The Guardian View on Water Boss has not revealed: The work does not fix a system that he will not face Editorial

DThe noise on the sewage scandal in England has been acquired, as the political response so far generates newspaper headlines, not real consequences. Ministers in general “angerAbout polluted water companies. The organizers are renewed. Laws are approved. However, little changes in reality. The latest maneuver of Yorkshire Water is an example – and detection.

In March It was ordered to pay 40 million pounds For the “unacceptable effect” of sewage spill blame for poor maintenance. It was one of the six companies arrested due to the new bonus ban in the Labor Party for the most dangerous pollutants, which were passed under the water law (special measures) earlier this year. However, the company assured the Guardian newspaper that its CEO, Nicolas Show, received an additional 660,000 pounds from the “investor” work last year-in addition to obtaining its salaries, which amount to 689,000 pounds.

The money did not come from the Yorkshire water directly, but from Kelda Holdings, the company’s external father. The use of complex companies ’structures to avoid organizational audit is not a new trick. Several water companies are organized to allow financial engineering to remove one of the organization’s work. But the Uritchrire Executive Boots Scheme reveals something important about the nature of the bonus itself: leaving its domain design to avoid. If companies can reclassify or convert the payment between entities, enforcement becomes an issue of interpretation.

The ministers say they “realize” payments and Offat is their “evaluation”. But this is the formulation of Whittle now familiar-negative, conditional and hollow. It appears that the Minister of Environment, Steve Reed, usually has to provide unimaginable threats. When Southern Water, also, also dominated the bonus prohibition, nearly its narrowing of payment salaries granted to its executive director to 1.4 million pounds, Mr. Reed’s response to urged him to do so was that Rejection. There is no ministerial direction to investigate. There is no legal challenge or legislative amendment. Just a suggestion.

Why is shy? Because the harsh work of the Labor Party on water is just words. The regime that enables this behavior will not touch, and the ministers will reassure the markets that they will never do. The Treasury wants to keep private Themes water – Mr. Reed’s warning against saving 4 billion pounds through nationalization that would completely destroy its budget. No wonder that he continues to wave the shroud about the cost of public ownership

The government appears to be impressive by private service providers. The organizers are required to submit “patienceAs the Independent Water Committee suggested to Mr. Reed. There is no doubt that they were taking into account the Times water, which is facing It is estimated that 1 billion pounds In Offat performance penalties. Logic seems to be that enforcement risk capturing the investors needed to finance long infrastructure promotions.

But this reveals the real problem. The water system was in England Finance To the degree of functional imbalance. Classes, outer entities, and dark capital structures mean that the organizers are chasing shadows. Judgment attempts through gestures – prohibiting rewards, naming and shame – is not a substitute for structural reform.

Most countries maintain public ownership, while recognizing water as a public commodity, not a commodity. The idea that the best people can repair the system is a fantasy-contract of extraction, debt loading, and the seizure of profit distributions, showing that the same model is broken. If the Labor Party really wants to clean the country’s waterways, it must face a difficult fact: the incentives of private capital, public interest, health and accountability are not in line with. Until then, expect more wastewater, more expressions, and more payments that challenge the soul – if not always the message of the law.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our messages section, please click here.