Independent water commission chair denies probe into reforms is ‘tinkering'
Sir Jon Cunliffe addressed recent criticism that he has been 'tinkering' with the industry's deep-rooted issues as he was quizzed by MPs on Tuesday.
The Independent Water Commission 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 final report is expected in mid-July but earlier this month, the commission published an interim report which said the industry needs a 'fundamental reset'.
But this initial paper was criticised for not going far enough to deliver recommendations that would engender a complete industry overhaul.
The Government outlined the scope of the probe to focus on what changes could be made within the current privatised regulated ownership model rather than considering a wholesale shift to other models such as not-for-profit or nationalisation.
Giles Bristow, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said the interim report was tinkering around the edges and he called for the commission's final recommendations to 'end pollution for profit' as well as 'reshape the water industry to put public health and environment first'.
Asked by MPs if the review is 'tinkering' given the broken culture found across the sector, Sir Jon said: 'No I don't accept it at all. I just don't, I'm sorry.
'First of all, you wouldn't expect me to think, to accept, that this was a report that was tinkering.
'But just moving past that… I do not think the problems you see in the culture of the water companies that you've identified, and the problems we've seen in performance, are the inevitable consequence of the ownership model that we have.'
Sir Jon continued to say the commission will look at other ownership models, such as not-for-profit, and make recommendations where companies are feasibly able to make a transition without public spending.
Challenged on how he can assure MPs he will look at other models of ownership given the current failures, he said the commission could do so only in certain circumstances.
'But what we won't do is say: 'We need to move the whole sector to a different model' for two reasons,' he said.
We've published our report on priorities for the water sector, calling on Sir Jon Cunliffe and the Water Commission not to shy away from 'root and branch' reforms.
Read the report: https://t.co/lRGm5xLdC4 pic.twitter.com/UbofNjl1Gj
— EFRA Committee (@CommonsEFRA) June 16, 2025
Sir Jon outlined that he is not sure how the sector can do this without large public spending to buy the assets but also that he has not found a 'strong correlation' between models and outcomes.
'It's not tinkering, it's trying to be evidence-based,' he said.
His comments come after the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee released its own report into the sector on Tuesday morning, which concluded the industry is 'failing' while water firms are 'deaf to the crisis' it is facing.
The MPs also argued the Government 'should feel able to use its temporary nationalisation powers' when needed.
Sir Jon was also questioned about criticism that the review is not truly independent from the Government due to Environment Department staff helping to carry out the work.
In response, he said: 'I'd like to put this on the record, if I can chair.
'I've been given a secretariat of high-quality Defra officials.
'I have not felt in any way that I am being channelled down any particular route outside of my terms of reference and I'd also say that they are incredibly hard-working, and they are in seeker after truth mode.'
He added that while the commission has had to draw on some departmental expertise, the recommendations 'will be my own'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump ‘considering' taking away US citizenship from comedian Rosie O'Donnell
President Donald Trump says he is considering 'taking away' the US citizenship of a long-time rival: the actress and comedian, Rosie O'Donnell. The move comes despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,' Mr Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday. He added that Ms O'Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland 'if they want her'. The two have criticised each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Mr Trump's involvement in politics. In recent days, O'Donnell on social media denounced Mr Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive tax breaks and spending cuts plan. It is just the latest threat by Mr Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk. But Ms O'Donnell's situation is notably different from Mr Musk, who was born in South Africa. Ms O'Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to US citizenship. The US State Department notes on its website that US citizens by birth or naturalisation may relinquish US nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the 14th Amendment of the constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship. 'The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born US citizen,' Ms Frost said in an email on Saturday. 'In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.' Ms O'Donnell moved to Ireland after Mr Trump defeated vice president Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she is in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage. Responding to Mr Trump on Saturday, Ms 'Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and 'add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn'.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
S. Korean PM Welcomes Medical Students' Decision to End Boycott
South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok welcomed the decision by medical students to return to school, bringing an end to a 17-month boycott of classes in protest against the previous administration's medical reform plans. An association of medical students on Saturday announced its decision to resume studies, signaling a resolution to the prolonged standoff between the medical community and the government that had disrupted patient care.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
South Korea cut a deal with Trump. It didn't matter.
In 2018, South Korea handed President Donald Trump the first trade victory of his administration. Under the agreement, new South Korean steel export restrictions were put in place and more U.S. automakers could export their cars to South Korea. The president hailed it as "a historic milestone," a "great deal for American and Korean workers" and a "fair and reciprocal" deal. That was probably overselling what amounted to a modest rewrite of a pre-existing trade agreement, but South Korea was happy to play along if it meant buying peace and quiet. When Trump took office in January, South Korea seemed well-positioned to weather the looming tariffs the president was eager to implement. But it was not to be. Earlier this week, Trump announced he would impose a 25% tariff on South Korean exports starting Aug. 1, unless its government agreed to even more concessions. The new threat sent a message that resonated far beyond Seoul: Trump can't be trusted. Foreign leaders have already noticed that nobody is safe from the mercurial temperament of the U.S. president and his endless appetite for tariffs and and a light-switch approach to flipping them on and off. So far in his second term, Trump has broken more trade deals than forged new ones, and the goalposts are constantly moving. The president inked a sweeping deal with Canada and Mexico in his first term, then turned around and launched another trade war earlier this year. The behavior might earn the 'dealmaker-in-chief' a new nickname: the 'dealbreaker-in-chief.' On Monday, Trump blasted out letters to over a dozen trade partners threatening to reimpose tariffs on Aug. 1 if they didn't cut new trade agreements. South Korea was among the countries put on notice for a 25% tariff, and more are being posted on social media through the week. 'We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World, by far,' Trump said in the letter addressed to South Korean President Lee Jae-myung. Notably, the president left wiggle room to adjust the tariffs up or down based on his feelings about the outcome of the negotiations. It was a far cry from the trade agreement with South Korea in 2007, the U.S.'s first bilateral trade pact with a major Asian power, negotiated over 10 months under the second Bush administration in an environment where free trade was ascendant in both parties. It went into force five years later. While Washington viewed that deal as key to its approach to the Pacific, the current fight is just one of dozens that Trump has started in recent weeks on large and small nations alike. South Korean officials are working hard to come up with an agreement that would please Trump, but progress has stalled as there's little clarity on what he even wants as the endgame. 'We are doing our best to bring about a result mutually beneficial to both sides, but we have been unable to establish what each side exactly wanted from the other side,' Lee said last week. While past presidents viewed South Korea as a valuable military ally against North Korea, an isolated totalitarian state that occasionally makes threats against the U.S., Trump sees it as a freeloader taking advantage of incompetent American leadership. In his first term he referred to the updated 2012 trade agreement with South Korea as "a horrible deal" and "a Hillary Clinton disaster" that was a "one-way street." South Korea will probably have to accept the fact that Trump's idea of a good trade deal is a one-way street in his favor. The Trump administration touted a new accord with Vietnam last week that kept a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports while clearing the way for U.S. exports to Vietnam to face no import taxes. Stephen Miran, a Trump economic adviser, praised it as an 'extremely one-sided' deal. But that doesn't mean it's a good deal for the U.S. exactly. After all, it's U.S. companies that will be forced to pay those tariffs. For smaller businesses that have long worked with Vietnamese counterparts to, say, build the furniture that they sell, the trade deal locks in higher prices for the near future and years of hassle as they try to reorient their supply chains. Trump has brought back mercantilism, the outdated economic theory that a nation's wealth and power were measured by exporting more than it imported. The U.S. and other world powers largely moved away from that model and toward more and more free trade after the Great Depression and World War II, when they realized that trade barriers hurt more than they helped. Anti-tax conservative activist Grover Norquist summed it up in a discussion of tariffs at an April event with journalist Steve Clemons. 'In trade wars, all the casualties are friendly,' he said. 'Everybody doesn't shoot across World War I trenches at other guys. They shoot down the trench at their own team.' This article was originally published on
