Clause 4

HC Deb 19 February 1981 vol 999 cc479-90

SEPARATION OF COMMON WATER SERVICE PIPES

Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 23, leave out from '(b)' to 'any' and insert 'a payment in respect of the supply of water to'. The problem of the use of the term "water rates" exercised us in Committee. The problem was rightly pointed out by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I undertook to come forward with an appropriate Government amendment. There are two difficulties with the term "water rate". The first is that the word "rate" is not really appropriate in the context of payments for water supply. Strictly speaking, since 1973 we have been talking about charges for services provided, not about rates. But even if we were to overlook that difficulty, there would be a problem because the term "water rate" does not nowadays cover every domestic circumstance. While it is true that the vast majority of householders pay their charges on the basis of rateable value, not everyone does. Perhaps the most common exception is the increasing use of water meters that allow consumers to pay for the water they actually use. The term "water rate" does not adequately cover that, or, indeed, any other case. The amendment, therefore, provides an alternative form of words which gets round the problem.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 34, at end insert— '( ) In subsection (1) of section 42 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945, after the word "section" there shall be inserted the words "and of section 4 of the Water Act 1981".' This is a technical amendment. Section 42 of schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 gives water undertakers wide powers to require separate water service pipes. Clause 4 sets limits to those powers as far as houses are concerned. We need to make it clear in section 42 that the wide powers are subject to the limitations that we are introducing—in other words, subject to clause 4—and that is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 4, after '(b)', insert "'house.'".

This is another technical amendment. The Water Act 1945, from which clause 4 derives, contains a definition of "house" which equates it, in effect, to a dwelling, whether or not inside a larger building. The same definition is appropriate in clause 4—for instance, where the clause speaks of converting houses into a larger number of houses. The purpose of the amendment is to apply the 1945 Act definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

5.29 pm

Mr. Giles Shaw

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

When introducing the Bill on Second Reading I said that in the Government's view it was uncontroversial. I have since had one or two occasions to think that hon. Members have done their best to prove me wrong on that point. However, I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been handled by Opposition Members. In a large measure, it has proved uncontroversial.

Hon. Members have taken the opportunity afforded by the Bill to raise a number of points which, while perhaps not wholly germane to the Bill's purpose, are nevertheless important in the context of the water industry as a whole—and I include the British Waterways Board in that term. Let me say immediately that I am glad that we had the chance on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report for wide-ranging debates, for it is surely right that the House should have an opportunity to discuss these issues.

This afternoon, however, we must confine ourselves strictly to the substance of the Bill itself—as I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will confirm. I begin therefore by reiterating that the Bill is short, and deliberately so, because we wish it a speedy passage. Its primary purpose is to increase the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board. But we also look upon it as a suitable vehicle by which to tidy up certain anomalies in relation to water supplied for fire-righting purposes, and the power of water undertakers to insist upon separate service pipes to domestic premises. In the course of the Bill's passage through the House we have been persuaded that it would also be appropriate to make provision for an increase in the amount that may be required of a householder towards the cost of installing a supply of water and to impose strict liability upon water authorities for damage caused by burst water mains, which will be done by an amendment in another place.

I commend the Bill to the House.

5.30 pm

Mr. Denis Howell

I am grateful for the Minister's remarks about the way in which the Bill has been approached, but I am bound to say that, following the very searching examination in Committee of the effects of clauses 1 and 2, we remain extremely concerned, particularly about the affairs of the British Waterways Board and the situation of the canal system in this country. I therefore have a duty to raise these matters again, because we do not believe that the provisions of clause 1 are adequate in terms of the task of the board in maintaining our canal system.

Our examination of the Bill in Committee also showed that the finances of the board are in an extremely serious state. A parlous plight has been revealed. The board is not able to keep abreast of the collapses that occur in its system and to keep the system open even this year. It is not able to finance itself. In clause 1 the Government propose to allow the board to borrow more and more money, which it is not able to finance. The board does not generate sufficient income even to pay the interest charges on the money that the Government are allowing it to borrow.

As a result of those crazy economics, the Government will have to provide more and more grant each year for the board to finance the increased borrowing that they insist it should undertake.

That is the essence of the situation as revealed in Committee. I think that there can be no dispute about those facts. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the board has not communicated with us. We have requested information, which its officers have very kindly supplied. I appreciate that. Nevertheless, since the Committee stage there has been no attempt by the board to correct any of the facts that we gave on Second Reading or in Committee. We must therefore now accept those facts as being accurate in every way.

There is a startling and rapidly deteriorating situation with regard to the fundamental viability and organisational position of the board. The board's income is nose-diving. Its expenditure is soaring. More and more canals are collapsing. The board needs to spend more and more money upon essential work, on the inspection of British dams, tunnels and reservoirs, and it is unable to finance that properly.

I must make it clear to the House that the Opposition believe that the canal system has a very important part to play in the heritage, particularly the industrial heritage of this country and, more important even than that, in the provision of amenity and recreation opportunities for our people in the future. We wish to see the canals treated as a viable and going concern.

The Government's response to the situation is in total conflict with all the principles of sound finance and proper economic management. That is certainly true of the Government's expectations of publicly owned bodies, as to the way in which their accountancy should be conducted and returns that it is reasonable to expect. In this case, the Government are allowing the board to increase its borrowing requirement to up to £35 million, £5 million of which is required immediately. The board cannot possibly finance that itself.

To illustrate the board's chronic financial situation one has only to look at the report of the board itself, which shows that in 1977–78—at 1979 figures—it had a trading loss of £13½ million, which in the year 1978–79 increased to £21 million. The losses on commercial waterways in the last year for which we have figures were £7 million, on cruiser waterways £11 million, and on remainder waterways £3¼ million.

The only area of profitability in the whole of the board's accounts is in its warehouse activities. In the last year for which we have figures that profit is stated as £330,000. One is in favour of that, of course, but it is worth noting that in this area the board is not operating as a canal operator. It is using land and warehouse, which it owns because it once had a viable and thriving canal industry, almost entirely for warehousing activities. As I believe we said in Committee, the board seems to own more lorries on the roads than boats on the canals. That is an extraordinary commentary on the situation. If the 1979 figures are added to economic position in this country in 1980 and 1981, it is clear that the position is extremely serious, and it is deteriorating rapidly as a result of the recession. One can only forecast that the accounts for next year and the following year will reveal a situation of even greater concern.

To all this we must add the cost of the board's essential duty to maintain the safety and the fabric of the system. As we know, that was examined by the Frankael inquiry. The auditors state on page 46 of their annual report that the backlog on maintenance alone is £77 million at 1979 prices. That is for essential maintenance work on the canals. To that must be added the cost of remedial action required on the reservoirs that the board owns, amounting to £4.28 million. Therefore on known dereliction and maintenance requirements alone, about £82 million is required immediately.

Moreover, the auditors state on page 46 of the annual report that Other reservoirs are to be examined and additional liabilities may exist, the extent of which will not be known until the examinations are complete. One can only assume that means in practice that the "Operation Bridgeguard" scheme, under which the Department of Transport paid for the cost of road bridges over canals, is coming to an end. That was £1.7 million last year. Furthermore, as shown on page 21 of the report, there are permanent weight restrictions on 172 road bridges because they are unsafe to carry the load, and a further 54 are substandard and require urgent attention.

At a conservative estimate, therefore, I judge that well over £100 million is now needed for essential maintenance costs by the British Waterways Board.

The Government's response to that has been to chop off the £5 million per year that the Labour Government provided in 1979 with a guarantee to provide at least a similar sum every year until the backlog of maintenance had been dealt with, and to take £2½ million out of the board's estimate immediately in September 1979. On our calculation, the sum allocated to the board this year, including an adjustment for inflation—which the Government have put at £29.4 million—is totally inadequate. It needs to be at least £5 million more.

The situation is deteriorating, as the list of closures this year shows. We went into this in detail in Committee. I should like to refer to the eight major closures that are causing great concern to canal users. I notice that the Minister is getting a little agitated. No doubt he will tell us that since our discussions in Committee he has been able to find the money to deal with these eight major collapses and closures, which are affecting all canal users, especially this year. They also affect people who have booked holiday boats as well as the holiday trade generally.

Those eight areas are as follows: the Blisworth tunnel at Oxford; the Wast Hill tunnel at King's Norton, Birmingham; the Stoke Bardolph lock, which is the key to traffic to Nottingham and from there to the North-East and East Anglia; the Leek tunnel in Staffordshire; the Rushall embankment at Walsall; the Netherton tunnel; the Folly Bridge on the Lee navigation; the Foulridge tunnel on the Leeds-Liverpool canal; and the Coombe reservoir in the area of the Peak and Calder canals. That is a formidable list of canal collapses and closures. The Government must deal with them. Under clause 1, one would think that the Government would wish to authorise greater amounts of money for that purpose.

Six reservoirs require urgent attention. On any showing, the British Waterways Board is placed in an impossible situation. That is in contrast to its previous attitudes, particularly under the previous Administration, when public pronouncements were made demanding action which stimulated public controversy and when a Select Committee of the House was urged to make a most radical proposal, with demands that the House should go further.

In spite of all that, and in spite of a worsening situation and a deteriorating financial climate, the board is maintaining what I can only believe to be an irresponsible silence. It is according a silence to this Government which it was not prepared to accord to previous Governments. The board has not sent information to any Members of Parliament, nor has it requested them to raise this matter. There have been no press announcements. There is nothing in the annual report. Had it not been for the Committee stage of the Bill, hardly any of this information would have been made known to those who are interested in the preservation of our canal system.

The Minister told us in Committee—I appreciate his frankness—that 60 per cent. of the board's expenditure is grant-aided from the Government, compared with 30 per cent. 10 years ago. That is the measure of the board's impossibly deteriorating financial situation.

The board has a responsibility to speak out. It should inform the nation, the House, and certainly the canal users about the position. It should ask for even more action. One can only regret its silence.

I now turn to clause 2, which is the other main aspect of the Bill. That is an extraordinary proposal. People who use water for fire-fighting purposes will not pay for that water, even though, as I said in Committee, they will be paying for the firemen who use the water.

When the Minister said that water supplied for fire-fighting purposes should be free, he made an economically innocent remark—as few things, if any, in this country are free. The water is free only so far as it is rainwater. Its collection and distribution is an expensive business. The Minister means that if certain people are to be relieved of charges for water that might be used in sprinkler systems or hydrants, someone else must pay. One of the great mysteries of life, which we have not yet solved, is the question who will pay.

The Minister said three times in Committee that no extra charge would fall upon the domestic water user. He said that it would fall upon other users in the same class or category. Perhaps I can illustrate what that means. It means that the John Lewis Partnership in Liverpool or Manchester will be relieved of any charge for the supply of water, because it has a sprinkler system. However, that money will have to be found from elsewhere. The North-West water authority estimates that this year the cost will be £600,000. It cost the same last year. Incidentally, the Bill does not take effect until next year, which means that £1,800,000 will have to be found by the North-West water authority if it is to relieve firms such as John Lewis.

If the Minister is right when he says that this money will have to be found from other classes of user, it means the small business man, whom I thought we were all trying to encourage. It will affect the small shop owner—the man who lives above the shop. Because he does not have a sprinkler system he will now have to find the money to pay for the fact that John Lewis and others are to be assisted.

The position is even more crazy than that. John Lewis and other firms get at least 50 per cent. relief on their insurance premiums because they install sprinkler systems. That is quite right. However, when they have such a discount on their insurance premiums for supplying what fire inspectors want them to supply, I do not think it right that they should be given an additional incentive. Personally, I do not think that it is required. If it is, all sorts of legislation can apply. We have fire regulations and fire inspectors, but most important of all we have the Health and Safety Acts, under which an efficient system can be supplied.

I have today been in touch with the North-West water authority. Even though the Minister told the Committee three times that none of this additional charge would fall on the domestic user, the authority has assured me—and has authorised me to tell the Minister and the House—that that additional charge will be imposed, across the board, on domestic users as well as on users in other categories. It says that the total increase in the North-West as a result of clause 2—it will probably apply elsewhere—will be between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent. on top of the considerable increases in water charges which everyone is now expecting.

I hope that the Minister will undertake to have that matter looked into. Of course, I drew attention to the fact that under clause 2(2) the Minister has the power to make a charge. I assumed that the Minister would make an order that would limit such a charge to small businesses, bad though that would be. At least it would relieve the domestic householder. However, the authority has said "Anything he does cannot possibly come into effect in time to affect our charges this year, and we do not think that he will be able to draw up such a scheme". I have much sympathy with the North-West water authority, but this is an important matter, which must be cleared up. When such confusion exists in the minds of senior officers of that authority, it can be seen that that is an impossible situation.

I now turn to the question of the general financing of water. We are in an extraordinary situation, in which water authorities have announced their levels of water charges and in which, under this proposal, at least 1 per cent. or 1 ½ per cent. can mow be added even to those charges that have been announced. The Secretary of State referred certain of the regional water authorities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

I received a letter from the General and Municipal Workers Union in Bristol. It referred to Bristol, Bournemouth and West Hampshire. It said that where the monopoly is a private one for the supply of water, and not a public one, is it to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as well? I do not expect the Minister to answer that question now, but it is an interesting point that that situation has arisen in the South-West, because of the Bristol Waterworks Company. Treatment should be on all-fours with the public authority.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

It is my understanding that the East Worcesterhire Waterworks Company has been required to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the investigation into Severn-Trent. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Howell

It is far from the point that I am making. The company is to give evidence, but it is not to be investigated. I am sure that the evidencce of the East Worcestershire Waterworks Company, which is tiny but no doubt efficient, would be valuable and should be taken into account. However, it is not being investigated, but is giving evidence in respect of the Severn-Trent investigation. Therefore, where a private monopoly exists, it should be subjected to the same treatment as a public company. I hope that I carry the hon Gentleman with me in that logical proposition.

The confusion to which I was referring has become confounded because the Secretary of State is now sending two senior accountants from a number of illustrious accounting firms to do a two-day job in every regional water authority in the country, because he is concerned about the high level of water charges. What can the Minister tell us about that? There have been some alarming reports to the effect that having sent these senior accountants round the country, two to each water authority, to spend two days on each one—which is not long enough to find out very much—the Secretary of State is now trying to reduce water charges by about 5 or 6 per cent. That can be done only by juggling the books. Therefore, the Secretary of State will shortly announce to the House a change in the system of cost accountancy, as referred to by one of the Welsh Ministers on Welsh water charges, although he put forward a proposal specifically designed for Wales. It might have started out that way, but it seems that the Welsh thinking has flowed into other parts of the country. In their great haste to reduce water charges the Government are about to do another U-turn. They are about to go back en the whole concept of economic cost accountancy and financial targers which have been set for all water authorities.

There has been a lack of information on manpower. On Second Reading the Minister was not able to tell us whether an army of people would be going round the country trying to exempt large firms from charges on water for fire-fighting. It has to be done on the calculation of the number of sprinklers,for example, in the firm. Some method must be used. What will be the admimistrative requirements of a scheme that involves going round the country assessing the likely cost of effective sprinklers and hydrants in industry and commerce? We should be given information about that.

Clauses 1 and 2 may be necessary, but we are profoundly concerned about them, their causes and their implications. Although we shall not vote against the Third Reading, I assure the Minister that when he makes further orders, and when other opportunities occur, we shall return to these fundamental questions of policy involved in the matters that I have felt right to raise on Third Reading.

5.56 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampon, North)

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell). It is a bit like following Geoffrey Boycott. Although one can sit with one's pads on for quite a long time waiting to go in, it is always surprising when he is out.

There is much in the Bill that is good, and that I am keen on. It has much to commend it. But the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point. That is the question of charges to domestic rate payers. Before voting on the Bill, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me some reassurance on this issue.

As yet, there is nothing to deal with the extortion racket, which makes the Cosa Nostra seem like a kindergarten in comparison. That in the uninhibited bankrolling powers of the water authorities. This must be the most blatant form of taxation without representation since the days of feudal dues. No only is it blatant, but the way in which they are viciously and violently extracted—if my local paper is anything to go by—makes he tax gatherers of the sheriff of Nottingham seem gentle and humane by comparison. This is a highly undemocratic way in which to go about things. There is no democratic or adequate organisation which at this time would be offering its workers 10 per cent., when the wealth-producing part of the nation can only afford 7, 8 or 9 per cent. There is no group of workers which would be demanding more than 10 per cent. at such a time, unless the organisations for which they were working had this arbitrary power of extracting money with menaces from the people of this country.

Mr. Denis Howell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad to ask for your guidance. The hon. Member is talking about wage negotiations leading to a possible strike in the water industry. Had I thought that that was in order, I would have made a considerable speech on the matter, which is of major importance. I should be grateful if you would let me know if this speech is in order on the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Member. As he will see, I was occupied reading some notes. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Marlow) will take the point that it is not in order to pursue that line.

Mr. Marlow

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I am moving on to something else immediately. I thank the right hon. Member for bringing the point to my attention.

I was talking about the water charges and the effects that the Bill might have on domestic water rate. The domestic water rate is the most hated aspect of the whole of the hated rate system in this country. The Government have a long-term commitment to get rid of the rating system.

The Government should make a start by ridding us of this grotesque due, this unfair tax and unacceptable tribute which we suffer now. If one looks in any neighbourhood, there may be a large house which might be occupied by a little old lady. Why should she not occupy it? She has lived there for the whole of her life and she has brought up her family there. That is her house and why should she move. She is charged not according to the amount of water that she consumes but according to the rateable value and size of her house, whereas the house next door might be half the size. There may be three adults in the family living there, with three cars, washing machines—all the gadgetry of modern life. They may be heavy consumers of water. The time must surely come when the charging of water is based on the consumption of water.

It has been suggested that we should go to a system of meters. It would cost £40 per household to do that. for 15 million houses it would cost £600 million merely to fit the meters. that money would be wasted. We would also have an army of peaked-capped officials knocking on doors day by day to read the meters and an army of bureaucrats and accountants sending out bills and making sure that they were paid. Water is not like gas or electicity. The cost of the water used is tiny in comparison with getting the water to the premises. Metering is not the solution.

How much money is involved? Last year domestic water rates raised £480 million. It is hardly for me to say how the Government should raise the money. However, 1 per cent. on VAT would raise far more money than is currently raised by domestic water rates. Would that not be a fairer way of financing the supply of water to domestic households? After all, the person who buys a car and washes it or buys a washing machine and washes his clothes in it is the person who uses the water. Why should he not pay for his water through his purchases? It would be far more satisfactory than the current arbitrary rating system, which is so unfair.

I am in some difficulty about the Bill. Can my hon. Friend take account of my remarks and give us some hope, and the country some hope, that the vicious and officious system of charging for the water supply can be knocked on the head without too much delay?

6.1 pm

Mr. Giles Shaw

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to some of the points made in this brief Third Reading debate.

I recognise the robust way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) sought to tackle the problem of water charges. I concede that the present system, which is widely based on rateable value as the foundation for charging, is clearly not one that commends itself to the consumer, the water authorities or the Government. It is widely recognised that it causes distortions. However, let me say two things.

We have to move gradually to systems that are more equitable. Many others do not feel like my hon. Friend. They support the move to metering as one way in which the consumer can control at least the volume, if not the price per gallon used, of the water that comes to the domestic user. Most water authorities are beginning to move in that direction by offering consumers a choice. The choice is important. In many cases the consumer may not wish to move away from the rateable value system. The National Water Council has certainly been asked to examine the matter and has published a consultative paper about charging for water. It is a matter that is exercising all concerned. However, I shall disappoint my hon. Friend by saying that I am not too attracted by the idea of value added tax being used, region by region, in connection with water supply, although I understand that the source of complaint is the fundamental point about rateable value.

Mr. Marlow

I was suggesting that the change should be part of the total VAT. One point that is important is that that would have no differential effect on the RPI. Water would be charged for either through VAT or the domestic rate.

Mr. Shaw

I accept my hon. Friend's point, but we are here considering the extent to which water authorities operating within regions and in control of the system for fresh water, sewage disposal, pollution and many other amenities should be enabled to charge within their regions and to offer themselves, as it were, for service in that region rather than as part of the national undertaking.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spent a considerable time referring to his major concerns about the British Waterways Board finances. I understand his anxiety. None of us can get away from the fact that, as he puts it, with a falling income and increased costs the present position of the board is far from satisfactory. It is likely to continue in that semiparlous state for a considerable time.

However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that despite the economic restraints under which we are all operating the. board has had a stable grant in real terms in the past two years and that as soon as we can arrive at an economic condition that will allow it we would expect to move to a grant-aided system that had a number of years attached to it. As I fully concede, it is necessary for the authority to have some continuity in its income in order to tackle the backlog of maintenance.

Although the British Waterways Board has problems in relation to the canal system, it is still working hard to try to deal with the matter, despite financial stringency. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that anyone who booked a holiday with the authority to use the canals would run into a pile of rubble at the end of the first bend. That is not quite the case. I want to make it clear that in some of the matters in which the authority is engaged real progress is being made.

The board is discussing the priority with which it will tackle urgent cases. The right hon. Gentleman listed a number of them. It is hopeful that Wast Hill tunnel, Rushell embankment, Old Loop, Tividale, and Stoke Bardolph lock will be reinstated for passage during 1981. It is anxious to make progress with the Blisworth tunnel. However, I am not prepared to forecast at this point the reopening date. The board is considering what temporary arrangements can be made to allow passage through the tunnel during the coming season. I want to reassure anyone planning a canal holiday that the board will do everything in its power to see that he has a pleasant journey afloat and ashore.

Mr. Denis Howell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw

I suppose that courtesy demands it.

Mr. Howell

if the Minister wants to ensure that people booking holidays on the canal system get the fullest information to which they are entitled, he should give way. He has not given way with good grace, which is unusual for him.

The Minister tells us that out of the eight closures the board hopes to put right four, some time this year. He cannot tell us when.

I wish to deal with the publicity for which the board should be responsible. Holidaymakers and people in the boat industry are entitled to know the position. The board should be much more forthright in its publicity. No one should have to plan holidays that may be spoilt. I am sad that until now the board has not seen fit to take responsibility for giving that elementary but essential information to potential holidaymakers.

Mr. Shaw

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There will obviously be anxiety for those who may not know which of the canals will be reopened during the 1981 cruising season. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the four stoppages to which I referred will be reinstated—that is, reopened during the 1981 cruising season.

I take the point that it will be necessary for the board to keep fully informed about the canal system those involved in the holiday business and their customers. In the holiday business at home and abroad it is not unknown for difficulties to occur. There is a lack of information about many forms of package holiday. It is not a direct reflection on the management of the Britih Waterways Board or the system over which it presides that it is perhaps a little more reticent than the right hon. Gentleman would wish.

I turn now to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised in connection with the other parts of the Bill. I refer particularly to clause 2, in respect of which he was at pains to suggest that the domestic consumers in the North West authority area would be faced with a massive impost on their bills as a result of the Government's decision to follow the advice of Mr. Len Murray and remove the tax on safety, which was involved in the sprinklers standing charges. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he has more recent information than I was able to give the Committee. I assure him that I shall look closely at the information that I have been given. If I am incorrect and have misled the Committee and the House, I shall naturally apologise.

My understanding, on the facts of the case, is that the loss of income in the North West water authority area, which is due to the removal of the significant standing charges imposed upon fire sprinklers and other forms of fire equipment in that area, will be reimbursed to the authority through the same measured sector whence it came. This means that there will be a small increase in the charges of all those in that area operating on the metered system.

The right hon. Gentleman went further. He said that this would involve the domestic user and that the charges to be recovered—he quoted £600,000 as the sum raised through this charge at the moment—would result in an increase of 1 per cent. or more on domestic bills. The information before me is a letter from the North West water authority. In so far as we expect metered consumers in the North West to have to bear the results of the withdrawal of the particular charge on fire fighting equipment, then the domestic consumer is virtually not affected. I was asked how many domestic consumers are expected to receive a metered supply at the start and at the end of the year. The answer is none at the start of the year, and possibly 500 at the end of the year.

On the actual facts of the numbers of metered consumers from the domestic sector, who could be involved in this modest increase in cost, the answer is that there is none at the moment and there could be as many as 500 at the end of the year.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that this charge could be 1 per cent. or 1 ½ per cent. I remind him that the amount involved is of the order of £600,000. I know that we are agreed on that. It has been the case for one or two years. I must equally remind him that the total income involved in the North West water authority area is £233,882,000. If he takes 1 per cent. of that—I can see from the winking eye and the flashing mind that he has already done so—it will be found that the figure is £2,338,820. He will suddenly compare that with the £600,000 that this whole operation costs. He will conclude that his sums, like so much else about the right hon. Gentleman, do not add up.

Mr. Denis Howell

They are not my sums.

Mr. Shaw

The right hon. Gentleman must restrain himself. He has involved the House in what might be called a PhD thesis on the matter, a pretty hefty dialogue, if I may so describe it. It is high time that this little matter was put to rest. Domestic consumers in the North West water authority area should sleep sweeter tonight if only for the fact that they will not be faced either with a 1 per cent. increase in their rates or with 1 per cent. of the authority's total charges, even though the right hon. Gentleman would clearly wish it to be so.

We come, therefore, to the end of this short debate. I recognise that this is a short Bill, which has occupied the House for a long time. A short Bill and a shortened Minister must surely resume their seats. I welcome the opportunity of committing the Bill to its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.