
Water regulation should be overhauled, 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 team was tasked 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.
Water minister Emma Hardy told broadcasters on Monday that the system is 'broken', but did not commit to how many of the 88 suggestions would be accepted by Whitehall.
The report, published on Monday morning, recommended far-reaching changes to the way the water system is regulated as it called the current landscape 'fragmented and overlapping'.
For England, proposals include abolishing Ofwat, which oversees how much water companies in England and Wales can charge for services, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which ensures that public water supplies are safe.
The report also advises 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, a 'joined-up' and 'powerful' single integrated water regulator should be established, according to the recommendations.
In Wales, Ofwat's economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales, the review said.
Ms Hardy told BBC Breakfast that ministers would be taking 'a proper look' at the paper 'all the way through the summer'.
Asked if all the recommendations would be made law, she told the programme: 'What we'll do is we'll have a proper look at it all the way through the summer and the intention is that we're going to introduce a White Paper to spell out exactly what we're going to do on water reform.'
Ms Hardy said that the Government would 'introduce a water Bill next year, which will change the law', but added: 'Exactly how many out of the 88 we're going to do or not going to do, then we'll work that out in the next few months.'
The current system 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.
Author Sir Jon said the review has 'tried to attack the problem from all sides' but warned that bills are going to rise by 30% over the next five years.
'There are some inescapable facts here,' he said.
'The cost of producing water and dealing with our wastewater is going up.'
Sir Jon later told Times Radio that regulators have failed to work together to make the sector deliver and blamed the Government for not giving clear direction.
'It's the failure of Government to balance out all the different pressures on water,' he said, adding that firms 'need to perform better' and 'be funded to invest'.
The Government backed the commission's findings, with Ms Hardy saying consumers have been 'failed time and time again'.
Speaking on Times Radio, she said 'root-and-branch reform' is needed to fix the crisis and told listeners the Government is considering a piece of primary legislation to deliver many of the proposed changes.
Ms Hardy also described trust in the water industry as at 'the lowest ever level' and criticised executives for handing out pay rises and bonuses.
'Everyone knows the system is broken,' she said.
'And they give themselves huge pay rises.'
However, the minister also ruled out supporting Government intervention to cap pay in the private sector.
Ms Hardy said: 'I don't think as Government we should say what private companies should pay.
'But I will say – read the room. Look how angry and furious people are.'
Other key recommendations in the review include:
– Expanding the role of the voluntary Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints.
– Significant improvements to environmental regulation, including the process where companies collect and analyse wastewater discharges they make into waterways, by introducing more digitalisation, automation, third-party assurance and inspections.
– Tightening oversight of water company ownership and governance through measures such as new regulatory powers to block changes to water company ownership and 'minimum capital' requirements so that companies are less reliant on debt.
– Introducing legislative reforms to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities.
– Fundamentally resetting economic regulation, including a new 'supervisory' approach that supports tailored decisions and earlier interventions in water company oversight.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
39 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.


North Wales Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Inquiry into Afghan data leak to be conducted by Parliament's security watchdog
Lord Beamish, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), said the cross-party group would launch a probe after considering defence assessment documents related to the case. The peer has previously voiced concern over 'serious constitutional issues' raised by the handling of the breach that saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022. The leak prompted an unprecedented superinjunction amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals, meaning the ISC, which routinely reviews sensitive material, was not briefed. It also saw the establishment of a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK at a projected final cost of about £850 million. In a statement on Monday, Lord Beamish said the committee 'has agreed that, once it has considered the requested material, it will conduct an inquiry into the intelligence community's role and activity in connection with the loss of data relating to Arap applicants in February 2022'. The ISC, which is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords, had asked for the release of defence assessments that formed the basis of the superinjunction, as well as other material relating to the Arap scheme. It hard argued that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification of material is not grounds on which information can be withheld from the committee, given its purpose is to scrutinise the work of the UK intelligence community. Thousands of Afghans included on the list of people trying to flee the Taliban are unlikely to receive compensation after their details were accidentally leaked. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the Government would 'robustly defend' any legal action or bid for compensation, adding these were 'hypothetical claims'. It has also been reported that the MoD will not proactively offer compensation to those affected. In total, the Government expects 6,900 people to be brought to the UK under the ARR scheme, which was introduced under the previous Tory administration after a defence official leaked the data 'in error' in February 2022. Along with the Afghan nationals, the breach saw details of more than 100 British officials compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel. The Government has been contacted for comment.


North Wales Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.