| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
15 Mar 2006 : Column 477WH—continued
15 Mar 2006 : Column 478WH
Water (Kent)
4 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): When I applied for this debate on the acute water scarcity that we in Kent face, I said to myself, "I guarantee from the moment this debate is granted, the heavens are going to open," which they promptly did. I am glad that the debate has achieved at least one thing, a short period of rainfall in Kent, but I should like to make it clear to the House and to the Minister that the limited amount of rain in the past few days will make no material difference to the serious water supply situation that we face in our county.
The water supply situation in Britain varies enormously from region to region. As we know, the region that is facing much the most serious situation is the south-east, following two exceptionally dry winters. Last month's Environment Agency publication, "Drought prospects 2006", stated:
"Across south east England, rainfall over the last 16 months has been much lower than for the same period in 1974–76, and in some places it is the lowest since 1921. Continued dry weather through the spring and into the summer would give us one of the most serious droughts of the last hundred years."
Last month, the Environment Agency called on all water companies in the south-east to introduce hosepipe bans. The agency's chief executive, Barbara Young, gave a dire and serious warning on 24 February. She said:
"If water companies delay introducing hosepipe bans now, extreme steps to manage water supplies over the summer may be needed, such as standpipes and rota cuts."
This week, the largest water supply company in the south-east and indeed in Britain, Thames Water, with 8 million customers, announced an indefinite ban on hosepipes and sprinklers from 3 April. It is the first such ban that the company has had to announce for 15 years, indicating the severity of the situation in its area.
If the water supply situation is bad in the south-east in general, it is worst of all in Kent and some areas of Sussex. They are in the worst position in the worst affected region. The briefing note that Southern Water supplied to me for this debate illustrates the position in Kent and at the Bewl reservoir, which is very close to my constituency. The briefing says:
"Bewl Water, the largest reservoir in the South East, which provides water to Southern Water, Mid Kent and indirectly to South East Water is only 53 per cent. full (this is the lowest level it has ever been this time of the year), normally, we would expect it to be 97 per cent. full at this time of year."
The largest reservoir in Kent and in the south-east is effectively only half full—unprecedentedly low.
The aquifer position is no better. Southern Water's briefing says:
"Groundwater levels in the major aquifers in the South East of England, which support approximately 70 per cent. of public water abstraction are all below average. Some are approaching historic minimum levels."
In addition, the position in the eastern part of the county has been well reported. Folkestone and Dover Water Services has had to become the first water company in Britain to apply for and receive "water scarcity status" under the Water Industry Act 1999. The Government have granted it, enabling Folkestone and
15 Mar 2006 : Column 479WH
Dover Water Services to become the first company to introduce to its area compulsory water metering. It clearly demonstrates the severity of the situation that we face in the south-east and, particularly, in Kent.
I should like to raise several issues with the Minister. First, we have had two exceptionally dry winters in succession. During the winter months, the crucial restoration and replenishment of water supply to reservoirs and aquifers is due. There is an important question to pose to the Government and the water companies, to which it is crucial to obtain the right answer—as can best be foreseen. We have effectively experienced a semi-drought in Kent and parts of the south-east during the past 18 months. Is it freak, one-off climate change, or is it evidence of a long-term and more permanent move to more arid conditions in the south-east and Kent as a result of climate change?
Day by day, as the evidence is constantly and rightly put before us, we all see that the predictions about the rate of climate change have if anything been understatements. The rate at which, for example, the Greenland ice cap is melting exceeds almost everybody's previous predictions.
It is demonstrable that, with Kent's existing water resources, we are already at the tipping point of standpipes and rota cuts. That is after just two winters of semi-drought. If that is the position after just two winters, we are wholly inadequately prepared for something that will continue for a much longer period. Its potentially extraordinarily serious consequences may not be too far around the corner for people living in Kent and elsewhere in the south-east.
From the scientific and meteorological advice that the Minister receives, what is the best judgment about the climate change that Kent has experienced during the past 18 months? Is it a one-off situation that is likely to reverse, or is it evidence of a much more permanent climate situation in the south-east and Kent? There will be serious consequences if it is the latter.
The second issue that I want to raise with the Minister is about the relationship between water supply in Kent and the Government's plans for development, particularly residential development, in the county. The Government want to carry out a major expansion of population in the south-east. It is a controversial decision that a number of us contest strongly. The position as of today is that, at the Government's instigation, the South East England regional assembly has approved in principle 578,000 new homes in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the Thames gateway by 2026. Many questions are being asked in Kent and elsewhere about whether the water supply is adequate to support that huge population influx.
The Minister made a water-focused visit to Essex recently—on 9 February, I think. He visited a new house in Heybridge, which apparently had water-saving fittings. He said that the Government's plans for hundreds of thousands of new properties would still go ahead. Therefore, I must ask him the following question: if with the existing population in Kent and elsewhere in the south-east we are already on the tipping edge of having standpipes and rota cuts, how on earth
15 Mar 2006 : Column 480WH
will the south-east be able to cope with 500,000 more houses—the figure is of course substantially higher if one adds up the extra adults and children? How are we going to cope in water terms with the huge development expansion that the Government propose? I see no sense at all in concentrating such a huge additional residential development in the driest part of our country, when the water position is already very serious.
The next issue I wish to raise is regional disparities in the United Kingdom. I understand that moving large quantities of water about is an expensive and difficult business; it is much more problematic than moving around electricity and even gas. However, there are great regional disparities in respect of water. What are the Government's policies for gradually removing those disparities, for establishing what would effectively be some sort of national water grid, and for putting in place the infrastructure to enable water to be moved about more freely between different regions? That would create greater equality of treatment and fairness for water customers in the different regions of Britain.
I turn now to capacity and, so far as Kent is concerned, to the issue of reservoirs in particular. We need additional capacity in Kent, or additional capacity that is accessible from Kent. For this debate, I went through the ever-growing files in my office on water supply, and I came across a leaflet that was produced 15 years ago—in December 1991. It is entitled, "Water for the future in Kent; development plans". It was a summary leaflet for public consumption produced by the consulting engineers to three of the leading water companies in Kent. They were looking into the future of water supply in Kent on behalf of Mid Kent Water, Southern Water and what was then called the Folkestone and District Water Company and is now called Folkestone and Dover Water Services.
In the section referring to the then proposed major new reservoir development at Broad Oak, that 15-year-old leaflet stated:
"The promotion of Broad Oak water will be continued. No other major resource has been identified which will meet the remaining water supply needs in the companies' areas economically for the next 30 years."
It continued, extraordinarily prophetically:
That was bang on the nail. The reality is that no progress whatever has been made in bringing into being Broad Oak water—or, indeed, in establishing other major additional reservoir capacity in Kent. What is the Government's position on establishing further reservoir capacity in Kent, on Broad Oak, and on the plans that I believe exist for increasing the capacity of Bewl, which is one of the largest reservoirs we have?
My next topic is desalination. You might be as amazed as I am, Mr. Jones, that I have to raise that matter. It is extraordinary to me that in our country, which over the years has produced more jokes about rainfall than any other country, we should now be having to talk about desalination plants in the UK. I know from the briefing I had from South East Water that it is now running a trial desalination plant on the Sussex coast. What is the Government's position on going down the desalination route? Is that now thought
15 Mar 2006 : Column 481WH
to be necessary to ensure that we have adequate water supplies? It is costly, but there is huge potential capacity in desalinating the sea to produce fresh water.
On compulsory metering, Folkestone and Dover Water Services now has water scarcity status, which enables it to introduce compulsory water metering. Does the Minister think that all the water companies in Kent and elsewhere in the south-east should be going down that route? Is he positively soliciting applications from the water companies to his Department? Are the Government in favour now of introducing compulsory water metering in the south-east generally? What steps do they propose to take to ensure that those on low incomes—pensioners and low-income families—are able to get assistance with the installation of water meters if they are made compulsory as a result of their water company being given water scarcity status?
We all know that one of the most effective ways of increasing water capacity is by stopping the water leaking into the ground and disappearing for good, but a substantial amount of leakage still takes place. However, there is always a cost-benefit equation in respect of leaks; some leaks are so small that the cost of stemming them is too great for it to make sense to spend the money to do so. How well—or otherwise—does the Minister think the water companies in Kent are doing in terms of leaks? Inevitably, when one asks the water companies about their leaks programmes and whether they are doing all they can to stop leaks, they all reply, "Well, we're busting our guts to deal with leaks." That is of course the company position, and one would expect the company's representatives to repeat it, but does the Minister think that the Kent water companies are doing all they reasonably can to deal with leaks? If not, it would be helpful if he were to identify which of the companies are not doing sufficiently well and could do more.
I also have a few comments to make on changing lifestyles. We all have a responsibility to try to conserve water. I was struck by one amazing statistic from South East Water: if all 19 million customers in south-east England turned off the tap when they brushed their teeth, we would save 380 million litres of water every day. I found that statistic staggering; I trust that South East Water has it right. It illustrates how, with a relatively small change of lifestyle, we could make the water available go much further. I should like to know what support and publicity the Government are prepared to put behind making the lifestyle changes necessary to make water go further.
In conclusion, we face a serious situation in Kent. It would be totally unacceptable if later this year we turned on the taps in Kent and found that nothing was coming out, if people were made to go to standpipes to collect water for their homes and if mains water were switched off by rota for several hours. My constituents and many others would think the Government extraordinarily incompetent in allowing such a situation to arise, and I would have every sympathy with that view.
4.21 pm
The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley) : It is nice to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Jones.
I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) had to say, and I congratulate him on securing this debate on a very
15 Mar 2006 : Column 482WH
important issue. I also congratulate him on being able to pull information from a file that goes back to 1991—I wish I could keep files in my office for that long. His archive must be very impressive.
The issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman are clearly important. I agreed with just about everything he said until the very last bit of his speech; it was a bit harsh to suggest that the Government can control the weather. We can control a few things, but periodic droughts are not among them.
Not unreasonably, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were seeing a trend, and whether droughts are a long-term issue. It is fair to say that they are not a new phenomenon. There have been a number of them over the years, and it is likely that we shall have them in future. However, we cannot be complacent; we know that climate change is a reality. There may well be issues of water supply in the south-east, and we have to address them in our plans.
I shall outline the kind of measures that are in place. All water companies, including those that serve the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, are obliged by law to have drought plans. They have to have such provisions as a contingency plan, so that, when there are periods of drought, they are prepared and can ensure that people's water supply is maintained.
Although water resources are very low, I would not argue that we were in a crisis. Water reserves need to be maintained carefully and companies are right to apply hosepipe and sprinkler bans. Sprinklers use enormous quantities of water and, in mid-Kent, bans have been in place since last summer—quite a long time. Hosepipe and sprinkler bans are under the companies' control. It is entirely up to them when they introduce them.
The companies have to apply for drought permits and emergency drought orders as part of their contingency planning and drought plans. They can also make applications for permits to abstract additional water, for example. That is being done in the case of Bewl reservoir; additional water is being abstracted from the River Medway during the winter period to bring up the supply. I appreciate that the reservoir is only about half full, but that is a big improvement on its levels earlier this winter.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct: this winter has been exceptionally dry. He was also right to say that, in some parts of the south-east, recorded rainfall has been at its lowest level since 1921, and that such low levels could develop into one of the most serious droughts of the past 100 years. Whether they do depends on whether there are higher than average rainfalls between now and the summer, and that is difficult to predict. We have to take issues of drought management into account.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the expansion of the number of homes. That issue is often raised with me. Given that there are issues of supply management now, it is not unreasonable of people to ask what will happen in future, when there will have been a big expansion in the number of homes. There is a need for additional homes in his area. As he stated, that has been recognised by the regional assembly. We will, of course, have to ensure that there is the infrastructure for water, among other things, to provide for that expansion. All water companies are obliged to have a 25-year forward
15 Mar 2006 : Column 483WH
plan to anticipate increased demand. They may well have to make additional investment to boost their reserves and to ensure that they can meet that demand.
There is an issue of managing the demand for water resources. New homes are designed to be much more water efficient. The average new home built now is about 30 per cent. more water efficient than existing ones. There is more that we can do—we can label products, for example. A lot of dishwashers and washing machines are much more efficient than those of the past. Simple measures can be taken.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a house that I visited. As an experiment, each of its rooms were metered as part of looking at the issue of supply management. The company told me that water consumption was cut significantly by such things as low-pressure shower heads, low-pressure taps and dual flush systems in the toilet. The modest additional cost of such water-saving measures was about £50 to £60.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are issues to do with not wasting water, and I shall touch on them as well. It is true that there are plans for a new reservoir at Broad Oak, and that is obviously part of the forward look that the companies involved need to take. There are also plans to raise the banks at Bewl; just raising banks can significantly increase capacity. That option is attractive because no planning permission for building a brand new reservoir is required, although it would probably have to go through the planning process, and it is comparatively easy to do.
There are a number of applications for desalination plants in the south and south-east. The Government view is that such plants have downsides. They are very energy-intensive, and we have to take that into account. However, they are being considered, although not necessarily as a means of providing a constant supply of water. There are peaks of water demand, just as there
15 Mar 2006 : Column 484WH
are peaks of energy demand, and a desalination plant could be switched on for the peak period and then switched off, so that its energy use would be minimised.
We have to consider desalination plants as part of a range of measures, which include man management, supply management and addressing rates of leakage, which was rightly mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Such measures also involve considering whether water transfer within regions can be improved.
We have asked the Environment Agency to consider the idea of a national grid, but there are downsides to that. It would be very costly, the water would have to be pumped around, which would be very energy intensive, and there would be lots of environmental issues around building the pipelines. There might well be less environmental impact and it might well be more cost-effective if water supply reserves in a region were improved, rather than putting the money into a national grid. However, we do not rule such things out. It is important to have an open mind on how we address such measures and to weigh up the arguments for and against them.
There has been no change to the Government's policy on national compulsory meters. There is not an argument for a national approach. As the right hon. Gentleman said, under the Water Acts, there are provisions for water-scarce areas. Companies have the right to bring forward proposals and we will consider those on their merits. I do not know whether any other proposals are being put forward. Following a manifesto commitment, we recently set up the water saving group, which I chair, as the Minister responsible. That has brought the whole industry together. One of the things that we will consider is how we can raise awareness in the way that the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, and how we can get the message over to people that simple steps can be taken to cut water demand. We want to work with the industry on how to address both supply and demand management.
Mr. Martyn Jones (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. We must move on to the next debate.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 483WH
15 Mar 2006 : Column 485WH
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |