Water sector needs ‘root-and-branch' reform, MPs say
The cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee has said that the industry is 'failing', but that water companies are 'deaf to the crisis' that it is facing.
In their report, Priorities For Water Sector Reform released on Monday, the MPs argue that the Government 'should feel able to use its temporary nationalisation powers' when needed.
They also said the system should 'ensure that more money gained from investors and through customer bills is directed towards investment in water infrastructure and service delivery' and less towards debt repayment or financial rewards for executives.
The system of fines and rewards should also focus on a reduction in pollution incidents, responsible ownership and the need for the sector to have long-term resilience, the MPs said.
'Despite some initial success after privatisation in 1989, root-and-branch reform of the water sector is now needed to improve the sector's culture,' the committee said.
As part of their investigation, the MPs found that 'public disquiet has increasingly turned to outrage' at the way water companies and their bosses are benefiting from the sector.
'Over hearings with 10 of the largest water companies and Ofwat, we regularly encountered a culture that is deaf to the crisis the
sector is facing,' they said.
#WaterCompany senior executives will be banned from receiving a bonus if they breach standards relating to consumer and environmental matters, criminal liability and financial resilience, under new powers coming into force today.
Find out more: https://t.co/cDOJjhEU54 pic.twitter.com/Nquv8EVlBl
— Ofwat (@Ofwat) June 6, 2025
Committee chairman Alistair Carmichael, a Liberal Democrat MP, said the sector 'must not shy away from bold proposals' and that it has a 'serious culture problem'.
He said: 'Water companies' complex and sometimes impenetrable financial structures, with their myriad subsidiaries, holding companies and parent organisations, seem to suggest that their purpose is less to provide a good service to their customers and more to allow them to juggle their finances and their increasingly unsustainable levels of debt.
'Meanwhile, an ineffective regulatory system has failed to protect customers, the environment and the financial stability of the sector.
'It has failed to ensure that companies invest in essential infrastructure and it has not encouraged long-term thinking.
'This has got to stop now. Trust and accountability in the water sector are very low.
'It is not acceptable that it has fallen to commendable citizen scientists to expose issues with local water resources.
'Environmental protection and the delivery of reliable and safe water must be the first priorities of water companies and regulators.'
A Defra spokesperson said: 'Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted, and our water system is broken.
'As part of the plan for change, new legislation has banned unfair multimillion-pound bonuses for bosses at six water companies and launched a record 81 criminal investigations.
'This Government has also secured the largest investment into the water sector in history, with £104 bn in private sector investment to clean up rivers, lakes and seas and cut sewage by nearly half by 2030.'
A Water UK spokesperson said: 'Everyone agrees that the water system is not working, and we have been calling for fundamental reforms which allow investment to get quickly to where it needs to go.
'In the meantime, companies are focused on investing a record £104 billion over the next five years to secure our water supplies, end sewage entering our rivers and seas and support economic growth.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lobbyist claims that New York anti-plastic bill would harm people of color called ‘misleading'
The oil and petrochemical lobby is attempting to fend off a New York state proposal to slash plastic waste by arguing that it will disproportionately burden people of color, advocates and assembly sources say, despite widespread evidence that the plastic supply chain poses serious health risks to Black and brown communities. In New York state, advocates are fighting to pass a wide-ranging bill to reduce plastic packaging by 30% in 12 years while dramatically boosting recycling rates and phasing certain toxic compounds out of packaging. The packaging reduction and recycling infrastructure bill would place a fee on large businesses that distribute plastic packaging, with revenue benefiting taxpayers – a scheme called extended producer responsibility. The proposal, which must be taken up this week in order to pass, passed the senate last month for the second year in a row, with backing from nearly every Democrat. But it is facing staunch opposition from some business interests and the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group representing big oil companies and chemical manufacturers such as DuPont. Efforts to push back on the bill have reportedly cost more than $2m. In recent weeks, advocates and assembly staff told the Guardian, lobbyists have focused on the assembly's influential Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian American legislative caucus, arguing that the proposed legislation will raise food prices, thereby harming communities of color who are more likely to rely on food assistance programs. The efforts to kill the plastic legislation are 'plainly racist', said state assembly member Claire Valdez, who represents part of Queens in New York City and backs the original bill. 'These companies just want to be able to continue pushing their product on exploited and under-resourced communities without consequence,' she told the Guardian. The tactic, first covered by the Albany Times-Union, has prompted ire from bill advocates. In a letter to the state assembly in support of the bill, New York religious leaders said this 'corporate narrative' is 'not only false; it is also deeply insulting'. 'It is an immoral and manipulative tactic for these corporate interests to use communities of color as pawns to preserve their bottom lines,' the letter says. 'By focusing their efforts on lobbying the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian American Legislative Caucus, they are attempting to create division and fear where none should exist.' Another letter, sent jointly by the NAACP New York State Conference and Consumer Reports, said: 'We are aware that representatives of the petrochemical and packaging industries have been meeting with members of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus in an attempt to discredit this bill and promote a weaker alternative. They claim that this legislation will raise prices for everyday New Yorkers. These claims are misleading and lack data to support them.' Garbage incinerators, on which the bill attempts to reduce reliance by boosting recycling, are often located in communities of color, where they emit toxic pollutants supporters of the legislation say. And plastic production, which also creates dangerous air emissions, also disproportionately harms the health of Black and brown Americans. Reached for comment, Freeman Klopott, spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council in New York, said the proposed legislation 'is not the answer to New York's waste problem'. 'ACC has joined a broad coalition that have worked closely with many legislators on both sides of the aisle to highlight more effective, equitable ways to reduce packaging waste,' Klopott said. The ACC did not respond to questions about lobbyists targeting lawmakers who are people of color in efforts to oppose the bill. Business interest groups opposing the bill have denied that any intentions they have are racially motivated. Industry interests point to a York University study which found the original bill would raise prices by over $700 per household annually. But bill advocates note that report was produced by a group that is funded by the plastic lobby. They say there is no credible evidence that the policy would increase consumer prices. One 2022 report from Columbia University found that such programs result in only very small price increases, while a 2020 report funded by Oregon's environment department found that extended producer responsibility bills did not raise prices in Canadian provinces. In recent weeks, a handful of New York Democratic lawmakers, most of whom are members of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian legislative caucus, have thrown their support behind a competing, weaker bill, which is supported by business interests. It, too, would create an extended producer responsibility program, but forgo some of the more progressive elements of the original legislation such as the ratcheting down of plastic that businesses can use and the mandates placed on recycled content levels. Petrochemical interests have previously argued that plastic reduction efforts would harm people of color and poor communities. A lobbying group representing plastic bag manufacturers in 2014 funded New York's Black Leadership Action Coalition, whose founder argued that those backing a fee on plastic bags had 'BEEN HAD' and 'BEEN HOODWINKED.' As Minnesota environmentalists worked last year to overturn a policy preventing municipalities from banning plastic bags, some trade groups argued the repeal would place a burden on low-income communities of color, advocates told the Guardian. And last year, the International Council of Chemical Associations commissioned a report that said production caps would require disproportionately harm low-income people by raising product prices. But at a press conference in Albany this month, advocates for the original plastic reduction bill said that passing the policy would benefit Black and brown Americans by helping to tamp down on toxic petrochemical processing. 'How many more of us have to die because of these polluters,' asked Sharon Lavigne, founder of the Louisiana grassroots organization Rise St James. 'They're sacrificing us to make a profit.' Sarahana Shrestha, an assemblymember representing a south-eastern New York district, who supports the original legislation, said the industry's 'fear tactic' is working on some lawmakers who may be less familiar with the legislation. 'Lawmakers are always scared that a policy could have unforeseen consequences for their constituents,' she said, adding that the opposition's strategy has focused on stopping the bill from being put up for a vote. New York's assembly has until Tuesday to vote on the proposed bills, which if passed would head to the governor's desk for final approval.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Yvette Cooper tells MPs Louise Casey's grooming gangs audit 'damning'
The home secretary says the Casey report makes 12 recommendations, and the government will act on all of them. In line with the first recommendation it will tighten the law on rape
South Wales Argus
32 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
