In a stunning display of complacency or worse—a reckless disregard for propriety—the Labour Party government, under Chancellor Rachel Reeves, has appointed Jenny Scott, a founding partner of Apella Advisors, as a part-time adviser to the Treasury board, while she continues full-time in a firm representing Thames Water, currently teetering on the brink of a taxpayer-funded intervention.

This is not just poor optics—it’s a glaring conflict of interest that demands swift correction.

Jenny Scott sums up Thames Water drowning in scandal

Thames Water is not a benign corporate entity.

It’s drowning in scandal: facing £122.7 million in fines for sewage spills, shareholder misdeeds, and regulatory breaches, while burdened with £16.8 billion in debt. The government is already weighing a special administration regime that would effectively nationalise the firm, wiping out much of that debt—and potentially benefiting from insider influence.

Yet here is Jenny Scott, with deep links through her firm to the embattled utility, stepping into a role that touches on how the Treasury communicates and justifies its economic decisions. The sheer audacity of this move is stunning. The Treasury’s defences—that proper hiring procedures were followed and that the board holds no sway over policy—are as thin as they are implausible.

Prominent voices are rightly raising alarms. Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron has called for her removal, warning the appointment “presents a clear conflict of interest” and utterly undermines any semblance of public confidence.

Meanwhile, the UK Anti‑Corruption Coalition has underscored that such a brazen confluence of lobbyist influence and government oversight “underscores the need for serious reforms” in how Westminster handles ethical boundaries.

Systemic

The appointment of Jenny Scott isn’t an isolated lapse. It follows reports that Reeves personally accepted £27,000 in donations in 2024 from a lobbying firm with links to potential buyers of Thames Water—cementing the narrative that influence can be freely traded in the corridors of power.

To compound matters, it’s deeply troubling that in the very arena where transparency and trust are paramount—government oversight of crumbling infrastructure—the decision-makers themselves seem intimately entwined with the profiteering interests they ought to regulate.

What message does this send? That ethics are negotiable. That expertise trumpets can come with dark strings attached. That Labour’s much-vaunted commitment to integrity and clean governance may be negotiable when money—or influence—is at play.

If the government is to salvage any credibility, it must act—urgently.

Britain cannot afford to let desperation to stabilise a failing water giant override the imperative of good governance. Every public decision must be beyond reproach. As things stand, this one is not—even close.

Featured image via the Canary