Since the privatization, an evaluation of the water industry has proposed the largest reform of the sector in England and Wales more than 30 years ago.
The author of the review, Sir Jon Cunliffe, has made 88 recommendations that vary from scrapping the current supervisor of water to stronger introduction of a stronger environmental regulation.
The reforms are deep and wide and come at a time when there has been widespread criticism of industry on leaking pipes and sewerage pills.
If these proposals are completely adopted, it would be difficult to see how things could not get better than where the sector is now – invested and mocked wide.
Excessive debts and inappropriate dividends that would be tackled the resilience of some water companies-such as Thames water-threatening, would be tackled by minimal capital levels and powers to block ownership changes, if not in the company's long-term interests.
We already know that water companies will invest more than £ 100 billion in upgrade systems in the coming five years – and that accounts will rise sharply to pay for it.
Sir Jon says that there are some “inescapable facts”, including climate change, higher environmental standards, a growing population and replacing aging infrastructure.
The problems that industry test too much come from not investing for a long period, which means that there must be a “massive” investment to catch up, he says.
The amount that companies can invest is a function of what they can charge and for the past 20 years, bills have risen with less than inflation – so they are cheaper in real terms.
It is generally accepted that either has given some priority to keep bills low over new investments. If consumers want a better water system, someone has to pay for it.
But what the environmental secretary Steve Reed wants – and Cunliffe suggests – is a way to ensure that accounts do not have to spine so dramatically in the future to catch up with years of under -investment – as we see now.
Or what pays the price by being abolished.
During the report there are continuous references to the telecom regulator ofcom – which is seen that it has done better work by maintaining a focus on continuous investments in better infrastructure over time.
But although you can change the regulator, the reality is that higher future regulations are the price for determining the sub -investment of the past.
There is a lot to digest here – including compulsory measurement and public health officials on water planning.
It will take time to take effect. But at least the government will be able to point out the Cunliffe review and it has insisted that it has initiated the wheels of change.
