| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): My right hon. Friend is doubtless aware of the innovative schemes that some water companies have introduced. Anglian Water, which covers my constituency, has charging schemes for precisely the groups that he mentioned. Will he bear in mind the need to allow water companies to have their own innovative schemes that relate to their locality and so avoid a straitjacket that would mean that every water company would have to have exactly the same scheme for its vulnerable customers?
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We are keen not only on the use of innovative tariffs, such as the rising block tariffs that are starting to be adopted and that we would like to be more widely applied, but on water companies advertising a range of methods and places of payment to make it easier. As the Opposition have hinted, we would like more water companies to develop charitable trusts. Those are all valuable ways of enabling people to meet their due water charges.
For the first group that I mentioned, we propose that protection should be available to families with three or more children in receipt of one of the following benefits: income support; income-based job seeker's allowance; family credit; disability working allowance; housing benefit; and council tax benefit.
For the second group, we propose that protection should be offered to those with conditions such as desquamating or weeping skin diseases, incontinence, abdominal stomas, ileostomies and colostomies, and renal failure requiring home dialysis. We propose that, to gain protection, customers would have to certify to the water company that they suffer from one of those conditions which causes them to need an unusually high amount of water. Of course, it would be open to water companies to verify information provided by customers.
We consider that the protection offered to those groups should be to have the option of a bill based on an average measured charge for the water company from which they receive their supply. That will ensure that customers with a high unavoidable use of water do not face unreasonably high charges related to the water that they consume, as that could give rise to hardship. I hope that that commands the acceptance of both sides of the House.
There are further ways in which water companies can assist vulnerable groups, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) when she mentioned Anglian Water, which has introduced a special tariff that can be advantageous for families in receipt of benefit. I want to encourage all companies to consider how they can reflect social concerns in their charging and billing arrangements. Such initiatives offer water companies an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that they have regard for the interests of all consumers in a business that occupies a prominent position in the community.
Mr. Gray:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who has not yet asked me a question.
Mr. Heath:
I am following the Minister's argument closely. He proposes the extension of the use of rateable value as a mechanism. Is there a mechanism in the Bill that will in any way relate the notional rateable value either to the current property value or to the ability to pay? Is there a mechanism to deal with single occupancy of larger premises? If the answer to both those questions is no, am I right to assume that the only option for people who feel that they are disadvantaged by the proposals is to move to having a meter?
Mr. Meacher:
I shall come to the question of rateable value shortly. It will be better if the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say and then responds. On his second question, he has a fair point. As I am sure that he already knows from having read the Bill, it contains no specific
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West):
Will the Minister give way on the point of rateable value?
Mr. Meacher:
I am not on the point of rateable value. I am still on my third theme, which is increasing customer choice.
Mr. Bottomley:
My question relates to the right hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The Minister has not given way.
Mr. Meacher:
The reason I have not given way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I am going to address the matter of rateable value later in my speech. If the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) wants to question me at that stage, I shall be happy to answer him.
Mr. Gray:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher:
No, I want to make progress. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has already asked a question and many other hon. Members want to speak.
For many customers, there is little or no choice in charging arrangements; that fact is reflected in my postbag, and, I am sure, in those of many other hon. Members. I have received representations from some customers who are concerned that they may be forced by water companies to move to a measured charge--for example, because water companies fit a meter as part of associated works on pipes, or because water companies compulsorily meter whole areas. I also receive representations from customers who would like to have a meter, but who find that they are charged up to £150 for having one installed, which is an up-front cost that many less-well-off customers find unaffordable.
The Bill provides new rights for customers to remain on an unmeasured charge in their present home if they are using water only for normal domestic purposes. It proposes that the Secretary of State will have powers to specify particular cases in which water companies will be able to require customers to pay on a measured basis, for instance, where customers are using significant quantities of water for what we call discretionary purposes--a sprinkler, a swimming pool and so on--so that such customers understand the cost of the resources that they are consuming and have the right incentives to economise on discretionary water use.
Premises covered by that provision would include those that are used for commercial purposes, those where there is a garden sprinkler or swimming pool in use, those that have a power shower--which is defined as one consuming more than 20 litres a minute--and those using a water- softening unit that requires backwashing. Let me make it clear that the power would be an enabling power and that nothing in the Bill places an obligation on water companies to impose meters in any case. In addition, where water companies want to identify customers using water for discretionary purposes, we look to them to do so without taking an unduly intrusive approach.
I hope that I shall be able to make my statement on the question of rateable value before being asked a question. The vast majority of customers paying unmeasured charges do so on the basis of rateable values. Under current legislation, water companies would be prohibited from calculating charges in that way after 31 March 2000. The previous Government clearly intended to impose compulsory universal metering from that date.
Mr. Burns:
What proof does the Minister have for that statement?
Mr. Meacher:
There would be no other basis for charging after that date.
Mr. Burns:
What proof can the Minister present to the House that that statement is factually correct?
Mr. Meacher:
I have already made it absolutely clear that the previous Government intended to end the use of rateable values after 3l March 2000. That is the current position and that is exactly why we have put a measure in the Bill to remove that limit.
Mr. Meacher:
I am sorry, but I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman can respond to that point when he makes his own speech. The position is absolutely clear.
We reject that approach: we believe in choice and in proceeding by persuasion. That is why the Bill removes that deadline. The legislation will offer stability to customers and companies, protect households from any sudden upheaval and avoid the costs associated with an immediate and widespread change in the charging basis.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, let me say that we recognise that the use of rateable values has significant drawbacks. The values were set some time ago, there is no mechanism for appealing against a value set for a particular property and there are no rateable values for houses built since 1990.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |