Household Water Bills
3. What steps he is taking to protect households from significant water bill increases.
Customers were hit with outrageous bill increases last year as a direct result of the previous Government’s failure to ensure that water and sewage pipes were properly maintained over the long term. They deliberately imposed a light-touch approach to regulation that let the system crumble, while investment funding was diverted to line water bosses’ pockets, leaving customers to pay the price. Our powerful new regulator will get a grip on the sector and ensure the regular maintenance of pipes, so that hard-working British families are never again left to pay the price of under-investment and weak regulation.
In Derby, the proposed water bill increases of about 50% will hit people really hard over the next five years. It is a bitter pill to swallow, because at the same time as hiking bills, shareholder dividends are being increased and water companies continue to pollute our waterways. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that our Government will tackle such hypocrisy head on and, crucially, protect our residents from the water bill increases?
My hon. Friend is right to advocate so strongly for his constituents in Derby at a time when they are experiencing the cost of living crisis, as others are. I thank him for his support in blocking the unfair, multimillion-pound bonuses that were previously paid to water bosses. By ensuring that customers’ money is spent on upgrading the water system, rather than allowing it to be diverted to bonuses and dividends, he is helping to ensure that the bill hikes that resulted from Tory failure will never happen again.
Unbelievably, the Secretary of State has just doubled down, in the House, on the falsehood that he advanced on 21 July on “Channel 4 News” that pollution levels are worse in Scotland than they are in England. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to mislead the House. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record—
Order. “Falsehood” is not a word we would use. I am sure more constructive wording could be used.
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has inadvertently advanced the same argument that he did on 21 July on “Channel 4 News”. Will he clarify that pollution levels under publicly owned Scottish Water are substantially better than those under privately owned English water companies? Will he recognise that Scottish bill payers pay lower bills and that Scottish Water’s borrowing is sustainable and consistent with the value and quality of Scotland’s water?
The hon. Gentleman is showing why the problem persists—if the SNP does not recognise the problem, there is no way that it can fix it. I have published the data and I stand by it: pollution under the SNP in Scotland is even worse than it was under the Tories in England. He should be thoroughly ashamed of what he is doing to the beautiful countryside of the country that he represents.
I call the shadow Minister.
The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies. As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?
The reason that Thames is in the state that it is in is the weak, so-called “light-touch” regulation that the Conservatives imposed on the water companies when they should have been getting a grip. The point beyond that that the hon. Gentleman makes is a sensible one, however, and our reforms to water regulation and indeed to the regulator are intended to ensure that such problems cannot happen again. In the case of Thames, we are of course keeping a very close eye on what is going on with that company. At the moment, it remains viable, but we are ready for all eventualities, should they occur.