---

Laura Moffatt (Crawley) (Lab): I offer my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate on this important issue. Members who represent West Sussex are not divided politically about the difficulties that we face, although we might not agree on how to tackle the problem and the factors that contribute to the water shortage in the area.

I note from parliamentary questions that many Members with constituencies in West Sussex have taken a deep interest in the problem and have been keen to ensure that Ministers are pressed on it. Owing to the very dry periods that we have experienced lately, our area is being described as semi-arid, which may shock our constituents but is entirely accurate.

We should recognise, however, that such periods are cyclical, occurring—as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out—every 10 years. We need a measured and reasonable response to what is a sad state of affairs, especially in our part of the world. Our reservoirs present a picture that makes us all feel incredibly concerned.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is right to say that this is not a political matter. She is also right to say that there is a cyclical element in climate changes of this sort. Nevertheless, the cyclical element has occurred at a time when the Government have imposed massive house building targets on West Sussex. In mid-Sussex alone, an infrastructure deficit of over £1 billion has been
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1696
 
necessary to cope with the projected new building. How does the hon. Lady think the Government will deal with that?

Laura Moffatt: I was about to say that this is probably where the divide occurs. I do not consider it responsible to say that because of water shortages we should not have the houses that our area needs so desperately. The hon. Gentleman, who knows the constituency of Crawley extremely well, is aware of the pressure for new housing. I believe that we can accommodate the building of houses for people in desperate need, while developing a sense of self-awareness among those who are lucky enough to have homes already, with access to fresh potable water.

A series of parliamentary questions and letters to, in particular, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have asked what is considered when new housing is proposed. It is important to ensure that a precious resource is taken properly into account before any new building takes place. I have found the advice I have received extremely useful, and I make sure that my constituents receive it as well.

I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the water company should be a statutory consultee. I have spent quite a bit of time with the water companies, particularly South East Water. I was impressed by the work that South East Water is doing to reduce leakage, improve supply and ensure that people think carefully about how they use their precious resource, but I do not think that making the company a statutory consultee is the answer. The water company's business is to supply water, and I suspect that no matter what question it is asked, it will say, "We can supply water." The guidance from the ODPM is therefore an important element in ensuring that that is so. I do, however, firmly believe that the water companies are playing a significant role, as are local authorities, in making us understand our responsibility as tenants and home owners in West Sussex.

Interesting measures have been taken in Crawley to ensure that we conserve our precious water supplies. Recently, my constituents were able to buy water butts for their gardens at an incredibly low price, subsidised by the local authority. It understood that people are keen to take such steps and the service was very heavily used. In fact, we had a really jolly weekend. Some of the people who came to get a water butt decided to come back for a second one when they discovered another drainpipe on their roof that could enable them to save even more water. There was also an education centre, which gave advice on saving water. We know that we could accommodate more house building if more people took such steps. Putting just one brick or "hippo" in our cisterns can enable others to access fresh water. We should share much of that advice.

Mr. Soames: This debate is of course about water, and the hon. Lady is rightly telling us about the excellent and admirable things that Crawley borough council is doing. I do not want to interrupt this cosy consensus, but the problem is not just water. In fact, as she rightly says, water can be produced and it can be pumped from Wales, Scotland or anywhere. The problem is the overall infrastructure package, which includes not just water, but sewerage, roads and railways. All of that requires
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1697
 
enormous investment if Crawley or anywhere else in West Sussex is to cope with the demands being imposed, which will come under the heading of sustainable development.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I do not disagree one bit. I am simply trying to ensure that water is included in that very important overall infrastructure package, because it is sometimes forgotten about.

Many steps can be taken. Personal responsibility should extend not only to our own homes—we should also take steps to help others. Self-awareness and self-promotion for home owners is very important, and we can create a much better infrastructure if we make sure that people understand that water is part of it.

There have been some fantastic campaigns, such as Water Wise. South-east water companies have taken a very active role, alongside Government officials, in examining all aspects of water supply. Importantly, a statutory duty will be placed on the Environment Agency to ensure that it properly examines the water supply in a particular area. That follows on from the Water Act 2003, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for helping me to understand how that duty will impact on future consideration of water supply.

So much is being done on this crucial issue. We should not alarm people to the point where they feel that all future house building should be rejected because of possible water shortages. We should ensure that we take a responsible attitude to this issue, which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs certainly did in his speech. Labour Members will want to ensure that water metering does not result in water being a scarce resource for low-income families. My son is an environmental health officer and his entire reason for becoming one was to help ensure that people have decent living conditions. He would be absolutely horrified if we tried to impose water metering on everyone, although it is a good idea for many. People who have meters find it very upsetting to watch others on relatively high incomes wash their cars and then aim the hosepipe down the drain when they have lunch.

Finally, we can tackle the problem in other ways. A young man in Crawley, who was educated in Crawley school, has developed a no-water car-cleaning product. I hope that such technologies will help to ensure that we in West Sussex keep our precious resource of water.

4.50 pm

Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this very important debate. I also want to thank the Minister for allowing me to speak at short notice.

We have had problems in Roehampton in my constituency that tie in with what has been said already in the debate. I want to give a view of the problem as it appears in a part of Greater London that is well developed and increasingly heavily populated. About two weeks ago, Thames Water decided to reduce the water pressure at the Putney pumping station, partly as a result of the increasing population in Wimbledon.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1698
 
There has also been a big problem with leaks locally, with two having to be fixed in my road in the past month.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, it is incumbent on water companies to tackle leakages when they happen, but reducing the pressure at Putney pumping station has had a negative impact on some of my most disadvantaged constituents living on the Alton estate. They occupy very high council tower blocks, but the lower pressure means that the highest flats cannot get water pumped up to them.

As a result, Thames Water has proposed to install what it calls a water booster pump in each of the tower blocks, at a cost that I believe will be in the region of £50,000. The council is being asked to meet that cost, but the flats' leaseholders will also have to pay their share. Some 300 people in my constituency have received bills of between £800 and £2,000, with the money going to pay for the water booster pumps in their tower blocks. Other taxpayers—myself included—are also contributing to that payment, as we are paying for the council tenants' contribution.

I am especially worried about this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the water companies must be careful to protect their relationship with their customers. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said that water companies will never say that they cannot supply water, but I wish that she was right. In Roehampton and Putney, we are facing the problem that the water companies are saying exactly that—that they cannot supply water to some homes. Ironically, it is people on lower incomes who live in affordable housing or council stock—they may have managed to buy their own council property several years ago—who now have to pay huge bills of up to £2,000. I have written to Thames Water and to Ofwat about the problem, but unsustainable development in the south-east or West Sussex will ensure that the constituents of other hon. Members soon face problems similar to those that my constituents face. It is often the people who can least afford to pay who are being charged in the way that I have described.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give advice or guidance to Ofwat and the water companies about the appropriateness of their behaviour, given that Thames Water made an after-tax profit last year of nearly £200 million. A great deal of that profit is distributed to shareholders, but the company would do better to invest a little more in local pipe infrastructures before it asks tenants to pay for its inadequacies.

4.54 pm

---