Examination of Witnesses (Questions 22-33)
DAME YVE
BUCKLAND AND
MR TONY
SMITH
1 JUNE 2009
Chairman: We would like to ask you one
or two questions now about the Draft Flood and Water Bill, and
I am looking to David Taylor to open the questioning.
Q22 David Taylor: The Consumer Council
for Water has been around for about four years, is that right?
Dame Yve Buckland: Three and a
half.
Q23 David Taylor: You were formed
in almost the middle year of that three year drought which affected
the south east of England only a couple of years before the floods
of 2007. Presumably, therefore, you were substantially involved
in the Government's water strategy, The Future of Water,
which was published in February 2008? Is that the case?
Mr Smith: Yes, it was.
Q24 David Taylor: You had a significant
involvement there and you know that some of that strategy envisaged
and required some legislation and this particular bill, which
we now have in draft, which was published only six or seven weeks
ago, seems to be something of a late addition. You have confirmed
that you were involved with future water strategy. Were you involved
in the preparation of this draft bill?
Mr Smith: Not very much, no. We
were in the sense that we gave evidence to the Pitt Inquiry. We
also tried to inform the issues around restrictions on water use
from our experience in the drought three years ago. We have also
obviously had input to the Cave Review and also to the
Walker Review, although those bits are not yet in the bill.
So we have inputted the consumers' views into the process but
we have not been very closely involved in the drafting of the
bill.
Q25 David Taylor: So you have not
been really involved all that much at all, as it happens, in this
particular bill?
Mr Smith: Not in the drafting
of it, no.
Q26 David Taylor: Do you find that
surprising, because Defra has always prided itself, certainly
in its PR, on engagement and communication with its stakeholders
and you are a prime representative of a huge group of stakeholders
and yet you have not been involved, as far as I can hear or see,
with this draft bill?
Dame Yve Buckland: We have been
kept informed by Defra on the bill
Q27 David Taylor: That is information,
that is not consultation.
Dame Yve Buckland: and
the approach to the bill, which we welcome, actually, as a step
towards a more sustainable water sector. We knew from Pitt the
key areas which were likely to be going into the bill. We have
had a big input into those. We can see that the bill complements
the water strategy which we have had a big input into, so actually
it is not like we have been jumping up and down to be involved
with the bill. I am not quite sure what you are asking us.
Q28 David Taylor: I just wondered
whether you had contributed ideas or refinements or whether you
are just, as it happens, the passive recipient of what the Government
plans to put in the bill and it has just informed you out of courtesy
rather than saying to you, "What would you prioritise and
where do you think we should focus?"
Dame Yve Buckland: We are starting
off from an assumption here that water customers are not going
to pay for local area flooding. That is not an issue for water
customers to pay for.
Mr Smith: In terms of the issues
around flooding, I think we have certainly made our views known.
I do not think we have been the passive recipients at all of the
bill. We have influenced totally what appears in here so that
it is addressing many of the flooding issues.
Q29 David Taylor: Yes, it is flooding
and water management and I would expect you to be heavily integrated
into the process when this bill was being formed.
Mr Smith: I think the two areas
of particular interest over and above what we see in the bill
at the moment are all the issues around affordability, which we
have had a lot of involvement with the Walker Review and
Cave as well on the competition side. Martin Cave did a
lot of work with us. We gave him all the research we had done
about customers' views on competition. So we hope that they are
then reflected in the subsequent work associated with those two
reviews and we will be disappointed if they are not.
Dame Yve Buckland: There are two
issues that we are very specific about. As I have said, we have
made these views known to Government, that we would not want to
see additional burdens imposed on water customers that were not
appropriate, that water customers ought not to be subsidising
the need for investment in relation to the broader issues of flooding.
Secondly, we are keen to see where the costs will fall, and at
the moment we are looking at the regulatory impact assessment
but it is not fine grained enough for us to understand where and
how water customers might be expected to pick up additional costs.
Q30 David Taylor: Clearly we are
in the last year of this Parliament, we might even be in the last
six months, we do not know, but it is pretty uncertain, to put
it mildly, that a large 265 clause bill would get through Parliament
before the next Election. It is just conceivable that a shorter
bill might be introduced at the start of the next Session in November
or so and I wondered what your priorities would be for that bill,
and I think we have just heard what those priorities are. You
have talked about pricing and you have talked about controls on
two priorities that you would like to ensure at the very least
in a stripped down bill, if that is what emerges?
Dame Yve Buckland: Yes, and if
there are going to be issues around affordability in the new bill,
then we would want to be very, very actively engaged in that.
As Tony Smith has said, we have been lobbying and working with
Anna Walker about our views on what she should be recommending.
David Taylor: Yes. I am disappointed
you have not been more actively involved, but I am quite happy
to pass back to the Chairman.
Chairman: A brief supplementary, Mr Drew.
Q31 Mr Drew: I would welcome your
views on whether you were a bit surprised that the Water Bill
was tagged onto it. To be fair, we have had quite a bit of water
legislation but we have not obviously had flooding legislation,
which is why this bill was unique. Are you happy that the Water
Bill is there or would you prefer a separate Water Bill when this
has been perhaps thought through following the Cave and
Walker Reviews, which to my mind have not really been assimilated
yet?
Mr Smith: We are not particularly
concerned about the approach to actually getting the bill through
Parliament, although that is obviously very important. I think
the important thing for us is that consumers' issues are addressed,
and certainly in terms of flooding that is a big issue for consumers.
We got that from our research and I think progress needs to be
made on that pretty quickly. We are also pleased at the issues
around other areas, the facility in here, the proposed bill, to
resolve the uncertainties around the reduction of restrictions
on water use, for example, drought. I think the only question
marks for us are what will go in here about the issues around
competition from the Cave Review and I suppose the biggest
gap for us at the moment is usually around affordability, the
Walker Review, because that would be a crucial thing. As
far as going back to the Price Review is concerned, as we discussed
before, the Price Review will start to impact on customersit
is already impacting on customersquite hard in terms of
affordability, so the quicker we can make progress on that the
better it is. Whether that is put into a Water Bill or a Floods
and Water Bill we are not too concerned about. It is the progress
for consumers that is important for us.
Q32 Chairman: Just to be absolutely
clear, you said that for you, if you like, Cave and Walker
are the two key things and they are currently missing from the
Bill. Would you think, given the enormity of what is involved
in Walker and Caveand we have discussed a
number of the key consumer impacts of their proposals earlier
in our questioningthat there would be advantage in actually
doing that separately in another bill at another time, whereas
the Government has sort of got it welded in the little bits in
the consultation document and it tempts you to think they might
put it in but not quite? Which would be your preference?
Dame Yve Buckland: I think if
there are to be significant proposals around affordability and
indeed competition, it would have major implications for consumers.
Our view would be that those should probably be the subject of
a separate bill. At the moment water issues in the Bill as it
currently stands are largely around tidying up bits of loose ends
which needed to be tidied up. As Tony Smith said, though, actually
what we want to see is progress and whatever is the vehicle for
faster progress to be made, particularly around affordability,
is what will get our vote.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We have covered a lot of ground and, as always, you have been
very helpful to the Committee both in terms of your oral evidence
and the written submission which you sent in, and for that I am
most grateful. Thank you for coming before us as our witnesses
today.
Witnesses: Ms Mary Dhonau, Chief
Executive, and Mr Laurence Waterhouse, Chairman, National
Flood Forum, gave evidence.
Q33 Chairman: I hope we have not kept
you waiting too long. I gather you were here very promptly.
Ms Dhonau: We were. It has been
fascinating listening.
Chairman: Good. I am glad you enjoyed
that. At least you know something then about the way we operate.
May I formally welcome Mary Dhonau, the Chief Executive of the
National Flood Forum, supported by Mr Lawrence Waterhouse, the
Chairman of the National Flood Forum. Thank you very much for
coming to see us this afternoon. We are going to start our questioning
with David Taylor.
|