
Water regulation should be overhauled, review recommends
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.
Sir Jon Cunliffe is a former Bank of England deputy governor (Anna Gordon/PA)
'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

South Wales Argus
22 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Environment Secretary urged to apologise for ‘misleading' Scottish water claims
Mr Reed came under fire after claiming that under publicly-owned Scottish Water 'pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England'. The UK Government minister made the remarks to Channel 4 News as he dismissed calls for water services south of the border to be nationalised. Scottish Climate Action and Energy Secretary Gillian Martin has written to Mr Reed, urging him to apologise (Andrew Milligan/PA) Gillian Martin, the Scottish Government Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, said she was 'extremely disappointed' that Mr Reed had made the 'inaccurate and misleading comments regarding performance in Scotland' as he sought to 'dismiss out of hand the value of public ownership of a key asset like water'. She wrote to Mr Reed noting that Monday's report from the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, had found 66% of Scotland's water bodies to be of good ecological status, compared with 16.1% in England and 29.9% in Wales. And while she accepted the figures for the different countries were 'not calculated on the same basis', Ms Martin stated: 'It is clear that Scotland has a higher performance.' She insisted that 'much of the improvement' seen in water in Scotland was 'due to significant investment in the water industry to reduce pollution', which she said was driven by both Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa). My letter to UK Gov Minister Steve Reed asking him to retract his false statements about the condition of water in Scotland. IWC was able to report we're in a much better position than rUk with 87% 'high' or 'good' status. Public ownership works. — Gillian Martin (@GillianMSP) July 22, 2025 Ms Martin told the UK Environment Secretary: 'Your comments sought also to undermine the idea of public ownership in the minds of voters, yet this is clearly what the people of Scotland continue to want. 'Indeed, it is the very fact of that public ownership and control which has allowed us to keep water bills lower for people, compared to what people with privatised water supplies in England have to pay.' Noting that Sepa had found 87% of the Scottish water environment to be of 'high' of 'good' quality – up from 82% in 2014 – she insisted this was 'in part, due to water being a publicly-owned asset, allowing for investment without shareholder returns or the pressure to make profits'. The Scottish Government minister went on to tell Mr Reed: 'I am therefore asking that you acknowledge that your comments were inaccurate, that you apologise publicly for making them, and seek to correct them.' Sir Jon's review of water services south of the border did not explore renationalising water companies – with the Government at Westminster opposed to this despite demands from campaigners for a return to public ownership in England. Mr Reed however warned that nationalisation would cost £100 billion and would slow down efforts to cut pollution. The UK Government has been contacted for comment.

Leader Live
22 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Bank of England chief says ‘not sensible' to tear up ring-fencing rules
Andrew Bailey also stressed that the UK cannot 'compromise' on financial stability amid the Treasury's plans to rip up red tape across the sector. Ring-fencing was brought in after the 2008 financial crisis and requires banks to separate their retail services from their investment banking activities. It aimed to protect UK consumers from the effects of any shocks felt by other parts of a bank and in the global financial markets. But Government plans to reforms the rules, unveiled last week, are intended to make Britain more competitive globally and give banks more flexibility. Mr Bailey told MPs on the Treasury Committee: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. 'It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households. 'I'm sure there are things that can be improved and we will work constructively to get through that process.' He added: 'I think it has established itself as part of the system and to me it would not be sensible to take it away at this point.' The ring-fencing shake-up formed part of Rachel Reeves's 'Leeds reforms' – a package of measures which she said are set to be the biggest changes to financial services for more than a decade. Ms Reeves said regulation 'still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses' in many areas, and urged regulators to avoid 'excessive caution'. Asked if he agreed with those comments, Bank of England chief Mr Bailey said: 'It's not a term I'd use.' 'I think there are areas that we clearly should look at it… we've announced a whole range of things we're doing, and that's a good thing,' he told the committee. 'But we can't compromise on basic financial stability and that would be my overall message.' However, Mr Bailey added that, post-Brexit, the UK is in a better position to reshape the financial rule book to suit the sector, rather than relying on EU rules.

Leader Live
22 minutes ago
- Leader Live
No plans for England tourism tax, No 10 insists, after claims Rayner backed one
The Deputy Prime Minister has been pushing for councils to be allowed to introduce a tax on tourism in their areas as part of the Government's devolution agenda, according to several media reports. Rachel Reeves, however, is said to have blocked the move for fear it would reduce revenues for businesses struggling with higher national insurance contributions and a rise in the minimum wage already brought in by the Government. The Prime Minister's official spokesman would not be drawn into saying whether there were plans for such a tax. 'We have previously said there's no plans to introduce a tourism tax in England,' the spokesman said. He added: 'Places can already choose to introduce a levy on overnight stays through working with their local tourism sector, using the accommodation Business Improvement District model. 'Tourism obviously plays an important role in the UK's economy. Inbound tourism is the UK's third largest service export. 'The UK is the seventh most-visited country in the world, and we're committed to continuing to support the sector.' Pressed again whether a tourism tax had been shelved after an intervention from the Treasury, the spokesman said: 'Well, there's no plans to introduce it.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier sidestepped a question about Ms Rayner's call for a tourist tax. Asked for her response, Ms Reeves said she had made decisions on tax in last year's 'once-in-a-generation budget' which was intended to 'fix the mess' left by the Conservatives. She added: 'We'll have another budget later this year, and I'll be setting out our tax policy there.' A similar levy already exists in Scotland, and the Welsh Government is also in the process of introducing a tourism tax. Tourists staying in countries across Europe are required to pay local taxes aimed at offsetting the impact of large numbers of visitors.