UK to create new water regulator amid crisis at Thames Water
The Labour government, which promised major reforms for the debt-laden industry when it was elected last year, said the new system combining several different regulators in one would better protect the environment, investors and consumers.
The privatised water sector in England and Wales has sparked a public outcry by dumping record levels of sewage into rivers and lakes following years of under-investment, at the same time as paying big executive bonuses and dividends.
But the government faces a tricky task in turning round an industry where high debts have left some companies struggling for survival.
Symbolising the failure of the sector, Thames Water, the country's biggest water supplier with 16 million customers and 17 billion pounds ($23 billion) of debt, is teetering on the brink of nationalisation, and warning that it cannot pay the sewage fines it is facing.
Former Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe, who led a review of the sector published on Monday, said a new powerful regulator should replace several bodies and that a formal turnaround regime should be established to give struggling companies space to recover under "regulatory forbearance".
Environment minister Steve Reed said he had agreed to abolish financial watchdog Ofwat as part of the regulatory overhaul, with a new consultation and legislation to be proposed later this year.
But asked if Thames Water could be given breathing space on fines - a key demand of its bondholders who have proposed taking over the company in a last ditch effort to avoid nationalisation - Reed said the current legislation did not allow for that.
"We're going to publish a white paper in the autumn, which will be our response to Jon's report today, and then consult, but as things stand, Thames need to resolve the situation themselves as a stand-alone, private company."
Thames Water has warned it could collapse next year without new investment, as it faces 1.4 billion pounds in pollution fines and penalties over the next five years.
While Cunliffe's proposals are the biggest shake-up of the sector since it was privatised in 1989, critics said they did not go far enough. Environmental campaigners want more radical change, such as the whole industry nationalised.
"Abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won't stop sewage dumping or profiteering," said Giles Bristow, the CEO of campaign group Surfers Against Sewage.
Cunliffe's remit did not allow him to consider nationalising the water sector. Reed said that would cost 100 billion pounds, take money away from health and education, and lead to legal battles that would delay any improvements.
Under plans already set out by Ofwat, British water companies will get more than 100 billion pounds of investment in the next five years to respond to population growth and climate change, funded by an average 36% increase in customer bills - a huge rise that Reed told reporters was a one-off.
On Thames, Reed said the government was prepared for special administration - a form of temporary nationalisation - but that would put Thames's debt on the national balance sheet, a situation it can ill afford.
"My hope and expectation is that the creditors will come to an agreement themselves," he added.
A source close to a Thames bondholder welcomed the recognition that regulatory support was required.
($1 = 0.7460 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
Green light for thousands more e-scooters on England's streets
Tens of thousands of extra e-scooters are set to arrive on English streets after ministers gave the green light to expand city and town rental schemes. Under updated guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT), new local authorities can apply to have e-scooters run by companies such as Lime, Voi or Dott in their area. It is the first time since the pandemic that new areas have been able to apply for e-scooters. Many are expected to do so and industry figures are in discussions with at least 12 councils, including big cities such as Manchester, Brighton, Leeds and Sheffield. At present there are 18 areas across England that operate e-scooter rental schemes on a trial basis, including London, Newcastle and Birmingham, but the scheme has been frozen for new applicants until now. It has proven controversial in some areas. Critics say rental e-scooters and e-bikes litter pavements and are dangerous for users and pedestrians. In July Dame Joan Collins, the actress, said there had been an 'invasion' of e-bikes and e-scooters in London, which was destroying the capital. The rental schemes have certain universal rules, such as a cap on speeds and scooter safety standards, but it is up to individual local authorities to decide regulations on parking or specific areas where users can ride. The changes by the DfT extend the e-scooter rental trial period to at least 2028 while the government gathers evidence on how best to regulate them. Any new area applying to be part of the trial must bring in a 'new feature', such as offering helmets to users or variable speed limits. A senior boss at Voi, the UK's largest rental company, said in June that a transport 'revolution' was coming to the UK, although it may 'hurt a little'. The company aims to have a fleet of 50,000 extra e-bikes and e-scooters on the streets within five years. Christina Moe Gjerde, vice-president for northern Europe at Voi, said the extension could allow the company to double the size of its UK business. 'E-scooters have already proven to be safe, sustainable and affordable, and legislation is needed so they can be here long into the future,' she said. 'We have seen some of the highest utilised schemes in Europe in the UK but growth is falling behind what we are seeing in other markets and part of this is the regulation not allowing for schemes to further grow.' Lime hailed the extension of the e-scooter trial as 'great news'. At present only e-scooters rented through official trials are legal on UK roads but retailers have been selling private devices for years and their popularity has exploded since the pandemic. Police have been accused of largely turning a blind eye to their use. However, in recent years some police forces have stepped up efforts to tackle the problem of e-scooters being used illegally. Since the City of London launched its cycle response unit in 2023, the team have seized and destroyed almost 600 e-bikes and e-scooters, up until June. • What are the police doing about dangerous e-scooter riders? Ministers are said to be acutely aware of the need to find a permanent solution to rules around e-scooters and to bring to an end the patchwork of trials. Transport ministers would like to put forward a bill in the next King's speech to update the law to reflect new modes of transport. It could include changing the way private rental companies are regulated and also make private e-scooters legal for the first time. Under planned laws that would enable private devices to be legalised, riders could be forced to display licence plates and take out insurance. It is believed that such measures would help police clamp down on antisocial behaviour linked to the scooters. The DfT said: 'Safety is at the heart of all e-scooter trials and riding a privately owned e-scooter on public land remains illegal. We are extending trials to deepen our understanding of e-scooter safety as we move towards legislating around their use, to better crack down on nuisance and antisocial use.'
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
Trans guidance from equality watchdog may foster distrust, SNP warns
Proposed transgender guidance from Britain's equalities watchdog will foster 'distrust' and lead to 'social policing of bodies', the SNP has warned. Ministers said the draft changes to the code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), made after the Supreme Court ruling that women are defined by biological sex under equalities law, 'may lead to abuse'. In a submission to the EHRC's consultation, the Scottish government repeated its acceptance of April's Supreme Court judgment, which came after it lost a legal challenge brought by campaigners. However, it raised concerns about proposals of how it should be implemented in practice, leading For Women Scotland, the group that won the case, to accuse the devolved government of echoing messaging from 'transactivist groups it heavily funds'. The EHRC draft guidance includes a biological definition of sex and states that this should be the basis for granting access to single-sex facilities and services. In practice, this would mean trans women being barred from female-only spaces. In the submission, the Scottish government said: 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The SNP has faced criticism for its failure to implement the Supreme Court ruling, with a series of policies that allow gender self-ID still in operation throughout the public sector. These include guidelines for teachers, which state that biological boys should generally be allowed to participate in girls' sports and workplace guidance, which says trans staff should be allowed to use the toilets or changing facilities they feel most comfortable with. Ministers pledged to act once the final guidance is published, but faced claims they were attempting to delay a politically contentious issue until after next year's Holyrood elections. The submission added: 'Encouraging a situation where authority is given to question someone's biological sex and ask for proof thereof may lead to abuse if not done appropriately. 'At the same time this places an undue burden on individuals, requiring untrained staff or providers to make assumptions or judgments about whether a person appears to present as trans, which is potentially discriminatory and unfair.' The submission called for an emphasis on 'inclusion as opposed to exclusion,' noting that examples provided in the planned code update mainly 'provide guidance on where and how transgender people can be excluded from services and associations'. Trina Budge, a For Women Scotland director, said: 'This is a substandard response from the Scottish government, which fails to address the EHRC's specific questions, choosing instead to focus on areas raised by the transactivist groups it heavily funds. 'The government says it has accepted the Supreme Court's ruling and it may have done so far as keeping women's representation on public boards for biological women only, but it seems to be expecting the EHRC to tell it how to shoehorn men who say they are women into any other single-sex provision allowed under the Equality Act. 'We're not sure if the government is wilfully misunderstanding that this is not legally possible or if it intends to continue to defy the judgment of the Supreme Court. ' Tess White, the Scottish Conservative equalities spokeswoman, accused the SNP of putting 'women and girls in danger'. She said: 'The SNP aren't just failing to implement the Supreme Court's verdict, they now appear to be criticising the EHRC. 'The judgment from the UK's highest court was crystal clear, yet the nationalists are still desperately stalling for time and trying to pass the buck. This doesn't just send the wrong message, it puts women and girls in danger. 'The Sandie Peggie case shows exactly what happens when organisations pander to gender extremists instead of standing up for women's rights. 'Scots won't be fooled by the SNP's blatant attempts to run down the clock. John Swinney must act now and order all public bodies to follow the law and provide single-sex spaces.'
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
We need Mum's £300k for her care, but Santander is ignoring us
My mother is 97 and lives in a care home, so I have power of attorney to manage her finances. She has been a Santander customer for decades and has about £300,000 in a fixed-term bond. This was due to mature in May, so in April I called the bank to instruct it to send £100,000 to her nominated bank account, and move the remaining amount into a new one-year savings bond paying 4.05 per cent interest. To my surprise, Santander said it could not accept my instruction because I was not recorded as having power of attorney. Given that I registered as her attorney in 2015 and had set up this bond on her behalf last year, I said this didn't make any sense but the bank refused to speak to me about her account. I raised a complaint and expected this error to be resolved quickly. But the bank still wouldn't take my instructions when I called two weeks later. At that point I started to get concerned because we need that £100,000 to pay my mother's care home fees in August. This is very alarming indeed. In the meantime, her bond has matured and the £300,000 has automatically rolled into an account paying just 1 per cent interest. Essentially Santander ignored my instructions, leaving my mother missing out on hundreds of pounds of interest and unable to access her own cash. Santander finally admitted that it had made a mistake and promised to resolve this, but then closed my complaint without sorting anything Hampshire • Blocked drains and blood stains: our Airbnb guest cost us £15,000 Care home fees are usually eye-watering, so you were understandably anxious to get your mother's funds ready for the next payment. Given that you were moving the money around on her behalf and had a registered power of attorney, this should have been a reasonably straightforward request for Santander to complete. A lasting power of attorney is a legal document which lets you make decisions on someone else's behalf if they have lost the ability to manage their own affairs. They must have set up the power of attorney when they still had capacity and the document must have been approved by the Office of the Public Guardian. Powers of attorney must be registered with a bank before you can manage someone else's account for them. You had registered your document with Santander in 2015, so everything should have been in place for you to move your mother's money and open and close accounts for her. Although you had used your rights as her attorney when you set up the fixed-term bond in April last year, Santander explained that while it received the money, the request to register you as her attorney on that account wasn't processed properly, which it said was down to human error. Santander then closed your complaint before it had been resolved, which the bank said that a complaints handler had done by mistake — another human error, which it apologised for. You did all the right things by raising a complaint and, given that Santander had not addressed your issues, your next move could have been to escalate your complaint to the ombudsman. I was able to step in before it came to that, which spared you some added stress. The bank has now finally carried out your instructions, so that your mother has £100,000 in her account and the remaining £200,000 is tucked away in a one-year bond paying 4.05 per cent. Santander has also given her £604 in backdated interest, plus £250 compensation. Santander said: 'We are really sorry for the experience Howard received and can confirm that his access has been rectified, and the savings have been transferred according to his instructions.' You said: 'It was only once I came to you that anything constructive happened, so many thanks for your help.' In June I had a notification from my Revolut banking app asking me to authorise a payment to the food delivery company Uber Eats. As I have never used Uber Eats, I declined the transaction, which was for £20.87. A couple of minutes later I had another notification for the same transaction, and declined the payment again. But £20.87 was deducted from my account. I then checked my transactions and realised that a couple of days earlier there had been another payment to Uber Eats for £16.38. I had not authorised this payment either. I haven't lost my phone or my Revolut card, so I'm really concerned as to how this happened. I immediately contacted Revolut through the app and after some wrangling with the dreaded chatbot, was finally put through to a human who said that both transactions would be reversed. Relieved by this prompt action, I felt sure that Revolut would refund me and that would be the end of the matter. But it then claimed that I had authorised both payments on my phone. I said this wasn't correct but Revolut said there was nothing more it could do. It would seem that Revolut's banking security leaves much to be desired. While the amounts are relatively small, I am left feeling that the company won't keep my money Liverpool • 'Thieves went on a £21k shopping spree with my Revolut cash' Worryingly it sounds like someone must have used your card details for a fast-food spree. While I was pleased that Revolut had immediately cancelled your card and sent you a new one after this incident, it was unacceptable that it tried to claim that you had authorised these payments when you clearly had not. Being a victim of fraud can leave you feeling shaken up; Revolut left you feeling even more vulnerable. It sounded like there had been a misunderstanding during your conversation with Revolut because it was under the impression that you had been tricked into authorising the transactions. But that didn't explain why the transaction had gone through after you had rejected it. It might shock readers to learn that companies can proceed with a payment even if a customer has declined it, so it's possible that Uber Eats or its payment company had pushed it through. Uber Eats told me: 'Uber takes reports of fraud very seriously and our specialist teams promptly investigate any concerns, as we did in this case.' It has now reimbursed you and banned the fraudulent account. Revolut said: 'We are sorry to hear about this case, or any instance where our customers are targeted by ruthless and highly sophisticated criminals. If you notice any unrecognised activity on your account, we advise you to freeze your cards immediately.' Sadly this didn't explain how fraudsters got your card details, or restore your faith in Revolut, and so you have decided to close your account. • £1,476,988 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number
