| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 737
Water Requirements (Planning) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.15 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a conservation measure. We live in a conservation-minded age, and the Bill would have the effect of ensuring both the conservation and preservation of our water supplies. As the poet sang :
"Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my Song."
But "sweet Thames" would not run softly, let alone the song, if efforts were not being made constantly to keep the great river in order. Surprisingly few people realise the extent to which the world-famous river is used merely as a conduit to bring water from hundreds of miles away to our great capital city.
My Bill would require a person seeking planning permission for a new building to send an estimate of the annual water requirement to the area water company at the same time as submitting the application for planning permission to the planning authority. I have secured all-party support for my Bill.
There are two objectives behind the requirement. First, water supply companies should be able to plan ahead. If they have warning of planning applications, they will know what level of building activity there will be in future and how much water they will be called upon to supply. Secondly, we must try to instil a "conservation mind" into those who make applications for planning permission. If the Bill is enacted, applicants will have to contact the local water authority and open a channel of communication between themselves and the authority. In that way, the authority will be able to say, "If you arrange the water supply in this way, a way that is different from that which you are intending, you will be able to save perhaps 25 per cent. of the amount of water that it is estimated will be consumed under the original requirements."
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : There is a requirement in my hon. Friend's Bill for a certificate to be submitted which shows that an estimate has been made of the quantity of water that will be used. However, there is no requirement for the water authority to act in any way. The suggestion that the authority would become involved in the planning of the extension seems to be a good, but perhaps a pious, hope.
Mr. Summerson : I trust that it would be both a good and a pious hope. It would open a channel of communication. If time permits, I shall read some of the responses that I have had from water authorities.
The demand for public water supplies has increased by 70 per cent. over the past 30 years. That is a significant pointer to an increasingly affluent, and effluent, society. We all tend to forget that what goes into a building must also go out. It is not only the supply of water to a premises that a water authority must bear in mind ; it must also treat the used water that comes out the other end.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? He referred to water authorities, but I was under the impression that since privatisation there are only water companies. There is only one authority--the National Rivers Authority. It may
Column 738
have been a slip of the tongue, but if there is indeed some other water authority, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me.Mr. Summerson : I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest ; I meant water plcs. I should have said plc, especially as it has one less syllable than authority, and time is short.
We should ask ourselves about the uses of water. We take it for granted that when we turn on the tap, water will come from it. We use water for washing cars, watering the garden and washing clothes. Some people even drink it. It is used in various domestic facilities--for example, every time that we use the lavatory it takes two gallons of water to flush it. A bath takes 18 gallons ; a washing machine cycle takes 25 gallons ; and a hosepipe or sprinkler can use 220 gallons an hour. In manufacturing industry, it takes one gallon of water to produce a pint of beer. I hope that no one asks me how that comes about ; it is a figure that I have been given. It takes 1,000 gallons of water to produce one tonne of steel, and it takes 6,600 gallons to manufacture one motor car. In the Thames Water area alone, 600 million gallons of water are used every day. That is equivalent to the total volume of the Albert hall being emptied and refilled every 75 minutes. That gives us some idea of how much water is being used. Thames Water is considering building a new reservoir in Oxfordshire to supply the rapidly expanding towns in the Thames valley, such as Witney and Swindon, and to ensure supplies of water to London. The idea is to send water down the Thames to London, where it will be stored in reservoirs. That is all part of a continuing effort, going back many years. I remember my days as a land agent, in the early 1970s, when I helped to look after a farm on the chalk in Oxfordshire. In those days, Thames Water had what was known as its ground water scheme, where bores were drilled in the chalk and ground water was pumped out and sent down the Thames to arrive, eventually, in London.
The Bill states that anyone seeking planning permission for a new building has to send an estimate of the annual water requirement to the water plc. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I would seek to table amendments in Committee to state that that would not be a requirement for a single building. It would have to be a requirement for developments of a minimum size, perhaps 10 houses or flats, a factory of 5,000 sq ft. or an office building of perhaps 10, 000 sq ft. Obviously it would be absurd if every time someone wanted to build on a conservatory or a bathroom, he had to send details to the water plc as it would certainly swamp it in paper.
I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) that I would quote comments by various water plcs and here we go. South West Water says :
"There is no doubt of the importance of making our customers aware of the cost and value of the water required to support their proposals, and any advance information which can be provided to the water companies is extremely useful for planning purposes." North West Water stated :
"It is helpful for customers and potential customers to be more aware of their requirements for water and, of course, we are always keen to know as soon as possible of potential new demand for our services."
Severn Trent Water stated :
"It is a very good idea"--
I hope that my hon. Friend is listening--
Column 739
"and should be extended not only to the erection of a building, but to any change or alteration in any building that requires planning permission."Mr. Arbuthnot : I am certainly listening to my hon. Friend ; I am merely disagreeing with him. For example, how is anyone who builds a new factory unit to know who will occupy it? If it is occupied by a paper- making industry, it will use an incredible amount of water as opposed to some other industries. One has no idea what sort of tenant will occupy the new building. Will these estimates be of any use and will they have any meaning at all?
Mr. Summerson : When most people build a factory they know perfectly well what use it will be put to. As I said, channels of communication will already have been opened between the developer and the water plc and I hope that they will both make use of it. Southern Water stated :
"It would be of assistance if your proposals could be extended so that notification is given also to the sewerage undertaker." Welsh Water said :
"We have long felt that any planning applications should be formally referred to ourselves for all the obvious reasons." Northumbria Water stated :
"Consultation with water undertakers has become more tenuous as we are no longer statutory consultees under the Town and Country Planning legislation."
One of the main reasons why I have introduced the Bill is that there are many rivers throughout the country which are in danger of drying up altogether, due to use and abstraction. I make no apology for it, but I shall read out the names of those rivers. In the Anglian region ; they are the River Hiz, the Hoffer brook, the River Slea, the Redgrave and Lopham fen site of special scientific interest, the River Glen, the East Rushton SSSI, the river Mun, the River Deben, and Hollesley-Black ditch.
In the north-west area, there is the River Lowther. In Severn-Trent, there are Dover beck, the River Worfe, Battlesfield brook, Rufford lake, Leomansley brook and Black brook (Tamworth).
Column 740
In the Southern area, there are the River Darent, Wallop brook, the River Little Stour, the River Nailbourne, St. Mary Bourne, the River Meon, and River Hamble.In the Welsh area there are the Frome, the Garren, the Gamber, the Monnow, the Alun, the Afon Clywedog, and Cefni reservoir. In the Thames area there are the Misbourne, the Pang, the Ver, the Wey, Letcombe brook, the Upper Kennet, the Thames Head, the Ampney, the Churn, the Coln and the Windrush.
In Yorkshire, there are the Derwent and the Wharfe, and in Wessex the River Piddle, the Allen and the Wey. All those rivers are in danger of drying up.
As I said at the outset, my Bill is a conservation measure, and I hope for the sake of the rivers that I have mentioned that the House will give it a Second Reading.
2.29 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is to be congratulated on presenting the Bill, and also on being the nicest of men--as I had the honour to be able to say in his constituency as recently as Wednesday. As we have already heard, he is also the most romantic of men : I felt that the opening lines of the poem with which he began his speech set it in context in an excellent fashion.
None the less, I have some reservations about the Bill--about its enforceability, for example. My hon. Friend suggests that we should all put in estimates of how much water we use. I have no idea-- It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 3 May.
Column 741
Private Members' Bills
ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
HARE COURSING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not even moved the Second Reading. Surely I should be allowed to do so before anyone can object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME (LONDON) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 26 April.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
Mr. Corbyn : With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 26 April.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
EDUCATION PROVISION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 May.
COAL IMPORTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
Mr. Corbyn : With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 26 April.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Column 742
HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
COURTS (RESEARCH) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
SMOKE DETECTORS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that it was the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) who objected to all but two of those Bills--including my Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill? If so, can Hansard record it, so that the people will know who is objecting?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The identity of hon. Members who object to Bills is not recorded.
Mr. Cohen : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it was out of order for an objection to be taken before I had moved the Second Reading of my Hare Coursing Bill. As a result, it was impossible to tell who had objected. If it was the Government Whip, that is significant : many animal lovers who want an end to hare coursing would be annoyed if the Government were responsible for the objection, and will take that into account.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The procedure was perfectly in order. Objections can be taken at any point immediately after the title of a Bill has been read out.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must plead guilty to making a fundamental mistake in objecting to the Smoke Detectors Bill. I understand that the Bill to which I objected is entirely different from its predecessor and I wish to withdraw my objection if that is possible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot do that. At least he has been able to record the fact that he made an error ; the objection must stand, however.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. He will take time away from the Adjournment debate.
Column 743
Plumbing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : Before I begin, I welcome in particular the presence here of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martyn Smyth), who, like me, is a prominent member of the all-party plumbing registration group, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is here to support what I have to say, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). In particular, I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State is here. I look forward to his response to several of the points that I intend to make. I hope that at the end of the debate the country at large will be much better informed about the state of plumbing in the United Kingdom.
Ten years have elapsed since I drew the attention of the House to the standard of plumbing in the United Kingdom. Hansard of 10 April 1981 detailed my concerns at the time and the Government's response. I have initiated this debate as the chairman of the all-party plumbing registration group, since members of the group--and many others--continue to be concerned about standards and the inadequacy of controls in order to maintain health and safety.
Immediately following the 1981 debate, at the Government's invitation, discussions and corespondence took place about the three issues that I raised at the time--first, the lack of training in the plumbing industry ; secondly, the ineffectiveness of the regulations and byelaws covering plumbing work ; and, thirdly, the lack of regulation of those undertaking plumbing work.
I do not intend to dwell on the first issue--the lack of training--save to say that there is no evidence to suggest that more training is being undertaken today than 10 years ago. While competent and responsible plumbers face intense and unfair competition from so-called cowboys, there is little incentive to train. I earnestly hope that the changes to plumbing training currently in hand, which will be linked to national vocational qualifications, will lead to an improvement. I certainly welcome the new tax relief on the fees paid by individuals training towards such qualifications which was announced in the recent Budget statement. As a nation, we need to create an adequate pool of craftspeople with both practical and theoretical skills in plumbing, using the well-established vocational training facilities available.
The main concern that I share with colleagues in the plumbing registration group is the lack of enforcement of statutory regulations and byelaws covering plumbing. Correspondence with Ministers and the debate on the Water Bill in the other place on 8 May 1989 reveal that the Government consider that health and safety standards for plumbing are adequately dealt with through building regulations and water byelaws. My colleagues and I dispute that. The technical requirements are meaningless without proper enforcement. Building regulations covering sanitary plumbing, unvented hot water systems and drainage are enforced by local authority building control officers. Contraventions undoubtedly take place which are not detected because building control officers do not know what work is going
Column 744
on and where. Although new buildings may be subject to inspection, work on existing properties goes largely unreported and unseen. The effects of faulty sanitary plumbing are not only unpleasant but can adversely affect health. I am sure that most of us have heard the familiar gurgles emanating from the waste plumbing systems when staying overnight in hotels, or even in our own homes. These are usually due to water in the U-bends of the trap seals being sucked out. That causes soil pipe gases to enter buildings. The problem is faulty workmanship. The results are headaches, nausea and general poor health. A visit to the doctor may result in the diagnosis of a bug going round and the prescription of unnecessary, ineffective and expensive drugs. One old age pensioner in London's east end felt so unwell that her doctor prescribed antibiotics. When a registered plumber inspected the sanitary plumbing he found no trap seal at all. She had been breathing in foul air. When the plumbing was rectified the old lady made an instant recovery. Many others have suffered in the same way. The Building Research Establishment is certainly aware of the effects of faulty sanitary plumbing, but I understand that the Government currently have no statistical evidence of its overall impact on the nation's health.Incorrectly installed hot water systems can also pose considerable safety hazards, including risks of explosion and scalding. Again, I understand that the Building Research Establishment has accumulated evidence of incidents at home and abroad in recent years showing the catastrophic effects of such explosions, which are akin to the results of a missile attack. The safety of hot water systems could be better dealt with in regulations made under the Water Act 1989. I should welcome a reaction from my hon. Friend the Minister to that suggestion because inspection of such systems is currently divided between water byelaw inspectors and building control officers. Water contamination and explosions could result through confusion about enforcement.
I believe that the Department of the Environment is proposing to introduce amendments to the building regulations which would require unvented hot water systems to be installed only by competent persons, who would be required to give notice to building control officers but not to water byelaw inspectors. I warn the Minister now that notification will be very limited. I am informed that less than 10 per cent. of systems installed to date have been notified to local authorities, so it will be reassuring if the Minister will not only publicise the statutory requirement to give notice but encourage local authorities to prosecute cases coming to light in which installers have failed to give such notice. Unless building regulations are properly enforced, there is little point in having them.
That also applies to water byelaws made under section 17 of the Water Act 1945 by water undertakers in England and Wales. Those undertakers have a duty to enforce their byelaws. Inspection on most new property may be carried out because the work comes to the attention of the water undertakers, but there continues to be a gap in the enforcement of byelaws in existing buildings. I first raised that issue in 1981 and the Government acknowledged the difficulties. Since then, new water byelaws have been introduced following widespread consultation. Similar provisions also apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Water byelaws are intended to assist water undertakers to
Column 745
maintain adequate supplies of wholesome water, and failure to do so may be a criminal offence under the 1989 Water Act.I understand that the water industry is reviewing the future of water byelaws, including their enforcement. That is timely, because it is as well to remind the House what water plumbing may do. It may pose risks to health as a consequence of contamination from backflow or back siphonage of foul or dirty water, the contamination of drinking water systems, and the use of inferior material in plumbing systems. Plumbing may also waste water through the installation of substandard or inefficient appliances and fittings.
Water byelaws dealing with those matters pose considerable responsibilities for the water industry, with potentially serious implications for the health of their consumers if the requirements are not adequately enforced. The United Kingdom water industry now has the added responsibility of conforming to the European Community construction products directive and drinking water quality directive and the subsequent regulations. Water byelaw enforcement is therefore of even more significance.
I understand that the last known formal study into byelaw enforcement was commissioned by the Department of the Environment in the late 1960s. The results published in 1971 were appalling. They revealed that 61 per cent. of the 1,300 installations surveyed contravened the water byelaw requirements specifically relating to back siphonage. Professional plumbers are cynically aware that the situation has not improved. Indeed, it is likely that matters have worsened, for infringements are seen every day.
We now have further evidence. The South Staffordshire water company decided six years ago to intensify its programme of industrial and commercial inspections. The company has so far inspected about 90 per cent. of all industrial and commercial properties within its area at least once. Those inspections have revealed a staggering 48,000 byelaw infringements, of which 25 to 30 per cent. involve potentially serious water contamination risks. They included direct contact between mains water supplies and cyanide, arsenic, chemicals, acids, canal water, mortuary post-mortem rooms and sewers. In one case, snails and legionnaire's disease bacteria were found in cold water storage systems supplying the operating theatre of a hospital. In another instance, the mains water supplies of a funeral parlour was insufficiently protected against backflow contamination which could occur while chemicals were being used during the embalming process. In a third case, 99 byelaw infringements were found in one industrial plant ; 24 of them were submerged mains water inlets connected to vats of phosphoric acid. The fourth and final example involved a junior and infants schools where inadequately covered cold water storage systems supplied wash basins in the toilet area where childen obtained water for drinking.
If time allowed, I could give many more examples. Almost every imaginable risk has been discovered at some time. Fortunately, due to that water company's diligence all but the very minor infringements found have now been
| Next Section
| Home Page |