UK set to announce 'root and branch' reform of broken water industry
After winning power last year, the Labour government ordered an examination of the privatised water industry in England and Wales, which needs huge investments to fix aging infrastructure and stem record sewage spills into rivers and lakes that have angered the public.
Former Bank of England deputy governor Jon Cunliffe, who has led the review, is due to publish his findings on Monday. Indications are that he will suggest scrapping Ofwat, the water industry's financial regulator.
Ahead of the publication, the government said it would set up a water ombudsman with legal powers to help customers dealing with leaking pipes, incorrect bills or supply problems.
"The water industry is broken," environment minister Steve Reed is expected to say in a speech on Monday, according to his office.
"Today's final report from Sir Jon Cunliffe's Independent Water Commission offers solutions to fix our broken regulatory system so the failures of the past can never happen again."
In an interim report in June, Cunliffe recommended overhauling regulation to lower investment risk, merging regulators to give companies clearer direction and new rules on river bathing standards.
His final report comes as Thames Water, the country's biggest water company which is facing 1.4 billion pounds ($1.9 billion) in pollution fines and penalties over the next five years, teeters on the brink of failure with the possibility the government might have to step in.
In his speech, Reed, who promised on Sunday to halve sewage pollution by 2030, was expected to announce "root and branch" reform of the sector's regulation, his office said.
"We are establishing a new partnership where water companies, investors, communities and the government will work together to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good," he was expected to say.
($1 = 0.7460 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
Bankers urge Latin America to ease hurdles to attract renewable energy funds
BOGOTA, July 22 (Reuters) - Latin American countries need to address regulatory barriers, improve electrical interconnection, and enhance renewable energy project structuring to attract the $200 billion annual investment required for the energy transition, multilateral bank executives said on Tuesday. Executives spoke at an event in Colombia's capital Bogota organized by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The region's energy infrastructure investments fall short of global averages, which could hinder its ability to meet climate and energy goals. "The solution lies in policy, because money is not lacking," Felix Fernandez, director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the European Union's Directorate-General for International Partnerships, said. "Our region can consolidate its leadership in sustainable energy solutions, but for this, we must create conditions with adequate regulatory frameworks, investment, and a good public-private balance," added Andres Rebolledo, executive secretary of the Latin American Energy Organization. Latin America allocates around 3% of its GDP to energy infrastructure, compared to 5% on average in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, according to World Bank data. European Union companies have planned $20 billion in renewable energy investments in Colombia, where 88% of renewable energy connected to the grid is produced by EU firms, Fernandez said.
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bond traders smell trouble: Reckless Reeves could spark a full-blown financial crisis, says MAGGIE PAGANO
There are times when the numbers published by the Office for National Statistics on the state of the economy are so mind-boggling that they become meaningless. Figures for June on the level of government borrowing are a case in point. On our behalf, Labour borrowed some £20.7billion last month – £6.6billion more than in the same month last year. It is the second highest June borrowing since records began, and was only eclipsed in 2020 at the height of the pandemic. This takes borrowing in the first three months of the financial year to £57.8billion, and if the forecasts are to be believed, suggests the total tally for this financial year will be £130billion, give or take a billion or two. That is more than any government department spends, other than health. Perhaps an extra £6billion a month doesn't sound too much. But here's a way of putting these numbers into some sort of perspective. How long do you think it takes to count to a million? If you take one number at a time – about a second each – it would take an average person 11 and a half days of continuous counting, or around 278 hours. Now estimate how long it takes to count to a billion. On the same non-stop basis, it would take someone an astonishing 31.7 years, and that's without eating or sleeping. So for June's extra £6billion, someone would have to count for roughly 192 years. That gives some context for the scale of the problems facing our public finances. If the economy was growing – and living standards rising – as a consequence of improved productivity, such a whopping debt mountain might not be such a problem. But it's not. Quite the reverse. June's horrifying monthly increase is because government spending outstripped tax receipts while the cost of interest payments on the country's nearly £3 trillion debt nearly doubled. What's more, the £16.4billion cost of interest payments on the debt was the second highest for June since 1993 due to inflation. This was £8.4billion more than in the same month last year, or put another way, £550million a day and more than £22million an hour. As Office for Budget Responsibility chairman Richard Hughes pointed out recently at the Treasury select committee, we have the sixth-highest debt, fifth-highest deficit and third-highest borrowing costs among 36 advanced economies. Which is why the UK gilt market is so skittish. Traders smell trouble ahead, particularly after the Government failed to get through even the most minor reforms to the welfare budget. Gilt yields on the 30-year benchmark government bond have been above 5 per cent for most of the year, breaking the 5.5 per cent mark last week – far higher than during the Liz Truss reign. Yet when Labour came to power, yields were below 4.5 per cent. Capital Economics claims that higher UK gilt yields since March have already cut the Chancellor's so-called 'fiscal headroom' from £9.9billion to £6.7billion. In the scale of things, the difference now comes down to a rounding error. While it is true that the cost of money has risen globally, the markets forecast that UK borrowing costs have further to climb, that the country is an outlier. What a mess. Rachel Reeves will need to whip up another £20billion to balance the books. But she doesn't have many options left, having lost the fight over cuts to the welfare budget. Her only choice is to raise taxes again. This in turn will scupper growth, leading to a state of stasis, if not a full-blown financial crisis. Trump's win Laugh all you like at Donald Trump's outlandish tariff threats but they often land him the prize. The President's latest win is the promise by AstraZeneca to invest $50billion in the US by the end of the decade as part of its plan to reach $80billion of sales. Rather than face potential tariffs of 200 per cent on imported drugs, the pharmaceuticals giant is going to build a new drug manufacturing factory for chronic diseases in Virginia. Having already lost out on AstraZeneca's plan to build a plant in the UK because of government incompetence, the powers that be must do all they can to ensure that the company will keep its primary listing in London and not switch to New York. That would be giving Trump too much of a win.
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey hits back at Rachel Reeves over regulation
Andrew Bailey yesterday put himself at odds with Rachel Reeves over the Chancellor's outspoken attack on regulation. The Bank of England Governor made clear that he did not share Reeves' recent claim that the enforcement of red tape acted as a 'boot on the neck' of business. Speaking to MPs on the Treasury select committee, he urged caution over a proposed shake-up of the ring-fencing system that separates traditional lending and deposit-taking from riskier investment banking. The comments appear to be a shot across the bows of the Chancellor as she seeks to unravel some of the reforms put in place during the financial crisis in a bid to boost growth. They suggest she may face an unwanted battle with Threadneedle Street to add to friction with Labour backbenchers over spending cuts and the battle to balance the books, amid dismal economic growth and deteriorating public finances. Reeves took aim at regulators during her Mansion House speech to the City earlier this month. Cautious: Andrew Bailey (pictured) made clear he did not share Rachel Reeves's claim that the enforcement of red tape acted as a 'boot on the neck' of business But Bailey chose to dissociate himself from the 'boot on the neck' comments. He 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. But we can't compromise on basic financial stability and that would be my overall message.' Reeves has also promised 'meaningful reform' of the ring-fencing regime – something being demanded by the bosses of a number of major banks who say they are a drag on business. But Bailey said he favoured keeping the rules. He told MPs: 'I do think that the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system.' Bailey said the rules make it easier to deal with banks that get into trouble in a way that spares consumers, businesses and households. He added: 'I'm sure there are things that can be improved and we will work constructively to get through that process. '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.' Asked how he would respond if the Treasury seemed to be going 'too far' in stripping back regulation, Bailey said he and Bank officials would 'start by making our views very clear'.
