Water industry review unlikely to spark required change, claims Feargal Sharkey
But former Undertones frontman Sharkey, who has become a leading campaigner for water companies to clean up their act, said he fears the highly anticipated report will be a 'flat pancake'.
He told the PA news agency: 'We were promised that the report will bring us champagne – but it will just be a saucer of milk.'
Sharkey, who has given evidence to MPs on the need for reform and has spoken at numerous public and trade union meetings, said he does not believe 'much will happen' as a result of the report's findings.
'Sir Jon's job is to make the current system better, but so many things have not been considered in his review, such as the ownership of the water companies.
'I also don't think you can talk about abolishing Ofwat without considering the future of the Environment Agency – and taking a long, hard look at the Environment Department (Defra), as well as the lack of action from government ministers for many years. They are just as culpable.'
Sharkey said governments have had the power to punish water companies over sewage pollution, or the 'scandal' of paying huge bonuses to bosses, but had chosen not to use them for years.
He believes the public and customers have been treated with 'contempt' by water companies for years despite outrage over sewage pollution of rivers and waterways.
He added the fact that the review had been held was a victory for the many small community groups across the country set up to tackle the crisis.
The review was commissioned by the UK and Welsh governments as part of their response to systemic industry failures, which include rising bills, record sewage spills and debt-ridden company finances, although ministers have ruled out nationalising companies.
A Government spokesperson pointed out that unfair bonuses have been banned for senior executives at six water companies under new measures which came into force last month.
The Government said at the time that transformative change across the water sector was needed to clean up rivers, lakes and seas, and modernise the sector for decades to come.
Under the rules, companies are not permitted to pay bonuses to water bosses that oversee poor environmental and customer outcomes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
6 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Bank of England chief says ‘not sensible' to tear up ring-fencing rules
Andrew Bailey also stressed that the UK cannot 'compromise' on financial stability amid the Treasury's plans to rip up red tape across the sector. Ring-fencing was brought in after the 2008 financial crisis and requires banks to separate their retail services from their investment banking activities. It aimed to protect UK consumers from the effects of any shocks felt by other parts of a bank and in the global financial markets. But Government plans to reforms the rules, unveiled last week, are intended to make Britain more competitive globally and give banks more flexibility. Mr Bailey told MPs on the Treasury Committee: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. 'It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households. 'I'm sure there are things that can be improved and we will work constructively to get through that process.' He added: '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.' The ring-fencing shake-up formed part of Rachel Reeves's 'Leeds reforms' – a package of measures which she said are set to be the biggest changes to financial services for more than a decade. Ms Reeves said regulation 'still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses' in many areas, and urged regulators to avoid 'excessive caution'. Asked if he agreed with those comments, Bank of England chief Mr Bailey 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,' he told the committee. 'But we can't compromise on basic financial stability and that would be my overall message.' However, Mr Bailey added that, post-Brexit, the UK is in a better position to reshape the financial rule book to suit the sector, rather than relying on EU rules.
Rhyl Journal
6 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Bank of England chief says ‘not sensible' to tear up ring-fencing rules
Andrew Bailey also stressed that the UK cannot 'compromise' on financial stability amid the Treasury's plans to rip up red tape across the sector. Ring-fencing was brought in after the 2008 financial crisis and requires banks to separate their retail services from their investment banking activities. It aimed to protect UK consumers from the effects of any shocks felt by other parts of a bank and in the global financial markets. But Government plans to reforms the rules, unveiled last week, are intended to make Britain more competitive globally and give banks more flexibility. Mr Bailey told MPs on the Treasury Committee: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. 'It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households. 'I'm sure there are things that can be improved and we will work constructively to get through that process.' He added: '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.' The ring-fencing shake-up formed part of Rachel Reeves's 'Leeds reforms' – a package of measures which she said are set to be the biggest changes to financial services for more than a decade. Ms Reeves said regulation 'still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses' in many areas, and urged regulators to avoid 'excessive caution'. Asked if he agreed with those comments, Bank of England chief Mr Bailey 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,' he told the committee. 'But we can't compromise on basic financial stability and that would be my overall message.' However, Mr Bailey added that, post-Brexit, the UK is in a better position to reshape the financial rule book to suit the sector, rather than relying on EU rules.
South Wales Guardian
6 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Environment Secretary urged to apologise for ‘misleading' Scottish water claims
Mr Reed came under fire after claiming that under publicly-owned Scottish Water 'pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England'. The UK Government minister made the remarks to Channel 4 News as he dismissed calls for water services south of the border to be nationalised. Gillian Martin, the Scottish Government Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, said she was 'extremely disappointed' that Mr Reed had made the 'inaccurate and misleading comments regarding performance in Scotland' as he sought to 'dismiss out of hand the value of public ownership of a key asset like water'. She wrote to Mr Reed noting that Monday's report from the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, had found 66% of Scotland's water bodies to be of good ecological status, compared with 16.1% in England and 29.9% in Wales. And while she accepted the figures for the different countries were 'not calculated on the same basis', Ms Martin stated: 'It is clear that Scotland has a higher performance.' She insisted that 'much of the improvement' seen in water in Scotland was 'due to significant investment in the water industry to reduce pollution', which she said was driven by both Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa). My letter to UK Gov Minister Steve Reed asking him to retract his false statements about the condition of water in Scotland. IWC was able to report we're in a much better position than rUk with 87% 'high' or 'good' status. Public ownership works. — Gillian Martin (@GillianMSP) July 22, 2025 Ms Martin told the UK Environment Secretary: 'Your comments sought also to undermine the idea of public ownership in the minds of voters, yet this is clearly what the people of Scotland continue to want. 'Indeed, it is the very fact of that public ownership and control which has allowed us to keep water bills lower for people, compared to what people with privatised water supplies in England have to pay.' Noting that Sepa had found 87% of the Scottish water environment to be of 'high' of 'good' quality – up from 82% in 2014 – she insisted this was 'in part, due to water being a publicly-owned asset, allowing for investment without shareholder returns or the pressure to make profits'. The Scottish Government minister went on to tell Mr Reed: 'I am therefore asking that you acknowledge that your comments were inaccurate, that you apologise publicly for making them, and seek to correct them.' Sir Jon's review of water services south of the border did not explore renationalising water companies – with the Government at Westminster opposed to this despite demands from campaigners for a return to public ownership in England. Mr Reed however warned that nationalisation would cost £100 billion and would slow down efforts to cut pollution. The UK Government has been contacted for comment.
