Record Fine

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Actually Jeff, you could argue with all that, probably.

Maybe you're right, Graham, but I shan't bother. It's like a broken pencil - pointless!

 

[The bad one]

Phil, you don't know them at all. And the judge cannot send anyone to prison since it's the company (an entity in its own right) that is on trial and not the individuals. That's not my law, it is the law. And the CEO in charge when it happened has since left the company (I think he retired) and a new one was appointed last September, a Scot and a damned good man I believe. I'm looking forward to meeting him on many more occasions and be happy to have a pint with him. (Although I expect him being Scottish he'll expect me to pay, but I have some Yorkshire blood in me and he'll have to buy, otherwise it will be a dry meeting.)

Same as I've always said, you can call these companies as much as you like, but when it comes to putting the environment right again and furthermore, improving them, you will get absolutely nowhere. Right now, the Thames area will have £1.5 millions to spend on improvements, probably more than the EA in this area spent in the last 2 years.

Jeff you are now to close to them and can't see the wood for the trees.You're beginning to sound like the PR man for TW.
As to your point about the Co, well, no I'm not, have a look at the power of the courts under the EPA. CEOs, Directors, Managers, can be jailed for offenses under it.

In the water industry 1.5 million quid goes nowhere and will make minimum impact on its appalling dirty record of polluting the environment across its area.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Jeff you are now to close to them and can't see the wood for the trees.You're beginning to sound like the PR man for TW. As to your point about the Co, well, no I'm not, have a look at the power of the courts under the EPA. CEOs, Directors, Managers, can be jailed for offenses under it. In the water industry 1.5 million quid goes nowhere and will make minimum impact on its appalling dirty record of polluting the environment across its area.

Firstly, Phil, I'm not their PR man, but I know a man that is. I'm just trying to be fair about this and see a way forward that only gets better.
The judge himself, and he is the ruler in the court, said that the company was on trial, NOT any individual. So your argument about jails doesn't hold up. It might do if the EA were to find a person/director/worker liable, but not in this case.
And £1.5m is more than the EA spent in our region last year and some of the year before. That's before salaries, expenses, cars, mobile phones, iPads, meals... etc. are taken out. I have been waiting for THREE YEARS now for the EA to repair the bank by a public footpath where anglers fish and could harm themselves and the work has not been done. Three years ago the EA also asked us to nominate weirs where an eel pass could be installed and I suggested ours, it was inspected and confirmed and the cost was £3000-£5000 depending on complexity. The eel, as you are aware Phil, is on the red list of endangered species and the EA still haven't got the money. I've been told to find the finance from elsewhere and I've even joined the ZSL Eel Forum to see if any money is going there. We're not talking magnificent sums here, but £1.5m will cover one hell of a lot more than the EA can afford.

 

[Neil Maidment]

Jeff. One fact you cannot disagree with is the multiple foreign owners and investors in Thames Water, German, Australian, Arab state Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Kuwait did so for one reason.

To make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, to take money out and sell on.

At the risk of inflaming the conversation (and Graham and I know each other quite well) that is the opposite of the reason most invest in such industries. In my time within one of the biggest Fund Managers in the world, they were and are considered a very long term investment choice. Most, if not all, of our pension providers apply that considered choice through their Fund Managers.

You can argue about the validity and moral choices made but such current investments are very much long term. Any short term decisions were made at the time of privatisation and within 12 months but that was a long time ago.

 

[binka]

The judge himself, and he is the ruler in the court, said that the company was on trial, NOT any individual. So your argument about jails doesn't hold up. It might do if the EA were to find a person/director/worker liable, but not in this case.

I make no apologies for this but that is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard since rumours emerged that Elvis bumped into Lord Lucan in my local chippy!

It may well have been the case but don't expect me to buy it.

Logs were recorded where entries stated 'illegal discharge' which were routinely ignored, the apathy of one employee or sub-contractor summing it all up in his rather tongue in cheek remark as reported by BBC news.

I don't buy this lack of individual responsibility rubbish for one minute.

In this case at least, if those remarks went un-actioned then you have to ask who ignored them and why, and I think the desire really isn't there to find out.

Why?

Maybe because some poor barsteward was under so much pressure from his superiors and the courts understand this?

As an aside Jeff, as you seem to be so well informed, did the Directors of Thames Water take a performance bonus for the period in which these repeated pollutions took place and if so what was the total sum?

Edited to add:

If I can expand further on that question, here’s a piece from a Financial Times article dated June 5th 2015 and 1-2 years after the pollution period which lead to the record fines imposed on Thames Water and which, bonuses aside, relates to basic salary increases directly after such negligence…

Thames Water awards sharp pay rises to top executives

'Thames Water has awarded sharp increases in pay to top executives after negotiating an inflation-beating pricing settlement with industry regulators that runs until 2020.

Martin Baggs, chief executive, saw his total pay increased to £2.06m in the year to March, from £1.29m a year earlier, while chief financial officer Stuart Siddall’s total pay rose from £785,000 to £1.41m.Sir Peter Mason, chairman, said the awards were justified given Thames Water’s performance in the past year — as the group approached the end of a five-year customer pricing agreement with Ofwat.'

I suppose all involved will now pay back their increases given what they had presided over during this 2013-2014 review period and the consequences which ensued?

Right?

Phil has summed it up perfectly and in a sense which I too had considered to the same conclusion, I think you are too close to these jolly good fellows and it has tinted your specs.

https://www.ft.com/content/ec786430-0b78-11e5-994d-00144feabdc0

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Binka,

You're arguing two separate things here. The case, as I said and is recorded in fact, was against the company, limited by shares. NOT any individual what ever you might like to believe. Neither you nor I were the judge and if you want to blame someone for that oversight, blame the Environment Agency's legal department for prosecuting the wrong offender.

Your main point, however, was the negligence involved and were the individuals dealt with? Yes, as much as they could be by being replaced, they lost their jobs. The board members were unaware of most of what was going on and I don't know any more details than that. As I have said elsewhere, I am not an employee nor do I take back-handers*. Those responsible were all the same local team and, as I say, now replaced and with new equipment and software systems installed to notify right to the top any negligence, faults, or failing to replace worn out parts when they should be. A total of £25m has been spent just on these 5 units with even more being spent on new screening methods.

* Back-handers. I was asked to attend court on two days (I probably would have gone anyway out of interest) because I had written a letter at first to the head of the EA and to TW supporting TWU's Enforcement Undertaking on the Little Marlow case. In the end, my letter wasn't submitted, but I was offered 'expenses', being mileage, parking and a meal. I told them I didn't want anything and refused. But they did ask me to nominate a charity and I suggested the Teenage Cancer Trust to which they sent a very generous donation. Is that a back-hander?

On thing you have to accept for all the water companies is that these incidents will forever occur from time to time. To do otherwise is like someone saying they will stop ALL road deaths, it's impossible. All we can hope for is that the occurrences are minimalised and the effects small. If anyone has better ideas to eradicate them completely, please do let someone know. And I'd like to know the make of their car, and fridge, and cooker, and other appliances because I'll bet they don't break down either.

All that I want to do, is to improve the environment so that should a storm or pollution happen again, the fish will have better refuges to seek shelter in and survive. Some anglers (?) don't seem to want that, just to keep punishing and calling the water companies, but in doing so get nowhere.

I hope this answer your points, it's the best I can do.

 

[binka]

I hope this answer your points, it's the best I can do.

No, far from it.

On the one hand you appear to know so much about Thames Water and on the other you have made no attempt to answer what performance related bonuses were paid to Thames Water Directors during this period of negligence which in turn lead to the record fines being imposed on them.

Binka,

You're arguing two separate things here. The case, as I said and is recorded in fact, was against the company, limited by shares. NOT any individual what ever you might like to believe. Neither you nor I were the judge and if you want to blame someone for that oversight, blame the Environment Agency's legal department for prosecuting the wrong offender.

Nope, still not buying it.

Failures happen for a reason and within the corporate structure, individuals and decisions are involved.

That...

Is a fact.

Binka,

Your main point, however, was the negligence involved and were the individuals dealt with? Yes, as much as they could be by being replaced, they lost their jobs. The board members were unaware of most of what was going on and I don't know any more details than that.

Negligence then, on the back of a pay hike that would leave many of us a gasp on the pay scale beforehand?

Directors who can cream it off on supposed (!) performance but can then shun their responsibility when the sh!t hits the fan?

I've never heard of the title of 'Selective Director', have you?

Binka,

* Back-handers. I was asked to attend court on two days (I probably would have gone anyway out of interest) because I had written a letter at first to the head of the EA and to TW supporting TWU's Enforcement Undertaking on the Little Marlow case. In the end, my letter wasn't submitted, but I was offered 'expenses', being mileage, parking and a meal. I told them I didn't want anything and refused. But they did ask me to nominate a charity and I suggested the Teenage Cancer Trust to which they sent a very generous donation. Is that a back-hander?

That was what the like was for, in all other respects I think you're losing the principle and moral argument.

 

[fishing4luckies]

The board members were unaware of most of what was going on

So these directors who were unaware of some pretty catastrophic failings within the organisation that they 'direct', are they still there, or have they moved on?

 

[The bad one]

No Geoff like Steve I don't buy your defence of TW. They the directors are very skilled in hoodwinking and bullsh1ting the public, it's why they get the big big bucks mate! I fear you may have been taken in by the Greenwash TW desperately wants everybody to believe.
1.5 m out of 740 m profit last year is also less than a drop in the ocean to themj. If 'only' Fisheries Dept of the EA had that money to play with? There wouldn't be a problem of under resourcing for any project anywhere in the country. It doesn't, as well you know, the whole of Thames region probably has to work on 4-6 m a year max.

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Neil.
I couldn't agree with you more regarding how Fund Managers normally operate investments for long term benefits.

The fact that the investment history of TW has been so varied and changing tells me all that is needed to know.
The Aussie investors, just sold up, have previously been described as Vultures.



Grab and go.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

On the one hand you appear to know so much about Thames Water and on the other you have made no attempt to answer what performance related bonuses were paid to Thames Water Directors

I only know about the operations of the company, I don't know what everyone is paid. I could have told you that about Lancaster Carpets in the early 70s, because I used to have to enter the directors salaries into the nominal ledger.

Nope, still not buying it.

Like I say, blame the EA. They were the ones that brought the prosecution.
I really don't see what your argument is apart from it's based on a lot of supposition. If you know differently, spill the beans, please, FACTS only!
As far as I'm concerned, what's done is done. The company were fined. We move forward.

1.5 m out of 740 m profit last year is also less than a drop in the ocean to them

So tell me Phil, how much have you claimed/or won out of United Utilities for all of their problems?

as well you know, the whole of Thames region probably has to work on 4-6 m a year max.

We'd be lucky if angling saw anything like that! That's why I'm quite happy accepting £1.5m from TW, we can get an awful lot of backlog jobs done with that and improve the rivers and environment whilst were at it.

OR - would you all like us to tell TW to stuff their contribution and we'll leave the rivers as they are? YES or NO?
I'm waiting for your decision...

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Anyone know the fees senior members of AT got for doing consultancy work for Thames Water last few years?

 

[fishing4luckies]

Jeff, I still want to know if the board members who were negligent and pleaded ignorance are still in their jobs? Do you know?

 

[binka]

I really don't see what your argument is apart from it's based on a lot of supposition. If you know differently, spill the beans, please, FACTS only!

According to the Financial Times...

Martin Baggs, CEO of Thames Water during the negligence which lead to the biggest ever fine ever imposed on a water company, saw his total pay increase from £1.29 million to £2.06 million directly off the back of the period in which these pollutions took place.

He was not alone either, the CFO was also rewarded with a rather handsome increase from £784,000 to £1.41 million.

Now...

Forgive me here but if I had overseen the kind of failures which took place on their watch then I wouldn't expect to even have a job, let alone have my pay almost doubled.

Ok...

The then CEO stepped down shortly afterwards but the fact remains that the top brass were creaming off large increases to already substantial salaries, on the back of the negligence which took place, which eventually cost the company a record £20.3 million fine.

This is before we even look at the damage the company caused to the environment and the danger which they placed the public in.

There's more than a drop of irony to all that.

So...

Bringing us up to the present time, what safeguards have Thames Water put in place - not with regard to avoiding future procedural negligence, but instead to ensure that the present top brass are not rewarded for the same type of failures should any come to light at a later date?

Personally, and all in my most humble opinion of course, I think it's a bit of a pi$$ take based on the knowledge that any individual will be over the horizon and away with their cash and until something changes where some kind of chargeback can take place then there's every likelihood the same thing will happen again.

I appreciate that you originally set out with individual culpability in mind and changed direction when you weren't making progress and you clearly have made progress by doing so.

But times change and so does the mood, I think there is room and public desire for individual culpability to be introduced... Not to replace the current strategy you have pursued, but to run aside it to ensure that no one can be financially rewarded against a backdrop of such failures.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I still want to know if the board members who were negligent and pleaded ignorance are still in their jobs? Do you know?

First of all, correct your statement. No board member, and this is according to the judge, was found to be negligent as I remember from the trial. So your question cannot be answered.

Binka, despite your rather long post the honest answer I can give is - nothing. I have no idea who or what went on and your statements to me, are a waste. Make them to Thames Water. I really cannot help you and if it's a rant, then you've made it. I haven't got a problem with anyone that wants to question these events, just make sure you have the right facts, but don't expect any answers. I won't be giving them, it's not my job.

what safeguards have Thames Water put in place

TW have now set up a Waste Operations Centre and they have a 24/7 response team for any event likely to cause a pollution incident. New software has been installed to keep all employees, managers and board members aware of everything that is going on. I have been asked to get a small group together from our members to visit this site and they'll be happy to answer any questions along with giving us a briefing on how it all works. Sorry that you won't be invited (what area do you live in BTW? is that TW's?)

Who was it on here said that Thames Water were "Britain's biggest polluter"?
I have a chart here published by the Government entitled Environmental Performance Assessment 2015, these are the very latest figures, ok?
Thames Water are FAR from being the worst polluter. They companies are not in any ascending order so there won't be gold, silver or bronze medals to be awarded, but believe this or believe it not -
Thames Water are about 6th or 7th worst polluter, if that's how you want to put it, out of NINE companies. FAR from being the worst. If you want worse there's Yorkshire Water, Wessex Water, Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and worst of all, South West Water. Any of these where any of you people live? If you want the chart you'll have to write to DEFRA or somebody in Parliament. What can't speak can't lie.

Oh and - I'm still waiting for your decision. Do I tell TW to take back the £1.5million?

 

[thecrow]

This is from the Independent Sept 2016

CEOs whose businesses commit environmental crimes can now be tried in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

CEOs whose businesses are found to be complicit in razing tropical rainforests, poisoning water supplies or seizing land will face prosecution.

 

[fishing4luckies]

Jeff, if you honestly think that board members who were unaware of the failings that caused these polluting events are not negligent, that ignorance of the workings, especially when it comes to public and environmental health, is a defence, just because the Judge says so then I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that you are blind to the failings of your chums at TW.

The fact that a judge ruled that there was no negligence does not mean that the board were not negligent. Judges are not always right.

'Not being aware' is grossly negligent. It's their job to be aware. They were not properly doing their jobs. Thats either incompetence or negligence. Either way, I'd rather the people running TW were neither.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Judges are not always right.

But judges are always judges. Don't set yourself above the law.

And being in Tunbridge Wells, you'd be in Southern Water's area, am I right? The company that had almost twice the number of cat 1-3 incidents than Thames Water in that table and nearly twice the number of 'Serious' cat 1-2 incidents than Thames Water... Why not ask your own water company if they've sacked any directors?

 

[binka]

Binka, despite your rather long post the honest answer I can give is - nothing. I have no idea who or what went on and your statements to me, are a waste. Make them to Thames Water.

Make your mind up Jeff, it was you who asked in the first place...

I really don't see what your argument is apart from it's based on a lot of supposition. If you know differently, spill the beans, please, FACTS only!

I made my point based upon your request, you may not like it but it is my point nonetheless.

Fortunately () I live well outside of the Thames Water region.

Not that anyone has implied anything to the contrary but I see no reason why this should prevent me holding an opinion, particularly when the whole subject of pollution has a wider implication for angling on a national scale.

 

[fishing4luckies]

Why not ask your own water company if they've sacked any directors?

Don't be petulant. I have every right to ask someone who says they're in the know, and who professes to have friends within the senior leadership, questions about the corporate governance of a Water Company other than my own local one.

I'm asking you to tell us about the situation at TW. You don't appear to have or wish to give an answer.

And for the record I do not set myself as above the law. I'm simply saying that Judges can get it wrong.