Thames Water

Before I begin, let me say that this is a solemn day, as we remember our dear friend and colleague Jo Cox—I got to know her when we were living in Brussels in our 20s. I pay tribute to her formidable sister and their family for all their vital work to honour her memory. I will make a statement regarding the position of Thames Water and the proposed recapitalisation package under consideration. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, having inherited record levels of pollution incidents from water companies. Thames Water has underperformed for 15 years. It has regularly missed performance targets, it has unacceptable levels of serious pollution incidents, and the company is heavily indebted. This situation, which delivers poor outcomes for consumers and the environment, cannot continue. To fix this, over the course of the past two years, the company has been undertaking a recapitalisation process to seek vital long-term funding. The Government have been clear throughout that any investor will need to have a credible and robust turnaround plan, the implementation of which must be monitored by regulators and must restore the company’s financial resilience and operational performance. Ofwat, with the support of Government, have been in discussions with the London and Valley Water consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—regarding the terms of a proposal. On 6 March, the consortium presented its proposal for Thames Water to both Ofwat and the Government. Ofwat has been continuing its discussions with the consortium since then, and I wanted to update the House on the next stage of the process. Ofwat is currently evaluating the consortium’s proposal and, as the independent regulator, is responsible for deciding whether to accept it. If Ofwat decides to accept the proposal, this would be subject to a public consultation and a court-sanctioned restructuring process. A recapitalisation process of this size is complex and will take time. As the Environment Secretary, I have several duties, set out in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. These include protecting consumers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, and ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out. Today, I can confirm that I have sent a letter to Iain Coucher, Ofwat’s chair, outlining my early views on the proposal linked to my section 2 duties. These should not be taken as, nor do they constitute, a direction from Government to Ofwat. I do not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. I have three particular concerns about the proposal: the unfair cost to customers, delays to vital infrastructure investments, and delays to environmental improvements. The 16 million Thames Water customers are front and centre of my consideration, and I am primarily worried about the impact on them. There is an expectation in the proposal that customers will fund—and therefore bear an undue cost for—investment in the company. In addition, I am not convinced about the proposal’s request to reduce performance standards, nor about the significant delay to vital infrastructure investments. This would mean delays to environmental improvements, particularly those related to waste-water treatments linked to statutory requirements, as well as to projects that are important for drinking water safety and supply. I am therefore concerned that the long-term resilience of the water and waste-water systems may not be adequately protected. The Government will always act in the national interest, and my priority as Environment Secretary is protecting customers and the environment. We will stand ready for all eventualities. I conclude by emphasising this Government’s commitment to turning around the water sector. In under two years, we have taken swift, decisive action. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We have banned more than £4 million in bonuses for polluting water bosses; we have unlocked £104 billion of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure; and we have commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the most comprehensive independent review of the water sector since privatisation. Together, those steps have paved the way for the landmark clean water Bill announced in the King’s Speech. The Bill fulfils the commitments we set out in the water White Paper earlier this year and will deliver the fundamental reforms that are so desperately needed. This once-in-a-generation Bill will create a single powerful water regulator, moving away from a system where water companies mark their own homework by putting in place stronger, active supervision. This will strengthen water companies’ financial resilience and the long-term stability of the sector, with modernised economic regulation and new powers to drive turnaround where companies perform poorly. Additionally, the reforms will strengthen the consumer advocate, providing a more independent, authoritative voice that can challenge the system, drive improvements in outcomes and ensure that customers’ interests are put first. We will also improve water quality by cutting pollution at its source. Finally, we will avoid the situation we are discussing today happening again: our reforms will give the new regulator the powers to ensure water companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt. More broadly, they will secure the long-term stability of the sector and ensure that companies are financially resilient. Put simply, our reforms will deliver better outcomes for customers and the environment. I commend this statement to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to update Members before making announcements elsewhere. She is a shining example to her Cabinet colleagues of how this House should be treated. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

First, I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in remembrance of her dear colleague Jo Cox. Her loss was felt across the House and across party political lines, and I send all of our very best wishes to her loved ones and friends. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for a briefing call on this announcement. As you know, I have been trying for months to coax the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to explain major events within her portfolio, from the Government’s EU handover negotiations to their lack of support for farmers. Finally, she emerges into the light. We all assumed that it would be to announce progress towards resolving the many issues facing Thames Water and its customers; instead, it is to make a statement about a letter to the regulator. There is nothing new in this statement—no change in the situation of Thames Water, and still no certainty for billpayers. Thames Water has repeatedly failed its customers and the environment with a record of pollution, leakage and chronic under-investment. The latest figures lay this bare. The company is responsible for around a third of the nation’s worst pollution incidents, even as billpayers face steep increases in their bills. These are not abstract failures; untreated sewage has been poured into the rivers and chalk streams that local communities cherish, while customers are asked to pay more for less. The priority now must be a financial arrangement that keeps the company afloat and protects billpayers and taxpayers. While the Secretary of State’s Government are in chaos, paralysed by the Prime Minister’s weakness and the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s leadership ambitions, Thames Water continues to fail. If no deal is reached, Thames Water could collapse—again, at enormous cost to taxpayers. The Secretary of State has said that she does not want a scenario where customers “pick up the bill for the company’s failures”, but when the Conservatives tried to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to prevent consumers from being on the hook in the event of a company going into special administration and tried to impose a lending ratio limit on water companies to prevent this situation from happening again, Labour voted it down. Why? I also remember that under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), an investor pulled out of a previous rescue deal, partly due to political risk—in other words, the former Secretary of State had talked himself out of a deal. How is the current Secretary of State avoiding the failures of the now Secretary of State for Housing? There are those who are urging nationalisation, a word that is thrown around carelessly by Labour Back Benchers and by Reform—in fact, I think I heard it just now. None of them ever explains that nationalisation would be extremely expensive, potentially costing the taxpayer up to £20 billion. For those who are wondering what that means, it is roughly equivalent to the defence funding shortfall we have heard so much about in recent days. However, there are reasonable concerns about how Thames Water’s failures will be managed during the Government’s restructuring of the sector and the abolition of Ofwat, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that the existing penalty regime will not be downgraded or diluted, which has been briefed to the newspapers? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure Thames Water remains fully responsible for its environmental and operational failures? How will the Government ensure that billpayers are not left bearing the cost of past mismanagement, and have they offered or begun any process to recommend an alternative deal? Public trust in the water industry is already at rock bottom. Ministers have still not explained how investment in the sector will actually be paid for. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s predecessor had to admit that so-called private water industry investment is in reality paid for by higher bills, and the Secretary of State has repeated that today. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not become the safety net for a company that rewarded its executives while letting its infrastructure crumble. This is an important moment for the Government to show that they can balance financial stability with strong regulatory oversight and put accountability and the interests of billpayers and the environment at the heart of water reform. The Government must now deliver on the big promises they made during the election for the water sector.

I am always happy to receive brownie points, Mr Speaker, so thank you for what you said. The shadow Secretary of State rightly says that untreated sewage has poured into our waterways, and it did, in the long years that her party was in government. They cut the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget and moved to an approach where water companies marked their own homework—the so-called self-monitoring approach. She has some brass neck in lecturing us when we saw a series of failures under her Government. We are here today, and we as a Government inherited record levels of pollution in our waterways, because of the failure by the Government of the right hon. Lady to see what was happening before their eyes. It was a failure of regulation, a failure of the regulators and a failure of the previous Government. I am proud of what we have achieved in the two short years that we have been in power. I am proud of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. When did the Conservatives ever cap polluting water bosses’ bonuses? Never. The right hon. Lady lectures me about amendments to our Act. Our Act did more in less than a year than her party did in 14 years to ensure a fairer deal for customers and a better deal for the environment. The right hon. Lady asks about nationalisation. I gently say that a special administration regime is not the same as nationalisation. [Interruption.] I am just clarifying for the House; I do not wish to have an exchange with her across the ballot box—sorry, the Dispatch Box—if I can possibly help it. The ballot box might be at some other point. There is a difference between nationalisation and a special administration regime. With nationalisation, the Government would be taking ownership of the company. With a special administration regime, the Government would finance a special administrator appointed by the courts to run the company. The right hon. Lady talks about public trust in our water sector being at record lows. All I can say is that we are clearing up her party’s mess. [Interruption.] It was under her Government that Thames Water was plunged into unmanageable levels of debt.

Order. Can I just say to the shadow Secretary of State that I want to hear the Secretary of State? We do not need a running commentary all the way through. I made sure that those on the Government Front Bench listened to her.

I am not surprised that there are not many Opposition Back Benchers here, given the Conservatives’ terrible record on the water industry. In our clean water Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, we will take forward a desperately needed, once-in-a-generation reform of the water sector to introduce a powerful single regulator that holds water companies to account.

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

Thames Water customers are paying the price for the incompetent regulation that allowed Macquarie to saddle the company with eye-watering debts at the same time as its environmental performance was so disgraceful. That debt ultimately led to shareholders writing the equity value down to zero. Those who bought the debt are now making this proposal. I entirely understand why the Secretary of State would not want customers to receive a service that was failing in its environmental responsibilities while they paid higher bills, but what assessment has she made as to whether Thames Water is a viable business? We have been told that this is the final offer from the company. Is there a viable business there that will deliver long-term investment within a reasonable cost window for billpayers? If there is not, at what point does public administration become inevitable?

As I set out in my letter to the regulator, Ofwat, I am concerned that the proposal will mean delays to environmental improvements and to improvements to water infrastructure, with, as my hon. Friend rightly says, unfair cost being laid at the door of Thames Water customers. He asks whether it is a viable business and about next steps. This is a stage in the process where I have given my early views on this proposal. It is now for Ofwat to decide what to do next, and we wait to see what happens.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I start by associating myself closely with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Jo Cox. It was a privilege to serve alongside her in this place, and we still miss her deeply. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and for the helpful briefing that I received earlier. Since Conservative privatisation more than 35 years ago, some £85 billion of billpayers’ money has flowed out like a torrent into the pockets of mostly overseas shareholders and executives paying themselves unearned bonuses. That money could and should have gone into cleaning up our waterways and modernising infrastructure. Instead, sewage was released into our lakes, rivers and seas for 1.8 million hours last year, and more than 100,000 of those were in the Thames region alone. Some 20% of our water leaks out of its pipes before it even reaches our homes. For Thames Water, the figure is even worse, with 25% of that water wasted. Now Thames Water’s investors are asking for more time for more opportunity to take money before they inevitably run. The Secretary of State is right, then, that the creditors’ offer is a disgrace. They get to keep making money, and Thames Water billpayers get to pay even more to keep them going, while getting the privilege of seeing long-overdue infrastructure improvements delayed for yet another decade. Thames Water is taking the mickey. The Liberal Democrats say, “No more, and no thanks.” It is clear that Thames Water has failed in its basic performance as a water company, and that gives the Secretary of State all the reason she needs to place it into special administration, so why is she not doing that instead? Her letter to Ofwat is, I am afraid, a sign of dreadful weakness. She has to beg an equally weak Ofwat to show a resolve that it institutionally lacks. Thames has failed in its performance, so just put it into special administration and migrate the company to a mutually owned model, where the billpayers own the company and call the shots. That way, investment will be made, sewage spills will stop and water leaks will cease. By doing that, she could begin the process whereby all our water companies are owned not by private equity, overseas investors or the sluggish state, but by the people. If she did that, she would win the favour of people from Witney to Windermere. Why does she not stop faffing about and do that instead?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, I think, for his support for my statement today, although it was slightly half-hearted. He is right to say that there have been serious pollution incidents in different water companies, but especially in the Thames, and that is of grave concern to the public and to Thames Water’s customers in particular. I point out to him that there are two types of special administration regime. An insolvency SAR is an insolvency process and is for the company directors to determine. A performance SAR would be triggered if a company was in serious breach of its statutory duties or if the company breaches an enforcement order in a way that is so serious that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. The Government stand ready for all eventualities, including a SAR.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the event of a special administration regime, any compensation would be based on appropriate value as set out in the case of Lithgow v. the UK, not on regulated capital value, as suggested by the shadow Secretary of State. For Thames Water, appropriate value would take account of the £23 billion in infrastructure repairs needed to meet condition P of its licence and comply with its statutory obligation, as well as the £13 billion of dividend and debt interest already paid to creditors. Appropriate value would therefore be nil. The Secretary of State said that Ofwat is responsible for taking the decision to modify the licence. I urge her to read section 12A(7) of the Water Industry Act 1991, because she has the power to overrule.

I think there were a number of questions there. As I have said, there is obviously a difference between a special administration regime and nationalisation. My hon. Friend refers to regulatory capital value, and he is right to suggest that the price of any company is a complicated matter, but in the event of a special administration regime, the state would seek to recoup the investment it had made upon SAR exit. Nationalisation would be a different matter.

What assurances can the Government give my constituents across Bexley that the £88 million of investment that is under way in our community to secure our fresh drinking water supply for the next 50 years is not derailed by this Government announcement, which means further uncertainty for Thames Water and its customers?

I think it is right that both the regulator and the Government hold Thames Water to account, and I find the hon. Gentleman’s question slightly bizarre. I can reassure his constituents, and other customers of Thames Water, that the Government will always ensure continuity of service, but I make no apology for ensuring that customers are at the front and centre of my consideration of this proposal.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Thames Water is by far the worst water company when it comes to sewage spills, pollution incidents, flooding across overloaded sewer systems, customer complaints, regulatory penalties—the list goes on. The establishment of a robust, proactive regulator is a step in the right direction, but should not a company as bad as Thames Water be taken over by being put into special measures so that it can start again and work in favour of residents rather than shareholders, as an example to others that enough is enough?

My hon. Friend is right to say that Thames Water has a terrible record going back—as I said in my statement—at least 15 years. He is also right to say that sewage spills in the Thames Water area are completely unacceptable. As I have said, the Government stand ready for all eventualities, including a special administration regime.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to put customers at the forefront, but the problem, as she said in her statement, is that this will all take rather a long time to unwind. At present, uncertainty is the real concern for customers, especially the uncertainty about whether they will be charged extra on their bills. The Secretary of State has given a letter to Ofwat, but what specific changes does she want to see in the deal to encourage her to agree to it, so that we can move forward rather than having uncertainty?

Quite simply, I do not want customers to pick up the bill for the repeated failures of Thames Water, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about uncertainty, and I would like to see this situation resolved.

If Members google “Caledonian Road”, which is in my constituency, they might think it is a river, but it is not. Over the past decade, Thames Water has delivered to Islington seven major floods. Since privatisation, it has delivered to shareholders £7 billion. Last year, it delivered to my constituents a 31% increase in water rates. Residents are fed up, businesses are fed up, I am fed up, and I am sure that the Government are fed up. How much more do we have to take before Thames Water is finally given the boot?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the appalling record of Thames Water, and the impact that it is having not just on her constituents but on businesses in her constituency. As I have said, there are two different options for a special administration regime, and we remain open to all eventualities.

Ten months ago, the Government appointed FTI Consulting to advise them on taking Thames Water into special administration. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the outputs of that work and how much it has cost to date?

We appointed FTI Consulting because, in the event of a special administration regime, it is right to have prepared for that eventuality and to have that contingency arrangement in place, but I am afraid that the figure for which the hon. Gentleman has asked is not at my disposal.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right: Thames Water has let down my constituents and Londoners more broadly with years of chronic under-investment, while paying record levels of bonuses and dividends. I recently visited my local sewage treatment works, and saw proposed improvements to increase storm surge capacity on site and to improve filtration levels to clean up our waterways. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that those much-needed planned improvements will not be further delayed by ongoing institutional uncertainty about the future of Thames Water, so that we can finally turn the page on 14 years of Tory neglect of our waterways?