Will these proposals make any difference?

The review of the water industry proposed the biggest reform of the sector in the UK and Wales since privatization more than 30 years ago.

Sir Jon Cunliffe, the author of the investigation, made 88 suggestions from scrapping the existing regulator to bringing stronger environmental arrangements.

The reforms are deep and wide, and comes at a time when there is a widespread criticism of leaking pipes and sewage spills of the sector.

If these proposals were fully adopted, it would be difficult to see how the works cannot be better from where the sector is now – it was insufficient and widely perceived.

Excessive debts and inappropriate dividends that threaten the flexibility of some water companies such as Thames Water, minimum capital levels and the authority to prevent ownership changes, even if not in the long -term interests of the company.

We already know that water companies will invest more than £ 100 billion in the upgrade systems in the next five years – and their bills will increase sharply to pay it.

Sir Jon says climate change, higher environmental standards, a growing population and some “inevitable facts” such as replacing aging infrastructure.

He says that the problems that disturb the industry are due to not investing for a long time, that is, there should be a “big” investment to catch.

The amount that companies can invest is a function that they are allowed to receive fees, and the bills have increased less than inflation for the last 20 years – so they become really cheaper.

It is widely accepted that ofwat prioritizes invoices to keep invoices low compared to new investment. If consumers want a better water system, someone must pay for it.

But what the environmental secretary Steve Reed wants – and Cunliffe’s proposal is a way to make sure that invoices do not have to increase so dramatically to capture the future investments in the future – as we see now.

Ofwat pays the price by removing it.

Throughout the report, there are continuous references to the telecom regulator, which has seen a better job by focusing on continuous investment in better infrastructure over time.

However, although it can change the regulator, the truth is that higher bills in the future are the cost of correcting inadequate investments of the past.

There is much to be intimidated in this report – including public health authorities in compulsory measurement and water planning bodies.

It will take time to be effective. However, at least the government will be able to point out the Cunliffe examination and insist on determining the wheels of movement.