Water bills to see ‘small, steady' rise despite reform plans, says Reed
Those plans are thought to include action to tackle sewage spills, invest in water infrastructure and the abolition of the industry's beleaguered regulator Ofwat as ministers seek to avoid a repeat of this year's 26% increase in bills.
But while Mr Reed has promised that families will never again see 'huge shock hikes' to their bills, he was unable on Sunday to rule out further above-inflation increases.
Although he told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that bills should be 'as low as possible', he added that there needed to be 'appropriate bill rises' to secure 'appropriate levels of investment'.
He said: 'A small, steady increase in bills is what people expect.'
Government sources have argued that the recent large rise in bills was necessary to pay for investment in long-neglected infrastructure, but expect Mr Reed's promised reforms to make further rises unnecessary.
Asked about the possibility of expanding social tariffs to help households struggling with bills – a move that could see wealthier families pay more – Mr Reed said he had 'not been convinced yet' that this was necessary.
Earlier on Sunday, Mr Reed had pledged to halve sewage pollution in England by 2030, after the Environment Agency said serious pollution incidents had risen by 60% in 2024.
Mr Reed said the measures the Government was taking would enable it to significantly reduce pollution, with the aim of completely eliminating it by 2035 should it be re-elected.
He also suggested to the BBC that he would resign if the 2030 target was not achieved, provided he was still in the same job by then.
His comments come before a major report by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected to recommend sweeping reform to water regulation on Monday.
Sir Jon has been widely reported to be preparing to recommend the abolition of Ofwat, which has faced criticism over its handling of sewage spills and allowing water companies to pay large dividends while taking on significant debt and missing targets for investing in infrastructure.
On Sunday, Mr Reed would not say whether he would scrap Ofwat, but also declined to say he had confidence in the regulator.
He told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'The regulator is clearly failing.'
Sir Jon's interim report criticised regulation of the water sector, which is split between economic regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
But on Sunday, Conservative shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said he would be concerned any changes 'might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic'.
He told the BBC: 'It's really important the regulator's effective, and we put in a lot of measures to give Ofwat more powers to regulate the water industry and a lot of those things were very effective.'
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he backed scrapping Ofwat, calling for a new Clean Water Authority to 'hold these water companies to account'.
Sir Ed has also called for the Government to go further and aim to eliminate sewage pollution entirely by 2030, saying voters were 'fed up with empty promises from ministers while Britain's waterways continue to be ruined by sewage'.
He added: 'For years water companies have paid out millions in dividends and bonuses. It would be deeply unfair if customers are now made to pick up the tab for this scandal through higher bills.'
Although sweeping regulatory reform is likely to be on the table, full nationalisation of the industry will not be after the Government excluded it from Sir Jon's terms of reference.
Smaller parties such as the Greens have called for nationalisation, while on Sunday Reform UK's Nigel Farage said he would look to strike a deal with the private sector to bring 50% of the water industry under public ownership.
Mr Reed argued that nationalisation would cost 'upwards of £100 billion', diverting resources from the NHS and taking years during which pollution would get worse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Times letters: Regulation and funding of water companies
Write to letters@ Sir, I am left unsure what will change in the water industry after the publication of the report by Sir Jon Cunliffe and the response by the government (news, Jul 21 & 22). One regulator is to be replaced by another and water bills will rise by an average of 36 per cent over the next five years, which means that the public will in effect pay a second time for any improvements that should have been made by now, had water companies spent more investing in infrastructure instead of lining executive and shareholder pockets. As to the claim by Steve Reed, the environment secretary, that sewage pollution in England will be halved by 2030, please forgive my TiffenAspatria, Cumbria Sir, Your editorial ('Water Torture', Jul 21) rightly castigates the regulatory system as well as the operating companies. You say that regulatory responsibilities are split between three bodies: Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. But even this is an understatement. Natural England also has some responsibilities, although how these fit with those of the EA is anyone's guess. And to complete the chaos there is also the Consumer Council for Water, which supposedly exists to look after consumers' interests. A single regulator with appropriate powers will be welcome, even if its creation is more than 30 years GaneLondon SE21 Sir, Feargal Sharkey says corporate greed is at the heart of the water scandal (Jul 22). I disagree: it is the broken tax system that creates the incentive for financial engineering. As long as there is an imbalance between the tax treatment of debt and equity, financiers will continue to load up low-risk enterprises with debt to generate higher returns to their investors, all at the expense of KokinisSheffield Sir, May I dare to express a little sympathy for the water companies? The unfettered concreting over and tarring of front gardens, and seemingly endless acres of further urbanisation and development, have led to flash flooding and the overwhelming of sewage facilities. Local authorities should have separate drainage for surface RennieKintore, Aberdeenshire Sir, The Thames Tideway project to upgrade waste-water treatment systems in London to enable them to cope with storm-water surges was completed in May. It has effectively eliminated the problem of unwanted releases into the Thames. The question now is: when will this technology be introduced in the rest of the UK?Dale FittesChartered engineer, Warwick Sir, If every new house was required to have a large rainwater tank the amount of drinking water needed could be substantially reduced. Rainwater could then be used to flush toilets, wash cars and water FreelandBristol Sir, In 1955, when I was 12, my mother and I had a holiday at Hove and were surprised, while swimming in the sea, to find ourselves surrounded by lavatory paper. Plus ça WillettLondon SW19 Sir, William Hague ('Welfare reform is a moral and financial must', Jul 22) is right that unless we rethink our welfare system we face economic crisis. The tragedy is that this has been staring us in the face since at least the early 2000s. Successive welfare ministers have recognised that but each has put the issue in the 'too difficult' box, to be left for their successor. If we wait for one finally to have the courage to tackle it we will wait another generation. We need to break the mould: we should establish a cross-party royal commission with a remit to report within one year — the issues and the facts are clear so a year will be ample — to recommend the measures that need to be taken to tackle this crisis. Then we should ask all our political parties to have the courage to implement its Leigh LewisPermanent secretary, Department for Work and Pensions 2005-10; Watford Sir, It is inevitable that Rachel Reeves will struggle to persuade Labour MPs to back legislation that has to be considerably tougher than the recent attempts at welfare reform. The solution is to raise income tax by, say, 2 per cent, with the promise of bringing it down again when welfare reforms have improved the government's ScottEast Knoyle, Wilts Sir, I am horrified to admit that I agree with Reform UK about something: in this case the need for more 'big strapping male police officers' (report, Jul 22). The episode that made me agree is as follows. A few years ago I was returning home in my car, through my local town centre, late on a weekday evening. While at a red light I saw a street brawl erupt around me involving about ten adult males. One man was struck and fell to the floor beside my car; his attacker then began to kick his unconscious body. Before too many head kicks were delivered I got out of the car and pushed the assailant away. When threatened I didn't move, so got punched a fair bit. Other passers-by then intervened to break it all up and we called an ambulance for the chap on the floor. When the dust had fully settled, a slight WPC and a male constable no bigger than me (I am 5ft 7in and 63kg) nervously appeared. I was absolutely disgusted. Two 100kg male PCs might have had a calming effect on the mayhem but these two lightweights certainly wouldn't. It is possible that the officers knew this and had kept out of the way until things had settled CoeWinterton, Lincs Sir, Nigel Farage misses the point when he states he wants to recruit 'beefy bobbies' to strike fear into criminals. The police have no need of beefy bobbies — most officers are more than capable of arresting criminals. What they need is a justice system that allows them to do their duty without fear of being accused of racism, Islamophobia and lack of impartiality, and inquiries into alleged wrongdoing that take years to complete. Further, if the courts imposed appropriate sentences (assuming, of course, that the craven CPS allowed prosecution in the first place), this would act as a deterrent to wrongdoing, which is sadly absent at present and is empowering lawlessness. Only a complete overhaul of the justice system will address this imbalance, not bigger MolloyMetropolitan Police 1976-2006; Chart Sutton, Kent Sir, The chief executive of NHS England, Sir Jim Mackey, advocates a 'different approach' to the 'Christmas Day' acute care service provided during previous industrial action by doctors, but offers little detail about how this might be achieved ('Patients at risk during walkouts, warns BMA', Jul 22). How can productivity remain constant when capacity is reduced without increasing pressure in the system past the point of irreversible damage? Without a clear and funded 'surge' plan, Mackey's mandate is no more than SoodSouthend-on-Sea, Essex Sir, The impending loss of the Lord Ashcroft VC and GC collection in the Imperial War Museum is to be regretted (Thunderer, Jul 22). Anyone who has visited the display, the largest of its kind, cannot help but be humbled by the gallantry of those who received these awards. The removal of the collection serves the interests of no one. The museum should be made to justify its irrational Prescott (Lt-Col, ret'd)Southsea, Hants Sir, While awaiting the arrival of the Bayeux Tapestry and after enjoying the impressive replica at Reading Museum (letters, Jul 21 & 22), Times readers should venture west to Fishguard and visit the tapestry commemorating the last invasion of Britain in 1797. It is beautifully and colourfully designed, and was stitched by local people. Moreover, it celebrates an invasion that was BattleLondon SW18 Sir, It seems ridiculous that local councils are still unable to levy a tourism tax on hotel stays ('Tourist tax plan rejected by Treasury', Jul 22). I travel frequently to the US and Europe, where these taxes are accepted as a standard element of any hotel bill. They reflect the tourist's/business visitor's use of local infrastructure (roads and public transport etc) that, without such a tax, becomes solely the responsibility of local taxpayers. Enabling councils to collect a tourism tax, without any of the money going to central government, would not only help to relieve pressure on local government finances but would also help to reduce further demand on government Anthony HarrisCambridge Sir, Libby Purves makes powerful points about the damage done to the starter job opportunities for young people ('Bar, café and retail jobs are society's heartbeat', Jul 21). It brought to mind the contrast my wife and I found on a recent visit to Australia. Shops, restaurants and bars were well staffed by bright, smiling young people who oozed enthusiasm for their role and their customers. Many were young Europeans and clearly motivated by their travel experience, and had been brightly trained by their bosses. Our government, through its policies, is denying our own children the chance to experience life beyond the screen. As Purves implies, the government needs to change R SmithSouthport, Merseyside Sir, Although I admire the creativity of the various top-level chefs in their quest for the perfect mashed potato (report, Jul 22), sometimes simplicity is the best approach. My late mother made the most delicious mash, following the teaching of her own mother. She used old, floury potatoes, gently boiled them until tender then mashed them with a traditional hand-masher. She would add a large knob of butter and a good splash of milk, but the true secret was in the beating: my sister and I competed to beat the mash vigorously with a large tablespoon. The result was CarvellWhitby, N Yorks Sir, Your leader writer is clearly a person of absolute taste ('Brewing Storm', Jul 22). Tea leaves are for brewing: tea bags are for puffy CullenArmagh Sir, Having read James Marriott's excellent comment article (Jul 22) discussing the film Barry Lyndon, I am reminded of another film set in the 18th century: the wonderful 1963 film Tom Jones, with Albert Finley in the title role. The two films couldn't be more different in texture and storytelling but both give a vivid view of life in the middle of that century. I would thoroughly recommend watching both and if stamina permits, one after the GodfreyArborfield Cross, Berks
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Claim tourism tax will damage Monmouthshire's economy
The possibility of using new powers to tax overnight stays as soon as they become available was ruled out at Monmouthshire County Council's July meeting. Councillor Sara Burch, the council's cabinet member responsible for tourism, said it would hold talks with tourism operators before considering whether to introduce a charge and said: 'We've no intention of even getting to the point of consulting on a visitor levy within this administration.' The next council elections are due to take place in 2027 while the Welsh Government has said the earliest any local authority could introduce the tax, which it calls a visitor levy, is 2027. The Senedd, in July, approved legislation that will allow Wales' 22 unitary authorities to introduce a £1.30 per visitor, per night charge on overnight stays. It will be up to individual authorities if they wish to use the powers that also include a 75 pence per person, per night charge for hostels and campsites. An exception for under 18s would only apply at hostels and campsites. If every council in Wales introduced the charge it's estimated it could raise as much as £33m a year to invest in services and infrastructure to support tourism. While councils including Cardiff and Gwynedd have shown an interest in the charge it has been ruled out by Newport council, at the beginning of this yea, and Blaenau Gwent councillors say they believe it could have a negative economic impact. Figures produced for Monmouthshire council estimated in 2023 there were 2.29 million visitors, spending 3.53m visitor days in the county, generating more than £329m for the local economy, and supporting 3,462 full time equivalent jobs. The council was asked by its Conservative opposition group to commit to ruling out introducing the charge in June 2023, but at that time the ruling Labour group said it was too soon to make a decision on legislation that had yet to pass through the Senedd. At July's full council meeting Tory leader Richard John asked if the cabinet had given further consideration to his group's proposal the council 'should rule out introducing a tourism tax in Monmouthshire?' Cllr Burch said she assumed Cllr John was 'referring to the visitor levy' – to which he replied 'I am' – and she said: 'Our position remains unchanged we've no immediate plans to introduce a visitor levy.' The Abergavenny Cantref councillor said the council is working with tourism providers on destination management plans and to 'understand the advantages and how money raised could go to improving our offer to visitors'. She also said she welcomed the legislation as it also introduces a compulsory register of visitor accommodation. The destination management plans could go the council's scrutiny committees and cabinet in the autumn and Cllr Burch said: 'From there we hope to strengthen the Monmouthshire tourism partnership and discuss how any discussions may further take place but we've no intention of even getting to the point of consulting on a visitor levy within this administration.' Cllr Burch was prompted by council leader Mary Ann Brocklesby to say there were 'no plans on consulting' during the council term when responding to Cllr John. The Mitchell Troy and Trellech councillor said the response was 'disappointing to hear' and said 'the downsides of a tourism tax are really quite evident particularly in a boarder county like Monmouthshire.' He said families wanting to holiday in the Wye Valley will have a choice between staying in Gloucestershire or 'coming to Monmouthshire where a tourism tax will add an additional £40 for a week's holiday for a family of four. It could do enormous damage and as a council we should rule it out.' Cllr Burch said she considered the downsides and possible advantages to be 'evident' and said they would benefit from further discussion.
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Students risk falling through ‘qualifications gap' under post-16 plans
Many young people will be left 'without a suitable pathway' if funding is withdrawn for a number of applied general qualifications (AGQs), such as BTecs, and if the uptake of the Government's technical courses (T-levels) remains low, a coalition of education and employer groups has warned. A report by the Protect Student Choice campaign warned reducing student choice for post-16 qualifications risks 'reversing' progress in widening access to higher education and it could lead to more young people not in employment. The coalition – which includes organisations representing students and staff in colleges and schools – is calling on the curriculum and assessment review to recommend 'reversing the ban on AGQ diplomas and extended diplomas in T-level areas' in its final report which is due to be published in the autumn. AGQs are Level 3 qualifications, which include BTecs, for students who want to undertake a broad study of a specific vocational area. In December, the Labour Government announced 157 vocational qualifications, which the previous Conservative administration had planned to remove funding from, would be retained beyond July this year until reformed qualifications become more established in the system. Following a review of Level 3 qualifications that 'overlap' with T-levels, the Government said 57 qualifications in digital, construction and health and science would be funded until July 2026. A further 100 qualifications in engineering, agriculture, business and creative would retain their funding until July 2027. The first T-level courses – which are considered to be broadly equivalent to three A-levels – were launched in 2020 in England and they are being rolled out gradually. Department for Education (DfE) guidance, published in February, has outlined plans to remove funding from 'large qualifications' in a number of T-level subject areas in the future. An analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaign suggests there could be 52,000 fewer young people studying health and science courses each year if funding is removed for AGQs in this area, and it added that nearly 11,000 fewer young people could study digital courses each year. It said more than 200,000 students are currently studying AGQs that are 'either being scrapped or have an uncertain future' which makes it 'difficult' for colleges and schools to plan their curriculum, recruit and train the right staff, or to provide appropriate guidance to younger pupils. The report warned: 'We are deeply concerned that the Government's blanket ban on diplomas and extended diplomas will create a qualifications gap that tens of thousands of students will potentially fall through, leaving many young people without a suitable pathway in the future.' Labour MP Gareth Snell, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sixth Form Education, said: 'Sixth forms and colleges up and down the country know the vital role that AGQs play in helping students to progress to higher education or skilled employment. 'Limiting the choice of qualification in certain subjects to T-levels will leave some young people without a suitable pathway at the age of 16, and some employers without the skilled workforce they need.' Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: 'Qualifications like the diploma and extended diploma in health and social care are highly valued by providers of adult social care in England as a source of introducing younger people to a career in social care. 'Scrapping these qualifications would close off a well-established pathway to entering the profession and exacerbate the workforce crisis in the care sector for a younger population we are keen to promote access to.' Anne Murdoch, college leadership adviser at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We strongly urge the Government to retain these popular and valued applied general qualifications. 'We support the introduction of T-levels, but we do not understand why this must be at the expense of other tried and trusted vocational qualifications which work well for many students. 'At a time when we are seeing rising numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, it is surely essential that we provide a choice of post-16 pathways rather than narrowing their options and making matters worse.' A DfE spokeswoman said: 'Through our plan for change we are building a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. 'T-levels will be at the forefront of our technical education offer. Alongside them, newly reformed qualifications will become available for delivery at Level 3 at the start of the next academic year. 'These are high-quality, aligned to occupational standards in technical routes and offer learners clear routes to higher education or skilled employment. 'The department's position on further plans for reform to Level 3 qualifications will be set out soon, informed by the independent curriculum and assessment review.'
