Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has said it will keep increases to bills below the rate inflation for the next six years.
The Nelson-based not-for-profit company has published a business plan, spanning 2015 to 2020, outlining increases to 1% below inflation. The firm has claimed this will lead to bills in 2020 that are 12.5% cheaper than what they were in 2010 in real terms.
The plan also outlines an investment of £1.5 billion in the company’s water and sewerage services with promises to reduce the number of properties affected by low pressure by 25% and a 20% reduction in the number of properties affected by sewer flooding.
It also wants to reduce leaks by 8% and reduce pollution by a third.
The plan has been submitted to water industry regulator Ofwat for approval.
Bob Ayling, chairman of Welsh Water’s parent company Glas Cymru, said: “With no shareholders, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water is a unique way to run a public utility, where all gains go to the customer through lower bills or increased investment.
“By 2020 we will have seen ten consecutive years of keeping our price increases below inflation – reducing our prices by 12.5% in real terms. Yet with a £1.5 billion investment programme we continue to invest significantly to maintain and improve our services, just as our customers demand. To deliver this ambitious plan we will need to be more innovative and reduce our own operating costs as much as possible.
“As a company owned on behalf of our customers, their views are all-important and their input has been invaluable in the preparation of our plan. We are very pleased that 94% of customers endorsed this plan.”
What a difference there is between a not – for – profit organisation like Welsh Water and profit – driven private energy companies. All public utilities should be nationalised or run on a not – for – profit basis. The only winners out of privitisation are company shareholders.
"The only winners…." ..and pension funds. You may be too young to remember but many nationalised industries were propped up by the taxpayer. British Steel, for example, was costing the taxpayer one million pounds a week in the 70's.
I'm all for privatising the energy companies as privatisation usually brings about greater efficiency. However, I would have a state run not-for-profit company to provide competition and drive down prices.
In response to Cheryl, I don't think many people looking at their fuel bills will note how 'efficient' the energy companies are operating. Most people can see that this is a rigged market with providers in cahoots with each other, driving up prices in the knowledge that the public have no choice but to pay the exhorbitant increases. Heating your home is an essential expenditure by anybody's standards and when there is no competition as the energy companies all hike their bills by the same amounts, how is this evidence of a market operating efficiently?
The right always trot out the same tune when Nationalisation rears its ugly head. The industries are loss making and a drain on the tax payer e.t.c. Right wingers never ever produce any figures detailing the loss to the tax payer when paying hundreds of thousands of people out – of – work benefits and the loss to the wider economy through further job losses due to depressed demand in the economy.
I return to my original piont. A company like Welsh Water are demonstrating that there doesn't have to be massive increases in bills when a company is operating on a not – for – profit basis. The argument for returning privitised utilities to be publicly run or on a not – for – profit basis is there to be won.
For your information James, Welsh Water prices are HIGHER than the average in England and, when people think and speak common sense without political dogma it often does imply that they are right/correct.
Okay, let's use some figure, James. On average water bills in Wales are 4% higher than in England (it's well researched)this points to market efficiency. The operating costs for the English companies needs to be lower for them to charge less and still make a profit (expenditure is higher in England as they have an older supply system) it's not just water companies where efficient in the private sector can mean more competitive prices.
State owned energy companies wouldn't work either. Bills would be lower but the government would lose millions over time as they fail to invest in modern equipment and techniques as you saw during the mining decline in the early 1900's creating a needy and costly infrastructure to maintain. They would also be inefficient giving higher operating costs. This would all lead to higher taxes as there would be a deficit.
During nationalised railways, the UK government lost roughly £65 million per year(it was sometimes as much as £100) Following the privatisation period (5 years after )where fares did not dramatically increase there were profits. Most of this comes from efficiency.
Shall we look at the council. How many people are there above you James? Are they all necessary? I think not. When they do building jobs the contractors take their times and the council don't shop around.
Most of it is common sense. Publicly funded bodies and state owned business don't have motives to be efficient as if they lose money or don't make as much money as possible, who cares? They will still have their jobs and the organisation will just be propped up by the tax payer. Private industry and corporation don't have the unlimited supply, there is only so much they can barrow and need to live within their means. Hence they like to save money with efficiency savings.
It is not a good idea to mention railways if your argument is that free enterprise is always best. Network Rail received a subsidy of £3.5 Billion in 2011-12. On top of this the rail companies are subsidised to the tune of £51 Million per annum, all this for providing the most expensive fares in Europe.
Railways, Water and energy should be nationalised in my view. These are strategic resources that should belong to the nation. We can argue all week whether nationalisation is more expensive than the subsidies we already pay but it will be a mere bagatelle compared with the state rescue of the (privately owned) banks. The French rail network is state owned and provides a fast, clean, punctual and inexpensive way to travel. This has other, uncosted, benefits to the French people which include less congestion and less pollution from traffic.
To butt in here, how much state control would you like. In France the tracks are state owned but many routes are operated by a private company with subsidies and capped fares.
Choosing railways as an example of free or nationalised industry is really a non-starter as there are hardly any profitable national railway companies in the world. Almost every railway company is subsidised. Japanese railways usually make a profit – we've all seen pictures of the platform staff pushing people into the overcrowded compartments in order to maximise 'efficiency'.
I think Richard hits the nail on the head regarding railways so I won't bother further making the case for rail nationalisation. Sheryl makes the point that water bills are 4% lower in England and this points to market efficiency. Firstly there is no set bill for English residents. There are a number of different water companies spanning various regions offering different bills. Some are higher than Welsh Water, whereas some are lower. WW has only been operating a relatively short period of time and the trend in bills seems to be downwards.
Sheryl seems to have nothing but praise for privitisation and she isn't alone here. I understand that privitisation has experienced wide political support especially since the 1980's but the reality is privitisation has simply increased bills to the consumer. The energy companies are far from 'efficient'. The only thing their efficient at doing is whacking up prices to the public. There is a moral case to be made for nationalising utilities. The Earth's natural resources shouldn't be extacted for the benefit of shareholders but run for the benefit of all the people who needs those essentials to survive. The profit motive should be removed and the argument is there to be won.
I'm with Cheryl. Private companies are more efficient than state companies (neither is 100% efficient) The Earths resources are being extracted to heat homes, the idea that it's all for the shareholders is cynical and holds about as much water as pair of nun's tights.
Maybe you need to write a letter protesting about your leader claiming for energy bills in a time of hardship where they are rising, James. Also, encourage people to us fixed rates instead of variable ones. It's common sense but so many people didn't take them out. If people don't like the high prices, why not use a cooperative?
I'm not sure if Dean has heard the news but there will be tens of thousands of excess deaths this year due to vulnerable people having to chose between heating and eating. The Earths resources should be extracted to provide warmth for everyone and at a cost that can be met by everyone, not for profit for the few at the top.
Its not cynical to hold the view that a private energy companies prioirity is to their shareholders. Why do people invest money to purchase shares in energy companies. To make a profit. The majority of the public can now see that privitised utilities aren't operating in the interests of everyday people. Time for renationalisation.
Councillor James Pritchard is, of course, correct, when he aspires to the time when all utility companies are re- nationalised. It is immoral for anyone to trouser huge and disproportionate amounts of money, in profits, from hard pressed low paid workers who keep this country afloat.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the main platforms of the next general election will be the debate in respect to the cost of living, only this time it will center on specifics, fuel poverty being a main issue, we will have the current coalition governments recent smoke and mirrors `reduction` in utility bills taken apart and it being shown to be what it really is, not a reduction at all, but simply moving the cost from one column in the governments balance sheet to another. Whichever angle it is looked at the taxpayer pays for it, not the power companies. Surly, Dean and others cannot agree with this state of affairs of a `Government subsidy` to the already `awash with our money` utility companies?.
Interesting report published today: –
The US is producing more oil than it imports and this is seriously denting oil-producing countries' export earnings.
For many years, the OPEC cartel was able to manipulate prices through their grip on supply…"
It seems that OPEC controls the price of fuel.
Lets hope that Welsh Water reduce their prices to the same average price as those in England that are privately run. That would make life a bit easier for us residents. It would also allow Welsh businesses to become more competitive.
James, It's not that extreme. I think you're misunderstanding what exactly fuel poverty is. It's not when people are dying and can't afford the heat. It's when a house hold is spending more than 10% of it's income on heating their properties. Using the technical definition, a multimillionaire with millions in the bank with a huge mansion could be in fuel poverty as the heating bill could well be greater than 10% annual income. The figures are so skewed and the measurements so vague that it's like taking a survey of those on the Sunday Times' rich list and using the results to give the average annual income for someone in the UK.
The people who die don't freeze to death, they die to a condition that may have been brought on by the weakened immune system the cold brings. Obviously, it's impossible to say whether they would have contracted such a virus/infection if they were warm so claiming that people die because they can't choose between 'eating or heating' is ludicrous.
The people have a choice to have one of the 'Big 6' as a supplier. They could use a cooperative company (I do and my bills are low in comparison) more people can do the same. I also took out a fixed rate 3 years ago. I'm paying 2010 prices up until 2015. Why didn't more people do this?
The free market has alternatives but people continually fail to use them.
the answer to lowering the cost of living isn't putting everything under government control, it's by creating more competition to drive prices down. Why did the industries, post-privatisation, disappear? They were bought out by foreign companies! These companies closed down the production plants to put the competition out of business (think recently to the metal plant and the French company) We need to take a stand against buy outs. We sold Candbury, they closed the British plants. Unsurprising really. It didn't even make economic sense for the shareholders (it was a hot money flow move)
Politicians need to take a stand, say no to international competition, implement protectionist policies for British businesses operating in the UK, and charge British based businesses less corporation tax (I would campaign for 3%)
The quicker Ed Miliband learns that business is to be embraced and not feared the quicker the UK economy will recover. Cameron has learnt the latter part but not the former hence the uncompetitive UK.
That`s OK then Dean????
Considering no one is dying as a direct result of the cold and that fuel poverty as we imagine it to be doesn't exist then I can definitely think of worse things.
Dean, you exist in this imaginary world in which statistics rule, no disrespect but I suppose that what you get when you deal with computers day in day out.
The FACT is that however you imagine FUEL poverty is measured I apply the simple calculation as follows: Old age pensioner, on basic pensions, the young single parent household on low pay and benefits, or, indeed the family on low pay and no benefits, pay exactly the same as a millionaire for their heat light and power, exactly the same, exactly the same, in case you missed it first and second time,there is no doubt at all that the people listed above are living in Fuel poverty, which, incidentally, leads to other forms of household poverty and stark choices, feed the kids? or burn the gas fire?.
Your blinkered opinion of what is going on around you, in the community in which you live, in respect to denying that many families in Caerphilly, which has the enviable distinction of being the poorest in the entire British Isles is breathtaking, convincing you you are wrong?
not worth the bother.
You know what they say, Trefor: there are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
I completely get Trefor that there are people in Caerphill
You know what they say, Trefor: there are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
I completely get Trefor that there are people in Caerphilly struggling to pay fuel bills and although the families pay the same as millionaires, spending on usage, both groups could officially be in fuel poverty which is completely wrong. Even you will agree with that. The term is used too loosely.
Are they at the point of death due to cold and struggling to look after families like the Guardian and James Pritchard would have you believe? Not by a long shot. It's bad but not that bad.
It raises a new. interesting question. It's impossible to look after all. There's not enough money to go around. Even if the bankers willingly paid 90% income tax or something. The model the state uses to calculate welfare is based upon national averages for poorer people. These don't take into account the poorest of the poor. For the people earning the average, with state help, they are getting by with a small squeeze. Should the whole model and the way of calculating help be restructured to take into account the poorest of the poor?