| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.57 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): As many hon. Members have said, water is one of the essentials of life. However, if one needs a reminder of how much we rely on a modern system of supply of that valuable commodity, one has only to visit a third-world country such as Nigeria, which I visited in September. One can see how great a part of the lives of millions of people in such countries is spent simply carrying water from the well or standpipe to the home, and all the consequences that that has not only for public health, but for the whole way in which those societies operate.
It is a measure of the failure of the previous Government, who devoted so much time to water with their water privatisation programme, that the Bill is necessary very early on in the Parliament to sort out the wholly unsatisfactory laws on charging. When water was privatised, many people questioned the ethics of making a profit out of that which falls freely on to the earth. The answer that was always given was that the profit would be made out of not the water, but the treatment and means of supply; yet, under the laws passed by the previous Government, the water companies are allowed to deprive people of water--the means of life--for non-payment. That reveals the previous Government's attitude towards and motivation for the privatisation programme: primarily, it was not public interest, but the furtherance of private profit.
The Government's pre-payment policies, and the Bill, aim to ensure the reverse--that privatised water companies serve the public interest. The Bill will therefore not allow disconnection of water to homes, schools and hospitals. Although no one is condoning non-payment, there clearly is no need to deprive someone of water--or air--as punishment for non-payment of bills. As hon. Members have already said--although I shall take the example further--one does not deprive someone of access to the national health service because he or she has not met an income tax demand. We have to learn the lessons of the past, and realise that the great advances in health in the United Kingdom were made by improving factors such as the water supply.
There are, as hon. Members have said, many other ways in which water companies can ensure that people pay their bills. I was pleased to hear that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), thought that the Bill would provide a more effective means of ensuring that people paid their water bills.
Other provisions in the previous Government's legislation show equal disregard for consumers and citizens by permitting water companies to compel conversion to metering. Moreover, current legislation provides no right for customers to choose whether to use metering or to continue with the unmeasured system. Currently, water companies are also not obliged to supply free meters. The Bill will redress all those problems, and give rights to citizens and customers rather than to water companies.
As hon. Members have already said in this debate, in many cases, the Government are bringing the law into line with water companies' practices. We should always remember that many water companies tried to introduce pre-payment devices that were self-disconnecting. I was pleased that the council that I led played an important part
in a campaign against the introduction of such devices. It is, therefore, simply unrealistic to say that everything will be all right if we leave the law as it is.
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation, and legislation, in Scotland is completely different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom largely because of the campaigns waged in Scotland, especially the referendum conducted by Labour in the Strathclyde region--against the advice given by all quarters--showing that more than 90 per cent. of the population completely disagreed with water company privatisation?
Mr. Blizzard:
My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. Labour-controlled local authorities across the country, both north and south of the border, helped to resist some of the previous Government's worst proposals.
Mr. Blizzard:
I shall deal with another example shortly.
The Conservatives left us with another problem. Under their legislation, after 31 March 2000, it will no longer be possible to charge by rateable value. As I said earlier, I think that that date reveals the previous Government's agenda: to have everyone on a meter by that date. The previous Government made no move to introduce an alternative, and their excuse--that they ran out of time in which to do so--is untenable. As we all know, the legislative programme in the previous Government's final Session was very light. If they really wanted to do something about the matter, there was ample legislative time--in a Parliament that went on and on--to do so.
Public opinion knocked off course the previous Government's plans for universal water metering. We have been left instead with a situation that I shall describe as a parallel to the millennium bug--which we could call the millennium tap or millennium water pipe. If the Bill is not passed, we shall be left with the strange situation of having to convert everyone to a water meter very quickly, or to discover some other device to ensure that the law passed by the previous Government is upheld.
The Bill leaves open the option of a future charging system based on council tax. It will be interesting to see what happens. However, such a system would require reform of the council tax system and the introduction of more bands, so that there were not too many rich winners and too many poor losers--which is really a verdict on the current council tax structure. The Bill will also give tenants, not landlords the right to decide whether a meter will be installed in a home.
Current arrangements pose a problem particularly for local councils, such as mine, that want to be fair to their tenants. Requests for water meters are sometimes made by single, often elderly people--or by an elderly couple--living in a full-sized family home. Such requests cause councils a serious problem. If councils want to meet the needs of that person or couple, they will say, "Fine; install the meter." But what about the interests of tenants--perhaps a family on a low income--who move in after the elderly person or couple leave it?
My council introduced a policy prohibiting water meter installations in full-sized family properties occupied by a single elderly person. That was a very difficult decision to make, as it was not possible to balance the interests of the current tenant and of future tenants. Thankfully, the Bill will sort out the problem.
Mr. Blizzard:
The current tenant will be able to choose a meter, whereas future tenants in real need--who have medical needs or form a large family on low income--will be able to gain the Government help provided in the Bill.
Mr. Burns:
I have been following the hon. Gentleman's fantasy philosophy with growing amazement. He has managed, on a very narrow basis, to pick out an example that fits his rather chronic argument. How will the Bill help the average family who may go into that large home and who have no medical problems?
Mr. Blizzard:
I am talking not about average families, but about large families on a low income. Such families are disadvantaged by meters. The average family is not particularly disadvantaged by meters. The Bill deals with those who are seriously disadvantaged.
We should realise that metering has a valuable part to play in encouraging responsible water use and the management of--I was going to say of a scarce resource, which it was until this summer--a resource that is not unlimited. In the right culture, such practices will help to avoid waste and provide extremely useful tools. However, I am concerned about whether our water companies have the right culture.
I remember an Environmental Audit Committee sitting in which we were considering whether to hold a major inquiry on water services. The managing director of Severn Trent Water company--who was also chairman of Water UK, the water companies association--made a statement to us which greatly concerned me. He said:
There is a lesson there for anyone who advocates heavy and crude environmental taxes. For example, if the fuel escalator, which was introduced by the previous Government, continues in a crude form, it may result in a rich person driving a car around while an ordinary person is restricted. We have to grapple with that principle.
"We do not believe that we should discourage people from using water in their gardens if they want to pay for it. If they use a sprinkler they have a meter . . . I have to listen to the arguments of my customers who say that if they have invested £25 in a plant because the climate will now sustain more exotic plants they are going to water it anyway. I have to listen to that because they are telling me what they intend to do with my product."
We have to remember that social equity is one of the principles of sustainability. It is unacceptable to allow people to consume huge amounts of water in using a sprinkler on an exotic plant or in filling up a swimming pool time after time just because they can pay for it, while asking ordinary people to be careful with water.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |