| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: We are beginning to discover something interesting. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a relevant analogy between gas, electricity and water? If what he is saying about water is correct, and poor people could find themselves unable to afford it if it is metered, however much choice there may be, the same must apply to commodities such as gas and electricity, which are also paid for by quantity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. At this late stage in the debate, I am not sure that we should pursue other commodities. We should stick to water, which is the subject of the Bill.
Dr. Brand: There is no doubt that we are talking about a monopoly supplier of something that has a monopoly in its uniqueness, because its availability is necessary for life and civilisation to be sustained--plumbing did more for this nation than doctors ever did.
I am sorry that the Government have not taken an opportunity to do something positive in the Bill and to have a positive policy. If we ever want a system based on rateable valuables or council tax bands, we will need another Bill to de-meter people compulsorily. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, by the time an alternative is in place, most people will be stuck with metering.
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough):
I certainly welcome the principle of the Bill. Rateable value must be retained in the absence of any other universal--and fair--basis for water charging. Also, the very vulnerable people about whom we have been talking tonight must be protected, since we all understand that an adequate and
We certainly do not want to return to the days when poor living conditions were directly responsible for recurring epidemics of infectious diseases, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) will know. Many diseases today are still caused by a lack of clean water and of proper, adequate sanitation. Therefore, the provision of water is different from that of gas or electricity.
However, water is not a free good. The water we get from our taps is not the same as the water we would get by putting a bucket out in the rain. The water in the bucket is like any other raw natural material--it needs to be processed to make a product suitable and safe for human use. Therefore, it costs a great deal of money to provide an adequate supply of clean water.
The water companies have rightly been required to invest heavily in reducing leakage, and repairing and updating an antiquated infrastructure. However, we are not discussing merely a financial cost; the supply of water also carries environmental costs, which will rise sharply with increasing household consumption--more households using more water than ever before.
I welcomed with great happiness the Government's response to the report on housing by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It suggests that water companies should be given a role in the planning process, rather than simply being required to meet demand with supply. The Bill emphasises the need to protect vulnerable customers, and to give customers increased choice. We all agree that that is right. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that the Bill should not further the myth that water is a free commodity.
I fully commend the wish to ban domestic disconnection, because no one should be denied the right to water because they cannot pay, but what sort of measures will be put in place to ensure that the value of water--I stress the word "value"--is recognised, and that it is not simply a matter of "won't pay", rather than "can't pay"? I have seen figures that show that a sizeable number of customers whose water is disconnected pay their bills and are reconnected within 24 hours. That fact suggests that they may be unwilling rather than unable to pay. How will such people be made to pay?
I have some concerns on water metering. I welcome the power to make meters compulsory for those with pools and sprinklers. Metering is an essential tool, not only for charging but for managing demand and ensuring that customers use water wisely. High-volume users should pay on the basis of how much they use, but I am concerned about the idea of free meter installation, together with a customer right to revert to non-metered supply within 12 months.
Can the cost of free installation of meters on the basis of customer demand be justified with no more than a year's guaranteed use? Where will the necessary resources in cash and person power come from? What important, or even essential, investment and improvements will have to be sacrificed?
I understand that water meters cost £250 to install. If customers later choose to go back to being charged under the rateable value system, will not millions of pounds of
investment be left underground and unused? I am sure that the Government have thought about those matters, but I should like the implications to be clarified. Would it not be better to expect customers to pay towards the cost of a meter, either initially or if they later decide to stop using it? For those who cannot afford £250, perhaps other means could be found to assist them if they wish to have a meter.
Let us not forget that climate change predictions mean that metering may become essential in some parts of the country. We have heard some comments on that tonight. The north and north-west are likely to have plenty of water--more even than now--but the south and south-east could become semi-arid regions. Unlike the case of electricity, it is impractical--indeed, ridiculous--to talk of some national grid to redistribute water according to need. This is not a good time to encourage extravagant attitudes to water use.
We may be in danger of allowing a part of our Government's wholly laudable agenda to promote social equity, which is what Labour Members want, to run counter to an equal and pressing need to conserve our environment. If we do not acknowledge the primacy of environmental concerns, we may be in danger of running against the tide of public opinion. Recent surveys show that the public understand the importance of environmental protection and enhancement.
If sections of the population still believe that they should be free to indulge wasteful and destructive life styles that are ultimately to the detriment of us all, it is well within the Government's agenda to discourage them.
Dr. Brand:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Brinton:
No, I certainly will not at this stage.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney):
As we are running short of time, I have cut sections of my speech, but I commend the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), which covered many of the points that I would have made.
The essential theme of the Bill is that of sustainable development--economic development, environmental protection and social equity being bound up with each other. Like other hon. Members, I find the damascene conversion of Conservative Front Benchers interesting, having had several discussions with the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whom I hoped would attend the debate.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) appears to have forgotten that it was the Conservative Government who were in charge during those 18 years of under-investment in the water industry. When privatisation occurred, a £1.1 billion dowry was given to the privatised companies and there was a £5 billion debt write-off; that was succeeded by a 100 per cent. increase in water and sewerage charges. The net result was a bonanza for shareholders.
One of the Labour Government's first actions in May 1997 was to hold the water summit, at which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and the Minister for the Environment set matters right. The 10-point plan resulted in the water industry breathing a sigh of relief and getting off the bandwagon, having realised that they had to be accountable to the community. The consultation document was published earlier this year; the Government's response came on 18 November; and today, 7 December, we are having Second Reading of the Water Industry Bill. That is the sort of speed that I like to see the Government display.
For eight years, I was chairman of the Low Pay Unit. The postbag often reflected problems with water metering, especially in social housing. Much of that accommodation in cities was built by housing associations during the Conservative years, but large, low-income families who lived there often suffered as a result of water metering.
The problem is not only a city matter, but a rural one. I grew up in a small village in north Norfolk: my water supply consisted of buckets of water from the neighbouring stream; bathing involved the use of a tin bath in front of the fire once a month; and there was an earth closet at the end of the garden--we grew excellent potatoes. Now, we have Anglian Water, which has imposed an 84 per cent. increase in charges since privatisation and the average charge in the area is £288 per dwelling, compared to £200 in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has told of the huge charges that are levied in the south-west.
Hon. Members have referred to what is missing from the Bill--the teeth that are missing from clause 5. The Government's response to the consultation document contains a page entitled "Competition", the provisions of which are absent from the Bill. There are proposals relating to the
We should consider how the UK water industry could develop internationally. We have spoken about sustainable development, and I pay tribute to the work that Thames Water, the London water company, has done. Having stopped the leaks, it is now working on sustainable systems in Turkey, Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Shanghai in China, Thailand and Malaysia. It is important that UK water companies are able to compete globally in developing good water and sewerage systems.
"further development of inset appointments",
by, for example,
"allowing a number of premises to combine to meet the consumption limit"
and proposals relating to
"removing water companies' monopoly on making connections to the water supply system."
The main problem facing us is that there is no real competition in the water industry in England and Wales. Enron has moved in and bought out Wessex Water and French water companies have bought into Northumbrian Water and Three Valleys Water. Foreign-owned companies can buy and are buying up UK water companies, but UK water companies are not allowed to own each other. I suggest that the water industry needs an outbreak of competition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |