Water industry faces ‘root and branch reform' after landmark review
The commitment will follow the publication of the final report of the Independent Water Commission led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe.
In a speech responding to Sir Jon's report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as 'broken' and welcome the commission's recommendations to ensure 'the failures of the past can never happen again'.
He is also widely reported to be preparing to abolish the industry's beleaguered regulator Ofwat, which has faced criticism for overseeing a sharp rise in sewage pollution while failing to crack down on executive pay and large dividends at debt-ridden water companies.
In his interim report, Sir Jon criticised the way the sector was regulated, with duties split between Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
On Sunday, Mr Reed would not confirm that Ofwat was in line to be scrapped, but declined to express confidence in the regulator either, saying it was 'clearly failing'.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have agreed that water regulation needs to change.
Urging the Government to be 'transparent' about what would replace Ofwat and how it would work, Tory shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said: 'No one disputes that the water sector is under pressure, and we all want to see meaningful improvements.
'Reforming regulation must be focused on improving performance and guaranteeing water security.'
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey has called for the creation of a Clean Water Authority that could 'hold these water companies to account' and 'fine them when they fail'.
While Mr Reed has pledged to avoid the need for 'huge shock hikes' in water bills, such as the 26% increase seen this year, reform is unlikely to lead to a fall in costs for consumers.
The Government hopes that investment in long-neglected infrastructure will make large bill increases unnecessary, but Mr Reed acknowledged on Sunday that there needed to be 'appropriate bill rises' to secure 'appropriate levels of investment'.
He is also unlikely to commit to expanding social tariffs that could help households struggling with bills at the cost of higher charges for wealthier families, saying he was yet to be convinced that this was needed.
Prior to Monday's announcement, Mr Reed had already committed to halving sewage pollution in England's rivers by 2030 thanks to a £104 billion investment from the sector in upgrading infrastructure.
He has also announced the creation of a new, legally binding water ombudsman, expanding the role of the voluntary Consumer Council for Water and bringing the sector into line with other utilities.
But the Conservatives have accused Labour of copying the policies of the previous government.
Ms Atkins said: 'Labour have already wasted a year since the general election as they came into office with no plans for water, instead claiming that the work we started in office is their own.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel
When David Lammy stood at the dispatch box to deliver a statement condemning Israel's killing of starving civilians in Gaza on Monday, he was met with anger from MPs. 'We want action, and this is not action,' thundered one Labour MP. 'Is this it?' another questioned. 'At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us think the red line was passed a long time ago,' a third said. The fury across the Commons was evident. 'Are words enough?' asked one veteran Tory. A second accused Lammy of 'complicity by inaction' and warned it could land him at The Hague. A Lib Dem highlighted that repeated UK expressions of regret had not prevented further carnage. A clearly despairing Lammy attempted to reassure the politicians the government was playing its part. 'Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.' But as international condemnation of Israel over the horrors it is inflicting on starving Palestinian civilians grows, Keir Starmer's government is struggling to convince the British public that it is doing enough. The outrage in the Commons is reflected across the country more widely, with the public increasingly regarding Israel's response since the October 7 attacks as disproportionate, as the atrocities continued. The government have been on the defensive, pointing out that it has restored funding to the UN agency UNWRA, provided millions in humanitarian assistance, sanctioned far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, and broken off trade negotiations with Israel. But it has struggled to explain its export licensing regime. Ministers insist they have stopped the sale of arms, despite there still being more than 300 licences in operation. These include, they say, body armour sent to protect NGO workers, chemicals for Israeli universities and components for goods which are then transported to Nato allies. In particular, there is anger at the UK decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, which ministers argue is unavoidable because they are part of a global programme over which the UK does not have unilateral control. It exposes serious weaknesses in the regime and some believe the government should go further – with a fuller export embargo and an end to all military co-operation with Israel. Lammy has only recently sought to explain that RAF flights that overfly Gaza do not share information to help Israel conduct the war. 'We are not doing that. I would never do that,' he said this week. Starmer is also under pressure to immediately recognise a Palestinian state, both from his own back benches, within his cabinet and from the wider diplomatic community. Ministers say the UK will 'play its part' in working towards formal recognition, with a UN conference led by the French and Saudis later this month a key moment. Privately, they warn the move would only be symbolic unless there is a ceasefire first. But for many, who think the UK should be matching France's more hardline stance, that is not a good enough reason not to. 'If not now, then when?' one cabinet minister said. The government has stated it could issue more sanctions – with calls to do so against senior Israeli military officers, government ministers and even Benjamin Netanyahu himself. But that has not happened yet. Nor have suggestions it might expel the Israeli ambassador been heeded. 'That's unserious,' said one insider. The UK has also backed away from declaring that Israel has broken international law, insisting that while the government believes it is 'at risk' of doing so, it is up to the international courts to reach that judgment. Aides cite the same reason for avoiding the term 'genocide' to describe the horrors unfolding in Gaza. Back in the Commons on Monday, the criticism kept coming. 'The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why are you not hearing that?' a Labour MP asked. 'How could I not?' the foreign secretary responded. But while Lammy may have got the message, he appears to remain restricted by both the caution of the UK prime minister, and the realpolitik that there is only one foreign power that could single-handedly force an end to the conflict: the US. 'I wish we could, but the truth is … we are unable to do that just as the United Kingdom,' he told MPs. 'We have to work in partnership with our allies.' But for many, that will not be enough.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Shock as CBS Mornings anchor INSULTS Stephen Colbert live on-air and suggests axing of his talk show is no big loss
Steven Colbert has been insulted live on-air by one of his CBS stablemates who implied the axing of the liberal star's talk show is no great loss. Tony Dokoupil branded Colbert and his stablemates 'one sided' on CBS Mornings Wednesday while he and his colleagues discussed Jon Stewart 's defense of The Late Show, which will disappear from screens in May 2026. Stewart claimed on his show Tuesday that a large part of CBS' parent company Paramount's $8 billion valuation was due to Colbert, despite The Late Show losing $40 million a year. Paramount plans to merge with media company Skydance in the coming months if it can gain approval from President Trump's Federal Communications Commission. Stewart and others have suggested anti-MAGA Colbert had been axed to grease the wheels of that deal. But Dokoupil was clearly unimpressed by that theory and even gave an exasperated sounding sigh live on air after the clip of Stewart was played. 'I understand the emotional views,' he said. 'I don't have an MBA but he's not right that the merger, the $8 billion, is based on reruns of a comedy show, no. 'People are buying the movies and the sitcoms and the sports. They're not based on reruns of us (CBS Mornings) either, so I think it's wrong.' Dokoupil then attacked Colbert himself, saying his show and its competitors 'got way way more one-sided than anything Johnny Carson was ever doing'. He was referring to talk show icon Carson, whose late night program paved the way for the likes of Colbert and who never shared his political views during his 30 years on air. He added: '[Stewart] acknowledged that these late-night shows are what he called like a Blockbuster kiosk inside a Tower Record – so the business is broken.' Co-host Gayle King ignored Dokoupil while adding that she felt sorry for Colbert, describing it as 'very difficult'. Dokoupil agreed, adding that he felt 'for the whole staff of both those shows, and whatever comes next for everybody'. Dokoupil is no stranger to going against the grain, and last year found himself hauled before CBS' in-house DEI team after clashing with author Ta-Nehisi Coates over his anti-Israel views. Stewart's spiel came during a reflective segment on The Daily Show, which originally aired alongside Colbert's since-cancelled 'Colbert Report' in the 2000s. He said Colbert went on to 'exceed all expectations' upon leaving Comedy Central for late-night, before acknowledging the fading format as a whole. 'Now, I acknowledge, losing money, late-night TV is a struggling financial model,' he said. 'We are all basically operating a Blockbuster kiosk inside of a Tower Records.' 'But when your industry is faced with changes, you don't just call it a day,' joking. 'When CDs stopped selling, they didn't just go, "Oh, well, music, it's been a good run!".' He addressed executives at Paramount - CBS's parent company - directly, accusing them of capitulating to Trump to secure the sale. He said: 'I believe CBS lost the benefit of the doubt two weeks prior, when they sold out their flagship news program to pay an extortion fee to said president.' 'At that time, poor Andy Rooney must have been rolling over in his bed,' he joked of the late legendary news writer. 'That's right. He is alive. Andy Rooney is alive.' 'I understand the corporate fear. I understand the fear that you and your advertisers have with $8 billion at stake. But understand this,' Stewart added. 'Truly, the shows that you now seek to cancel, censor, and control? A not-insignificant portion of that $8 billion value came from those f**king shows,' he added. Last Thursday, CBS announced that the comedian's decade-long run as the host of CBS' late night flagship will end next May. Colbert was paid between $15 million and $20 million a year for his failing show. 'Insiders' immediately maintained to publications like Puck and Variety the top-rated show was canceled due to being a money pit what was losing $40million a year. The sudden move s parked immediate backlash from left-wing celebrities and politicians, who claim the decision was strictly politically-motivated. The cancellation was revealed two days after Colbert used the term 'big fat bribe' to describe Paramount's $16million settlement with President Trump. Paramount, which owns CBS, decided to settle on the suit over deceptive editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.
The National
37 minutes ago
- The National
Steve Reed's water claims that of an incompetent charlatan
IN an article for The National, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Energy angrily responded to false statements made earlier this week by UK Environment minister Steve Reed. He attempted to defend his own Labour party's betrayal of its pre-election promise to nationalise England's failing, privately-owned water companies by claiming that nationalisation was not the solution to England's dirty and expensive water, stating that Scottish Water is publicly owned, yet "[water] pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England". This is categorically untrue. Either Reed knew it was untrue and said it anyway, knowing he'd be unlikely to be challenged – in which case he's a charlatan and a liar –, or he didn't know it was untrue – in which case he's an incompetent charlatan, who uncritically leaps on false statements to get himself out of politically tricky situations. Reed also warned that nationalisation would cost £100bn and would slow down efforts to cut pollution. This claim has also been disputed. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar urged to break silence on Labour's 'nuclear tax' for Scots Estimates of the cost of renationalising the water industry in England range from £14.7bn, a figure estimated by the public services international research unit (PSIRU) at the University of Greenwich, to £99bn if company debts are included, a figure estimated by a thinktank commissioned by the water companies themselves. By citing the figure of £100 billion, it's clear that Reed and the Labour Government are siding with the profiteers of the English private water companies. This figure is based on a calculation of the maximum dividends, which starts from the purchase cost of the companies in 1990 when they were privatised, adding capital investment per year and inflation, but it takes no account of the actual market value of the companies. Crucially, these figures are predicated on the assumption that directors and shareholders who have extracted vast profits from the water companies over the years while piling debts on the companies should be financially compensated for nationalisation and not be left liable for the debt. Some claim that the cost of nationalisation could be close to zero. Thames Water is currently in debt to the tune of some £20 billion – even though its directors and shareholders have continued to profit, so it could be argued that the true value of the company is next to nothing. Thames Water is not alone. England's water companies are bust. They would not be financially viable if they had to meet the required standards without taking on huge amounts of debt. According to the latest independent water commission report, Scotland has a far higher percentage of its waterways in 'good' ecological condition than England and Wales. The Independent Water Commission found that 66% of Scotland's water bodies were of good ecological status, compared with 16.1% in England and 29.9% in Wales. READ MORE: Labour panned for foreign aid cuts as women and children to be hit hardest It is also worth noting that Scotland has some 32% of the UK land mass, is the part of the UK with the highest annual rainfall and has many more water bodies than England and Wales. Loch Ness alone is popularly claimed to contain more fresh water than the combined total of the rivers and lakes of England and Wales, holding 7.4 cubic km of clean Scottish water. Yet Loch Ness is neither Scotland's largest loch by surface area (that's Loch Lomond), nor is it the deepest – that's Loch Morar, whose maximum depth is 310m (1017 ft). Scotland contains truly vast amounts of water, most of which is in good condition. 87% of Scotland's entire water environment is assessed by SEPA as having a high or good classification for water quality, up from 82% in 2014. The claim about Loch Ness (below) containing more fresh water than all of England's lakes and rivers may just be a popular myth. It's not easy to find reliable statistics on the amount of water in all of England's rivers and lakes, but since the English water companies abstract 4.6 cubic km of water annually and don't extract every last drop of water – otherwise there would be no lakes or rivers left in England – the popular boast about Loch Ness seems unlikely to be true. However, what is unquestionably true, is that Scottish Water must manage much more water than all the water companies of England combined. It does so successfully, without siphoning off large amounts of cash for directors and shareholders and invests back into Scotland's water infrastructure. Steve Reed and this Labour government are terrified of nationalisation, so Reed would rather lie about Scottish Water. For him, that serves two purposes: allowing him to stick the boot into the Scottish Government, while defending the interests of the profiteers of England's private water companies. He does know knowing that he's not going to be challenged by a London centric media, which is all too happy to propagate the Anglo-British nationalist myth that 'parochial' wee Scotland could not possibly make a better fist of things than the all-mighty Westminster. Westminster goes into summer recess this week, and just prior to MPs going off for the summer, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband sneaked in an announcement that the energy bills of everyone in the UK, Scotland included, will increase by around £1 per month in order to cover the estimated £38 billion cost of the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk. The SNP's Westminster energy spokesman, Graham Leadbitter, said nuclear power was 'extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities'. He added: "To make matters worse, Scots will be left to foot the bill with a levy on energy bills – you simply couldn't make it up, yet Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour back this extortionate and wasteful plan that energy-rich Scotland will pay for through the nose. 'Meanwhile, Grangemouth has been shut down and Westminster's fiscal regime has ruined Scottish energy jobs – Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it's barely a thought at all.'
