Independent water commission chair denies probe into reforms is ‘tinkering'
Sir Jon Cunliffe addressed recent criticism that he has been 'tinkering' with the industry's deep-rooted issues as he was quizzed by MPs on Tuesday.
The Independent Water Commission was tasked by the UK and Welsh governments 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.
The final report is expected in mid-July but earlier this month, the commission published an interim report which said the industry needs a 'fundamental reset'.
But this initial paper was criticised for not going far enough to deliver recommendations that would engender a complete industry overhaul.
The Government outlined the scope of the probe to focus on what changes could be made within the current privatised regulated ownership model rather than considering a wholesale shift to other models such as not-for-profit or nationalisation.
Giles Bristow, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said the interim report was tinkering around the edges and he called for the commission's final recommendations to 'end pollution for profit' as well as 'reshape the water industry to put public health and environment first'.
Asked by MPs if the review is 'tinkering' given the broken culture found across the sector, Sir Jon said: 'No I don't accept it at all. I just don't, I'm sorry.
'First of all, you wouldn't expect me to think, to accept, that this was a report that was tinkering.
'But just moving past that… I do not think the problems you see in the culture of the water companies that you've identified, and the problems we've seen in performance, are the inevitable consequence of the ownership model that we have.'
Sir Jon continued to say the commission will look at other ownership models, such as not-for-profit, and make recommendations where companies are feasibly able to make a transition without public spending.
Challenged on how he can assure MPs he will look at other models of ownership given the current failures, he said the commission could do so only in certain circumstances.
'But what we won't do is say: 'We need to move the whole sector to a different model' for two reasons,' he said.
We've published our report on priorities for the water sector, calling on Sir Jon Cunliffe and the Water Commission not to shy away from 'root and branch' reforms.
Read the report: https://t.co/lRGm5xLdC4 pic.twitter.com/UbofNjl1Gj
— EFRA Committee (@CommonsEFRA) June 16, 2025
Sir Jon outlined that he is not sure how the sector can do this without large public spending to buy the assets but also that he has not found a 'strong correlation' between models and outcomes.
'It's not tinkering, it's trying to be evidence-based,' he said.
His comments come after the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee released its own report into the sector on Tuesday morning, which concluded the industry is 'failing' while water firms are 'deaf to the crisis' it is facing.
The MPs also argued the Government 'should feel able to use its temporary nationalisation powers' when needed.
Sir Jon was also questioned about criticism that the review is not truly independent from the Government due to Environment Department staff helping to carry out the work.
In response, he said: 'I'd like to put this on the record, if I can chair.
'I've been given a secretariat of high-quality Defra officials.
'I have not felt in any way that I am being channelled down any particular route outside of my terms of reference and I'd also say that they are incredibly hard-working, and they are in seeker after truth mode.'
He added that while the commission has had to draw on some departmental expertise, the recommendations 'will be my own'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How your savings interest could rob you of your winter fuel allowance: JEFF PRESTRIDGE
The Government's U-turn on winter fuel payments means nine million pensioners in England and Wales will now get a £200 or £300 top-up in time for Christmas. But the rules governing who gets it, only to have it clawed back in tax, are rather baffling to say the least. In the past ten days, hundreds of readers have contacted Money Mail asking whether they will be a winter fuel payment winner or loser. 'To say the changes are not well thought out is an understatement,' says 68-year-old retired engineer Brian Springthorpe, from near Conwy in North Wales. 'They still penalise pensioners who are scraping by.' Having been deprived of the winter fuel payment last year by the Chancellor's decision to axe it for all pensioners bar those in receipt of pension credit, Brian and his wife Janet will now receive £200 of it in time for Christmas this year. But Brian's income will result in him having to give back his £100 share of the payment in tax. 'Preposterous!' he adds. It's a view shared by many readers. Here, we spell out the key things you need to understand in order to ascertain whether or not the payment coming your way will be grabbed back – as will be the case for Brian. How the payment will now work This tax year – ending April 5, 2026 – the Government has decided to pay all households with a state pensioner born on or before September 21, 1959, a winter fuel payment. The amount will either be £200 or £300, with the higher payment made to households where there is a pensioner aged 80 or over on September 21 this year. The key is that the payment is household-based. If a pensioner aged 70 lives on their own, they will get the same £200 payment as a pensioner couple who live next door and are of the same age – or a couple where only one of them has reached pensionable age. In terms of who gets the money, £200 is paid to the first person in the household who reaches state pension age. When the second householder hits pension age, the payment is then split 50:50. When the first pensioner passes the age of 80, they get an extra £100, taking the combined household payment to £300. When both are aged 80-plus, each gets £150. The only exception is where a couple are in receipt of pension credit. Here the payment – £200 or £300 – is made in one lump sum. How will it be taken away? Although all pensioners will receive a winter fuel payment, not all of them will cling on to it, as Brian Springthorpe has discovered. Some two million pensioners – not pensioner households – who have taxable income this tax year in excess of £35,000 will have to give back their share of the winter fuel payment, either through Pay As You Earn or through self-assessment. For pensioners living alone, that will mean handing back either £200 or £300, depending on whether they are under or over 80. For pensioner couples, it's more complex. How much they will give back is determined by their individual ages and the age of those with £35,000-plus of taxable income. For a household where a couple are both of state pension age, but below age 80, they will initially receive £100 each in winter fuel payment. But if one of them has a taxable income above £35,000, they will have the £100 clawed back from them through the tax system. If both have taxable incomes above £35,000, they will each have to pay back £100. A household where a couple are both 80 or over will initially get a £300 payment. But if one of them has taxable income in excess of the £35,000 threshold, he or she will lose their £150 share. If both have incomes above £35,000, they will each lose their £150. For a household where a married couple are both of state pension age but one is above the age of 80, they will start with a £300 payment. If the older pensioner has taxable income in excess of £35,000, they will lose £200 while their partner keeps £100. If it's the younger pensioner with more than £35,000 of taxable income, they will lose their £100 share. The definition of taxable income Lots of readers have raised queries about the £35,000 taxable income threshold. For a start, the threshold includes your personal allowance of £12,570; it is not on top of it. It also embraces your state pension which is taxable and any income or withdrawals from a private pension (a works scheme or one you have set up yourself such as a self-invested personal pension). Any withdrawal of tax-free cash from a pension is excluded. All interest from savings accounts is taken into account irrespective of whether it is below the annual tax-free personal savings allowance of £1,000 (£500 for higher-rate taxpayers). So, if you earn savings interest in this tax year of £700, every penny of it will form part of your taxable income. The same applies to dividends from shares or investments even though you may not pay tax on them because of the annual £500 tax-free dividend allowance. Income from a second property will also form part of your taxable income as will income from a job or self-employment. The Springthorpes will lose half of their £200 winter fuel payment because Brian's taxable income, comprising his state pension and company pension, is a 'tad' over £35,000. Janet's taxable income of £19,000 means she will keep her slice. 'Somehow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and her Parliamentary Secretary sidekick Torsten Bell classify me as a rich pensioner and so must hand back my payment,' says Brian. 'It's a joke, especially when you think that if our household income was evenly split, we'd keep our full £200.' It's a point that Graham Dickson, a 73-year-old retired finance director of a Christian charity, also makes. Like Brian, Graham, who lives near Banbury in Oxfordshire, has taxable income just above £35,000, while his wife Moira, also 73, has income below the threshold. So, they will get £200 of winter fuel payment but then lose £100 through tax. 'I'm not that bothered about losing my part of the payment,' says Graham. 'But I find it bizarre that while the winter fuel payment is household-based, the income assessment isn't. After all, we're living in – and heating – the same house.' On the other side of the household balance sheet, there is no leeway given to pensioners who are obliged by the courts to make regular maintenance payments to former partners and children. This can result in their disposable income – rather than taxable income – being far less than £35,000. The only good bit of news is that withdrawals from Individual Savings Accounts will not count towards your taxable income. Nor will any money you may inherit from loved ones or friends – or capital gains made from a sale of shares. Pension credit, attendance allowance and other tax-free benefits are also excluded – as is the winter fuel payment itself. Of course, the £35,000 threshold is unfair on pensioner couples where their taxable incomes vary widely – as is the case with the Springthorpes and Dicksons. A couple, both aged 82, would lose £150 of winter fuel payment if their respective taxable incomes were £12,000 and £38,000. But if their incomes were both £25,000, they would keep their entire £300 household payment. Uncertainty: In the past ten days, hundreds of readers have contacted Money Mail asking whether they will be a winter fuel payment winner or loser Pensioner cost-of-living payment Some readers say the Government is making its U-turn look more appealing than it is. They point to the fact that in the tax year ending April 5, 2024, they received household winter fuel payments of £600, only to get nothing last year – and now the promise of £300. It's a fair point, although winter fuel payments in 2023-2024 were boosted by the pensioner cost-of-living payment. This £300 was made by the former Conservative government in response to rising energy bills and soaring inflation. It was not intended to be paid again – and it wasn't. Readers' verdict: Almighty balls up Although Labour's U-turn on the winter fuel payment has been welcomed, most people who have contacted Money Mail on the issue in recent days say Ms Reeves should never have targeted pensioners in the first place. 'The decision to make the withdrawal of universal winter fuel payments her first major policy statement in office has proven to be a massive mistake,' says 72-year-old David Stanley, from Flitwick in Bedfordshire. 'In July last year, she said the move would save £1.5 billion. Now, with the latest changes, she's talking about a saving of £425 million. In the scale of overall government spending, it's peanuts, and I dread to think what the cost is of administering the new payment scheme.' He adds: 'Winter fuel payment was introduced 28 years ago by Labour as a universal benefit for pensioners to help them pay their fuel bills. Ms Reeves should never have tinkered with it. Politically, a huge error which will come back to bite Labour at the next election.' Well said that man.
Edinburgh Reporter
2 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
End of the two child cap coming next year in Scotland
During a visit to a mother and toddler group in Portobello, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has confirmed that The Scottish Government will 'effectively' scrap the impact of the two-child limit from 2 March 2026. When she visited Busy Bees Bellfield parent and toddler group Ms Somerville said the introduction of the Two Child Limit Payment will mean 20,000 fewer children will be living in relative poverty in 2026-27, according to modelling carried out by the Scottish Government. Ahead of a statement to parliament on the publication of the annual report on Best Start, Bright Futures, which is the Scottish Government's child poverty strategy, Ms Somerville said:'The Scottish Government has consistently called on the UK Government to end the two-child cap. Reports suggest that they are looking at the impact it is having. But the evidence is clear and families and Scotland can't wait any longer for the UK Government to make up its mind to do the right thing and scrap the cap once and for all. 'The Two Child Limit Payment will begin accepting applications in March next year. At less than 15 months from when we announced this in the Scottish budget, this will be the fastest that a Scottish social security benefit has been delivered. 'This builds upon the considerable action we have taken in Scotland, including delivering unparalleled financial support through our Scottish Child Payment, investing to clear school meal debts, and continuing to support almost 10,000 children by mitigating the UK Government's Benefit Cap as fully as possible. 'However, austerity decisions taken by the UK Government are holding back Scotland's progress. Modelling published in March makes clear that if the UK Government act decisively on child poverty, they could help to take an estimated 100,000 children out of poverty this year.' The UK Government's two child cap is a policy in place since 2017 which restricts any universal credit payment to just two children in one family. This means that families with three and more children cannot have any means-tested support for them. (There are limited exceptions.) The Child Poverty Action Group said that this tax on siblings is 'the biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today. It breaks the link between what children need and the support they receive.' Government figures show that one in 9 children are affected by this cap on benefits, and almost 60% of those who are affected by the policy have at least one parent who works. If it is lifted then Treasury Minister, Torsten Bell, said he believes this measure alone could lift 470,000 children in the UK out of poverty. The UK Government is reportedly considering getting rid of the measure which was introduced by the Conservatives, having said they would remove the measure 'when fiscal conditions allow', and the scrapping of this would cost around £3.5 billion a year. The government is due to announce its child poverty strategy in the autumn of this year. Photo courtesy of The Scottish Government Like this: Like Related
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
MPs vote in favour of measures to decriminalise abortion for women
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill was supported, with MPs voting 379 to 137, majority 242. The Gower MP said it will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. She told MPs she had been moved to advocate for a change in the law having seen women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions. During the Bill's report stage, Ms Antoniazzi assured her colleagues the current 24-week limit would remain, abortions would still require the approval and signatures of two doctors, and that healthcare professionals 'acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now'. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month. Winding up for the Government after Tuesday's debate, Ms Davies-Jones suggested ministers would work to ensure the law change was workable if MPs voted for it. She told the Commons: 'If it is the will of Parliament that the law should change, the Government in fulfilling its duty to ensure that the legislation is legally robust and workable will work closely with my honourable friends to ensure that their amendments accurately reflect their intentions and the will of Parliament, and are coherent with the statute book.' Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several high-profile Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment in the free vote. They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens, and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. The measures to decriminalise abortion still need to complete their legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before they can become law. The step was welcomed by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). Heidi Stewart, chief executive of the charity, said: 'This is a landmark moment for women's rights in this country and the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed. 'There will be no more women investigated after enduring a miscarriage, no more women dragged from their hospital beds to the back of a police van, no more women separated from their children because of our archaic abortion law.' The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said it was 'horrified' by the vote. Alithea Williams, of SPUC, said: 'If this clause becomes law, a woman who aborts her baby at any point in pregnancy, even moments before birth, would not be committing a criminal offence.' She added: 'Our already liberal abortion law allows an estimated 300,000 babies a year to be killed. Now, even the very limited protection afforded by the law is being stripped away.'
