Overhaul water regulators into one single body, landmark review recommends
The much-anticipated final report from the Independent Water Commission, led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, outlined 88 recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments to turn around the ailing industry.
The government-commissioned review was tasked by the UK and Welsh governments to carry out the largest review of the sector since privatisation in the face of widespread public anger over pollution, bills and bosses' bonuses although ministers ruled out nationalising water companies.
The report, published on Monday morning, recommended abolishing Ofwat, which oversees how much water companies in England and Wales can charge for services, as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which ensures that public water supplies are safe.
It also advised removing the regulatory roles of the Environment Agency and Natural England, which monitor the sector's impact on nature, such as companies illegally dumping sewage into waterways.
Instead, the review said a single integrated water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales should be established.
The current system of regulation has faced intense criticism for overseeing water companies during the years they paid out shareholders and accrued large debts while ageing infrastructure crumbled and sewage spills skyrocketed.
Other recommendations from the commission include stronger consumer advocacy, nine new regional water authorities to deliver on local priorities, significant improvements to environmental regulation and tighter oversight of company ownership and government.
It comes after nearly nine months of the commission analysing, researching and engaging with more than 50,000 responses to its call for evidence.
In the review, it has covered how the system is regulated, how to manage the competing demands on water, how water companies are governed and how critical water infrastructure is kept resilient into the future.
Sir Jon said: 'Restoring trust has been central to our work. Trust that bills are fair, that regulation is effective, that water companies will act in the public interest and that investors can get a fair return.
'Our recommendations to achieve this are significant. They include the management of the whole water system, regulation of the water industry, the governance and financial resilience of water companies and a stronger voice for local communities and water customers.
'In this report I have considered what is best for the long-term future of water.
'This is a complex sector with a highly integrated system, responsible for the second-largest infrastructure programme in the UK.
'Resetting this sector and restoring pride in the future of our waterways matters to us all.
'In countless conversations in the last nine months I have been struck by the urgent need and passion for change.
'Doing this will require hard work, strong leadership and sustained commitment. But it can and must be done.'
The report also shares recommendations on implementation, including which reforms can be delivered in the short-term and which require new primary legislation.
In a speech responding to Sir Jon's report later on Monday, Environment Secretary Steve Reed is set to welcome the commission's recommendations to ensure 'the failures of the past can never happen again'.
He is also widely reported to be preparing to abolish Ofwat but is unlikely to commit to expanding social tariffs that could help households struggling with bills at the cost of higher charges for wealthier families.
The Environment Secretary will also pledge to setting up the creation of a new, legally binding water ombudsman, expanding the role of the voluntary Consumer Council for Water and bringing the sector into line with other utilities.
And prior to Monday's announcement, Mr Reed committed to halving sewage pollution in England's rivers by 2030 thanks to a £104 billion investment from the sector in upgrading infrastructure.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have agreed that water regulation needs to change.
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey called for the creation of a Clean Water Authority that could 'hold these water companies to account' and 'fine them when they fail'.
Tory shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins urged the Government to be 'transparent' about what would replace Ofwat but also accused Labour of copying the policies of the previous government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Slough buses get £900k to improve services
More than £900,000 has been approved by a council to improve a town's bus is part of a £2.2m investment in Slough where the borough council was previously awarded £1.3m by the Department for Transport (DfT).The authority said the full investment would fund better access to the town centre and a bus interchange service to Wexham Park Hospital and Heathrow Airport.A report to the council's cabinet recommended councillors approve the capital spending, saying it would lead to "a borough for children and young people to thrive" and "a town where residents can live happier, safer and more independent lives". The funding would also be used to upgrade traffic signals, improve services at two bus stops where bus arrivals are poor and shorten journey times, the council - which investing a further £63,000 in the scheme - said. There would also be reduced ticket prices for passengers who take multiple bus services for their journey, with more evening and Sunday services Paul Kelly, cabinet member for highways and transport, told Monday's meeting: "These combined measures represent a forward-thinking and exciting programme of investment and public transport in Slough."Working with our colleagues as well as our vital key stakeholders such as Heathrow Airport, Great Western Railway (GWR) and neighbouring local authorities we hope to make a significant improvement for those who need sustainable transport in our borough."Zero-emission buses might be purchased using the capital funding, as set out in the report, but the council has not yet committed to the plans. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock
The wheels of British justice are appallingly slow. Back in 2016, I wrote that the conviction of Tom Hayes, the bank trader jailed for conspiring to manipulate the Libor interest rate, was unsafe. Today, finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to quash his conviction. The case of Carlo Palombo, the other trader who had his conviction quashed today, was not linked to Hayes. Palombo received four years in 2019. When ex-Citi and UBS banker Hayes was found guilty in 2015, he was sentenced to 14 years, an astonishing long term for a white-collar criminal in this country. That was reduced to 11 years on appeal, but as I remarked at the time, you get less for killing someone. There is no doubt he was being made an example of. There was considerable public anger at the way bankers had walked scot-free from the financial crisis – still is – and Hayes was seen as discouraging others. He was portrayed as being at the centre of a web, setting the benchmark rate used for millions of personal loans; he was therefore the worst of the worst, an arch-villain who profited from ordinary folks; he, everyone seemed to agree, deserved every moment spent inside. But in his case, there literally were no others. A year later, in a blow to the Serious Fraud Office, which brought the prosecutions, six brokers were acquitted of conspiring with him to fix the interbank rate. On their acquittals, in his cell at HMP Lowdham Grange, Hayes could be forgiven for raging against the iniquity of a system that saw his life ruined. Particularly, as in the professional hierarchy, Hayes was a junior. We were supposed to believe that others never condoned what he did. It simply never rang true that he was able to act without anyone above him at the bank knowing and agreeing. That unease only increased with details emerging about his personality. He was a bit of a geek, as many are in his area of work. He learned by heart the Highway Code from cover to cover when he was learning to drive. It was one of the traits that earned him his nicknames of 'Rain Man' and 'Kid Asperger's'. But, as he explained, it also meant he was ideally suited to futures trading. 'The success of getting it right, the success of finding market inefficiencies, the success of identifying opportunities and then when you get it right, it's like solving that equation,' Hayes said in court. 'It's make money, lose money, and it's just so pure.' Symptomatic of an underlying condition, he was also open and personable, not sophisticated at keeping something secret. Indeed, that was his defence, that what he did was common; he was encouraged to do what he did and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly. It would have been more reassuring if his bank bosses had joined him in the dock. But they never did. Nevertheless, the promise of the subsequent trial of his alleged co-conspirators did provide some comfort. Then they were acquitted. Hayes said he was delighted with the outcome. He was 'thrilled that the brokers can return to their families and their lives' but was 'bewildered' that he was left 'in a situation where he [was] convicted of conspiring with nobody'. Originally, there were 22 names on the draft indictment, including the six found innocent. At Hayes' trial, most of the evidence presented against him was in relation to those six – hence the Serious Fraud Office's decision to pursue only them. Most of the other names were thought to be peripheral. Hayes said he had never met or even spoken to them; there were some he'd been in touch with via email or other messaging, but just a few times. Ahead of Hayes' trial, the judge, Mr Justice Cooke, decided to separate his hearing from that of the brokers and his alleged co-conspirators. Their statements were not allowed to be submitted in Hayes' trial. Presumably, if they had been, given the jury's conclusion in their trial, this may have assisted his defence. Critically, his jury was unaware of evidence relating to whether or not an agreement between the co-defendants was ever reached. After their acquittals, David Green, then head of the SFO, said: 'The key issue in this trial was whether these defendants were party to a dishonest agreement with Tom Hayes. By their verdicts, the jury have said that they could not be sure that this was the case.' It was an odd use of words from Green. He was trying to justify the prosecution by saying that in the end, the jury could not be certain, so therefore they acquitted. Where, though, does the jury say that? Equally, the jury could surely have been certain there was no agreement – Green simply did not know. In Hayes' earlier trial, however, without the evidence from his alleged co-conspirators, the jury was certain there was a conspiracy. Later, with those not guilty verdicts, that did not seem right or fair. During his closing speech to the jury at Hayes' trial, Mukul Chawla QC for the prosecution was keen to point out that Hayes was the first but would not be the last. Again this was a reference to the six. But look what happened. In light of their acquittals and the non-submission of their statements in his trial, Hayes deserved a fair hearing. Shamefully, it took nine further years for that day to arrive.
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's golfing weekend in Scotland is an even bigger headache than his state visit
Donald Trump's golfing trip to Scotland this weekend has started to look like a few days of welcome relief for the US president. From Downing Street's perspective, however, it may all look a bit different. At home, Trump is embroiled in linked controversies that seem to have come out of the blue. Having seen off most of the legal challenges to the orders he issued in his first days back in office, he now faces a quasi-rebellion from his hitherto loyal and largely unquestioning base over a case that has little obvious bearing on high politics at all. These die-hard Trumpists were disappointed by official findings that the accused child-trafficker and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, did indeed die by suicide in prison and that there is, and was, no secret client list. They had shared a conspiracy theory that Epstein was part of a shadowy elite, that he had been killed to keep him quiet, and that after Trump came to power, the truth would emerge. Now, Trump is himself being accused of an establishment cover-up, and is confronting a social media storm that even this master of the medium is struggling to control. Trump has also launched lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, and two journalists, denying a report of links between Trump and Epstein, including a bawdy birthday greeting allegedly sent by Trump. The prospect of a court confrontation between the two titans is tantalising. Trump has also ordered files relating to the Epstein case to be published, and both his attorney general and Congress want to question Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with the case so far. It may be surmised that they hope to tempt Maxwell with a reduction in her 20-year sentence and persuade her to offer some 'helpful' evidence. With only a year until the start of the midterm congressional election campaign, Trump needs to keep his base intact. No wonder four days in the wilds of Scotland – the homeland of his late mother and two Trump-owned golf courses, including a new resort on the Menie Estate, outside Aberdeen – might look like a welcome distraction. His foes on this side of the Atlantic are already tuning up – wags have put up a spoof sign at his golf course near Aberdeen that says 'twinned with Epstein Island' – and elaborate police and security operations are in train. When Trump last visited his Scottish businesses two years ago, he was not president. Now, even on a private visit, he requires presidential-level security, at least some of which must be supplied and paid for by the host country. The timing of this trip, less than one month before Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK, adds risk. Any infelicities, real or perceived, on either side now are in danger of negatively colouring the later visit, the invitation for which was conveyed by Keir Starmer during his trip to the White House soon after Trump's inauguration. Since then, content, timing and tone have all been in contention. The recent state visit by France's President Macron, with its especially high pageantry, address to parliament, and prominent deployment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, seemed top-of-the-line. Like the Macrons, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle, but this occasion has been timed to exclude the possibility of a parliamentary address and the visit to Balmoral that Trump angled for. Nor, the Palace has made clear, will the King be meeting Trump during his golfing weekend. The private and state visits are wisely being kept distinct. At government level, in contrast, a different choice has been made. The prime minister is expected to hold talks with Trump, potentially on every current issue, from trade tariffs to Ukraine, in or near Aberdeen, and possibly at Trump's golf course. There will also be a meeting with Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, who has decided that it is his duty 'to engage, to protect and to promote the interests of the people of Scotland', despite vocal opposition from other groups. Now, it could be said that Starmer, in particular, was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Given that the decision has been taken, however, the aim must be to limit any damage. Anything that smacks of paying tribute must be avoided, and that includes meeting Trump at his golf course and any announcement about awarding the 2028 British Open to the now Trump-owned Turnberry, as the president would reportedly like. By meeting Trump in Scotland, Starmer risks not only becoming the focus of protests himself but also party to the negative blowback from British public opinion. As much can go wrong as go right. The prime minister should have followed the Palace and left all official encounters for the main event, where the protocol is clear and risks of all kinds are minimised. After all, there are fewer than four weeks to wait.
