Forum Topic

Thames Water's debts

Thames Water have exploited the privatisation of the utility in a truly scandalous way, loading the company up with almost £15 billion of debt. The result, it now turns out, is that over a quarter of our payments go in servicing this debt - and the company is even at risk of going under.The water companies in particular have ruthlessly and greedily exploited their monopoly status using the recklessly chosen privatisation model, and the government would be fully justified in renationalising them without compensation. I can't see it happening, sadly.https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/dec/18/water-firms-use-up-to-28-percent-of-bill-payments-to-service-debt-in-areas-of-england

Richard Carter ● 554d12 Comments

The design of our Victorian wastewater system was a fantastic innovation when new but it combines sewage and rainwater and is a problem now that there are so many more of us and so many bathrooms and so much sudden increased rainfall with climate change.  But changing and separating the pipework everywhere would be a major operation.  Just look at the fuss when there is any disruption on the roads under which the pipework runs.We need to divert or at least slow the flow of rainwater to the sewers.  Runoff is full of oils and chemicals and kills fish so straight to the river isn't a great answer either.https://www.thames21.org.uk/combined-sewer-systems/#:~:text=The%20more%20rain%20that%20enters,at%20least%20once%20a%20week.

Philippa Bond ● 532d

Agreed. In the context of the asset base of a company like Thames Water the bonuses paid to executives aren't that large. Also, with the super sewer set to start operating in it will be trebles all round for bosses even if this policy is implemented.The suspicion is that Thames is trying to scare off the government from tougher regulation by raising concerns about its viability but ultimately better water infrastructure has to be paid for by somebody and, if it can't be done by private companies making a profit, it has to be the taxpayer.

Peter Higgins ● 532d

Sensible ideas however this is Labour's current policy:"Labour will empower water regulator to ban bosses’ bonuses until they clean up their filth"It's very short of what is needed.https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/labour-will-empower-water-regulator-to-ban-bosses-bonuses-until-they-clean-up-their-filth/

Ed Robinson ● 544d

Renationalising the water companies would be expensive and there are too many other spending priorities. That doesn’t mean much tighter regulation is not possible, including dividend caps, borrowing caps, caps on increases to water charges, sharper Ofwat teeth to address the grievous pollution problems and more. It just needs political will. Repeat for the other privatised utilities.

Jonathan Callaway ● 544d

What happens if Thames Water goes bankrupt? Could the government then take it over without having to pay &Billions?
Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 544d

"Only one party was responsible for privatising the water companies and other public utilities."Quite right no other party has been in power since for the last 35 years. Of course David is referring to the Thaterite government who policies have remained during the whole period and will remain for at least the next decade.After all does it really matter if their colour is red or blue - when they have the same Thatcherite policies?Yes let's "apportion political responsibility" but keep the same policies - so at every election they can say it was the blue Thatcherite party's fault.A cunning plan!

Ed Robinson ● 544d

Only one party was responsible for privatising the water companies and other public utilities.  I think the historical record will also show that these privatisations were opposed by the Labour Party at the time.  Re-nationalisation would be costly and a Starmer Government would rightly have to prioritise spending.  But, for the state of the water utilities today and the long-term consequences of the botched privatisations in the 1980s, let's apportion political responsibility where it truly belongs.  And it doesn't belong with the Labour Party, no matter how much some would dearly love to deflect blame.

David Beeney ● 544d

You could always write to your MP!I seem to remember quite a few ex Labour MP's joining various boards of the privatised water monopolies.

Ed Robinson ● 553d

Now it turns out that Thames Water have admitted that work to stop their polluting the River Wandle from sewage may not take place until 2035, over another decade !https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/23992599.sewage-dumped-river-wandle-12-years/

Richard Carter ● 553d

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4313638/Vultures-left-Thames-Water-10bn-debt.htmlAll of these water companies have problems - even Welsh Water which is a not for profit company.https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d21c0107-d429-4d8c-8092-189ad08ef28eThere are plenty of regulations and regulatory bodies...And still there are plenty of things put down the sewers which shouldn't be including wet wipes and FOGs (fats oils and grease) which people put down the sewers and which solidify and create fatbergs bigger than jumbo jets that have to be dug out costing thousands and thousands of pounds and which damage pipes.The way that vans can carry public information pasted over them advising the public not to put things down the loo that they shouldn't is a wonderful way forward of sharing knowledge.Businesses should take advantage of the free recycling collections for oils available and for which they can also be paid.

Philippa Bond ● 554d

Greens are the only party that have nationalisation as a policy.It seems the uni party want to continue to give public money to private monopolies which will carry no risk, a crazy situation.

Ed Robinson ● 554d

All passed by both parties.  Is Starmer going to reverse this?

Robert Wheeler ● 554d