| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. People watching it may be confused because, only a few years ago, there were television images of villages that were almost washed away. Barrels from the brewery in Lewes in another part of Sussex were seen floating down the river and the city of Chichester was severely damaged. However, we have long-term water shortage problems in the south-east, which will be compounded for reasons that my hon. Friend will outline. Does he believe that there is any scope for designation as an area of water shortage, as is possible under the Water Industry Act 1999, to draw attention to our long-term problems?
Nick Herbert: I should like to ask the Minister precisely that question. Perhaps such a measure is necessary but we need to understand its implications for local people and the move to compulsory water metering.
A big population increase is projected in the south-east. That is set to happen against a background in which, nationally, household water use has increased by more than half since 1971. Just over 8 million people currently live in the south-east but that population is projected to grow by more than 1 million in the next two decades. The South East England regional assembly, at the behest of the Deputy Prime Minister, said that it wants an additional 578,000 homes built in the next 20 years. That is an annual average of 28,900 across the south-east. Fifty-eight thousand homes will be located in West Sussex—a build rate of 2,900 a year. Yesterday, a report in The Daily Telegraph highlighted Government projections and estimated that, on top of those figures, up to 5 million new homes will be needed in England in the next 20 years. Ironically, a subsequent report in The Daily Telegraph ran a feature on the hosepipe bans and water shortages in the south-east. There is a clear connection between the increase in population, the projected increase in house building and the current scarcity of water. It is important that all concerned take that connection on board and plan properly for it.
The Water Resources in the South East group concluded in September 2004 that
"increased demand from new development in the South East can only be accommodated through a combination of demand and supply side activities."
That was based on a forecast that, by 2025, more than half the households in the south-east would be on meters. The group states that, unless that takes place, we will not be in balance in 20 years. It is therefore important for the additional number of households to be on meters. The question is whether we will hit the target.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1693
Last year, WaterVoice, which is now the Consumer Council for Water, stated:
"Adequate water and sewerage services are a fundamental requirement and development/growth cannot proceed until robust water and sewerage infrastructures are in place to meet the demands placed on them . . . Water resources in the South East are already closely balanced with current customer demand. Any significant increase in population, as forecast in the plan"—
the housing plan, to which I referred—
"will place an unsustainable pressure on existing water resources. Improving water efficiency and minimising leakage are essential components of the plan . . . The intention to promote water efficiency in new homes through the planning process is supported but it remains unclear how existing housing stock can be made more water efficient without some form of financial incentive."
The current planning, which the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham presented tried to tackle, puts water companies under a statutory duty to provide the water only when planning permission is granted for house building. It does not provide for any formal water consultation process to involve water companies in the planning system. When we are considering house building on the scale suggested in the south-east, such formal consultation would be a good idea.
The Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons concluded last year:
"No proposals to further increase housing supply should be taken forward without ensuring that there is a strong evidence base to support them."
I have mentioned the Infrastructure Audit (Housing Development) Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and given a First Reading in the House. Last year, I also asked the Deputy Prime Minister to what extent he had assessed the infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to meet the house building targets in the south-east. I received a reply that simply stated that the Government were committed to "exploring" the infrastructure needs. Given the serious water shortage in the south-east, exploring is not going to be good enough.
At Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepted that the Government had a responsibility to deal with the infrastructure deficit before putting in place the additional homes in the south-east. He replied that
I want to be sure that that is the case in regard to water, roads, health care and so on—all of which are under great pressure in West Sussex. I remain to be convinced—indeed, I am far from convinced—that that infrastructure investment is going ahead before the housing programme begins.
There is also a possibility of an extension to the proposed hosepipe ban, which would involve a ban on non-essential use. That idea has been floated in the local media, and I understand from meetings with Southern Water that there is every likelihood that such a ban will be introduced in its part of West Sussex shortly. A non-essential use ban would mean not only that people could not use a hosepipe to wash their car, but that they
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1694
would not be able to wash their car at all. Under such a ban, people could not even wash their car using a bucket and a sponge. As the public become increasingly aware of the severity of these measures—which will be put in place at the beginning, not the end, of the summer—they will quite rightly make further demands to find out what is being done to ensure that a proper water supply is available.
I understand that the water companies plan on the basis that there will be a drought once every 10 years, and that measures such as those bans are therefore acceptable. I believe that that planning scenario should be revisited. It is unacceptable to work on the assumption that there will be hosepipe bans once every 10 years. That is not the case in other parts of the world, and I do not see why people living in the south-east—and in West Sussex in particular—should have to live under that presumption.
There are two ways of dealing with this situation. First, there should be an increase in supply. Local people will want to know what the water companies are doing about investing in new reservoirs, for example. Secondly, and more contentiously, we could moderate demand by introducing water meters. I fully accept that there is a case for that, but if metering is to be extended, the water companies must address their leakage problems first, in order to maintain public confidence in their actions. If the public were being asked to pay the price of the shortages through water metering, but the water companies were not meeting their responsibility to deal with leaks, that could lead to a breakdown in relations between the water companies and the public. I am sure that the water companies are alive to that risk.
Water meters are now on the agenda, following the application for water scarcity status in Folkestone by Folkestone and Dover Water. The number of metered households in the country has increased, and more than a fifth of properties in Sussex now have metered water. That is partly as a result of meters being installed automatically in new homes. Also, as someone who is about to purchase a new home in West Sussex, I have discovered that simply transferring ownership within the county means that I shall have to install a water meter. People can also volunteer to have a water meter. I appreciate that it is intended to increase the numbers of homes with water meters by those means, and Southern Water aims to increase the take-up to 44 per cent. by 2010. However, that is some way short of the target that will be necessary to ensure that we have adequate demand management measures, in concert with supply, to supply the additional housing over the same period.
It is clear that water metering has a beneficial impact. Consumers cut their consumption by some 10 per cent. on average when meters are installed. It is significant that the Isle of Wight, where more than 90 per cent. of the 65,000 homes are metered, has not had a hosepipe ban since 1976. One has now been introduced, but much later than the bans introduced in other parts of the south-east. That suggests that metering is a successful part of the formula for dealing with that problem, but it is only a part.
On international comparisons, as so often in relation to environmental matters, we are behind many of our peer group countries. There is 100 per cent. water metering for the supply to the six Scandinavian cities of
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1695
Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. There is 100 per cent. water metering in urban authorities in Australia and very high levels of water metering in the Netherlands. As politicians, we have to decide the extent to which we recognise our responsibilities to take decisions that might be unpopular but are in the interests of the environment.
It has also been suggested that we should have a national grid for water. However, it would be prohibitively expensive. Because 1 cu m of water weighs a tonne, it would require enormous amounts of energy to pump the water from the north of England to the south. The water would also have to be clean. It would not be possible to pump untreated water and put it into rivers, because of the environmental impact of shifting wildlife from one part of the country to the other. It is important that if such measures are to be put aside, the Government and the water companies tell us precisely what will happen to ensure that every household has a water supply in parts of the country such as West Sussex, especially given the huge increase in housing that is expected. We may disagree about the merits of that housing and its location, but it is perfectly reasonable of local people to request that it should be accompanied by an adequate water supply. There is plainly insufficient water at present, which undermines public confidence that supplies will be available in the future.
I am grateful to the Minister for replying to the debate and I hope that he will be able to offer some reassurance to our constituents, who are genuinely concerned about this matter.
4.38 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |