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 Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jeremy Corbyn more popular among younger voters than Keir Starmer, new poll shows
Jeremy Corbyn is far more popular among young voters than Sir Keir Starmer, new polling has indicated, suggesting that Labour's decision to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds could backfire. While both leaders remain deeply unpopular among the public, there is a surge in support for Sir Keir 's predecessor among those aged 18-24, a new poll has shown. The survey comes just days after Mr Corbyn launched his own political party alongside former left-wing Labour MP Zarah Sultana. While Sir Keir's approval ratings are poor across all age groups, new polling conducted by YouGov on the day Mr Corbyn announced his new party showed that the left-wing politician has a rating of plus 18 among 18-24 year-olds. By contrast, Sir Keir has an approval rating of minus 30 among the same group. But among voters overall, the two leaders have a near identical approval rating, with Sir Keir on minus 40 and Mr Corbyn on minus 39. Earlier this month, the government announced it will give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, expanding the electorate by 1.6m people at the next election. While there have been accusations from the right that the move was an attempt to shore up its own support, the YouGov polling for The Times suggests the move could serve to split the electorate even further if the results are reflected among 16 and 17 year olds. It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. Sir Keir's support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to new polling. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term. That includes one in three voters, who believe it is more so. Seeking to capitalise on the discontent with the Labour government, Mr Corbyn promised a 'new kind of political party' when he launched the as yet unnamed project with Ms Sultana on Thursday, claiming that more than 200,000 people have signed up. But dismissing the movement, technology secretary Peter Kyle said that the Islington North MP 'doesn't think about governing, he thinks about posturing'. Asked about the move, Mr Kyle reflected on what he called the 'chaos and instability' of Mr Corbyn's leadership. Speaking on Times Radio, Mr Kyle said: 'He's not a serious politician. He doesn't think about governing, he thinks about posturing. And we see that writ large at the moment, because all the posturing, of course, just puts him at odds with his own supporters, which is why you've got George Galloway saying he won't join it.' When Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana announced their new party, a Labour source said: "The electorate has twice given its verdict on a Jeremy Corbyn led party." The polling, conducted by YouGov for The Times, spoke to 2,013 adults between July 24 and 25.
Daily Mirror
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
KEVIN MAGUIRE: 'Keir Starmer must do one thing to make Donald Trump bromance worthwhile'
The Mirror's Kevin Maguire is urging PM Keir Starmer to persuade Donald Trump to 'turn the screw on Benjamin Netanyahu' ahead of their meeting in Scotland today The US both arms and sustains Israel, so if Keir Starmer's bromance with Donald Trump is to be worthwhile, then the PM must persuade him to turn the screw on Benjamin Netanyahu. Britain itself cannot end the horrific starvation and daily slaughter of Gazans, despite MPs on the left as well as the right over-estimating the global clout of a country that is, in fact, a middling power. Starmer got and gets much wrong on this war, from initially refusing to condemn the unlawful blockade of water, power and humanitarian aid to continuing arms sales to Israel. And despite pressure from deputy PM Angela Rayner and much of the Cabinet, he has refused to recognise a Palestinian state. Yet Starmer did end some military supplies, sanctioned the vilest two extremists in Netanyahu's government and resisted Tory calls to oppose international war crimes arrest warrants, including one on PM 'Bibi' Netanyahu. Starmer's growing revulsion over the killings of Palestinians is genuine. But cajoling Trump during his Scottish golf trip to put the squeeze on Netanyahu would be a prize worth securing. He could persuade Trump to help transform an Israeli 'tactical pause' in parts of Gaza into the end of the 22-month war against Hamas, and a cessation of bombing that is most likely to free Israeli hostages. Starmer is able to point to a trade deal lessening the impact of the US President's hostile tariffs as a benefit of sucking up to him. Increased UK military spending is a downside and, oh, how Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky must wish Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were in the White House instead. Urging Trump to lean on Netanyahu wouldn't be easy and a US President who fancied an ethnically cleansed 'Trump Gaza' – two million Palestinians driven from their homes – may retain his own grotesque plans. But for Britain and the PM this is about being on the side of humanity, and that means ending the hunger, ending the killings. Immediately. Next election 'lottery' Having six significant national parties, and seven in Wales and Scotland, is going to turn the next general election into a total lottery. And magic grandpa Jeremy Corbyn's new party threatening to do to Labour what Reform UK did to the Conservatives at the last. Splitting the left-wing vote, as Reform did on the right, could hand victory to Nigel Farage just as Keir Starmer was gifted the keys to No 10 on a historically low 34% share of the vote. Labour, Greens, Lib Dems, Tories, Reform and Corbyn's vehicle, provisionally trading as 'Your Party', fighting it out with Plaid Cymru and the SNP thrown into the mix north and west of the border will test the credibility like never before of a two-party electoral system. Starmer needs to start worrying about his left flank instead of suspending MPs for caring about the disabled and environment. Corbyn is unlikely ever to be Prime Minister but win, say, 5% of Labour's 34% and he would blow up British politics. Revenge would be booting Starmer out of Downing Street and possibly putting Farage in. British politics has never been so volatile. Or unpredictable.
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
Kemi has fallen into the Islamophobia trap
Kemi Badenoch this weekend waded into the Islamophobia debate. In a public letter to Keir Starmer she urged the government to suspend the operations of its working group looking for a semi-official definition of Islamophobia. Unfortunately she then rather spoilt the effect by suggesting that the group needed to be supplemented by representatives of grooming gang victims, counter-terror experts and free speech activists. You can see why she did this. Nevertheless it could prove a bad miscalculation, and a missed opportunity to land a serious blow on Keir Starmer. The government is certainly vulnerable here. Its working group is pretty clearly a put-up job: ostensibly independent, it is expected to reach a predetermined conclusion which can then be rubber-stamped by ministers and ceremonially wheeled out to show how much it cares about Muslim voters. The appointment of super-wet ex-Tory Attorney-General Dominic Grieve as chair fools no one: Grieve himself wrote the foreword to the 2018 report from the APPG on British Muslims which first drew up the definition the government now wants enshrined. The whole affair is also a kick in the teeth for open government. Under its terms of reference, any advice the group provides is 'private for Ministers' and 'will not be made public.' And the members themselves are gagged for the duration: they must give 48 hours' notice to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before any public comment they plan to make on any matter within the group's remit. Even if we forget the hole-in-corner tactics of the government, the proposal itself is a terrible one. Government has no business publicly defining particular opinions with the aim of directing state censure at those who adopt or publicise them; nor is there any acceptable reason why administrators or other authorities should be allowed to treat people differently because of their expressed (and lawfully held) political or religious views. In addition, despite the inevitable protestations that any definition of Islamophobia would be non-legally-binding, there is no doubt that it would in practice leech quickly into our law, for example by being taken into account in judicial review proceedings, prosecutions for public order or online speech offences, decisions by the police whether to arrest speakers for perceived religious offence, and so on. And, quite apart from this, even if it were right to protect faith sensibilities, there is absolutely no case for selecting any one religion, such as Islam, to the exclusion of others. (And yes, I will be consistent: anti-Semitism must be treated similarly. Acceptance by official bodies, such as the College of Policing, of the IHRA-sponsored definition of anti-Semitism, or any other one, must equally go the same way.) To be fair, Kemi does express some scepticism about whether we need a definition of Islamophobia at all. But what matters is, as they say, the optics. And for the average reader and viewer these are clear. Her message clearly comes across as an acceptance of the existence of the working group and a preparedness to work with it, albeit with input from new groups like free speech activists, grooming-gang survivors, and so on. This will unfortunately not go down well. No one who thinks seriously will be attracted by the idea that we should make policy on Islamophobia by putting delegates of umpteen warring factions and interest groups onto a government committee and hoping for the best. Moreover, the call for inclusion of grooming gang survivors has all the appearance (intended or otherwise) of identitarianism, bandwagon politics and a cynical pitch for votes. But there is an even more important point. When it comes to Islamophobia, the threat to Kemi comes not from Labour but from Reform. And, like them or not, Reform has a clear view. There has never been any doubt that Nigel Farage is against the whole idea of official definitions of things like Islamophobia, and for all the right reasons: free speech, administrative overreach, and so on. This view clearly has cut through. Just over a week ago, a pollster suggested that if Labour persisted with its ham-fisted Islamophobia operation, it could hand a 100-seat majority to Reform. Voters, especially those in the non-metropolitan constituencies that Kemi desperately needs to win over, remain deeply sceptical of the Tories precisely because they see them as Starmer-lite, as part of the old system, without clearly-stated principles. If Kemi comes out as anything other than wholly opposed to the Islamophobia definition, this jaundiced view will be confirmed in spades. Unless Kemi and the Tories really want this, they need to think again, and fast.
