Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Water Bills: Limiting Increases

Thursday 8 May 2025 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Rachel Blake questioned the Minister about a constituent's water bill increase of nearly 45% over two years and others experiencing near doubling of bills.
  • The Minister acknowledged Roberto's anger and blamed the previous Government for weak regulation and performance of water companies.
  • Dave Doogan inquired about the cost of water bills due to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity increases, receiving a reply from the Minister through the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Rachel Blake Labour (Co-op) Cities of London and Westminster
Energy Environment
Context

A constituent, Roberto, has seen his water bill increase by nearly 45% over two years. Other constituents have reported similar price hikes.

Question

Roberto, one of my constituents, has seen his water bill go up by nearly 45% in the last two years, and other constituents have contacted me to say that their bills have nearly doubled in that time. I am pleased by what the Minister said about holding the previous Government to account for their failure to invest in infrastructure. What more can the Government do to hold Thames Water to account for its failure to invest in infrastructure, its poor service and these rip-off charges for consumers?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)

Roberto is right to feel angry about his bill increase, the past performance of water companies and the toothless regulation under the previous Government. We have already taken action to deliver our manifesto promise to hold water companies to account, ban unfair bonuses and introduce criminal liability with up to two years in prison. We have also created the water delivery taskforce to ensure that all water companies, including Thames Water, deliver on their promised infrastructure improvements. The Government will always support those struggling with their water bills. Indeed, this Labour Government and water companies are more than doubling the social tariff support over the next five years.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The Minister did not specify concrete actions to hold Thames Water accountable beyond existing measures and social tariffs.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Dave Doogan SNP Angus and Perthshire Glens
Environment
Context

The hon. Member wrote to the Minister in December regarding concerns about regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity, which was replied to by the Minister in January.

Question

What assessment has the Minister made on the cost of water bills from increases to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity? I wrote to her in December about that and she replied in January. I am thankful for her answer, although it was slightly on the complacent side because she said that regulation 31 does not cause a problem to water quality just now. That is true, but the industry is burning down its assets to chemicals and equipment that have been regulation 31-tested, so a problem is coming. What assessment has the Minister made of when the solution will be delivered, and what effect will that have on water bills?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything relating to regulation of water is supported and looked at through the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which carries out an assessment to make sure we have the best water quality in the whole country. If he requires any further detail, he is welcome to write to me again and I will make sure I find it.

Not addressed: The Minister referred constituents to contact her for additional details rather than providing a substantive response to the issue raised.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)