Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Consumers face long wait for their share

ANALYSIS

Friday 08 September 1995 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The City, not the consumer, would be given first call on the savings expected from job losses and rationalisation over the rest of the decade in North West Water's bid for Norweb .

This proposal is fundamental to the strategy devised by North West Water and its City advisers, Kleinwort Benson, to convince investors that the merger of two such different animals should be taken seriously. North West Water argued that if the City was to put up the cash to finance the takeover then it should have a prior claim on the benefits.

Brian Staples, chief executive, said: "It is shareholders who are putting up the cash, not customers, and shareholders first have to see a return. That is an equitable situation ... We have a good degree of confidence that we will get approval."

For the first five years, the money will go to shareholders as higher dividends, and only after 2000 will customers begin to see any effect on their bills, spread over five years.

North West Water believes that Ian Byatt, the water regulator, will agree. His office, Ofwat, has so far been guarded in its response but said that any suggestion that there has been a prior agreement would be "somewhat cheeky". But while the watchdog is due to publish a consultative document on the issue next week, there are hints already that immediate cuts for customers will not be put back on the agenda by the water regulator.

Ofwat takes the line that mergers between water companies are, in principle, against the public interest since it reduces the number of companies in the industry between which Mr Byatt can make comparisons of efficiency - the basis on which he sets price controls.

But a spokeswoman for Ofwat said yesterday: "This [latest merger proposal] is not the same as a merger between water companies, and the same sort of savings might be difficult to achieve. We are far less likely to see immediate benefits for consumers - it would probably have to emerge over time."

Sir Desmond promised the companies would be kept as separate subsidiaries of a new umbrella group, United Utilities. This will allow the electricity and water regulators to retain a firm grip on the businesses. Sir Desmond added that he saw no impediment to the merger from the regulator.

North West Water may find Ian Lang, President of the Board of Trade, more difficult to convince. With a cross- party political uproar breaking out, Mr Lang may be tempted to refer it all to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

It will be hard to use a reduction of competition as an excuse, because there is none between the two companies. But Mr Lang may well use his powers to call for an inquiry on public interest grounds or to investigate the complex regulatory problems such a novel combination could throw up.

The complaints from politicians, consumers and unions were not echoed in the City. The most convincing financial argument for the takeover put to investors was based on the savings expected from merging the corporate headquarters and combining services.

Sir Desmond believes the company will be able to sell its services to third parties Another benefit will accrue because the combined company will pay less tax through mopping up unused allowances. There will also be, the company claims, a "more efficient and cost effective" capital structure, a result of relying more heavily on borrowings from banks.

Add all these changes together and it should be easy to boost the dividend, which could be enough to swing the argument with shareholders.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in