Call for British Museum to take Bayeux tapestry to ‘1066 country'
The tapestry will return to the UK for the first time in more than 900 years as part of a landmark loan agreement announced by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron.
The 70-metre embroidered cloth, which depicts the 1066 Norman invasion and Battle of Hastings, will go on display at the British Museum from September next year.
The Labour MP Helena Dollimore said it would be a 'great shame' if 1066 country – the area named after the battle – was locked out of 'this national moment'.
'Obviously, the practicalities and logistics would need to be looked at by experts, but our area is such an integral part of this tapestry that we must be included,' she said.
In a letter to the British Museum chair, George Osborne, co-signed by the TV historian Dan Snow, Dollimore urged the museum to consult with French experts and curators to explore the viability of local English Heritage plans to take the tapestry to the south coast.
She also called on the museum to ensure every local child had the opportunity to visit the exhibition by reserving free tickets and helping with the cost of transport to London; reserve at least 1,066 tickets to the exhibition for people from Hastings and the surrounding area, and support efforts to promote the region to exhibition visitors.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
'Few works of art are as central to our island's story as the Bayeux tapestry, which quite literally wove Hastings into the fabric of our national history,' the letter says.
'Although Hastings and the rest of 1066 Country has often been at the centre of historical events, it has not always felt the benefits of it. The Sutton Trust recently found that Hastings and Rye ranks among the bottom 10 areas in the country for social mobility. 63% of young people leave school without the basic qualifications in maths and English GCSE. Like many coastal communities, it has been left behind for too long.
'Why not return this iconic piece of our heritage to the very ground where it all began in 1066? Whilst we acknowledge that it is for experts to decide what is feasible, the Hastings area must play its rightful part in this national moment.'
Dollimore said there was a huge opportunity to bring tourists to the region.
'We've got Hastings Castle, We've got Battle Abbey, we've got Pevensey Castle over in Eastbourne, the 1066 walk. Other parts of the country make a big thing of their history. There's loads of signage, there's exhibitions. So there really is more we can do now that the nation's attention is going to be turned to the tapestry.'
Sarah Broadbent, the chair of the 1066 Country tourism organisation, said she was confident the loan would spark people's curiosity about the events depicted and the places where they happened.
'There are few dates as memorable, the Norman conquest was such a significant turning point in English history and we're very proud to call ourselves 1066 Country,' she said.
'We're not only rich in history but also in landscape, in heritage and in culture. We might be tucked away in the corner of the south-east but we pack a punch well above our weight in terms of the visitor experience … this is our chance to showcase everything we have to offer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Peers clash in pivotal vote on Telegraph ownership
The fate of The Telegraph is to be decided this week in a contentious House of Lords vote on foreign state shareholdings. The Government is pressing ahead on Tuesday with legislation to allow the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to retain a passive stake of up to 15pc. Easing an outright ban on foreign powers investing in newspapers is viewed as crucial to unlocking a £500m takeover of The Telegraph by RedBird Capital, an American private equity firm. A previous bid, majority-funded by the UAE, was blocked last year following a cross-party outcry over press freedom. A Lords vote on a statutory instrument that has already been approved by the House of Commons would normally be a formality. However, the Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' which could block the proposals and effectively overrule the elected chamber. Writing in The Telegraph on Monday, Lord Fox, the Lib Dem business spokesman, labelled the legislation 'nothing more than a desperate attempt to appease foreign rulers'. The UAE, a significant foreign investor in Britain, took offence at the decision to block the previous takeover bid and suspended some diplomatic ties. Lord Fox said: 'By letting the Government defy Parliament, which effectively banned foreign state shareholdings last year, there will likely be a domino effect. This could leave many of our newspapers susceptible to the advances of foreign governments. 'This issue transcends party allegiances, and if we pass the fatal motion tabled in my name we can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks.' The Conservatives are expected to support the Government. However a group of Tory rebels have signalled that they will back the fatal motion, and Lord Fox said he had drawn further support from Labour, cross-bench and non-aligned peers. Also writing in The Telegraph, Lord Black, a Conservative peer and the deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group, said of the Lib Dem motion that 'the hypocrisy is breathtaking'. The peer was a leading figure in efforts by news publishers to resist curbs on press freedom in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. He said the Lib Dems then advocated 'onerous statutory controls wholly inimical to freedom of expression'. Lord Black said: 'My colleagues in the Lords should not fall for it and understand that this is not a parliamentary game. This is deadly serious. The future of the British press hangs in the balance.' He warned that allowing passive stakes of up to 15pc for foreign state-linked investors was critical at a time of severe pressure on traditional news publishing revenues. The takeover of The Telegraph should be welcomed, given the 'watertight safeguards to protect editorial independence in place', Lord Black added. If the legislation passes, the UAE is in line to become a passive minority investor. Any suspicion of the Gulf state influencing The Telegraph could spark an official investigation and action to force it out as a shareholder. Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail owner, Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the global media investor, are also expected to take small stakes in a deal spearheaded by Gerry Cardinale, the founder of RedBird. RedBird has been preparing to formally submit the takeover for regulatory scrutiny soon, and working on growth plans. It is unclear what would happen if peers blocked the legislation, beyond further uncertainty for The Telegraph. It has been more than two years since its previous owners, the Barclay family, lost control in a dispute with their lender Lloyds Banking Group. The UAE helped the family repay their overdue debts in a misguided manoeuvre intended to secure ownership of The Telegraph. We can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks By Lord Fox A robust free press is a pillar holding up democracy. And The Telegraph has been a bastion of our 'fourth estate' since 1855. But this could all end when on Tuesday the Government seeks to overturn the will of Parliament and let investors controlled by foreign powers take stakes of up to 15pc in our press. This exercise in foreign influence on our media will start with The Telegraph, for which a bid that includes a United Arab Emirates-controlled vehicle is on the table. But it won't end there. By letting the Government defy Parliament, which effectively banned foreign state shareholdings last year, there will likely be a domino effect. This could leave many of our newspapers susceptible to the advances of foreign governments. Additional new legislation, which is also being debated, will extend their ability to buy stakes of up to 15pc to online news publications. I am sorry to say that this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to appease foreign rulers. That's why I'm calling on all my House of Lords colleagues to act. This issue transcends party allegiances, and if we pass the fatal motion tabled in my name we can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks. It is now or never. We really do stand at a Rubicon. I am deeply grateful for the support and friendship of colleagues across party lines, including Conservatives, Labour, cross-bench and non-aligned peers, on this issue. They all understand how serious it is for the Lords to take such action. But we cannot sit by and watch this happen before our eyes. So, I am sincerely hoping that the House will be full on Tuesday. Voting for a fatal motion is rare but not unknown. It should be reserved for fundamental issues like this. I will remind fellow Lords that the Government's plan deliberately subverts legislation passed only 15 months ago. I will explain that the initial instrument has already been exposed as faulty in that it allows for multiple foreign states to take stakes of 15pc each. A corrective measure will be tabled in the autumn, but the Government ploughs on regardless in the meantime. Who knows what damage will be done before that happens? Then I will explain that there is every likelihood of other UK media assets also having significant foreign state ownership. And I will take on the naive idea that these 15pc tranches of our free press will not affect the news agenda. Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, claims that it will act if these foreign states affect editorial freedom. But as the authoritative Baroness Butler-Sloss asked in Parliament last week: 'My Lords, how on earth would the Secretary of State know?' Many colleagues will on Tuesday point to other major concerns about the Telegraph bid. The list of consequences, unintended or otherwise, is long. Meanwhile, the Government is rushing this legislation, even though they know it has been badly drafted. Our country's constitutional and societal settlement is not codified, it is woven through our institutions and laws, and it sits on foundations of transparency, accountability and freedom. We won't feel the impact of this legislation the day after it passes, but its corrosive nature will eat away at those foundations. When press freedom starts to fail, it will be too late. Peers have a chance to stop this madness. If we do, it will spare The Telegraph from the first instance of foreign government ownership. If we do not it will by no means be the last. The future of press freedom is in our hands. Lord Fox of Leominster is Liberal Democrat spokesman for business, energy and industrial strategy These Lib Dem shenanigans are breathtakingly hypocritical By Lord Black If the consequences were not potentially so damaging and the constitutional implications of thwarting the will of the House of Commons not so serious, there would be something mildly amusing about the attempt by Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords to block vital investment in the UK media in the name of 'press freedom'. I've spent my entire career defending press freedom. I have often had to do that in the teeth of Lib Dem efforts to shackle the press with onerous statutory controls wholly inimical to freedom of expression, not least in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. Their motives in moving a 'fatal motion' in the Lords to block carefully calibrated proposals to allow foreign investment in the UK's media – passed with an overwhelming majority in the democratically elected House of Commons – are born not of any principle, but pure opportunism. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. My colleagues in the Lords should not fall for it and understand that this is not a parliamentary game. This is deadly serious. The future of the British press hangs in the balance. The facts are these and they are very straightforward. Two years ago, during an auction for the sale of Telegraph Media Group (of which I am deputy chairman), a bid was made for its purchase which raised matters of principle because the majority of shares would have been owned by a sovereign-controlled media company. That bid was blocked by the then-Conservative government. At the same time it recognised that the UK media desperately needed investment and that it would be wrong to rule out potential sources of funding from foreign state funds, provided it was carefully controlled and monitored. That principle was agreed by Parliament with support from every party and without even a vote. It was the right thing to do. Initially, the then-government looked at setting the threshold for such investment at 5pc. Rightly, it decided that it ought to seek views on whether that was the right level from people actually involved in the business. After full consultation the new Government listened to those views. It sensibly took account of the serious challenges facing UK media and concluded the threshold might reasonably and proportionately be set at 15pc, while limiting it by law to investments that are strictly passive in nature. Under the long-established and effective UK merger regime, this is a figure below which an investor cannot be deemed to have material influence on a business. It is also far stricter than the national security investment regime which permits shareholding in UK assets – including in nuclear power stations – up to 25pc. The Government then undertook a second consultation and published an impact assessment on the proposal. During the course of that process, my colleague Baroness Stowell with her eagle eye highlighted a lacuna in the regulations which do not currently limit investments to a single 15pc stake-holding. This loophole will be closed with further regulations which Parliament will table in the autumn. So, here we have a set of proposals which has been endlessly consulted on and scrutinised at every stage, is supported by all the stakeholders and which has had overwhelming support in Parliament. Most importantly of all, media businesses themselves say they are absolutely crucial to the future of the free press. The news media industry in the UK is facing an existential crisis. The shift to digital journalism has put enormous pressure on the revenues of all publishers. The voracious appetite of the unaccountable, unregulated platforms with seemingly unlimited resources amplifies the threat. Tragically, many titles have closed. Thousands of jobs have been lost, particularly in the local press. The future of many more titles hangs in the balance, with profound implications for democracy. Do we want British independent media to survive? If we do, we must will means as well as ends. Publishers such as The Telegraph need to raise capital to innovate and compete with the big online platforms and their unlimited resources. The likes of Facebook are not subject to onerous investment restrictions either. That calls for private equity with proven experience in, and track record of, growing media companies. With watertight safeguards to protect editorial independence in place, we should warmly welcome it and not treat it as some kind of pariah. It'll be good for growth and good for the media. I have thought long and hard about speaking out. I do so because the free press which I have spent so much of my life defending is under threat as never before, with profound implications for democracy. I do so because I believe in economic growth and the future of the creative economy. I do so because I love The Telegraph. Its fate is intimately bound up with the shenanigans in Parliament this week. That is why I will be voting to ensure these crucial regulations pass and allow vital investment in British media, carefully controlled to ensure its independence and freedom is fully protected, to flow. I very much hope my colleagues will, too.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Monday briefing: How the two-year effort to keep the Afghanistan data breach secret fell apart
Good morning. It has been described as the worst data breach in British history. A British defence official sent an email in 2022 containing the names and details of more than 18,700 people in Afghanistan who had applied for asylum under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme; but somehow, some of the information on the spreadsheet was later leaked on a Facebook group. The Afghan people named in that spreadsheet became immediate and obvious targets for reprisals by the Taliban, and so the British government scrambled to resettle 900 individuals affected, along with 3,600 family members. While the resettlement route is now closed, the government has promised to honour 600 invitations already made to any named person still in Afghanistan and their immediate family. The cost of the whole operation is expected to reach £850m. Amid the shocking details of this scandal, what is perhaps most extraordinary is that, until last week, the majority of the British public had no idea that it had happened. We were not legally allowed to know about the leak, or to know that thousands of Afghans who worked with British forces were put at risk, or to know that thousands were resettled in the UK. This continued for two years because of an unprecedented superinjunction – the longest in British history. To understand the lengths the government went to cover up the crisis and the impact this will have on public trust, I spoke to the Guardian's defence editor Dan Sabbagh That's after the headlines. Health | The NHS is facing an 'absolutely shocking' £27bn bill for maternity failings in England, after a series of hospital scandals, resulting in hundreds of babies and women dying or suffering life-altering conditions, triggered a record level of legal claims. Middle East | Pope Leo XIV has condemned the 'barbarity' of the war in Gaza and the 'indiscriminate use of force' as Gaza's health ministry said at least 85 Palestinians had been killed queueing for food. UK news | More than four decades after the violent policing at Orgreave during the miners' strike and a failed prosecution criticised as a police 'frame up', the government has established an inquiry into the scandal. Protest | Four people were arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences during a pro-Palestine protest in Liverpool city centre on Sunday afternoon, police said. Merseyside police said material in support of campaign group Palestine Action was reportedly seen in the possession of a small number of protesters. UK weather | Half a month's rainfall could hit the UK in the next 24 hours, the Met Office has said. Yellow weather warnings for rain and thunderstorms were in place in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north and south-west of England until 10pm on Sunday, with more warnings coming into force in other areas on Monday. The previous Conservative government became aware of the leak 18 months after the incident – in August 2023 – after the spreadsheet was published on Facebook. The government then took action to get the post removed, but journalists became quickly aware of the breach, prompting the government to take an extraordinary court injunction to stop the data leak going public. The judge went further, granting the government a superinjunction, a mechanism which prevents disclosure of the very existence of the injunction itself. It's worth noting why this was granted: there are real and founded fears that the Afghans on that list would face retaliation from the Taliban for working with British forces. Yet there are also significant questions to be asked about the length of the injunction, and its scale ('against the whole world'): was it about protecting vulnerable Afghans? Or was it about protecting the British government from scandal? Legal campaigners have condemned the superinjunction for using national security to provide legal cover for what they argue is a political crisis. The legal injunction came into force in September 2023, and 'the Tories let it run,' Dan Sabbagh tells me. 'The timeline shows they wanted it hushed until after the election. Mr Justice Chamberlain rules twice to maintain the injunction, then a third time says, 'no, it's too big'. That's around May 2024. The election is called around then, but the government appeals and delays it past the election.' Dan spoke of his astonishment that a leak of such a serious nature was covered up for years. 'And then on top of that, a remedial scheme was cooked up over a succession of cabinet meetings, expanding in size, costing more and more money. So a real, massive commitment was being agreed in order to conceal the fact of the error. And all this was kept secret from the press, from parliament, and ultimately the public.' The impact on Afghans There has been a great deal of scrutiny on the secrecy and the impact this will have on the public. I'll get into that with Dan later, because first I want to take the time to highlight the people in Afghanistan whose lives have been devastated by this leak. 'People have previously spoken about the western involvement in Afghanistan, the catastrophic withdrawal and the thousands of people who built their lives around the western presence who had all that taken away. But it's important to know that nowhere near enough of those people were helped. Some of them are still in hiding, some of them have been killed. There's genuine worry about their safety under the Taliban,' Dan said. One Afghan who worked as an interpreter told the Guardian 'it felt like my blood had turned to ice' when he found out his name was leaked. He hasn't been able to bring himself to tell his family of the nightmare they have been engulfed in. Other members of his family are in hiding, some have been killed. Another interpreter simply said: 'The Taliban has been actively hunting down those who worked with UK forces. I am ashamed that I put my children's lives at risk for a foreign power.' The thousands of Afghans who have not been evacuated to Britain are not expected to receive any compensation, according to a report by The Times. Dan was keen to add that Labour have since shut down the scheme that was launched to resettle applicants affected by the leak. 'They've also shut down the other two Afghan schemes. So now there's no legal route to come to the UK from Afghanistan. When Afghans do come, they generally get asylum, so we might see more of them in Calais.' Soldiers and spies named The spreadsheet had a 'key notes' column near the name of every Afghan applicant, providing extra information. This included things such as: 'worked with British military,' 'was Afghan special forces,' 'case expedited,' or even 'secretary of state says no', Dan told me. Sometimes, entries named specific UK figures vouching for people. That's how the names of more than 100 officials and soldiers, as well as a handful of MI6 officers, also got out. 'We couldn't report that until [Thursday] due to residual restrictions. There was another hearing in front of Mr Justice Chamberlain who said, 'I'm now going to hear all this in public.' But the Ministry of Defence immediately wanted an hour in closed session to talk about national security,' Dan said. How useful is this information about British forces and intelligence for Britain's enemies? 'The British state really doesn't like the names of secret service or informants coming out,' he said. The scale of the secrecy While leaks and data breaches are not uncommon, this scandal that followed is unparalleled in its scope. 'The unprecedented bit is the secrecy. The superinjunction to cover up what was initially just a mistake, though potentially dangerous, yes. But then, the extraordinary secrecy, the massive policy response that was also secret, which was kept from parliament, the press and public. It's absolutely unprecedented,' Dan said. Dan told me that much of the decision to keep this a secret was taken by the Conservatives. Ben Wallace was defence secretary until the end of August 2023, and his only role was to seek the injunction. Grant Shapps was in that role through the period of the cover-up and in charge when the superinjunction was being fought, then expanded. Other ministers, such as deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden and armed forces minister James Heappey, also knew, Dan said. The only Labour figures who knew before the election were then shadow defence secretary John Healey and speaker of the House of Commons Lindsay Hoyle, both subject to the superinjunction. Due to the severity of the legal threat, Healey did not tell his party leader Keir Starmer about it. When Labour won the election, they rolled the scheme and injunction for six months, then commissioned a review in January 2025. So what's happened since? Former Tory government ministers, such as Grant Shapps, have since defended the use of the superinjunction, while Keir Starmer said former Conservative ministers have 'serious questions to answer' over the breach. It's hard to properly digest the impact this could have on public trust, Dan added. 'If you believe there's a deep state out there working against the public's interest, this is your proof. And it touches on migration, which is the most politically toxic issue of the moment.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Rowena Mason and Ben Quinn have a cracking report on Reform's 'scattergun campaign' to turn a Tory big beast or two to the cause. Speaking to insiders, they hear how the party has designs on nabbing a Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman … or even a Liz Truss. Charlie Lindlar, acting deputy editor, newsletters The power over the planet is wielded by a small number of autocratic states, writes the Guardian's environment editor Fiona Harvey, and their actions, or lack thereof, could determine whether the world succeeds in limiting catastrophic climate change. Aamna Superfoods instinctively feel like one of those things you have to a special shop for. But not so, says Rachel Dixon, in this much-needed piece digging into 17 'overlooked' superfoods, including, apparently, tomatoes? Charlie Can a relationship survive if one partner suddenly goes 'woo-woo'; think, tarot cards, astrology. Well, yes, writes Emma Beddington, but only up to a point. Something my husband can attest to. Aamna Back on the food and drink theme, Elle Hunt went in search of this year's 'drink of the summer' and thinks she's found it. It's not a spicy paloma, nor this godless thing called a BuzzBall, but, she reckons, a Finnish gin concoction. Charlie Golf | Scottie Scheffler had all the time in the world to celebrate his latest major title. Sunday's British Open was never in doubt as golf's number 1 player delivered another dominant performance to win his second major this year and grab the third leg of the career grand slam. Football | England have condemned the 'online poison' of racist abuse directed at the defender Jess Carter during the European Championship in Switzerland and said they will stop taking a knee before matches because 'football needs to find another way to tackle racism'. Football | West Ham have completed the signing of the free agent Kyle Walker‑Peters, whose Southampton contract expired this summer. The former Tottenham full-back joins Graham Potter to continue the Hammers' summer business, which has been slow going so far. The Guardian has 'Revealed: £27bn bill for failings in England's mother and baby care'. The Financial Times leads with 'Downing Street faces forced retreat in Apple encryption battle with US'. The Telegraph says 'Farage: I'll build more jails to clean up streets'. The Times reports 'Reeves set to defy left over call for wealth tax'. The Mail has 'BMA's war chest to fund doctors' strikes'. The Sun leads with 'Fears over Gazza dash to A&E'. Finally, the Mirror reports on racist abuse suffered by England Lioness Jess Carter with 'We stand with Jess'. Has Elon Musk built a Nazi chatbot? Is the extreme output of X's AI chatbot Grok shifting the political dial? Chris Stokel-Walker reports. Sign up for Inside Saturday to see more of Edith Pritchett's cartoons, the best Saturday magazine content and an exclusive look behind the scenes A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad Rachel Reeves is the first female chancellor of the exchequer, but she is far from alone. As the Guardian's economics editor Heather Stewart notes, the commanding heights of economic policymaking in the UK are becoming much less male. The Institute for Government's director is Hannah White, its chief economist, Gemma Tetlow, and the new director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies is Helen Miller. The Resolution Foundation is now run by Ruth Curtice, a former Treasury economist. Rain Newton-Smith, another economist, has the task of repairing the CBI's scandal-rocked reputation as its director general. Two of the four deputy governors of the Bank of England are women, too – as are the leaders of a string of powerful trades unions. 'This female takeover has been a quiet and matter-of-fact one,' Stewart writes, 'but it marks a significant change, very noticeable upon returning to covering the field, after a few years away.' Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply
Sky News
31 minutes ago
- Sky News
'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report
The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body, a major review of the sector has advised. It has recommended abolishing regulator Ofwat as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which ensures that public water supplies are safe. The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers. The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested. The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain's banking system in the wake of the financial crash. He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission. • Single integrated water regulators - a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England • Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales • Greater consumer protection - this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints • Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters • Tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including new powers for the regulator to block changes in water company ownership • Public health reforms - this aims to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities • Fundamental reset of economic regulation - including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets • Clear strategic direction - a new long-term National Water Strategy should be published by both the UK and Welsh governments with a "minimum horizon of 25 years" • Infrastructure and asset health reforms - including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets and new resilience standards 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". Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence. Major other suggested steps for the government include greater consumer protection by upgrading the Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman with advocacy duties being transferred to Citizens Advice. Stronger and updated regulations have been proposed by Sir Jon, including compulsory water metering, changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A social tariff is also recommended. Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses and the addition of "public benefit" clauses in water company licences. To boost company financial resilience, as the UK's biggest provider Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. It's hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors. The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics. A "supervisory" approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event. A long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years. Companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
