| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I have spoken for too long. I should have liked to say a little more about the national grid, desalination and the recycling of storm water. As regards the recycling of storm water, we heard much from the Government about the Northstone development on Ministry of Defence land. That initiative is likely to reduce consumption by 50 per cent. However, it is not mentioned in the Government’s response. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether that is still on target. I should be interested also to hear the Minister comment on the priority substances directive, which could impose heavy costs on the water industry. That is the fault not of the European Commission but of the European Parliament, which tried to prove its green credentials. Has that been firmly kicked into touch? I believe that Defra is doing a good job on that, but I should like the Minister to respond to that point.
I hope that other members of the committee will fill the gaps in my speech. I have rushed through and not perhaps done adequate service to some parts of the report. Nevertheless, I am pleased to commend it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Water Management [8th Report, HL Paper 191].—(The Earl of Selborne.)
12.35 pm
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I commend the report. I declare an interest as a professor of climate modelling at University College and as chairman of the advisory committee of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which features in the report.
Water management covers the supply of water, dealing with used water, dangers associated with water and what to do about those matters, including all the governmental and public dimensions of these issues. While the document urges changes in personal habits at, for example, paragraph 8.36, it does not come out with a strong statement, which we might begin with—that, currently, use of clean water is profligate. Probably less than 5 per cent of the water that we use is needed for drinking. The rest is used for many other purposes, which do not require such clean water. I recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was a Minister he talked about sharing a bath with a friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord but that was not me. It was the south-east electricity authority.
13 Oct 2006 : Column 486
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, it was of the noble Lord’s vintage, was it not? Nevertheless, our use of water in the UK is still less than that in the United States and I believe that it is less than it was in ancient Rome. However, the problem with ancient Rome was that they did not have any taps. It is important that when we consider this policy, and as we want to encourage responsibility for the matter to be taken at local and national level, we should think about international figures. I am disappointed that we do not have them here. Perhaps the Government could help us in that respect, at least with regard to the European dimension.
The document discusses the use of grey water and new schemes to push that through, which are very important. However, it is not clear who will be responsible for those. I believe that in a British way, as it were, a series of agencies and organisations will be involved, some of which will be stimulated by individual bodies. I endorse the important developments at BedZED, a local housing scheme referred to in the report. Some local authorities have also developed extraordinary innovations in the use of water and water technology. Woking comes to mind as a city that realised the importance of the economical use of water connected to energy. It is also interesting to note that a number of United States companies are working with local authorities and local water boards in Britain. I heard at a seminar in the United States that those companies find it a lot easier to deal with UK bureaucracy than United States bureaucracy. We should congratulate ourselves on that.
The other important way in which we shall get new developments and reduce use of water is through Government. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the Ministry of Defence’s innovation. It has now ceased to be socialism but has apparently become standard policy that the Government should introduce innovation through their procurement policy. Given the enormous government schemes for hospitals, prisons, barracks and housing, all these new and much more efficient methods should not only be introduced but enable British industry to become world standard with regard to such developments.
The report emphasises the need to have more water resources as well as protecting the environment and the issue of climate change. As someone who studies that matter, I confirm that the report’s modelling predictions on the rise in global and regional temperature and temperature changes between day and night are reasonably accurate. The historical record is accurate. However, precipitation modelling is extremely difficult. One of the reasons for that concerns gradients of pressure. It is always more difficult to predict a gradient than an absolute value. In the summer the UK has continental air, but in the winter we have south-westerly air streams. The waters around the UK are getting warmer, which might cause a slight increase in rainfall. On the other hand, the dryer continent will reduce that.
Another feature highlighted by the report is that when the precipitation comes in such situations,
13 Oct 2006 : Column 487
As noble Lords will be aware, the variation of rainfall in the UK is astonishing. In Devon, which I know well, it is 24 inches a year on the coast; three miles inland it is 44 inches and a further three miles in the figure is 77 inches. Such areas will experience great variations with climate change. It is important to encourage organisations, people, farmers, monks and everyone who measures rainfall to continue to do that and inform us so that we can observe the patterns.
The committee concluded that there was no universal panacea for transporting water from one area of the UK to another, despite the media interest, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned, but we need to keep that under review. Maybe our canals and rivers need to be used more effectively in that respect.
The report pointed out that we need a holistic approach to water. That is important and is also the view of the Environment Agency. We need to consider not only water resources, but the danger of flooding and rising sea levels. We also have to keep in mind that one of the biggest dangers to London would be if the large reservoirs at Heathrow were put at risk. That point was made by experts who were concerned about water in London—and perhaps I may advertise a book from the House of Lords Library, London’s Environment, in which London’s water system is covered effectively.
Coastal planning, urban planning and the ecology of our countryside is intimately connected to our water resources, the environment, leisure activities and the growth of such areas. One complex issue pointed out by the report is that there is no democratic body that can handle such matters. The report stresses that, because the future position will be unlike the past, there must be an important democratic dimension to those discussions. We probably do not need new bodies, but we need the bodies that are dealing with such issues to be open and informative about what is going on. I endorse the fact that schools and other community bodies need to be involved. Schoolchildren need to learn much more about how to use water and our profligate use of water.
Finally, particularly as this is a Science and Technology Committee report, I endorse the comments that research is essential, both for policy and for designing water systems—especially holistic systems in which the universities involved in such research, supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology’s laboratories, play an important role. They are undertaking complex research and advising Government and perhaps it should be emphasised that those bodies need to have a public role.
13 Oct 2006 : Column 488
I should like to assure the House that NERC looks carefully at the proposed efficiency measures, focusing CEH research in a few centres, and I strongly endorse the plans, which do not preclude the continuing work to survey the environment around the whole of the UK.
It is important also to look at our European colleagues. I often go as a visiting professor to the Netherlands, where more work is being done than anywhere else in Europe by computer simulation, and where demonstrations of excellent systems show local government how flooding and other water-resource issues are changing. I very much endorse this report. I hope that the Government will take it seriously and, most importantly, find the funds in Defra’s research and applications budgets to take these issues forward.
12.45 pm
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I congratulate the committee on its report and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on his introduction, which covered many facets of water resources. The House will not be surprised if I approach this matter from the perspective of being a Member hailing from and who lives in Wales. I am anxious to contribute because water plays a great part in my life—in the streams and rivers, which seem to flow like life itself.
There are many reservoirs, too, not far from where I live. They have resulted in loss of communities, people and farmhouses—even Shelley’s house was drowned. Massive reservoirs were constructed in the Elan valley, Tryweryn—in spite of great opposition—and Lake Vyrnwy. There were victories also—the Senni valley was not dammed and drowned, although reservoirs have been built successfully, including Claerwen at the top of the Elan valley, the Usk and Llyn Briane.
A lot of buffeting is going on in Wales in relation to water. It is a big political issue which causes loss of community, loss of environment, loss of the best land, loss of culture, and disruption of river ecologies and river flows. It should not be forgotten that water flows from Wales down the River Dee, the Severn and the Wye and from many reservoirs. I do not understand why, for some reason, no evidence was taken from Wales for this report. I can understand that reticence, due to devolution and other factors. However, the Government of Wales Act 2006, recently passed by this House, gives the Secretary of State over-arching powers in relation to water quality in Wales, as well as England, and he may intervene. The Welsh Assembly Government have very little power and accountability in that respect, which was a sore point when the Bill was being considered.
The impact of privatisation was a major factor. I took part in the debates on the then Water Bill in 1989. We had 208 hours of debate in Committee and 532 amendments, of which only two were accepted. I attempted to put down a marker for not-for-profit companies; 25 per cent of water supply at that time came from such companies, but I was told by the Minister—then the Member for Folkestone—that that was not possible.
13 Oct 2006 : Column 489
That has been done in the past five years by Glas Cymru, the over-arching company that supplies capital for Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. It is interesting that Glas Cymru’s chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Burns—is a colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. He has been successful in helping to bring about much more investment as a result of Dwr Cymru surpluses, and I believe that there is a schism between the necessity of water companies to ensure that their shareholders have sufficient return and ensuring that the infrastructure receives sufficient investment.
For those reasons, I was doubtful at the time of the Water Bill about the privatisation of water. However, I would not deny, as the noble Earl said, that there has been greater investment as a result of privatisation. Some factors have certainly caused me concern, such as inadequate compensatory river flows on river systems and the effect that that has on ecologies. I will not go into the details of the sale of the century of public assets in 1989; suffice it to say that they were valued at £27 billion but sold at £7.5 billion. However, that is all history now and we have to go on from here, and this report assists us greatly in ensuring that we can have a better management system.
I will just point out the following facts that were given in a recent BBC “Panorama” programme on water. Leaks account for 5 billion litres per day; indeed, 20 per cent of water in all the companies is lost through leaks. One should look at this in the context of the four most profitable companies, whose profitability totals £1.7 billion. Perhaps I should refer to not-for-profit companies again, but the lack of investment has resulted in the continuation of a lot of leaks, which is not satisfactory. The report addresses that problem. I believe that we must not waste this water and I am pleased that the report does not propose a water grid, because until we do something about the leakage problem we will not be using our resources properly. A massive amount of water is being lost and that problem needs to be addressed immediately. I just mention in passing that Dwr Cymru has halved the amount of leaks in the past five years, since it has been a not-for-profit company.
The report’s executive summary addresses strategy, regulation, metering, the social impact, and research and development. I agree with the summary word for word about the strategy. On regulation, the report proposes boards for river areas, for example. That is all right as long as the boards are accountable, but I am not sure whether the proposal would ensure that. My other concern relates to the proposal that the remits of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust be extended to cover water efficiency. I should like to know more about how that can be achieved, as I am not sure how it could be.
The statement in the summary about leakage is good and I fully endorse the conclusion on metering—it is easier for companies to impose meters in the driest parts of the county. The social factors and the affordability question are thoroughly addressed. The proposals to follow the State of Victoria in Australia on disconnections are controversial because of the social impact. There
13 Oct 2006 : Column 490
Research and development is very important. According to my observation of the climate in the first nine months of this year—I have checked this with the Met Office—we in south Wales have had far less rainfall than normal. As in the whole of southern Britain, that reduction is very serious. We have had only 82 per cent of our usual rainfall. The impact of climate change is crucial for the planning process, which we must take into account. The report contains pointers in the right direction but, as it says, we have a long way to go to co-ordinate planning and to produce quality water efficiently and in sufficient quantities for an increasing population. That issue, especially in the context of housing in the south-east, needs serious attention.
12.55 pm
Lord Crisp: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make this maiden speech on an issue of such importance and one that ties in with a whole range of my interests, including the environment, science and, of course, health. I may also mention international development, not purely because water and the disposal of waste are matters of life and, all too often, death in the developing world, but because we are joined together due to climate change. There is a further international dimension, which I will come back to in a moment.
In making this maiden speech, I also take the opportunity to say thank you for the welcome and friendliness that I have received from all parts of your Lordships’ House, as well as from the officers of the House and all the staff. It is very good to have one’s simple and ignorant questions answered with such tact and friendliness and very nice to be welcomed at the door of the Chamber in such a friendly manner.
In researching this speech, I also had the opportunity to make use of the Library for the first time. I asked the staff about previous times when water management was an issue of national importance. I am not going to talk about sewers and Bazalgette, despite the obvious health interest, but in the information that I was given I was struck by the fact that the drainage of the fens took over 1,000 years, caused economic and environmental damage as well as benefits and was highly contentious. I was given an extract from the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which said that the drainage of Whitham fen was finally concluded,
I imagine that we can learn something from history, but perhaps the main point here is to urge all parties that we should make progress as quickly as possible with the least economic and ecological damage and with the least contention.
Let me make three points about this excellent report, which I think will stand the test of time in drawing out the important questions and pointing to the important directions to be taken over the next few years. The first point has already been made and concerns transparency and the importance of
13 Oct 2006 : Column 491
My second point, which the report makes strongly, concerns the fact that there are many official parties, each with their own purposes, with some overlap and with some conflicting incentives. There needs to be change if we are to see decisions made in the longer term about what is needed. As the report says, there is a great need for a much more holistic approach.
All of that brings me to my final point. As I read the report, I was struck by two things. The first is the level of innovation. There is an enormous amount of innovation, whether in recycling, the handling of waste or the technology of the materials that are used. That relates to my international point. This issue affects everybody around the world—in some parts more than perhaps here—and there is a question about whether we in Britain are learning from what works elsewhere in the world and whether we are hearing and understanding those lessons. It seems to me that over the next five years, let us say, we will see some significant changes. We will see more innovation. Some of the standing conditions that the report talks about may have shifted. We may have seen the weather getting worse in the way referred to earlier by a noble Lord. But we may also see the balance of the economy and the environment change over this period so that decisions may be different.
My first observation on the report is the level of innovation and how fast it is moving. But my second observation is the inability to make the long-term decisions. We do not have the framework, as the report describes, to make the long-term decisions that are needed. In commending and congratulating the noble Earl and members of the Select Committee on providing such a good, wide-ranging report, I come to my final conclusion that while the report sets out all those issues, the challenge is for all parties, not just for Government, to determine how to make use of the innovation that we see everywhere and how to make the decisions that are needed so that there is not a long period of economic and environmental damage and a great deal of contention.
1.01 pm
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I offer my congratulations, and those of your Lordships' House, to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord has had a distinguished career in the National Health Service, and he has a wealth of knowledge and expertise that will benefit us all. As chief executive of the NHS, he managed the first half of a 10-year plan. Sometimes we lose perspective of
13 Oct 2006 : Column 492
I, too, express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for the inspired way in which he chaired this sub-committee. He did what a good chairman should do—he defined the project right from the start, kept his eye on the ball and pulled us back when we were straying from the point. I very much enjoyed being part of his team, and I believe that we have produced a magnificent report.
I also thank two other people—Professor Ashley for his knowledge, his incisiveness and his skill in formulating this report, and Tom Wilson, our Clerk, who kept us all in good order and who played a crucial role in developing the topic as we progressed.
We certainly got our timing spot on. We reported to your Lordships’ House just before the Summer Recess; at a time when water and drought were on everyone’s mind. Here in the south-east we were banned from watering our gardens and from washing our cars. It appears that we were only days away from additional powers being granted to several water companies.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |