Interim water review ‘not the finishing line' to fix failures, campaigners warn
The independent commission, headed by Sir Jon Cunliffe, said the water sector in England and Wales needs a 'fundamental reset' as it published a report on Tuesday.
The panel of experts called for a rebalancing of Ofwat's regulatory role, urged the Government to provide clearer direction, proposed greater regional decision-making around local water systems and a greater focus on long-term responsible investment and ownership in the sector.
Reacting to the report, Wildlife And Countryside Link (WCL), a coalition of 89 nature organisations, said ministers must start work now on vital reforms that will cut pollution, restore nature and reform water companies' governance.
The groups said the Government must not only follow the advice of the report but go further, highlighting that the review stops short of final recommendations.
Richard Benwell, WCL's chief executive, said: 'This interim report is a clear signpost, not a finishing line.
'The public are rightly angry about pollution and regulatory failure, and nature is in crisis.
'Politicians must stop equivocating and set clear strategic direction for environmental recovery.
'Where in the past polluters have got away with profiteering, public interest tests must be built into every layer of operations and governance with consequences for failure.'
Mark Lloyd, chief executive of The Rivers Trust, said: 'Water is fundamental for nature's recovery, for the growth of the economy, for the health and security of communities and for life itself.
'We will press the commission over the next month to shoot for the stars rather than the moon in its final report.
'We will then expect to see the Government move swiftly and boldly to realise this high level of ambition.'
Ali Morse, water policy manager at The Wildlife Trusts, said: 'The commission's interim report emerges at a time when environmental protections are under threat from proposed planning laws, and budgets for nature look set to be slashed.
'This doesn't look like the actions of a Government that is serious about restoring our chalk streams, or averting the extinction of water vole and Atlantic salmon.
'To convince us otherwise, we need to see Government responding with measures that ensure water companies prioritise the health of rivers and seas, that past harms are made good, that other sectors too play their role, and that environmental regulators are equipped and supported to do their jobs.'
Two organisations, River Action and Surfers Against Sewage, went further to say the interim review stops well short of real reform and offers few concrete solutions.
They argued that it does not match up with the Government's manifesto commitments and speaks more about attracting investors than cleaning up pollution and serving the public.
James Wallace, chief executive of River Action, said: 'This interim report signals some progress on regulation, but it reads more like a sales pitch to international investors and overpaid CEOs than the urgent restructuring of corrupted water companies.
'We ask the commission to learn from other countries how to ensure water companies are owned, financed and operated for public benefit.'
Giles Bristow, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said: 'The criminal behaviour, chronic lack of investment and woeful mismanagement which has led to sewage-filled seas is a direct result of our profit-driven system.
'This interim report begins to recognise this, but as yet does not spell out the need to end pollution for profit.
'The commission's final recommendations must reshape the water industry to put public health and the environment first.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 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
22 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.
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Birmingham busking crackdown given green light
Plans to crack down on busking and street preaching in Birmingham city centre have been given the green a bid to tackle "excessive noise levels" in some streets, a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) will be introduced by the council, with a ban on using amplification equipment and musical instruments applying on the roads covered by the order will include Victoria Square, New Street, Temple Street, Cannon Street, Needless Alley and part of Waterloo unnamed busker had told a consultation it would make Birmingham the country's "least friendly city" for street performance. The order will focus on noise associated with busking, street entertaining, street preaching and public speaking affecting people living in the area and residents trying to relax at home and landlords attempting to let properties were being impacted, the council said this year. 'Better ways' Labour councillor Nicky Brennan said for some residents who may have sensory sensitivities, noise levels that were too loud could "cause increased anxiety, stress and mental fatigue".Conservative councillor Ewan Mackey said businesses in the city centre were "equally important" as Liberal Democrat Deborah Harries said: "Does Birmingham really want to be a city culturally that is […] not really interested in doing anything to protect its musical heritage in terms of The Crown [pub] and Station Street and bans the busker?"There must be better ways than this absolute hammer to crack a nut."The council's deputy leader, Labour's Sharon Thompson, said it was not true nothing was being done with regards to the pub known as the birthplace of Black said she knew "we are doing things around Station Street".Several businesses backed the PSPO plan with some telling how city centre busking was taking a toll on workers and driving away customers.A number of buskers said compromises could be reached, with one suggesting the council adopted a model similar to that of Busk in London with respect to basic council director of regulation and enforcement Sajeela Naseer said London had a "specific piece of legislation".Cabinet members approved the declaration of the PSPO and that officers should explore the feasibility of a 'consent/permitting scheme' for city centre busking. This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations. Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
