MPs ask ministers whether they will recoup Thames Water executive bonuses
The environment secretary has been asked if he will claw back controversial bonus payments to Thames Water senior executives after it emerged some bonuses had already been paid out.
Last month, Steve Reed vowed to block bonuses that Thames Water proposed to pay to managers at the beleaguered company. The firm's chair has been forced to admit that bonuses have already been paid to executives out of a £3bn emergency loan paid by creditors for the purpose of rescuing Thames from financial collapse.
In a letter to MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs committee, the chair of Thames Water, Sir Adrian Montague, admitted 21 members of the firm's senior management team received a first payment at 50% of base salary on 30 April 2025. He said 'the board does not intend to recover this money'. The letter says that the 21 individuals who received payments did not include Sir Adrian himself, the CEO Chris Weston, or the CFO Steve Buck. However, he added that Buck would be eligible for a later payment under the plan, which he confirmed is 'paused' pending a review.
He added that the bonuses are worth £18.5m in total, spread across three payments over two years – '50% of base salary on 30 April 2025; 50% on completion of [Thames Water's] second restructuring plan or, if earlier, December 2025; and a final payment of 200% of base salary in June 2026'.
The parliamentary committee has written to Reed asking 'whether you expect Ofwat to recoup the payments made on 30th April to all 21 of Thames management team?'
Alistair Carmichael, the chair of the committee, said: 'We have now learned that 21 members of Thames Water's senior management team, not including their CEO and CFO, received payments additional to their salary, in April 2025, at the not inconsiderable rate of 50% of their base rate of pay. Thames Water have stated in a letter to us that they do not intend to recover this money. They also say that the retention payments scheme has been 'paused'.
'As a committee, we are trying to seek clarity as to whether these payments fall within the remit of the government's ban and will be recouped, given that they were not paid to the company's CEO or CFO and are termed by Thames Water as 'retention payments' rather than bonuses. We are also asking whether Defra and Ofwat were aware of these payments and what undertakings they have received from Thames Water about the pausing or withdrawal of the retention plan.
'Given that the plan includes two further retention payments, including 200% of base salary due to be paid to these 21 individuals in June 2026, it is vital that Thames Water, Defra and Ofwat are clear with us all about what exactly is going on.'
In his letter, Montague also apologised for misleading the committee after the Guardian revealed he had wrongly told MPs the large bonuses were 'insisted' upon by creditors. He told the select committee that the lenders said that 'very substantial' bonuses of up to 50% of salary should be paid to company executives from the controversial loan in order to retain key staff. The Guardian revealed that sources with knowledge of the details of the agreement, the term sheet for the loan and court documents suggested that while the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors they were not necessarily proposed by them.
He said: 'For complete clarity, I did misspeak. However, I certainly did not intend to mislead. I deeply regret having caused confusion through my appearance.'
A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'We wrote to the Efra select committee to apologise for the confusion caused following the recent evidence session and to provide further clarity.
'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP [management retention plan] and has received no payments to date. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator. We will review the requests from the select committee chair and will respond in due course.'
Defra has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity
SIR – As the Chancellor prepares for her Spending Review tomorrow, it is striking that no political party appears willing to confront the scale of Britain's fiscal problems. Now retired, I reflect on a life in which my generation enjoyed real opportunity. I left school at 16, completed an apprenticeship, studied further, bought a modest home, and raised a family. We lived carefully, but the path to security was there. Today's younger generation faces soaring taxes, student debt (we had grants), unaffordable housing, and strained public services – all while the state borrows heavily and spends over £100 billion a year on debt interest. Despite record tax receipts, driven by stealthy fiscal drag, the public gets little in return. When David Cameron's government attempted to rein in the deficit, this was attacked as 'austerity'. Yet no one now dares say what must be said: we must gradually pay down the national debt if we are to free up resources for housing, education and the NHS. The Government should focus not on how much it spends, but on what it delivers. A country that keeps dodging difficult choices will end up with no choices at all. Paul Allen Fleet, Hampshire SIR – As we await Rachel Reeves's Spending Review, we can only hope that the Government will cut up the national credit card, rather than grant itself a higher limit. But such an outcome would be controversial, not least because state-run institutions are bureaucratic and financially insatiable. We have reached the point where a major spending review should go far beyond manipulation of spreadsheets. It is time for serious questions as to what government does and why, and how it goes about it. However, these questions are too challenging for mere bean-counters. Are there any thinkers and innovators out there, or have they already left the country? David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world, but it really doesn't feel like it. The country is seriously in debt and high interest rates mean that the cost of servicing that debt has also risen. This is being compounded by an ever-increasing welfare bill, an immediate demand to boost our spending on defence and a frankly unachievable net zero policy. The only plausible way out of this situation is to encourage economic growth, improve productivity and reduce uncompetitive energy costs. Yet this Government appears to have no solution except to tax and spend. The country is going broke fast, and at some point – perhaps even within this parliament – the IMF or the markets will call time on the situation.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Chelsea hold further talks with AC Milan over goalkeeper Mike Maignan - as Blues look to push through a deal before 'special' transfer window shuts
Chelsea are continuing to discuss a fee with AC Milan for Mike Maignan after offering £12.6m. The Blues have stepped up their interest in the France No 1 in recent days and want to get a deal over the line before the 'special' transfer window closes on Tuesday evening so that he can play in the Club World Cup. However, they are yet to meet the asking price that Milan are demanding in order to let Maignan leave. It is understood that Milan want around £20m for Maignan, who has one year remaining on his contract at San Siro. Chelsea may be struggling to wrap up a deal for Maignan, but they did complete the signing of defender Mamadou Sarr from Strasbourg for £12m on Monday morning. That took the club's spending this summer to £60m already, having finalised moves for Liam Delap and highly-rated Sporting Lisbon prospect Dario Essugo. Meanwhile, current Chelsea goalkeeper Marcus Bettinelli is in talks to join Manchester City as a replacement for Scott Carson. Carson is leaving City upon the expiry of his contract at the end of the month after a six-year stay at the Etihad. He has played just 108 minutes of football for City, having found himself behind Ederson and Stefan Ortega in the pecking order.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
The Government has been warned against raising the minimum income threshold for family visas to the same level for skilled workers as it is most likely to conflict with human rights law, an advisory body has said. Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
