Thames Water: Government Support

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate on Government support for Thames Water. What does Government support for Thames Water look like? Our current Government support Thames Water by letting it breach the terms of its operating licence, letting Ofwat ignore its own rules, letting consumers take the pain of higher bills for no gain, letting financiers make out like bandits and letting our rivers continue to be filled with sewage. What is shocking about that is that a Labour Government are doing it. This Government are turning out to be every bit as bad as the Conservatives were at protecting our rivers. They are completely ducking their responsibilities. It is within the Minister’s powers to take action: she is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding at DEFRA, DEFRA oversees Ofwat, and Ofwat issues operating licences to water companies.

Here are some of the key requirements that Thames Water needs to comply with, per its Ofwat-issued operating licence. First, there is an operational requirement to comply with environmental and health standards. Thames Water is failing that requirement. As per Environment Agency data, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, in 2024 Thames Water discharged nearly 300,000 hours of sewage, which is 50% up on 2023. It is illegal to dump sewage in dry conditions, but it is happening repeatedly. Professor Peter Hammond, who lives in my constituency, monitored the Stanton Harcourt sewage treatment works in my constituency, and found that there had been 266 illegal spills in just a single sewage treatment works in a four- year period. That is a complete failure of that operating requirement.

Secondly, Thames Water is failing the financial viability requirement, under which it is required to have two licences of investment-grade credit ratings. Currently, it has no credit ratings that are investment grade. Standard & Poor’s has the company’s debt 12 notches below investment grade, and Moody’s has it nine notches below. That is as far deep into junk bond territory as one can get. In the last financial year to March 2024, Thames Water had £19 billion of debt but only £1.2 billion of cash in. Everybody knows that that is not a sensible way to run a company.

By allowing Thames Water to breach that rule, we introduce moral hazard into the water sector and all other regulated sectors. Other water companies take note that there has been no material sanction of Thames Water and realise that they can also likely get away with it. Of the nearly £1.4 billion of funding due to come into the company, £900 million is going straight out in interest expenses, sweet financial goodies for hedge funds, and advisory fees. That is not fair on our bill payers. Customers are being royally stuffed, and Ofwat and the Minister’s DEFRA team are standing by.

Thirdly, there is a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers—the fair pricing requirement—and Thames Water is failing at that too. Bills have gone up by a headline of 31%. Many Witney constituents have written to me with increases of 50% and 70%—in one case, it was even 93%. On top of that, to add insult to injury, Thames Water has an application to the Competition and Markets Authority to increase bills even higher, by 59%.

Fourthly, there is the ownership requirement. This one really gets my goat. Thames Water must inform Ofwat of any change to control. Ultimate controllers are defined in Ofwat’s papers as being

“in a position to control or in a position to materially influence the company”.

Thames Water’s own advisers have publicly stated that the company is de facto controlled by its creditors. Ofwat is ignoring this. Extraordinarily, Ofwat, wrote to me in the last month to say that, despite it being publicly stated in the press that Omers, a shareholder in Thames Water, had written its stake down to zero and pulled its board representation off last May, it is still actually controlling the company. Why is this going on? What could be going on here? It smells—

[Luke Taylor]

It smells like—

[Charlie Maynard]

Yes, it does. I think Ofwat is doing exactly what the company’s creditors want it to do, and I wonder why that is happening, because it should not be.

Finally, there is a failure to innovate. There are a host of technologies out there, and far too often we hear the same old lines about Victorian sewers, cameras and how impossible it all is. There is a huge range of leak detection, pipeline monitoring, protective maintenance, trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. I hear from Oxfordshire firms that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions into the US and Europe than into the UK, so something is going seriously wrong. We could start by looking at whether the incentives are effectively aligned; I do not believe they are.

What are the consequences of this failure to act? It is easy to lay a lot of the blame at the last Government, but the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was more window dressing than action. I am new to Parliament, but I was particularly dismayed that not a single word of a single proposed amendment from any party was accepted by the Minister. I wish that in Parliament we all had enough confidence to accept good ideas where we found them—I live in hope.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Actually, compromise amendments were reached on a few occasions, so I want to gently push back on what he says. Cross-party amendments in the other place, where the Bill began, were discussed and accepted, so it is factually incorrect to say that no amendments were accepted.

[Charlie Maynard]

None of the 60 amendments in the Commons, or however many there were, was accepted. The rejected proposals included putting flow meters on the outflows of sewage treatment works, which is sort of logical; establishing targets to reduce pollution over time, using existing benchmarks of hours of spilled sewage; making sewage treatment works’ calculations more transparent; and bringing environmental experts and consumer representatives on to water boards.

The Labour Government are now allowing a public utility company to line the pockets of bankers and hedge funds at the expense of bill payers. As someone said in the Financial Times this week,

“with water, it’s a total monopoly and a total shambles. A shambopoly if you will”.

The Government’s support for Thames Water essentially amounts to unconditional support for the company’s creditors, at a direct and massive cost to its customers.

What do we need to do instead? First, we need to put the company out of its financial misery and put it into special administration. We should allow its debt to be massively written down to something like three times the cash flow or thereabouts. If the debt is reduced, the company will have a sufficiently strong balance sheet to allow it to invest in the infrastructure we desperately need and to spend our bill payments on fixing treatment works and pipe networks, rather than paying interest. We should allow water companies coming out of special administration to be mutually owned by their customers and professionally managed. We should set pollution baselines and pollution reduction targets and get serious about putting transparency targets and technology to work to clean up our rivers.

Special administration is clearly the most logical option at the moment, but I believe that the Government are shying away from it because of threats of legal action against them, phantasmagorical scenarios of financial Armageddon, or both. Please do not let Thames Water’s lobbyists, including Ruth Kelly, the ex-Labour Minister who is now chair of Water UK, to scaremonger you out of taking the action that 16 million consumers—your electorate—need. Those scenarios are patently not true, and it is best to ask Thames Water about that. As per page 92 of the independent expert report from Thames Water’s adviser, Teneo, the net cost to the Treasury of taking the company into special administration, even in the worst-case scenario, is zero—please look it up.

Instead, we now have this bizarre situation whereby a Labour Government are cheerleading the American hedge funds and private equity funds taking over our largest water company and making a massive profit out of its customers. What goes for Thames Water will very likely go for the rest of the sector, so the signal that you and your Government are sending the sector—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not wish to spoil the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but we use the same conventions in Westminster Hall as in the main Chamber. You should not use the words “you” or “your” unless you are referring to me.

[Charlie Maynard]

Many apologies to you, Ms Lewell, and to the Minister.

The signal that the Minister and the Government are sending to this and other regulated sectors is simply terrible. All that customers in my Witney constituency and across the whole catchment really want at this point is reliable, affordable, clean water to our homes. We want local rivers and lakes not to have sewage poured into them on a near-daily basis. We want a Government who are serious about putting the interests of customers and our rivers before the interests of hedge funds and private equity funds. Please stop letting us down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I simply refer to the fact that since privatisation about £250 billion of private investment has been put into our water companies, not only to improve infrastructure but to help with service delivery—£250 billion that would otherwise have had to come from the taxpayer.

My second point is that the system should work if the regulator is being robust enough. The point that I come back to is that there is a clear argument that the regulator, Ofwat, has not been sufficiently utilising the powers awarded to it by the Government, and therefore it is right that the Government hold it to account to make it as robust as possible. North of the border in Scotland, with Scottish Water, only 4% of storm overflows are even being monitored, and the service and delivery that Scottish residents are facing is in some cases far worse than what we are experiencing from Thames Water. Simply having a nationalisation strategy does not demonstrate better roll-out and service delivery for customers.

There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs.

[Charlie Maynard]

Could the hon. Member elaborate a little bit on that £250 billion number and where it comes from?

[Robbie Moore]

It is a figure that has been referenced since nationalisation initially took place, and has been well recognised as the amount of money that has been invested into our water companies by the private sector, for the benefit not only of Thames Water but of all the water companies across England.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is utilising the powers awarded to it, and does she have confidence in Ofwat being able to exercise its function? If not, what is the Minister doing about it? Furthermore, the Government need to take action to further protect consumers from the Thames Water fallout. The court settlement that Thames Water secured in February is designed to give everyone involved time to come to a sustainable plan, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us today that her efforts are firmly going towards ensuring that the plan protects consumers.

Finally, I would like to talk about the broader reforms and support that we can offer our water industry. As I and others have rightly said throughout this debate, our water industry is crying out for further investment. We need to think further about how to utilise the opportunities for the water sector across the country. To that end, what consideration is the Minister giving to providing more opportunities for individuals and organisations outside of major water companies to influence improving the water sector, and has she considered the untapped potential to increase water supply and capacity to the thousands of people who are utilising water, and the hundreds of landowners out there who, with the right financial and planning incentives, may choose to further invest in the water industry? That may be an avenue that the Minister may wish to explore.

I again thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for securing this important debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish you, and anybody celebrating, a very happy Easter—I hope that it is a peaceful and enjoyable day. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and giving us space and time to discuss this important issue.

I hope that I can use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the concerns being voiced around Thames Water and the water industry. Since I am feeling rather positive and getting ready for Easter, instead of “10 things I hate about”, I would rather come up with 10 things that might give us reason for hope and renewal in the water industry. To give 10 reasons for hope, since we have been elected we have: one, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to ban bonuses; two, with the Water (Special Measures) Act, introduced criminal liability; three, introduced automatic penalties; four, set up the independent commission; five, changed the articles of association; six, ringfenced money for investment; seven, doubled the compensation for burst pipes, which has come up through the guaranteed standards scheme; eight, created customer panels for water companies; nine, passed bathing water reforms; 10, published storm overflow guidance just last week. And this new Labour Government have not even been in office for a year.

Thinking of fairness and justice, I generally have an aversion to criticising people who cannot be here to defend themselves, so I want to reflect on the comment made about Ruth Kelly. She works for Water UK; she does not work for Thames Water, so characterising her as a defender of Thames Water is not entirely correct.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to, if the hon. Member wishes to retract his comment.

[Charlie Maynard]

To be clear, I said that Ruth Kelly is the chair of Water UK—I said exactly that.

[Emma Hardy]

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member as also saying that she is a defender of, or a spokesperson for, Thames Water. I am happy for him to retract his comment.

[Charlie Maynard]

I said that she is the chair of Water UK, which is the trade body for water companies, so I think that follows.

[Emma Hardy]

I am pleased by what I believe I have heard: that no reference was made to Ruth Kelly with regard to Thames Water; instead, the comment was solely about her representing Water UK.

Further to my point about people who are not here and unable to defend themselves, as a trade unionist I want to talk about the people who work for water companies, including those who work for Thames Water and go out to fix the broken pipes, clean up sewage and deal with the sewage overspills. I have had reports from some unions that those people often face abuse for doing so. They are often on the frontline facing people angry with the company. I would like to say—and I hope we have unity on this point—that the people going out, cleaning up the mess and dealing with the difficulties are not responsible. They are not Thames Water; they are people who work for it. I thank them for the work that they do in incredibly difficult circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I want to stress that although that is the legal process for entering special administration, that does not mean for one second that we are satisfied with the performance of the company as a whole. But there is a wealth of difference between the court-sanctioned process of going into special administration and the Government taking action. There are many things on which we want to take action. In fact, the whole purpose of the commission is to look at the way in which companies are set up and how we got into this position in the first place. It might interest the Opposition that some of the rules and regulations around Ofwat were relaxed in 2014—under the coalition Government.

It is not as though we are completely satisfied with everything, and that is why we are not doing SA. What I am saying is that SA is an ultimate enforcement tool; it is a serious step to take and it is sanctioned by the courts, but that does not mean that we are not doing anything else in between. We are taking a lot of other actions, but I wanted to address the specific point around why we are not pushing the company into special administration.

[Charlie Maynard]

I want to play back what the Minster just said. It is up to either Ofwat or the Secretary of State to apply to the court to put the company into special administration. As the Minister wrote to me last July or September, one of those conditions is whether the company is unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. Given that the company has come out and said that it has only £39 million, with £19.5 billion of debt, and it is going to run out of money by 24 March, I think that we have passed that benchmark pretty clearly. The idea that we have not is simply not true. It is therefore up to Ofwat or the Secretary of State, who continues to decline—maybe that is a better word than resist—to ask the court to consider.

[Emma Hardy]

With respect, I think that we have different interpretations of the truth. We are saying that the company can enter SA if it is insolvent. Thames Water is not at the point of insolvency. My message to the public and to people working in the company is that the company remains stable at the moment; however, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality.

I want to talk about broader commitments to financial stability and the independent commission. For me, this debate highlights how important it is to address the financial resilience of the water sector. We are talking specifically about Thames Water, but that does not mean that everything else is a bed of roses. Some historical decisions made by companies on debt levels have left them badly financially exposed. Those decisions often coincided with moves towards more complex ownership structures and the involvement of firms with shorter-term horizons.

We recognise that the Government have an important role to play in setting a regulatory framework that encourages a stable water sector. In hindsight, many might question the 2014 changes to make Ofwat a lighter-touch regulator. The Independent Water Commission is exploring how the Government could provide the regulatory structure that most people in the Chamber recognise that we need. The call for evidence is currently live, seeking views from stakeholders on improvements that could be made to economic regulation across a number of areas. As always, we welcome contributions from everybody across the House. The call for evidence closes on 23 April, and I encourage all interested parties to respond to the commission’s questions on these topics via DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space.

I conclude by reiterating that both the Government and Ofwat are carefully monitoring the situation with Thames Water.