HC Deb 27 July 1977 vol 936 cc616-9
8. Mr. Newton

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his White Paper on the water industry, Command Paper No. 6876.

Mr. Denis Howell

The Government's main decisions on the review of the water industry, and the reasons for them, were set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 13th July.

Mr. Newton

Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome on both sides of the House, I suspect, for the reprieve of the private water companies, including the Essex Water Company, which does a fine job for its consumers, including myself? Would it not be more sensible if he now lifted the threat of nationalisation, which is not wanted either by the employees of these companies or by their consumers? Will he now give them the opportunity to get on confidently with their job without this threat hanging over them?

Mr. Howell

Our view is that it is totally inconsistent to have a divided water industry. Experience in recent years has shown that our great national water resource ought to be contained within one industry. We have said, I think with unbecoming frankness, that at the moment we have not got a majority in this Parliament to carry our view into fruition.

I have had considerable complaints and representations from some employees of private water companies about the fact that we are not taking them into public ownership at this time. They see their place as being within a national water industry, not in one small unit of it. There are two views amongst employees of private water companies.

Mr. Spearing

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is strong feeling in the country that the continuance of private water companies is an anomaly and that we need a stronger national water organisation, as proposed in the White Paper? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on proposals for a national navigation authority? Will it be for canals only, or will it extend to changing the status of the existing small navigation authorities which are to be found in different parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howell

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole purport of our proposal is to show that we cannot possibly, in logic, have 10 separate nationalised industries operating within one area. There must be a strong central strategy, planning and resource facility, which we propose for the National Water Authority.

It is intended to bring the canal system within the national structure and to charge the NWA with the obligation of creating an inland navigation authority, which will obviously concern itself with all inland water navigation.

Sir W. Elliott

Does the Minister agree that the term "private water companies" is incorrect? Is it not more correct to describe them as statutory water undertakings? Will he accept from me, having some knowledge of water companies, in which I declare an interest, that the staffs of the water companies have overwhelmingly decided that they would prefer to stay out of a nationalised concern?

Mr. Howell

To deal with the last point first, that is not so. There is a divided view. The unions, whether manual or non-manual, are entirely at one in saying that they would like their members to be within the publicly-owned sector.

Mr. Anthony Grant

They are unrepresentative.

Mr. Howell

No, they are not unrepresentative. As a matter of fact, branches of NALGO from very large authorities, such as the Bristol Waterworks Company, have written to me emphatically along lines totally contradicting the view that has been put forward.

I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) that "private water company" is a misnomer, if only for the reason that private water authorities can operate only with a public facility—the natural water supply of this country.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Does my right hon. Friend recall that a little time ago he gave his blessing to the improvement of the South Yorkshire canal waterway so that the boats could travel between Hull and Rotherham? Therefore, will he now say that the improvement of this waterway will start in the near future?

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that I gave my blessing to the philosophy and principle of the South Yorkshire waterway. Unfortunately, no private enterprise or public authority has yet guaranteed us sufficient traffic, if we spend the capital on it, to justify taking that decision.

Mr. Speed

Is the Minister aware that in terms of efficiency and consumer relations the private water companies compare very well with the regional water authorities? Is he further aware that only a small minority of employees and the Labour Party are in favour of nationalisation, and that no one else in the country is?

Mr. Howell

The answer on efficiency is "Yes and No". Some are better and more efficient than others.

I have already given the answer to the second part of the question. Representatives of many of the employees concerned have written to me in terms that contradict the view that has just been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNamara

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his point of order after Question Time?

Mr. McNamara

I should like to put it now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights, but he is not being fair to the rest of the House.

Mr. McNamara

In view of my right hon. Friend's unsatisfactory answer to a supplementary question, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.