Water Privatisation (Hansard, 22 March 1989)

§ 2. Mrs. Mahon
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities to discuss water privatisation.

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)
On Monday.

§ Mrs. Mahon
Has the Minister seen the letter sent to Members of Parliament by Gordon Jones and the chairmen of nine other water authorities? If so, does he agree that water has deteriorated under their stewardship? They have never fought for the industry, and now they are saying that it would be better off privatised. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that they have a vested interest in privatisation, and should he not ask them to resign, given that they have not looked after the industry?

§ Mr. Ridley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the excellent and impartial briefing that the water authority chairmen issued for the Report stage of the Water Bill. The fact emerges clearly from that, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, that maladministration by the Labour Government is primarily responsible for the wretched condition of some rivers, including those in her area.

§ Mr. Heddle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of their incompetent management of the economy the Labour Government drastically cut investment in the water industry and in sewage treatment? Does he agree that the better way to get cleaner rivers, better beaches and new sewers is to denationalise the industry and release it from Treasury control?

§ Mr. Ridley
I entirely agree. It is a tragedy that we are having such a problem cleaning up the legacy of Socialism, which is to be equated with pollution on every occasion.

§ Mr. Winnick
Can the Secretary of State explain why, despite the massive amount of Government propaganda and his undoubtedly brilliant persuasion, the overwhelm-ing majority of people in this country wholly reject the irrelevant, stupid nonsense of water privatisation?

§ Mr. Ridley
I am afraid it is true that the matter has been handled neither well nor accurately by the Opposition.

§ Mr. Rathbone
When my right hon. Friend met the chairmen, did he draw comparisons between the way in which the French independent water companies have raised the standards of water in their country and the sad performance of water companies and authorities in this country?

§ Mr. Ridley
It is not without interest that France—which, under its present Administration, is not loath to nationalise—has set its face against interfering with the highly successful performance of its privatised water industry.

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
When the Secretary of State met the chairmen, did he discuss spending on advertising? Does he agree that it is wrong for the chairmen of publicly owned water authorities to refuse to say how much public money has been spent on selling the Government's privatisation policies? Do not the paying public have a right to know? Or does the Secretary of State think that, in anticipation, of privatisation the appointees concerned should stop behaving like public servants and start behaving like the Government's political lackeys?

§ Mr. Ridley
No, I do not agree. The water industry has every right to publicise its achievements and its wares and to make clear to the House what it believes to be the best way of achieving the increase in standards and efficiency that the country wants. It is strange that the hon. Lady should whinge and twinge because a publicly owned industry does not agree with her very foolish policies.