Lib Dems fight Thames Water restructuring plan
Luke Taylor MP and Bobby Dean MP were signatories to a letter provided as evidence in court against Thames Water’s plan to take on more debt.
Thames Water wants to add £3 billion in debt on top of the £16 billion it already owes.
This means one-third of customer bills would go just to paying interest on that debt, putting more financial pressure on people.
The MPs believe the plan is a bad idea for three main reasons:
- It is not financially sustainable – Thames Water won’t be able to manage its debts in the long run.
- It does not include strong rules to protect customers and the environment – The company is failing to meet legal and environmental responsibilities.
- There is a better alternative – A special administration process would help Thames Water keep running while finding long-term solutions.
Bobby Dean, Liberal Democrat MP for Carshalton and Wallington, added:
“The public are fed-up with having Thames Water’s mess dumped on them. We need a long-term solution that protects people’s bills and ensures the company meets its responsibilities. This restructuring plan doesn’t do that."
Luke Taylor, Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and Cheam, said:
"People have no choice but to use Thames Water for their sewage services in Sutton. They shouldn’t have to pay the price for poor management. This plan is unfair and won’t fix the real problems. People are sick to the back teeth of paying more for worsening service - Thames Water is fundamentally broken and needs ripping up."
A copy of the letter is below:
I am writing to you as an MP whose constituency is served by Thames Water.
I am planning to provide evidence to the upcoming court hearing in early February 2025 which will decide whether to sanction the Thames Water restructuring plan. As you will no doubt be aware, Thames Water are proposing to take on another £3bn of debt through this restructuring process. This adds to existing debt of more than £16bn , which means that one third of customers' bills are now being used just to pay the interest on this debt.
My evidence would ask the court not to sanction the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water as a matter of public interest and/or customers’ interests because:
1. the proposed terms of the restructuring plan are not financially sustainable in the mid or long term for Thames Water and/or its licensed functions and activities;
2. the restructuring plan does not sufficiently make provision for Thames Water to comply with and/or have appropriate governance for its statutory, regulatory and environmental obligations; and
3. the alternative of special administration is a better and fairer procedure to enable Thames Water’s functions and activities to continue as a going concern whilst alternative and long-term solutions are identified to meet the objections identified in points 1 and 2 above.
Ultimately our constituents, as customers of Thames Water, have no choice but to pay Thames for water and sewage services. By extension they are the principal source of revenue for Thames to pay its debts and the interest on them. In short it is our constituents who will therefore bear the cost of the restructuring if it goes ahead.
I believe that my position is shared by a number of Parliamentarians who, like you, have constituents served by Thames Water or are otherwise concerned by Thames Water’s financial, environmental and other difficulties.
If I can demonstrate to the court that this position is shared by other Parliamentarians who are the elected representatives of the customers of Thames Water, I hope it will strengthen my evidence.
As such, I would be very grateful if you could respond to this letter confirming if you agree that it is not in the interests of customers for the restructuring plan to go ahead. If so, I can then exhibit your letter in my evidence, which will assist in proving to the Court that the position set out above in opposition to the restructuring plan is more widely shared.
Yours sincerely,