Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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
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
20 Nov 1996 : Column 1083
I understand that Norwich city council has adopted a policy of root and branch opposition to water metering. It is apparently not interested in the environmental arguments for saving water or in giving its tenants the choice of whether to be metered. It should be noted that for many of the least well-off, especially single-person households and pensioners, metering would offer savings on their current water bills with no change in their water consumption habits. Meters offer every household greater control over water bills. The sensible use of water can go a long way to trim bills.
My hon. Friend asked about the legal position on the installation of meters, and wanted to know whether tenants have any recourse if the city council obstructs the installation of meters even when they have been requested. When Anglian Water or any other water company is carrying out a programme of meter installation, the company gives notice to customers and then has powers, like other statutory undertakers, to enter premises and fit meters even over the objections of the council or any other landlord.
In the long term, Norwich city council or any other council cannot prevent the steady progress of meter installation. Where, however, the company is fitting at the voluntary request of the tenant, the situation is different. In meeting the customer's request for a meter, Anglian Water is not invoking any powers of compulsion.
There is a duty on local authority tenants under the Housing Act 1985 not to carry out an improvement without the consent of the landlord, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The law treats adding a water meter as an improvement. If the local authority landlord refuses consent, the tenant may not make an unauthorised improvement. Where the tenant has asked for the meter, it is like the tenant calling the builders in. It is up to the tenant to ensure that he has the necessary consent.
20 Nov 1996 : Column 1084
If the water company is asked by a tenant to install a meter, it will assume that the customer has any necessary consent. It will continue installing on request. If a tenant has a meter installed without the consent of the landlord, that is in law a matter between the landlord and the tenant, not the water company.
If a tenant is refused consent, his recourse would not be to sue the landlord. The law provides that such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. That would be the issue. In the end, it would be for the courts to decide whether the council had been reasonable in withholding its consent.
I hope that the issue will not come before the courts. I hope also that Norwich city council will listen to the force of my hon. Friend's arguments and reconsider its policy on water metering. I understand that, even now, the eastern customers service committee of Ofwat, which represents the customers of Anglian Water, has written to the city council to ask it to support water metering.
Whatever policy the council adopts, the legal position is that it cannot prevent the progressive installation of meters under Anglian Water's rolling programme. The council can delay only by depriving individual tenants of the choice of voluntarily moving at once to lower metered bills.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |