Struggling firm to appeal to competition watchdog to hike fees by more than Ofwat-approved 35% over next five years
Thames Water is to appeal to the UK’s competition regulator to be allowed to raise customers’ bills over the next five years even higher than previously granted, prompting a furious reaction from campaigners.
The water company, which serves 16 million customers in London and south-east England, will ask the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for permission to raise bills from 2025 to 2030 by more than the 35% the water regulator for England and Wales, Ofwat, approved last year.
Thames Water, which is on the verge of financial collapse, had wanted to raise bills by 59% over the next five years. It said on Friday morning its board had concluded that Ofwat’s final determination would not allow the investment and improvement needed to improve its services.
The move was swiftly criticised by clean water campaigners. Feargal Sharkey, the former lead singer of the Undertones, said Thames was showing “two fingers to customers” by seeking even higher bills, having “dumped billions of litres of sewage into rivers” and extracted too much water from chalk streams.
Rachel Reeves has had a difficult start to her ministerial career.
As well as Labour’s new chancellor taking on the challenges of the UK economy, she has faced tricky questions about her past.
They began with scrutiny of her online CV late last year.
On the professional networking site LinkedIn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have worked as an economist at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) immediately before becoming an MP.
One of those who challenged it was a retired former colleague, Kev Gillett.
In a public post on LinkedIn, which he asked followers to share, he wrote: “Back in 2009 Rt Hon Rachel Reeves worked 3 levels below me. Just facts. She was a Complaints Support Manager at LBG/HBOS. Not an Economist. #factcheck.”
In fact it emerged that she had worked in a managerial role within the bank’s complaint handling department and her LinkedIn profile was updated to remove the claim.
Gillett also made another claim about Reeves’s time at the bank from 2006 to 2009, writing that she: “Nearly got sacked due to an expenses scandal where the 3 senior managers were all signing off each others expenses.”
dizzy: I’ve quoted the start of a fairly long article from the BBC by Billy Kenber, Politics investigations correspondent and Phil Kemp, Politics producer. It is the report into their investigation of UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ errors in her reported career history and an expenses fraud investigation at her former employer Halifax Bank of Scotland.
Lucy Letby was convicted in two trials in 2023 and 2024 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others in her care at the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England between 2015 and 2016.
She is currently serving 15 whole life sentences for the murders. But the case has been called into question as a result of growing concerns about the expert evidence presented at her trial. Will she get a retrial? Here’s what happens next.
In the context of usually cautious expert opinion, the press conference held on February 4 2025 was extraordinary. An international panel of medical experts investigating the medical evidence against Lucy Letby concluded that there were alternative explanations for each of the deaths. They said they found no evidence of deliberate harm, and believe Letby did not murder any babies.
The panel’s chair, Dr Shoo Lee, is a retired neonatal care expert. His 1989 paper on air embolisms was heavily relied on by the prosecution in the Letby trial and appeals. However, Lee has previously said that his research was misinterpreted at trial. At the press conference he said, “we did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.”
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
The panel’s findings put the case in uncharted territory, given Letby’s very recent convictions and the continuing public inquiry into the case.
The public inquiry – the Thirlwall Inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester hospital – will operate based on the assumption, following her convictions, that Letby is guilty. Letby’s barrister has called for the inquiry to be halted pending the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) review of her case.
Despite the findings of the expert panel, Letby’s release or even a retrial is by no means imminent, let alone guaranteed. Letby has already had two applications for leave to appeal refused. The grounds of appeal were related to what her defence argued were errors in judicial decision making during the trial, rather than the medical evidence. Nonetheless, this means that the CCRC is the only route left open to Letby to challenge her convictions.
Letby’s defence team confirmed that a preliminary application has been made to the CCRC, with a full submission to follow. The CCRC investigates potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The commission is expected to treat Letby’s case as a priority given the public interest. But it is still likely to take at least a year to review the considerable evidence before a referral back to the Court of Appeal could even be considered.
What evidence will be considered?
The CCRC aims to complete cases within 12 months of receiving the application. But the organisation has recently come under criticism over how it handled the case of Andrew Malkinson, who was wrongly jailed for 17 years for a crime he did not commit.
When the CCRC considers the full application, they have the power to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. In order to do so, the commission requires new evidence or other relevant factors which would support a fresh appeal.
The findings of the medical panel will be part of the defence submission. The CCRC will decide, with other factors, whether they constitute fresh grounds for an appeal. It is particularly compelling that the prosecution case relied on Dr Lee’s research, and yet it is in part his expertise that has become a crucial element of the defence.
To send the case back for appeal, the CCRC would also need to conclude that there was a “real possibility” of the conviction being overturned.
It is important to remember that the case against Letby included statistical and circumstantial evidence as well as medical opinion. However, what are alleged to be numerous fallacies in the statistical evidence have been highlighted. And circumstantial evidence is just that – circumstantial. Letby was convicted on the medical evidence.
Dr Shoo Lee led a panel of medical experts who say new medical evidence calls Lucy Letby’s conviction into question. Alastair Grant/Associated Press/Alamy
The evidence given as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry will be within the remit of the CCRC too. Although the inquiry has not yet formally concluded, all oral testimony has taken place. As would be expected given the inquiry’s terms of reference, much of the evidence heard has been less favourable to Letby.
The CCRC also has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to instruct its own expert witnesses and interview previous and potential new witnesses.
If the CCRC ultimately decides to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, it will be treated like any other appeal. It could result either in the conviction being quashed and Letby going free, or a retrial.
A retrial would follow if the appeal judges believed that a retrial met the criteria set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and was in the interests of justice. The likelihood of this outcome depends on the strength of the medical evidence presented to the CCRC and the Court of Appeal.
As the Thirlwall Inquiry and the CCRC application are separate processes, is it technically not essential that the inquiry concludes before the CCRC makes a decision. Closing submissions to the inquiry are scheduled for March 2025, with the report expected later in the year. This should fit within the expected timeframe of the CCRC taking at least a year to consider the application.
A further complicating factor is Lee’s assertion that the Countess of Chester hospital provided such bad care that it would have been “shut down” in his home country of Canada. This will no doubt lead to legal claims against the NHS trust, particularly if Letby is exonerated and culpability for avoidable deaths is sought elsewhere.
Some, including Lee, have gone so far as to suggest the new evidence is so compelling that Letby should be released on house arrest pending the CCRC review. This would be highly unusual, and for the time being, Letby remains imprisoned as one of the worst child serial killers in modern British history.
MI5 director general Ken McCallum delivers a speech at Counter Terrorism Operations Centre in west London, October 8, 2024
A VIOLENT machete-armed misogynist and neonazi state agent was protected by MI5, which lied to three courts on his behalf, according to a BBC report today.
The Security Service told judges that it would not confirm or deny the identity of its agents, although it admitted to a BBC reporter that the man, identified only as Agent X, was in fact working for it.
MI5 has now been forced to apologise to the three courts that heard cases relating to X’s treatment of his then partner.
Spy chiefs also lied at a court hearing in a bid to block reporting of Agent X’s crimes.
They said they could not confirm his status, even though a BBC reporter had a recording of a senior MI5 official claiming legal authority to tell her that X was the service’s agent.
It has now issued an “unreserved apology” to the BBC and all three courts, describing what happened as a “serious error.”
