Latest news with #Steve Reed
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Environment Secretary urged to apologise for ‘misleading' Scottish water claims
The Scottish Government is demanding an apology from UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed for 'inaccurate and misleading' made about water quality north of the border. 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.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Homes and factories ‘can be built faster' with water reforms, says Reed
Water reforms will help speed up housebuilding and ease wild swimmers' fears that they might be bathing in sewage, the Environment Secretary has said. Steve Reed described supply and sewage infrastructure as 'critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth', as he took questions about the Independent Water Commission's final report published on Monday. Mr Reed told MPs the Government would publish a white paper this autumn, with proposals in response to the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and teased plans for a new water reform Bill. In the Commons, Labour MP Allison Gardner warned that 'antiquated mains water infrastructure cannot adequately cope with the increased demand of new housing developments, even when the developer meets all the required mitigations'. The Stoke-on-Trent South MP asked: 'Does the minister agree with me that with the Government's plan to build 1.5 million homes, it is vital that privatised water companies ensure that they can adequately meet systems demand without sewage dumping, prioritising this over profiteering?' Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, David Reed, later said some billpayers feared water companies might not 'keep pace with development' in their area. Responding to the Labour MP, Mr Reed said: 'Water infrastructure is critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth in every single region of the country. 'I've accepted in principle, today, one of Sir Jon's recommendations that will allow us to align for the first time water infrastructure investment and spatial planning so that those homes and factories can be built faster to the benefit of local people.' In his report, Sir Jon wrote that 'planning for the water system should be closely aligned with other spatial planning'. This could involve requiring town halls to ask water firms what they need before agreeing their local planning policies. Samantha Niblett said wild swimmers in Derbyshire and Staffordshire 'frequently have to avoid a Trent tan' when they are in the water. The Labour MP for South Derbyshire asked: 'Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by having cleaner waters we can encourage more great exercise like this to make a healthier – and improve the wellbeing of – our country?' Mr Reed replied: 'The Trent tan is a very alarming and graphic image but it does capture what has gone wrong with our water sector for so long. 'The changes we're announcing today will clean up our waterways across the country, so that wild swimmers as well as many other people who like to enjoy our precious rivers, lakes and seas can get on and enjoy them without the kind of concern that she's alluding to.' The Environment Secretary also rejected the suggestion that ministers should take water firms into public ownership. Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, said the review 'feels like a missed opportunity for the Government to show the public whose side it's on'. He said: 'It entrenches a privatised model that has already failed economically, environmentally and democratically, with 20-50% of bills going on servicing debt. 'Why if public ownership is good enough for rail, good enough for GB Energy and renewables, is it not good enough for water?' Mr Reed said the Government had to 'take a rational and not an ideological approach to tackling this problem', and added Government officials had calculated that 'nationalising the water companies would cost £100 billion'. He continued: 'And to pay that money, we'd have to take it away from public services like the National Health Service and education in order to hand it to the owners of companies that have been polluting our waterways. 'That makes no sense to me, it makes no sense to the public. Frankly, I'm surprised it makes any sense to him.' Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said Sir Jon's report 'looks at how to tinker' with the system and added: 'It's a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders, billions of debt being loaded up, and neglecting crucial infrastructure, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. 'So, does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of this failure must be part of the calculation in determining the cost of bringing water into public hands where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who don't think the water industry should pay for this greed and terrible mismanagement of our water systems?' The Environment Secretary said it would take 'years to unpick the current models of ownership, during which time, pollution in our rivers would get much worse not better'. He said: 'He's talking about cutting the National Health Service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies, and making pollution far worse – doesn't sound very Green to me.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog
The 'broken' water sector in England and Wales faces an era of much tighter oversight after a landmark review, including the creation of a new sector watchdog to 'prevent the abuses of the past'. With water and sewerage companies reeling from what the report's author Sir Jon Cunliffe called their 'Great Stink' moment, the government announced it would be abolishing Ofwat and combining its powers with those of other water watchdogs under a new super-regulator. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, told parliament on Monday that ministers would be immediately adopting five of Cunliffe's 88 recommendations, including creating a real-time sewage map with automatic data that names and shames water companies. At the moment, the companies are responsible for reporting their own spills. Campaigners and environment groups will have more of a say in the cleaning-up of their local rivers, Reed announced, and regional water boards will be set up with powers to clean up rivers and seas locally as well as planning essential infrastructure. 'Volunteers and citizen scientists will be able to engage for the first time through regional structures. Citizens, local authorities, businesses will all have a voice,' he said. A 'super regulator' will be created to replace Ofwat, which has been blamed for letting water companies preside over decades of financial mismanagement and widespread sewage dumping. This new watchdog will also take in the powers of the Environment Agency (EA), the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Natural England, to avoid duplication of efforts and provide one clear regulatory system for the industry. Announcing this, Reed said: 'I agree with Sir Jon that water regulation has been too weak, too complex and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and conflicting remits has failed customers and the environment.' However, Cunliffe told the Guardian it would be 2027 at the earliest before the new body was fully set up, comparing it to the media regulator. 'We looked at Ofcom, which took two years,' he said. Launching his 465-page report at the London Museum of Water and Steam on Monday, he said the current system had failed: 'If we are to achieve the water sector we need, we need to look at all the factors that have contributed to our Great Stink moment. Some companies have manifestly acted in their private interest but against the public interest. That must be prevented in future.' The Great Stink was the name given to the terrible hot summer of 1858 that created such an awful smell from the Thames that Sir Joseph Bazalgette was tasked with creating the capital's sewer system. Another recommendation Reed is adopting from Cunliffe's report is to create an ombudsman with legal powers to recoup funds for customers who face water outages, and Reed will set out 'strong ministerial directives' for Ofwat and the EA while they are merged, as Cunliffe recommended. The rest of the suggestions will be considered over the summer, with conclusions to be published in a white paper in the autumn. Cunliffe also proposed the creation of a new formal turnaround regime to allow struggling companies space to recover under 'regulatory forbearance' which could let them avoid fines. Thames Water, the UK's largest water company with 16 million customers in London and the south-east, is loaded with £20bn of debt and struggling to stave off financial collapse into special administration, a form of temporary nationalisation. 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 However, it may not be able to benefit from the proposed turnaround regime, according to Reed, who said the government was prepared for the company to enter special administration if that became necessary. The company has been asking to be let off more than £1bn in fines, arguing it faces financial collapse if it has to pay for committing environmental offences. Some campaign groups welcomed the report. Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust, said the 88 recommendations 'would lead to a dramatic improvement in the water environment and far more cost-effective delivery'. Others were less enthusiastic, particularly as Cunliffe was barred by Reed from exploring the possibility of nationalisation. The water campaigner Feargal Sharkey accused the government of a year of inaction on sewage and called for the environment secretary to quit: 'The first year has been so chaotic,' he said. 'Quite frankly I think Steve Reed now needs to resign and hand the job over to somebody who can be more effective.' A spokesperson for Keir Starmer said the prime minister had full confidence in Reed, who was doing an 'excellent' job. The GMB union called for the renationalisation of water. Gary Carter, its national officer, said: 'Water privatisation has been a disastrous failure. It's a disgrace – and one Ofwat has overseen. Now is the time to fundamentally reform the water sector and renationalise this vital resource.' Reed said that he had not considered nationalisation as an option because his department had found the cost would be in excess of £100bn which is money which could be used for services such as the NHS. Economists have queried this figure and suggested it could cost as little as £14.5bn. Cunliffe said that regardless of nationalisation being out of his remit, the ownership structure was not necessarily the cause of the sewage pollution, arguing that the UK had been the 'dirty man of Europe' under a nationalised model. He also defended the high pay of water company executives after anger caused by the news last week about Southern Water's chief executive receiving a doubled pay package. 'We are not proposing the regulator should set pay scales for the industry,' Cunliffe said. 'They do need to recruit, and you have to attract the best people. What really makes the public angry is when the pay is there but the performance is not.'
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
Homes and factories ‘can be built faster' with water reforms, says Reed
Water reforms will help speed up housebuilding and ease wild swimmers' fears that they might be bathing in sewage, the Environment Secretary has said. Steve Reed described supply and sewage infrastructure as 'critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth', as he took questions about the Independent Water Commission's final report published on Monday. Mr Reed told MPs the Government would publish a white paper this autumn, with proposals in response to the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and teased plans for a new water reform Bill. In the Commons, Labour MP Allison Gardner warned that 'antiquated mains water infrastructure cannot adequately cope with the increased demand of new housing developments, even when the developer meets all the required mitigations'. The Stoke-on-Trent South MP asked: 'Does the minister agree with me that with the Government's plan to build 1.5 million homes, it is vital that privatised water companies ensure that they can adequately meet systems demand without sewage dumping, prioritising this over profiteering?' Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, David Reed, later said some billpayers feared water companies might not 'keep pace with development' in their area. Responding to the Labour MP, Mr Reed said: 'Water infrastructure is critical for housing development, economic development and economic growth in every single region of the country. 'I've accepted in principle, today, one of Sir Jon's recommendations that will allow us to align for the first time water infrastructure investment and spatial planning so that those homes and factories can be built faster to the benefit of local people.' In his report, Sir Jon wrote that 'planning for the water system should be closely aligned with other spatial planning'. This could involve requiring town halls to ask water firms what they need before agreeing their local planning policies. Samantha Niblett said wild swimmers in Derbyshire and Staffordshire 'frequently have to avoid a Trent tan' when they are in the water. The Labour MP for South Derbyshire asked: 'Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by having cleaner waters we can encourage more great exercise like this to make a healthier – and improve the wellbeing of – our country?' Mr Reed replied: 'The Trent tan is a very alarming and graphic image but it does capture what has gone wrong with our water sector for so long. 'The changes we're announcing today will clean up our waterways across the country, so that wild swimmers as well as many other people who like to enjoy our precious rivers, lakes and seas can get on and enjoy them without the kind of concern that she's alluding to.' The Environment Secretary also rejected the suggestion that ministers should take water firms into public ownership. Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, said the review 'feels like a missed opportunity for the Government to show the public whose side it's on'. He said: 'It entrenches a privatised model that has already failed economically, environmentally and democratically, with 20-50% of bills going on servicing debt. 'Why if public ownership is good enough for rail, good enough for GB Energy and renewables, is it not good enough for water?' Mr Reed said the Government had to 'take a rational and not an ideological approach to tackling this problem', and added Government officials had calculated that 'nationalising the water companies would cost £100 billion'. He continued: 'And to pay that money, we'd have to take it away from public services like the National Health Service and education in order to hand it to the owners of companies that have been polluting our waterways. 'That makes no sense to me, it makes no sense to the public. Frankly, I'm surprised it makes any sense to him.' Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said Sir Jon's report 'looks at how to tinker' with the system and added: 'It's a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders, billions of debt being loaded up, and neglecting crucial infrastructure, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. 'So, does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of this failure must be part of the calculation in determining the cost of bringing water into public hands where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who don't think the water industry should pay for this greed and terrible mismanagement of our water systems?' The Environment Secretary said it would take 'years to unpick the current models of ownership, during which time, pollution in our rivers would get much worse not better'. He said: 'He's talking about cutting the National Health Service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies, and making pollution far worse – doesn't sound very Green to me.'
Times
a day ago
- Business
- Times
What the water review means for UK households
A s the biggest review of water regulation in 36 years is announced, many people will be wondering what the shake-up will mean for their finances. Many households are already shocked and angry about the huge increase in their bills, which will rise 36 per cent on average by 2030. Customers in some parts of the country face even steeper rises — such as Southern Water's average rate increase of 47 per cent for this financial year alone. The reality is that the final report of Sir Jon Cunliffe's independent water commission will have no short-term impact on bills. The rises are locked in until 2030 and Cunliffe was told by Steve Reed, the environment secretary, not to look at anything that would affect the current five-year 'price control' period.
