| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me: it is a point of argument. When we debate the White Paper, perhaps I shall call the hon. Gentleman and he might put those questions to Government Front Benchers.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you provide some guidance as to the normal seating arrangements in this place? I know that you gave a ruling on that subject a few weeks ago. I understand that hon. Members who support the governing party sit on the Government side of the House. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has joined the Cabinet Committee, should not Liberal Democrat Members sit with Government Members?
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members may sit where they think they will be most comfortable.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience yet again, but, before I apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter of the arms trade with Indonesia, I wonder whether you have any information as to whether the Government intend to make a statement on what appears to be a change of policy regarding the arms trade with that country.
Madam Speaker: I must disappoint the hon. Member. No, I have not been informed by the Government that they are seeking to make a statement on that matter--although I heard the hon. Lady on the radio at 1 o'clock this afternoon.
Water Charges (Amendment)
4.48 pm
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1998; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes.
The original charging system, which was based on the old rateable values of properties, will cease to be used after April 2000. The Government are now undertaking a review--among many other reviews--of the water charging system in England and Wales. In Scotland, however, the council tax banding system is already used to calculate sewerage and water charges. Surely what is good enough for Scotland is good enough for England and Wales.
During recent years, the installation of water meters, mainly in new properties and through schemes conducted by the water companies themselves, has reached less than 10 per cent. of households in England and Wales. Thus more than 90 per cent. of households are still paying water charges based on the old rateable values of their property. Some of those figures are now 25 years old. Water and sewerage charges must be paid for, but the basis of such charges must be fair and have widespread support. There should be no compulsory water metering for essential household use, but conservation demands that any charging system should promote the efficient use of water, and thus metering for heavy users of non-essential water must be an integral part of any future charging system.
The existence of monopoly suppliers in each region for such an essential commodity means that national charging systems must be fair, not only among individual customers of each water company, but among the companies themselves, so that the huge disparities between water charge payments in the south-west and those in most other parts of the country do not continue. A new system for charging must take account of that innate unfairness, particularly to those living in the south-west of England. The charges levied by South West Water have risen by some 75 per cent. in real terms from
1989 to 1997, while the average rise throughout the rest of the country was only 42 per cent. Not only does the south-west pay the highest water charges, but it is an area of households with low incomes and above average unemployment, and it has more elderly residents than most other areas.
The Bill proposes that the future charging system for unmetered water should be based on council tax bands, with meters being available as a choice to the consumer. Indeed, there should be an ability to switch from one form of charging to another, to allow for householder preference. The introduction of a system of charging based on council tax bands would be well understood by customers. It would be cheap and easy to install and to administer, and if properly structured, would broadly reflect the use of water. It is likely that it would promote metering in bands E to H. Customers in bands A to D would probably see a reduction in their bill. Such proposals would, therefore, encourage conservation by high users, while protecting low-income consumers from the present high charges that are levied on them.
A system based on council tax bands could also include the ability to give single-adult households a 25 per cent. discount, and households on very low incomes a rebate, in the same way as under the council tax system. That would provide a much fairer distribution of the charges that have to be made, without deterring further metering. There would be administrative savings, as councils could collect water charges on an agency basis. That would cut out duplication, and householders would be able to see clearly the relative costs of different local services. It has been estimated that the complete metering of all properties could take up to 20 years and cost over £2 billion. Thus an alternative system must be adopted in the period between 2000 and that time.
The Bill could make a substantial difference to many people, without removing the option of metering, and at the same time tackle the inherent unfairness in the present system. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Andrew George, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Colin Breed accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1998; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 53].
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
I should announce that the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been selected for debate.
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Reforming the welfare state to meet the needs of the 21st century is one of the biggest challenges facing the Government, but after fewer than three months we have already made significant progress. The Bill is another important step forward.
One of the key challenges that we face in reforming welfare is to build a modern, fair and efficient welfare service that commands the support of everyone in our society. The way in which social security is delivered at the moment is resented by the public who pay for it, the clients who use it, and the staff who run it. The Bill lays the foundations for transforming the future delivery of welfare and eradicating the failures of the past.
The Government are committed to the creation of a modern welfare state to help rebuild a strong and cohesive society--a society in which opportunities and responsibilities are common to all, a society in which everyone has a stake and no one is excluded. We are redefining welfare as an active hand-up, not just a passive hand-out of benefit. We are creating a modern welfare system, which will encourage financial independence while simultaneously promoting social cohesion and well-being; which actively supports work, saving and honesty; and which helps to tackle unjustifiable social and economic inequalities.
For too long, the welfare system has excluded people from the rest of society, writing them off to a life on benefit, and ignoring both their aspirations and responsibilities. Now we are changing the system, so that it actively helps people to meet their responsibilities to themselves and their families.
We have already made a start. We said that we would offer a new deal to help the young and long-term unemployed to get off benefits and into work. We are providing a new deal for the young and long-term unemployed. We are doing more. Lone mothers have previously been excluded from those opportunities, as have those with ill health or disabilities. We are extending opportunities to them, too--I launched the first phase of our new deal for lone mothers only yesterday. We said that we would develop a national child care strategy to help parents, especially women, to balance family and working life. We are implementing a radical programme of measures that make child care an integral part of not only our social policy but our economic policy.
We said that we would create a new framework to enable everyone--including those who are caring for people at home, perhaps an elderly or disabled relative, and those on low or intermittent incomes--to enjoy a
dignified retirement. We are conducting a wide-ranging review to achieve a consensus for change, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy a decent and secure retirement.
We also said that we would crack down on dishonesty in the benefit system. We are taking further action to identify the true level of fraud and pressing ahead with tough measures to tackle it.
The steps that we have taken signal a radical new approach to welfare, but for too many people, the system by which social security is delivered is fragmented, reactive, inflexible and totally confusing. People are irritated when they have to provide the same information time and again to different parts of the Department of Social Security. They are frustrated that nobody seems able to bring together all the help, information and advice that they need in one place. They are bewildered by the complexity involved in claiming benefit and sorting out child maintenance, with the cumbersome forms, different types of decision at different stages, and letters and explanations that are legalistic and hard to understand. They are exasperated by the length of time that they have to wait for bureaucratic reviews and appeals.
It is not just the public who are irritated, frustrated and exasperated with the social security system. The staff are, too. They find it difficult to deliver the help that people need because the system does not let them. I am determined to overhaul the system that we have inherited. I want to develop a modern, integrated system that is simpler, streamlined and more efficient, and which strikes the right balance between people's rights and their responsibilities. However, the current legal structure ties us into the current problems and that is why the Bill is necessary. It lays the foundations for modernising that service.
The Bill will pave the way for a modern, integrated service to claimants. At the moment, people are often asked to provide the same information or report the same change in circumstances several times over to different parts of the social security system. If they have told one part of the Department and not others, they risk being overpaid and having to pay back hundreds of pounds months later. That wastes the time of the public and the Department, it wastes taxpayers' money and it delivers bills that people cannot afford to pay.
People have the responsibility to provide us with accurate and up-to-date information. We want each person to be able to give us that information just once, in a way that is convenient for them, and for us to be able to advise them how that affects all their dealings with the different parts of the Department. The Bill enables us to develop modern business processes and to maximise the benefits of modern information technology in order to do that.
The Bill also creates a much simpler process for deciding claims. At the moment, the system is incredibly complex. Currently, 13 different types of decision are taken by six different types of decision maker. There are adjudication officers, child support officers, social fund officers, adjudicating medical practitioners, specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners and officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Sometimes, a number of people wearing those different hats will be involved in a decision relating to the benefits of one person. Sometimes, one person can be wearing a number of different hats depending on what they are doing in the
Benefits Agency on that day. That is not acceptable. Often, mistakes cannot be put right quickly, even if they are the result of a simple error, without going through a lengthy appeal process. Once a decision is made, everyone is locked into it. Let me give an example.
4.54 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |