Government prepares for release of landmark review into ailing water sector
The Independent Water Commission, led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, will outline recommendations to turn around the floundering sector in its final report on Monday.
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.
The Government will respond to the recommendations in Parliament later on Monday.
The review reportedly includes proposals to establish a new system of regulation, which is currently split between Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Ministers will announce a consultation that could lead to axing Ofwat, which oversees how much water companies in England and Wales can charge for services, according to the Guardian.
Ofwat has faced intense criticism for overseeing water companies during the years that they paid shareholders and accrued large debts while ageing infrastructure crumbled and sewage spills skyrocketed.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Environment Secretary Steve Reed suggested he was in favour of a new model where regional boards managed water in their areas, including representatives from water companies, local authorities and other organisations.
He said: 'I think the catchment-based model has a lot to commend it. Because if you can manage what's going into the water better, you can clean up the water faster.'
Asked on Friday if there were plans to scrap Ofwat as the regulator, Downing Street said the Government will wait for a final report.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'We are waiting for Sir Jon Cunliffe's final report next week, you can expect us to set out our response after that on what more we will do to turn the sector around.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'We are not going to comment on speculation.' Ofwat declined to comment.
Mr Reed is also expected to announce a new Government pledge to halve sewage pollution from water companies by the end of the decade, during broadcast interviews on Sunday.
He said: 'Families have watched their local rivers, coastlines and lakes suffer from record levels of pollution.
'My pledge to you: the Government will halve sewage pollution from water companies by the end of the decade.'
But in his Sunday Times interview, he acknowledged that bills were unlikely to fall from their current level, saying instead that an investment of £104 billion in the sector would 'avoid the need for any big bill hikes in the future'.
It comes after the Environment Agency on Friday said the number of serious pollution incidents caused by water companies across England rose by 60% in 2024 compared with the previous year.
The figures showed companies recorded a total of 2,801 pollution incidents, up from 2,174 in 2023.
Of these, 75 were categorised as posing 'serious or persistent' harm to wildlife and human health – up from 47 last year.
The Environment Agency said it is clear some companies are failing to meet the targets it has set on pollution, attributing failures to persistent underinvestment in new infrastructure, poor asset maintenance and reduced resilience because of the impacts of climate change.
Earlier on Friday, the Public Accounts Committee also released a report which called the level of pollution 'woeful' and recommended an overhaul of the regulation system.
The cross-party group of MPs said the Government must act with urgency to strengthen oversight of the sector to rebuild trust and ensure its poor performance improves.
The Independent Water Commission published its interim report in June, which found the sector to be beset with 'deep-rooted, systemic' failures.
While the paper outlined the commission's direction of travel, it stopped short of providing detailed recommendations on policy, regulatory reform and corporate governance, which are now expected in the final report.
The interim review pointed to the need for better regulation of water companies but it did not recommend the wholesale scrapping of Ofwat, which some have urged.
Nationalisation, which some campaigners have also called for, was excluded from its terms of reference when commissioned by the Government.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives accused Labour of copying the previous government's policies and doing nothing to halt rises in water bills.
Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said the Government should be 'transparent' about where the money to fix Britain's sewers was coming from, warning that consumers may have to stump up some of the cash.
She added: 'Labour's water plans must also include credible proposals to improve the water system's resilience to droughts, without placing an additional burden on bill payers and taxpayers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Channel 4
36 minutes ago
- Channel 4
Hostage release should be ‘pre-condition' to recognise Palestinian state
We spoke to Adam Rose, a lawyer acting for British families whose relatives are being held hostage in Gaza. We asked him why the hostages' families were so upset at the Government's proposal to recognise a Palestinian state with certain conditions.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
What is Yvette Cooper's plan to fast-track asylum claims?
As tensions flare up in the UK over migration, with protests taking place in Newcastle, Manchester and north London, the government is pursuing a new plan to reduce the asylum backlog. The home secretary has said she plans to introduce a fast-track scheme to turn around asylum decisions within weeks, via a 'major overhaul' of the appeal process. The plan is part of a wider attempt to crack down on the number of people crossing the Channel, with Ms Cooper announcing a 'one-in-one-out' returns deal with France earlier this year. But despite their efforts, last week it was revealed that the number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel topped 25,000 in record time, piling pressure on the government to take further action. It is hoped that the new plan will make a dent in the backlog and return people to safe countries faster, reducing the number of asylum seekers who are housed in hotels while awaiting the outcome of a claim or appeal. Here, The Independent takes a look at everything we know about the plan so far and how it will work in practice. How would the fast-track system work? Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation, including hotels, if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. But Yvette Cooper has now promised a 'major overhaul' of the appeal process, speeding up the time it takes for decisions on claims and appeals to be made. There are currently limited details on how this system would work, but sources told the Sunday Times it would allow decisions to be taken within weeks, rather than months or even years. Once a decision has been taken, those who have been rejected will be returned to their home country – reducing the number of people housed in temporary accommodation. 'If we speed up the decision-making appeal system and also then keep increasing returns, we hope to be able to make quite a big reduction in the overall numbers in the asylum system, because that is the best way to actually restore order and control,' Ms Cooper said. When will it be implemented? The home secretary has said she will legislate for the changes in autumn, when MPs return from their summer break. But it could take months for any legislation to pass through parliament, meaning we are unlikely to see the fast-track system implemented until the new year. How big is the asylum backlog and why is tackling it a priority? As of the end of March 2025, there were 78,745 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision – an 8 per cent decrease from the end of June 2024 and a 13 per cent decrease compared to the end of December 2024, official immigration statistics show. These outstanding cases related to 109,536 people, including both main applicants and their dependents. Labour has put a pledge to fix the 'broken' asylum system and crack down on the number of people coming to the UK on small boats at the centre of its plan for government. But with boat crossings at a record high, and the asylum backlog still above 75,000, there is mounting pressure on ministers to take more drastic action, a pressure exacerbated by the success of Reform UK in the polls. The government has also promised to end the use of asylum hotels before the end of this parliament, a promise it is unlikely to meet unless the backlog is reduced. Tensions over asylum hotels have flared up in recent weeks, with a protest and counter-protest taking place on Saturday outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in north London, and also in Newcastle and Manchester.
