Water Pollution -“ A National Disgrace”? A case for renationalisation?

I think it's a mixture of both, maddyone.

We're certainly not bound by EU directives on water quality any more, but the neglect of the water infrastructure by the privatised water companies must have been beginning to show after a couple of decades and the tory cuts to public expenditure post 2010 meant that it was more difficult for the Environment Agency to investigate and prosecute companies for breaches of the regulations because it had a smaller budget and less manpower available to it.

Current share price is 99.25p, so a way to go - and my post actually continued … or frequently well above [whatever is their then value] in order to secure the purchase

Ha ha, GSM, somehow I don’t think there’ll be a problem ‘securing the purchase’.

Katie59

maddyone

Maybe some can help me here. I had this discussion with my son this weekend and he said the problem has been caused because since we left the EU, all the laws relating to water/sewage are no longer applicable and so water companies can do as they like. Is this the case? Are there no longer any regulations regarding water? Someone mentioned upthread that the NHS have reported an increase in water borne infections since 2010. That wouldn’t fit with the EU theory. What is the truth of it?

LOL, nothing to do with EU their legislation led to standards improving. Since then it’s lack of improvements and maintenence needed, so don’t blame Brussels for sewage in streets.

As I read it, that is exactly what maddyone was asking.

Have things worsened since we left the EU and are not bound by their legislation?

Good question.

Callistemon21

Katie59

maddyone

Maybe some can help me here. I had this discussion with my son this weekend and he said the problem has been caused because since we left the EU, all the laws relating to water/sewage are no longer applicable and so water companies can do as they like. Is this the case? Are there no longer any regulations regarding water? Someone mentioned upthread that the NHS have reported an increase in water borne infections since 2010. That wouldn’t fit with the EU theory. What is the truth of it?

LOL, nothing to do with EU their legislation led to standards improving. Since then it’s lack of improvements and maintenence needed, so don’t blame Brussels for sewage in streets.

As I read it, that is exactly what maddyone was asking.

Have things worsened since we left the EU and are not bound by their legislation?

Good question.

Perhaps Katie59 hasn't noticed that standards have declined again since we left the EU..

As I said earlier. I think it's a combination of leaving the EU and cuts to public spending by the tories since 2010.

In theory regulations havn’t changed EU can’t enforce anything now, as with everything our government are free to regulate or not as they choose.
So many laws are passed over, policing is a good example, no money no enforcement.

I hear the same thing over and over, particularly regarding EU law and standards.

The EA was bound by these regulations and now they are simply not supported by the government to keep to the standards that kept our waterways and seas in good condition. In fact they are actively encouraged no to pursue the law in certain cases. Environment standards are dropping - be in no doubt that this is the case.

Yes, both.

Feargal Sharkey is Vice-Chairman of River Action and there are other well-known people such as Paul Whitehouse and Joe Lycett who are campaigning about the state of British rivers, making their voices heard. There is legal action being taken against Avara Foods and also against the Environment Agency to make them enforce the regulations to stop the pollution of the River Wye.
There are regulations, but I read that there is a loophole which allows this pollution to happen.

cardiffjournalism.co.uk/intercardiff/politics-social-justice/wye-now-river-actions-efforts-for-justice-in-cardiff-high-court

Yes, both
That was in reply to MaizieD's post, mine took ages to type!

Callistemon21

^Yes, both^
That was in reply to MaizieD's post, mine took ages to type!

I thought it was...

Information via the Telegraph today:

“ After privatisation, Thames was listed on the London Stock Exchange, but it was de-listed following its acquisition by RWE, the German utility company, in 2001 and sold to Kemble Water Holdings, a consortium led by Macquarie, the Australian bank, in 2006. This, not 1989, was when the trouble started. Under Macquarie control, which lasted until 2017, Thames paid dividends to its investors worth £2.7 billion and tripled its debt to £11 billion.

It was during these years that Thames – and other water companies too, such as Southern, Anglian and Yorkshire – came to be defined more by financial engineering than civil engineering.”

Urmstongran

Information via the Telegraph today:

“ After privatisation, Thames was listed on the London Stock Exchange, but it was de-listed following its acquisition by RWE, the German utility company, in 2001 and sold to Kemble Water Holdings, a consortium led by Macquarie, the Australian bank, in 2006. This, not 1989, was when the trouble started. Under Macquarie control, which lasted until 2017, Thames paid dividends to its investors worth £2.7 billion and tripled its debt to £11 billion.

It was during these years that Thames – and other water companies too, such as Southern, Anglian and Yorkshire – came to be defined more by financial engineering than civil engineering.”

And the government plus Ofwat stood by and let it happen, they are supposed to be regulating the industry

More:

“ Today, its debt-to-equity ratio is 77:23, and its total debt stands at £14 billion – more than half of which is reported to be index-linked. Since Macquarie sold Kemble, the new shareholders have taken no dividends. But after putting £500 million into the company last year – funds presented as equity but which later turned out to be debt with 8 per cent interest – the shareholders are now refusing to put up more, blaming Ofwat for imposing high environmental standards, insisting on debt reduction and blocking proposed 40 per cent price rises.

The result is an impasse, and all eyes are on the Government. A Whitehall insider has reportedly suggested that a compromise might be found in which the company is allowed drastic increases in bills. But this would be a disaster, destroying the credibility of the regulator, sending a terrible signal to the rest of the industry, and – after years of Thames investors profiting from fixed prices in a monopoly with 15 million customers and reckless debt-financing – asking the public to clean up the mess.

We need the Government to show it shares public anger and face down the investors. If those investors do not want to put in the funds necessary for Thames Water to function and meet the conditions set by the regulator, so be it. But ministers should make clear that they will not cave on pricing, and instead allow the company to fail. If Thames does go down, the water will carry on running, and much of the debt will disappear with Kemble. New investors would be found quickly – other companies are raising funds successfully enough – but the Government should say it is prepared to accept nationalisation on a temporary basis.”

Or an interesting alternative view from the Guardian.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/30/the-observer-view-there-is-still-a-way-to-save-thames-water-from-financial-oblivion

Whatever the solution to water quality the government should take responsibility for the current fiasco, if we want better water treatment it has go to be paid for, you cannot expect water company shareholders to provide money when there are no guarantee of a return.

If proper control of the Water Companies was done asset stripping could not have taken place, I can point a finger at OFWAT but it’s Tory policy that has been pulling the strings of the puppets in that department.

If only this were true 😥

An interesting article Casdon thank you.

I suppose there’s no easy fix. In that privatisation = bad and nationalisation = good. If you look at the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where the water industry remains publicly owned - the problem with storm water discharges is exactly the same if not worse.

Urmstongran

An interesting article Casdon thank you.

I suppose there’s no easy fix. In that privatisation = bad and nationalisation = good. If you look at the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where the water industry remains publicly owned - the problem with storm water discharges is exactly the same if not worse.

Yes. The real problem is that the backlog maintenance and new works required to cope with a changing climate together require massive investment. The model of ownership is secondary to that need to recognise the scale of the issues and invest in the future.

It’s going to take a lot more than a celebrity figurehead to improve water quality, he’s going to need a lot of hard cash to be spent.

Katie59

It’s going to take a lot more than a celebrity figurehead to improve water quality, he’s going to need a lot of hard cash to be spent.

Yes, but it does help - without celebrities standing up and making a noise about causes we would be much the worse off, because they have clout.

Katie59

It’s going to take a lot more than a celebrity figurehead to improve water quality, he’s going to need a lot of hard cash to be spent.

🤔 They are pro-active.

There has been a court case with a a judicial review.