Future of Thames Water

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I will discuss the future of Thames Water, starting with Thames Water’s record of pollution and environmental failure, and how it impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours.

West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames, the Evenlode, the Windrush, Shill brook and the Cole. We also have WASP, or Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been so active in going after Thames Water’s bad behaviour. It has mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that, between 2021 and 2025, there were 1,231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency, and 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works, Faringdon.

West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has WASP, which inspired the Channel 4 programme “Dirty Business”, which many hon. Members will have seen, so well done to Peter, Ash, Geoff and Vaughan. Despite Thames Water’s appalling record, residents have seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%; I even have one whose bill has gone up by 93%. That is outrageous, but those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. That is because Thames Water’s financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20 billion of debt.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his speech, because this is hugely important. Residents in Harlow are also fed up with their bills going up because of what appears to be Thames Water’s incompetence. Does he agree that that should not be the case, and that if Thames Water is so incompetent that it cannot sort out this problem, the Government need to step in and do something about it?

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree, and Thames Water’s full-year accounts are out at 7 am tomorrow morning. We will see just what they tell us. It is going to be ugly, not least because the company’s equity is worthless. The largest equity shareholders wrote down their shareholding to zero value and withdrew their board members more than two years ago. When Thames Water’s creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt last year, I was given permission to intervene in the High Court and speak for the interests of Thames Water’s 16 million customers, who are paying all these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but would otherwise have had no voice in court.

This Labour Government have slow-peddled for the last two years, and have refused to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration. This approach is costing customers an absolute fortune. Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses in the six months to September 2025. That is £133 million more, just in interest expenses, than it paid in the same period the previous year.

Labour is taking this hands-off approach despite the company’s multiple breaches of its operating licence. Let me illustrate some of those breaches. As I have stated, the company has carried out more than 1,000 illegal spills over four years. It must hold two investment-grade credit ratings as a condition of its operating licence, but it last held any investment-grade credit rating two years ago, in July 2024, and it has undergone a change of ultimate controller; yet the Minister, the Secretary of State and Ofwat have repeatedly refused to answer on that point.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by acting, or not acting, in the way that they are, they are privileging shareholders over consumers?

[Charlie Maynard]

Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw deal, and there is no end in sight.

To qualify as an ultimate controller—it is a defined term—a party need only have material influence over Thames Water. The creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company, and has put in £3 billion, but somehow that does not make it meet the criterion. It is ridiculous, and frankly, seeing this failure play out was probably the single moment when I most despaired of government and the rule of law. I repeatedly ask the same question, and repeatedly do not get an answer. I find it really, really bad.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Residents in Wokingham are absolutely sick of the failures of Thames Water’s management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills, for a duration of 684 hours. That means that Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. No waterway in Wokingham is safe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that interventions should be short, spontaneous and perhaps not pre-typed and three pages long.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into a special administration regime, which is commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds. I urge the Government to pursue a SAR on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way to secure special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the special administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors.

The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them is the company being unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Ofwat both have discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order if that condition is triggered. I understand that the Government currently do not have, and have refused to publish, a SAR assessment policy. That is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for

“broad, judgement-based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider.”

That is from paragraph 793, recommendation 59, of the final report. Clarity around those tests and when a SAR will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. Importantly, it also increases the Government’s negotiating leverage with the class A creditor consortium by further increasing the credibility of the threat of a SAR. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is so reluctant to publish those tests.

A SAR process would allow Thames Water’s debt to be written down substantially, very likely into single-digit billions. This write-down is crucial, and it is not punitive. The write-down should be sufficient for the company to leave the SAR with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge spend that will be required over the next decade or so on treatment works and pipe networks.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what is going on up and down the catchment writ small, with treatment works deferred despite being crucially needed. In Aston, we have sewage running down the street year after year, and it is the same in Standlake. It is just disgusting, and there is no end in sight.

A SAR process would allow the Government to use the period while Thames Water is in a SAR to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and to do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SAR would not ultimately cost the Government anything—this really matters—because they will recoup all the funding spent on a SAR, as this new funding injected by the Government would be super senior to all other funding. I am very grateful to the former DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, for setting out in a letter to the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman means to say, “the former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed).”

[Charlie Maynard]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for setting out in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year that

“we expect that any Government funding required during a SAR would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration”.

The current Secretary of State set out the same point in a parliamentary debate on 16 June. It is also worth noting that the Tories—there are not any in the Chamber—continue to refuse to acknowledge this, and that Teneo, Thames Water’s own expert adviser, stated the same in its report to the High Court in December 2024.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the Government’s reluctance to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into a SAR is loading costs on to consumers who use other water companies, by creating a moral hazard that means that companies are incentivised to take on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the Government? Instead, the Government should allow companies to fail, if they are going to fail, and to be taken into a SAR, so that there can be investment in the infrastructure that my hon. Friends referred to.

[Charlie Maynard]

I agree 100%, and that is what is so depressing; by continuing to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves.

The alternative to a SAR—a deal with the creditors, which, extraordinarily, seems to be the Government’s preferred option at this point—should not be countenanced. Giving these businesses, now operating as London & Valley Water consortium, yet more control of the company at ludicrously high interest rates would allow this downward spiral to continue. The Government must and can change course by using their power to ask for a SAR under existing legislation.

There is now the opportunity for Thames Water to exit special administration as a mutual, owned and run in the interests of its customers, and to break the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all. Legislation sets out that a water company insolvency SAR can conclude in two ways: rescue, whereby the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted, and the existing legal entity continues in a modified form; or transfer, whereby the regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. That does not require a competitive auction, as the legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat.Nothing in the legislation states that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in a SAR is continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns.

The Government could therefore set out at the point of SAR entry, or shortly after, that a mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames, and make that clear in the special administrator’s mandate. Work would need to be done in parallel with the SAR process to incorporate and put in place the governance framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report’s recommendations. Ofwat could then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual, rather than running a market sale.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. If she is unable to answer them now, I would appreciate an answer in writing if possible. Have the Government sought legal advice on the SAR process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate that FTI Consulting has been instructed for many months, but that is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper, specialist understanding of the SAR as a legal process, and of the litigation risk—perceived or actual—of applying for a SAR, is critical.

Will the Government commit to publishing a SAR assessment policy, and does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water, and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Will the Minister act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone that change without having given notice, and will she provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Will the Minister now take the London & Valley Water deal off the table, and work with the Secretary of State to apply to the court for Thames Water to be put into special administration? Finally, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrat call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies, the Minister said:

“I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.”——[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 728.]

Given that, will she confirm her Department’s position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What are the Department’s plans for exploring how we get there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—

[Charlie Maynard]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency.

This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill.

The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required.

Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act.

The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework.

I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025.

Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—

[Charlie Maynard]

How is that possible?

[Emma Hardy]

This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer.

I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position.

I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Thames Water

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

As I said in answer to a previous question, through the clean water Bill the Government will seek to ensure that the new water regulator—which will be integrating the functions of Ofwat, the EA, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Natural England—does not allow companies to get into the sorts of unmanageable levels of debt that we have seen.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is clear that the creditors’ consortium has material influence over Thames Water, as it is funding the company and bilaterally negotiating with the Government. Material influence means that the consortium meets the defined criteria of being an ultimate controller. Will the Secretary of State finally acknowledge that fact and work with Ofwat to enforce it?

[Emma Reynolds]

We are working closely with Ofwat, which has been talking to the consortium of investors for two years. Through my officials, the Government have been in discussions with the consortium alongside Ofwat since November. I thank all the officials who have been involved in those discussions. We need to find a way forward that puts customers and the environment at its heart.

Water Companies

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Thames Water, which serves my constituency, embodies the systemic failures of the sector. The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any investment grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by failing to inform Ofwat and the Government of the change of control at the company. The Government have stood by and let that happen. Now, their only plan is to hand the company over to the very same creditors who have pillaged, and continue to pillage, it. They must now change course, put Thames Water into special administration and bring it out as a business that is mutually owned and operated in the interests of its customers and the environment.

I find the shadow Minister’s words extraordinary—he comes across as a corporate shill. I have provided him with information from Thames Water’s own independent expert that demonstrates that the cost to the Government will be zero in the medium term, but he has not responded. Will the Government please now put the company into special administration?

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello).

I am going to move very quickly. I thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and all the campaigners in my constituency. I note that Blake primary school had to close on Friday because of sewage—the fourth time in the last two and a half months. Bills have gone up: we are paying 9.75% interest with Thames Water. I thank Alex Lipp and Jonny Dawe for putting together sewagemap.co.uk—a fantastic website that tracks what is going on and where.

The “ultimate controller” definition is mentioned 16 times in the Independent Water Commission’s final report. I welcome the proposal in paragraph 700, which would allow an enforceable undertaking against ultimate controllers. However, that will work only if Ofwat is doing its job properly and recognising companies as ultimate controllers. As the Minister knows, the equity of Thames Water is now zero, with most of the investors having written down their equity investment in full, and some having taken away their board representation nearly two years ago. That leaves the debt holders—the class A creditors—holding the majority of the company’s debt. They have now set up the London & Valley Water consortium to co-ordinate their interests.

The water sector is a regulated sector, with the ultimate controller designation being critical. To meet that definition, an entity only has to

“materially influence the policy or affairs”

of Thames Water. There is no limit on how many entities meet that criterion or whether there are equity or debt holders. Clearly, the consortium more than meets that definition as it is, in effect, the only significant party left standing across either Thames Water’s debt or equity structure.

As per the regulation, Thames Water must inform Ofwat even of potential changes in its ultimate controllers. Ofwat then requires water companies to obtain legally enforceable undertakings from each of their ultimate controllers. That has not happened in the case of the class A creditors, and I believe this is a rig-up between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, Thames Water and the class A creditors. That is not good enough. It is in contravention of our regulations.

I have repeatedly asked Ministers to explain, in the main Chamber, in the Business and Trade Committee, in this Chamber and in the press, why they believe that the class A creditor consortium does not meet the ultimate controller test. I have received either no answer— most recently from the Minister three weeks ago, when she refused point-blank to give me an answer in the main Chamber—or obfuscation. Please, will the Minister now answer the question? Does she consider the London & Valley Water consortium to meet the ultimate controller test with regard to its material influence over Thames Water, and if not, why not?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with that of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I turn now to regulation and the case for establishing a new single water regulator. As mentioned, that has to go alongside continuing what we have at the moment. Fundamental reform of water regulation is required, bringing together the economic and environmental planning, and looking at a singular accountable improvement body and enabling a whole-firm view of water company performance. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), called it phase 2 or round 2 —I am not sure what the right phrase is, but we will be back with further legislation. This is absolutely what we need. We are looking at a chief engineer being embedded in the new regulator, ensuring companies focus on fixing crumbling pipes, treatment works and on engineering expertise—it is shocking that we have not had engineering expertise. We are looking at greater stability, transparency and protection for customers.

Until then, existing regulators must retain their full legal powers and responsibility. However, the Government are determined to ensure that the future regulator does not inherit the problems of the past. Leadership appointments for the new regulator, including a chair designate, will therefore be made at the earliest opportunity, and they will drive the design and direction of the new regulator to support a smooth transition. Before that, early steps are now being taken to look at joining up regulatory activity, particularly between Ofwat and the Environment Agency, until the new regulator is established.

[Charlie Maynard]

We have four minutes to go, including a wind-up speech. I wonder whether the Minister is going to get to my point.

[Emma Hardy]

I will, but I would like to say— I hope this is felt by all Members across the House—that I am extremely accessible as a Minister and always willing to meet people, so I do not like having my integrity questioned. The hon. Gentleman should know that I responded to a letter from him on that very issue on 12 January. If he has not received it, he is welcome to come and see me, but to imply that I have ignored his request is false.

[Charlie Maynard]

I apologise.

Water White Paper

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is unacceptable. These companies should respect both the spirit and the letter of the law. As I have said, Ofwat is considering what further action it can take to ensure that these companies obey the law that this House passed last year.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I welcome the White Paper and thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work. I am keen to understand how it will work in practice. As the Secretary of State will know, Thames Water’s largest equity shareholder wrote down its shareholding to zero in May 2024, so the equity is widely regarded as worthless. That leaves the debt, three quarters of which is held by the London & Valley consortium, the class A creditor. Does she agree that, given that the equity is worthless, leaving only the debt, the consortium obviously has material influence over the company?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am sorry, but I cannot get into the specifics of Thames Water at what is quite a sensitive moment. What I can say is that it is financially stable, but the Government are prepared for all eventualities, including a special administration regime if one were needed, but I cannot go into the detail of what is happening.

Future of Thames Water

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for Thames Water. We have the Thames itself, the Evenlode and the Windrush. West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in going after Thames Water. We have WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—and we, as a team, have also gone after Thames Water through the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thank the legal team that fought pro bono with us last year on behalf of the 16 million Thames Water customers who are being royally stiffed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned, the bills people are paying are completely outrageous. I have had constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%. Somebody got a 93% increase through the post. It is outrageous.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

One of my local residents has had their bills doubled, and a mains water pipe in West Hill has burst, causing major chaos for my constituents. Yet £2.5 million was given out in executive bonuses last April. It is disgraceful that the Labour Government have left our constituents to foot the bill for Thames Water’s shoddy performance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should put the company into special administration?

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree—well said. What is so depressing is that the Labour Government have embraced the Conservative’s mistakes over Thames Water, and our water sector more broadly, and then doubled down on them. The Government have been and continue to be hoodwinked by a bunch of hedge-funds whispering about financial Armageddon into ears of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Ofwat. They need to follow through on their regulatory obligations, because we need regulators that have teeth and backbone and will actually deliver. Instead, we have hedge-funds making vast fees with outrageous interest expenses, at the cost of us as consumers. It is not fair. It is a great shame, and it is also unnecessary, because the company’s financial and environmental positions are completely unsustainable. With every day that passes, this becomes more Labour’s problem.

We now need to cut the rope and put the company into special administration, on account of its many breaches of its licence obligations, so that its debt can be written down to around three times cash flow and it can come out of the special administration regime mutually owned by 16 million customers, and run on behalf of them and the environment, and with Government-guaranteed funding mechanisms in place to fund the investment required over the next three, five and 15 years.

Will the Government please answer my letter to the Minister responsible for sewage and flooding, sent at the start of October? I asked whether the Minister believes that Thames Water’s ad hoc group of class A creditors now exerts material influence over it, thereby meeting the “ultimate controller” criteria. I would really like an answer on that. Last February, a High Court judge found that they have material influence over the company, and it would be great to have a straight answer from the Secretary of State or the Minister on that point.

I would not like the Government to give Thames Water, or any other water company, a free pass on paying environmental fines in full. When there are breaches, we need regulators that enforce the fines that are in place. Similarly, given the extreme precarity of the company’s finances, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Government should not entrust it with delivering a huge and costly infrastructure project in Oxfordshire in the form of the south-east strategic reservoir option, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke in detail. Given all our constituents’ low level of faith in Thames Water, the future of which is precarious, to put it extremely mildly, it is no wonder that this is causing such alarm to residents in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends.

Please do not be bamboozled by the hedge funds; instead, show some backbone—and do not own the Tories’ mistakes. That is the key thing, because this Government still have a chance to leave it with them. Please do so and put the company into a special administration regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this important debate. We have heard many contributions from across the House.

Thames Water is a distressing example that brings to light several serious issues that require ongoing attention from the Government and regulators. During the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, His Majesty’s official Opposition tabled many sensible amendments that would have ensured that companies did not leverage too much debt. Puzzlingly, and disappointingly, the Government failed to support those amendments.

Companies should be held to the highest standards, and the last Conservative Government took a range of measures to try to do exactly that. Only 7% of storm overflows were monitored when the previous Labour Government departed office in 2010; the Conservatives took that to 100%. Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water and took strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. We also banned water company bosses from receiving bonuses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment.

Quite rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water has been wrung dry of capital over the years. It has failed to invest to expand its supply and to clean up its sewage spills. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear that we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because, although water supply would continue, it would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve any of the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and, with it, Reform appears to be happy for the company to go under, exposing the taxpayer to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. If the company were taken into a temporary special administration regime or permanent public ownership, the taxpayer would ultimately end up paying the price. That cannot happen, it should not happen, and the parties calling for it seem to be in denial about what it would mean for the British taxpayer.

Ofwat, as the independent regulator for the sector—for now—has responsibility for the sector’s financial resilience and must continue to work closely with Thames Water. In the 2025 to 2030 price review, Ofwat challenged the efficiency of Thames Water’s proposed spending. That led to Thames Water being expected to deliver all schemes that it had proposed, but for £491 million less than it put forward and without any reductions in scale or standard. While Thames Water had initially proposed to appeal Ofwat’s final determinations for 2025 to 2030, it has deferred the appeal while it seeks to secure a rescue proposal.

Talking of spending, the Government have repeatedly made it a talking point that they have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system. They are not telling us, however, that £93 billion of that investment had been submitted by water companies in October 2023, while the Conservatives were in office.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I have to finish—I only have a certain amount of time. Can the Minister outline what action the Government are taking to help find a market-based solution for a Thames Water rescue deal, specifically in the light of reports that current lenders are preventing or shutting out competitors? What are the Government doing to encourage fair competition that puts the long-term interests of the company and customers first, rather than the interests of those seeking to minimise losses?

We are all agreed that Thames Water is in urgent need of a rescue plan. It must be a market-based solution that protects the taxpayer and customers. With the alarming example of Thames Water, which we are discussing today, and with the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, His Majesty’s official Opposition continue to urge the Government to rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing, in order to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I can confirm that, and it was one of the first things that this Labour Government, when we were incoming, put on to the statute book as a priority, in order to prevent that particular abuse. Thames Water is now under a cash lock-up arrangement; only Ofwat can approve any further dividend payments. That restriction will remain in place until credit ratings improve. Nothing that is happening at the moment will allow the kind of behaviour that we have seen in the past, from this company and others, to continue.

[Charlie Maynard]

We have interest costs of 9.75% being paid. We have massive advisory fees coming out of the company. All the class A creditors’ legal fees—£15 million a month, give or take—were being paid for by Thames Water. To say that this is not all hitting the customers is not true. Who else is paying for this, if it is not ultimately the customers?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was talking about the specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) made about ringfencing for investment, not about some of the costs of the current impasse at Thames Water. To go back to that, the Government will always act in the interests of customers and the environment, and ensure that Thames Water acts in those best interests too.

We are working closely with Ofwat, which is currently in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, which is the group of creditors that was referred to. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment. We will continue to support engagement between Ofwat and the consortium, with a view to supporting a market-led solution for Thames Water’s difficulties, while ensuring that customers and the environment are protected.

Many hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential for a special administration regime. Should Thames Water become insolvent, we would not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime, but as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, that is not a cost-free option. This would ensure that there is no increased disruption to customers’ water or waste-water services. In line with our preparations for a range of scenarios across regulated industries, including water, officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have selected a firm, FTI Consulting, as an adviser to help with special administration regime contingency planning. That planning is going ahead.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No, I must make this point, which is quite important in the context of the debate. There is a high bar for the use of special administration regimes. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent—while Thames Water is living fairly hand to mouth, it is not currently insolvent—or is in such a serious breach of its principle statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Those are the only two things than can lead to the application of a special administration regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I concur with those views from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), but can the Minister confirm that those discussions with class A creditors will not involve forgiving the company for its fines?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is an ongoing process that I cannot and will not comment on from the sidelines. What I have said is that the Government will ensure that any resolution comes in the interests of the environment and customers, and that is the criteria that the Government will apply, but I will not commentate on rumours from outside of the process in this place. It is important that we allow the process to continue to its conclusion, whatever that may be. I hope that Members are reassured that the Government will be ready to act and use special administration if we have to, should we get to that circumstance—but we are not in that circumstance yet.

I conclude by reiterating that this Government will always act in the national interest. We are clear that Thames Water must always act in the best interests of customers and the environment. We expect it to do that, and we stand ready to act if it becomes clear that it cannot.

Thames Water

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend, and indeed neighbour, for his question, and I know what a strong water champion he is on behalf of his constituents. His constituents, much like everybody else’s, will now benefit from increased compensation when there are failures. I agree with him that one of the problems we inherited from the previous Government was having a failing system with no accountability at all, so it is quite right that we have introduced new criminal liabilities and potentially prison time for polluting water bosses, and that we have given the regulator the power to ban the unfair and undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses they got away with under the Conservatives.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with Thames Water’s own expert adviser Teneo—on page 193 of the expert advice report—that the ultimate cost to the Government if the company goes into special administration will be zero?

[Steve Reed]

The point is that there is a market-led solution on the table and I expect Thames Water to follow through on that.

Sewage

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I am delighted to speak on the issue of how we can fix our broken water and sewerage sector, and get serious about cleaning up our rivers and lakes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate.

My constituency of Witney, in west Oxfordshire, has borne the brunt of the sewage scandal. Many beautiful rivers flow through it, and the Thames bisects it. We have the Windrush and the Evenlode, Shell brook to the north, and the Ock to the south. They are all heavily and frequently polluted.

I welcome the calls from colleagues to introduce a new blue flag status so that we can guarantee that a river is clean enough to swim in. That would help to restore people’s confidence in swimming, and the bathing place in Witney would be a fantastic example. It is just north of Early’s mill, where generations of people have spent their summer swimming but no longer do so.

We know what a car crash our sewerage network is, thanks to the many campaigners who have gone to so much trouble in their own time, and often using their own money, to bring this issue to our attention. At the top of the star is WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—which is run by Professor Peter Hammond, Ash Smith, Vaughan Lewis and Geoff Tombs, who have worked tirelessly for the last five years to highlight what has gone wrong. I thank them and all the other citizen scientists in my constituency and beyond, who have done so much to bring this issue to national attention. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.

I will focus on failures of regulation—specifically, Ofwat’s failures. Ofwat is responsible for holding water companies accountable against the terms of their operating licences. DEFRA has oversight of Ofwat, sets the policy framework and provides strategic guidance to Ofwat on key environmental and social policies. As many Members have said, Ofwat is clearly failing on pollution. The Environment Agency’s own data shows that Thames Water discharged raw sewage for almost 300,000 hours in 2024—up by almost 50% on the 196,000 hours in 2023. That is well known.

Ofwat is also failing to enforce financial viability. Just like every other water company in the country, Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has to have two investment grade credit ratings, but it has not done so for nearly a year. It has been beaten with limp celery, but that is about it. It has £19 billion of debt and is quite possibly heading towards £23 billion of debt, and it has cash flows of just £1.2 billion. That obviously makes no financial sense, yet Thames Water is allowed to breach the rule with impunity. I have no doubt that other water companies, and companies in other sectors, take note of what Thames Water has been allowed to do and say, “We, too, can cross that line in water and other regulated sectors.” How is that good news? It introduces a moral hazard that does enormous damage to our country. Who is ultimately paying the cost of all this debt, and the enormous interest and advisory fees that go with it? Of course, it is the bill payers.

Ofwat fails to provide value for money. As per the Water Industry Act 1991, it has a statutory duty “to protect the interests of consumers” and “to promote economy and efficiency” on the part of water companies. As WASP’s recently published note on water companies’ capital project costs states, the costs that companies are proposing are extraordinary. In some cases, they are almost an order of magnitude higher than those in comparator companies in countries such as the USA and Denmark. Why is this, and why is it being allowed to happen?

Why are our costs so much greater? Is it because our regulatory capital value pricing model is based on asset values, and therefore gives an incentive to water companies to boost their asset bases? They do this through extraordinarily long depreciation periods for network assets such as pipes, which were installed 50 years ago, but somehow have depreciation periods of 100 years and are leaking like sieves. It also gives them an incentive to pour really expensive concrete. Why is it that something built over here costs eight times the price in Denmark? Why has, say, the Oxford sewage treatment works gone from £40 million to more than £400 million in planned spend in the last four years? What sort of inflation is that?

Ofwat fails to provide fair pricing. Water companies have a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers, which, again, Ofwat is supposed to uphold. Water companies have been allowed to hike bills this year—in the case of Thames Water, by 31%, although some of my constituents have come to me and said they have received increases of 50%, 70% or even more than 90%—and what are bill payers getting for that? This is not fair when more than a quarter of the bills in Thames Water’s case are just paying the interest—not paying down the debt, but just paying the interest. Again, Ofwat is continuing to allow the pockets of water company creditors to be lined at the expense of ordinary households.

Ofwat fails to be awake. It has a responsibility—bear with me on this one—for tracking who are the ultimate controllers of the water companies. That should be pretty simple; there are not many of them. In Thames Water’s case, it is taking wilful ignorance to an extreme of utterly determined ignorance. Last May, Thames Water’s largest shareholder, OMERS, wrote its stake in Thames Water down to zero and pulled its directors off the board. This has been widely reported in the press—it is not secret—yet I got a letter from Ofwat last month confirming that it believes OMERS is still the ultimate controller of the company. Why is Ofwat ignoring this, and why does it matter? Being the ultimate controller of the company means it has certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities are just being ignored, and Ofwat, which is exactly what is supposed to be holding the company to account, is hiding under a stone somewhere. It needs to stop doing this.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend says that Ofwat has failed to regulate the water system effectively, and is failing on environmental, public health and financial interests. In my constituency, Wessex Water leaked sewage for over 400,000 hours last year alone. Does he agree that the water regulator should be replaced with a clean water authority, which would bring together the environmental and financial regulation of water companies?

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend, and, yes, I absolutely do.

Ofwat is also failing to innovate. It appears to do little, if anything, to push companies to do this. This is so critical because, if we are going to increase capacity in sewage treatment works, there are many better ways of doing so. There is a host of new technologies out there from leak detection, pipeline monitoring and predictive maintenance equipment to trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. Yet I have heard from firms in my constituency that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions in the US and Europe than in the UK. This is where the issues of the dire state of water companies’ finances and the sewage scandal intersect, because companies cannot make basic repairs, let alone properly innovate and improve, when so much of their revenue is going straight out of the door in interest payments.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. It was on their watch that dumping sewage in our rivers and lakes reached record levels, as water companies piled up billions in debt. All the while, bosses rewarded themselves with generous bonuses for mismanagement and failure on so many levels. Many people who work so hard in those companies suffered under that mismanagement.

There is only so much point in looking backwards. What I am appalled by is that the new Government, who came into power with promises to get tough with the water companies and sort out the scandal, have so far shown themselves to be about as tough as Ofwat. The Water (Special Measures) Act—by the way, I say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it was not voted on by us—was, well, just about nothing. Government Members and Conservative Members rejected a whole host of basic common sense steps, proposed as amendments, which could have made the legislation genuinely impactful. I will give some examples.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I would just like to suggest that the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close rather than give us some examples, because we want to hear from the Minister. He has 30 seconds at most.

[Charlie Maynard]

I will make that three. Thank you very much, and over to you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Over to her. [Laughter.] I call the Minister.

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.

Farming

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome this timely debate on the future of farming, in the week in which the SFI rug was pulled out from underneath farmers.

Surely the future of farming has to be young farmers. I have been in touch with some young farmers in my constituency to ask what they think I should talk about in this debate. I was sent a screenshot by Beth, who was partway through her SFI application. It said, “Thank you for doing your application. When you are ready, submit it. If we need to close applications, we will give you six weeks’ notice. We will publicise this on gov.uk and we will email you.” If that is not a broken promise, I do not know what is.

Louise, another farmer in my constituency, said that she was

“angry, disappointed, upset and exasperated…we have followed the Government’s advice to the letter, and been kicked in the teeth”.

Another farmer said:

“Pulling SFI is absolutely criminal—just more short-term thinking that forces us into decisions we don’t want to make.”

Ben said:

“yet another nail in the coffin for…family farms…with no warning environmental projects that had been in planning for months on our farm will have to be stopped….We cannot plan for the future when the rules keep changing.”

The future of farming needs to be S, F and I: S for sustainable, F for fair and I for in partnership.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I think the hon. Member will agree that the shutting down of the SFI with no notice on Tuesday night is an awful situation. DEFRA has been either disorganised or sneaky, but either way it diminishes the trust of our farming communities in the Government.

[Ellie Chowns]

I could not agree more. This has diminished trust. It is vital to rebuild that trust because we need that sustainable, fair and in-partnership future for farming. It needs to be sustainable in environmental terms— we need to recognise the reality of the climate crisis and the nature crisis. We need to support our farmers to make the vital transition to nature-friendly farming. Farmers in North Herefordshire are at the forefront of that, but they need the Government to back them, not knock them off their feet with policy changes with zero notice.

We need farming to be sustainable environmentally, and sustainable economically. It is not acceptable that the rates of return on farming are so low for so many. The Government have a crucial role to play in tackling that. The Green party has long called for a doubling of the nature-friendly farming budget, because of all the extra benefits that farming provides socially, economically and environmentally. We need the Government to step up on that.

Farming needs to be fair, both internationally and locally. Internationally, our farmers must not be undercut by trade deals that let in products that undermine our animal welfare and environmental standards. We need to ensure that the Government stand firm on that. Farming needs to be fair locally, because access to farming support schemes has not been equal. It is hard for many farmers to access those schemes. Whatever replaces the SFI, I hope that the Minister will ensure that farmers have equal access, and the support that they need to access those schemes. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is nodding.

Finally, the future of farming has to happen in partnership with farmers themselves—their voices have to be heard—and with the rest of Government. We need a fully joined-up approach to land use, food, farming and sustainability. It also needs to happen in partnership with nature, because without a thriving natural world, there is no sustainable future for farming.