House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 May 1996 (pt 13)

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall not at the moment.

In the waste of water, Yorkshire Water, North West Water, Severn Trent Water and Thames Water are the principal culprits. Nothing much was done about that scandal until we exposed it last summer. It was not until then that the water industry, the regulator or the Government acknowledged even that water leakage from company pipes was a major problem.

I have considered water company annual reports for the three years before last year's crisis. Leaks were not even mentioned in North West Water's annual reports in any of the three years preceding last year's crisis. Nor were leaks mentioned in Yorkshire Water's annual reports over that period. Other company reports over the period referred to leaks, but they were leaks by customers, to which they wanted to draw attention.

The same applied to the regulator's annual reports. He mentioned only leaks by customers and the need to do something about those leaks. There was not a word about leaks from companies' pipes, despite the fact that they represent about 80 per cent. of total water leaked.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me of the occasions when leaks in the nationalised water companies were mentioned, apart from one in 1911?

Mr. Dobson: I simply cannot afford to employ seven civil servants to go back to 1911. I have been considering the period since the industry was privatised, on terms that the Secretary of State appears to think were good.

We have always said that dealing with leaks was the quickest way of saving water, a view backed by the National Rivers Authority. At first, the industry and its Government apologists denied that. Their next statement was that £4 billion was being invested in dealing with leaks, which was a total lie: £4 billion was being invested in anything to do with water, which might, by accident, have reduced leaks. When we checked to find out what was being spent on detecting and dealing with leaks by getting in touch with every company, the total in England was £68 million. That, however, was from eight of the companies, because the ninth could not even tell us.

We have called on the Secretary of State to set mandatory leakage targets for the water companies, and he has refused to do so. He will rely on them, he says, to set their own targets. They have done so, and what do we find? Let us consider the principal culprits among the companies.

According to a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough(Mrs. Jackson)--I pay tribute to all her work on this matter--although some companies are aiming for a 10 per cent. leakage rate by the year 2000, North West Water says that it aims to reduce its leakage to 22 per cent. by 2000, and Yorkshire Water says that it aims to reduce its leakage to 20 per cent "in the longer term", however long that may be. Apparently the Secretary of State is satisfied

8 May 1996 : Column 250

with those targets, which are an insult to water customers in the north-west and Yorkshire. I fear that, when there is an appeal to local people to save water, they will probably say that a spot of DIY is required from the companies before they will do anything.

In a further answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, the Government said that, during the latter part of 1995 and the first four months of 1996,the privatised water companies had announced additional investment of over £400 million--that figure is mentioned in the Government's complacent amendment to our motion--in developing water resources and improving the distribution network.

No one should be fooled by that statement; it does not mean that the money is being spent on dealing with leaks. When I checked about two hours ago with the Water Services Association--at present, one could say that it represents nine and a half of the major companies, because one of them is leaving--it said that none of the £400 million was being spent specifically on detecting and mending leaks.

Another problem with the Government's figure is that they do not specify the period over which the investment is taking place. For all I know, the money could all be for spending this summer--or this year, at least--or it may be spread over two or three years. Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the timetable.

If the water companies are to command support and a proper response from the public, they will have to mend their ways--and so will Ministers. The Government's record has been pathetic. For years, they ignored the leaks from company pipes and put the blame on customers. Labour Members of Parliament were told in the House by Ministers that customers were responsible for most of the leaks. That was a lie, which was told because the Government had been pursuing a secret agenda to force everybody on to water meters, and had never given proper attention to the leaks from company pipes.

When the Environment Act 1995 was a Bill, Ministers introduced an amendment to require the efficient use of water by customers, but rejected a Labour call to extend that requirement to the water companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough was treated with contempt by the Minister who dealt with the issue. She had made a wise suggestion, so I suppose that is why it was rejected.

A little later in the summer, the Government produced a document entitled, "Using Water Wisely", containing 71 paragraphs of their deep and learned thoughts on that subject. Of the 71 paragraphs, 56 were devoted to water conservation by customers, including 29 on metering for customers. Only nine paragraphs were devoted to company leaks, and some of those were used to reject the idea of mandatory standards for leakage.

Sad to say, the water regulator has not performed much better. At the end of December, he had to admit: