Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Rules about performance-related pay “(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows. (2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert— ‘ 35E Rules about performance-related pay (1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks. (2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include— (a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person; (b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition; (c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1)— (a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given; (b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person— (i) is a chief executive of the undertaker, (ii) is a director of the undertaker, or (iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”— (Tim Farron.) This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 31 would make the process of putting a company into special administration much easier and clearer. There are two steps in the provision: making it easier to apply for special administration and giving more guidance to judges on whether to grant special administration. Proposed new section 24(1B) of the Water Industry Act 1991 states: “Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee…is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…fails to comply with that requirement, the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.” That states that if a company does not have investment grade credit ratings, the Secretary of State will apply for special administration. Proposed new section 24(2)(ca) of the 1991 Act states that special administration may be granted if a company “is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…has failed to comply with that requirement.” That gives guidance to the judge. It says, “You’ve got to have those credit ratings. If you don’t, special administration is much more likely to be granted.” At the moment, we have some bizarre situations. Thames Water, which I will use as my standard example, has £17 billion of debt and cash flows of £1.2 billion; its debt is 14 times higher than the cash flow it generates every year. By financial standards, that is somewhere between ludicrous and ridiculous. In an unregulated sector, the company would have gone bankrupt long ago. I believe—people may contest this—that our Government are keeping it alive because they are worried about being sued by the bondholders if they put it into special administration, because the criteria are not very clear. If we are serious about fixing our rivers, we have to deal with the debt. We cannot spend the money our rivers require if we do not fix the debt, but we are still digging. Thames Water’s proposed £3 billion of special restructuring is going through the courts right now, so we are adding even more debt—an even bigger millstone around that company’s shoulders. Its debt will go from £17 billion to £20 billion. The Government have the opportunity to say, “That is the last Administration’s trick. We are going to do something different,” but at the moment they are not saying that. I really hope that we will change course. If we do not, all we will do is add more debt on to these companies; that will keep them alive for another 12 or 18 months, but we will be back in the same place again. Customers in Witney and in every constituency are paying through the nose just to cover the interest expenses. Ofwat has just thrown Thames Water the great big juicy bone of a 35% price increase. That is great news for lenders, but not such great news for customers. It means that instead of 46% of my bill covering the lenders’ interest expenses, it will be only 38%, but I will be paying 35% more. I do not believe that is helping, so the purpose of the new clause is to make it easier to get water companies into special administration.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. We recognise that Labour is determined to defend the economically disastrous Conservative policies of being outside the customs union and single market. However, does the Prime Minister agree with the principle that where it is in our country’s interest to maintain alignment with EU standards so that we can better sell our products internationally, we align; and where it is in our interest to diverge, we diverge?