LibDem MP Referred to Parliamentary Watchdog Over Murky Campaign to Put Thames Water into Administration

Last month, Guido revealed the eyebrow-raising campaign by LibDem MP Charlie Maynard to flush Thames Water into Special Administration – while owning on a hefty stake of over 15% in BDA Partners, an investment banking firm specialising in water sector mergers and acquisitions. Now, he’s been reported to the Standards Commissioner…

Maynard has been making waves over the case, appealing the High Court’s decision to let Thames Water take on an extra £3 billion in debt. The LibDems issued a press release on the matter – while Ed Davey even dredged it up during PMQs last week. Maynard also fished for support, issuing letters to MPs to consider the supposed benefits of forcing Thames Water into administration. The Court of Appeal is set to hear the case next week…

However, official guidance from the Standards Commissioner states MPs not attempt to use their ‘status as an MP to interfere with the process of justice or with judicial independence’. Now Tory MP Saqib Bhatti has referred Maynard to the Commissioner for Standards for what he calls a “grave and serious breach” of the House of Commons Code of Conduct. Could a legal challenge by a backbench MP lead to the Government having to spend billions bailing out our biggest water company?

Gudio asked Maynard for a comment.

UPDATE: A LibDem spokesperson said: “Charlie sought and received advice from the Commissioner for Standards before proceeding with his involvement in this case. He is pleased to have played a small part in a hugely important case which is highlighting the plight of millions of customers being let down by Thames Water.”

Read Bhatti’s full letter to the Commissioner for Standards below:

Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,

I am writing to refer you to a matter of serious concern which I believe constitutes a grave and serious breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, relating to Members of Parliament and their interactions with our judiciary.This regards the conduct of the Member for Witney, Charlie Maynard MP, in relation to his ongoing role as an intervener in the matter of Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited and the matter of the Companies Act 2006 (Claim NO: CR-2024-007540). Specifically, on 3rd February 2025, the Member for Witney confirmed his intention to intervene in the case on public interest grounds, before later appealing the court’s initial decision to approve the Company’s restructuring plan on 18th February 2025 on the same grounds.He has used this to undertake substantial political activity, which was cited in court and in the judgment as evidence of the strength of the public interest intervention and in the subsequent, and successful, attempt to appeal. It is unclear to me on what basis he was coordinating this political activity, but it seems clear he relied — at least in part — on his role as a Member of Parliament and Select Committee membership to do so.

I note, at the same time as the Member for Witney was intervening in the case, the numerous press releases from his party trumpeting his intervention as the actions of ‘Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard’, his use of headed Parliamentary stationery in the correspondence, the Houses of Parliament as a corresponding address, and his title as a Member of Parliament in his lawyers’ correspondence with the court, all of which are to my mind clearly designed to demonstrate he is acting as a Member of this House in this regard. Just this week, the Leader of his party used this issue in the Chamber to land party political points.

The Member for Witney’s actions here, I believe, are in direct breach of the Code of Conduct, specifically rule number eight, governing the use of the facilities and services provided to them by Parliament, and number eleven, regarding the duty of Members not to undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons.

They have also taken place despite the express statement in the advice note dated 24 February 2023 that any correspondence from Members of Parliament to judges should not attempt to ‘use their status as an MP to interfere with the process of justice or with judicial independence’, and prohibiting correspondence from ‘asking them [judges] to consider specified matters in relation to proceedings before them’.

Taken together, this makes it transparent that his role as an intervener in the case is not one of unadulterated public interest, but instead, a political act by an elected Member of Parliament seeking to use his platform as a Member of this House to intervene in these legal proceedings. This is being done, it appears, in an attempt to force a policy objective committed to in his party’s General Election Manifesto, namely ‘transforming water companies into public benefit companies’ by means of forcing Thames Water into insolvency, the Special Administration Regime, and, so, de facto nationalisation.

As a former Minister, I recognise the fundamental importance of the separation of powers in our democracy as a crucial check and balance on the exercise of political authority. Equally, as a Member of this House, I know well that Members have a platform to raise, voice, and push for change, but also a responsibility to use this platform properly and without seeking to disturb the wider constitutional balance of our country.While I may not agree with all colleagues on policy matters, I know fundamentally it is in Parliament that policy should be set, and laws should be made. I am gravely concerned that the Member for Witney’s actions have brought this balance into threat, and in a way that risks bringing this entire House into disrepute.Although any ultimate findings are of course a matter for the Commissioner, and any subsequent sanctions a matter for the Committee on Standards, I believe strongly that such a fundamental challenge to the structure of our political system requires a full and thorough investigation.Given these concerns, I confirm that I am writing to formally reference the Member for Witney to the Commissioner.

If you are able, please confirm receipt of this letter, and advise me as to any next steps.

Yours sincerely,

Saqib Bhatti MP