§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
7.23 pm§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting my subject of Hampshire's rivers for the Adjournment debate this evening.
The "compleat angler" can fish all the year round; for someone, somewhere, fish are always in season. But on the chalk streams of Hampshire, it is the coming of mid-May and the hatching of the mayfly that herald the halcyon days ahead. So May is a most appropriate month in which to debate this subject.
Of all the chalk rivers in Hampshire, and probably in the south of England, the Test has long been queen. I am fortunate in having in my constituency its lower reaches, where the salmon join—or perhaps I should say used to join—the trout. Upstream is Stockbridge, the capital of chalk stream dry-fly fishing, mecca for fishermen and headquarters of the famous Houghton club. It should all be a scene of tranquillity, beauty and fishermen's yarns. Instead, the Houghton club is at present ahum with tales that would make Frederick Halford, the father of dry fly fishing, turn in his grave.
One hundred years ago, Halford published his "Dry-fly Fishing in Theory and Practice", in which he said:
Of all circumstances most usually credited with exercising an influence over an angler's sport, the state of the weather is the predominant one.We certainly have to thank the weather for having brought to a head the problems and anxieties that have been besetting Hampshire's rivers and fishermen for the last few years. Three unusually dry years, 1988–90, and in particular the March to December period in 1990, which may have been unequalled for dryness since 1921, have literally caused rivers to disappear.Of the many rivers in Hampshire, it is the chalk streams, the Test, lichen and Meon, that most vividly illustrate the problems. The Meon in east Hampshire and the Wallop brook and Bourne rivulet, both feeding the River Test, have been suffering from abnormally low flows, because too much water is being taken from boreholes situated in their valleys. Unless something is done urgently to improve water flows, the term "dry fly fishing" may soon take on a whole new meaning.
The Water Act 1989 established the National Rivers Authority and gave it powers to conserve, redistribute or otherwise augment water resources and secure their proper use. The NRA replaced the regional water authorities set up in 1974, which were both judge and jury over the management—or perhaps one should say, mismanagement—of our water resources. The NRA could not have come into being at a more important time, and it responded quickly to the challenges awaiting it on 1 September 1989 when it assumed authority over our rivers.
Far from having the NRA chairman, Lord Crickhowell, in the stocks at Stockbridge for failing to act, I have to admit that we in the Test valley are now applauding him and the NRA for what they are doing, in co-operation with Southern Water, to remedy the situation that faces us.
Last October, the NRA held a forum for interested groups to discuss all aspects of river management. Then, 886 last month, it organised a well attended seminar on its scientific research into the dramatic fall in salmon catches. More NRA research is in hand with the Institute of Freshwater Ecology to see what can be done to stop salmon redds, or spawning grounds, silting up. Last week, another seminar was organised jointly by the British Field Sports Society, of which I am the vice-chairman, and the Salmon and Trout Association.
One can spend a lifetime studying statistics, borehole readings, chemical analyses, flow charts and river reports and still not understand a river as well as its keepers or managers, who for centuries have been conserving these national assets.
The fishing rod is not, as Dr. Samuel Johnson suggested, a stick with a hook on one end and a fool on the other. Fishermen and riparian owners perform a key role in ensuring that river management is at a high standard and flows are maintained. Lord Crickhowell has said that the fisheries are one of the best measures of the health of a river.
Concern over our rivers has also been demonstrated by local residents who have nothing to do with fishing. Last year, the Test valley branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am proud to be the founder president, invited the NRA to come and speak on the subject of our disappearing rivers, and there was a record attendance.
It is only comparatively recently that increased per capita consumption and, to a lesser extent, population growth have forced engineers to take more water from the chalk, initially without detriment to the ecology; and we are now seeing the first signs that, although rivers are not yet over-abstracted, we may be taking too much water from the wrong places.
When the NRA grants an abstraction licence, it considers whether the water taken will ultimately be removed from the river system and consumed, or will be recycled. Some uses, such as spray irrigation, evaporative cooling or bottling water, are totally consumptive; the water just goes. In the case of inland public water supply, 80 per cent. of the water is returned to the water environment via sewage farms, septic tanks and the like. In coastal areas, waste water goes straight out to sea.
The NRA has made it clear to all abstractors in Hampshire that it will not permit new public water supply or summer consumptive abstraction from the Hampshire chalk. There are no plans at present to revoke existing licences. The NRA usually insists that spray irrigation can be permitted only if the operator can provide a storage reservoir that is filled during the winter heavy rain season. Agriculture is rarely a threat to consumption, because most water is returned via soakaways or controlled discharges to watercourses. The finger of accusation, however, is being pointed at intensive farming near rivers. The banks of Hampshire's rivers used to be bounded by water meadows that acted as a filter. Most of the land is now ploughed to the water's edge. I have even seen some meadows where maize is grown year after year. The intensive use of nitrogen results in more river weed, which further reduces flows and results in rivers silting up. Heavy nitrogen use away from rivers also causes lush growth and thus greater evaporation of water.
The NRA is researching the agricultural problems as part of an appraisal of land use practices in the catchment areas. However, in the meantime, the Government should reconsider the regime for grant aid to farmers in 887 environmentally sensitive areas, such as the mid-Test. The grants are not adequate to compensate farmers—who are already reeling under other economic pressures—for reducing their agricultural output and thus protecting their water environment.
What is being done to protect Hampshire's rivers? There is a growing public realisation that water is a scarce and precious resource, which should be used wisely in drought years. There is now demand management, and licence monitoring is the rule rather than the exception. We need better leakage control. Some 25 per cent. of water is lost through leaks. We need a charging policy that encourages wise use of water. The CPRE wants national metering of water to be introduced, which could be a starter.
We should restrict development. I am pleased to note that the southern region NRA has an input into SERPLAN—the south-eastern regional plan, but is drawing the Minister's attention to the impact on our water resources of the problems caused by overdevelopment enough? Surely a veto over planning applications would be better.
The flows of rivers could be boosted by pumping water into them from correctly placed boreholes. Leaking riverbeds can be lined. Treated water can be returned to the rivers, and existing licences can be revoked. If we resorted to the last of those measures to resite boreholes, the NRA would have to compensate the water user for the high cost of developing the alternative source. Who pays? Hampshire has several boreholes that directly affect water flows. One borehole is at Broughton, on the Wallop, a tributary of the Test. One is at Totford, at the source of the Itchen, and there are others close to the Meon and to the Hamble.
Although the NRA has the necessary finance for its many investigations, a question remains over the funding of expensive remedies for confirmed problems under the existing charging or grant-in-aid arrangements. I should like confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will provide the NRA with the money required to carry out essential remedial work that involves licence revocation.
Some costs cannot be borne by the NRA, such as the provision of reservoirs. A reservoir is planned by Southern Water at Totton in my constituency, where the waterworks have supplied most of the additional consumption in the area in recent years. New reservoirs at Totton, which is an ideal place, could store winter river water just before it reaches the sea, but would have no effect on upstream flows or fishing. I hope that the reservoirs will receive planning approval from New Forest district council and from Test Valley borough council. The reservoirs would provide a supplement and would mean that Southern Water would not have to take more water from the river as summer peak demand grows. They would also provide a reserve if pollution occurred in the lower reaches of the Test or in the Solent. I should like the NRA to carry out a study for a national water grid. There may be many problems to overcome, not least finance, and it may be a non-starter for that reason, but it should be investigated.
I have described some of the actions being taken. There are others that, in my view, and in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, who, I hope, will join in the debate and through whose 888 constituency the river Test flows, need to be carried out to preserve one of England's most priceless natural resources in the same way, as Lord Crickhowell has said, as
a great work of art or musicmust be maintained.I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. My constituents very much welcomed the visit today to Romsey of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who answered many questions from my constituents about the Test. I have left it to my hon. Friend to answer my questions this evening. I look forward very much to his answers to my questions, which have as much to do with Mrs. Colvin's washing machine as with trying to catch a trout on a day's fishing. I hope that someone will offer Mr. Speaker such a trout in return for his selecting my subject for this evening's debate.
§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a debate on a Hampshire matter. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. Like him, I am an interested angler. I am on the councils of the Salmon and Trout Association and of the Anglers Co-operative Association. I am also the chairman of the fisheries committee of the British Field Sports Society. I must declare all those interests, although I am angler first and foremost. Above all, I want rivers to be in a fit condition for fish to live in them and for anglers to fish in them. The sad fact is that, in far too many rivers in Hampshire and elsewhere, those conditions are no longer met. The threat to water levels and to water resources seems to many of us to be getting steadily worse.
I know that many dedicated anglers on the Test and on the Itchen can no longer bring themselves to go fishing because they believe that those rivers are dead. They are full of rainbow trout rather than native brown trout, their levels are low and the amount of weed in the rivers is seriously down. They are not the chalk streams which our fathers and grandfathers knew, and which some of us also knew. The opportunity to dwell on some of the reasons for that change is welcome.
It would be wrong if I left the House with the impression that we are discussing a purely Hampshire problem. From my experience and that of many friends, I know that there are problems with rivers in Berkshire, such as the Pang, with rivers in Kent, such as the Darent and the Stour, with chalk streams in East Anglia and with the West beck in Yorkshire, which is a famous chalk stream where a famous fishing club has been established for many years. There simply is not enough water for fish to live in those rivers. That state of affairs is no credit to the water industry.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside in his tribute to the work of the National Rivers Authority. I know how close an interest the chairman of that authority, Lord Crickhowell, takes in the problem. It was the theme of an effective inaugural lecture that he gave at Fishmongers hall last year, which was well received by everyone who is interested in this important subject.
The NRA and other defenders of our rivers need more help. Some of that assistance must come from the Government in legislative or financial form. There was welcome news in today's newspapers that there is to be a programme to line the beds of 20 chalk streams to prevent 889 water loss through leakage, although the cost is pretty intimidating. However, the Government can still do more to limit the unnecessary loss of water from our rivers.
An analysis of the figures shows that in Hampshire and elsewhere the total theoretical take-up of the abstraction licences that have already been granted in some cases exceeds the flow of all the rivers in an area. A terrifying quantity could, in theory, be extracted from rivers and boreholes. If that ever happens, we shall have lost the battle entirely. We must study the need to revoke abstraction licences not just for farming, but for other purposes as well.
There is still scope for stricter controls on planning permission relating to the amount of water available in the area concerned. I would like to see regulations if such controls cannot be embodied in the Planning and Compensation Bill currently before the House. There is room in secondary legislation for a stipulation that the NRA must always be consulted by a planning authority which has a major development application before it, whether that be residential or industrial. If the NRA believes that adequate water resources are not likely to be available for that development, that should constitute a veto. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that. He may argue that the NRA does not yet have the technical resources to make such judgments. That may be a convincing argument, but it does not mean that the NRA should not be encouraged to develop those resources and, as soon as it gets its act together, it should have the power to exercise such controls over the increased use of water resources.
I also enter a note of caution about water recycling. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside accurately described the damaging effects of spray irrigation. None of the water sprayed on a field ever returns to a river from which it is abstracted. As I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier today, more attention should be paid to encouraging farmers to impound excess winter rainfall and use that as a source of summer spray irrigation instead of simply pumping the water out of rivers. That practice is all too commonplace in Hampshire and in Devon and there are well-documented examples of rivers being depleted in that way.
Too much reliance is placed on the argument that water abstraction from the bottom of a river can be recycled by being pumped to the top, used and then returned to the river and we must still recognise that that will not be the same natural water as would have entered the river if the boreholes, springs and other sources upon which it had always relied had remained unimpaired. There is a danger in the clever device of recycling water from the bottom of a river to the top which must be explored.
I hope that I have not pressed my point too much in the time available. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) is aware that this is a most important subject and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside for raising the matter this evening. I look forward to a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
§ Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on raising this important subject for debate. He expressed considerable concern about the River Test, which is important to his constituency. However, as he rightly said, it flows through my constituency first and several of its subsidiaries, such as the Dever and Wallop brook, are important to the environment in my constituency. I saw Wallop brook at Broughton at the weekend and I can confirm—I confirmed it again today by telephone—that it is now at full flood and nearly level with the top of the bank. That is highly satisfactory. However, that apparently highly satisfactory situation conceals the real concern that the aquifers underneath are getting lower year by year.
Last year Wallop brook at Broughton ran dry for the second year running. It has not run dry for two successive years since at least 1921. Although the water level above Broughton was severely constrained which resulted in a good deal of misfortune, the river dried out entirely below Broughton. That was clearly associated with the pumping from the aquifers at Broughton.
The problem is that the water company is pumping within the terms of its licence. It is not even pumping at the maximum amount that the licence permits it to draw from the borehole at Broughton. The water company should draw less water from Broughton and make up the amount by drawing water further down at Horsebridge where it can almost certainly take more water without causing the rivers to dry up.
Who will pay Southern Water to pump more expensive water from that pumping station than from Broughton? There may even be a strong case for laying additional pipelines or reopening disused pipelines between Horsebridge and Broughton to pump water back up to the Broughton source.
It is clear that in many cases licences were granted many years ago—sometimes before the war—and in wholly different circumstances for a given level of abstraction. Abstracting at those levels in current circumstances, with our lower aquifers, produces results different from those expected when the original licences were granted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the pertinent matters of whether we can revoke or partially revoke licences, who will compensate water companies and where those resources will come from.
I welcome today's announcement in relation to Wallop brook of a combination of partial revocation of licence, the augmentation of river flow and river lining at a cost of £3 million. I am fascinated to know where that money will come from.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister give any news about progress in trying to reduce water loss by leakage? It is about 25 per cent. Most people are thrown back on their haunches when they learn that 25 per cent. of the water that has been abstracted and is being pumped into the water systems of our towns and villages is lost by leakage. Apart from everything else, we need much more research, investment and work in identifying leakages and stopping them much earlier than at present.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for raising the important subject of vanishing rivers. The whole House will welcome his contribution and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Their contributions have been extremely valuable. The Government appreciate their concerns, as was evidenced by the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to Hampshire only today.
The subject of vanishing rivers is, understandably, hardly far from the news at the moment. Despite some welcome rain in the south-east in the past couple of weeks, there are continuing worries about water shortages this summer. The chalk streams of Hampshire and the south are well known among anglers and there is great concern about their condition, and that concern has been well amplified this evening. In particular, and understandably, there is concern about the steady decline in salmon catches in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and other right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested a number of ways in which they believe that water levels in chalk streams can be safeguarded for the future. Before I comment on their suggestions, I hope that it may be of benefit if I say a little about the various issues that are affecting chalk streams generally and in Hampshire in particular. I hope in the process to dispel a few myths.
First, water quality is clearly an important factor in maintaining a river, and particularly in safeguarding its fisheries. The water quality of chalk streams has been, and continues to be, extremely good. The principal rivers, including the Test and Itchen, are all extensively monitored by the National Rivers Authority and are all well within class 1 of the current national river classification scheme—that is, they are of "good" quality—and with an excellent diversity and abundance of species present. The majority of their length is well within class la, the top quality class.
As for quantity, rather than quality, it is certainly the case that southern England has experienced a prolonged dry spell over the past three years, and groundwater levels are now well below normal in parts of the south-east and east. Hampshire, however, is not one of those areas worst affected.
The level of a river and the speed at which it is moving are relevant to fisheries. The long hot summer of 1989 is believed to have stimulated the growth of algae, which in turn tend to smother the weeds in a river and increase silt loadings. Those effects, combined with heavy rain the following winter, conspired to scour out much of the weed growth, so that last summer the river flowed over an almost weed-free bed, resulting in low levels, despite the flow holding up reasonably well, but a higher than normal velocity, and thus higher levels of silt.
Hampshire chalk streams do not, as a whole, suffer badly from over-abstraction. Certainly in the Test, the vast majority of abstractions from the river are non-consumptive. That is, the water is "borrowed" and returned, more or less directly, back to the river. Only 2 per cent. of the average flow is consumed after abstraction. Despite some short-term fluctuations, there does not 892 appear to be any long-term trend of increase in either licensed or actual volumes abstracted. However, despite those general comments, the NRA recognises that some localised problems are caused by over-abstraction. I shall say more about that in a moment.
That brings me to the role of the NRA. It will be very grateful for the supportive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. The establishment of the NRA has provided an unprecedented opportunity not just in Hampshire but across the whole country for a new and thorough appraisal of the issues affecting the condition of our rivers. The NRA's responsibilities encompass a range of issues—for example, water resources as well as pollution control, and fisheries as well as nature conservation. I have already commented that my hon. Friend has recognised the N RA's work.
We set up the NRA as a tough environmental regulator and there is growing acceptance among those concerned, including environmental bodies that had hitherto been sceptical, that it is succeeding as a tough environmental regulator. Let me outline what the NRA is doing in Hampshire and elsewhere.
First, it has taken action to help Hampshire's salmon fisheries. While most trout fisheries reported an excellent season last year, salmon catches have been declining for some years. Reference has been made to recent local seminars. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside will therefore be aware of the NRA's view that river management appears to hold the answer. Salmon populations are known to depend critically on an adequate supply of clean gravel beds in which to lay their eggs. Historically, riparian owners' keepers regularly raked river gravels to ensure that they were clean, free from silt and ready for the spawning season. That practice has slipped into abeyance in recent years, and that appears to be a major factor in the decline in the fisheries.
The NRA has been seeking to tackle that problem in a number of ways. Research has confirmed that river gravels are not as productive for spawning salmon as might be expected. A programme for mechanically raking gravels is being undertaken and studies are being carried out into sediment movement and into weed growth and management, including the advantages of reinstating programmes of weed cutting in the autumn.
The NRA has also constructed a number of new fish passes on the Test to ensure that incoming salmon can reach their spawning grounds freely. It is taking steps to restock the river with artificially reared local salmon. It has also installed electronic fish counters and radio tagging equipment to study fish movements and spawning behaviour. The NRA is taking a number of positive steps to study causes and to restore the salmon fisheries.
Secondly, while the Test itself is not believed to be suffering from the effects of over-abstraction, there are rivers in Hampshire that are affected. Last year, the NRA identified 20 priority rivers in which low flows were believed to be the result of over-abstraction rather than simply low rainfall, and the NRA thus embarked on a programme of urgent studies. Yesterday, the NRA announced its programme for dealing with the first set of priority rivers. A number of those that have been mentioned are included in that list—for example, Wallop brook, one of the tributaries of the Test near Stockbridge. My hon. Friends have mentioned others, including the Darent and the Pang in Berkshire, as well as a number of other rivers in the south which the NRA has recognised 893 require action. Solutions are now being investigated, including a combination of partial revocation of abstraction licences, augmentation of flows and river bed lining. The NRA is continuing to investigate possible solutions for a further list of rivers suffering detrimental reductions in flows. They include the Bourne rivulet, which is another tributary of the Test, the Meon and the Hamble.
The NRA recognises that where problems caused by over-abstraction exist, there are very rarely any quick or simple solutions. I am, however, impressed by the NRA's determination to get to grips as quickly as possible with such difficulties and I commend the progress that it is making.
Although the NRA has been looking so far at solutions to specific problem cases, we are all alive to the need for longer-term solutions. Abstractions must, of course, be properly managed and the NRA has a full range of powers not only to control the issue of new abstraction licences, but to amend or to revoke any existing licences. My hon. Friends have asked whether the NRA is properly resourced to use those powers. The authority's costs are ultimately recouped from abstractors via abstraction licence charges. To the extent that capital spending is necessary and justified, the NRA has access to initial funding from the abstraction charges scheme. I have no reason to suppose that shortage of capital funds is a constraint on the authority's ability to carry out its functions properly.
§ Sir David MitchellDoes that expenditure availability also apply to compensation for reduction of extraction from an existing licence which is reduced?
§ Mr. BaldryThe costs that the NRA can recoup from abstractors via abstraction licence charges are moneys that can then be used for practical spending. Clearly, there may be occasions when, under its statutory responsibilities, the NRA will have a duty to consider whether it should amend or revoke any existing licences. In such circumstances, compensation is clearly a matter for the NRA. I shall have to take advice on my hon. Friend's specific point about whether it can pay compensation from the abstraction charges scheme. I hope that I shall be able to help my hon. Friend before the end of my speech.
As for its local abstraction policy, I can confirm that the NRA's approach is for major abstractions from Hampshire rivers to be taken from as close as possible to the tidal limit in order to preserve natural flows in the middle and upper reaches. I can also confirm that, certainly for the Test, the NRA does not generally intend to permit new, "consumptive" summer abstractions, requiring instead that sufficient bankside winter storage should be provided together with prescribed minimum flows.
My hon. Friends have referred to the pressures on water resources caused by new developments. The level of development in Hampshire is, in the first instance, a matter for the county council to consider in drawing up its structure plan. I should certainly expect the NRA and local water companies to make an important input into this process so that a proper strategic balance can be struck between development and conservation. The Secretary of State will, of course, need to consider any objections made to the structure plan.
894 With due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I cannot agree that the NRA should have a veto over planned development proposals. Although careful account must always be taken of the expert advice that is provided by the NRA, the final judgment must be that of the local planning authority.
§ Mr. OnslowI should be content with that proposition were it not for the fact that there is absolutely no obligation on the planning authority to take any notice of the input of the NRA. The NRA does not know until very late in the day whether its recommendations have been acceded to and taken seriously. As long as that is the case, I am not persuaded that there is a satisfactory requirement to take the availability of water resources into account. I shall require further evidence, in addition to that which my hon. Friend has been able to give so far, that the need for a veto is not great.
§ Mr. BaldryI hear what my hon. Friend says. Clearly, it would sensible if local planning authorities were to take into account the NRA's views when determining planning applications. Any instances or examples where my right hon. Friend feels that the local planning authorities have failed adequately to take into account the NRA's views must clearly be considered. However, I know of no suggestions that local planning authorities have taken planning decisions in disregard of the views that have been put forward by the NRA.
§ Mr. OnslowI am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point, but it is important. If he carries out some research in his Department, it will turn up cases that will show that in more than one instance the advice of the NRA's predecessors about the danger of flooding was not taken into account by the planning authority. Development permission was then granted and the development went ahead, but serious flooding resulted on the developed land. That seems a powerful argument for my case.
§ Mr. BaldryMy right hon. Friend makes the same point in a different way. I do not know of any example of a local planning authority that can be said to have disregarded the advice that was provided by the NRA. Local planning authorities have to take such advice into account, along with a number of other factors, when determining whether to grant a planning application. If my right hon. Friend knows of specific instances where the advice offered by the NRA has not been adequately or sufficiently taken into account by a local planning authority, they will clearly have to be considered as a matter of general policy. However, at the moment local planning authorities take account of the expert advice provided by the NRA. They often have to take into account a number of varying opinions from different bodies, some statutory and some non-statutory, in making a final planning judgment.
Looking ahead more generally, the NRA is developing an overall water resource strategy for the future. It recently published a first report as part of that work, giving a preliminary demand forecast for each of the water supply companies. The NRA has also commissioned consultants to take a fresh look at strategic water supply options, including a national water grid, more inter-regional transfers, and the prospects for desalination. None of those would provide an inexpensive solution. As my hon. Friend conceded, desalination is energy intensive and the plant involved can be highly intrusive. As water is heavy 895 and bulky, it is seldom economic to transport it over great distances. However, I am sure that the NRA will consider those issues carefully.
Let me reiterate and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West. The NRA's resources, to which I have already referred, cover instances where it is necessary to buy out licences. As I hope I have confirmed to the House, I do not believe that the shortage of funds is in any way a constraint on the NRA carrying out necessary activities in relation to the problem of vanishing rivers.
§ Sir David MitchellI warmly welcome what my hon. Friend has just said and I am most grateful to him for having answered the question I asked him in the middle of my speech.
§ Mr. BaldryI am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend asked about the actions that can be taken to control the consumption of water. It has been rightly pointed out that water is not an infinite resource. I agree completely. Although I am sure that no one would want to constrain the legitimate uses of water, I suspect that we are all guilty at one time or another of careless or wasteful uses and we can all help to conserve supplies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked specifically about leakage. Leakage is a problem in all water distribution systems, but it is something to which the water industry is paying ever-increasing attention. The Director-General of Water Services already expects water companies to adopt cost-effective leakage control measures and to minimise charges to customers, and the companies have leakage detection and control programmes designed to minimise losses. For the longer term, the NRA will wish to ensure that leakages are minimised in order to avoid unnecessary abstractions and the development of new resources.
As for charges, there are indications that metering encourages economy and reduces wastage. However, it would be wrong for me to say more, as the director general is currently analysing the responses to a consultation paper on future methods of paying for water and proposes to issue guidelines to the water companies by the end of the year.
Finally, I have been asked about the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, I understand that a review of the scheme is already under way and that, if favourable, consultations with farmers and conservation bodies will follow. I have no doubt that the issues that have been raised this evening will be among those that the review will wish to consider.
This debate is most timely and topical, given the attention following yesterday's announcement by the NRA about how it plans to tackle the problem of low flows caused by over-abstraction in certain rivers. Although Hampshire is by no means as badly affected as other parts of the country, I am pleased that the importance of its chalk streams, chalk streams in general and the fisheries they support has been fully recognised by the NRA in the work that it is carrying out. I hope that I have been able to satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government and the NRA are taking the issues seriously and that action is being taken to tackle existing problems.