‘Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog
With water and sewerage companies reeling from what the report's author Sir Jon Cunliffe called their 'Great Stink' moment, the government announced it would be abolishing Ofwat and combining its powers with those of other water watchdogs under a new super-regulator.
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, told parliament on Monday that ministers would be immediately adopting five of Cunliffe's 88 recommendations, including creating a real-time sewage map with automatic data that names and shames water companies. At the moment, the companies are responsible for reporting their own spills.
Campaigners and environment groups will have more of a say in the cleaning-up of their local rivers, Reed announced, and regional water boards will be set up with powers to clean up rivers and seas locally as well as planning essential infrastructure.
'Volunteers and citizen scientists will be able to engage for the first time through regional structures. Citizens, local authorities, businesses will all have a voice,' he said.
A 'super regulator' will be created to replace Ofwat, which has been blamed for letting water companies preside over decades of financial mismanagement and widespread sewage dumping.
This new watchdog will also take in the powers of the Environment Agency (EA), the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Natural England, to avoid duplication of efforts and provide one clear regulatory system for the industry.
Announcing this, Reed said: 'I agree with Sir Jon that water regulation has been too weak, too complex and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and conflicting remits has failed customers and the environment.'
However, Cunliffe told the Guardian it would be 2027 at the earliest before the new body was fully set up, comparing it to the media regulator. 'We looked at Ofcom, which took two years,' he said.
Launching his 465-page report at the London Museum of Water and Steam on Monday, he said the current system had failed: 'If we are to achieve the water sector we need, we need to look at all the factors that have contributed to our Great Stink moment. Some companies have manifestly acted in their private interest but against the public interest. That must be prevented in future.'
The Great Stink was the name given to the terrible hot summer of 1858 that created such an awful smell from the Thames that Sir Joseph Bazalgette was tasked with creating the capital's sewer system.
Another recommendation Reed is adopting from Cunliffe's report is to create an ombudsman with legal powers to recoup funds for customers who face water outages, and Reed will set out 'strong ministerial directives' for Ofwat and the EA while they are merged, as Cunliffe recommended.
The rest of the suggestions will be considered over the summer, with conclusions to be published in a white paper in the autumn.
Cunliffe also proposed the creation of a new formal turnaround regime to allow struggling companies space to recover under 'regulatory forbearance' which could let them avoid fines.
Thames Water, the UK's largest water company with 16 million customers in London and the south-east, is loaded with £20bn of debt and struggling to stave off financial collapse into special administration, a form of temporary nationalisation.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
However, it may not be able to benefit from the proposed turnaround regime, according to Reed, who said the government was prepared for the company to enter special administration if that became necessary. The company has been asking to be let off more than £1bn in fines, arguing it faces financial collapse if it has to pay for committing environmental offences.
Some campaign groups welcomed the report. Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust, said the 88 recommendations 'would lead to a dramatic improvement in the water environment and far more cost-effective delivery'.
Others were less enthusiastic, particularly as Cunliffe was barred by Reed from exploring the possibility of nationalisation.
The water campaigner Feargal Sharkey accused the government of a year of inaction on sewage and called for the environment secretary to quit: 'The first year has been so chaotic,' he said. 'Quite frankly I think Steve Reed now needs to resign and hand the job over to somebody who can be more effective.' A spokesperson for Keir Starmer said the prime minister had full confidence in Reed, who was doing an 'excellent' job.
The GMB union called for the renationalisation of water. Gary Carter, its national officer, said: 'Water privatisation has been a disastrous failure. It's a disgrace – and one Ofwat has overseen. Now is the time to fundamentally reform the water sector and renationalise this vital resource.'
Reed said that he had not considered nationalisation as an option because his department had found the cost would be in excess of £100bn which is money which could be used for services such as the NHS. Economists have queried this figure and suggested it could cost as little as £14.5bn.
Cunliffe said that regardless of nationalisation being out of his remit, the ownership structure was not necessarily the cause of the sewage pollution, arguing that the UK had been the 'dirty man of Europe' under a nationalised model.
He also defended the high pay of water company executives after anger caused by the news last week about Southern Water's chief executive receiving a doubled pay package.
'We are not proposing the regulator should set pay scales for the industry,' Cunliffe said. 'They do need to recruit, and you have to attract the best people. What really makes the public angry is when the pay is there but the performance is not.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves challenges Cabinet to buy British
Rachel Reeves has challenged Cabinet ministers to do more to buy British as she seeks to boost flagging economic growth. The Chancellor and Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, sent out the message in a letter to the Cabinet. It urged ministers to use procurement contracts, which are in the Government's gift, to help generate jobs in the UK by supporting British companies. The intervention comes amid a consultation about whether rules can be changed to give the Government more freedom to give contracts to UK firms. Each year £400bn is spent in public sector procurement, meaning small changes in approach could have a significant impact. Ms Reeves is facing difficult economic circumstances in her Budget this autumn, with official growth forecasts halved for 2025. New tax rises appear increasingly inevitable given that pressure on the public finances has intensified and the Chancellor will not break her borrowing rules. Excerpts of the letter from Ms Reeves and Mr McFadden were shared with The Telegraph. The pair wrote: 'We want people around the UK to feel the full impact of government spending through investment in skills and high quality jobs. That's why we're going further to ensure public procurement expenditure boosts British industry, jobs, skills, productivity, and expands the supply side. 'Every department needs to be pulling this procurement lever to support economic growth and strengthen our economic security. It is possible to do this within our trade agreements, as other countries do.' They added: 'We are asking all Secretaries of State to satisfy themselves that your department, and arms length bodies, have the commercial capacity and capability to ensure the creation of British jobs, productivity enhancing opportunities, and skills are prioritised in every major contract.' They also told colleagues to 'set ambitious and stretching targets for increasing your procurement spend with SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) and social enterprises while stripping away requirements and processes that are barriers to these firms competing with established players'. At one point they wrote: 'Your commercial team is not a back office function – it is a strategic policy lever and must be a priority.' Ms McFadden was once Sir Tony Blair's political secretary and has emerged as a key confidant of Keir Starmer in recent years. As the most senior minister in the Cabinet Office he is overseeing cross-government attempts to tackle Whitehall bureaucracy and make savings in the civil service. Whether the rhetoric of Ms Reeves and Mr McFadden will lead to a step change in procurement approach remains to be seen. During the Conservatives' 14 years in office government ministers often talked publicly about the importance of using the Government machine to support British businesses. A consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is looking at changes to procurement rules that make it easier for the government to boost British industry. It will report back in September.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the ' family farms tax '. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
There is a way to boost economic growth without spending money
Repeatedly, we hear Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are putting pressure on ministers and departments to generate ideas for economic growth. So, here is one: the third sector. Start using the civil society, as it's also called, to its full potential, to drive the economy. A new report from the Gradel Institute of Charity at Oxford University, A Third Way of Doing Growth, makes a persuasive case for a fresh look at this frequently ignored national resource. Research by Pro Bono Economics for the study suggests the third sector creates at least £39.5bn of economic value a year if volunteer hours are factored in – and well over £100bn if the full economic contribution by the sector is assessed. Adds the report: 'Statistical evidence also shows that there are many persistent societal challenges that the third sector can often tackle more effectively (and therefore more cost-efficiently) than the public or private sector alone.' So, a win-win. Stephen Bubb, executive director of the Gradel Institute and a former head of the charity leaders' representative body, Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, argues that a huge opportunity is being missed. 'The government should think about the third sector and how they can harness its energy and strength,' he says. Bubb said similar to Tony Blair in his third term as prime minister. The result was the appointment of Ed Miliband as the first third sector minister and a white paper. As with many such initiatives, it was promptly forgotten as the government changed. It was resurrected, of sorts, under David Cameron with his 'big society' push. 'Cameron got the point about how civil society could be used more,' says Bubb, 'but he tried to implement it at the same time as the austerity programme.' As a result, it never took off. What is different this time is that Labour are desperate for something new that does not involve the spending of vast sums of public money. The report makes a few key recommendations. Firstly, deliver better social business models for social care. Currently, the market is dominated by private firms, which are mostly extractive, putting little back, taking out their profits. New businesses mean new jobs, new tax revenues, and significant net gains for local economies. Secondly, focus on prevention to reduce crisis management. A lot of the focus in the third sector is on assisting people once they are in crisis. 'The prisons are full,' says Bubb. 'The state is hopeless at rehabilitation. Charities are good at it, they know what they are doing. Prisoners leaving and going into jobs is seeing them making a positive contribution to society, to the economy. Charites are better at helping them in securing work than the state. It's the same with mental health – the charities' record in this area is also much better.' Rebuild social connection to drive social mobility. A decline in investment in public social infrastructure, combined with Covid and the rise of social media, has led to 'a crisis of social connection in the UK – one of the most important factors in social mobility and economic inclusion,' the report says. The problem is especially acute among the nearly 1 million young adults not in employment, education, or training (Neets). 'The most effective means to engage this cohort is through charitable and voluntary institutions which – through community-based approaches and one-to-one engagement – have a proven ability to connect with those most distant from society.' Help government rewire delivery of public services. Starmer has talked about his ambition for a 'complete rewiring of the British state' to better serve the needs of the people. 'By involving the third sector in this endeavour, government has enormous potential to move away from for-profit commissioning to innovating services built around people's real-life needs and a far greater focus on rewarding organisations based on the outcomes achieved.' To that end, they suggest creating a 'Civil Society Satellite Account' in the national accounts, so there is clarity as to the third sector's full value (similar to how tourism and other sectors are treated). Sixteen countries already do this, but not the UK. They also recommend opening up public sector procurement to the third sector to transform service delivery. Of the £350bn a year that the government spends on procurement, only £21bn is administered by the third sector, meaning their skills, abilities and perspectives are simply not being efficiently deployed. Other suggestions include: building a national programme of volunteering, aimed particularly at those 18-25 Neets; and creating innovative partnerships to rebuild the social infrastructure critical for inclusive growth. As Bubb says: 'It is not so much a policy shift but the better, more focused use of an enormous resource.' It also plays to Labour ideology. Put like that, you do wonder what Starmer and Reeves are waiting for.
