Thames Water should be put in administration, MP says
An MP has called for Thames Water to be put into administration after a US firm pulled out of a deal to buy the struggling utilities company. Lib Dem Charlie Maynard, who represents Witney in Oxfordshire, said the government had a "big problem" after private equity giant KKR withdrew from a £4bn deal. Maynard had previously argued against a £3bn rescue deal for Thames Water, but an appeal against it was dismissed in March. Thames Water has called news of the failed bid "disappointing" but said it would proceed to work with other potential investors.
Speaking to BBC Radio Oxford, Maynard said the government would now be "scrambling to try and fix" the situation.
He renewed his calls from earlier in the year that the company should be put into government-supervised administration. "They should be in bankruptcy, because you can't deal with this enormous amount of debt... you've got to cut it down into something sustainable."He added: "The government is just doing anything it can to not do the fundamental thing that will actually fix it."
Maynard said he was considering taking his case for putting the company into special administration to the Supreme Court. The government has previously said it is ready to take over Thames Water in the event that it cannot continue to operate.Both Thames Water and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been contacted for comment.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eradicating child poverty must become Labour's central mission
It is much more than a flip rhetorical cliche to say that if a nation thinks that fighting child poverty is costly, then it should try the alternative. It really should not be a matter of great controversy. The broadly warm welcome given to the government's expansion of the free school meals programme has been marred only by some noisy mumblings about how the policy will be funded. Of course, any item of public spending must be accounted for – but in the case of this and similar measures to alleviate child poverty, both sides of the ledger should be taken into account. Experience in Scotland, Wales and London – where free and nutritious meals are already available more widely – suggests that pupils perform better on a full stomach; something that surely accords with common sense. Academic studies go further, linking higher educational achievements with higher productivity and thus better living standards for those lifted out of poverty – with an obvious dividend for the nation as a whole. Official support for children, including the new breakfast clubs, a wider availability of free school meals, childcare, access to libraries, affordable housing and of course their education itself, should be treated less as 'current' spending and more like an investment. These are the kind of arguments The Independent has long put forward, as part of an award-winning campaign, and are compatible with fiscal sustainability. In essence, though it is not meant to be mercenary, money spent on rearing a healthier, more literate, more numerate and more intellectually able generation is, in the long run, as valid an investment as, say, building a new tramway or bolstering the national grid. 'Human capital' is, ironically, more precious than ever in a world where artificial intelligence will take over so many of the tasks currently undertaken by human beings. For people to enjoy socially useful and economically viable lives in the future, they will need to be smarter than the machines that will surround them. Soon enough, chancellor Rachel Reeves will be able to go further and faster, as the current ministerial catchphrase goes, in the Labour government's newfound mission to reduce child poverty. After years when the party seemed to be undeclared disciples of the austerity school of economics, Labour's conscience, albeit prompted by some shocking electoral setbacks, has been awoken. Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was the noble objective set by Tony Blair early in the last Labour government, enshrined in law during the last days of Gordon Brown's administration, revived in Jeremy Corbyn's time, but frankly neglected, beyond some necessary lip service, in more recent years. Now, it has rightly become a priority, and one that has lodged itself high on the long list of social challenges facing the chancellor. It now seems inevitable that the two-cap limit on child benefit, imposed by a Tory chancellor almost a decade ago, will be lifted, sooner or later, and perhaps 300,000 children in larger families lifted out of poverty immediately. That it will be partly under populist pressure from Nigel Farage does not make it a bad idea. Extending child benefit, like school meals, is not a total cure for child poverty. Where the Tories had a point as they downgraded the poverty targets in the past (which, to be clear, was a mistake) was when they stressed the importance of a healthy economy creating well-paid jobs. Child poverty is linked to general levels of poverty, obviously, and the creation of wealth still counts as the essential basis for a fairer society – and human capital is part of that. Even with these latest measures, continuing care will need to be taken to make sure the free school meals are nutritious and promote good physical and mental health. Other policy areas also need to be attended to. No level of child benefit or childcare will entirely compensate for being brought up in a cramped, overcrowded, mouldy, cold home. Other policies will thus have to contribute to giving every British child the best opportunities in life. In that context, the government's child poverty task force might consider how the SureStart centres could be restored. Arguably the most serious misjudgement of the coalition government of 2010 to 2014 was to scrap them. In any case, without much in the way of conscious effort, indeed almost by accident, Sir Keir Starmer's government has found itself endowed with a new, invigorating mission to pursue. For all the problems, disappointments, gaffes and missteps in their first year out of the wilderness, the Labour Party has rediscovered its raison d'etre.
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Glinton development of 24 homes refused a second time by council
A new proposal for a housing development in a village has been refused by planners at a plan for 24 new homes in Glinton, near Peterborough, was put forward by the Rutland-based developer, Hereward Homes Ltd. Peterborough City Council refused the new scheme on Wednesday, following an initial application that was declined in to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), the case officer report stated the latest proposal was "near identical" to the last and would have a "detrimental impact" on the village's rural setting. The fresh application was put forward in March, which Hereward Homes Ltd said addressed the previous developer argued the proposed development demonstrated a "high quality of design" and would use materials appropriate to the character of the application received objections from the council's conservation officer, urban design officer and five local residents. 'Unstainable development' The area has been the subject of three applications for new homes in the of them were refused for reasons including insufficient visitor parking and highway safety. In May, plans for 250 homes submitted by Gladman Developments were refused, which raised concerns with the parish council and application by Larkfleet Group for 95 homes was refused in February following opposition from Randall, the vice-chairman of Glinton Parish Council, previously told the LDRS of the village's concerns about the proposed allocation of 355 homes in the council's draft Local said: "Glinton is getting a big chunk of the development that's being proposed for rural villages and that is really unsustainable." Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Herald Scotland
24 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
ScotRail is 'fixing' AI train announcer after voice controversy
But after prompting from Fiona Hyslop, he said: 'The Transport Secretary tells me they're fixing it, so they will be fixing it.' Ms Potter has welcomed this commitment as a 'meaningful step forward'. The issue was raised at First Minister's Questions at Holyrood, with Scottish Conservative MSP Dr Sandesh Gulhane asking if it is how the Scottish Government – which took ScotRail into public ownership in 2022 – 'supports actors'. The Tory pressed the case with Mr Swinney after Ms Potter, in a widely shared Facebook post, accused ScotRail of dismissing her concerns. She said Iona came from voice data held by Swedish-based company ReadSpeaker, who she did recordings for in 2021 – adding that by using her voice in an AI model the company had acted outside of the terms of her agreement with them. Ms Potter spoke of her 'distress' at discovering Scotland had 'installed the ReadSpeaker model 'Iona' that contains my biometric voice data as their new announcer on all their trains'. She insisted: 'I did not know. I was not asked. I did not consent.' Mr Swinney said he is 'sure' the rail operator will be 'engaging constructively with all concerned'. He added: 'I think sometimes these things do indeed need careful handling and I am sure ScotRail will be doing exactly that.' Following the First Minister's comments, a spokeswoman for Ms Potter told the PA news agency: 'We welcome the fact that the First Minister acknowledged the issue at hand and confirmed that ScotRail 'will be fixing it'. 'While the language may not be definitive at this stage, this public commitment is a meaningful step forward for Gayanne, and other artists in her position. 'That said, this case isn't just about hiring Scottish actors. It's about the use of a real actor's voice without her informed consent, and the broader need for ethical standards in the deployment of AI voice technology. 'We now hope that 'fixing it' will include direct engagement with Gayanne, proper accountability from those responsible, and a clear commitment to ensuring that consent, transparency, and fair treatment become non-negotiable in the use of AI by public bodies. 'The public sector needs to be rigorous in their procurement of AI solutions and the commercial partnerships they strike with AI companies.' Ms Potter's representative said the voice actress had been told by ScotRail earlier this week that the matter was between her and ReadSpeaker. She said they would request that ScotRail cease using 'Iona', adding: 'Any use of Gayanne's or anyone else's voice through AI must be based on her full, informed consent and agreed upon under fair conditions.' ReadSpeaker has said it has a contract to use her voice and its legal team has 'comprehensively' addressed Ms Potter's concerns.
