| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend the Minister has emphasised the health and safety element in maternity
leave. Does he accept that that is only one, fairly minor element in the existing arrangements? Our arguments about equal treatment cover all the rest, which is a much larger part of the reasoning behind maternity allowances and maternity pay.
Mr. McCartney: I have tried to set out a range of concepts applying to the workplace and the role and rights of adoptive parents. I have invited my hon. Friends to join us for further discussion. As a Government, we are in power for five years and, we hope, for a generation if we get such policies correct. We do not want to take a bull-in-a-china-shop approach--a big bang solution to everything. There are issues of principle, some of which have practical implications for other issues. Much of our strategy dovetails with other initiatives that the Government are preparing and are likely to adopt during this Parliament.
I offer my hon. Friends a genuine partnership to see where we can fit in their proposals and to examine the merits of the case, in line with the Government's general aim to provide employees in the workplace with basic minimum standards, and to ensure that those standards are non-discriminatory.
I have tried to respond positively to my hon. Friends. It is important that we co-ordinate policy across Departments, and my hon. Friends' arguments have implications for several Departments. The best way forward for this Government is through co-operation and co-ordination. We must reach agreement on our objectives and set out our plans for implementing our policies.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will have listened carefully to what I said. I hope that we can pursue the matter constructively through discussion and in partnership with other Departments, with employers, with employee representatives through trade unions and in other forums. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friends, in a spirit of partnership, to advance our dialogue on this issue. It is interesting to note, not for the first time, that no official Opposition spokesperson is present even to listen to the debate. We know that the Conservatives gave up in government, but it now appears that they have given up in opposition.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce this important debate, which is not just about water regulation. It concerns water conservation; jobs; our balance of trade; and, perhaps most importantly, public health. As well as being interested in those technical matters, I have a constituency interest because Armitage Shanks, the biggest manufacturer of bathroomware in this country, is based in the town of Armitage near Lichfield in my constituency.
I shall begin by outlining the current position. Current water regulations prevent WCs from being installed in the United Kingdom unless they are of the siphonic type perfected by Sir Thomas Crapper in the last century. That is a fail-safe system. When the chain is pulled or the lever turned, a vacuum is created. Water is sucked up a pipe and then flushes into the lavatory. When the water flow finishes, the vacuum is broken. The water cannot then continue to flow or leak; nor can foul water be drawn back into the drinking water supply. As I have said, it is a fail-safe system.
The inferior valve system, which is currently banned, does leak. Like a plug in a sink, it inevitably corrodes, and water constantly trickles or even gushes from the cistern into the lavatory. Tens of millions of gallons of water are wasted every year in France alone through the use of this inferior method,
So why have I called for this debate today? At the beginning of this month, draft water regulations were published for public consultation. They are intended to replace the existing water byelaws. One aspect in particular gives rise to grave concern.
The draft regulations include a proposal to allow valve-flush cisterns to be fitted to WCs as an alternative to the currently exclusive mandatory requirement for the siphon flush. If this proposal to relax the current high standards of the byelaws is permitted, it will prove impossible to prevent the import of cheap and inefficient sanitaryware that will waste water through leakage. The effect on the environment will be significant. I put it to the Minister: at a time when the Government are rightly pressing the water companies to control leaks, will she allow a change in legislation that will create even greater water loss?
Moreover, the valve system also has the potential to compromise the integrity of the drinking water supply if the back-flow prevention capability is less than the current high standards demanded by the existing byelaws. Will the Minister give an assurance that she has considered the proposal properly, and will she explain how the negative results can be justified?
If inadequate regulations are made, the effect on the United Kingdom sanitaryware industry will be dramatic and immediate. The United Kingdom will see a flood of cheap, inefficient imports; one of the consequences of the resulting unfair competition will be lost sales for UK manufacturers, and, in turn, lost jobs. There will be an immediate adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of trade, and a weakened British industry will be less competitive in its existing export markets, thus exacerbating the adverse trend in the balance of trade.
The impact will be felt hardest in the regions--those very parts of the country that the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to supporting by the Labour party manifesto.
Will the Minister confirm that she has consulted the Deputy Prime Minister on the impact of the proposals on his constituency in Hull, where one of the more important United Kingdom sanitaryware producers, Ideal-Standard Ltd., is located?
Let me be clear about this: my interest in this matter is to save jobs that are threatened in a British industry, which, for more than a hundred years, has been a positive contributor to the United Kingdom balance of trade; and, perhaps even more importantly, to conserve water at a time when ever-increasing demands are being made on a diminishing and essential national resource.
This is no parochial issue affecting a relatively small, albeit successful, industry. The regulations will directly affect every man, woman and child in this country. Water byelaws represent "best practice" for the supply and installation of plumbing fittings, and any departure from them may be retrograde. They are the means by which water companies meet their obligation to prevent water wastage, undue consumption, misuse of water and contamination of the drinking water supply.
Although established by the water companies, the regulations are endorsed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the regulations, if implemented, will maintain the fundamental objectives of the existing byelaws?
Although today's siphon is essentially the same in design as Crapper's "water waste preventer"--as it was called 100 years ago--it is a much more efficient device. In Crapper's day, a 40-litre flush was not uncommon--although it did not measure litres in those days. Over the years, flush volume has been reduced as the sanitaryware industry has responded to revisions in byelaws, which are updated every 10 years. Since the 1960s, flush volume has been reduced progressively from 13 to six litres. United Kingdom manufacturers are already introducing six-litre siphonic flush WCs ahead of proposed further reductions in the new regulations.
Given the longevity of sanitaryware, it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that there are at least 50 million elderly WCs installed in the United Kingdom that flush more than 13 litres of water--and I suspect that many of them are working here in the Palace of Westminster. The potential for water saving by replacing those rather thirsty appliances is clearly enormous. Has the Minister calculated the water savings to be made by replacing the existing population of nine, 11 and 13-litre flush WCs with six or seven-litre flush WCs? Has she compared that with the savings to be made merely by making their installation a requirement in new-build situations?
The byelaw requirement for siphonic flush ensures that not a single drop of water is wasted. It is supported by the Environment Committee, which took evidence last year from the deputy commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection on the leakage from valve-flush WCs in New York. A survey of apartments found that 7 per cent. of WCs were leaking at a rate of 197 gallons--good old gallons--per day. That waste should be viewed in the context of the average daily per capita consumption in New York of 148 gallons per day. The wastage is significant.
New York's experience is not unique. At a recent conference on water conservation and public health, the Building Research Establishment reported that 16 per cent. of all WCs in France leak.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently commissioned from the Building Services Research and Information Association a research project into the comparative performance of siphons and valves. Of eight different types of WC flush valve tested, four leaked, two had to be adjusted, and two had to be replaced to overcome leakage. It was concluded that any type of valve would leak eventually, and so should be installed only in conjunction with a water meter. However, there are flaws in that argument, as I shall explain.
In 1994, the British Bathroom Council commissioned the independent consulting company W. S. Atkins Ltd. to carry out field research in Germany and France on the reliability of valve-flush WCs. In France, leakage was a problem through cheap replacement valves being fitted in the DIY sector. W. S. Atkins's report was provided to officials at the Department of the Environment in 1994. Can the Minister explain why she supports the introduction of WC flush valves in the face of compelling evidence that they waste water?
I understand that the draft regulations are the recommendations of the Water Regulations Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State. Against the advice of the sole member drawn from manufacturing industry, which knows about these things, the committee has stated that WC valve flushing will save water, as it is more effective at lower volume. That is patently untrue.
The well-established reality is that all valves eventually leak and waste water. Leaks often go undetected or unremedied, even where a water meter is fitted. Furthermore, valves often leak at rates not picked up by water meters, and the total waste would be significant. In any case, the UK is unique in Europe in having only about 8 per cent. of domestic premises fitted with water meters, and it will be years before their use is widespread.
There is a further issue. A WC flushed with a valve is fundamentally less hygienic than a siphon. A valve flush does not scour the pan as effectively as the slightly slower flow from a siphon. It follows that poor scouring will result in fouling of the WC pan and be a health hazard--and lead to waste of water, because of the frequent need to double flush. There is an additional hygiene risk where a WC is blocked and there is a leaking valve. It is theoretically possible for foul water to be carried up into the cistern through a valve by eddy currents flowing against the downward flow. The result could be catastrophic--contamination of the drinking water supply.
The construction of the siphon precludes that risk, as it incorporates a dry, protective air gap approaching 10 in. Can the Minister confirm that she has assessed the additional hygiene risk associated with allowing WC flush valves in regulations? Might it be more than a coincidence that, in continental Europe, with its WC valves, we are often advised not to drink the local tap water?
The Water Regulations Advisory Committee proposes that the new water regulations should come into effect in October 1998. It seems to me that there are a number of practical problems in that timetable. The legislative process, including the current public consultation, must be followed by redrafting in the light of any comment before the proposal can be submitted to the European Commission for approval. The speed of that process risks errors and omissions.
If the Minister were to proceed into this headlong dash, manufacturers, merchants, retailers and the plumbing trade generally will have only a matter of weeks in which to implement changes in manufacture, stock holding and installation procedures. What consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the plumbing trade of the proposed timetable?
Given that WCs can be designed to flush effectively with a siphon at six litres--I am assured by UK manufacturers that they can--this question must be asked. Why is the WRAC prepared to admit inferior, wasteful, dangerous flushing designs for no gain? Could it be that commercial pressure from importers and Brussels has some bearing on the issue? Does the Minister support this?
The CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, is years away from agreeing performance which might be used as the basis for legislation or the process of enforcement. Surely the United Kingdom can justify the retention of its excellent and efficient, if unique, flushing method--although I have seen the British system in use in the United States--until the CEN can introduce a European standard that defines a level of flushing performance that is no less efficient than our own. The uniqueness of the United Kingdom method is not, per se, an argument for its harmonisation out of existence.
The treaty of Rome allows the retention of technical legislation that can be justified on the grounds that it applies to all and is for the public good. A change to these water regulations will cause millions of gallons of water wastage. It will damage our balance of payments and threaten jobs. It will be a major health hazard. Cannot the Minister confirm that the existing byelaws are indeed pro bona publica?
1 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |