House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Apr 1996 (pt 35)

Roots and Shoots

10.15 pm

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I have great pleasure in presenting a petition from more than 2,000 people living in the Kennington area, among whom are some hon. Members. It supports a valuable project called Roots and Shoots. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have an opportunity to visit this valuable scheme which provides work skills and training in horticultural products to disadvantaged young people in Lambeth. It should be adequately funded so that it can continue. People who know the value of the scheme have signed the petition. They have visited the scheme, bought the plants and seen what is happening there. I hope that the Minister responsible will study the petition carefully and do something to ensure that this valuable scheme does not have to fold. The petition states:

"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House asks that the Secretary of State for Education and employment intervenes to save 'Roots and Shoots'.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

1 Apr 1996 : Column 126

Drought (Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Conway.]

10.17 pm

Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): I asked for this debate because of my disgust at the wriggling and constant evasion on the part of the Government and, in particular, of the regulator, in respect of the chaos that Yorkshire people suffered last year. As the public inquiry in Leeds town hall, funded by Yorkshire Water and headed by Professor Uff, provides more and more details of the inadequacies--which go back not months but years--I predict that the Government's explanation will change. Instead of saying that it had been an exceptional, once-in-500 years summer and that the company did all that it could, they will say that it is a case of one bad company and that now that its senior executives and chairman have gone, everything will be all right. I also predict that the Government will fail even to address the flaws in the regulatory system that allowed the chaos to happen.

The Government's golden rule is that nothing, but nothing, must be seen to be wrong with water privatisation. That must be stated and restated by Government and regulator alike but never subjected to public scrutiny. I suggest that even today's announcement about competition was more a diversion from the public scrutiny of the management of the water industry that people want than anything new about how the industry will be managed in future. What other reason is there for the refusal of the Department of the Environment and the regulator to attend or give evidence in public to the inquiry in Leeds? Were they not also involved during last year's crisis? Did not the Secretary of State meet the company's chairman, Gordon Jones? Did not Ian Byatt write letters of complaint to the company? Why should those meetings and that correspondence be kept secret when everything else is in the public domain?

The public inquiry has been useful, in particular because it has offered the chance to the other regulator, the National Rivers Authority, to clarify many of the long-term issues relating to water resource management in Yorkshire without getting hung up on the "we must defend privatisation" charade. Certain factors have stood out, including the explanation that water for drinking in Yorkshire and anywhere else can be collected for treatment purposes from three sources: reservoirs, bore holes and rivers. Reservoirs are the cheapest source because water flows down hill and is collected in the uplands, where it is kept relatively pure. Bore holes are the next most expensive option because of the pumping costs, and rivers are the most expensive because the water needs to be pumped and cleaned up more to make it safe to drink.

Last March, Yorkshire Water looked at the beautiful reservoirs of the Pennines brimming over after one of the wettest winters in history and saw not water, but a year of bumper profits. Instead of conserving the good wine till last, it gobbled it all up month after month through the summer. It was not until the middle of August, the 18th to be precise, that Yorkshire Water looked to increase its take from rivers, despite persistent NRA warnings.

1 Apr 1996 : Column 127

The second fact to come out of the inquiry is that the company was warned way back in 1991 that the grid system was not sufficient to move water around the county. Indeed, since 1989, drought restrictions have been imposed throughout the county in every single year.

The third fact to come out of the inquiry is that the need for investment to reduce leakage was identified four years ago, but no action was taken. According to the minutes of a meeting of the Ofwat Yorkshire customer service committee, the director general visited Yorkshire on 8 April 1992 to discuss in particular Ofwat's concern about the leakage control policy and the lack of investment to combat those leaks. There is nothing new about leaks.

The truth is that, last year, there was no drought in the real sense of the word in Yorkshire. A drought occurs when there is year on year of low rainfall--more like in 1976, or, potentially, this year--and when stocks are low after a number of dry winters and summers. In 1976, people displayed a community spirit to save on external use and garden watering.

Yorkshire people are not blind, and they can detect greed and waste. They saw the brimming reservoirs in March, and fished in them. Those reservoirs were full of public water collected from rain in public ownership. They saw and reported leaking pipes and discovered that it took at least two weeks for the company to take action. They read about the 100 million gallons of water leaking daily from company pipes. With one voice--chambers of commerce, Tory and Labour Members of Parliament, local authorities, rich and poor alike and public health bodies--they turned on the company when they were threatened with standpipes, rota cuts, business relocation and constant appeals to restrict their use of water for washing and in the garden. They said, "No. This is your problem. We, the customers, will not accept the blame." Indeed, usage started to go up every time a Yorkshire Water boss issued another television appeal.

Tonight, I want to take the issue further. The problem was not trivial, but touches the very heart of public health. People now want to know why the Government allowed that irresponsible company simultaneously to retain its senior management, return record profits and increase prices by nearly 6 per cent. while overseeing a crisis that could have caused major outbreaks of dysentery, environmental devastation and even mass evacuation.

The public want to know what the so-called independent regulator's role was in all this. He showed no concern about water resources last year until21 August, when he issued a press release calling for

"the companies to improve the way they manage the demand for water"--

not the way they manage water, but the way they manage the demand for water. He admitted: