PSPRU Profile |
17 May 1998 |
A. Name and address
B. Company status
C. Finances
A. Shareholders
B. Directors
C. Controlled by Adrian White
A. Rich, religious and Conservative
B. Epsom Health Care Trust: workers prevented from public criticism of employer
C. BBC and other appointments
D. Fencing off common land
E. Vineyard
A. The importance of Nelspruit
B. Economic threats after SABC TV programme
C. Lawyers letters demand internet sites remove SAMWU statement and newspaper article
D. Threat to democratic debate
E. Previous libel cases in the UK
A. Comparison with other multinationals
B. Comparison with municipal companies and South African water boards
A. Size and scale
B. Bournemouth water: leakage, customer service and cost efficiency
C. Puerto Vallarta: difficulties
D. Water supply operations and Biwater's strategy
A. Biwater benefits from government
B. Importance to contractors of government tied aid
C. Problems of government tied aid: potential corruption, political lobby group
D. Malaysian Rural Water Supply Schemes: money and Mrs Thatcher
A. Donations to the Conservative party by Biwater
B. Politicians as directors or advisors
C. Royalty: 'significantly effective'
A. Startup in 1968
B. Growth of overseas business
C. The 1990s: exit competitive contracting, seek operating contracts
D. Activity in South Africa
Biwater plc
Biwater House
Station Approach, Dorking
Surrey RH4 1TZ
Tel: 01306-740740
Fax: 01306-885233
Biwater is a limited company, registered number: 929686. In 1997 it re-registered as a 'public limited company' (plc), and changed its name to "Biwater plc", but this only means that its share capital is over £50,000. Its shares are not publicly traded on any stock exchange, in the UK or elsewhere, and so it is not subject to the rules of the London stock exchange or any other stock exchange. For example, Biwater points out that "As a non-listed company, we are not obliged to issue copies of our report and accounts" 1
Biwater's business lies mainly in civil engineering and related manufacturing work. It has business around the world. Water and services represent about 15% of turnover.
|
Sales
|
Profits
|
|
Paybill
|
|
|
Year ending March 1997 |
242.90 |
5.50 |
2,492 |
47.0 |
18,860 |
2,207 |
15 months ending March 1996 |
261.10 |
-16.60 |
2,528 |
57.2 |
22,627 |
-6,725 |
Sector |
Turnover (£m.) |
Pre-tax Profits (£m.) |
Net Assets (£m.) |
|
Contracting |
116.1 |
0.8 |
2.8 |
|
Manufacturing |
89.4 |
3.9 |
13.0 |
|
Bournemouth water |
25.0 |
8.9 |
56.6 |
|
Other services |
12.4 |
-8.1 |
19.8 |
|
Total |
242.9 |
5.5 |
92.2 |
|
Region |
Turnover by destination (£m.) |
Net assets (£m.) |
|
UK |
125.5 |
82.2 |
|
Africa |
19.1 |
4.4 |
|
Middle East |
37.2 |
4.3 |
|
Far East |
28.9 |
2.8 |
|
Rest of Europe |
26.7 |
-6.8 |
|
Americas |
5.3 |
5.3 |
|
Other |
0.2 |
- |
|
TOTAL |
242.9 |
92.2 |
A. Shareholders
Biwater remains a family firm. Its shares have always been privately held by, or for the benefit of, a small number of people in two families.
Biwater was first set up in 1968 by the White family, with Adrian White owning 11 shares, and his parents 3 shares. By 1978, Leslie Jones and his wife had become shareholders, and Adrian White had set up a trust. By 1982, Leslie Jones had also set up a trust, and both trusts were based in Zurich. In April 1995, Adrian White transferred all his own shares to names of members of his family. In April 1998 an extra 3,000,000 £1 preference shares were issued, all to the existing shareholders.
| Family | Name of shareholder | Address | Ordinary shares owned | Preference shares owned |
| Jones | Leslie Jones | Ridgmount, Lawbrook lane, Penslake, Guildford, Surrey |
18,900,000 |
472,500 |
| Jones | Margaret Heather Jones | Ridgmount, Lawbrook lane, Penslake, Guildford, Surrey |
5,100,000 |
1,530,000 |
| White | Alex K Haussman, Moore & Co (trustee of AE White and Leslie Jones settlements) | CH 8034 Zurich, PO Box 335 |
34,800,000 |
870,000 |
| White | Gillian Denise White, David Frederick Wigram White, and Richard David Swinford Bostock | Denbies, Ranmore Common, Dorking, Surrey |
61,200,000 |
127,500 |
| White |
Adrian Edwin White ("The ultimate controlling party") |
Denbies, Ranmore Common, Dorking, Surrey |
Nil |
B. Directors
The directors of Biwater as at November 1997 were:
Adrian White (chairman), Denbies, Ranmore Common, Dorking,
Surrey
William Gardener, (vice-chair), 15 Ennismore Mews, London, SW7
1AP
DFW White (vice-chair)
Bernard Armstrong, 4 Lowerfold Drive, Rochdale, Lancashire OL12
7JA
Derek Ash, Badgers Mount Hoe Lane, Abinger Hammer, Dorking Surrey
RH5 6R
Christopher Goscomb (Finance director) Chichele Cottage, 11 Chichele
Road, Oxted Surrey RH8 0AE
James Hagan, 66 Brockham Lane, Brockham, Betchworth Surrey RH3
7EH
Neil Mcdougall, Strood Place Strood Lane, Horsham, West Sussex
RH12 3PF
Clive Read, Nethercote Nethercote Lane, Lewknor, Watlington Oxfordshire
OX9 5RX
Leslie Smith, 12 Cortworth Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S11
9LP
B A Winfield
C. Controlled by Adrian White
The company says that effective control is concentrated in the hands of one person, Adrian White. Biwater's annual report for 1997 states, under the heading of 'Controlling interests': "The ultimate controlling party of the Biwater Group is Mr A E White". 6 Although Adrian White is no longer listed as owning any shares in his own name, Biwater's annual report says that his interest in the company includes the shares which are now in the name of his family or his trust: "The interest of the chairman [Adrian White], including the interests of a spouse or family trust, in the share capital of the company, were as follows: 31/3/1997- 84m. 25p ordinary shares". 7
A. Rich, religious and Conservative
Adrian White, who effectively controls the company, is very rich. According to one report, he is worth £98million, which makes him 184th most wealthy person in Britain. 8 Another report places him higher, as "one of Britain's 75 richest men, worth £130 million" 9
According to a profile in 1993, White is "Deeply religious, he has been seen doing roof repairs to his local United Reform Church in Dorking, Surrey."; "he makes regular contributions to the Conservative Party (£25,000 last year)"; "He and wife Gillian, live in a £2 million hilltop mansion at 250-acre Denbies Winery, near Dorking. They expect to sell 50,000 cases of wine this year."; In Dorking - "where in the words of one resident 'He runs almost everything' …White's deeds stir up contrasting reactions. Former local councillor Frank Kenwood said: 'His company has transformed a run-down part of Dorking'. Others see him as uncompromising." 10
B. Epsom Health Care Trust: workers prevented from public criticism of employer
White was appointed as chairman of the Epsom Health Care Trust from 1990 to 1994. Epsom was one of the first of the new health service trusts, set up by the Thatcher government to change the way the NHS was run.
One change made by Epsom under White's chairmanship was to write strict confidentiality clauses into all employees' contracts, which made it a disciplinary offence for health workers to say anything publicly about the local health care service without their employer's approval. 11
(In 1997 the new Labour government abolished such clauses, by giving all health workers in the NHS the right to speak out about their concerns).
Epsom was also one of the few trusts which attempted to break from the national pay agreement. They introduced pay rates for nursing support staff and community support workers of between 5% and 10% lower than the rates set out in the national agreement for the NHS. 12
C. BBC and other appointments
Adrian White was appointed as a governor of the BBC in October 1995, and is still a governor in April 1998.
He has also served on a number of other bodies, including the Advisory Committee On Business And The Environment and the Overseas Projects Board, but is no longer on these boards.
D. Fencing off common land
White is at the centre of a key case over the public's right of access to open common, which is currently an important issue in Britain. White owns one quarter of Ranmore Common, Dorking, Surrey, where people have enjoyed walking freely for over 60 years, until White decided in 1990 to fence off some of the paths. White was quoted as saying that "'It is simply a question of whether or not they were legally entitled to do this without my permission.'" 13
The public argued that the paths were bridleways to which they had legal right of access, but in August 1996, after a long local campaign, the then environment secretary, John Gummer, refused to designate the tracks as bridleways, and ruled that it was the landlord's right to close or open the paths.Local ramblers appealed, but a high court ruling in February 1998 supported Adrian White's right to close the paths. It was not only ramblers who were upset by White's position, his fellow landowners also distanced themselves from his actions: "The withdrawal of the paths also disappointed the Country Landowners' Association. 'We recognise that the landowner is entitled to make his own decisions. But our role is to encourage landowners to increase the quality and quantity of access. In this case, it is not happening.'" 14
White's restrictive actions may be overturned by new legislation, which the Labour government proposed the week after the Dorking court case. The landowners association is trying to argue that a voluntary code is sufficient, as they do not want a statutory obligation imposed by law, which is why they are concerned that the actions of landowners like Adrian White undermine their position. 15 'The Times' lists the right of access to Ranmore Common as one of the nine key cases in Britain.
E. Vineyard
Adrian White started up one of the few English vineyards on the farmland at Dorking where he lives. This land and the mansion on it, Denbies, was for years owned by Biwater, and rented by White, and then he bought it in 1991.
According to a press report in 1995: "the winery is a popular conference and tourist venue. …… The problem has always been the quality of the wines, a mixture of the indifferent, the under-fruited and the plain disgusting." (Observer 10.12.1995)
4. South Africa: water privatisation and the suppression of dissent
A. The importance of Nelspruit
Biwater are in the process of seeking a privatised water concession at Nelspruit in South Africa. This is the first place in South Africa where privatisation of water has been suggested, and it is seen as important both by the multinationals and the supporters of publicly managed water: " The outcome of the Nelspruit debate will have crucial implications for municipal water management around the country. Several multinationals, including Biwater and French-owned Lyonnaise Des Eaux, see Nelspruit as a place to test the waters before moving on to similar bids in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other big cities." 16
Water privatisation is a controversial issue in a number of countries, and the subject of opposition from many political groups and trade unions around the world. South Africa is no exception. Privatisation is being opposed by the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), which is advocating that there should be a detailed examination of public sector alternatives, and has drawn up a pilot project proposal for community and worker based delivery of water. 17 The union argues that "international experience showed workers lose jobs, water prices rise and quality drops when private companies take over concessions to manage municipal supplies. Samwu is demanding a moratorium on all negotiations between local authorities and the private sector over privatisation of municipal services." 18
Key issues in this debate include whether private finance is either necessary or economically preferable to public financing, the relative efficiency, competence, and overall economic benefits of potential public and private operators, the terms on which concessions are issued, questions of accountability and political relations, and so on. This debate involves reference to empirical data on actual experience with privatisation in general and each company in particular.
The debate continues, and meanwhile a decision on Nelspruit has been deferred. In February 1998 a report said that "The privatisation of Nelspruit's water and waste services is on hold for at least another month after the provincial ANC alliance decided at a water summit on Sunday to investigate alternative options………The town council announced in October last year that a consortium of South African and British businesses, Metsi a Sechaba/Biwater, was its preferred bidder for the 30-year contract, prompting the South African Municipal Workers Union (Samwu) to join Cosatu's week-long stayaway at the time, in protest against privatisation. Cosatu has argued that privatisation of the water works would lead to job losses and an increase in service rates, while the ANC Youth League has accused ANC town councillors of accepting kick-backs, not consulting widely enough and bulldozing the process through. A delegation from Samwu will meet with councillors on Monday to discuss investigating public-sector funding." 19
On the other hand, the town clerk of Nelspruit argues that "the council could not afford the R300 million necessary to provide acceptable water and waste services to its 250 000 residents" and that "the privatisation drive is part of the government's national growth employment and redistribution (Gear) strategy".
Biwater, alone of the multinationals, has taken action to force the withdrawal of contributions to this debate.
B. Economic threats after SABC TV programme
In November 1997 Biwater used the threat of economic sanctions against a critical programme which was broadcast on South African TV on 13th November 1997. The programme reported criticisms of water privatisation in general, and of Biwater's track record as a water company in particular.
In researching the programme, the journalists had asked Biwater to respond to the criticisms, but Biwater had refused. The TV programme reported this: "Attempts to get a reaction from Biwater failed. SABC TV News was told that it's Biwater's policy not to make statements to the media, especially on television". 20
On the 17th November Biwater issued an extraordinary press release, faxed from (01306-746072) in Dorking, where Biwater has its head office, at 10:53 am and redistributed by its South African subsidiary at 12:21 pm the same day.
The press release started by claiming that the SABC programme contained "totally incorrect and highly misleading" allegations about Biwater. The release did not then spell out the points to which Biwater objected. The next paragraph suggested that the programme had a "hidden agenda" (Biwater did not specify what this was) and then stated:
"Until an apology and corrections are issued by SABC3, parent company Biwater plc in the UK has indicated its intention to withhold its R200million investment in the proposed pipe factory in Brakpan, Johannesburg, which was to have created jobs for several thousand local people. The company will also take steps to clear its name through legal action." 21
This is a very open declaration that Biwater was prepared to use its economic power to threaten hundreds of jobs of South Africans unless critical media statements were withdrawn. It is unlikely that such a statement could have been issued except on the personal authority of Adrian White.
The release attempted to explain why Biwater had failed to comment when asked by saying that the director responsible for South Africa had not been in the country at the time, and "It is certainly not company policy for any other member of staff to appear unprepared and unscheduled on live television" (what had been offered was actually a pre-recorded interview, not live appearance).
This 'policy' appears at odds with the press release itself. This was written in England, and then faxed from Biwater's headquarters at Dorking to their South African subsidiary, and after the footnote 'For further information please contact:' the author had inserted a curt instruction: "(Tony, please insert either your details here or Pty's details)".
C. Lawyers letters demand internet sites remove SAMWU statement and newspaper article
In April 1998 Biwater took further steps against critical comments from South African media, this time against publications on the internet:
In neither case did it attempt to contact the authors of the articles or the hosts of the WWW sites to offer comments or request any correction to any factual inaccuracy. The first and last step was to employ lawyers to send a letter threatening legal proceedings unless the documents were removed in their entirety.
D. Threat to democratic debate
Biwater has used its economic and legal power to limit debate
instead of participating as an equal.
It refused to comment to SABC about the programme, yet tried to
silence it afterwards.
It did not approach Labournet asking for any corrections to be
made or comments to be taken into account
This reluctance to deal equally with information extends into
other areas. It is one of very few companies that refuses even
to send a copy of its annual report to researchers at the PSPRU! 22
The actions of Biwater have the effect of deterring critical discussion taking place in South Africa about its proposed water privatisation project in Nelspruit. If statements by the press, television and the trade unions are gagged through threats of legal or economic sanctions, Biwater has a better chance of gaining a lucrative contract.
E. Previous libel cases in the UK
Biwater has twice recently taken proceedings for libel against UK publications in the UK courts. In both cases apologies were made, and retractions were issued, over one very specific issue.
The first was against the Independent, over an article published in March 1994, which inaccurately suggested that Biwater was being investigated over a contract in Thailand, for which it had not in fact bid. The Independent subsequently corrected their error and also stated: "Our article was so worded as to suggest that the award of the Thai contract might be due to donations to the Conservative Party made by Biwater, and to its former Chairman's membership of the Overseas Projects Board. These suggestions were unintended and we are pleased to make clear that we entirely accept that there is no truth in them. We apologise sincerely to Biwater and to Mr Adrian White for the embarrassment which they have been caused.
Yesterday, the High Court was told that the libel action brought by Biwater and Mr White had been settled on terms which included publication of this apology and payment of substantial damages to the plaintiffs." 23
The second was over a similar suggestion made by in Private Eye in 1995. The magazine apologised for the article which had "suggested the company was a substantial receiver of Government aid and winner of many valuable overseas contracts not through merit but because of donations to the Conservative Party and thanks to Mr White's membership of the Overseas Projects Board. There was no basis whatsoever for the allegations, said Ms Collard. Pressdram Ltd now accepted they were wholly false and that the article should never have been published. It apologised to Mr White and the company and had agreed to pay them substantial damages and their legal costs." 24
Neither the Mail and Gazette article, nor the SAMWU press release repeated the suggestion, which was the subject of the libel cases apologies and damages, namely that Biwater had won contracts because of its donations to the Conservative party. Neither does this report.
5. Misleading claim by Biwater to be "one of the largest"
According to a leaflet, "The perfect water company", published by Biwater itself: "Biwater has achieved its position as one of the world's largest managers and operators of water supply and sewerage systems, with its dedicated commitment to accountable ethical professionalism."
This is very misleading. It is untrue to say or imply that Biwater is one of the world's largest operators of water and sewerage systems. Biwater is the smallest of all internationally active water operators, whatever the basis of comparison.
A. Comparison with other multinationals
There are a number of international companies which operate privatised water concessions around the world. They are headed by the large French multinationals, followed by four of the large British water and sewerage companies, and the Spanish Aguas de Barcelona. Biwater's business as an operator of water and sewerage systems is tiny by comparison with all these companies.The table/graph below shows the population served by the major water companies, worldwide.
Biwater is not 'one of the largest': it is at the opposite end of the scale.
| Water multinational |
Home country |
Water and sewerage: Worldwide Population served |
| Generale des Eaux |
France |
65,000,000 |
| Lyonnaise des Eaux |
France |
65,000,000 |
| SAUR |
France |
27,000,000 |
| Thames Water |
UK |
19,800,000 |
| Severn Trent |
UK |
15,100,000 |
| United Utilities |
UK |
7,500,000 |
| Aguas de Barcelona |
Spain |
4,600,000 |
| Hyder |
UK |
4,200,000 |
| Biwater |
UK |
1,597,500* |
The picture is the same if the companies' turnover are compared. Biwater is, by a long way, the smallest - just one-third the size of the next smallest company, and one-quarter the size of Hyder. At the other end of the scale, you could fit 72 businesses the size of Biwater into Lyonnaise des Eaux!
Biwater is also the only one of these companies which is privately owned, so the company's shares are not traded on the Stock Exchange and the company is not subject to Stock Exchange rules.
| Company |
Sales |
Publicly quoted on Stock exchange or bourse |
| Lyonnaise des Eaux |
18,950 |
Yes |
| Generale des Eaux |
16,710 |
Yes |
| Bouygues (inc SAUR) |
9,100 |
Yes |
| United Utilities |
2,380 |
Yes |
| SAUR |
1,330 |
Yes |
| Thames Water |
1,290 |
Yes |
| Severn Trent |
1,220 |
Yes |
| Hyder |
1,140 |
Yes |
| Aguas de Barcelona |
755 |
Yes |
| Biwater |
261 |
No |
B. Comparison with municipal companies and South African water boards
Even when compared with municipal operators which service a particular city, Biwater does not emerge as particularly large. The total worldwide population serviced by Biwater of 1.5million - most of them either water supply only, or sewerage only) is no larger than that of many municipally owned companies in Europe, America or Africa.
Stockholm Water, for example, services a population of about 1.5 million with a comprehensive water and sewerage service that is widely regarded as a model. It is municipally owned, hosts the world's leading water congress every year, and is renowned as an international consultant on public sector water projects.
Even if Biwater's bulk water supply deals are taken into account, Biwater still looks small, even compared to South African water boards. These boards are responsible for bulk water supply, but they also aim to offer advice and expertise to the municipal system operators. Three of the South African water boards are already dealing with populations greater than 1.5 million
| Water Board | Area |
Population supplied |
| Rand Water | PWV Area, Gauteng |
10,000,000 |
| Umgeni Water | Pmburg/Durban, K/Zulu-Natal |
5,000,000 |
| Magalies Water | Rustenburg/Brits, N.W Prov. |
1,710,000 |
6. Water and sewerage operations
A. Size and scale
Biwater's business is mainly in civil engineering, and it has a relatively small amount of work as an operator of water and sewage systems. According to its 1997 annual report, the combined turnover of Bournemouth water and 'other services' totalled £37.4m., just over 15% of Biwater's business. In 1997 it had interest in a small number of operating concessions worldwide, whose total population - on the most generous assumptions - is just over 1.5 million.
Of these, the UK operation, Bournemouth Water, only deals with water supply. (Bournemouth Water is not one of the large 10 water and sewerage authorities privatised by the Thatcher government in 1989; it is formed from two small private companies which handled water supply locally for many decades, before being bought by Biwater in 1989). The population served varies from 468,500 in the summer, when many tourists visit the area, to 414,500 in the winter.
The Puerto Vallarta operation in Mexico is sewerage only, serving a population of about 150,000. 27
The Subic Bay contract, in the Phillipines, which started in April 1997, covers both water supply and sewerage. Biwater is a 30% partner in this venture, alongside two local authorities who also hold 30% between them. The area includes a trading zone of Subic Bay, and the town of Olangapo. The combined population of the towns is growing fast, and expected to reach 479,000 by the year 2000. 28
The operation in Batam, Indonesia, provides water supply services to Batam Island through a joint venture company PT Adhya Tirta Batam. The population is about half a million. 29
| Concession | Country | Population served: water and sewerage | Population served: Water supply only | Population served: Sewerage only |
| Bournemouth | UK | 414,500 - 468,500 | ||
| Puerto Vallarta | Mexico | 150,000 | ||
| Subic Bay/ Olongapo (30% owned) | Philippines | 479,000 (by year 2000) | ||
| Batam | Indonesia | 500,000 | ||
| TOTAL (max, year 2000) 1,597,500 |
Some other contracts do not involve the management of domestic water supply or sewerage services, but rather bulk water provision. In Chile, Biwater is also involved in operating a sewage treatment plant in Antofagusta and a water supply company in Santiago, but is not responsible for the full water and sewerage services for these cities, which are the responsibility of public corporations. 30 It has recently been awarded a similar bulk water supply contract in Panama, for building and operating a water treatment plant which will sell water to the government-run water department. 31
Biwater has so far failed to establish itself as a water and sewerage operator in mainland Europe. In 1994 they entered a joint venture in Spain, with Huarte, and in 1995 a joint venture in Italy, with the Fimar Group, but no successes have yet been reported in either country.
B. Bournemouth water: leakage, customer service and cost efficiency
Biwater's water company in the UK, Bournemouth Water, is one of the small water-supply only companies in the UK, centred around a small town and popular holiday resort on the south coast of England. It serves a population of 414,500 in the winter and 468,500 in the summer.
Bournemouth Water is proud of its relatively low level of leakage, by UK standards. However, this is only one of a number of measures of performance, and the company does not show so well on other indicators.
Bournemouth's leakage figures look good on some presentations, but the official report of the UK water regulator, OFWAT, published in July 1997, places them more in context. The report points out that: "Reported leakage levels for the smaller water only companies" - like Bournemouth - "are generally already lower, but their lack of progress may signal their complacency". Bournemouth is a case in point: its leakage increased from 1995/6 to 1996/7 on all three of OFWAT's measurements, one of the few companies to actually get worse.
The OFWAT tables give figures of leakage in terms of litres per property - where Bournemouth actually looks worse than the average water-only company - and cubic meters per kilometer of pipe.
OFWAT: leakage rates 1996-97
| Litres per property per day | M3/km/ per day | Estimate of unmeasured household consumption per day | |
| Bournemouth water | 157 | 10.5 | 166 |
| Water-only companies average | 150 | 11.5 | 163 |
| Industry average | 221 | 15.6 | 149 |
|
(Lowest figure) |
132 |
OFWAT also warned that the figures may be significantly distorted by the companies' own estimates: "Company estimates of unmeasured household per capita consumption can have an important influence on leakage comparisons. Whilst some variability is legitimate, Ofwat considers the range to be excessive. Where companies do overstate their per capita consumption, their leakage performance is seen to improve.". Again, Bournemouth may be a case in point - in both the last two years Bournemouth's estimate of unmeasured consumption was in the top 5 of the 28 water companies. In 1996/7, Bournemouth's estimate of unmeasured household consumption was 166 compared with an industry average of 149. 32
OFWAT has recently (April 1998) published a technical paper proposing a methodology for comparing the service to customers of the UK private water companies. 33
The paper proposes using a number of parameters, including water pressure, and interruptions to supply. It then uses actual data on these parameters from all companies to work out a normal performance range, but in doing so excludes " extraordinary data values — very high or low — that could unduly skew the performance scores". The paper then lists these extreme values: "The following exceptional figures were excluded from the initial calculation of the range of performance and were awarded the highest or lowest score as appropriate:
(It is worth noting that low pressure also has a favourable effect on leakage rates by reducing the rate of loss.)
The paper then finally uses all its parameters to arrive at a matrix, showing the positions of companies "for illustrative purposes", with 'A' the best and 'C' the worst. The columns show current performance, and the rows how far companies have improved.
On current performance, Bournemouth is one of the four worst companies in the UK - in the 'C' category - for overall service to customers. It is also in the best 'A' category for improvement, confirming the OFWAT comment above about improvements from poor starting positions - Bournemouth is the only company that has made grade 'A' improvements and still remains on grade 'C' current performance.
The OFWAT paper warns that this is not necessarily the final result: "While companies are identified for illustrative purposes in the matrices, it should be remembered that the data used to illustrate this paper will not be that used for any final assessment."
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||
| Performance improvement |
|
Bournemouth & West Hampshire |
Folkestone & Dover , Yorkshire, North West |
Southern | ||
|
|
Three Valleys, Essex & Suffolk, Mid Kent | Portsmouth, Wrexham, South Staffordshire, Wessex, Severn Trent, Chester, South East, North Surrey, Cambridge, Dwr Cymru, York, Mid Southern, Tendring Hundred, South West, Sutton & East Surrey | Anglian | |||
|
|
Northumbrian, Bristol, Thames | Hartlepool | ||||
Bournemouth does come out well in OFWAT's report on cost-efficiency, and is one of the companies rated as "well above average for their operating efficiency in 1996-97". 34 This is an improvement on their earlier performance: "Some companies which were assessed as average or even below average at the last review have made big improvements. These include …Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water… all of whom have become relatively more efficient than in 1992-93".
OFWAT again warns that the figures do not provide easy messages about companies' relative efficiency, and points out that the UK regulatory system provides built-in incentives for cost-cutting. He also notes that: "Efficiency savings have mainly been achieved through reduced employment costs across all activities, with the exception of customer service."
C. Puerto Vallarta: difficulties
Puerto Vallarta, a major tourist resort on Mexico's Pacific coast signed a BOT contract in 1993 for a new sewage treatment plant, financed partly by the IFC (World Bank). The plant has been operated since 1995, on a 15 year concession, by Compania Tratadora de Aguas Negras de Puerto Vallarta (CTAPV), a Biwater subsidiary. 35 This concession at Puerto Vallarta was one of first water projects to receive financing from the IFC, the equity arm of the World Bank, which said of this concession: "We expect it to demonstrate the role the private sector can play in the environmental services sector, both in Mexico and in other countries." 36
However, the operation encountered early problems, according to a report published by the World Bank in 1996, which listed 'operational, financial and political difficulties'. As the IFC envisaged, it does indeed 'demonstrate the role the private sector can play', and is worth quoting in detail:
"Puerto Vallarta, a tourist center on the Pacific coats of Mexico, has about 150,000 inhabitants. A BOT contract for a wastewater treatment plant was signed between the municipal agency SEAPAL and the UK company Biwater in 1993.
The private operator took over operations in 1995. The treatment plant was built to high design and operational standards. However, some operational, financial and political difficulties have emerged.
Operational problems are associated with fragmentation of responsibilities and difficulties in coordinating and balancing operations between the different components of the water and sewerage systems. Under the contract, the municipality guaranteed a minimum sewage effluent of 600 liters per second, against a potential plant capacity of almost 1,000. This has not happened; instead the actual sewage effluent has been about 400 liters per second.…The system's financial difficulties are linked with political issues. The traditionally dominant party in Mexico, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) was defeated in the 1994 municipal elections by the Partido de Accion Nacional (PAN). The new local government initially decided to avoid tariff increases. This policy weakened the financial capacity of the municipality. When the government tried to restore SEAPAL's viability by raising tariffs, the hotel sector sued, challenging the legality of the tariff adjustment process, and hotels refused to pay their bills directly to the municipality. Instead, payments were deposited in an account set up by the court. Its financial capacity thus eroded, SEAPAL has failed to meet some of the monthly payments due to the private company. To protect the contractor, the BOT arrangement had established a payment guarantee from Banobras, the Mexican public works bank, which is covering municipal liabilities temporarily. Negotiations to overcome these difficulties are underway." 37
D. Water supply operations and Biwater's strategy
Biwater had no involvement with managing or operating water supply and sewerage until 10 years ago. At the beginning, water and sewerage management was seen as a useful extra skill to help win construction contracts. Now these concessions are seen as central to the company's future profitability.
The company's first involvement with water supply operations came in 1988 and 1989, when it bought three small UK water supply companies - in East Worcestershire (subsequently sold at a handsome profit), Bournemouth and West Hampshire. The latter two were subsequently merged to form Bournemouth Water Company, which is still (April 1998) 100% owned by Biwater. These companies were not the major regional water and sewerage companies, which were privatised by the Thatcher government in 1990, but three of a number of small local companies which had held water supply franchises for nearly a century.
Biwater's reason for buying the water supply companies was to provide support for their overseas contracting: "The operations expertise gained enables the Group to negotiate service contracts worldwide and support several 'privatisation' proposals for major projects currently in negotiation……This acquisition was to make available utility operating experience required to support group overseas turnkey projects". 38 The same point recurs in the most recent reports: eg for 1996 "Bournemouth & West Hampshire water plc continued to flourish and has provided the Group with an excellent model for demonstrating its water management and supply expertise…" 39
Biwater now sees privatised water concessions as the key growth area for the company which provides a secure income with less competitive risk than their main contracting business. Adrian White stated in the 1997 annual report: "The group has turned its back on highly competitive bidding in our overseas business in favour of long term management contracts." 40
This means that Biwater have a vested interest in encouraging the politically controversial policy of water privatisation, worldwide. While many people think that privatisation of water is neither necessary nor desirable, White takes the view that Biwater is marching in step with an "inexorable" historical force: "these contracts are available in increasing numbers throughout the world as it moves inexorably towards private funding and operation of infrastructure assets in water and sewerage treatment." 41
7. Government relations and contracts
A. Biwater benefits from government
Biwater's business has been built on winning large construction contracts, mostly in developing countries, and mostly from governments or other public sector agencies. This means that support from the UK government is extremely important to the business of companies like Biwater, to help them negotiate with politicians to win contracts, to provide security if the political or financial environment changes, to provide aid expenditure in support of contracts, and to assist in negotiations if there are disputes over payment or performance.
Biwater has emphasised the importance of UK government support to its business. Ten years ago Adrian White wrote: "Biwater has already benefited from the support of British Government agencies in the securing of a number of its overseas contracts. However, in the face of mounting pressure from overseas competitors who are given substantial assistance by their Governments, the Group is making every effort to demonstrate the need for the continuing support of the British Government. …". 42
White has played a leading role in mobilising collective action by British firms and the UK government agencies. He is chairman of British Water, the trade association of UK exporters. After the gulf war, Biwater financed a 'floating hotel' for British exporters and government trade officials to lobby Kuwait for reconstruction contracts. 43
White has also emphasised the importance of government guarantees when things go wrong. Writing for the UK government's Export Credit Guarantee department, he states : "Frustrating though the requirements are to fulfil ECGD's necessarily detailed forms, few companies complain when they are paid out by the Department for unpaid bills by an African state or when caught out, for example, in the Gulf War." 44
B. Importance to contractors of government tied aid
The most direct form of government assistance to companies like Biwater has been government expenditure in support of contracts for British firms. Biwater's reliance on this was highlighted in 1997, when the firm stated that it had lost business because of government failure to provide aid payments: "Four projects in China are among work worth about $1 billion which has been lost by British contractors after the British Government halted further concessionary financing for projects in Asia…………..Alan Smith, Biwater's area manager in Hong Kong, said two water schemes in China had been lost and two other water projects in Asia had been scrapped. Mr Smith has spent more than a year chasing the Tangshan sewage treatment works, effort which he now considers wasted. "It is a big disappointment, to put it mildly," he said. "We have spent quite a lot of money (pursuing these projects)." 45
Between 1978 and 1997, however, Biwater was the fifth largest beneficiary of such aid from the UK government, receiving £66.42million., 4.68% of the total 'Aid for Trade Provision' (ATP) spending. 46
C. Problems of government tied aid: potential corruption, political lobby group
The problems of the aid-for-trade deals were highlighted in the wake of the Pergau dam affair. 47 Research by academics and others suggested that it failed to provide much benefit to recipients, and also failed to provide much long-term benefit to British industry, apart from the immediate benefit to the recipient contractor: "… John Healey, former chief economist of the ODA [said] 'There is no clear evidence that ATP generates follow-up orders. It gives a crutch to certain companies and reduces their competitiveness.' The ODA's findings have been reinforced by independent studies, such as that by Oliver Morrissey, an economist at Nottingham University. He maintains that ATP is an inefficient way of creating jobs and providing further contracts." 48
The further problem was that it opened the way for potential corruption, and encouraged the formation of a powerful interest group: "According to Professor John Toye of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University, 55% of all ATP spending during the first seven years went to only five firms Biwater, Balfour Beatty, GEC, NEI and Davy McKee. In a memorandum he submitted last month to the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee, he said this high concentration, 'permitted the creation and financing of a political lobby group, which actively sought the perpetuation and expansion of the ATP scheme, by means of press campaigns, the lobbying of ministers and officials and the sponsoring of 'research' aimed at demonstrating the 'benefits' of ATP'. ATP, Toye added, had been found to be 'open to financial corruption' through 'collusion between the British firm seeking to supply goods through ATP finance and the local agency to which the goods or services are to be supplied'." 49
D. Malaysian Rural Water Supply Schemes: money and Mrs Thatcher
Biwater did not win any contracts from the Pergau dam deal, but it had already been the benficiary of the biggest ever ATP-assisted programme, the contract for Rural water Supply systems in Malaysia, worth £489 million. The contract was awarded in March 1986, without competitive tendering, to Antah Biwater a joint venture 51 per cent owned by Antah Holdings of Malaysia (with Royal connections - see next section), and 49 per cent owned by Biwater. 50 This huge contract was later the subject of disputes between Biwater and the Malaysian government, with Biwater claiming extra payments and deferral of deadlines (see below, History).
Biwater dutifully acknowledged the importance of the UK government's role in their annual report at the end of 1986 : "Biwater has already benefited from the support of British Government agencies in the securing of a number of its overseas contracts." In Malaysia, this 'support' was a powerful combination of money and Mrs Thatcher:
The absence of competitive tendering was also advantageous. Biwater's international experience up to this point was questioned by the parliamentary opposition. Labour MP Ann Clwyd asked Mrs Thatcher whether "she was aware in assessing Biwater's reputation as worthy of her support in Malaysia, that Biwater had not by then successfully completed a major water project anywhere and had twice appeared in Nigerian courts for alleged poor performance".. Thatcher replied "The support given to Biwater, in relation to the Malaysian rural water supply project reflected our assessment that the company was fully capable of implementing the contract. 52
8. Political connections and donations
A. Donations to the Conservative party by Biwater
Between 1977 and 1992 Biwater gave a grand total of £101,550 to political causes- £85,250 to the Conservative Party, and £16,300 to the Small Business Bureau. Biwater has never made any donations to the Labour Party, or the Liberal Democratic party.
The table below shows all the political donations ever reported by Biwater. No political donations are reported before 1977.
|
Year end |
Donations to Conservative party |
Other political donations |
|
|
1977 |
15,000 |
0 |
|
|
1978 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1979 |
5,000 |
0 |
|
|
1980 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1981 |
250 |
2,500 |
Small Business Bureau |
|
1982 |
2,750 |
0 |
|
|
1983 |
10,000 |
0 |
|
|
1984 |
250 |
2,500 |
Small Business Bureau |
|
1985 |
2,500 |
0 |
|
|
1986 |
400 |
2,500 |
|
|
1987 |
15,100 |
400 |
|
|
1988 |
0 |
3,400 |
Small Business Bureau |
|
1989 |
5,000 |
0 |
|
|
1990 |
4,000 |
5,000 |
Small Business Bureau |
|
1991 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
25,000 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1995/96 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
1997 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
85,250 |
16,300 |
B. Politicians as directors or advisors
Biwater are known to have employed three Conservative MPs (or former MPs) as advisors:
Gryhlls was one of the Conservative MPs involved in the sleaze scandals in the last government, which involved a lobbying firm called Ian Greer Associates. The Guardian newspaper, which unearthed most of the scandals, stated to the House of Commons that "We regard him [Gryhlls] as the person most singly responsible for bringing Parliament into disrepute though his corrupt links with Greer throughout his time as chairman of the Conservative backbench Trade and Industry Committee." 56
C. Royalty: 'significantly effective'
Biwater, like other British companies, have used the royal family to promote their trading interests. For example: "In February [1988] His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales opened a Biwater exhibition in Bangkok, Thailand. The exhibition was designed to present our proposals for the development of the country's North eastern region" 57
According to Adrian White, the royal yacht Britannia was used in a similar fashion, specifically in South Africa. When Britannia was finally decommissioned, the Financial Times reported that: "a powerful array of business leaders, MPs and peers are calling on the government to recognise the huge role it plays in UK trade promotion……Among other business leaders who are concerned about the future of the yacht is Mr Adrian White, chairman of Biwater, the water engineering company. He said his company had found the ship 'significantly effective' on a recent visit to South Africa." 58
Adrian White and his wife are invited to social events attended by royalty. For example, in January 1997 they went to a birthday party at Claridges for Maureen, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava - other guests included Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.
There was a connection with the Malaysian royal family as well in Biwater's large Malaysian rural water supply contract, awarded in 1986. The contract was actually awarded to a joint venture between Biwater and Antah Holdings, a company run by was Tunku Imran Ja'afar, the son of the present King of Malaysia, Tuanku Ja'afar Tuanku Abdul Rahman. According to one press report: "Critics charge that royal connections were the reason why Antah and a British joint venture partner, Biwater Group, in 1986 were awarded a $565million contract, without going through a competitive tender, to supply clean water to 2 million rural consumers. Tunku Imran insists the contract had nothing to do with patronage but with the fact that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had offered a huge grant as a sweetener at a time when U.K.-Malaysian relations were at a low ebb". 59
A. Startup in 1968
The company was created in March 1968. Its principal activity was "the design, supply and installation of water processing equipment and purifiers" 60 , mainly with municipal swimming pools. By 1971 it had started to do business outside the UK. This brought problems as well as profit.
Biwater's accounts show a number of repeated features:
In 1971 "Losses were incurred on certain overseas contracts…the director who negotiated and supervised these contracts resigned in April 1971" . 61
In 1973 it first recorded that "the Company also supplied plant for sewage effluent polishing". The company's turnover rose to £1.283m over 18 months, over one-third of which was due to exports, and a pre-tax profit of over £66,000. In this year the accounting reference date was changed from March to September, giving an 18-month reporting period, and an adjustment was made to the previous year's accounts. 62 In 1974, exports represented over half of total turnover. 63
In 1977, turnover had risen to £15.452m, with pre-tax profits of £828,168, and a large donation of £15,000 was made to the Conservative party. An adjustment was made to the previous year's accounts. The auditors also qualified the accounts by stating that "the company experienced difficulty in maintaining adequate books of account to control certain overseas contracts…...Whilst overall income and expenditure during the period has been established, it has not been possible to verify certain items of overseas expenditure, nor to allocate expenditure with reasonable accuracy to individual overseas contracts." The reporting date was changed to December. 64
B. Growth of overseas business
Over the next decade years the company continued to increase its turnover, gain more overseas business, and expand its business into water treatment plant, civil engineering, and manufacturing. It reports major contracts in many countries, (but never mentions South Africa). Turnover grew to £88m. in 1985, and then leapt to over £123m. in 1986, when the Malaysian Rural Water Supply contract started, and to £276m. in 1989, after buying the UK water companies.
Biwater acknowledged that the UK government was very important in developing this business: "Biwater has already benefited from the support of British Government agencies in the securing of a number of its overseas contracts. However, in the face of mounting pressure from overseas competitors who are given substantial assistance by their Governments, the Group is making every effort to demonstrate the need for the continuing support of the British Government. …". 65
The accounts for 1989 showed a pre-tax loss of £2.9m., were qualified by the auditors, and were filed late with Companies House. One reason given was the outbreak of the gulf war, which cancelled the value of Biwater's contracts in Iraq. The other reason was the vulnerability of the business to large overseas contracts.
The accounts noted that: "Of the group turnover of £276.2m, £118m is accounted for by four overseas contracts with a combined order value of £525m. The value of one of these contracts exceeds £390m. The financial position of the group is largely dependent on the performance of these contracts, which are affected in various degrees by political, legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments in the countries involved, and by the nature of the groups activities in relation to these contracts. The industry in which the Group construction companies are engaged is also subject to physical risks of various types…" 66
The major problem was with the Malaysian contract. In order to get the losses as low as £2.9m, the directors of Biwater had assumed that they could get the value of the Malysian contract increased to £391m from the original figure of £365m. "The largest of these contracts is the Malaysian Rural Water Supply Schemes contract. This contract was 51% complete at 31 December 1989. The Group is currently negotiating with the client a contract value in excess of the original contract sum of Malaysian $1.4 billion (equivalent to £365m.)…". If Biwater had been constrained to the original contract sum to calculate profit/loss, then the entire group's losses would have had be increased by £10.7m., before and after tax. 67
The auditors' report stated: "In view of the uncertain outcome of the negotiations, we have been unable to satisfy ourselves as to the level of attributable profit in respect of this contract which should be recognised in these accounts." They went on to say: "Because of the significance of the matter referred to above, we are unable to form an opinion as to whether the accounts give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company or the group at 31 December 1989, or of the loss or cashflows of the group for the year then ended." 68
C. The 1990s: exit competitive contracting, seek operating contracts
The return to profit in 1990 was partly attributed to negotiated improvements in the terms of the Malaysian contract - an award of an extra £41m, 15% of the contract value; and an extension of time for completion. 69
The company remained in profit until 1994, when White resigned as chairman, to spend the next year helping win contracts in Asia, but a year later he was brought back as chairman, after a fall in profits which was attributed to a downturn in the capital spending by the large UK water and sewerage companies. The problems continued, and the accounting period was extended once again to allow a 15-month period up to March 1995, with a pre-tax loss of £16.6million. The main problems were attributed to disputed payments over contracts in Nigeria, and the Mexican economic crisis which hit the value of contracts in that country. The company was restructured to enable it to move "away from competitive contracting" and instead "The major thrust of the group's efforts continues to be directed at longer term service contracts incorporated within management concessions and build, own, operate and transfer projects." . 70
In the year to March 1997, the annual report showed a return to a small pre-tax profit, and a short phrase tucked away in a footnote to footnote 4 of the accounts referred to "the Malaysian Rural Water Supply Schemes contract, which Biwater exited in March 1996." 71
The company's current problem is thus clearly articulated in its reports. It is a medium-sized, privately-owned company, and its established business of construction and capital equipment for the water industry is suffering from
The strategy for rescuing the business is focussed almost entirely on getting more long-term operating contracts, through water privatisation around the world. Biwater has a great incentive to encourage the growth of this market, and to win a substantial share in it.
D. Activity in South Africa
According to the www page of Biwater in South Africa, the company is "Celebrating 21 years of service to the South African Water Industry." 72 This period covers many years under the apartheid regime, when the anti-apartheid movement worldwide was urging companies to boycott South Africa.
However, the annual reports of Biwater Ltd between 1976 and 1993 carry no reference to contract work with South Africa, nor to any subsidiary in South Africa. During this period the chairman's reports do refer in some detail to contracts all around the world, but there is no mention of South African work. The annual accounts during these years list directly held subsidiaries, including for example companies in Malaysia, but never list a subsidiary in South Africa.
The first mention comes in Biwater's annual report for the year end 1993, published in May 1994, when the chief executive's review says: "Major mechanical and electrical work has been secured for a Johannesburg sewage treatment plant extension in South Africa…"; and the list of subsidiaries includes, for the first time, "South Africa - Biwater (Pty) Limited - 100% [owned by Biwater] - water treatment contractors" . 73
The annual report for 1994, published in late 1995, contains further information: "Biwater is helped in its overseas drive for business by its good long-standing reputation in many of the countries providing a market for British water expertise. For example, we have been working in the Middle East for some 20 years, in Pakistan for almost as long, and in South Africa we have a subsidiary company which has been providing an essential public health facility to the needs of all communities in that country since the 1970s…". It also gives details of major current contracts: "In South Africa, the Faure drinking water treatment plant was completed, thereby ensuring a continuing supply - up to 1000 megalitres per day - of clean water to the population of Cape Town, and a contract was secured to supply equipment for the Olifantsviel sewage treatment works near Johannesburg.." 74 The annual report for 1997 gives similar detail.
It is possible that
1 Letter from Biwater company secretary dated 31 March 1998
2 Biwater plc Annual reports and accounts 1997
3 Biwater plc Annual report and accounts for year end 31March
1997
4 Biwater plc Annual report and accounts for year end 31March
1997
5 Annual return to Companies House filed 06/09/199; return of
allotment of shares filed18/04/1998
6 Biwater plc Annual report and accounts for year end 31 March
1997 note 29 to Financial statements
7 Biwater plc Annual report and accounts for year end 31 march
1997, report of the Directors
8 Business Age Rich 500, reported by PA 02/09/9
9 Mail on Sunday, 16/05/93
10 Mail on Sunday, 16/05/93
11 Unison national office report
12 Unison national office report
13 Daily Telegraph 17/02/98
14 Guardian 17/02/98 and other interested parties, ending on June
5.." (The Times 26/02/98)
15 "Landowners were told yesterday that they will be forced
by law to allow public access to most uncultivated land if they
do not do so voluntarily. The long-awaited proposals, set out
by Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, are intended to
give ramblers freedom to roam over 3.5 million acres of mountain,
moorland, heath, down and registered common land in England and
Wales.." (The Times 26/02/98)
16 Weekly Mail and Guardian, 11/04/97
17 SAMWU statements, at www.cosatu.org.za/samwu
18 Weekly Mail and Guardian, 11/04/97
19 African Eye News Service 11/02/98
20 transcript of SABC3 News broadcast 8.00 pm Thursday 13th November
1998.
21 press release faxed from Biwater UK, 17/11/1997.
22 Letter from Biwater to PSPRU dated 31/3/1998
23 Independent 11/04/95
24 Press Association 13/05/97
25 Data taken from latest company annual reports (year ending
1996 or 1997)
26 Latest company annual reports (year ending 1996 or 1997)
27 FT Water Briefing 11 Jan 95
28 Business World (Manila) 19 Feb 97
29 Indonesia Times 15 Feb 95
30 Chile is considering inviting tenders for sub-contracted concessions,
and Santiago was running two pilot projects involving Biwater,
according to FT Global Water Report 21 Aug 1996.. However, Biwater's
latest annual report says of Central and South America generally
that "Slow progress was made on re-establishing Biwater's
contracting presence in the region. There are encouraging signs
in Panama and Chile and initiatives are in place to secure Santiago's
public sector water company, EMOS, is described in a World Bank
report as "the best performing water utility in Chile, and
quite possibly the best in Latin America" (Daniel Rivera,
"Private Sector Participation in the Water Supply and Wastewater
Sector: World Bank, 1996)
31 FT Global Water Report 18 Dec 1997
32 Office Of Water Services (Ofwat)25/97 16 July 1997 Companies
Send In Their Latest Leakage Figures www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GWS/coi0747d.ok
33 A proposed approach to assessing overall service to customers-A
technical paper. OFWAT. Apr 1998 www.open.gov.uk/OFWAT/performa.htm
34 Office Of Water Services (OFWAT)41/97 17 December 1997 www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GWS/coi5968d.ok
35 FT Water Briefing 11 Jan 95
36 IFC Press Release No. 94/56 15 Feb 1994
37 'Private Sector Participation in the Water Supply and Wastewater
Sector' by Daniel Rivera (World Bank, 1996)(pp 18-19)
38 Annual report and accounts, year to December 1988
39 Annual report year end march 1996
40 Chairman's statement, annual report for 1997
41 Chairman's statement, annual report for 1997
42 Chairman's statement, annual report for year end December 1986
43 FT 28 Feb 1991
44 Adrian White, article on ECGD internet site, www.open.gov.uk/ecgd
45 26 Jan 97 South China Morning Post
46 House of Commons Written Answers 31/7/97
47 A detailed summary of this can be found on the internet site
of the world development movement:
www.intac.com/PubService/human_rights/ENVIRONMENT/WDM/PERGAU/pergau1.html
48 Sunday Times 13 Mar 1994
49 Sunday Times 13 Mar 1994
50 Independent 26 Feb 1994
51 Observer 27 Feb 1994
52 Hansard, written answers, 30 March 1988
53 Directors reports of Biwater, 1977-1997
54 Sunday Times 26/01/1997
55 Register of Lords' interests 1998
56 House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges
First Report 8/7/97
57 Annual report, year end December 1987
58 FT 17/01/1997
59 Asia Intelligence Wire 01 May 1997
60 Directors report, year end March 1971
61 Directors report for the year end March 1971
62 Directors report, period end September 1973.
63 Annual report and accounts, year end September 1974
64 Auditors report, and note 2 to the accounts, for year end December
1977
65 Chairman's statement, annual report for year end December 1986
66 Note 1 to the accounts for year end December 1989
67 Note 1 to the accounts for year end December 1989
68 Auditors report on accounts to year end December 1989
69 Chairman's statement, year ended Dec 1990
70 Chairman's statement, year ended Dec 1996
71 Note 4 to the accounts year ended March 1997
72 http;//africa.cis.co.za/buy/biwater/biwat1.html, visited 28/04/1998
73 Biwater Ltd annual report and accounts year end 31.12.1993,
filed at Companies House 11/05/1994
74 Annual report and accounts for year ending 31.12.1994