Bosses at six water companies have been banned from receiving bonuses for the last financial year under new legislation that comes into force on Friday.

Senior executives at Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities and Southern Water all face the restriction on performance-related pay for breaches of environmental, customer service or financial standards.

All six companies committed the most serious ‘Category 1’ pollution breaches, with Thames responsible for six such incidents, as well as breaching financial resilience regulations when its credit rating was downgraded.

The nine largest water and wastewater providers paid a total of £112m in executive bonuses since 2014-15, though the 2023-24 total of £7.6m was the smallest annual figure in a decade.

The new rules give water industry regulator Ofwat the power to retrospectively prevent bonuses paid in cash, shares or long-term incentive schemes to chief executives and chief financial officers for breaches in a given financial year.

Ofwat cannot, however, prevent lost bonuses being replaced by increased salaries, as routinely happened in the banking sector when bonus pots were capped following the financial crisis.

Government sources insist they do not want to cap executive pay, but suggested the regulator could consider expanding its powers to ensure any remuneration is covered by shareholder funds rather than customer bills.

Water suppliers have routinely defended executive bonuses and pay on the grounds that awards are necessary to attract and retain the best talent to lead complex, multi-stakeholder organisations.

Thames Water’s chief executive, Chris Weston, was paid a bonus of £195,000 three months after joining the company in January 2024, taking his total remuneration to £2.3m.

Last month, the company withdrew plans to pay “retention” bonuses of up to 50% of annual salary to senior executives after securing an emergency £3bn loan intended to keep the company afloat into next year.

Earlier this week, its preferred equity partner, US private equity giant KKR, walked away from a deal to inject £4bn despite direct lobbying from 10 Downing Street, in part because of concern over the negative political sentiment towards the water industry.

The decision came a few days after Thames was hit with a record fine of £123m for multiple pollution incidents and breaching dividend payment rules.

Welcoming the bonus ban, the Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: “Water company bosses, like anyone else, should only get bonuses if they’ve performed well, certainly not if they’ve failed to tackle water pollution.

“Undeserved bonuses will now be banned as part of the government’s plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”

Read more:
Water boss defends six-figure bonus
Thames Water fined £123m
Yorkshire Water fined £40m

Whitehall sources say they “make no apology” for calling out water company conduct, despite concerns raised by an independent reviewer that negative sentiment and misdirected regulation has put off investors and raised the cost of financing the privatised system.

In an interim report, former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe said “negative political and public narrative and Ofwat’s approach to financial regulation have made the sector less attractive”.

Sir Jon will publish final recommendations to reform water regulation next month, with the aim of addressing public concerns over pollution and customer service, while attracting long-term, low-risk, low-return investors.

Water bills will rise on average by 36% over the next five years as companies pledge to spend £103bn on operating, maintaining, and improving infrastructure, including £12bn on cutting sewage spills.

When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: “melted and poured”.

To see why, let’s begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy.

Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%).

Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate.

But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July – on the basis of President Trump’s most recent pronouncements.

For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn’t Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn’t being entirely clear about what that meant in practice.

Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a “heads of terms” agreement – a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law.

In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the “heads of terms”. The small print was yet to be completed.

Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it’s worth drilling a little bit into the details.

The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate.

When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel.

You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world – that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is “melted and poured” in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal.

That’s fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain’s biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed “melted and poured” from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot.

But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it’s importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills.

Read more:
UK city that once ‘clothed the world’ faces existential threat
How expectation of Trump tariffs boosted UK economy

Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces – but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China – which is something the White House is even more sensitive about.

👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne’s wherever you get your podcasts 👈

You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected.

But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history.

There’s no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline – though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.

Ministers will this week unveil a revamp of the Whitehall investment hub that they hope will secure hundreds of billions of capital flows into the UK in the coming years.

Sky News understands that Baroness Gustafsson, the investment minister, will address a private event on Thursday designed to relaunch the Office for Investment (OfI).

Government sources said the revamp – in which Sir Keir Starmer’s top officials and the Treasury have been closely involved – would align the UK’s ‘investment resources’ under a single brand.

The new OfI has absorbed teams from other Whitehall directorates with the objective of reducing confusion among international investors in Britain, according to the sources.

Greg Jackson, the Octopus Energy chief, and Baroness Lane Fox, who chairs the British Chambers of Commerce, are expected to speak at the event in central London alongside senior government officials, according to people familiar with the agenda.

Thursday’s summit will come days before ministers launch the new industrial strategy, with the OfI charged with targeting investors in priority sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing and life sciences.

A beefed-up investment hub was among the key recommendations of the former business minister Lord Harrington’s review – commissioned by then-chancellor Jeremy Hunt – in 2023.

One insider said last year’s International Investment Summit, at which ministers claimed to have drawn £63bn of new investment for the UK, provided a solid foundation for the revamped OfI.

A further event designed to attract inward investment will be held in Birmingham later this year, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced on Wednesday.

The Department for Business and Trade declined to comment on Wednesday afternoon.