‘Increase in water bills’ to pay for £10bn investment, says industry chief

Published

2 years ago

May 18, 2023

admin

A £10bn investment from water companies to stop sewage spills will be paid for by customers through “modest increases to their bills”.

Ruth Kelly, chair of Water UK, told Sky News that water firms will provide a “huge multi-billion down-payment” to start “the biggest transformation project since Victorian times”.

She added: “The way the system works is that over the lifetime of the assets, customers do pay that money back in modest increases in their bills.”

Cost of living latest: EasyJet hikes tickets by 31%

Ms Kelly said that over the last 10 years, water bills have fallen for most people and “research shows us that customers are prepared to pay a little bit more to see this sort of investment undertaken”.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, she said customers will be contributing to the works for 50 years “or perhaps even longer, maybe up to 100 years”.

It comes amid outrage over the multi-million pound bonuses and dividends paid to water company bosses despite huge levels of untreated sewage being pumped into the UK’s rivers.

Earlier, industry body Water UK pledged to invest £10 billion to clean up their act and said campaigners were “right to be upset” as it issued an apology.

But critics have questioned why firms aren’t paying to fix the problems themselves, with musician and clean river campaigner Feargal Sharkey saying the announcement is “nothing to celebrate whatsoever”.

Asked why customers are having to put their hands in their pockets when water companies paid £1.4 billion in dividends last year, Ms Kelly told Sky’s Ian King “dividends have been at very low levels compared to other sectors”.

She added: “As a sign of the seriousness with which the companies are taking this issue, all water company CEOs have come together and they said they’re not going to pay a single penny in bonuses out of customer funds this year.”

Sewage spills won’t be entirely eliminated

There were 301,091 sewage spills in 2022 in England, an average of 824 a day, according to Environment Agency figures.

A string of recent high-profile incidents, including a sewage discharge at a picturesque beach in Cornwall, have fuelled disgust over the issue.

Water UK said the £10bn comes in addition to a previous commitment to invest £3.1bn, and will be spent this decade.

This will pay for measures including enlarging and improving pipes and installing the equivalent of thousands of Olympic-sized swimming pools underground to hold surges in rainwater that would otherwise overload the system.

The package aims to cut sewage overflows by up to 140,000 each year, compared with 2020 levels.

However, Ms Kelly admitted sewage spills won’t be stopped completely because of the Victorian-era design of the system.

“You wouldn’t design a system like that today, but that is the system we’ve got. And it is going to take time to put that right,” she said.

“We won’t get to a situation where they [sewage spills] all disappear but we are going to make a dramatic impact on the harm by spills.”

Plans ‘don’t go far enough’

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, said Water UK’s apology and plans “don’t go far enough”.

“For years water companies have arrogantly dismissed the public’s fears of rivers, lakes and coastlines being damaged by sewage discharges,” he said.

“This announcement does nothing to match the billions water firms have paid out in dividends to overseas investors, or stop their CEO’s being handed multi-million pound bonuses.”

Mr Davey, whose party made significant gains in the local elections after putting sewage dumping at the heart of their campaign, also called on Environment Secretary Therese Coffey to apologise.

He said: “This Conservative government has been pathetic on stopping sewage discharges into rivers, and every Conservative MP owes their constituents an apology for voting against tougher action. It says a lot when profiteering polluters have the decency to apologise, yet the government refuse.”

World

US President Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran as Israel’s air war continues

Published

2 hours ago

June 19, 2025

admin

US President Donald Trump says he 'may or may not' strike Iran as Israel's air war continues

US President Donald Trump says he has yet to decide whether the US will join Israel militarily in its campaign against Iran.

Asked whether the US was getting closer to striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mr Trump said: “I may do it. I may not do it.”

Speaking outside the White House on Wednesday, he added: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do…Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.

“And I said, ‘why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'”

Mr Trump said Iran had reached out to W ashington, a claim Tehran denied, with Iran’s mission to the UN responding: “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran would not surrender and warned “any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage” to US-Iranian relations.

World

UK attorney general ‘has questions’ on legality of Israel’s actions in Iran

Published

2 hours ago

June 19, 2025

admin

UK attorney general 'has questions' on legality of Israel's actions in Iran

The UK government’s top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel’s actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government.

The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer’s thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK’s potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.

If the attorney general deems Israel’s actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general’s concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict “unless our personnel are targeted”.

US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily.

This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow.

These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran.

The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland.

Under a long-standing convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations.

The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes.

Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Israel’s justification

Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an “imminent” and “existential” threat to Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country’s own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel.

They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been “less than satisfactory” in “a number of respects” on its international compliance over its nuclear activities.

It is not clear what aspect of Israel’s justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over.

The Attorney General’s Office has told Sky News: “By long-standing convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.

“The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.”

The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year.

In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran.

The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024.

But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality.

A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA’s general conference has said “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.

Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target.

It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel’s use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.

Interpretations of International Law

Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks.

The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats.

The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent.

The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred.

That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad.

The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of “imminent”.

The concepts of “proportionality”, “necessity” and “imminence” are key considerations.

International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the “proportionality” test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear.

But whether there was the “necessity” to attack Iran at this point is more questionable.

The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the ‘imminence’ of the Iranian threat against Israel – and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was “imminent” – as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve.

In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction – a claim that turned out to be wrong.

The then-attorney general’s advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair’s decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq.

World

The speed at which Israel ‘took down’ Iranian air defences was ‘shocking’, ex-Mossad intelligence chief claims

Published

2 hours ago

June 19, 2025

admin

The speed at which Israel 'took down' Iranian air defences was 'shocking', ex-Mossad intelligence chief claims

A former director of intelligence at Israeli spy agency Mossad has told Sky News it was “shocking” how quickly Israel “took down” Iran’s air defences.

On 13 June, the Israeli military, in an operation called “Rising Lion”, started carrying out aerial attacks on Iran, hitting sites including some of its most important nuclear installations.

Israel said Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb – something Tehran has always denied seeking from its uranium enrichment programme.

Since those air attacks, both countries have been trading daily missile strikes.

Live updates: US prepares evacuation flights from Israel

Ex-Mossad boss Zohar Palti told The World With Yalda Hakim that it took his country’s air force 36-48 hours to “dominate completely” the skies above Iran.

“This is shocking in a way. This is amazing,” he said.

He added: “We thought that it would be much harder, you know, because I don’t want to brag or do things like that. I mean, it was much more fast than we anticipated.”

Israeli ceasefire ‘could be in days’

Mr Palti said he believes that in two days to a week, Israel “can call” a ceasefire.

“We will need of course the international community and when I say the international community, it’s basically the Americans in this case and no doubt we will need the support of the E3, meaning the Europeans,” he added.

Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and points to its right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment.

Mr Palti said the Americans have the ability to “take all the [Iranian] regime in a couple of hours”.

He said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was at a “crossroads” and had two options – “the existence of the regime” or “give up his inspiration right now to build a military nuclear bomb. I think it’s an easy decision”.

Some Israeli officials have admitted Israel won’t be able to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear programme, unless US bombers drop ordnance that can penetrate sites buried deep underground.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned that any US strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will “result in irreparable damage for them” and that his country would not bow to Donald Trump’s call for surrender.

On Wednesday, President Trump would not say whether he has decided to order an American strike on Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed on Monday that Israel’s control of Iranian airspace was “a game-changer”.

And national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi said pilots could operate “against countless more targets” over Tehran, thanks to the destruction of “dozens and dozens” of air defence batteries.