MPs demand accountability after it was revealed that 21 senior managers at near-bankrupt Thames Water quietly pocketed massive bonuses—using emergency bailout funds intended to rescue the company

The floodwaters of scandal have risen once again at Thames Water. In a shocking turn, it has emerged that 21 senior executives at the struggling utility giant were handed a staggering payout, amounting to 50% of their base salaries, despite the company teetering on financial collapse and facing public backlash over its environmental record.

This revelation has ignited fury in Westminster. MPs are now pressing Environment Secretary Steve Reed to claw back the money, which was quietly distributed on 30 April. The source of the funds? A £3 billion emergency loan, granted by creditors to stabilise the company and prevent collapse—not to line the pockets of its top brass.

Sir Adrian Montague, chair of Thames Water, confirmed the payments in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) Committee. While he stated that neither he, CEO Chris Weston, nor CFO Steve Buck received that first round of payments, he acknowledged Buck is set to benefit from a later instalment.

This scheme, dubbed a “management retention plan,” promises a total windfall of £18.5 million over two years—dished out in three parts. First came the April payout. Next is another 50% salary bonus by December 2025, or earlier if restructuring completes. Then, the pièce de résistance: a colossal 200% of base salary scheduled for June 2026.

Montague, under mounting pressure, tried to defend the move by claiming creditors insisted on the bonuses to retain key staff. But that defence didn’t hold water for long. The Guardian exposed that creditors merely approved the plan—they didn’t push for it. Faced with growing criticism, Montague admitted he had “misspoken” during his appearance before MPs, but insisted there was no intention to mislead Parliament.

“We have now learned that 21 members of Thames Water’s senior team received payments additional to their salaries, at a not inconsiderable rate,” said Alistair Carmichael MP, who chairs the Efra Committee. “Thames Water’s leadership says they won’t recover this money, despite the public outrage and despite the government ban on undeserved bonuses.”

That ban, introduced by the government in response to record sewage spills and environmental failures, applies to six water companies—including Thames Water. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insists the ban means not a single penny should go to the highest-ranking executives.

But the situation isn’t clear-cut. Thames Water has avoided calling the April payouts “bonuses.” Instead, they describe them as “retention payments”—a technical twist that might place them outside the ban’s reach.

Carmichael has now written to Reed, demanding clarity: were Defra or Ofwat, the water regulator, aware of these payouts? Can they be recouped? And what promises has Thames Water made about suspending the plan?

The backlash is growing. Critics argue this payout reeks of betrayal—both to customers and to the environment. After years of pollution scandals and sky-high bills, the sight of a bonus bonanza—financed through bailout money—has left many furious.

In response, a Thames Water spokesperson said: “The CEO has received no payments. Customers have not funded these retention payments. Full details have been shared with Ofwat. We will respond to the committee’s request in due course.”

But the damage may already be done. In a year of storms for Britain’s water industry, this scandal feels like a deluge—a fresh reminder of how murky things remain beneath the surface.