| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. His knowledge of, interest in and unashamed enthusiasm for the British lavatory and its siphonic flushing mechanism appears to know no bounds. He has waxed lyrical about the history and development of flushing mechanisms in a way that should perhaps make us all look at this familiar but vital contraption in a new way.
Indeed, I have the hon. Gentleman to thank for the opportunity to see my ministerial desk full to overflowing yesterday with a display of toilet flushing mechanisms of every conceivable kind in order that I might more effectively understand the points at issue in today's debate. I would have treated the House to that display had I not been mindful of the very strict rules preventing the use of visual aids in the House.
However, I feel that the hon. Gentleman has let his fertile imagination and well-known enthusiasm run riot. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the nightmare scenario that he has painted for the House today of destroyed British jobs, poisoned water supplies and the triumph of inferior continental conveniences. Indeed, the House might be excused for thinking that the hon. Gentleman is completely potty for harbouring such lurid fears. I shall take this opportunity to reassure him.
As part of our commitment to water conservation, the Government will introduce new water regulations to replace the water byelaws, which have served to prevent the waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of water. They cover all plumbing installations in premises and a range of water appliances, including bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings, washing machines and dishwashers. The new regulations will cover similar areas, but will actively promote water conservation.
I should make it clear that no decisions on the contents of the regulations have been taken. The Water Regulations Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Government late in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that I have already made up my mind on the introduction of valve-flush systems. He is premature in that judgment. When the committee's report is submitted, my ministerial colleagues and I will consider its advice. In doing so, we will take full account of the key issues of water conservation and also of any impact that changes may have on business, employment and public health. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not make any changes that place unacceptable risks on either.
The hon. Gentleman particularly asked whether I had consulted my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue. I am tempted to tell him that we talk of nothing else, but the real answer is that, when there are some proposals to consult my right hon. Friend on, I will do so.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the symphonic flush system--
Angela Eagle:
Well, mine sounds symphonic.
I agree that the siphonic system has served us well for more than a century. Over the years, as the industry has developed more efficient designs, it has certainly been possible to make significant reductions in the amount of water used, with no loss of effectiveness. The security that the system gives to public health as a result has also been valuable, and I do not underestimate it.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is great potential for water conservation through reducing the amount of water used for flushing WCs, which currently accounts for a third of all household water usage. Clearly, if there is a mechanism that can reduce the volume of flushes, it would be right to consider its introduction in this country.
In its report last November, the Environment Select Committee said that reducing the maximum WC flush volume to six litres should be a priority. Most developed countries now have a six-litre maximum flush, without any discernible effects on public health. The hon. Gentleman reports that UK manufacturers are already
introducing six-litre systems. Good. I shall certainly look to the industry to investigate further whether we can reduce that even more.
Depending on the advisory committee's recommendation, we might consider allowing the introduction of dual-flush systems with a maximum flush volume of six litres, providing the option of a lower volume of four litres. I leave the question of when a lower volume might be appropriate to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.
Valve systems offer such a choice, and therefore merit consideration. They can deliver a lower volume of flush when that is required, and allowing their installation would involve further potential benefits. They need less force, and can be electronically activated, which would help the elderly, the disabled and young children. The hon. Gentleman need not worry: I shall insist on being convinced that there is no significant risk of contamination of drinking water and no threat to public health before I proceed.
I presume that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was a link between flush valves and advice not to drink tap water in continental Europe was yet another example of the Europhobia so often displayed by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be particularly worried about France. He knows, however, that all European Union member states must comply with the stringent drinking water quality requirements in the drinking water directive. Indeed, countries outside Europe--the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many others--have valve systems, and experience no problems with the drinking of tap water. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been to those countries--
Angela Eagle:
Then perhaps he has a particularly delicate constitution.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rate of leakage from valve systems. I do not dispute the fact that any seal--in time, or immediately if incorrectly installed--will leak, and that is obviously worrying. There is no point in introducing a valve system to conserve water if it fails to do so. A leaking valve will, however, cause noise, as water will be required to refill the cistern. That will make the problem obvious. If the committee recommends change, precautions can be taken or complementary schemes can be established to minimise the problem. We shall certainly want to ensure that any valves that are installed meet stringent performance standards.
The hon. Gentleman fears that, in the absence of water metering, people may not replace old and leaking valves, because they do not bear the additional cost of water that is wasted. I should have thought that the disturbance of a constantly refilling cistern would provide a sufficient incentive for what I understand is not a difficult DIY job, but I think it possible to encourage conservation with or without metering.
As the hon. Gentleman should know, the Government have reservations about the impact of widespread and compulsory metering of water for domestic use. Regulation and education of domestic customers can play an important part in cutting waste and over-consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do about the effect
of the "hippo", especially in the larger cisterns that he mentioned--many of which, I suspect, lurk in this building.
The hon. Gentleman said that United Kingdom bathroom manufacturers would not be able to compete with foreign companies. Indeed, according to the Building Services Research and Information Association report from which he quoted, many manufacturers expressed that view. I think that they are being too pessimistic, however. If the hon. Gentleman has read the whole report, he will also know that distributors and importers expected much less market penetration by imported goods. The British sanitaryware industry currently exports more than it sells at home--and, indeed, exports flush valves. The hon. Gentleman should have more confidence in the industry's ability to compete: I certainly have.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton):
The industry is exceptionally important, not just to the Deputy Prime Minister but in my constituency, which contains Ideal-Standard and Caradon Twyford. It is an extremely successful industry, employing many people. Surely the last thing the Minister wants is damage to investment or employment prospects. Will she take such factors into account when considering the new water regulations?
Angela Eagle:
As I thought I had explained to the hon. Gentleman, we will take exactly that kind of issue on board when making decisions--once we have the advisory committee's recommendations, that is. The hon. Lady need not fear that we shall not give careful consideration to the industry's concerns.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and has given me an opportunity to emphasise again just how committed the Government are to promoting water conservation. I welcome his comments about that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |