tackle a
range of issues connected to water, working with developers on
things like rainwater harvesting and sustainable urban drainage
systems, which will really help the whole of our water
infrastructure.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have
inadvertently misled the House. She said clearly that Thames
Water has not been paying out dividends. The reality is that
Thames Water has not been paying out dividends in the usual way,
but it did pay dividends last year to the parent company, so it
has been paying out dividends.
Mr Speaker
Does the Minister wish to respond?
Yes, Mr Speaker. I will check the wording, because I would hate
to mislead the House. If I have inadvertently said something
incorrect, I will happily put it straight on the record.
Mr Speaker
Right.
