House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Nov 1996 (pt 51)

10.27 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am sure that many of his constituents will be grateful to him for so forcefully expressing his concerns.

As my hon. Friend rightly says, he has a background of concern about conservation and water issues, and I am sure that he speaks for many individuals in Norwich, especially the tenants of Norwich city council, when he so clearly expresses his worries about the denial of choice by the council and its failure to take into account the needs of environmental good husbandry. As he rightly said, it is regrettable that tenants are being denied choice and that the needs of the environment are being ignored by the council.

We accept that the good husbandry of water resources is an important part of sustainable development. It is also part of the challenge of global warming, not least for an already dry area such as East Anglia, as my hon. Friend so clearly stated. The development of new sources of water supply may be necessary, but our first recourse should be to make the best use of existing supplies. Last month, the Government published a comprehensive examination of the problem, "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action", with a number of action points for the Government, the regulators, the water companies and consumers.

I shall mention a few of the steps that are being taken. The Government, through the Office of Water Services, are pressing water companies to reduce leakage in their distribution system to an economic minimum. The Director General of Water Services has published each water company's long-term leakage target and the targets for the next financial year.

Reducing the use of water through demand management makes sense. Since 1 February, all water companies have had a new duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Efficient use of water means using water-efficient equipment and cutting leakage in customers' pipes, as well as informing the public about the relationship between water use and supply. When all other measures that should be taken have been taken, the key to the efficient use of water must lie with the user. In that respect, my hon. Friend's concerns have great force.

Domestic demand has been growing over the years, with the widespread use of appliances such as automatic washing machines and the increased ownership of

20 Nov 1996 : Column 1082

dishwashers. The popularity of gardening and the use of garden sprinklers also has a marked impact in summer. In one hour, a sprinkler can use enough water to supply a family of four for two days. We are not trying to discourage clean cars or green gardens, but there is a strong case for saying that customers should pay for them.

My hon. Friend argued eloquently for the merits of water metering as a means of conserving water resources and postponing or eliminating the need for new boreholes or reservoirs with all their environmental implications. I agree with his remarks. The encouragement of metering is a key element in the Government's water strategy. There is widespread resentment, especially in times of water shortage, that neighbours can be using vastly different quantities of water without any effect on their bills. Metering is fair: one pays only for what one uses. It is also successful.

Trials have shown an immediate reduction both in water use and in many customers' bills. Customers are being denied that opportunity by Norwich city council and water use is being affected adversely. I must make it clear that the Government do not control or impose the method of charging for water. That decision is for the water companies. The proviso is that they should operate within the rules set by statute and supervised by the Director General of Water Services.

On the method of charging, the law simply requires that companies should not set prices that are unduly discriminatory or preferential. The decision is up to water companies but, of course, the Government have a view on the charging method, which we have spelt out. We believe that the gradual extension of metering, together with the development of more sophisticated tariff structures, has an essential role to play in managing demand for water. In general, we believe that the introduction of water metering should be selective and that switching to metered charging should be voluntary for occupiers who are charged in their present properties on the basis of rateable values. However, new properties should be fitted with meters as the norm, as should those with high external use for garden watering and swimming pools. Where an occupier moves to a dwelling with a meter, charging should be metered.

I welcome the fact that companies are reducing the cost of their voluntary meter option schemes and that eight companies, including Anglian Water, offer free installation for customers who want meters. That is the Government's policy on metering, although it is for companies to make the choice of charging methods. This is the background to what is happening in Norwich.

Anglian Water is pressing ahead with the installation of water meters. I understand that it has adopted a programme of installing meters in all properties. That is a long undertaking, with a target of 40 per cent. coverage by 2000. Where it fits meters, it gives existing customers the choice of continuing on the old rateable value basis or switching to a metered bill, whichever customers choose as the lower for them. For normal domestic uses, it is only with new or substantially altered properties or where new customers enter properties that already have meters that the company requires metered payment. In those cases, the customer should know beforehand what he is taking on as part of the dwelling. Anglian also requires metered payment when the customer uses a garden sprinkler or has a swimming pool. Anglian will install meters for