| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gummer: It has not suddenly changed, and the Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman tables a motion that he knows to be untrue, and therefore implies that I have told a lie three times in the House? I have not so done. The Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. The hon. Gentleman should accept my word, as I would accept his word--and, given how silly many of his words are, he should at least be grateful when I say something sensible.
Mr. Dobson: It is not entirely by people's words that you judge them, Madam Speaker. In this country, at the moment, some families are forced to have water meters. The Minister has not lifted a finger to stop it. The water regulator, appointed by the Secretary of State or his predecessor, is in favour of compulsory water meters, and does nothing about it. Until he takes action to prevent the compulsory use of water meters, we will not believe him.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The British Medical Association produced a thoughtful and authoritative report, which warned of the consequences if metering caused people to economise by reducing standards of personal and family hygiene. The report drew attention to the special needs of people who
are incontinent or suffer from psoriasis or eczema, and to the extra water needed by families with babies and older children.
I point out to Conservative Members that, if one is incontinent, if one suffers from the diseases I mentioned, or if one is a baby, one needs the extra water, no matter how much money one has. We are trying to protect those who do not have the money. The supporters of water metering offer no solution to that problem.
Mr. Arnold:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson:
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last time, if his intervention is as daft as they usually are.
Mr. Arnold:
The hon. Gentleman has spent no less than 13 minutes saying that he opposes water metering. What form of water charging does he support?
Mr. Dobson:
The hon. Gentleman had better listen to my speech.
Compulsory water metering, while costing billions of pounds, may not save much water, would hit poor people hardest, and might harm their health and well-being. My final question is: is there an alternative to the trouble, expense and injustice of water metering? Is there a better way of saving water? The answer is obvious: of course there are easier, cheaper and fairer ways.
First, we must stop the water companies wasting the millions of gallons that leak every day from their pipes.
Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport):
Water prices since privatisation are now two and a half times as much in the south-west. I visited a new estate in my constituency where water meters have been fitted. Many of the people living there are families, and I assure my hon. Friend that metering has made a difference to them: their bills are not two and a half times as much, but three times as much.
Mr. Dobson:
I am sure that that is the case. The Secretary of State is not listening. I presume that that is because he does not want to hear evidence that people have been forced to have water meters.
As everybody knows, the real water wasters are not the customers but the water companies.
Sir Anthony Grant:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
When the Tory Government privatised the water industry, they gave it no less than £14 billion. Since then, the privatised companies have made £9.8 billion in profits and paid out dividends of more than £3 billion. Over that period, they have been a tax-free zone, paying no mainstream corporation tax, yet they have not invested in mending the leaks in their pipes. Every day, 855 million gallons of water, cleaned at the customer's expense before it leaks away, is wasted by the companies. That is more than half a million gallons a minute--four times the amount that leaks from customers' pipes.
It is therefore clear that the best way to protect the environment by saving water is for the companies to put their pipes in order rather than putting the squeeze on customers. It is not just the Labour party that says that. Last October's report, "Saving Water", issued by the National Rivers Authority, showed that cutting leaks was twice as useful as installing water meters, and that cutting leaks and installing more water-efficient household appliances are the most cost-effective ways of conserving water. It concluded that the water regulator was not doing enough to force the companies to reduce leaks from their pipes.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
So cutting leaks was top priority, and the National Rivers Authority called for the introduction of mandatory leakage targets. Yet mandatory targets have still not been introduced, because the Government and the regulator do not like them. The long-term effects of compulsory metering would not encourage the water companies to mend their leaks--quite the reverse. The introduction of compulsory metering would reduce the pressure on the water companies to cut back on leaks in their pipes.
That is not the end of the story. To charge domestic customers according to the amount of water used would give the companies an incentive to promote the sale of water. Water company takings would be related directly to the amount of water they sold, and they would have a vested interest in encouraging consumers to consume more. As a result, the drive for water conservation would become as bedevilled by the profit motive as the drive for energy conservation has been hindered because it conflicts with the financial interests of the gas and electricity industries. That would be bad for the environment.
Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble):
I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, although I was listening to part of it upstairs. I was unavoidably detained. I shall try not to ask my question in a polemical way.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is difficult to do much about leakage. One can go only so far in restraining leakage. In those circumstances, and faced with the problem that water is a diminishing resource as the climate becomes increasingly prone to drought, how does the Labour party suggest that we convince people that water as a resource must be conserved? If the hon. Gentleman does not approve of voluntary metering, what is the alternative?
Mr. Dobson:
As I told the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)--who, as usual, made an intervention and then left the Chamber--I shall come to that point in the course of my speech.
Compulsory water metering fails the economic, social and environmental tests, yet it has been heavily promoted by some--but not many--people in the water companies. It has been promoted most of all by the Government and the water regulator, who between them have gone to enormous lengths. In order to promote metering, they rigged water privatisation; they rigged the law; they rigged the price formula; they misled the House of Commons; they hindered the water companies, which
wanted to consider other charging systems; and they played down water company leaks. At every turn, their first priority has been to promote metering.
Mr. Gummer:
Will the hon. Gentleman cite a single occasion on which the Secretary of State for the Environment has promoted compulsory metering? Will he cite all the occasions on which I have said categorically that we are opposed to compulsory water metering?
Mr. Dobson:
If the Secretary of State had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), he would have heard that people have been forced to have water meters on an estate in Plymouth. That has occurred under the present law, under the present Tory Government and under the present Tory Secretary of State--and the Secretary of State has done nothing about it, because his secret agenda is to promote it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
The Secretary of State for the Environment has intervened four times, and he has protested too much. We do not believe him when he says that he is not in favour of compulsory water metering. Why? Because, before the Tories were elected, they did not say that they would privatise rain, but when they got into power they did.
Mr. Dobson:
My hon Friend makes a cogent point--[Interruption.] Dimmer I may be than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)--[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. All hon. Members know my views on seated interventions. The highest standard of debate should prevail.
Mr. Dobson:
I agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government Members should listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said. The water industry has a bad reputation because people have an instinctive feeling that the water starts off free, goes through the pipes of the companies and ends up very expensive. If Government Members do not realise that, they will not understand the public mood in this regard.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |