Further to Cllr Phil Andrews' outrage at the outright falsehood offered by Thames Water's delegate when he announced that TW's shareholders had contributed the £40 million towards odour improvements it has come to my attention that not only is Thames Water 'confused' about who is paying for the work, it has also got the figure wrong. OFWAT had advised MP Vince Cable that it was allowing almost £43 million. This is backed up by Vince Cable's parliamentary debate (see below) where Minister Elliot Morley confirmed to parliament that the amount was £42.8 million. My understanding is that once a final determination has been agreed by the regulator its up to the regulated company to get the job done within the determined amount. However, if the job (as prescribed within the determination) can be done for, say £38 million, what happens to the balance collected from stakeholders?......My guess - it goes to shareholders! There has been much press from Thames Water (even mentioned on its website) about £40 million being spent on odour at Mogden so has the extra £2.8 million already been siphoned off to shareholders???Extracts from Vince Cables lengthy Parliamentary debate:Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): A few years ago, a residents action group was established, and that has brought to a head the political activity in the area, enlisting support from local MPs and councils to bring pressure to bear on Thames Water to take action. The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate and on the detailed and measured way in which he made important points that are of concern to local residents. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the prime responsibility for tackling odour problems rests with the water company; in this case, Thames Water. I do not know the history of the site, but I wonder what was there first: the treatment plant or housing. If housing was built there, I wonder what consideration the planning authority gave to those issues. The hon. Gentleman knows the history better than me. Again, I can provide him with some assurance, because the original determination by Ofwat allowed Thames Water £10.8 million for odour works, mainly at Mogden where, it is recognised, there is a major problem. That would have covered the inlet works in the first determination. The final determination has almost quadrupled that allocation to £42.8 million. In addition to the inlet works, that will allow Thames Water to cover storm tanks and some of the sewage tanks. A considerable amount of money is available. The work programme is for Thames Water to decide, but, based on the business plan that the company put forward, Ofwat has made a considerable amount of money available for the approved programme. If water companies need to do more at particular sewage works to manage odour problems, it may mean that better management or maintenance is required. We recognise that capital investment is a consideration, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman my understanding that the way in which sewage treatment plants are operated also has a bearing on odour. Issues of good practice, good management, good operation and good maintenance are separate from the capital programme. Ofwat rightly has an obligation to scrutinise the business plans in order to ensure good value for money. Nationally, companies propose in their final business plans to spend more than £292 million between 2005 and 2010 to fund works on odour control. Ofwat allowed £96 million for that in the draft version. In the final version, the amount was increased to £134 million, which is a recognition of the representations that Ofwat received, including those of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. Considerable progress is being made on the matter, and we expect work to be carried out during the next five years. I very much hope that progress is made on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Steve Taylor ● 6581d