Average water bill to be cut by pounds 50
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.WATER BILLS are to fall by an average of pounds 40-pounds 50 following a call from the industry's watchdog yesterday for a one-off cut in prices of up to 20 per cent.
The reductions, proposed by Ian Byatt, the Director General of Ofwat, are higher than those envisaged by ministers and were immediately greeted with howls of protest from water companies. In a consultation paper, Mr Byatt said that household water bills needed to come down substantially to reflect efficiency gains and recommended a 15-20 per cent cut.
That would reduce the average domestic bill from pounds 245 this year to between pounds 195 and pounds 205 in April 2000 when the new charges take effect.
But in some areas of the country, the cut in bills would be significantly higher. Customers of South West Water, whose charges are the highest in the country, could see the average bill of pounds 344 fall by as much as pounds 69. In the Thames region, where charges are the lowest in the country, the average bill of pounds 202 would come down by between pounds 20 and pounds 30.
Mr Byatt's proposals cover the five year period from 2000 to 2005. He conceded that after the one-off cut, bills may start rising in subsequent years to pay for an pounds 8.5bn programme of improvements in water quality.
But he said that even after this period, only customers of two companies - Northumbrian and Southern - should be facing higher water bills than they are likely to pay next year.
Mr Byatt said he was aware of concern in ministerial circles that customers could be confused by a price cut followed by subsequent increases. But he said: "Customers may feel that they would prefer to keep the money in their pockets rather than paying in advance for improved services."
Water UK, the body representing the country's water companies, said it was disappointed at the size of the one-off reduction and said Mr Byatt's sums did not add up.
Brian Duckworth, chairman of Water UK and managing director of Severn Trent, said:
"The Government wants us to deliver an ambitious environmental and quality programme, customers want it delivered and we want to deliver it but it has to be financed.
Common sense says you can't have more for less. Regardless of the position of individual companies the fact is that less cash means they'll have less ability to invest."
`Profits will fall', page 20
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments