PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Thames Water - 3 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on Thames Water’s financial situation.

I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this urgent question. I want to begin by making clear that Thames Water remains stable, and the Government are carefully monitoring the situation. Customers can be assured that there will be no disruption to water supply.

Thames Water is a commercial entity currently engaged in an equity raise, and KKR pulled out of that process earlier today. As Thames Water has said, the company will continue to work with its creditors as part of the equity raise to improve its financial position. There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect the company and its directors to continue the process that is under way and fix the financial resilience of the company in the interests of its customers. I want to be clear that the Government are prepared for all eventualities across our regulated industries and stand ready to intervene through the use of a special administration regime, should this be required to ensure the continued provision of vital public services.

The situation facing Thames is taking place within a wider context. Only last year, we saw record levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. It is clear that our water system is broken. We have already passed legislation so that the regulator can ban the undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public, and we have further strengthened accountability through the introduction of up to two years in prison for polluting water bosses who break the law. We have increased the regulator’s resources and launched a record 81 criminal investigations into water companies, and we have followed the “polluter pays” principle, meaning that companies that are successfully prosecuted will pay for the cost of that prosecution so that further prosecutions can follow. We have worked with the water companies to secure £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild our broken water infrastructure. That means new sewage pipes, fewer leaking pipes, and new reservoirs across the country, as we work to end the sewage scandal that we inherited from the previous Government.

I launched the Independent Water Commission, under Sir Jon Cunliffe, so that it could outline recommendations for a once-in-a generation opportunity to transform our water industry and ensure that it delivers the service that the public deserve and our environment needs, and today Sir Jon published an interim report setting out the commission’s preliminary conclusions. The Government will respond in full to the commission’s final report in due course, and will outline further steps to benefit customers, attract investment and clean up our waterways.

Whether we are talking about Thames Water or about other companies serving other parts of the country, the era of profiting from pollution is over. This Government will clean up our waterways for good.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by correcting the Secretary of State? When he refers to private sector investment, he is in fact referring to the bill increases that each and every one of us will pay—£31 a year—so when he talks about private sector investment, he means bill payers’ investment.

Some 16 million residents and bill payers will have been concerned by this morning’s news that the private equity firm KKR has pulled out of its rescue deal with Thames Water. According to a source close to KKR, one of the reasons it pulled out was its concern about negative rhetoric directed at Thames Water and the rest of the industry in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and other Ministers. In other words, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have talked themselves out of this rescue deal. I am bound to say, if only they could do the same thing with the Chagos islands deal.

On which date did the Secretary of State discover that KKR was thinking of pulling out of this deal, and what involvement did he have in the phone calls over the weekend between KKR and No. 10 spads to try to rescue it? I ask because in recent weeks there have been briefings to the press that he is considering temporary renationalisation. The Treasury has apparently instructed him that he will need to find up to £4 billion from the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the cost of this manoeuvre. Let me put that in context: the entire farming budget for this year is roughly £2.5 billion.

Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the options to which he has just referred, and do they include a plan for temporary renationalisation? From which budget would a temporary renationalisation come: DEFRA or central funds? That question is particularly relevant in view of the upcoming spending review, on which there has been detailed briefing, including the suggestion that the DEFRA budget is to be slashed.

The Secretary of State referred to the Cunliffe report, which we will of course look at very carefully, but can he confirm—this recalls yesterday’s shambolic defence review announcement—that there is no funding for this latest review, and that it will do nothing to resolve the immediate issue of Thames Water’s solvency, which he has mishandled, just as he has mishandled the family farm tax, the fishing industry and the sustainable farming incentive?

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making it clear to the House that she does not understand the principles of private sector investment, and neither is it particularly clever to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and make up figures to attack.

This Government stand ready for all eventualities, but I will make no apology for tackling the poor behaviour of water companies and water company executives that took place under the previous Government and that we are correcting. We even heard stories, which have been confirmed to me by water companies, of previous Conservative Secretaries of State shouting and screaming at water company bosses but not actually changing the law to do anything about the bonuses that they were able to pay themselves. This Government are taking action, working with customers, water companies and investors to ensure that we have a successful water sector that works for the environment, customers and investors in a way that it completely failed to do under the previous Conservative Government.

Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Let us be clear that the collapse of KKR’s rescue deal is not a blip; it is a reckoning—a moment that exposes the complete bankruptcy of the privatised water model. This morning’s interim Cunliffe review of the water sector confirms the scale of the crisis. It describes our water system—a regulated statutory monopoly—as being too risky for investors now. It did not seem to be too risky when shareholders were siphoning off billions in dividends while letting the pipes rot, the rivers choke and the debt pile up. The only people truly at risk now are bill payers, who face a 35% real-terms price hike in the next five years—and not just to fund clean water or climate resilience, because half of it is to boost investor return. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: when will the Government stop fiddling, put Thames Water into special administration, strip out the debt, and begin the job of returning our water system—not just Thames Water—to public ownership?

Order. Mr Lewis, I was very generous in bringing you in so early, but I did not expect you to make a statement yourself.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reassure him that the Government stand ready for any eventuality and will take action as required. We are not looking at nationalisation because it would cost over £100 billion of public money, which would have to be taken away from other public services, such as the national health service, to be given to the owners of the water companies. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time pollution would get worse. We know that nationalisation is not the answer, because we need only look at the situation in Scotland to see that.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the hon. Member for his question. There is a procedure to be followed for special administration, and we stand ready should that be required, in this case or any other case involving the regulated industries. He may have had a chance today to look at the interim report, on which Sir Jon Cunliffe is inviting comments ahead of the final report in about a month. That report will form the basis of future legislation to fix the regulatory mess we inherited from the Conservative party.

Only the Conservatives could come here and defend Thames Water. The rest of the country has seen what an appalling performance this company has given during the 35 years since privatisation. I think it is time we put this company out of its misery, but we must do so in a way that does not bring the debts it has run up on to the taxpayer or the bill payers. Can my right hon. Friend say whether one of his options is preparing for that eventuality?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are prepared for every eventuality, as I have outlined, and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the continuing supply of water to customers in the Thames Water region and elsewhere.

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Under the £3 billion loan that Thames Water has negotiated, the first drawdown of £1.5 billion will be on 30 June, which is less than four weeks away. That is contingent on Thames Water having a lock-up agreement in respect of a recapitalisation transaction, but it now has no partner to provide that. It of course chose to proceed with just one option, which has now walked away. Who does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water will now turn to—it is not exactly going to be negotiating from a position of strength—and what are the Government going to do if it cannot meet that 30 June deadline?

There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect Thames Water to follow through with the process to ensure it is able to fix the problems it is currently facing.

My constituents and other Thames Water users are fed up to the back teeth with having to pay more to help this company, which has failed them so badly. Obviously, the Secretary of State has to have special administration on the table, but we know that would be hugely costly to the taxpayer. I know it is hard to talk about hypotheticals, but if he does go down that route, will he have the cost to individual customers front and centre, so they do not actually have to pay more for that process?

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I share her anger at the fact that bill rises were so high this year, but that is because the Conservative party did not take the necessary action to ensure that the water system was properly maintained. As anyone who has ever owned or lived in a house will know, if people see a crack in a wall and leave it for 10 years without fixing it, the problem gets much worse and the cost of repairing it is much more. In a very real sense, the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will ensure that Thames Water stands by its commitment to upgrade our sewage network in South Buckinghamshire? Specifically, will he ensure that the upgrade promised for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works in my constituency is delivered on time?

I am happy to give the hon. Member that reassurance. The Government expect Thames Water to carry through on the full range of programmes agreed as part of the last price review process.

My constituents have been comprehensively failed by Thames Water for many years. We saw the catastrophic flood in Herne Hill in 2013, when many local businesses had to close permanently. Vulnerable customers were let down during the “beast from the east” freeze-thaw event, being left without water for days and days at a time. There are endless roadworks in the same locations where it has repeatedly failed to invest adequately in its infrastructure. Now my constituents are seeing bills go up by way more than the Ofwat determination. It is clear that this organisation is not fit for purpose. What options is my right hon. Friend considering to bring this misery to an end, and to put customers back at the heart of Thames Water’s operations?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am sure that she will have seen today the interim report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, which outlines his initial thoughts on how to fix the broken regulatory system. The Government have also increased compensation from what we inherited from the previous Government, so her constituents who suffer from the kinds of problems she outlined can expect far better compensation as a result of this Government’s actions.

I declare an interest as a Thames Water customer. The reality is that Thames Water is bankrupt. It cannot pay its debts and it cannot meet its legal obligations to Ofwat, the state and its customers. Therefore, surely the right thing to do is to put it out of its misery, and put it into special administration for £1. The shareholders and the debt holders know—caveat emptor—that they have all blown their dough. If the Government buy it for £1, which would be a good deal for the taxpayer, it will not have to pay huge, egregious rates of interest and taxpayers and customers will be the beneficiaries.

I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that Reform cares so much about the problems facing our water system that it did not mention it even once in its general election manifesto. What he is proposing—nationalising the water sector—would cost in excess of £100 billion, which is money that Reform would have to take away from the services, such as the national health service, on which his constituents rely. I think they would be very ill-served by him if he were to take away that funding, and push up the waiting lists we have just started to see coming down as a result of this Government’s investment.

As a neighbouring MP, the Secretary of State will know the level of outrage in my constituency at the continuous failures of Thames Water, including the five-day period earlier this year during which residents were left without water. Given that this Labour Government have introduced measures to make polluting water company executives criminally liable and to ban unjustified bonuses, does he agree that we are finally seeing accountability brought back to the water sector?

I thank my hon. Friend, and indeed neighbour, for his question, and I know what a strong water champion he is on behalf of his constituents. His constituents, much like everybody else’s, will now benefit from increased compensation when there are failures. I agree with him that one of the problems we inherited from the previous Government was having a failing system with no accountability at all, so it is quite right that we have introduced new criminal liabilities and potentially prison time for polluting water bosses, and that we have given the regulator the power to ban the unfair and undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses they got away with under the Conservatives.

Does the Secretary of State agree with Thames Water’s own expert adviser Teneo—on page 193 of the expert advice report—that the ultimate cost to the Government if the company goes into special administration will be zero?

The point is that there is a market-led solution on the table and I expect Thames Water to follow through on that.

It is possible for an American private equity company to walk away from Thames Water, but my constituents cannot. When water company bosses fail, it is our residents who pay: in sewage discharged into rivers and in their crumbling pipes and drainage. I am therefore glad that the Government have taken bonuses off of failing bosses, but what more can the Government do to tilt incentives towards investment in our infrastructure so that my constituents get some relief?

The problems that my hon. Friend points to are to do with a lack of investment throughout the entire period of the previous Government, so I was delighted that just before Christmas we secured a commitment to £104 billion of private sector investment. That is the single biggest investment in our water sector in its entire history and will be the second biggest private sector investment into any part of the economy under this Government. We are serious about clearing up the Conservatives’ sewage mess.

Thames Waters is a massive stakeholder in my constituency, and the biggest landowner. We have half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs and we have a fair chunk of the Thames, from Staines to Sunbury. For 11 months now, I have been trying to get a meeting with Thames Water. I appreciate that it has had one or two other things on its mind recently, but can the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage Thames Water to meet me?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the water companies—Thames Water and all the others—should of course engage with MPs who are seeking to represent the interests of their constituents. I would be very happy to approach Thames Water on his behalf to ensure that he gets the meeting he seeks.

My constituents, like those of my colleagues, are gravely concerned about the increase in their water bills, but I am also as concerned as them about the impact on business. Crayford town centre was closed again last month—the third year on the trot—because of rotting infrastructure. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that no matter what happens, we will continue to invest in infrastructure to ensure that those kinds of closures finally end?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the action we have taken through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power it needs to ban the unjustified bonuses that water bosses were able to pay themselves under the previous Government. The era where they could profit from pollution ended when that Government ended.

The Green party has campaigned for the public ownership of water since the year dot, unlike certain cynical opportunists behind me on the Reform Benches. We know allowing privatised monopolies to control water leaves infrastructure crumbling, waterways running with sewage, sky-high bills, and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank. Given this obscene and fundamental failure, why will the Government not even consider bringing water back into public hands, where it belongs?

The problems facing the water sector are to do with failures of governance and regulation. We need to tackle the actual problems, not the imagined ones. If we were to seek to nationalise the water sector, that would cost in excess of £100 billion that would have to be taken away from services such as the national health service or education. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time there would be no investment and water pollution would get worse. From the example of Scotland, we know that nationalisation is not the answer, because there are also problems with pollution there. We will ensure that our priority is pure water, not the purity of the hon. Lady’s ideology.

As Thames Water dumped sewage into the Cut and the Blackwater in my constituency, the Conservative Government washed their hands not in it, but of it. This Government are acting to ban bonuses, to issue the biggest fine we have seen from Ofwat and to bring in criminal liability. As we seek more action to get to grips with the Thames Water crisis, will the Secretary of State commit to putting two things at the forefront of his mind: first, our environment and cleaning the sewage; and, secondly, making sure that customers and our constituents get a fair deal?

I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have launched 81 criminal investigations into water companies for pollution and other failings—a dramatic increase on what we inherited from the previous Government. I am sure he will recall that they cut the resources to the regulator in half. Despite the appalling financial inheritance, we increased resources by 9% at the Budget and we have now introduced the polluter pays principle, so that where there is a successful prosecution of a water company, that company will pay the price of the investigation, so that further investigations and prosecutions can follow.

Thames Water is teetering on the brink, investors are running for the hills and my constituents are paying the price for its mismanagement through soaring bills. All the while, it is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a proposed sewage recycling project at Teddington lock on the River Thames in my constituency, which will at best be used every two years and which some cynics suggest is designed entirely to boost its balance sheet. This morning, the Secretary of State committed to my constituent Ian McNuff that he would come and visit the site to look at the impact of the proposed project. Will he reiterate that commitment today? My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I would be delighted to welcome him.

As I said to the hon. Lady’s constituent, I would be happy to visit if my diary allows. In any case, I would be very happy to ensure she gets a meeting with the Minister for Water to discuss her concerns around Teddington.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it comes to something when the Opposition seem to be suggesting that Thames Water should maybe not be sanctioned, because that may put its preferred bidder at risk, when it had rejected others? Jon Cunliffe suggested stronger regulation, not weaker. Is it not clear that the direction that this Government are going in must be the right one?

I agree. The whole mess we inherited was due to the previous Government letting the water companies get away with it; people were paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses as they profited from pollution. That ended when the Conservative Government were defeated. We are putting the water companies under tough special measures and we will focus them on serving their customers and the environment, not themselves.

Does the Secretary of State think that the situation might improve if Thames Water executives were obliged to sign up to performance-related pay?

That is a very interesting proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest it to Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is currently looking at a better way to regulate.

I note the Secretary of State’s reluctance to entertain public ownership, but I draw his attention to research from the University of Greenwich that shows that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years and that, after that, it would save the public purse up to £2.5 billion a year. Is the Secretary of State aware that immediately bringing Thames Water into special administration and permanent public ownership would cut the company’s massive debt mountain in half, stop the payment of huge dividends and debt payments into the future, and within just several years actually start turning a profit for the people of this country?

I beg to slightly correct my hon. Friend. Special administration is not nationalisation and nationalisation would cost in excess of £100 billion—money we would have to take away from other public services to hand to the bosses of the water companies who caused this mess in the first place. I do not think taxpayers would welcome that.

I received a note in my inbox today from the Government engagement lead for north Thames valley that says that Thames Water will run out of money in summer 2026. Will the Government commit to taking Thames Water into special administration and unburden the company of its debt via its creditors, or will Members be required to block their diaries for summer 2026 for another recess recall?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are procedures to follow that would require any regulated company to go into special administration. As things stand, Thames Water remains stable and there is a market-led solution on the table. We expect Thames Water to follow through on that.

This is another example of the previous Government’s failure to get a grip of our water system. Meanwhile, just last week this Government fined Yorkshire Water £350,000. My constituents are really upset to see their water bills going up. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will never let our national infrastructure get as bad as those on the Conservative Benches did?

Absolutely; we intend to clear up the mess the previous Government made. The fine that my hon. Friend refers to—indeed, there have been others—is the result of the additional criminal investigations we have launched, which follow on from the additional resources we have given the regulator so that it can investigate what is going wrong and then take action. What a difference between this Labour Government, who are putting our water companies under special measures, and the previous Government, who let them get away with it and line their pockets.

I find it deeply depressing to hear the Secretary of State say that somehow or other there is a market solution there for Thames Water. We have had 35 years of excessive profits, pollution and rising bills. He knows he will have to take Thames Water into public ownership at some point. He quotes this strange figure of £100 billion in compensation, but surely if we took it into public ownership, Parliament would set the price at which we would purchase the company, taking into account excessive profits, pollution, damage and the destruction of so many people’s lives through the way Thames Water has behaved. Will the Secretary of State be tough with it for once and say that water is a human right, and that it should be publicly owned and publicly run?

Water is indeed a human right, which is why this Government are taking every step necessary to sort out the broken water system that we inherited from the previous Government.

The situation at Thames Water is deeply disturbing, and in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—the home of Surfers Against Sewage—there is now deep anxiety that this commercial insecurity will spread. With only three prosecutions and no meaningful penalties under the previous Government, is it not clear that the Conservatives prioritised the polluters instead of protecting the environment and customers?

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to congratulate Surfers Against Sewage on its fantastic work highlighting the failures of the water sector under the previous Government. I am sure both my hon. Friend and the charity will welcome the 81 criminal investigations we have launched in order to find out where lawbreaking is happening, to take action against it and to hold those who are responsible accountable for once.

In this Chamber in September, I called for Thames Water to be put into special administration in order to protect my constituents. A portion of the bills they have paid since then has gone on lawyers and consultants to put together a deal that has collapsed. The Liberal Democrats—unlike the Conservatives, who continue to bury their heads in the sand—have fought against throwing more good money after bad, and more and more debt. The Government did not act in September. Will they act now, put us all out of our misery and put Thames Water into special administration?

As I have said, the Government stand ready for all eventualities, should they be needed.

I refer the House to my registered voluntary interest. Over a year ago, I spoke to one of the then biggest investors in Thames Water, and I was struck by the fact that they said they had never been in a room with the regulator, other investors or the Government. I know it is difficult commercially, but I urge the Secretary of State, in trying to resolve this issue rapidly, to use his good offices and do as much as possible in the background to bring all the stakeholders to the best result.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question; I think what he is referring to, in the round, is the failures of the regulatory system and, indeed, the regulators. He will have seen that Sir Jon Cunliffe points to exactly the same problems in his interim report, published today. As we work towards the final report, published in about a month, Sir Jon is starting to point to solutions, and I am sure he will want to pay attention to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.

The British public are not fools—they know when the emperor has no clothes and, indeed, when a regulator has no teeth. Ofwat has failed, just as Thames Water has failed. Will the Government now act on the Independent Water Commission’s findings, published today, scrap Ofwat and replace it with a regulator that can end this crisis, which has been decades in the making?

We are working towards resetting the entire regulatory framework, as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, published today. He is absolutely right, though: under the previous Government, the regulator was absolutely toothless. That is why one of the first pieces of legislation this Government passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which gave the regulator the power it lacked previously to ban the unfair and unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public as those companies profited from pollution.

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments on continuity of service, which will provide some reassurance to my constituents. Thames Water has failed my constituents time and again; clearly, it needs investment. What is he doing to ensure that there is the confidence to invest in our water sector?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of making the sector more investable is ensuring that we have a robust, clear and predictable regulatory framework, which is what Sir Jon Cunliffe is working towards. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at the interim report that Sir Jon published today; if he has not, I recommend it to him. That is the way we create an investable water sector and bring in the money that will allow us to fix our broken water system once and for all.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituent Bruno lives in Charlton-on-Otmoor. When it rains heavily, sewage flows into his garden, which is within sight of a pumping station that fails every single time. One third of bills paid to Thames Water by Bruno and other customers is used to service the company’s debt; that money should instead be invested, and should go towards improving pumping stations like the one near Bruno’s garden. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that Thames is financially unviable, bring it into special administration, write down the debt and ensure that the future company serves the public interest?

The hon. Gentleman points with a graphic example to what happens when we face the scale of regulatory failure that developed untroubled under the previous Government. That is why Sir Jon Cunliffe has brought forward his report today, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read; I hope he will also provide Sir Jon with feedback, which he is asking for ahead of his final report in a month’s time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have helped to secure £104 billion of private sector investment by the conclusion of the price review period. That will be used to upgrade exactly the kind of facilities that he points to, which are letting down his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in the House.

With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money?

I share the hon. Gentlemen’s anger that the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure over 14 years. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Secretary of State was get the water company chief execs into my office, seven days after the election. I got them to commit to ringfencing customers’ money that is earmarked for investment, so that it can never again be diverted to pay bonuses and dividends in the way that it was under the previous Conservative Government.

I call the Member for Strangford—on water, no less.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for his perseverance on this subject. He will understand that it is disappointing in the extreme to hear that public funding may have to be used to bail out this company. Given that it has some 8,000 British employees and serves 25% of the UK population, Government attention is very urgently needed. What steps will be taken to ensure that this is not money down the drain, to use a pun, and that we instead reconstruct a viable concern that takes a modern approach? Does the Department have a team ready and able to step up and achieve that goal?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are ready for every eventuality, and there are teams in place to carry this out. Let me reassure him that I have no intention of using public money to bail out this company; we are looking for a market-led solution to its challenges. I thank him for his kind personal words—we will all keep persevering until we have cleaned up our waterways for good.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

It is not to continue the argument, is it?

Okay, shadow Secretary of State. Let us see if it is a point of order.

It is just to correct the record, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has given the impression in his answers—without, I am sure, intending to—that the investigations of which he is very proud, from July last year, were a direct result of Labour winning the election in July. That is simply incorrect. As I have drawn to his attention on Twitter, courtesy of a press release on 20 February last year, we in fact invested some £55 million in further investigations, which is the—

Order. I am not responsible for the correction. You have certainly put the matter on the record. The Secretary of State may want to come back; if not, we will move on.