HC Deb 26 March 1982 vol 20 cc1242-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) is not present, I accept the motion.

1.58 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)

I am glad of this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of water charges in Wales, in view of the complete failure of the Welsh Office to develop acceptable policy in this matter or to explain its position adequately at Welsh Question Time on successive occasions. In a short debate such as this it will be impossible to go into all the questions that arise from this most emotive of subjects. It is emotive because for year after year the Welsh water ratepayers—whether domestic or commercial, whether in a private house or a council house—have had to pay substantially greater water charges than those in comparable circumstances in England. The failure of successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, to provide an adequate solution has led to a position today where thousands of water ratepayers are saying "Enough is enough" and are refusing to pay their water rates for 1982–83.

It is a rebellion about what is in essence a system of taxation, about over-taxation, and about taxation without representation. It therefore bears all the hallmarks of a modern-day Boston tea party.

I make it clear from the outset that although there may be some criticisms of aspects of the Welsh water authority's administration, I do not regard that as the prime cause of our high water rates in Wales. Our argument is not so much with the authority as with the system laid down by the Water Act 1973, with the way in which successive Secretaries of State for Wales have implemented that system, and with the failing of the present incumbents of the Welsh Office to act even within the limitations of the present system, to ensure equitable charges for water services in Wales.

The level of water charges in Wales is a scandal. Both domestic and commercial ratepayers in Wales down the years have suffered a raw deal when it comes to water charges. The position today can be summed up quite briefly. During the current financial year Welsh water ratepayers have to pay 30.03p in the pound of equated rateable value, compared to 14.22p in the pound in the Severn-Trent area and 17.1p in the pound in the North-West area. The charge for metered water for industry and commerce is 100p in the pound in Wales for the current year, compared to 94p in the pound in the Severn-Trent area and 88p in the pound in North-West England. The irony is that Severn-Trent and the North-West of England get a large proportion of their water from Wales.

The charges this year, 1981–82, are higher as a deliberate result of Government policy. The Conservative Government, by rescinding the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 last year, have ended the partial equalisation of water charges that had some limited benefit for Wales. That partial equalisation was inadequate but it was better than nothing. With the deliberate ending of that scheme—which the Labour Government brought forward in 1976 after years of campaigning by Plaid Cymru—by the Tory Government, Wales must pay £3 million more for its water this year while areas of England, whose charges are lower than those in Wales, must pay £3 million less. That is partly the cause of the large discrepancies this year.

Next month, a new financial year opens. We in Wales are now receiving our water bills for the coming year. Those show an increase of 18.3 per cent. in the domestic water rate. The comparable increase in the Severn-Trent area is only 7.4 per cent. and in the North-West is only 9.7 per cent. So our already iniquitous charges are to be further increased way beyond the level of inflation. The gap between what we must pay and what the people of Birmingham must pay widens by a further 11 per cent.

Next year Welsh households will have to pay, on average, a water bill of £79.08. That will compare with £59.86 in North-West England, and £62.44 in the Severn-Trent area. In other words, the average paid in Wales is 32 per cent. higher than that in North-West England, which gets much of its water from Wales.

I wish to put it to the Minister in no uncertain terms that the people of Wales have had enough of this grotesque mistreatment. They have been driven beyond the point of patience, tolerance and forbearance. There is now a water rate rebellion in Wales on a massive scale, supported by people in all parts of the Welsh water authority area. The revolt is only just beginning. It is supported by local councils, trade unions, small business men, and the disabled and pensioners' organisations in an unprecendented unity of purpose. The campaign was launched only three weeks ago. If it continues to grow at its present rate, it will compare with the Rebecca rebellions of the last century against the iniquity of the toll gates. I warn the Welsh Office that this rebellion is not one that it can ignore or laugh off. It will do so at its peril. The Welsh people now expect the Welsh Office to take unto itself a new role, and for once to act as the defender of Welsh interests instead of the institutional apologia for London policy in Wales.

I wish to deal with one red herring that is constantly being conjured up by those opposed to fair play for Wales in regard to water charges. We are told that the actual rate poundage—the pence in the pound on rateable value paid by Welsh householders compared to English householders—is an unfair basis of comparison. We are told that because the standard of housing is lower in Wales the average charges falling on a family budget are not so different.

I wish to dispose of that argument in two ways. First, I make it quite clear that the basis of rateable value is identical in both Wales and England. The rateable value of a house is determined by the same principles in Wales as in England. A family house in Wales identical in size, perspective and environment to a house in England will have near enough the same rateable value. Unfortunately, the age and quality of the housing stock in Wales is much poorer than in England. Forty-one per cent. of our houses were built before 1919 compared with 29 per cent. in England. Nine per cent. of Welsh houses are declared to be unfit for habitation, compared with 5 per cent. in England. That is a result of historical social and economic factors, not least being the substantially lower average per capita income of Wales compared to England.

The only fair comparison—this was conceded by the Water authority spokesman in a recent letter in Y Cymro —is the water bill faced by an identical family living in identical houses in the two countries. Since the basis of rateable value is the same the comparison rests on the rate poundage charged. For the current year the unmeasured water supply average equated rate poundage in Wales is 30.03p in the pound, compared with 14.22p in the pound in the Severn-Trent water authority and 9.08p in the pound in the Thames area. Those figures are based on a Parliamentary answer given on 21 May by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

In other words, when we compare like with like—the valid comparison—Welsh people face water charges twice the level of people in Birmingham and three times the level of people in London. It adds insult to injury to tell the Welsh people that, because they are on lower incomes and cannot afford as luxurious houses as those in the London area, their average water bills are not too bad. In relation to the resources and their disposable income, the burden of water rate is appreciably higher in Wales. The people of Wales know that and no amount of jiggery-pokery with figures by the Welsh Office will change that reality.

This latest increase in the price of water in Wales is the straw that breaks the camel's back. We have protested before. We have written letters, tabled questions, made speeches. Nothing has happened.

That is why, earlier this month, Plaid Cymru launched a campaign of civil disobedience on this issue. I returned my water bill for next year—a bill of £267 which is likely to be higher than my electricity bill for the year—to the Welsh Water Authority telling it that I have no intention of paying it until a more reasonable level of water charges is put before the people of Wales. Hundreds of people, to my knowledge, have subsequently joined the campaign. Whole villages have given their support. Community councils have urged the people of their area to withhold their bills. I have had letters of support from the old and the young, from the unemployed and from business men, from Gwent and from Gwynedd. A redundant steelworker from Newport, whose water bill for next year is £139, wrote me as follows: It is to be hoped that more and more people will withhold payment of these water rates because I am sure that a massive response throughout Wales is the only way to get results. Almost all the residents of the private estate on which he lives have signed a declaration that they intend to withhold their water rate payment.

The Wales Council for the Disabled has also written: These increases can only serve to further erode the very low income of many disabled people in Wales … Disabled people in Wales will share your concern and support your campaign to introduce a more equitable system of charges for water rates in the future.

I draw to the Minister's attention the case of a disabled lady pensioner, over 90 years old, paying £57 a year water rates—more than £1 per week. She wrote as follows: It really is too bad at my age, over 90 years, to charge that ridiculous amount when I use very little water. First of all I am disabled and unable to go into a bath so the nurse gives me a blanket bath once a week and I have a 'face and hand wash' daily. The chain in the toilet is pulled once a day when the commode is emptied. I don't apply for supplementary benefit. I try and manage on my retirement pension.

I draw the Minister's attention also to a constituent of mine living at Cae Bold, Caenarvon. She lives by herself in a one-bedroom flat and is dependent on her pension. She has just received a water bill for £127.62. I know That I can quote in Welsh from a letter from a constituent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall do so. My constituent writes: Rwyf mewn helbul garw yn trio byw yn y flat yma ac wedi cael bil dwr am £127.62. Mae'n amhosibl i mi ei dalu. Gyrrais y bil dwr i'r Social Security pan gefais ef bythefnos yn ol, and ei yrru'n ol a wnaethant a dim dimau ar ei gyfer … £19 yr wythnos sydd gennyf ar ol talu rhent a thrydan. Does gennyfbron ddim i brynu bwyd; mae'n wir ddifrifol arnaf. Nid wyf yn gwybod beth wnaf efo'r bil dwr yma.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order.

Mr. Wigley

I was quoting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have come to the end of my quotation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman should give us the English interpretation.

Mr. Wigley

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the risk of continuing a little longer, I shall do so. I realise that there is a little more time than usual for this debate. My constituent wrote as follows: I am in considerable difficulties trying to live in this flat and having received a water bill for £127.62. It is impossible for me to pay it. I sent the bill to the social security office when I received it a fortnight ago but they sent it back and contributed not a halfpenny towards it … £19 a week is all I have after paying my rent and electricity charges. I have hardly enough to buy food. It is truly difficult for me. I do know what I can do with this water bill.

That case sums up the iniquity of the present system in which no rate rebates can paid for water rates and in which the charges are now out of people's reach. It highlights an aspect of the problem that is of general application, not just in Wales—the fact that, whereas a pensioner or disabled person, or a person on very low income, can obtain a rebate on his general rates, no rebate whatsoever is payable on his water rate. As a result, we have the ridiculous position of a widowed pensioner living by herself paying the same water rates as the house next door where there may be four or five persons earning substantial wages. The manifest unfairness of this has been pointed out time after time, but nothing has been done about it. This Government, like their Labour predecessors, have ignored this scandalous travesty of justice.

I have worked out the cost of water to a single pensioner living by himself or herself, assuming a water bill of £100 a year. It has been calculated that a person, on average, uses about 30 gallons of water a day—a figure which was quoted by the last Government. About 11 gallons are used for washing and bathing, and about 11 gallons for toilet purposes. The total annual usage for such a person is therefore about 10,000 gallons, which means that the widow or widower, after allowing for sewerage charges, is still paying in excess of £5 per 1,000 gallons for the water consumed. This compares with £1 per 1,000 gallons for metered industrial consumers, and only 4.3p per 1,000 gallons paid by the Severn-Trent water authority for the water that it takes from Wales. In other words, the widow pays 100 times more for the water that she uses than the Severn-Trent authority pays. And I cannot for the life of me see how this falls within the spirit or the letter of section 30 of the Water Act 1973.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts)

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the charges paid by commercial users, has he reckoned with the standing charge in calculating those figures? Is he not aware that the 4.3p payable by the Severn-Trent water authority is for untreated, unpiped water?

Mr. Wigley

I accept that there are standing charges. There are standing charges for more domestic and industrial users. My bill this year had an £11 standing charge, which I had to pay even if I used no water. So the standing charges hit both sides. I accept that some cost is involved in converting the water extracted by the Severn-Trent water authority to the water that comes out of the pipes. None the less, a range of 100 times the price that is paid, in my view, seems way beyond what is said in section 30(5) of the Water Act 1973, namely, it shall be the duty of every water authority to take such steps as will ensure that, as from a date not later than 1st April 1981, their charges are such as not to show undue preference to, or discriminate unduly against, any class of persons". I contend that there is discrimination here, and it works particularly hard against pensioners and single people living by themselves on low incomes.

I quoted the case of a 90-year-old lady from Biwmaris in Anglesey. It is hardly surprising that she is up in arms about the water bill. In 1973–74, the unadjusted water rate in Anglesey was 3.4p in the pound. The figure for 1982–83, excluding fixed charges, is 28p in the pound—an increase of over 800 per cent. in less than a decade. The Minister may well look sheepish as he prepares to defend the indefensible.

Another equally ridiculous example that has come to my attention is of a shop in Caernarvon, which has to pay £800 per year in water rates. Its only use of water is for a toilet used four or five times a day, and for a wash basin. The burden of water rates on small businesses such as this is absolutely crippling and totally unfair. The Government had promised an alleviation of the water rates on small businesses. What is happening in Wales in terms of water rates is the exact opposite.

This is not a new problem. In 1975, the Daniel Committee, which had been set up in response to strong feelings about high water charges in Wales, recommended: Early action should be taken to reduce the difference in average water charges between the Welsh National Water Development Authority and other authorities. To this end, the Daniel report called for legislation to be introduced as soon as possible, either to allow the commercial pricing of water taken from Wales for use elsewhere, or to operate a levy and subsidy system that would limit price fluctuations to plus or minus 10 per cent. at most. As an interim measure, Daniel recommended an Exchequer subsidy. In practice, this report led to the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1976, which, although it brought only limited benefit to Wales with some £3 million per annum, succeeded in achieving none of the recommendations of the Daniel report.

That brings me to another aspect of the problem—the performance of the Welsh water authority over the past decade since it came into existence. The present structure of the water industry was set up by the Conservative Government of 1970–74. It was a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), who was in charge when the Welsh water authority set its first budget. I visited Brecon at that time, early in 1974. I have no doubt whatsoever that some fundamental mistakes were made in the way in which that first budget was put together, and that we have been living with the consequences of those mistakes ever since. Quite frankly, the first chairman of the authority and the former Secretary of State for Wales must carry a lot of the responsibility for the way in which the new water authority sets its spending patterns. The present Secretary of State for Wales complains about waste and inefficiency. If there is such waste—and no doubt examples can be quoted—it must be rooted out. However, the buck must rest largely on the desk of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors and himself, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South, for the way in which the whole show got off on the wrong foot. We may also well ask why it has taken three years for the Government to act on the matter.

There are many people in Wales who feel that the way in which the Secretary of State has tried to put the blame for the water charges on to members of the water authority is extremely distasteful. The responsibility for ongoing inefficiency must ultimately rest with the Secretary of State. It is to him, not to any democratically elected body, that the water authority is answerable, and he must carry the can for its failings. Having said that, the proportion of the water charge which can be explained by such inefficiencies is probably no more than 3 or 4 per cent. and falls a long way short of explaining the high water charges in Wales.

I should also like to say how regrettable it is for the Secretary of State to imply, as he has done recently, and as has been interpreted by the press, that there is any question as to the effectiveness of the water authority's retiring chairman, Dr. Haydn Rees. I have little doubt that Dr. Rees has done as good a job as was possible, given the structure that he inherited from his predecessor, and that he had to work within constraints where there was no leadership whatsoever from the Welsh Office on vital policy matters.

I only hope that the new chairman, Mr. John Elfed Jones, will get more positive support from the Welsh Office in his daunting task. His appointment is one that we welcome and we wish him well. However, he will be powerless unless the Welsh Office ensures that there is proper agreement with the Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority in respect of charges. It is our belief, however, that the Welsh water authority will not be properly answerable until it becomes a democratically elected body that is responsible to the Welsh public. At present, the water ratepayers do not know to whom to turn with their problem, since neither district nor county councils have direct responsibility and since very often the public have no idea as to who are the nominated authority members within their areas. It is truly a position of taxation without representation, and the Welsh water ratepayers are in the same mood today as was seen at the Boston tea party 200 years ago. The new structure of the Welsh water authority that is due to come into force next week is no answer to the problem and, if authority meetings in future are to be in secret behind locked doors, the problem will worsen rather than improve.

The result of the 1973 bureaucratic reorganisation in Wales, with no democratic accountability, is in stark contrast to the position in Scotland, which was not covered by the 1973 Act. The reorganisation in Scotland was the reverse of the England and Wales pattern, with local authorities being given full powers in relation to water supply, sewerage and drainage.

The result has been far better control over the cost of water in Scotland, and the charge in terms of rate poundage range between 7p in the pound in Fife to 15p in the Highlands area. This compares with the charge of over 30p in the pound in Wales. That puts paid to the hoary old argument that the scattered, depopulated nature of Wales is the cause of higher charges. In fact, the average charge per household in Scotland is £23, compared to £67 in Wales.

I understand that part of the reason that the water charges and sewerage charges are lower in Scotland than in Wales is that in Scotland they still attract rate support grant, whereas in Wales they do not. That is a blatant unfairness and discrimination against Wales, and in effect the Welsh taxpayer is paying a subsidy towards Scottish water rates as well as bearing the full cost of his own water rates. I expect the Minister to say quite clearly why that discrepancy between Wales and Scotland has been allowed to persist.

This local authority-based democratic control also gives a structure for integrated planning and resource management, and gives the Scottish people direct representation in the authorities which manage their water. There are many lessons for Wales from Scotland, and Plaid Cymru would like to see the Scottish model of accountability introduced in Wales.

The Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority have been allowed to run rings around the Welsh water authority during recent years. An example of the contempt in which they hold the Welsh water authority is the fiasco relating to the water installations located in the Welsh water authority area. In 1974 the Welsh water authority came in for criticism because capital works in Wales were to be leased to Severn-Trent for a peppercorn rent of 5p per annum. That agreement was never concluded, and attempts to secure a better agreement have foundered. For eight years, no rent has been paid by Severn-Trent to the Welsh water authority. In the words of Mr. Ted Meredith, finance director of the Welsh water authority: For one reason or another, an agreement has never been settled. Where on earth has the Welsh Office been in relation to this dispute for the past eight years? Presumably it preferred an easy life to confronting the Department of the Environment in order to force the issue.

That leads to the similar lack of urgency shown by the Welsh Office during the recent months on the question of making additional charges on Severn-Trent and the North-West England authorities for water that they get from Wales.

Last year, during the passage of the Water Bill, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), made it clear that the Welsh water authority does have the power to make additional charges to authorities that get their water from Wales. I refer him to the debate on 19 February 1981, cols 469–471, and to columns 469 to 471 of the Official Report. In the light of that clarification of its powers, the Welsh water authority made proposals on 3 August 1981 to Severn-Trent for a new and higher scale of payments for the water that it gets from Wales. On 25 September, Severn-Trent notified the Welsh water authority of its refusal to pay the new charges. On 9 October, the North-West similarly refused to pay higher charges. On 15 October, the Welsh water authority formally asked the Welsh Office to use its powers under the schedules in the Water Act 1973 to resolve the difficulty. The Welsh Office made no response until 16 February 1982—the day after I raised the issue at Welsh Question Time—and then the Welsh Office merely asked for more details rather than giving a decision on the dispute. The Welsh water authority gave the required information on 16 March. There has still not been a decision and one is unlikely, apparently, before May. As a result, next year's water charges have had to be based on the assumption that no further payment will be made by Severn-Trent.

I must ask the Under-Secretary of State why it took four months for the Welsh Office to ask relevant questions of Severn-Trent and the Welsh water authority. Since the Water Act has been on the statute book for nine years, why on earth has no procedure to deal with such a dispute been drawn up? I put it to the Minister that his Department's culpable negligence on this matter has cost the Welsh water ratepayer millions of pounds for the coming year.

I shall now say a few words about the principle of charging for water which Plaid Cymru advocates as an answer to the problem currently facing the Welsh water ratepayer. It would appear that there are four courses open to the Government. The first is that nothing is done, and that we in Wales continue to suffer substantially higher charges. That course is just not acceptable, and if the Government try to sit it out there will be an escalating rate strike in Wales which will reduce the finances of the water authority to chaos.

The second course of action is that there should be a direct Government subsidy to reduce charges in Wales. Successive Governments have come out against that, and the Daniel report foresaw it as only an interim and short-term course of action pending a more acceptable long-term solution. If this Government are concerned with establishing a system which minimises waste and inefficiency, the introduction of a subsidy may not appeal to them, at least on anything more than a short-term basis.

The third course would entail full equalisation of charges so that there is one uniform charge for the whole of Britain. That clearly would be advantageous to Welsh water ratepayers, but when the Labour Government considered that in 1975–76 they shied off from following that course because of the reaction in other parts of England. The partial equalisation that was introduced in 1976 barely went a quarter of the way towards equalisation. Furthermore, the present Government have made it quite clear that they are out of sympathy with that proposal, and regard it as unacceptable if there is to be a drive towards a more efficient water industry. While we in Plaid Cymru can see that within the present political structures, it offers greater fair play than the status quo, it does not offer Wales the opportunity to get proper recompense for the development of our own natural resources, nor does it give any challenge to the Welsh water authority to improve its performance.

That leaves the fourth option—which we advocate—that the Welsh water authority should be entitled to sell water piped or abstracted from rivers controlled by reservoirs in Wales. We regard this as a reasonable proposal, so that Wales gets some recompense for the land that has been lost in providing the reservoirs, and for suffering the rainfall which fills them. Water is a valuable raw material. The fact that it is a replenishable commodity, as opposed to a depleting one, in no way weakens that argument. Hydro-electricity is a replenishing commodity—but no one would expect a country to give it away free of charge.

On this matter I believe that I am knocking on an open door, since the Under-Secretary of State indicated as long ago as 1977 that he favoured the solution. If I can refresh his memory, he said in the Standing Committee on the Water Charges Equalisation Bill on 24 February: What I propose in the amendments is that there should be a more commercial pricing of water transfers…I suggest that the price should be enough to ensure that the average price of water to Welsh consumers is no different from the average price of water to consumers in Severn-Trent and the North-West. He added that water is a scarce resource. Why should the areas that have it in abundance, and have very little else in abundance…not regard water as a saleable commodity."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24 February 1977; c. 393–5.] I could hardly have put the argument better myself. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind over the last five years. Certainly the experience of Wales, now that equalisation has been abandoned, shrieks out for some new system.

We, in Plaid Cymru, propose that a charge of 25 pence per 1,000 gallons be made on all the water that is obtained from Wales. For that purpose, we would want the Welsh water authority to have its boundaries redrawn so as to be coterminous with Wales—to include Montgomeryshire and not Herefordshire. Such a charge, applied to all water supplies, whether piped or abstracted, would give the Welsh water authority an extra income of some £40 million a year. We propose that half of that should he used to reduce the water charges, giving an effective reduction of 20 per cent. in Welsh water rates. We would propose that the other £20 million be used to increase investment in the Welsh economy, not least in improving water supplies and modern sewerage systems—work which could provide employment for an extra 2,000 people from among the legion of unemployed in Wales.

Our proposals are not unrealistic. On the present year's figures, the domestic rate in Wales would be immediately reduced from an average of £67 per household a year to £56, while the effect on Severn-Trent would be an increase from £57 to £64. For the North-West, it would mean an increase from £54 to £57. That is virtually in line with what the hon. Member for Conway proposed in 1977. There would be similar changes in the metered charges.

We therefore urge that this course of action be taken by the Welsh Office and that it insist that Severn-Trent and the North-West meet these reasonable demands. I realise that it would be difficult to bill them in time to be effective for the year 1982–83, and therefore, in view of the fact that it is the Welsh Office's delay that has made this impossible, we propose a once-off grant of £20 million to the Welsh water authority for the coming year in order to facilitate an immediate reduction of water rates in Wales.

Water is a vital raw material—an economic resource without which life cannot go on. It is a resource which we have in relative abundance in Wales. We suffer the higher rainfall on our mountains and many of our valleys have been dammed to provide reservoirs for the conurbations of the Midlands and North-West England. In some instances, whole villages have been uprooted to allow reservoirs to be built for English cities. The experience of Capel Celyn in Merioneth, 20 years ago, typifies the exploitation that took place. The people of that village did not want their valley doomed or drowned. The 36 Welsh MPs—for once—stood together in their opposition to it. But Capel Celyn was drowned despite the protestations of the whole of Wales. The voice of Wales was drowned at Westminster when the interests of the city of Liverpool were at stake.

The same thing happened with the Clywedog reservoir. My parents-in-law used to farm a beautiful corner of that valley. It is now a large, dark artificial lake, meeting the economic needs and the well-being of Birmingham. It is little wonder that Wales feels very strongly on this matter.

There is one word for what we have suffered in Wales on the water issue. That word is "exploitation". It is not the first time that Wales has suffered from the exploitation of her natural resources. The pock-marked faces of the coal mining valleys of South Wales tell the same old story. It is the people who now reside in those valleys after the coal has gone who have to cope with the residual mess—the despoliation, the industrial disease, and the environmental legacy of systematic exploitation by a system which took the wealth elsewhere. For the coal of Glamorgan, read the slate of Gwynedd. It happened because we allowed it to happen. It is exploitation that is happening today with that most vital of natural resources—water. But it will not happen any more. Either through, or despite, the machinery of government, this system of control and charging for Welsh water resources will end. Whether the Welsh Office, or its big brother, the Department of the Environment, likes it or not, there will be change. The bells that chimed beneath the water of Wales ring out a message that will be heard. The only question is when, by whom, and how much suffering must there be before this change is achieved.

My party does not believe that Westminster or any London Government have it within their capability to act against this exploitation of my country. They have neither the will nor the way. Governments in London will only concede when they are forced to it by the people of Wales. "Trech gwlad nac arglwydd". Why we have to fight every single issue, like the water saga, one at a time, time after time, beats me when we could with our own Government have a systematic control over our own natural resources and manage them in the interests of the people of Wales rather than for the financial benefit of others.

The only certain solution to our problem of water charges in Wales, as with so many of our other problems, is the achievement of an independent Welsh State whose remit is to serve the whole of the Welsh people. This Tory Government will only fiddle at the fringes of the problem of water charges in Wales, and the Government's response today as always will be mean, prevaricating, and sanctimonious. If no solution is on the table in the Minister's response—and I expect none, knowing this Government—then I call upon each and every water ratepayer in Wales to withhold his payment from now on and to continue to refuse to pay until Wales gets justice on this issue.

2.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts)

The hon. Member for Caernarvon—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.