flamingos

Toot

The rise - higher than stated last month - will see the average annual bill rise to £603, but there are significant variations between regions.

Water companies have committed extra money for investment in infrastructure, such as reservoirs, and more help for struggling customers.

However, consumer groups are warning the rise means more households will fall into debt.

Regulator Ofwat outlined forecast bill rises in December, which would cover the next five years.

But the bill rises for the year from April, external, announced by industry body Water UK, are higher than those announced by Ofwat as the calculations now include inflation - so account for rising prices that suppliers face.

The average bill increase equates to around £10 a month, from £40 to £50, but millions of households face even steeper rises.

Southern Water customers told they will see a 47% increase to £703 a year while Hafren Dyfrdwy and South West Water bills are rising by 32%.

Thames Water customers have been warned they will see a 31% hike and Yorkshire Water is raising bills by 29%.

Bournemouth Water customers will also see a 32% increase to their bills.

Other factors, such as whether a customer is metered and how much water they use, means the bill changes will vary considerably for customers depending on their circumstances.

Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going.

Context

January 27, 2025

We wrongly said that a study on behalf of Thames Water showed “1 in 12 Londoners is an illegal migrant” (News, Jan 23). In fact the study covered only 7 million people in specific “water resource zones”, not the whole population of London, which is closer to 9 million. 1 in 12 was the highest of a range of estimates for the proportion of “irregular migrants”, but these estimates included some people who are not illegal immigrants, such as those given indefinite leave to remain, as well as some British-born children of migrants with irregular status.

They, of course, haven't corrected the actual article, which shows up in search results. The claim itself if from the Telegraph, who've yet to issue their own correction.

From Monday, accredited journalists can speak to families about their ongoing cases, report what they see and hear in court, and quote from key documents – provided they keep those families anonymous.

Family courts determine cases that have profound effects on family lives, like deciding whether children should be taken into care or which parent they should live with.

Hearings are held in private, and while journalists have been allowed to attend since 2009 they have had no right to report.

Monday's change follows a two-year "transparency pilot" which began with three court centres and now covers almost half the family courts in England and Wales.

Using the pilot, the BBC has reported on multiple cases, including one in Cardiff Family Court where a young mother, whom we called Bethan, had to spend £30,000 to protect her young daughter.

Her ex-husband, the child's father, had been convicted of multiple paedophiliac offences.

The Family Court agreed he should lose parental rights over the little girl.

Bethan told us she thought the new regime was "fantastic news". She said "allowing reporting in the Family Court sheds light on issues that the public should have the right to know about".

Her daughter, she said, was now thriving.

"She has an empathy and sympathy for her little friends that simply couldn't have developed if she were being brutalised in the way that her father's victims were. Thanks to the Family Court judgement, she stands a chance at having a full and happy life."

BBC reporting of Bethan's case led the then-MP Harriet Harman to campaign to change the law on parental access – which is now under way.

In the future, no other parents in Bethan's position would have to go to court to remove parental rights from those convicted of the most serious paedophiliac offences.

Title is stolen from this London Economic article, but I found the article itself to be pretty vapid so swapped the link for the Best for Britain publication they're referencing.

Best for Britain commissioned a massive new MRP poll which has revealed that every constituency in Britain thinks the Government should prioritise trade with the EU over the USA and other countries.

The poll and analysis of almost 15,000 people undertaken by YouGov on behalf of Best for Britain shows that across England, Scotland and Wales, almost one in two people (46%) would say the EU should be the Government’s top priority when it comes to trade whereas less than half this number (22%) would opt for the US. 4% would think the Government’s focus should be China while 6% would favour another country.
[…]
Clacton, the seat of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, provided the highest result (30%) for prioritising the UK's trading relations with the USA of any GB constituency. However, even in this constituency the top-placed result was the EU with 33%.

Boston and Skegness received the highest Reform UK vote share in the country at the 2024 election but again, constituents would still favour prioritising the UK's relationship with the EU by 37% compared to 24% for the USA.