Regulator Ofwat will on Thursday give its “final determination” on how much bills will rise over the next five years.
Before then, Britain’s largest company Thames Water hopes to win court approval for a £3bn bridging loan to stop it running out of cash in the spring.
Together they amount to the greatest test of the water system, the only fully privatised network in the world.
To understand how we got here, and what might happen next, it pays to go back to the beginning.
In 1989, 10 state-owned regional water and sewage companies in England and Wales were sold off by Margaret Thatcher’s government, raising £7bn for the Treasury. The companies were sold debt-free but never intended to stay that way.
The rationale was that the private sector could raise the billions required to upgrade the Victorian sewage network, and fund it from customer bills, so the state didn’t have to.
So borrowing was always part of the plan and, as of this year, the companies have accrued £70bn of net debt, at a ratio to equity (gearing) of around 85%.
In water the problem with debt is not the total, but whether the companies can afford to service it, and what they did with the money.
The answer to the first question varies by operator, but water companies have poured billions into infrastructure and other investments. Adjusted for inflation, investment has run at between £4bn and a record £9bn last year, a total of £210bn in today’s prices, spending that has reduced leakage and improved water quality on some measures.
But it has not been enough to meet public expectation of basic services, of sewage control, or to the challenges of climate change and a growing population. To pick one example, the UK has not built a new reservoir since 1992.
At the same time, the companies’ shareholders have extracted dividends of £83bn (as calculated from Ofwat figures by the University of Greenwich and adjusted for inflation).
But like debt, dividends are a deliberate feature of the privatised system. Investors in any industry need to make a return.
Water UK, the companies’ trade body, says that since 2020, when the regulator began paying closer attention to payouts, dividends have averaged 2.7%.
The level of dividends and executive bonuses have become harder to defend with the emergence of the water industry’s dirty secret; sewage outflows.
These occur when the pipes shared by sewage and rainwater become inundated and, as a failsafe, are deliberately discharged into waterways through storm overflows to prevent sewage backing up into homes and businesses.
For decades the full extent of their use was unknown, with industry, regulators and the public in the dark because of the absence of monitoring. That has changed in the last decade, with full monitoring of almost 15,000 overflows in England revealing more than 460,000 sewage outflows in 2023.
Image: Sewage releases have caused controversy. File pic: iStock
Public outrage has pushed the issue up the political agenda, increasing the pressure on companies.
The water industry can point to some success in improving water quality since privatisation, with a reduction in levels of phosphorus and ammonia and 85% of bathing water classified as “good” or “excellent” by the Environment Agency.
But none of those are in rivers, where wild swimming, and the public activism that comes with it, is a recent phenomenon. And as public expectations for water quality rise, so do costs.
The challenge for the industry is that the cost of addressing the mess – whether physical, financial or of their own making – has just got more expensive.
Water was once a haven for long-term investors who enjoyed reliable returns from monopoly providers of an essential resource. For many years, water enjoyed a “halo effect” with cheaper borrowing costs than other industries.
This chart shows yields for water industry bonds, effectively the interest rate on their debt, compared to an index of other UK corporate bonds. While borrowing costs for everyone increased following the global inflation spike in early 2022, water remained cheaper.
In July 2023, after the full scale of the crisis at Thames Water emerged, the lines crossed over and water debt became more expensive. Water now has a premium attached, growing to almost a full percentage point by the end of this year.
And it is not just Thames. Ratings agencies have downgraded several water companies, damaging confidence in the entire sector. All companies face higher costs for borrowing, from the publicly listed Severn Trent, to distressed Thames, trying to secure terms on a £3bn bridging loan at an eye-watering 9.75%.
To meet these rising costs of capital water companies are now arguing that Ofwat should not only let them raise customer bills, but that investors need a greater return to commit money to the sector.
Luke Hickmore, investment director at abrdn, part of the Thames Water creditors’ group, said: “Water companies are facing a significantly higher cost of funding at the same time as seeing a growing need for infrastructure investment to maintain water and sewage systems.
“Investors have placed a risk premium on the entire industry because of uncertainty over whether the regulatory framework can support this increased investment need, and this drop in confidence has accelerated since Ofwat’s Draft Determination in July.
“Weaker companies with higher debt have suffered more, right at the time when many of them are looking for additional capital to meet the needs of customers and environment for the next five years and beyond.
“This financial strain and deteriorating investor support means higher cost of borrowing, which eventually feeds through to customer bills.”
All of which means your water bill is about to go up, though how much depends on where you live, and unlike other privatised utilities you can’t switch.
Wherever Ofwat draws its line this will be the most significant bill hike since privatisation. For decades the regulator and politicians were focused on affordability, leaving bills lower in real terms today than they were a decade ago.
But it is clearer than a chalk stream that this approach stored up trouble, and whether you blame poor management, corporate greed, slack regulation, political indifference, or the principle of privatisation itself, the industry faces a critical moment.
The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.
Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.
The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.
Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.
It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.
In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.
“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”
Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.
His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.
While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.
The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.
Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.
The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.
Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.
More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.
Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.
Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.
In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.
The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.
Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.
“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.
“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.
“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.
“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.
In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.
The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.
HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.
“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.
“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”
The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.
Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.
The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.
Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.
Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.
The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.
Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.
Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.
In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.
A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.
Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.
A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.
As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.
The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.
In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.
Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.
For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.
More on Tariffs
Related Topics:
The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.
That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:13
How US ports are coping with tariffs
The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.
The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.
That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
IMF downgrades UK growth forecast
Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.
That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.
You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.
“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.
That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.
Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.