Independent water commission chair denies probe into reforms is ‘tinkering'
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
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK to set out water reforms as Thames Water faces crisis
LONDON, July 18 (Reuters) - Britain is expected to set out measures to fix its broken water sector on Monday as Thames Water teeters on the brink of failure, saying it needs a "reset" of regulation to have any chance of avoiding nationalisation. The country's biggest water company has been fighting for its survival for the last 18 months. If it fails the government would have to step in, adding billions of pounds to already stretched public finances. Britain commissioned a review last year into the privatised water industry in England and Wales, which needs huge investments to fix aging infrastructure and stem sewage spills into rivers and lakes that have angered the public. Former Bank of England deputy governor Jon Cunliffe, who is leading the review, has recommended overhauling regulation to lower investment risk, merging regulators to give companies clearer direction and new rules on river bathing standards. "Water companies must be made more attractive to stable, long-term investors," he said in his interim report in June. "To attract such long-term investors, willing to make the substantial future investment we need, risks also need to be lower than they are presently. In large part, this means restoring confidence in the stability and predictability of the regulatory system." Thames Water's creditors have offered it a rescue deal worth about 5 billion pounds ($6.7 billion), and they, along with the beleaguered company, are in talks with Ofwat, the water industry's financial regulator. But in return they want a regulatory reset, which could mean flexibility on pollution targets, clemency on penalties and more time to deliver improvements. Thames Water Chief Executive Chris Weston told lawmakers on Tuesday that the company was "extremely stressed and operating in very difficult circumstances" after it reported a 1.65 billion pound annual loss. Thames Water suffered a major setback in June when U.S. private equity firm KKR (KKR.N), opens new tab - its preferred bidder - pulled out of an earlier rescue plan. KKR told lawmakers in a letter published on Tuesday that regulatory risk played a part in its decision, and it would not have been "able to manage and meet the understandable expectations on the timing of improvements, risking falling short in the eyes of the public and stakeholders". Thames Water, which has 16 million customers in southern England, forecasts it will face 1.4 billion pounds in pollution fines and penalties over the next five years. While the government wants to cut water pollution, it can ill afford a Thames Water bankruptcy that would add the company's 17 billion pound debt onto government books, at a time when the finance minister Rachel Reeves is already close to breaking her fiscal rules. The government has repeatedly said it is keeping a close eye on Thames Water. Environment minister Steve Reed said in June that his department had "stepped up" preparations for its special administration regime, a form of temporary nationalisation. ($1 = 0.7466 pounds)
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Family firms power my multimillion-pound Isa. Here are seven of the best to buy today
Looking back over my 65-year investment life, it is fascinating to see the sectoral changes which have taken place. In those early days, there seemed to be many more companies to choose from – often family-controlled. Most have long since gone, many absorbed in some form by larger entities: any number of small brewers such as Chesters, Higsons, Threlfall; textile firms such as Ashton Brothers and Co, Calico Printers' Association, Listers; family shippers such as Lyle and Ropner; and a host of small property operators. There were also regional TV companies such as Granada and Border, many aerospace and motor businesses, plus a large list of rubber and tea plantations. Also mail order companies such as Empire, Grattan and GUS, long before online shopping was ever thought of. Then in the 1980s came the Conservative government's privatisation programme – British Aerospace, British Telecom, British Gas, electricity and water stocks, plus smaller issues such as Cable & Wireless. A question I ask in quizzes is which of all privatisation stocks was the most profitable for investors? The answer is Associated British Ports by a mile, ultimately taken over by the Macquarie Group – no one has ever got it right! More recently, new sectors have opened up: the giant US tech stocks of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft etc., and mobile telephony, biotechnology, businesses in betting, gyms, self-storage, software and sports goods. Plus, of course, chips via Nvidia and the world of AI. No doubt in the future, space and the oceans will be areas of focus, while pharmaceuticals and defence will always be with us. The saying 'clogs to clogs in three generations' reflects the historical demise of so many family firms, but many that have survived have proved very rewarding holdings. Family or 'proprietorial' companies, as I often refer to them, usually possess the characteristics I look for when investing – consistently profitable and dividend-paying, cash-rich or little debt, in niche sectors, with an emphasis on stewarding the business and taking it forward. They avoid excessive risk, conscious of the achievements of earlier generations, and family shareholders are reliant on dividends to maintain their lifestyle. Performances have, of course, varied. Years ago, I remember advocating investments in the three North West P's – Pifco, Pochins and PZ Cussons. Electrical manufacturer/distributor Pifco was very profitable, being the first holding in my Pep (the precursor of Isas) in 1987, ultimately taken over by Salton of the US. On the other hand, construction firm and property developer Pochins grew steadily but sadly collapsed following large, speculative, unsuccessful development acquisitions in Liverpool. Paterson Zochonis, subsequently PZ Cussons, became one of Manchester's most admired businesses but, sadly in recent years, management failures – plus frequent devaluations of the Nigeria naira – have taken their toll, with capitalisation falling from a £1.8bn peak to just more than £300m today. My frequently expressed view is that once a planned exit from Nigeria is completed, PZ Cussons will be viewed in a much more favourable light. They have already exited from their palm oil joint venture with Wilmar, resulting in a useful debt reduction. There are also ongoing negotiations over their joint venture with the Chinese in white goods and, of course, their main Nigerian trading business. Quite sensibly they have not disposed of tanning brand San Tropez, as poor trading levels would not deliver an attractive sale. However, there are seven proprietorial companies I would draw attention to, all of which I owned either beneficially or non-beneficially. Four have very similar characteristics of long-term growth in profits and dividends, with substantial liquidity. Classic family businesses are James Halstead in floor coverings, James Latham in timber products, Nichols in soft drinks and FW Thorpe in lighting products. There are three others I currently hold: engineering firm Goodwin, an outstanding business with a diverse range of products, not least as a critical supplier to our own and America's submarine building programme. They are a large holding of mine that I confidently expect to deliver significant profits growth. MS International, formerly Mining Supplies, also has a major defence division that marks it as a global leader in small-calibre naval weapons for our own, the German and US navies, with valuable anti-drone technology. Finally, Town Centre Securities, the Ziff family-controlled property PLC with extensive holdings in central Leeds and the Piccadilly basin of Manchester – very undervalued at only half asset value. I like buying £1 notes for 50p! Turning now to recent news on my own activities, the highlight has unquestionably been the tie-up between my largest holding M&G and major Japanese insurer Dai-ichi. The latter intends to build up a 15pc holding in M&G and provide significant business opportunities for it. An excellent move by M&G, which has propelled their shares upwards, yet they still yield an attractive 8pc. I reduced my holding in shipping services Braemar as, while still cheap, I was not pleased with their decision to halve the dividend in order to buy back their own shares. On the other hand, I have bought into the aforementioned floor coverings James Halstead on a very solid 5.5pc yield – they should benefit from increased capital spend on hospitals, prisons, schools and so on. I also switched from Supermarket Income Reit into London office space provider Workspace Group, bagging a tidy profit on the former. While both have comparable dividend yields of more than 7pc, Workspace stands, rather like Town Centre, at a very steep discount to net asset value, which inevitably will be narrowed at some stage. Finally, I was particularly pleased to read that business-broker Christie & Co, a major holding, had acted in the sale of the very large 300-bedroom Marriott hotel in Vienna. This represents a real feather in Christie's cap – a great boost for their European reputation, plus I am sure, a significant well-deserved commission.
ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Plymouth votes against directly elected mayor model in historic referendum
Plymouth has voted against moving to a directly elected mayor model following an historic referendum. The city will continue to be run by a council leader and cabinet, after narrowly voting to maintain the status quo. Turnout in the referendum was 19.1 per cent. A total of 19,840 people voted in favour of the 'leader' model; 18,044 opted for the mayor choice. Charlotte Holloway, who led the 'Plymouth Knows Better' campaign, said: 'This was a rejection of the failed city mayor model. Today Plymothians have shown that it won't work here. 'This was always a pointless referendum, it cost £410,000, that's money we all want to see spent on children in care, on filling our potholes. 'Plymouth is a marginal city. I don't see this as a movement or a momentum or a swelling of discontent. I would describe this more as a murmur. 'We've got to look forward, we're a city on the up, the hard work continues.' 'Democracy has been trampled on' The Government plans to introduce legislation which would stop the creation of new city mayors, while accepting the continuation of 13 existing mayors. Angus Forbes, who led the pro-mayor campaign, said: 'We accept the result, we trust the process. But democracy has been trampled on over the past few months. 'We came up against the full might of the Labour party, local MPs and Westminster. Our team worked extremely hard. There is a desire for change and change is coming. This is the first step. 'Janners are great people, they are resilient people and they want change.' 'Dead end' Luke Pollard, Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, said: 'This referendum was always a dead end, and I'm pleased Plymouth has rejected this costly, failed experiment. It was clear from the start that it would never lead to a city mayor for Plymouth. 'I told Mr Forbes last year that this model was being scrapped, and yet he pushed ahead regardless. 'At a time when our city needs every penny focused on frontline services - on social care, helping kids in care, and filling our potholes - £410,000 has been wasted on a vote that changes nothing.' Fred Thomas, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, said: 'I am really pleased that the people of Plymouth have voted to reject this model that has been tried, tested and failed across the country. We now need to move on and put the division behind us. 'This referendum was a waste of time, money, and energy. The government has already made clear that no new city mayors will be created – the referendum was pointless. 'I know that people want to see change in Plymouth and that is why they may have voted for a Mayor, I want to see change too. But this referendum was never going to deliver it – so let's move on and work together to make our city an even better place to live.'
