ARRANGEMENTS BY WATER AUTHORITIES FOR REPRESENTATION OF CONSUMERS' INTERESTS (Hansard, 4 May 1983)

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any guidelines that he issues under new section 24A of the Water Act as to the way water authorities should prepare reports on arrangements to represent consumer interests.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
This is the one amendment on which I should like to comment. The Bill is of far-reaching consequence for the structure of the water authorities and I regret that in another place so little progress was made in amending it more than was done here in Committee and on Report.
It is astonishing that from a Conservative Government we should have a Bill that is so fundamental in its change, and which removes all the traditional rights of local government over the control of water authorities. This is a puny amendment, but it is the only one of any substance on which we can comment.
The Minister has at least acceded to some of our other requests, for which I thank him, but I speak now about the real nature of the change in the powers of the water authorities. The Bill is a direct consequence of the tremendous clamour throughout the country that the Government would reduce water charges. It will do nothing of the sort. It is part of the confidence trick played on the nation at the last general election, and it is to be put on the statute book, possibly in the dying days of this Parliament, to prove that something has been done about that wholesale complaint. The Bill will not reduce water charges by a penny, and no one can claim that it will.
It removes all local authority representation as of right. I know that there will be some local authority members, which we welcome, but they will be chosen by the Minister. The Opposition believe that if we are to have local elections—we are having them this very day—we should at least pay more than lip service to local democracy. When the electors choose their Councillors, their representatives should as of right have a place on these regional water authorities.
Added to that, for the first time in the history of the water industry, there will be no press access as of right to any meeting of the regional water authorities. The other place is full of press barons, but although they all complained about the removal of the press when the matter was discussed in this House, not one thought it right to preserve the right of the press to attend these meetings. That is an astonishing lapse. With the exception of Lord Ardwick, the press barons did very little about this.
There is to be no public access as of right to these committees, because the water authorities are now to be given a managerial function instead of the public operation that existed previously. In addition, there will be no consumer representation as of right.
371 Although the Secretary of State will now lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the guidelines to be issued to each regional water authority, that does not take us very far. We still do not know how many consumer councils will be established in each regional water authority area. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is not here today, said in Committee that the divisional consultative committees must have the chance to question and criticise. When asked about the guidelines, the hon. Gentleman said: we are still consulting about the guidelines, and it would be premature for me to announce a result" .—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1982; c. 261.] Five months later, we still do not know the results of the consultation, although I acknowledge that the Government have at least taken power to tell us some time in the future. That is half a step forward.
I am disappointed that the consumer councils, inadequate as they are, will have no right to nominate members of the regional water authority and no right to choose their own chairmen. The chairmen will be appointed by the very regional authorities which the consumer councils may wish to criticise. That is not satisfactory.
We do not oppose the Lords amendment. It goes a short way down the road that we wish to travel, and we shall have the right to return to the matter when the guidelines are presented to the House. However, it is a sad business for local government democracy and for the water industry.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
The amendment ameliorates the terrible damage that the Bill will do to every citizen's interests in the water industry. The extent of the amelioration is still unknown, because we shall not know what the guidelines contain until they are placed before the House. I shall outline some of the hurdles that the guidelines will have to clear. They are more formidable than even the Under-Secretary realises.
Millions of people will be going to the polls today and, for the first time in our history, the local elections will not be the means of accountability of those who provide the water supply. Water companies remain, but the great municipal water undertakings of London — the Metropolitan water board — Manchester and Birmingham, built up by local authority and municipal enterprise, had a structure of accountablity to local citizens. The Conservative Government, who claim to be the champions of individual liberty, have snatched that accountability away from the people, and every Conservative Member must admit that to the electors.
The Under-Secretary may be able to tell us what the guidelines might contain. They could contain a requirement on water authorities to consider local authority representation on the consumer bodies. The councils will be virtually toothless. They will be appointed by the regional water authorities, which will even appoint the councils' chairmen. Surely local authorities should have an input. If the water authorities do not provide for that of their own volition—clause 7 is very weak—the guidelines should suggest that they do so and, if necessary, the Government should require them to do so.
On Report, we debated not only the important services of water supply and sewage disposal but the interests of 372 conservation, recreation and navigation. Although my amendments, which I had hoped would produce a comprehensive structure of consultation, were not accepted by the Government on that occasion, they have at least admitted that some aspects of the parent Act in respect of conservation functions must be covered by the consultative committees, but they will have a big remit. Even with the guidelines, the Severn-Trent consultative committee will have a vast area and many functions with which to deal. Therefore, the guidelines must be exact. They must set a high standard.
2 am
I give an example with which the guidelines should deal. It is almost a moral parable of the problems that will be encountered. The river Thames is the best managed river in Britain—perhaps in the world. For 200 years its authority has been in the hands of local people. At one stage every riparian Member of Parliament was a member of the old Thames Commissioners which preceded the Thames Conservancy. A few months hence that will disappear for the first time in 200 years to be replaced by a Whitehall-appointed board.
One of the features of the river Thames and the statutory undertakings required of it is a minimum flow over Teddington weir. It was reported to me recently that the Thames water authority has had it in mind to apply to the Government to have that statutory obligation taken off its shoulders. I made inquiries of the chief executive of the Thames water authority, and indeed that turned out to be so. I inquired of him what the Thames water authority would do about replacing the current statutory requirements. That has happened while it still has—notionally at least—an elected authority.
In a couple of letters the chief executive of that authority, Mr. Fish, declined to say what quantitative system his authority was proposing to replace — a quantitative limit laid down by the House. If a functionary of the Thames water authority, before it becomes a wholly appointed subsidiary of Whitehall, refuses a Member of Parliament a quantitative description of something that it is proposed to replace, what will happen in future?
I shall not make uncomplimentary remarks about that gentleman, whom I have met and with whom I have discussed matters, but I pose the question: if there is such arrogance already, what will the new consultative bodies be up against? I leave that to the Minister's imagination.
I went further and asked the chief executive for figures, which he declined to give me. Instead, he sent me a consultative paper, from which I can now quote, about what the Thames water authority did from last July in consulting the groups concerned. It was stated to the then elected members: Clearly, it would be impractical to give the individual views of each organisation consulted and therefore an attempt has been made to summarise the responses received. As might have been expected, the views expressed ranged from quietly acquiscent to mildly hostile. However, it would be fair to say that whilst a number of organisations, particularly those with navigational interests, had some misgivings, no insuperable technical difficulties were identified. It then gives one or two matters that required consultation, and goes on to say: However, in many instances the assurance of more refined control procedures based on integrated river management, overcame a large number of the perceived problems. Hon. Members will be aware of such managerialese. Not a single figure was quoted to the people who were 373 protesting. I do not know whether this was a description of their misgivings, whether the problems were perceived or real, or whether, in many instances, the "refined control procedures" met the perceived problems. It does not say "in all instances", or speak of the instances where the perceived problems were not met.
I have gone into this subject at some length because the river Thames has some of the best-known, best-managed, strongest navigational, recreational, conservationist and fishing lobbies in Britain, and the water authority likes to think of itself as the leading water authority not only in Britain but in the world. It boasts about how good it is in all these matters, but its attitude is what the consumer bodies are up against. These bodies must be effective.
The Government's reputation in this respect will not loom large in any coming contest, but the reputation of some Ministers will depend on how effective these consumer organisations are. Their effectiveness will depend almost entirely on the nature of the guidelines that the Secretary of State has yet to lay before the House. The Under-Secretary had better have a close look at the guidelines. They had better be well drafted, and come down heavily on the side of the consumer and user of water services, including water-space, conservational, recreational and navigational interests. Those bodies will meet much bureaucracy, as I have illustrated by the moral example or parable of Teddington weir.
In this respect water saving is important. Many of the things that the Thames water authority wishes to do could be achieved by better saving than by what it is doing. We all know of the devices that are on the market. The Plumbing journal of spring 1983 contains advertisements for water-saving devices that might solve its problems.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to a written question of mine. He said that any request from the Thames water authority for such a reduction, diminution or removal of the statutory minimum flow would be the subject of a public local inquiry if there were objections."—[Official Report, 3 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 28.] That is where the structure of public inquiries comes in. There could be many places in other parts of the country where statutory controls would not exist, and the water authorities cold ride rough-shod over any representations made by the consumer bodies. Therefore, the guidelines must be good.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
By leave of the House, I shall comment on the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have made. I fully recognise the importance of the guidelines. The amendment would endorse the proposition that was carried in the other place about the publication of the guide Lines, which will happen. The guidelines were laid in the House on 22 November 1982, and there have been a number of significant changes to them in Committee, as hon. Members will be aware, and since then, in discussions in the other place. It is because of that that we seek a further period of consultation.
I remind the House of the significant changes that have been made. First, the meetings of the committees shall be open to the press and public. Secondly, the committee chairmen shall be selected by the committees themselves, and not by the water authorities, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath suggested. Thirdly, where the committee does not appoint a member who happens to be a member of a water authority, arrangements will be needed for the water authority to be formally represented at the committees' meetings.
Fourthly, water authorities shall appoint to the committees the nominees of the local authorities That means that they are required to do so unless there are outstanding reasons for not doing so. Fifthly, there should be separate arrangements, as I announced in the House previously, to appoint a committee at the regional level to bring together the representatives of the water authority and the sporting, recreational, amenity and conservation interests in the area. Lastly, existing arrangements for liaison on conservation matters must continue.
Those are significant changes to the guidelines. They underline the importance that we attach to these committees, to provide them with the type of locus that the hon. Member for Newham, South wanted. I assure him that revised guidelines will be placed before the House very shortly, with a short period of consultation, and that when they are finalised they too, if the amendment is accepted, will be placed before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 23 agreed to.