‘Broken’ water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog | Water industry

The “broken” water sector in England and Wales faces a much tighter surveillance era after a historical examination, including the creation of a new childcare dog to “prevent abuse of the past”.

With the water and sanitation companies in shock from what the author of the SIR Jon Cunliffe report called their “big stinking”, the government announced that it would abolish Ofwat and would combine its powers with those of other water guard dogs under a new “super-regulator”.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed told Parliament on Monday that ministers would immediately adopt five of the 88 Cunliffe recommendations, including the creation of a real -time sewer card with automatic data that name and shame on water companies. Currently, companies are responsible for reporting their own spills.

Activists and environmental groups will have more word to say in cleaning their local rivers, announced Reed, and regional water councils will be set up with powers to clean rivers and seas locally as well as the planning of essential infrastructure.

“Volunteers and scientific citizens will be able to engage for the first time through regional structures. Citizens, local authorities, companies will all have one voice, “he said.

A super-regulator will be created to replace Offat, which has been blamed for having left the presidency of water companies for decades of financial and dueping of wastewater.

This new guard dog will also absorb the powers of the Environment Agency, the inspection of drinking water and natural England to avoid the duplication of efforts and provide a clear regulatory system to the industry.

Reed said: “I agree with SIR Jon that water regulation was too low, too complex and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and contradictory discounts have failed customers and the environment.”

However, Cunliffe told the Guardian that it would be in 2027 at the earliest before the new body was fully put in place, comparing it to the media regulator. “We examined the OFCOM, which took two years,” he said.

Launch of his 465 -page report at the London Museum of Water and Steam on Monday, he said that the current system had failed: “If we want to carry out the water sector we need, we need to examine all the factors that contributed to our big moment of stench. Some companies obviously acted in their private interest but against the public interest. This must be prevented in the future. “

The great stench was the name given to the terrible hot summer of 1858 which created such a horrible odor of the Thames that Sir Joseph Bazalgette was responsible for creating the sewer system of the capital.

Another REED recommendation adopts from the Cunliffe report is to create a mediator with legal powers to recover funds for customers who face water failures, and Reed will define the “solid ministerial directives” for OFWAT and the Environment Agency during their merger, as Cunliffe recommended.

The rest of the suggestions will be considered during the summer and the conclusions will be published in a white paper in the fall.

Cunliffe proposed the creation of an official recovery regime to allow the space of companies in difficulty to recover under “regulatory abstention” which could allow them to avoid fines.

Thames Water, the largest water company in the United Kingdom with 16 million customers in London and Southeast, is responsible for 20 billion pounds in debt and has trouble avoiding financial collapse in special administration, a form of temporary nationalization.

However, it may not be able to benefit from the proposed recovery regime, according to Reed, which said that the government was prepared for the company to enter the special administration if necessary. The company asked to be spared more than 1 billion pounds sterling fines, arguing that it would face a financial collapse if it were to pay for environmental offenses.

Some campaign groups have praised the report. Mark Lloyd, the director general of the Rivers Trust, said that the 88 recommendations “would lead to a spectacular improvement in the water environment and a much more profitable delivery”.

Others were less enthusiastic, especially since Cunliffe was excluded by Reed to explore the possibility of nationalization.

Water activist Feargal Sharkey accused the government of a year of inaction on wastewater and called on the environment of the environment to leave: “The first year was so chaotic,” he said. “Frankly, I think Steve Reed must now resign and put the work to someone who can be more effective.” A spokesperson for Keir Starmer said the Prime Minister had fully confidence in Reed, who was doing an “excellent” work.

The GMB union called for the renationalization of water. Gary Carter, his national officer, said: “The privatization of water was a disastrous failure. It’s a shame – and a OF -WAT has supervised. It is now time to fundamentally reform the water sector and reserve this vital resource. ”

Reed said he had not considered nationalization as an option because his department had found that the cost would be greater than 100 billion pounds Sterling – money that could be used for services such as NHS. Economists questioned this figure and suggested that it could cost as little as 14.5 billion pounds sterling.

Cunliffe said that the property structure was not necessarily the cause of wastewater pollution, arguing that the United Kingdom had been “the dirty man in Europe” under a nationalized model.

He defended the high salary of the leaders of the Water Company after the anger caused by the news last week about the Director General of Southern Water receiving a double wage package.

“We do not propose that the regulator should set remuneration scales for industry,” said Cunliffe. “They need to recruit, and you have to attract the best people. What really puts the public is when the salary is there, but the performance is not. ”