As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Psamathe]

Why should the Government be spending money fixing the issue for private companies and their shareholders? The shareholders have been paid billions over the years. I know they did it for banks but they really had no option there. The real question is how the privatisation was dealt with that allowed profits to be taken without the required works being carried out for so long.

I agree but also bottom line becomes we need to try and convert some of our open sewers back into rivers and the shareholders won't do it.

But the aspect you raise to me does justify the Government taking ownership of the water companies without compensating the shareholders (in effect forcing them to pay through loss of their investment).

In effect (some of) the water companies are already bankrupt (were their financial liabilities to comply with the law included on their balance sheets they'd no longer be viable) so Government has the option to just tell shareholders they "invested unwisely". And as raised earlier, we, the public are paying for the needed works anyway either through taxation or through our water bills to private companies (with added mega bonuses for senior staff as a reward for failure).

 

[Pross]

I agree but also bottom line becomes we need to try and convert some of our open sewers back into rivers and the shareholders won't do it.

But the aspect you raise to me does justify the Government taking ownership of the water companies without compensating the shareholders (in effect forcing them to pay through loss of their investment).

In effect (some of) the water companies are already bankrupt (were their financial liabilities to comply with the law included on their balance sheets they'd no longer be viable) so Government has the option to just tell shareholders they "invested unwisely". And as raised earlier, we, the public are paying for the needed works anyway either through taxation or through our water bills to private companies (with added mega bonuses for senior staff as a reward for failure).

Yes, I agree completely. I just don’t see how they were allowed to take dividends from profits that were gained by failing to hit what you would assume to be legally required improvements to the network. Was it badly written legislation or failure by the regulator?

 

[Psamathe]

Thames Water faces row over £1m payment to finance chief
Thames Water has paid its chief financial officer, Steve Buck, a £1m signing fee despite intense scrutiny of Britain’s biggest water company’s finances as it tries to avoid being taken into public control.

The utility revealed that it made the payment last month, in a letter sent last week by Adrian Montague, its chair, to MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, Sky News first reported.

So they are all but bankrupt, repeatedly breaking pollution laws and regulations, failing to invest and yet them manage to give £1m to a senior employee!

And I guess ultimately that £1m will be coming from public's water bills.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Yes, I agree completely. I just don’t see how they were allowed to take dividends from profits that were gained by failing to hit what you would assume to be legally required improvements to the network. Was it badly written legislation or failure by the regulator?

Almost certainly a combination of the two in bold.