Latest news with #IndependentWaterCommission
STV News
3 hours ago
- Politics
- STV News
Environment minister claims Scottish water is dirtier than England's
The Scottish Government has demanded an apology after the UK environment minister said Scotland's water is dirtier than England's. Steve Reed said that 'pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England'. Scotland's climate action secretary Gillian Martin said the claim was 'inaccurate and misleading'. According to the latest independent water commission report, Scotland has more waterways in 'good' ecological condition compared to England and Wales. Martin called for Reed to apologise for his comments made during an interview on Channel 4 News on Monday. In a letter to the environment secretary on Tuesday, she said: 'I cannot understand how you could make such an inaccurate comment when the very report that you were on the programme to discuss clearly states the opposite. 'I am therefore asking that you acknowledge that your comments were inaccurate, apologise publicly for them, and seek to correct them.' The row emerged after the final report from the Independent Water Commission found that 66% of Scotland's water bodies were of good ecological status, compared with 16.1% in England and 29.9% in Wales. While Martin said there is 'clearly more to do', 87% of Scotland's entire water environment is assessed by SEPA as having a high or good classification for water quality – up from 82% in 2014. 'Whilst we of course need to be careful how these figures are used, as they are not calculated on the same basis, it is clear that Scotland has a higher performance,' Martin said. When asked about public ownership of water during a Channel 4 News interview on Monday night, Reed said: 'In any case, it is not guaranteed to work… and we know that from looking north of the border where, in Scotland, they have a nationalised water company but pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England.' The Independent Water Commission report was led by Sir Jon Cunliffe and was prohibited from looking at the possibility of nationalising water companies in England and Wales. Reed warned that nationalisation would cost £100bn and would slow down efforts to cut pollution. Martin accused Reed of seeking to 'undermine the idea of public ownership'. She said Scotland's comparatively high water performance is 'in part, due to water being a publicly owned asset, allowing for investment without shareholder returns or the pressure to make profits'. The UK Government has been contacted for comment. STV News is now on WhatsApp Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
New Statesman
7 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Why isn't Labour nationalising water?
Photo byYesterday morning (21 July), in Kingfisher Wharf in Fulham, Steve Reed announced the start of the 'water revolution'. Following the findings of the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Environment Secretary outlined what is now being dubbed the 'Reed Reforms'. The water regulator Ofwat will be abolished and a new consolidated body will be set up in its stead, intended to 'prevent the abuses of the past'. Speaking in Parliament later that day, Reed confirmed the Government would take up five other recommendations included in Cunliffe's review. These include: a new statutory ombudsman to help customers resolve complaints, an end to companies monitoring their own pollution, and region-specific operations within the new regulator. This is all part of Reed's plan to cut sewage pollution by 50 per cent by 2030. However, full nationalisation of the water industry is off the table. This is partly because the possibility of nationalisation was not part of the remit given to Cunliffe for his review. His 88 recommendations instead covered how the British water system is regulated, how to manage competing demands on water, and how to maintain the resilience of critical infrastructure. But the response to the review's findings from outraged sewage campaigners suggests that perhaps nationalisation should also have been included in the scope of Cunliffe's report. The symbolism of the waterfront location chosen by Reed was somewhat lost on the assembled journalists: the studio's blinds were closed, effectively blocking the Thames from view. But Reed remained buoyant as he stepped up to the lectern to answer journalists' questions afterwards. Insiders at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently told me that water has monopolised the work of the department, ranking consistently highly among voters. In the huddle following his speech Reed ruled out nationalisation. 'The reason that nationalisation wasn't included is because, first of all, it would cost £100bn, according to figures produced by my department,' he said. 'That money would have to be taken away from the NHS and from schools, to be given to the people who have polluted our rivers.' This justification makes sense. The country currently finds itself in a tricky financial position; Rachel Reeves's welfare cuts have been defeated and she will likely be forced to raise taxes in the autumn. Making big political spending commitments is unlikely to be at the top of the Government's agenda. But regardless of cost, nationalisation remains popular with voters. A poll from last year showed that 82 per cent of the public said they thought water should be brought back into public ownership. The UK is a European outlier in its privatised status quo, and water is an emotive issue. Ruling the measure out leaves Labour exposed on left – but increasingly on the right, and it is already being challenged on the issue by Nigel Farage and Reform. Farage said on Sunday that his party would nationalise 50 per cent of the water industry (although when asked where he would find the money from, the MP for Clacton couldn't answer). Reed's response to Farage was to point out this £50bn unfunded commitment would come alongside an additional £80bn worth of unfunded commitments Reform has already made. 'That's more than double the amount that Liz Truss committed when she crashed the economy,' Reed said. 'It looks like Nigel Farage is offering us a rerun of Liz Truss.' Still, voters may be more likely to believe intention over detail – the stridency of Farage and his deputy Richard Tice on public ownership sets them clearly apart from Labour. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe These reforms have been received sceptically by the robust camp of anti-sewage campaigners. Feargal Sharkey, the former lead singer of the Undertones and the most best-known of the group called on Reed to resign. Sharkey, who campaigned alongside Labour MPs in the run up to the general election told LBC, 'He's made it worse!' (When asked if he would heed Sharkey's call, Reed said: 'Fergal has been campaigning for cleaner rivers, and I'm cleaning up the rivers.') Others have expressed regret at the government's rejection of nationalisation. Matt Staniek, who leads the Save Windermere campaign said the fact the Cunliffe review did not include nationalisation meant it was 'not a root and branch review'. Save Windermere is currently calling on the Government to make it unlawful to release any kind of sewage (treated or untreated) into the Lake. He was unimpressed by the Reed reforms and pointed out that tinkering with the regulator would not fix the fundamental problem with the UK's water system: privatisation. It is accepted that the UK's water infrastructure has fallen into such disrepair because the money which should have gone back into improving the system has instead gone to shareholders in dividends. This, coupled with the Conservatives' preventing water companies from raising consumer bills fast enough, has created a vicious cycle (ending with the 30 per cent increase to bills customers saw at the end of April). 'If you remove the profit motive, remove shareholders and owners, you are left with 100 per cent of a customer's bill being able to go back into fixing the water system,' Staniek said. Cunliffe's review included the admission that water bills will still need to rise in the short-term to patch up the UK's leaky system. But in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis in which voters have been sold the idea that this Labour government was elected to cut their bills, such a reality is politically dangerous for the government. Staniek said that when it comes to water, the rise in bills is not necessarily the issue: it is what they will go towards which will make an electoral difference. 'People have been paying for a service that has never been fully provided,' Staniek said. 'Why is it fair that the customer has to pick up the bill?' Reed is walking a fine line here; between keeping disgruntled voters onside by cleaning up Britain's rivers, and doing so within an ongoing political and fiscal framework which prevents radical changes being brought from the Labour benches. But people are already furious about this affront to nature and politics, one which unites voters of all persuasions. If, by 2029 Britain's rivers remain polluted, they will take their support elsewhere. [Further reading: Will Labour's water 'revolution' work?] Related
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What 'once-in-a-generation' water reform report will mean for your bills
Water industry regulator Ofwat is to be abolished following a major review into the state of water companies in England and Wales. The Independent Water Commission had been commissioned by the UK and Welsh governments to carry out the largest review of the sector since privatisation, amid a backdrop of widespread public anger over increasing pollution of rivers and seas, rising bills and bosses' bonuses. The report, released on Monday morning, outlined 88 recommendations to turn around the ailing industry. Shortly after it was published, the UK government announced it will scrap Ofwat, and bring the functions from four different regulators into one "powerful" new watchdog. Sir Jon Cunliffe, the author of the Independent Water Commission's final report, also warned that "bills are going to rise by 30% over the next five years". "There are some inescapable facts here," he told BBC Breakfast, explaining that the rising cost of producing water and dealing with wastewater, climate change, higher environmental standards and demographic pressure means infrastructure needs renewal. 'The problem comes when you suddenly go from not investing for a long period, to massive investment in order to catch up. That's really what's driven those huge bill increases that we've seen," he added. What the report says about bills The average water bill in England and Wales is forecast to rise to £603 in 2025/26, equating to approximately £1.65 per day. This would be an increase of 26% from the average of £480 last year, although there is regional variability in how much customers are charged for their water. "While in comparison to other utilities this is relatively low, there are concerns over the impact of significant increases in customer bills when set against the backdrop of cost-of-living challenges," the report says. It notes, however, that water companies in England have made a commitment to make bills affordable for all households by 2030 and develop a strategy to eliminate water poverty (households who spend more than 5% of their net income after housing costs on water). Having declined in real terms for a decade, water bills will "rise markedly" over the next five years in line with a "huge step-up of investment in the water sector", the report says. With Ofwat estimating bills rising to £2,000 a year by 2050, the commission says national social tariffs will be needed to help poorer households. Social tariffs are currently offered by individual water companies. How have bills gone up over the years Figures from Ofwat show a substantial increase in bills in the first decade after privatisation in 1989. This, according to trade association Water UK, was largely due to new environmental requirements and the addressing of "systemic underfunding" under the previous water authorities. Bills dipped in the early 2000s (to roughly the same as 2023 levels accounting for inflation), and rose through the second half of the decade. Average water bills peaked again in 2010, and have been falling since then, with the size bills not reflecting the surge of inflation we saw during the cost-of-living crisis of 2021. However, according to Ofwat's projections, we can expect a sharp uptick in the coming years as water companies attempt to make up for underinvestment in new infrastructure and poor asset maintenance in the face of rising demand and environmental challenges. In its report, the commission suggests that while other factors were at play, pressure from the government and regulators to keep bills low between 2009 and 2024 could explain a sudden surge in investment. Last year Ofwat approved a quadrupling of investment for the water sector over five years in a bid to tackle rising sewage pollution. What do water bills get spent on? Evidence provided to the Independent Commission by Ofwat provides a breakdown of how water bills are spent by companies on average. As shown in the chart below, a large proportion is spent on operating costs, which are the day-to-day expenses of providing water and sewerage service. Capital charges, the cost of borrowing money to buy or improve infrastructure, buildings and equipment, also takes up a significant portion of people's bills. Allowed return - an amount set by the regulator to determine how much money a company can make on its investments - also accounts for a significant portion. This is a way of controlling how much water companies collect from their customers in bills, but Ofwat does not have control over profits. This can be higher if a company performs efficiently, but many firms have been accused of putting profit over pollution, by neglecting their infrastructure. Large bonuses for executives of failing water companies has left many consumers angry in recent years, particularly those of Thames Water, the worst-performing in a recent Environment Agency report on pollution. Thames Water awarded bonuses worth £2.5m to senior staff this year, despite suffering an annual loss of £1.65 billion while struggling with a debt mountain of £16.79bn. However, rules introduced by Ofwat in 2023 allow the regulator to prevent water companies from using customer money to fund bonuses if they cannot show that the payouts are linked to performance. Read more Majority of Brits scared of wild swimming because of sewage (The Independent) Pledge to halve sewage pollution after 'brutal truth' of serious incidents by water companies revealed (Yahoo news) Water pollution incidents in Wales hit ten-year high (WalesOnline)
ITV News
a day ago
- Business
- ITV News
How will the 'landmark' water industry review impact you and your bills?
• The Independent Water Commission has outlined 88 recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments to turn around the ailing industry.
eNCA
a day ago
- Business
- eNCA
UK overhauls regulation of 'broken' water system
LONDON - The UK government announced Monday it will overhaul the management and regulation of the water system, following a landmark report that slammed systematic failings in the heavily-criticised industry. The move comes after years of angry complaints about the privately-run system and its much-maligned regulator Ofwat, including constant leaks and raw sewage being discharged into waterways and oceans. "Our water industry is broken," Environment Secretary Steve Reed said in a statement. The government will abolish Ofwat in response to failures identified by the Independent Water Commission, dubbed the most comprehensive review of the sector since its privatisation in the late 1980s. "A single, powerful regulator responsible for the entire water sector will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past," Reed said. Spiralling bills and high executive pay at the water companies, alongside decades of dividends paid to their shareholders and underinvestment in crumbling infrastructure, have stoked public anger. On Sunday, it emerged the number of serious contamination incidents in England had risen by 60 percent in a year, prompting the government to vow to halve sewage pollution caused by water companies by 2030. "The water industry, the system of regulation that we have and actually our system for managing our rivers and waterways generally ... is failing," Jon Cunliffe, head of the Independent Water Commission, told Times Radio. Published alongside a 67-page summary detailing the 88 recommendations, the commission's report concluded the "complex and unintelligible" framework to upgrade infrastructure is "clearly not working". It urged the UK and Welsh governments to give themselves more powers to "direct" failing water firms, while also demanding an overhaul of their regulation. Britain's publicly-owned water and sewage industry was privatised in 1989 under the Conservative government of then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Then the sector had no debt, but that has now ballooned to tens of billions of pounds, which critics say has been partly used to pay generous dividends. Water campaigner Feargal Sharkey said Monday that successive governments had "lost control of this industry" and he had little faith the suggested reforms would succeed. "The beating heart of this debacle is ... corporate greed, the financial engineering, the exorbitant salaries," he told BBC News. "We were promised a proper root and branch wide-ranging review, including ownership and structure. We were promised champagne. All we've actually got is sour milk."
