Anglian receives record £1.42m fine for drinking water failures
The watchdog said these coatings broke down into flakes and powder, which entered the water supply.
Anglian Water, which provides services to seven million people in the east of England, reported the failures to the DWI before pleading guilty at Northampton Crown Court.
Marcus Rink, DWI's chief inspector, said: 'Public health and drinking water quality must be the highest priority, and there can be no compromise.
'We've taken firm action in the public interest to ensure the company has removed all non-compliant material so that customers can remain confident in their water supplies.'
The watchdog's investigation also uncovered wider issues around Anglian's management of its materials and contractors.
This included a lack of staff training, poor oversight of the supply chain, and in some cases, water tanks continued to be used even after the company knew they contained unapproved products.
DWI said Anglian Water has rectified all of the issues across its network.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'Contamination of drinking water on any scale is scandalous and a complete disgrace.
'The record £1.4 million fine handed down sends a clear signal that this criminal behaviour is unacceptable.'
The Government is planning to roll out widespread reforms to the water sector in response to public anger over the state of the nation's rivers, lakes and seas.
'As part of our Plan for Change, our landmark Water Act means polluting water bosses face two-year prison sentences and bans unfair multi-million-pound bonuses,' Mr Reed said.
Anglian Water pleaded guilty to five offences under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016, which makes mandates that only tested, approved and safe materials come into contact with drinking water.
An Anglian Water spokesperson said: 'We apologise for and regret breaching Regulation 31 and accept the judgement for the five sites in 2021.
'The procedures we had in place fell short and as a result, we have since invested significantly to improve these and have shared our learnings across the water industry.
'Protecting the water supply of our customers could not be more fundamental to our business, this is reflected in the fact we have not had a drinking water prosecution in over 20 years.
'Despite the breach, there was no evidence of any contamination of the water supply and the judge agreed based on independent expert reports that the risk to customers was very low.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
14 minutes ago
- STV News
Is the ferry connecting Scotland to mainland Europe about to return?
Plans to reinstate a ferry link between Scotland and mainland Europe have moved a step closer with a solution to a key border control obstacle now in sight. Danish operator DFDS is aiming to launch a service between Rosyth, Fife, and Dunkirk, France, as early as spring 2026, carrying both passengers and freight. The route could handle around 51,000 passengers a year initially, rising to 79,000, and bring an estimated £11.5m annual boost to the Scottish economy. One of the main barriers has been the need for a Border Control Post (BCP) at Rosyth to process certain goods, particularly agrifood products. Building a new facility was deemed prohibitively expensive and unnecessary, with DFDS instead proposing to use the existing BCP at Grangemouth. The UK–EU deal agreed earlier this year will eventually remove the requirement for BCPs altogether, but an interim arrangement is needed if the ferry is to start before the rules change. In England, similar 'remote BCP' arrangements already allow sanitary and phytosanitary goods arriving at Dover to be checked over 20 miles away at Sevington. Scotland secretary Ian Murray has written to Steve Reed, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs along with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales outlining how a ferry service between Rosyth and Dunkirk could proceed without a specific Border Control Point at Rosyth. In his letter, Murray said: 'I would like to propose that we urgently seek to agree that an amendment to the BTOM is made, as a transitional measure to allow the use of remote BCPs, within a short radius of the port of arrival…' While it is the Scottish Government who must amend the regulation to allow the use of a remote BCP at Grangemouth, this can only be exercised with a cross-GB consensus. Dunfermline and Dollar MP Graeme Downie, who has been working to resolve the issue, said: 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the Kingdom of Fife. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality. 'I want to thank the secretary of state for Scotland and his officials for their work and assistance in finding a way to ensure a BCP is not required at Rosyth. Their efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year. 'We are not quite there yet and, in particular, a small amount of infrastructure is needed at the Port of Rosyth. However, as the ferry is one of the projects in the strategy of the Forth Green Freeport I am hopeful we can overcome this problem as well. 'I have spoken to both Forth Ports and the Green Freeport about this issue in the past and hope to meet with them very soon to discuss how speedy progress could be made in time for the ferry to begin next year.' The project also has the backing of major Fife employers, including Amazon and seafood company Mowi, and could remove 8.2 million kilometres of freight traffic from UK roads each year, cutting carbon emissions. The link would replace the previous service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in Belgium. The passenger service ended in 2010 before becoming freight-only, and was ultimately axed in 2018 after a fire aboard one vessel made the route uneconomical. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Daily Mirror
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Inheritance Tax impact on your family explained as more changes 'being considered'
Inheritance Tax is sometimes paid on the 'estate' of someone that has died, including property, possessions and money - but how exactly does it affect you? Rachel Reeves could be set to introduce more changes to Inheritance Tax, a report claims, including a possible cap on lifetime gifting. Under current rules, if someone lives for more than seven years after making a gift, then this transfer is not subject to Inheritance Tax. If the gift is given three to seven years before your death, then it is taxed on a sliding scale known as "taper relief" which starts at 32%. This cap would limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can donate, while the Treasury is also said to be looking at potential changes to the "taper relief" for lifetime gifting. A Treasury spokesperson told The Mirror: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last Autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.' The vast majority of families do not end up paying Inheritance Tax when a loved one dies, due to exemptions that are in place. However, there are changes that have already been announced and that will come into force over the next few years, including making it so pensions are subject to Inheritance Tax. What is Inheritance Tax? Inheritance Tax is sometimes paid on the "estate" of someone that has died - this includes property, possessions and money. As we've mentioned above, Inheritance Tax is only due for wealth transferred within seven years of death. Inheritance Tax is also only due if the value of your estate is above £325,000 - although this can actually often be much higher depending on who you leave your estate to. For example, there is no Inheritance Tax to pay when an estate is left to your spouse or civil partner. If you give away your home to your children - this includes adopted, foster or stepchildren, or your grandchildren - then the Inheritance Tax threshold can increase to £500,000. This includes the basic £325,000 allowance, plus an additional £175,000. If you are married or in a civil partnership, any Inheritance Tax allowance that isn't used can be passed on when someone dies. This means a couple can potentially pass on as much as £1million without their estate being subject to Inheritance Tax. If your estate is subject to Inheritance Tax, then the standard rate is 40%. There are ways to reduce how much Inheritance Tax is paid on your estate. Your rate of Inheritance Tax on some assets is reduced from 40% to 36% if you leave at least 10% of the net value after any deductions to a charity in your will. Inheritance Tax changes that have already been announced Inheritance Tax may be due on pensions you inherit from April 2027. At present, if you inherit a pension from someone who died before the age of 75, then there is no tax to pay. If the person dies after the age of 75, then you pay Income Tax when you draw from the inherited pension, as it will be treated as income. But from April 2027, inherited pensions will be subject to Inheritance Tax and included in the "estate" of someone who has died. Death in service payments will not be liable for Inheritance Tax.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Administration looks preferable to leaving Thames Water's debt sharks in charge, says ALEX BRUMMER
The timing couldn't be better. In the middle of an August heatwave, with drought warnings the order of the day, the message from the Government to Thames Water and its creditors is: sort yourself out or we put the whole caboodle into a special administration regime (SAR). Environment Secretary Steve Reed has lined up City insolvency consultancy FTI as administrators should Thames chairman Adrian Montague and a posse of debt investors fail to reach a solution. As much as one might abhor direct government involvement in business, SAR looks a far more attractive option than leaving the debt sharks in charge. SAR would enable an administrator to scythe the debt, suspend interest payments and bring in new equity investors. Thames claims to be seeking a solution which targets 'investment-grade ratings'. That is no more than a chimera in that the company would not qualify for a licence without. How much room does Reed have to manoeuvre? Keir Starmer is already taking the railways and chunks of the steel industry onto the Government books. He may soon also face calls from union paymasters to bail-out the UK's troubled Ineos-owned chemical plant at Grangemouth. Administration would allow Thames to free itself of much of its £16.8billion debt. But there would be a risk of a lingering state liability. That is the stuff of nightmares for Rachel Reeves and Treasury mandarins. Jobs tears Chancellor's budget for working people has already fallen as flat as a pancake. The latest data on the jobs market is a shade better than projected. But the trend is unmistakable with unemployment up 120,000 since last July's election Surveys show that the Government failed to truly grasp the impact of increasing employers' National Insurance Contributions and the minimum wage on jobs, particularly in the hospitality sector. Yet there is a pile of evidence, particularly from the US, showing that payroll taxes harm employment growth. Cutting job taxes, particularly after a calamity, helps nurse people back to work. The big economic theme of this summer, despite the Chancellor's promises not to come back for more, is speculation as to which taxes will go up in the autumn. Labour apparatchiks have sought to dismiss the forecast by economic think-tank NIESR of a £42billion shortfall in the public finances as an outlier. However, almost every other think-tank and City economist believes that new taxes will be necessary if the Chancellor's 'iron-clad' fiscal rules are to be met. That casts a pall over economic confidence. It doesn't help that the UK's biggest export market, the EU, is deep in gloom despite aggressive interest rate cuts by the European Central Bank. A plus for the Government at present is that wage settlements are outpacing inflation so real living standards, for those in work, should be rising. That's great, but job vacancies are vanishing before our eyes and somehow private sector employers need to fund the 4.8 per cent rise in pay, which means a potential wage price spiral. That's before one even considers the Government's difficulty in seeing off the ambitions of doctors and other public sector workers for inflation-busting deals. A split Bank of England interest rate setting committee is torn between its core job of returning inflation to target and making life easier for borrowers. The latest jobs data will give succour to Bank insiders cautioning against cuts until consumer price inflation is squeezed back to the 2 per cent target. Third rate deal On the eve of tomorrow's extraordinary general meeting of London listed fund Third Point Investors Limited (TPIL), voting advisory outfit PIRC joined the growing opposition to financier Dan Loeb's raid on UK-based investors. The New York sharpshooter is seeking to seize control of TPIL, swallow £500million of capital and merge it with Cayman Island based re-insurance outfit Malibu. The transaction would run roughshod over minority investors and enrich directors. It represents a low point for a City in danger of sacrificing integrity.
