Future of Thames Water

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran]

I do not trust Thames Water to do anything, and I will come on to an example of an even bigger and even worse project. We want investment and change, but the problem we have is that there is no longer any trust that this company can do that on time and on budget, and in a way that is actually going to deliver real change. That is why 2,507 local residents across Oxfordshire backed a Lib Dem petition calling for these price hikes to be scrapped. If this were a proper private company, it would not be asking customers to pay more for this level of service, yet that is exactly what it has done, and it has frankly given them no say in the process.

While I am lambasting this company today, I am not having a go at its hard-working staff. We need to be clear that they are not to blame for the current woes and dismal performance. In July, I visited Abingdon sewage treatment works, and friendly and knowledgeable people who had worked there for decades told me how the system is supposed to work: tanks remove the sludge, microbes digest bacteria and clean water is discharged. It was so clean that I could have drunk from it there and then—in fact, a heron strutted around the wetland ponds showing exactly what would have been possible. Sadly, that summer idyll is all too frequently shattered when the rain falls, the floodgates open and raw sewage pours out.

At this point, I should acknowledge the role that we and the public can play in helping to reduce pressure on the system. We have seen with our own eyes those mountains of wet wipes being removed from the pipes, and that skip full of rubbish that should never have been flushed down the toilet in the first place. Do the Government have plans for a public information campaign on this matter—paid for, of course, by water company profits? If we saw as many adverts on this issue as we do on things such as fast food, it would help everyone in protecting our rivers.

However, I do not want to downplay the institutional failings that we see in the company. We need additional capital investment; in Abingdon specifically, the staff were asking for another set of tanks to filter and clean the sewage to help that problem there, but it is the same everywhere. Last year, Thames Water admitted that £19 billion of its assets were deemed “poor” or “failed”, posing a risk to thousands of homes.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks of the under-investment in sewage treatment works and other assets. Nowhere is that truer than in Oxford sewage treatment works, which serves residents in my constituency outside of Oxford city. The site already cannot cope with the amount of sewage that it has to deal with. Does my hon. Friend also find it strange that the Environment Agency suddenly dropped its objections to developments, days after receiving a letter from lobbying interests around Oxford? Does she share my scepticism that Thames Water can deliver on the upgrades before the homes are built?

[Layla Moran]

My scepticism about Thames Water is basically the theme of my entire speech, and I completely agree. We absolutely need more houses in and around Oxford—on that I am clear. However, if that work is one of the things stopping those homes from being built, we must of course ensure that it is done to the highest possible standard. It sounds like something has happened there, and I would love to understand better why the EA withdrew that objection with no further change.

More than half of sewage treatment facilities are operating below their required capacity, while raw sewage discharge doubled between 2023-24 and 2024-25. That is a symptom of chronic underinvestment, and we need serious capital to fix the problem. Instead, Thames Water chose to funnel profits into dividends. As recently as March 2024, the company paid £158.3 million out to shareholders. This is a company that is hanging on to a lifeline of creditor goodwill, having already raced through £1.5 billion of the emergency cash that was injected 11 months ago. The scale of the mismanagement is staggering.

No one doubts the need to take steps to secure our water supply for the future in the context of the climate change, but I now come to the local example that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Thames Water presides over leaks to the tune of over 592 million litres a day, which is nearly a quarter of all the water it manages—it is unbelievable. My residents have justified questions about the validity of the arguments underpinning the south-east strategic reservoir option, also known as SESRO, which lies just outside Abingdon. It is estimated to cost £7.5 billion and counting, and we should remember that it started at £2.2 billion, and barely nothing has changed since then. If such a major project must go ahead—the Government say it should, fine—then can the Minister tell me something that I just do not get? Do they really trust Thames Water to get this done right? It is like running a bath when a hole has been punched through the plughole. I would not trust Thames Water to run a bath, let alone deliver a project of this size.

Will the Government also make clear what residents can expect from this project, should it go ahead? Will there be genuine community benefit? As it stands, the company is promising lots of lovely things—sailing clubs and all sorts—but when questioned on the matter at a recent drop-in event, the promises seemed to be nothing more than an artist’s impression. Will the Minister therefore intervene to ensure that the local villages and towns that will have to suffer the disruption get something out of it, beyond higher bills?

Time and again, constituents are being let down by chronic under-investment. For decades, every Government of every colour have presided over some form of this mess. But I do not want to blame; I just want solutions. As a result, I have some questions. What are the Government doing to prepare for when Thames Water exhausts the £1.5 billion of emergency funding? Have they considered the Liberal Democrats’ plans to turn it into a public benefit company? That is not public ownership, which others call for. The taxpayer would not take on the debt, but the profits would be invested back into infrastructure and fixing the problem, not used to enrich the likes of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the China Investment Corporation.

Will the Government promise a full response to the Independent Water Commission report and the creation of the new regulator with teeth? When can we expect the White Paper? Will we all, together, make a new year’s resolution—that this is the year we sort out Thames Water’s mess, for the sake of people and our planet, once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate.

Every week my office is inundated with emails relating to Thames Water. Issues range from miscalculated and aggressive billing to the now ubiquitous sewage discharging into local rivers and streams, and indeed the flooding of homes and gardens with human waste. Members have spoken eloquently on those issues, so, in the interest of time, I will not repeat what they said.

Since being elected I have also been made aware of the issue of tankering in my constituency—in other words, tankers sitting next to overwhelmed pumping stations, ready to take sewage away to a treatment works. It should be a temporary stopgap, perhaps if there has been an unexpected surge in sewage, yet it has become institutionalised. Rather than upgrading pumping stations and stopping groundwater infiltration, which is the source of the problem, the company is taking the easy way out. In the village of Cuxham, my constituents have been forced to tolerate 24/7 tankering for over a decade. Staff have got so comfortable in Cuxham that they have created their own little camp, complete with a Portaloo for their own comfort. It is probably needed, but is nevertheless a sign of just how institutionalised the practice is.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend describes the tankering of sewage from his constituency. In 2023, those tanks arrived in my constituency and the sewage was stored in open tanks on a Thames Water site for an entire summer, casting a stinky pall over the whole of Camberley town centre. It was an environmental crime and Thames Water promised to pay my constituents compensation, which they have never received. Does he agree that we need a far tougher regulator to bear down on these appalling environmental practices?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need greater regulation. I can only apologise that my hon. Friend has been at the raw end of our tankers.

My staff and I have tried to influence the company to install the measures that are needed, particularly in Cuxham, to resolve the issue, but Thames Water tells us that further investigations are needed and it must do more reports. When we ask when they are going to take place, it tells us, “There’s too much water now because it is winter. We must do them in the summer.” When we get to summer, it tells us, “There’s no water in the pipes, so we’ll have to wait till winter.” It is a ridiculous case that highlights just how short-sighted Thames Water is and how incapable it is of taking a long-term view. It is clear that Thames Water is now in a state of complete, irrecoverable disrepair.

Can the Minister explain why decisive action has not been taken to put Thames Water into special administration? Our constituents have no choice over who supplies their water, and it is down to the Government to protect them from being exploited. I hope that the Minister listens to the experiences of constituents that have been shared today, gains the confidence that a 174-seat majority should give her and takes bold action.