‘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
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
New Anglo-Australian defence treaty should include more nations
Nuclear-powered submarines are among some of the most complex objects built by man. They require exceptional build quality, such as in the welds used to ensure structural integrity. The skills required are scarce and in high demand, which is why even the United States finds it challenging to launch more than one a year. Together with the US, China, Russia, France and now India, the United Kingdom is a member of the small club of nations capable of producing these deadly prowlers of the ocean depths, the presence of which can send lesser navies scurrying for port. However, the immense cost of these vessels, the capital ships of the modern era, means that it is difficult to maintain a steady drumbeat of production. Gaps in orders can result in the running down of supply chains and an exodus of trained workers. That is why the signing this weekend of the 50-year Geelong treaty between the UK and Australia is so important. The agreement covers the construction in Barrow-in-Furness and Adelaide of a new class of hunter-killer sub (SSN), nuclear powered but conventionally armed. Britain is looking to build 12 in a move that would take the Royal Navy back to its Cold War strength. Australia may build half a dozen. Good news for Barrow, home to Britain's only nuclear yard, and Rolls Royce in Derby, where submarine reactors are made. Some 7,000 jobs will be created at Barrow and in the supply chain; the export of components to Australia will earn £20 billion over 25 years. There is, however, uncertainty hanging over the deal. Geelong is a subsidiary part of the Aukus agreement involving the US, UK and Australia. The idea is for the Americans to sell Australia three to five off-the-shelf SSNs to serve as a stop-gap before the arrival of its home-built subs in the 2040s. But Aukus, a child of the Biden era, is now in danger of falling victim to the Trump administration's 'America first' policy. There is fear in Washington that the loss of the subs would seriously undermine the US Navy's ability to defend Taiwan from invasion by China. This wavering American commitment to Aukus is further evidence of the need for US allies to future-proof their armed forces against its increasingly mercurial security policy. That means not being overly reliant on the US for equipment. Britain is already cooperating with Italy and Japan on the Tempest combat aircraft project, and growing closer to France and Germany in the nuclear and conventional fields. Geelong suggests another, complementary route: the rebuilding of Britain's defence-industrial ties with its most trusted friends in a 'Canzuk' alliance of Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand. These countries have gone their own way on trade, with old Commonwealth patterns of commerce replaced by regional ones, but they can all benefit from economies of scale. Together, Canzuk has a joint GDP that is fourth behind China, the US and the European Union. That promises economies of scale in defence procurement without the overweening influence of the US. The Canzuk concept joins together nations with shared histories and values. Trade may have declined, but not trust. The four are already partners in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and can do a lot more to strengthen mutual security. In this uncertain world, where authoritarian powers threaten the international order and the US insurance policy is expiring, old ties can be put to new uses.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘I shouldn't have to fight for answers': David Amess's daughter on the MP's murder and her fury at his friends and colleagues
The last time Katie Amess saw her dad, the Conservative MP Sir David Amess, he was dropping her at Heathrow for her flight home to Los Angeles. Usually, she would cry when they said goodbye, but this time neither were sad – they were both excited. In six weeks, Katie would be back for her wedding. 'It was going to be in the House of Commons and my dad could not wait to walk me down the aisle,' she says. 'He'd been practising, taking my arm, walking me around. We joked about it – we were calling it the 'royal wedding'. At the airport, we hugged goodbye and he kissed me on both cheeks. I skipped off thinking the next time I saw him would be the best day of my life.' Instead, just four weeks later, her father was murdered at his surgery, stabbed 21 times by an Islamic State sympathiser. He was buried in the suit he was going to wear to the wedding. The music planned for walking Katie down the aisle – Pachelbel's Canon – was instead played as his coffin was carried into the church. The murder of David Amess in October 2021, while serving his constituency in a church hall in Leigh-on-Sea, sent shock waves across the country – and the details that have since emerged should have deepened the outrage and furthered the questions. Amess's killer, Ali Harbi Ali, was a once bright, motivated teenager planning to study medicine who had self-radicalised during Syria's civil war. The teachers at his Croydon school had noticed – one described it as a light going out and that his 'eyes were dead'. Ali's attendance fell, his grades plummeted and attempts to talk to him only raised more concerns, leading the school to contact Prevent, the government-led counter-terrorism strategy designed to identify and deradicalise extremists. One home visit was made, followed by one brief meeting between Ali and an 'intervention provider' in a McDonald's. Conversation was limited to two subjects: whether western music and student loans were unlawful in Islam. Ali was deemed a 'pleasant and informed young man'. (He later said: 'I just knew to nod my head and say yes and they would leave me alone afterwards and they did.') There was no follow-up, no further consultations or contact with his referring teachers. There was no monitoring. Despite the atrocity Ali went on to commit, Katie believes there has been little scrutiny of any of the above, no accountability or consequences for the anonymous officials involved and no requirement to give a public account of their actions and lessons learned. For almost four years, Katie, on behalf of the Amess family, has pushed for an inquiry. Partly as a result of this pressure, the Home Office commissioned Lord Anderson, the interim Prevent commissioner, to produce a rapid review of the case in order to identify whether questions remain unanswered. It was published last week and concluded: 'Though the information available on [Ali's] case is not complete and likely never will be,' the 'unhappy story' of his engagement with Prevent had been 'squeezed almost dry'. Katie doesn't agree. 'I'm not going to give up,' she says. 'All we want is for someone to say: 'We're sorry. This is what happened, these are the mistakes made and this is what we're doing to make sure it never happens again.' I shouldn't have to fight for answers.' Born in Basildon to an electrician father and a dressmaker mother, David Amess was a working-class, Catholic Conservative and had been an Essex MP for 38 years when he was murdered. He was approaching his 70th birthday – on that last airport trip with Katie, she had broached the subject of retirement. 'He didn't want to retire any time soon,' she says. 'He felt he had so much left to do.' Having an MP father was all Katie had ever known, but Amess was not an absent figure, away at Westminster. He was committed to his constituency with no ambitions for higher office. 'When I was young, I used to ask: 'Do you think you could be prime minister?' He'd say: 'Absolutely not!'' For Katie, the second of five children, all born within seven years, he was present and fun and always loomed large in her life. 'My dad was absolutely hilarious and completely inappropriate,' she says. 'He'd do the craziest things and sometimes they were a bit dangerous.' He would booby trap the house at Halloween. He would take all five children to water parks even though he couldn't swim and would have been unable to rescue any of them. At toll booths, on family road trips, all five children were instructed to blow raspberries while he paid the operator. 'He was obsessed with animals, so we had dogs, cats, chickens, bunny rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, a goat called Tinkerbell,' says Katie. 'He wanted a small pony at one point, but Mum vetoed that. He had fish and birds in his office even though no animals were allowed, but he didn't listen to rules. At Halloween, he'd go to Westminster in full goblin outfit. At Christmas, he'd put a tree on his balcony at Westminster, which was definitely not allowed, and his whole office was lit up with flashing lights.' From the age of four, Katie accompanied him to constituency events. 'My elder brother was out playing football and my mum had my three younger sisters to look after, so I was all dressed up and dragged to garden parties and village fetes.' Later, when she moved to London for drama school – she is now an actor – she stayed in her dad's London flat. 'I'm so glad I spent all that time with him so I could just be around him and soak up what he was about,' she says. 'I never knew I wouldn't be with him for another 30 years.' Amess was very well known in his Southend West and Leigh constituency. 'He spent so much time there,' says Katie. 'Everybody knew his name and face. I've received so many messages since he died saying: 'We didn't agree with him politically, but he helped my elderly parents'; 'He got support for my disabled child'; 'He visited my sick grandma in hospital.'' In some ways, his profile and accessibility made him vulnerable. He was the face of government and easy to locate. In fact, it later emerged that Ali had worked through a list of possible victims, including Michael Gove and Keir Starmer, both of who were deemed too complicated to find. Amess – targeted because he had voted in favour of airstrikes against Islamic State – was holding a surgery. (The pinned tweet on Amess's account gave the date, place and details of how to book.) 'I always worried about Dad's safety, but I thought if anything was going to happen, it would be a punch-up from a local yob,' says Katie. 'Never in your wildest dreams would you imagine that a terrorist would go through a list and then come and murder your dad. It's just so shocking. It's still unbelievable.' In the immediate aftermath, the family were too stunned to think about inquiries or even formulate questions. Katie remembers flying straight back to the UK, walking into the family home and seeing the runner beans Amess had picked from the garden before going to surgery. 'I washed up his breakfast plates – tea and toast – from the morning it happened as well as his dinner plates from the night before and could not believe it was the last time I'd ever be doing this,' she says. 'All those times I was annoyed that he'd left his plates for me to clean when I was in his London flat for drama school. Now, I just wanted to be able to clean them one more time.' When details about Ali's history with Prevent began surfacing, the family assumed an inquiry would be announced after his trial. (In April 2022, Ali was given a whole-life sentence.) Two home secretaries – Priti Patel and Suella Braverman – assured the family that they were working on it, but their successor James Cleverly refused to meet them. Instead, there has been only a Prevent learning review, completed in February 2022. This gives a glimpse of Prevent's failures in the case – the strange decision‑making (why focus on student loans and western music only?), the lack of record-keeping, the absence of communication, returned emails or follow-up. 'I was absolutely gobsmacked when I read it,' says Katie. 'I could run Prevent better with my friends. If these are the people entrusted to save us from terrorism, we've got a huge problem.' Equally striking is the sparsity of the review. No one involved is identified or even interviewed. It's a review of secondhand accounts and the records kept (and not kept). 'The main conclusion it seems to draw is that so much has changed with Prevent, it's all been fixed, so we don't need to look any harder,' says Katie. 'If that was true, why were three little girls murdered in Southport last year?' Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, was referred to and rejected by Prevent three times. One of the questions to be asked in the Southport inquiry is whether Prevent needs a complete overhaul. 'They could have asked that question years earlier after my dad was killed and perhaps Southport wouldn't have happened,' says Katie. Campaigning hasn't been easy. Katie is based in the US and her mother, Julia, is not well – she had a stroke shortly after Ali's trial, which the family attributes to trauma and grief. The change of government briefly gave them hope. Katie and Julia had a video meeting with Yvette Cooper, the new home secretary, who told them that Amess was a great friend, their Westminster offices were next door and they used to walk to the Commons chamber together. 'We thought: 'Perfect. Now we're getting somewhere,'' says Katie. Instead, months passed. Finally, in March, in another video call, Cooper admitted there wouldn't be an inquiry. 'My mum said: 'Look me in the eyes and tell me as his friend that you think you're doing the right thing.' Yvette Cooper could not answer.' In a formal letter, Cooper explained that it was 'hard to see' how an inquiry could go beyond what had already been established in the trial, the Prevent learning review and the coroner's report, as well as the forthcoming rapid review by Lord Anderson. 'When an elected official is killed in a church hall in broad daylight by somebody the government is monitoring, there should be an inquiry – it shouldn't even be a question,' says Amess. 'This isn't a witch-hunt, but there should be some accountability. The mistakes made cost me my father, my mother's husband, a grandfather, a brother, a son. 'I don't think we'll ever recover,' she continues. 'It's my 40th birthday this month and I know I'd have flown back to England like I did every summer and my dad would have thrown me a huge party. There'd have been 40 balloons and he'd have made my friends give me 40 bumps! I want to have children, but I think: 'What sort of mother would I be now when I'm in so much trauma and heartache?' I used to think he'd be such a funny grandpa. All that has been robbed from me.' For Katie, the lack of support from Westminster after her father's decades of service is deeply painful and nonsensical, too. 'I just cannot believe the way we've been treated by his friends and colleagues,' she says. 'It's in all their interests. They are meeting the public day in, day out, so why don't they want to investigate properly and establish what would make them safer? Dad's legacy needs to be that through what happened to him, he saves other people. Please, just show some human decency. Do the right thing.' Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
