| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Norman Baker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to press that point. It is the key argument against metering and must be resolved before it is introduced.
The vulnerable groups regulations introduced by the Conservative Government offer reductions for people in exactly the circumstances that the hon. Lady described. It so happens that the regulations do not work properly—there is a terrible take-up rate, of about 1 per cent.—so they need to be wholly revised, but the principle that such people could have help with metered bills has been established in legislation.
Also missing from the Bill is how to deal with people who do not pay their water bills. The hon. Member for Aylesbury was right to point that out. The water companies tell us that there is a clear distinction between people who have genuine difficulties with their water
bills—they must be protected from disconnection, and it would be completely improper to return to that practice, whatever the Conservative line on it may be—and those who know that no disconnections can be effected and take advantage of that situation. I frankly confess that I do not know the solution to that major problem.My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) recently conducted a survey of water companies, and they all made that point. Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water said:
- "A large problem remains with those who can pay, but won't pay. This problem is increasing due to the ban on disconnection."
- "sanctions are needed to deal with those who choose not to pay, and adequate must be given for those who cannot pay."
The Bill says nothing much about leakages. The Minister may say that he thinks that they have been dealt with, and certainly the situation has improved dramatically over the past 10 years, but it has not improved for the section of pipe between the company supply at the stopcock and the householder's tap. Water UK says that a quarter of all leakage is in that section of pipe. The companies have dealt with their pipes, but the consumer, by and large, has not. People may be unaware that there is a leak, because the water is not metered, or they may not have the resources to deal with it. Whatever the reason, there is a major loss of water in that short piece of pipe. The Government must introduce measures to deal with that. Personally, I believe that ownership of the pipe should remain with the householder, but there should be an obligation on the water companies to make a significant contribution to dealing with such leaks. That would be better for the environment as well as making sense for the companies themselves in the longer run.
The Bill contains little on private sewer adopters. The Minister said that he intended to do something about that. It is a big issue that has been around for a long time. Why is it not part of the Bill?
Mr. Morley: Because the consultation is still going on. We take the issue seriously, which is why we commissioned a report by WS Atkins, which produced a number of options that have gone to consultation. When we have had the results, we will consider what is the best course of action.
Norman Baker: I disagree not with the process that the Minister has outlined, but with the time scale. Why has it not been done already? The issue has been around for a very long time, yet the Government, who have been in power for six years, and the Tories before them, did nothing. Why are we only now told, with the Water Bill already before us, that a consultation exercise germane to that Bill is under way?
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister tries to hide behind consultation. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister's Department undertook a consultation in
May 2000 in conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales on the provision of new drains and sewers for England and Wales, which recommended to Ofwat that
- "consideration should be given to reforming and simplifying the current arrangement so that property owners' responsibilities for drains and sewers would be limited to those on their land only"?
Mr. Morley: It is in the Bill.
Norman Baker: We will have to have that argument in Committee.
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is not fully in the Bill.
Norman Baker: I cannot mediate between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.
I have spoken at length about what is not in the Bill—there is more not in it than there is in it—so let me now deal with what is in the Bill, and by and large offer it my support. The Government are right to grasp the nettle of abstraction licences. I well understand the issue about investment, which has been put to me by several industry bodies as well as individual companies. It is right that we should explore that.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern of the watercress growers in Dorset and Hampshire?
Norman Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that they have been in touch with me, and my thoughts are always with them.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): And the watercress growers of Wiltshire have been in touch with me.
Norman Baker: Well, they have not been in touch with me, so I am grateful to learn that watercress is also grown in Wiltshire. I shall pay due attention to watercress in Committee.
It is right to deal with abstraction, but we must ensure that we do not have an unwelcome significant impact on certain industries, and it is right for hon. Members of all parties to raise issues of concern in that regard.
I pay tribute to the Government for introducing measures to improve consumer representation.
The issue of flood defence committees has been around for some time, and the Minister will know that, with my experience of floods in Lewes, it is of particular interest to me. What is proposed is an improvement, although it is not quite in line with river basins.
I want to mention fluoride—the dreaded word—and to remind everyone that this is the Water Bill, not the Fluoride Bill. Many important issues in the Bill have been hijacked by that one topic. I am not pretending that it is not important, but it is not the only thing in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that this is not the appropriate place for the measure, but since it is here let me say that what the Bill contains relates to consultation, which no one can seriously object to. However, consultation must be
meaningful and local, and people must have a right to say yes or no to fluoridation in their area—including, by the way, the right to have fluoridation removed where it exists.The strategic health authorities are in no way representative of local views. As a body, they have already decided in favour of fluoridation, so they are hardly neutral. They are not local but strategic, and we do not know how they might consult local people. Presumably, they will send out a questionnaire, and will recommend fluoridation irrespective of the responses. That is not a satisfactory of dealing with a highly complex and controversial issue. If the Minister pursues that line, many people will vote against, irrespective of whether they are in favour of fluoridation. Local people must decide, but that is not what is proposed in the Bill as it stands.
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): Does the hon. Gentleman therefore think that if even just a bare majority were in favour locally of consultation—by whatever means—their view should prevail over that of the significant minority who were against?
Norman Baker: That is a very difficult question. I am among the body of opinion who do not believe in fluoridation, and who think it wrong to inflict mass medication on the population at large. The purpose of adding fluoride to water is clearly to improve dental health—that is what everybody says. That is medication for health purposes.
Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): Is the hon. Gentleman therefore against the chlorination of water, which is designed to improve its quality? Is he against fortification of flour because it is now impossible to buy bread without fortification? Is he against the fortification of margarine, which has undoubtedly saved many thousands of children from getting rickets since the last war? Is it Liberal Democrat policy to be against the fortification and improvement of all substances consumed by consumers?
Norman Baker: I am not sure that those are very fair analogies. There is a difference between removing dangerous pathogens from a substance, for example, and adding something to derive a perceived health benefit. As with other substances, people have some choice as to which flour they buy, but they have no choice in the water coming out of their tap—not even in the light of the Bill's competition proposals—so the situation is entirely different. Of course, my colleagues will not necessarily be swayed by my arguments; there is a free vote and they will make up their own minds. Nevertheless, we are all united on the important point that there must be proper consultation.
The best thing that I can say about the Bill is that it is good as far as it goes and we support the measures in it, but what a pity that the Government have yet again failed to introduce environmental legislation in a coherent and proper manner. Yet again, they have failed to take an overall view; yet again, they have failed properly to incorporate EU directives into domestic legislation. That is a great pity, and yet again the Liberal
Democrats—and doubtless the Conservatives as well, on this occasion—will try to remedy that in Committee to make the Bill rather better than it is.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |