---

The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this debate and raising a series of important issues in relation to water supply. Water supply, which is heavily regulated, is a crucial part of the infrastructure of this country. We have had some bad droughts, and the hon. Gentleman referred to the last serious one, which affected Yorkshire Water badly. It was at the time when people were being urged to shower with a friend and take similar steps. I do not think we are quite in that situation yet.

Measures have been introduced, particularly since the water summit of 1997, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1699
 
1999 legislation and the Water Act 2003 were designed to make sure that we do not have the major problems of severe water shortages that we have had in the past. That is not to say that we should be complacent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have had some of the lowest rainfalls since 1921 in the south-east of England and we are facing what may be one of the worst droughts for nearly 100 years. There are serious issues, and water companies have a duty to put drought plans in place—I shall say a few words about those—and they have been responding responsibly.

I want to touch upon a point raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—that of development. It is true that for development, it is necessary to have the infrastructure to go with it. I shall concentrate on water tonight, but that is not to say that I do not recognise that there are other issues, such as transport, roads, schools, and hospitals, that go with new development. They are addressed in the structural plans. However, whatever the argument about numbers, it is clear that there is an overwhelming need for more homes, particularly in the south-east. That desire for more homes, which is felt by the constituents of hon. Members who are in the Chamber this evening, is something that we as a Government, and local authorities, cannot ignore. It is also true that we have to approach new communities on the basis of sustainable communities. Planning for water is part of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked what steps were being taken in relation to development to ensure that there will be an adequate water supply. The South East England regional assembly is about to submit the complete draft of the regional special strategy for the south-east, the south-east plan, to the Government. The plan is on course for submission on 31 March. It will then go through consultation, independent testing and public examination before being approved by the Government in 2008. That plan addresses the issue of water supply. Water companies are statutory consultees in relation to structure plans and planning authorities will be statutory consultees on water company resource plans. It is a two-way process so that both know what is going on.

The Environment Agency, together with the water companies and the regional assembly, has undertaken modelling work on the impact of new house building on water supply. It has modelled six options based around the figures in the draft south-east plan and the impact of growth areas. It has concluded that a combination of supply and demand side interventions will mean that numbers can be accommodated. I want to make that clear. In relation to expansion of homes, numbers can be accommodated in terms of water resources.

Interventions include an assumption on increasing water efficiency, and the possible construction of new reservoir infrastructure. New homes are much more water-efficient than existing stock, because of improvements in building regulations. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the draft south-east plan, policy NRM2, sets out policy for a number of reservoirs. There are five in the draft plan. I have a list of all the reservoirs that are planned for the south-east. New reservoirs are planned for Southern Water at Broad Oak, for South East Water at Clay Hill, for Portsmouth Water Ltd.—which supplies part of
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1700
 
Sussex—at Havant Thicket and for Thames Water at Abingdon. There are proposals to extend existing reservoirs. The plans include raising Bewl for Southern Water and Mid Kent Water, where the proposal is to raise the banks and increase capacity significantly, the Bray enlargement for South East Water and Abberton for Essex & Suffolk Water. I was in Essex recently, talking to the local water company. I know that raising the banks at Abberton will increase the reservoir's capacity by 60 per cent. I am sure that the effect will be similar at Bewl. There is also provision for water transfers within regions.

I shall go through some of the measures introduced in the 2003 Act to manage future demand for water resources. They include time limits for all new abstraction licences; the facility to revoke without compensation abstraction licences where serious environmental damage has been caused, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about damage to river ecosystems; greater flexibility to raise or lower licensing thresholds according to local pressure on water resources; and the extension of licensing to abstractors of significant quantities who are not included in the current licensing system.

Water company drought plans are a statutory requirement. Each water company must have plans to deal with drought, which has been helpful in dealing with the current situation. Water resource management plans are to become a statutory requirement. Consultation on the regulations is in progress and ends in April 2006. They will require water companies to look at future demand on a 25-year time scale. The 2003 Act also introduces new duties on the Secretary of State, regulators, water companies and public bodies to further water conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made the important point that people can take simple measures to reduce water consumption: for example, not leaving the tap running or fitting water-saving devices such as spray taps, low-pressure shower heads and twin-flush toilets. None of those devices is particularly expensive and can be installed when modernising a bathroom or replacing fittings. We are also addressing such matters in new regulations on housing.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned water scarcity status. As he said, an application from Folkestone and Dover has been granted and the company's case was subject to a six-month examination. Any water company can apply for water scarcity status and such applications will be treated on their merits.

I was impressed that the hon. Gentleman had faced head-on the issue of water meters. They can be controversial, although the response from Folkestone and Dover was muted; 40 per cent. of the company's customers were already on meters, which may be part of the explanation. The company calculated that up to 70 per cent. of its customers would pay less on a meter, which is quite a significant number. Many people underestimate the benefits of water meters, although of course 30 per cent. will pay more because they are big users of water.

Meters may pose problems for vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley pointed out. I can reassure her, because the vulnerable groups
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1701
 
regulations are designed to protect large families on low incomes and people with certain medical conditions. A pilot scheme on water affordability is running in the south-west, which is helping us to understand how we might refine the regulations to improve them and make them more effective. We have an open mind about such things, but we want to make sure that water metering would not cause suffering for the most vulnerable.

There is an argument for metering; it reduces demand and is a fairer way of paying for water, but there is no water shortage in the north of England—the most severe pressure is in the south and the south-east—so there is not really a strong case for compulsory water meters nationally. We want an expansion in the use of water meters, but it should be undertaken as it is at present—by the combination of people volunteering to use them and installing them in new homes or when people move. That means that their use is constantly increasing, but people still have a choice. It also spreads the cost of fitting the meters, which has had to be borne by the companies. So I think that is going okay.

Where there is water scarcity, though, there is clearly an argument for compulsory metering, as one tool. It is not the only tool. Companies have a responsibility to ensure that there is proper supply management, which includes such things as addressing leakage; that is taken into account when companies apply for water scarcity status.

I must correct the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. He had me worried for a moment when he talked about washing cars with recycled water. When there is a hosepipe and sprinkler ban, it is permissible to use the bathwater to wash a car, or to take water out of the bath with a bucket and put it on the dahlias; that is not a problem and people do that. And of course one can collect rainwater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley rightly said. In fact, I also benefited from a promotion by my local authority, which was giving away water butts. I was very enthusiastic. When I collected my water butt I found a party atmosphere, as my hon. Friend did. I suppose that the idea of getting something free from the council is always popular, so that probably explains the party atmosphere. It must have affected me, because I was so excited about my new water butt that I sawed through next door's downpipe when I connected it; but never mind—it is connected now.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the range of measures that can be taken. She mentioned Water Wise, a group set up by the industry; I very much welcome that. We have also set up a water saving group, which I chair. It brings together the regulator, the Consumer Council for Water and industry representatives. The idea is to have working streams to look at ways of promoting water saving, in terms of demand and supply management, awareness and new technologies. That process is under way and I am grateful for the enthusiastic support that we have had from the entire industry. Water Wise is also represented on that group and I very much appreciate that.

The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) mentioned a constituency problem of reduced water pressure. I quite understand the point that she makes. Water pressure is sometimes reduced as a way of
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1702
 
combating leaks, and leaks are a problem in the Thames region. Thames, like all water companies, has targets to reduce leakage, but it has been missing those targets in recent years. I am glad to say that currently it is on target and I very much welcome that, but it has much more to do.

Funnily enough, I had the opposite problem in my constituency. People had complained of low water pressure, and I asked the water company whether it could be increased. The company was very co-operative; it increased the pressure, with the result that the water main burst in the street concerned and no one got any water at all. My involvement in that was played down.

The hon. Lady asked for some advice on what she could do. I understand that there is an obligation and a duty on water companies to provide minimum pressure to pump water to the topmost storey of a block of flats.

---