28 Aug 2025
Dear Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves MP,
Open letter: tell Jenny Scott to step down from the Treasury Board
In the 2024 Labour Manifesto, this government promised to ensure ‘the highest standards of integrity and honesty’. You committed to ‘restoring trust between the public and politics’.
By appointing Jenny Scott to the Treasury’s board of directors, you have broken that trust.
Jenny Scott is the co-founder of Apella Advisors, where she continues to work full-time, alongside her part-time treasury role. Apella Advisors are lobbyists for Thames Water, and have held meetings with the Treasury on Thames’ behalf.
Thames Water is in a state of crisis. Customers are paying more and more for burst pipes, water outages and road closures. Last year, Thames’ record of serious pollution incidents more than doubled from the year before. This destruction has gone unchecked. Thames has already managed to lobby its way out paying its fines on time, by negotiating a deal with Ofwat which extends the deadline to 2030.
Thames Water is over £22 billion in debt and teeters on the brink of special administration. It is crucial that the future of this vital resource is decided transparently and democratically, with the interests of households and the environment placed front and centre.
Appointing a lobbyist who is directly linked to Thames Water flagrantly disregards the democratic process.
The Treasury’s defence - that the Board has no influence over government policy - is untenable. In your government’s own words, the Board’s purpose is to ‘advise and support the department’s ministers’.
Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron has called for Jenny Scott’s removal, highlighting the glaring conflict of interest.
We Own It is adding its voice to the call for Scott’s removal. She must step down with immediate effect.
You are presented with a clear choice. Either keep Jenny Scott in position, and send a clear signal to the public that the interests of corporations and lobbyists come first. Or, you can honour your commitment to honesty and integrity, and tell Jenny Scott to step down.
I sincerely hope you make the right choice.
Signed,
We Own It
Comments
Crazy Cluer 4 months ago
Why would it by better for taxpayers to see utilities brought back into public ownership?
Bringing utilities like water, electricity, or gas back into public ownership would benefit taxpayers in several ways.
1. Cost Savings for Consumers: Publicly owned utilities prioritise affordability over profit. Private companies typically aim for high returns, which inflate prices. Public ownership could redirect profits back into infrastructure and lower bills, reducing the financial burden on taxpayers. For example, UK studies showed water bills rose significantly after privatisation in 1989 due to private firms’ profit motives.
2. Long-Term Investment: Private utilities have underinvested in infrastructure to cut costs, leading to inefficiencies and outages (e.g., UK water companies criticised for sewage leaks). Public ownership would prioritize long-term upgrades, reducing future taxpayer-funded bailouts or repairs.
3. Accountability: Public utilities answer to governments or local authorities, which are accountable to taxpayers. Private firms prioritise shareholders, often neglecting service quality. Public ownership would align utilities with public interest, like ensuring equitable access.
4. Economic Stability: Utilities are essential services. Public ownership would prevent price volatility from market speculation or corporate mismanagement, protecting taxpayers from sudden cost spikes.
Counterpoints: Public ownership isn’t flawless. Mismanagement or bureaucratic inefficiencies could lead to waste, potentially increasing taxes to cover losses. Private competition can sometimes drive innovation, which public entities might lack. Also, the cost of nationalising utilities could be high, impacting taxpayers upfront.
The case depends on execution—effective public management and clear priorities are key. Data from places like Germany, where some cities re-nationalised utilities, shows mixed results: lower prices in some cases but challenges with funding and efficiency in others.
Reply