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 “thebiggest 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.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:24
Sewage spill filmed in Cornwall in October 2022
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”.
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”.
Advertisement
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”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Raw sewage: Who’s to blame?
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.
Image: There is growing public anger over sewage spills into the UK’s rivers and waters
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.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:31
Drone video shows sewage outflow into harbour in October 2021
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.”
Image: Campaigners gathered in Newquay for National Day of Action on Sewage Pollution in April last year
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.”
A crash between two oil tankers on a major shipping route near the UAE was likely caused by a navigational misjudgement by one of the vessels, officials have said.
The Adalynn and Front Eagle tankers collided and caught on fire on Tuesday near the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.
In a statement issued today, the United Arab Emirates’ energy ministry did not draw any link between the crash and an upsurge in electronic interference amid the Israel-Iran conflict.
Interference has disrupted navigation systems near the strait since the two countries began firing missiles at each other last week.
The multinational US-led Combined Maritime Force’s Joint Maritime Information Centre said in an advisory this week that it had received reports of interference stemming from near Iran’s Port of Bandar Abbas and other areas in the Gulf region.
Tehran has not commented on the collision or reports of interference.
The UAE coastguard said it evacuated 24 people from the Adalynn, while personnel on Front Eagle were reported safe with no pollution visible after a fire on its deck.
The Strait of Hormuz – which handles around a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil – links the Gulf to the northwest with the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea beyond.
The Adalynn, owned by a company based in India, had no cargo and was sailing towards the Suez Canal in Egypt, according to monitoring service TankerTrackers.com.
The Front Eagle was on its way to Zhoushan in China – and loaded with two million barrels of Iraqi crude oil, the tracker said.
TankerTrackers.com said on X that the Front Eagle was moving southbound at a speed of 13.1 knots when it “executed a starboard [right] turn, resulting in a collision” with the Adalynn.
The exact cause of the collision, which resulted in no injuries or spills, is still unclear.
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 Washington, 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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:33
The families caught up in Iran-Israel attacks
Strikes continue
Hundreds have reportedly died since Iran and Israel began exchanging strikes last Friday, when Israel launched an air assault after saying it had concluded Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran denies.
Israel launched three waves of aerial attacks on Iran in the last 24 hours, military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin has said.
Israel deployed dozens of warplanes to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and western Iran, including missile launchers and missile-production sites, he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:58
Can Iran’s leadership be toppled?
“The aim of the operation is to eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel, significantly damage Iran’s nuclear programme in all its components, and severely impact its missile array,” he said.
Early on Thursday Israel issued an evacuation warning to residents of the Iranian Arak region where Iran has heavy water reactor facilities. Heavy water is important in controlling chain reactions in the production of weapons grade plutonium.
Meanwhile Iran says it has arrested 18 people it describes as “enemy agents” who it says were building drones for the Israelis in the northern city of Mashhad.
Iran also launched small barrages of missiles at Israel on Wednesday with no reports of casualties. Israel has now eased some restrictions for its civilians.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The US is working to evacuate its citizens from Israel by arranging flights and cruise ship departures, the US ambassador to the country has said.
In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer chaired a COBRA emergency meeting on the situation in the Middle East, with a Downing Street spokesperson saying: “Ministers were updated on efforts to support British nationals in region and protect regional security, as well as ongoing diplomatic efforts”.
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.
Image: Members of the Israeli special forces check the remains of a suspected ballistic missile in northern Israel.
Pic: Reuters
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.
More on Iran
Related Topics:
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
34:31
Michael Clarke and Dominic Waghorn answer your questions about the Israel-Iran conflict
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.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
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.
Image: The site of an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Pic: Reuters
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.
Image: An oil storage facility after it appeared to have been struck by an Israeli missile in Tehran. Pic: AP
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.