Water company bosses could face prison time in new Labour crackdown on sewage infested rivers, lakes and seas
Water company bosses could face up to two years in prison and be banned from taking bonuses under the new government’s first major proposals to crack down on England’s sewage, chemical and manure infested waterways.
The new Water (Special Measures) Bill is designed to beef up feeble regulators so they can take on water companies releasing sewage into rivers, lakes and seas and appease public fury.
Although many topline measures had already been announced, the new details have been cautiously welcomed by green groups as an “important first step” towards cleaning up the country’s filthy rivers, lakes and seas.
But they say there is a long way to go given many other problems with the waterways, and the government acknowledged the need for “wider reform”.
What would the new water bill do?
The bill, which could come into effect in the new year, would increase fines and could see water executives who fail to cooperate or obstruct investigations, such as being slow to provide data, thrown in jail for up to two years.
Existing legislation does already allow bosses to face prison for other offences, but none have been successfully prosecuted despite “widespread illegality”, according to the government.
The Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: “The public are furious that in 21st century Britain, record levels of sewage are being pumped into our rivers, lakes and seas. After years of neglect, our waterways are now in an unacceptable state.”
File pic: Reuters
He added: “Under this government, water executives will no longer line their own pockets whilst pumping out this filth.”
Ofwat will also be allowed to ban water bosses’ bonuses if they breach standards on the environment, their consumers and company finances – although the system is yet to be designed.
Severn Trent chief Liz Garfield this year won a £584,000 bonus, despite the company being fined £2m for “reckless” sewage spills in the River Trent.
The bill will also see monitoring of every sewage overflow and the reporting of discharges in real time, with data made available to the public who might want to swim or surf in that water.
Although virtually all of England’s 14,000 storm overflows are monitored for discharges of sewage into waterways often due to heavy rain, most of the additional 7,000 emergency overflows, which release sewage due to system failures like power outages, are currently not checked.
The Environment Agency will be allowed to recover the costs of investigations from water firms, in a bid to restore the resourcing and expertise to the regulator that has been hollowed out in the last decade.
As funding was cut by half between 2009-2019, enforcement actions plummeted and thousands of staff left, along with their expertise tackling water problems, though the previous prime minister, Rishi Sunak, did restore some resources in February.
Decades of underinvestment and water companies are only part of the problem.
A growing population, more extreme weather caused by climate change, farming pollution and cuts to the watchdogs have combined to leave waterways in a dire state.
Just 14% of England’s rivers and lakes are in good ecological health.
Signs are warning people no to go in the sea
How have green groups and industry reacted?
Shaun Spiers, executive director of thintank Green Alliance, said: “This is a useful first step and will address the public’s concerns about inadequate regulation of polluting water companies.”
But working out how to pay for all the upgrades, changes, and climate and nature measures is a “more profound challenge”, he said.
Ofwat recently blocked water companies from hiking bills by any more than £94 over the next five years, a third less than they had proposed.
This is money they say they need to fix the problems, and which Labour could really do with, given the limited public finances to pay for infrastructure and nature and climate commitments.
James Wallace, chief executive of River Action UK, said he is pleased the new government is “taking seriously this dreadful blight on our rivers caused by pollution, and this is an important first step”.
But he called for an “urgent review” of the regulators.
“Talking about CEO bonuses is not going to sort things out. What we really need to see is a regulator, the Environment Agency, with its teeth given back and its funding given back,” he said.
“You can’t enforce these laws without effective regulators.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The environment department hinted at further action on the regulators – but would not commit to timeframes.
The government is aiming for a “wider reform to fix the broken water system” over this parliament, Steve Reed said, including boosting infrastructure upgrades and ensuring the water industry is still attractive to investors.
A Water UK spokesperson said: “We agree with the government that the water system is not working. Fixing it requires the government to deliver the two things which it has promised: fundamental regulatory reform and speeding up investment.
“Ofwat needs to back our £105bn investment plan in full to secure our water supplies, enable economic growth and end sewage spilling into our rivers and seas.”
Business
Manchester City face long-awaited hearing over alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules
The Premier League’s long-awaited hearing into Manchester City’s alleged breaches of financial rules will begin later.
City, the reigning Premier League champions, face 115 charges under Premier League rules, which they allegedly breached by failing to provide accurate financial information over a nine-year period starting in 2009 until 2018.
During that period the club won the Premier League three times.
The charges relate to financial information regarding revenue, details of manager and player remuneration, UEFA regulations, profitability and sustainability, and cooperation with Premier League investigations.
The club has denied all the charges, which it will face at an independent hearing at an undisclosed location.
Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium. Pic: PA
The trial could last up to two months and a verdict is expected in early 2025.
City could face a deduction in points if found guilty – or even the threat of expulsion from the Premier League.
Last season Everton were docked points twice and Nottingham Forest were also docked for breaching the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.
Read more from Sky News:
Eight dead after attempting to cross Channel
Putin won’t bully West, foreign secretary says
Billionaire astronaut and crew return to Earth
What have City been accused of?
City are alleged to have breached rules requiring the provision of accurate financial information.
Among a second set of charges is that they did not fully disclose the financial remunerations made to one of their managers related to seasons 2009-10 to 2012-13 inclusive.
The club’s manager between December 2009 and May 2013 was Roberto Mancini.
The third section deals with alleged breaches of Premier League rules requiring clubs to comply with UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations, between 2013-14 and 2017-18.
The fourth set of alleged breaches relates to the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules in seasons 2015-16 to 2017-18 inclusive.
Finally, the club are also alleged to have breached league rules requiring member clubs to cooperate with and assist the Premier League with its investigations, from December 2018 to February 2023.
A momentous court battle over the fate of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire gets under way in Nevada today.
At stake is the future of a string of newspapers and television channels consumed by millions of people around the world, as well as thousands of jobs – and billions of pounds.
The media mogul, who turned 93 this year, has spent decades building up his news brands, making them some of the most powerful and influential in the Western world.
But now, as he nears the end of his life, a rift has opened up in his family – and raised questions about what kind of legacy he will leave behind.
The case will decide who controls Murdoch’s family trust after he is gone and which of his children will have major voting rights in his companies. And it could result in the billionaire’s heir apparent Lachlan Murdoch being out-manoeuvred by some of his less conservative siblings.
Rupert Murdoch and his wife Elena Zhukova. Pic: News Corp
What are his family members fighting over?
The row centres around future power and influence over Mr Murdoch‘s two companies – News Corp and Fox.
News Corp owns newspapers including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post in the US, The Australian, The Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph in Australia, and The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times in the UK.
Also under News Corp’s wing is publishing giant HarperCollins, along with several Australian TV channels.
Meanwhile, Fox News, Fox Sports and streaming service Tubi form part of his other major company.
Mr Murdoch has a roughly 40% stake in voting shares of each company.
Sky News, which Mr Murdoch launched in the UK in 1989, is no longer part of his empire.
At the end of 2018, Fox’s film entertainment assets, such as The Simpsons and the Avatar film franchise, were sold to Disney – while the company’s 39% stake in Sky was sold to Comcast.
Lachlan Murdoch and his wife Sarah in February 2020. Pic: Reuters
Who is involved in the case and why?
Sorting out Mr Murdoch’s inheritance was never going to be easy – he has six children and has been married five times, most recently to retired molecular biologist Elena Zhukova.
However, it had long been presumed that his business succession plans were largely settled in 1999, following his divorce from his second wife Anna.
That year the Murdoch Family Trust was founded – establishing the principle that, when he died, his News Corp and Fox’s voting shares would be divided between his four oldest children – Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James.
Following the “irrevocable” agreement, Mr Murdoch began integrating some of his children into roles at his companies.
However, following a shift in relations with some of his offspring, it emerged earlier this year that the media mogul had changed his mind.
The New York Times revealed that Mr Murdoch had decided he wanted to change the terms of the trust, to ensure his eldest son Lachlan would go on to run his businesses without “interference” from his other siblings.
The newspaper reported that James, Elisabeth and Prudence “were caught completely off-guard” by the move and had decided to unite to stop him.
Lachlan has reportedly taken his father’s side in the case.
James Murdoch with his wife Kathryn Hufschmid at the Oscars earlier this year. Pic: Reuters
Why did Murdoch change his mind?
The billionaire’s efforts to tweak the terms of the family trust come amid signs that he has increasingly favoured Lachlan as his chosen heir in recent years.
When Mr Murdoch revealed last year he was stepping down as chair of Fox and News Corp, it was announced that his eldest son would become the sole chair of News Corp – while also continuing as executive chair and chief executive of Fox.
The main reason, it is thought, is politics. Lachlan is seen as more similar and aligned with his father’s right-wing views, while James, Elisabeth and Prudence are seen as more moderate in their beliefs.
Indeed, the media mogul’s decision to give Lachlan “permanent, exclusive control” came amid worries over the “lack of consensus” among his children about the future of the Murdoch brands, according to court documents seen by The New York Times.
Elisabeth Murdoch, pictured in 2009. Pic: AP
Read more:
Rupert Murdoch: Success and controversy
End of era as 21st Century Fox exits Sky
James has been openly critical of Fox News – and recently endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president – while his sister Elisabeth has also “privately expressed discomfort about being associated with Fox News”, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper, which is owned by Mr Murdoch, also reported that “putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years”.
It quoted sources who said Mr Murdoch had been “dismayed that James and his wife seemed to be embarrassed by Fox yet were happy to enjoy the fruits of its financial success”, with the two not said to be on speaking terms.
Mr Murdoch turned 93 earlier this year. Pic: PA
So what’s going to happen?
Despite the family rift, there is one thing the Murdochs involved agree on – they do not want their media rivals to feast on their fallout.
Consequently, the hearing to settle the dispute is being held in private – despite attempts from news agencies to grant public access – behind closed doors at the Washoe County Courthouse in Reno, Nevada, with probate commissioner Edmund J Gorman Jr due to rule on the case.
An earlier hearing concluded that Mr Murdoch could change the terms of the trust – if he could demonstrate he was acting in good faith, for the sole benefit of his heirs.
If the billionaire wins, News Corp and Fox are expected to continue along the same path after his death under Lachlan’s leadership, with, for example, Fox News continuing to loudly back the Republican Party in the US.
However, if the three siblings win, a battle over the future of the firms is likely to ensue. In theory, they could challenge the political leaning of Murdoch’s newspapers and channels, or even sell them off – as they could out-vote Lachlan on key decisions.
A third possibility is a compromise or some other kind of settlement being reached. Talks have reportedly been held in recent weeks over James and his sisters selling their stakes in the trust. However, these are said to have failed – possibly due to the potentially high sums involved.
Rupert Murdoch with his sons Lachlan (left) and James (right) at his wedding to Jerry Hall in 2016. Pic: Reuters
The Murdochs involved have made no public statement on the case, with their spokespeople either declining to comment or not responding to requests.
It also comes amid uncertain times for the future of the news industry.
In an interview earlier this summer with Sky News Australia – which is separate from Sky News in the UK – Mr Murdoch predicted that printed newspapers will die out within 15 years due to changes in the ways people consume news.
If he is right, some of the tough questions facing his successors could be far bigger than just which party to back.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports5 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports11 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Environment1 year agoTesla advances Powerwall pilot project with German electric company