
Cunliffe's reforms for water should have happened 20 years ago
Sir Jon Cunliffe's review goes to the heart of one main problem: the fragmented, overlapping and inflexible nature of a regulatory system that takes in not just Ofwat and the Environment Agency (a regulator that lost its way as severely) but also the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales. That structure is simply confused. A super-regulator in England (and equivalent in Wales) should, the theory goes, solve the problem of duplication and lack of coordination. Simpler is better.
One line of criticism says the government is merely rearranging the deckchairs. Not necessarily. The bite in Cunliffe's recommendations, if they are to succeed, will be the switch to a 'supervisory' model. The description is bland but, if done correctly, it could make a difference, as it has in financial services, from where Cunliffe, one of the clean-up officials at the Bank of England after the great crash, has drawn his analysis. The Prudential Regulation Authority is capable of striking fear in bank boardrooms.
For water, it will require the regulator to know a company's operations in detail at a basic engineering level, and thus be equipped to know when excessive returns are being made or when, genuinely, the company hasn't been given the financial resources to do the job. It is, for example, amazing that Ofwat's board does not include anyone with the job title 'chief engineer'. (The new regulator should have one, says Cunliffe.) And it is even more astonishing, 36 years after privatisation, that nobody seems to have a clear idea of the real state of companies' assets. (Fix that too, says the report.)
Add it up and there is a framework for a more commonsense approach than the current cycle of reviews and exchanges of documents running to thousands of pages. 'Ofwat has relied too heavily on a data-driven, econometric approach, and has not taken sufficient account of company-specific conditions and challenges,' says Cunliffe's commission. It is hard to disagree.
In the end, it is not possible to run a privatised system without strong regulators who form their own judgments. New powers, under Cunliffe's advice, would allow regulators to block certain owners and to apply a financial-style suitability test for senior executives. Both sound like improvements if backed by 'public benefit clauses' in water company licences that would allow the regulator to interfere more aggressively.
Given the sector's history of financial engineering, Cunliffe could have gone further and suggested caps on debt levels. Instead, he opted for new regulatory powers to set minimum capital levels. That is weaker, but at least we may see an end to the nonsense of Ofwat announcing a leverage ratio for its 'notional' company (55% of assets currently) and then being ignored.
In other respects, the report will read as investor-friendly: 'company-specific' supervision and the possibility of 'regulatory forbearance' in turnaround situations will be music to the ears of the sector laggards. If the latter is to achieve public consent, the other side of that coin will have to be tougher day-to-day enforcement of environmental laws, which comes down to the government's willingness to fund boots on the ground. That part is the gift of ministers.
Indeed, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, should take note of what this report demands of government – a 'step change' in strategic approach, including setting medium- and long-term priorities and an acknowledgment of trade-offs. Step one, one can suggest, would be for Reed to stop claiming the government has 'secured £104bn of private sector investment' when everybody knows the vast bulk of the sum comes from customers' bills.
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
For some, nothing less than full nationalisation will do. On that score, the government's resistance is justified. Nationalisation would take years, would be challenged in court if attempted at less than market value, and offers no guarantee of success if the HS2 debacle is a guide to departmental talents in building critical infrastructure. Cunliffe's vision of a 'low-risk, low-return' sector for investors is a better pragmatic bet if the goal is to clean up lakes and rivers as quickly as possible and actually build some reservoirs. Low-risk cannot mean risk-free: it must still be possible for the owners of outright corporate flops to lose their shirts, as the mugs who bought Thames Water from Macquarie will.
Everything will depend on execution, of course. In the meantime, the Thames crisis rumbles on and special administration remains a highly possible outcome for that disaster, not least because Cunliffe's review should remove the 'contagion' risk for the wider sector. For now, the forward-looking aspect of his review is the thing to focus on. A tally of 88 recommendations illustrates how much has gone wrong. But the core advice to create a single, stronger regulator – one that can throw its weight around on the basis of up-to-date information – should be unarguable.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
What to know about Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend
Once a British socialite who lived a life of luxury, Ghislaine Maxwell today is confined in a U.S. prison after being convicted of helping financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. Now, three years after she was sentenced, a top U.S. Department of Justice official plans to personally interview Maxwell to find out if she has information about anyone who has committed crimes against Epstein's victims. It isn't clear what Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche might learn from the meeting. Maxwell has long claimed she is innocent and had no knowledge that Epstein, or anyone else, was sexually abusing teenagers. Epstein killed himself while awaiting trial in 2019, but his case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories because of his and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. President Donald Trump has suggested in the past there was a cover-up. Now his administration is dealing with the fallout after the Justice Department initially announced two weeks ago that it would not release any more evidence about the Epstein investigation. The department has since changed course, at Trump's urging. Who is Ghislaine Maxwell? She grew up as the daughter of the late British billionaire Robert Maxwell, a former member of Parliament whose publishing empire included the Daily Mirror, one of Britain's biggest tabloid newspapers, and the book publisher Macmillan. As a college student, she became close friends with Britain's Prince Andrew, who would later invite her to royal residences, including Windsor Castle. But the Maxwell family was shattered by scandal. After Robert Maxwell fell from his yacht and died in 1991, investigators accused him of embezzling huge sums of money from his companies' pension funds. Soon after her father's death, Ghislaine Maxwell was photographed at a memorial sitting next to Epstein, an American money manager. Maxwell dated Epstein but later also became his employee, taking on a variety of tasks, including hiring staff for his six homes. How did Ghislaine Maxwell help Epstein? Part of Maxwell's household duties included hiring a steady stream of young people to give massages to Epstein. 'As far as I'm concerned, everyone who came to his house was an adult professional person,' she said in a deposition nearly a decade ago. But police and prosecutors said many of those 'masseuses' were underage girls who were paid for sexual acts. Epstein was arrested in 2006 in Palm Beach, Florida, after multiple girls, including students from a local high school, spoke to police. But he ultimately pleaded guilty in 2008 to a single charge of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and served 13 months in jail. Maxwell wasn't charged until 2021. At her trial, four women testified that Maxwell groomed them as teenagers to participate in sexual acts with Epstein and sometimes participated in the abuse. Maxwell's lawyers argued that the women's recollections had been manipulated by lawyers pursuing civil lawsuits, pointing to inconsistencies in their testimony. A jury convicted Maxwell of sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. Why do investigators want to talk to Maxwell now? The Justice Department's request to talk with Maxwell comes at a time when it is dealing with backlash from some of President Donald Trump's supporters, some of whom believe there has been a government cover-up to protect Epstein's rich and powerful friends from being implicated in his crimes. The department asked a judge last week to unseal transcripts of the grand jury sessions that led to indictments against Epstein and Maxwell. The Justice Department said in a memo that it had not uncovered evidence to charge anyone else in connection with Epstein's abuse. But Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on social media that 'if Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.' He said he anticipated meeting with Maxwell in the coming days. Will she talk? It remains to be seen. One of her lawyers, David Oscar Markus, said Tuesday that they were in discussions with the government. 'Ghislaine will always testify truthfully,' he said in the statement. Maxwell did not testify at her trial but gave two lengthy depositions years ago. She repeatedly said that one of Epstein's accusers, who claimed he had trafficked her to powerful men, including Prince Andrew, was a liar who fabricated her story. Where is Ghislaine Maxwell now? Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence and is currently at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida. Her attorneys have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a lower court upheld her convictions last fall. ___


The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
Leftie union boss Len McCluskey took private jet rides from building firm that overcharged Unite by £30m, report reveals
LEFTIE union baron Len McCluskey took private plane flights and football tickets from a building firm, a report reveals. The firm is also said to have overcharged Unite by at least £30million for building a £96million hotel. An internal investigation by the union said the Flanagan Group, run by pals of McCluskey, was handed the job to build the hotel complex in Birmingham without a single rival bid. Sharon Graham, who has since replaced McCluskey as Unite general secretary, hired barrister Martin Bowdery KC in 2021 after she found a £125million black hole in the union's accounts. She told the BBC: 'I was absolutely astounded. It's either rank incompetence, or something else.' The report, seen by the BBC, says McCluskey ignored legal advice and personally signed off the building contract. He later got private flights to two Liverpool Champions League finals on planes arranged and paid for by the Flanagan Group. Unite said there is no evidence he ever paid them back. The report also said he got tickets to five Liverpool matches, four with hospitality. McCluskey's lawyers told the BBC he paid for his own travel in full and always paid for his football tickets. They claim he does not recall signing the main contract and denies overruling anyone. The hotel ended up swallowing £125million of Unite cash and is now worth just £38million. Union boss Len McCluskey torn apart by voter after defending Corbyn in fiery LBC interview Ms Graham has brought in new auditors, staff and a crackdown on dodgy deals. The Flanagan Group refused to comment but previously claimed the project was 'an exceptional asset'.


The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Female officers crucial to policing, says chief after ‘diminishing' comments by Reform MP
Police chiefs have criticised Reform UK's 'diminishing' of female police officers, when, during its launch of law and order policies, it said women should patrol only with a 'big, strapping' male constable. On Monday the rightwing party tried to establish itself as the party of law and order but Sarah Pochin, its justice spokesperson, said she did not like seeing two women together on patrol. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council, hit back at the claims by saying that female officers were 'critical' to tackling crime. Stephens said: 'There are an increasing number of women who choose a career in policing, bringing with them vital skills and experience that are critical to the progress of policing, our role in society, and keeping the public safe. 'Over a third of our officers and around 40% of our chief constables are women, and we must not jeopardise our progress by diminishing the value and role women play in our workforce. 'There are no roles in policing which women cannot do, and the same exacting standards to qualify are met by all men and women who undertake some of the most challenging tasks of any profession. 'We celebrate that women have an essential and irreplaceable role in every aspect of policing across the United Kingdom; policing is at its best when it represents the communities it serves, and our priority continues to be making policing a career where anyone can thrive and make a difference.' Launching a suite of promises on law and order on Monday, Reform;s leader, Nigel Farage, said that criminals should 'slightly fear the police', adding 'that is a desirable place for us to be as a society'. Later Pochin, Reform's justice spokesperson who is also the MP for Runcorn and Helsby, told the BBC 'I never feel comfortable actually seeing two female officers together. I'd much rather see a great big strapping male police officer with a female.' She added that women police officers 'look vulnerable' and should be deployed to 'more sensitive situations', such as dealing with children or women who have suffered from domestic violence. One chief constable told the Guardian that not just chiefs were annoyed, but rank-and-file officers also: 'It takes us back 30 years, and it has annoyed my work force as well. To suggest women officers are not equal because they are not of a certain size and shape, is a disservice.' The chief said physical confrontation was nowadays a 'minuscule' part of the job and women were also more likely to make an arrest without the need for force. Reform UK also pledged 30,000 more officers, costing an estimated £2bn. The chief said that up to 40% of new recruits were women, and that Reform's comments would deter women from joining if the party was looking to boost police numbers.