§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the costs of maintaining and improving water quality in coastal waters to be a collective charge on sewerage undertakings; to establish a scheme for determining such costs and their allocation between undertakings; and for connected purposes.There is in progress in the United Kingdom the greatest clean-up of our coastal water ever undertaken, and it arises directly from the many years of neglect which went before. Change finally comes about because of the EC bathing waters directive, which requires 455 of the United Kingdom's beaches to be brought up to standard, and 130 of them lie in the area of South West Water—a larger number than in any other water company area. It means that 32 per cent. of all the beaches in the United Kingdom covered by the directive are to be found in the south-west.That those beaches are brought up to standard should be cause for national celebration, but for the people of Teignbridge and the south-west such celebration has become a regional nightmare. What should clearly be a national responsibility is being funded on a local basis. The cost of cleaning up one third of the nation's beaches is being met by just 1£5 million people—or more exactly, the 650,000 paying customers who already receive bills which are on average 35 per cent. higher than in the rest of Britain and which are due to go far higher still.
It will not stop there. We can expect ever-increasing demands to upgrade our water still further. Standards which may be acceptable now will not be acceptable in the 21st century. If we do not rectify the cost mechanism now, the situation will get progressively worse.
The typical south-west domestic household charge of £230 per year will reach £400 at the end of the decade. For many people in an area of relatively high rateable values, those charges can go higher still. Operation Cleansweep is set to cost £2 billion over the next 10 years—expenditure of something like £4 million per week. To fund that, Ofwat has allowed an increase for the current year of inflation plus a staggering 11.5 per cent. The effect of that formula is that bills have risen more than 40 per cent. in just three years.
Let us consider those who have to shoulder those bills in practice. The south-west has a high proportion of elderly, retired people. Just under 26 per cent. of Teignbridge's population are of retirement age, and a great many other people are on the threshold of retirement. Those people have, for the most part, worked hard all their working lives and are now slightly above the income support rate. They are not in the business of asking for state handouts. Their generation and that of their parents have served this country well, yet they see their income slashed by the fall in interest rates. They recoil in horror at the prospect of value added tax on their heating costs. Now, in the autumn of their years, they are faced with costs that they cannot control on the one ingredient that they cannot live without. One can economise on most things. One may be able to make savings on gas and electricity, but for the vast majority of people, savings in water consumption which lead to a reduction in costs are literally impossible.
854 Let there be no doubt that the south-west is unique. It has the highest charges in the country. The Anglian authority the next highest—has an average charge of £227.5p as opposed to £227.84p, but when one considers the proportion of that which is the sewerage charge, the south-west has the highest charge, at £134£58p as opposed to £120.97 for the next highest charger, Anglian Water. Anglia also has a very different age profile from the south-west. In terms also of average gross weekly earnings, Anglia has within it some of the country's wealthiest counties. By contrast, Devon and Cornwall together are, by that measure, the poorest region of all. By comparison, a largely inland authority such as Thames Water produces a total bill of £138.78, of which the sewerage charge amounts to just £69.39.
The cost of cleaning up the nation's coast should be met on a national basis. No one suggests that the cost of maintaining the Royal Navy should be met on a local basis. It is funded nationally. My Bill would do the same for water by providing for the sewerage element to be equalised across all water authorities.
In so doing, my Bill hardly breaks new ground. As long ago as 1638, John Hampden challenged his obligation to pay taxes to protect the coasts from the attention of Barbary corsairs. One ground for his challenge was that he lived in an inland area. He failed at that time and he deserved to fail. In proposing this mechanism for what threatens our coast today, I am hardly breaking new ground. I am relying on a British sense of fairness.
What objections could there be to my suggestion? Is it sufficient to say that since local people benefit, local people must pay? Can we just glibly remark that because it is good for tourism, it must be good for the local people? Tell that to the many hundreds of people who have written to me about this. Better still, tell it to a 70-year-old widow who receives a retirement pension increase of £10.64 per month to meet increases in council tax and water charges of £11.71. She is not topping up her swimming pool with new squeaky clean water or spending her leisure hours wind-surfing her way around the south-west. It would be stupefyingly complacent merely to reply that water industry investment to raise environmental standards means that charges must rise in real terms, and to suggest that that statement should be the end of the argument.
There will inevitably be those who say that the situation shows that privatisation was wrong all along. In fact, it shows no such thing. Failure to invest in water quality and to face up to the massive pollution that civilisation generates goes back a full hundred years and beyond. Privatisation has enabled massive sums to be invested and it is clearly in the nation's interest that its coastal waters should be as clean as possible. But any policy needs to be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. Who could honestly have predicted the sudden and immediate demands that the EC bathing water directive would make on us?
Even if it is not the Government's fault that we are in this predicament, only the Government can ultimately deliver a solution. Far from just complaining and whingeing, I have suggested a solution. I have even done so without proposing an increase in taxation and a massive Exchequer grant. The Bill addresses an injustice which becomes more obvious with every day that passes. It is a situation which, in common fairness, cannot be allowed to stand.
855 I have with me today a number of my west country colleagues who support me in my endeavour and I have presented the Bill and the case for it with all the force that I can command. I commend it to the House.
§ 5.1 pm
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I oppose the Bill. No hon. Members in their right minds think other than that coastal pollution is an extremely important subject for Britain. If fair and effective measures were brought forward under a. ten-minute. Bill or any other procedure to do something about coastal pollution, I and others like me would not oppose them.
We listened extremely carefully to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), but what we heard was political posturing of the worst kind. He said that the problem concerned the west country. People are entitled to special pleading, but it would come better from someone who had not, throughout, voted for water privatisation.
The truth of the matter is that, when the water industry was regarded as a public utility, it was in a far better position to do something about such problems. [Interruption.] Yes, it was. The hon. Gentleman talked about fuel bills, but who was it in their Budget who extended VAT to fuel, and who voted for it?
This is a classic case of Members happily going through the Government lobby arid then whingeing when the consequences of their actions catch up with them. Those who vote in a particular way should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. This is an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, surrounded by a phalanx of his hon. Friends from the west country, to persuade people in the west country that they are trying to do something about the problem when in fact the fault originated with the Government whom they so loyally supported. This is the worst kind of posturing, trying to have one's cake and eat it.
A sensible Bill on coastal pollution would have made some reference to the Braer disaster off Shetland. There would have been some reference to those tankers going through the Minch and other protected waters, about which nothing has been done. The Home Secretary is said to be an effective Minister, but he has not persuaded the Cabinet to stop those foreign tankers going through the Minch and off Shetland. If this had been a worthy measure, attention would have been paid to that.
No attention has been paid to the real problems of the benthic community—the creatures who live at the bottom of the seas and are affected by disasters such as the Braer. The Bill is not about coastal pollution, but about short-term political advantage, and should therefore be opposed.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
856§ The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 65.
| Division No. 230] | [5.05 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Alton, David | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Ashby, David | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Rathbone, Tim |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Robathan, Andrew |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Spring, Richard |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Sproat, Iain |
| Campbell, Menzies (File NE) | Steen, Anthony |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Streeter, Gary |
| Dover, Den | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Dowd, Jim | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Faber, David | Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) | Whittingdale, John |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Wilkinson, John |
| Harris, David | |
| Hawkins, Nick | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Mrs. Angela Browning and Sir John Hannam. |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | McKelvey, William |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Ashton, Joe | McNamara, Kevin |
| Barnes, Harry | Madden, Max |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Mahon, Alice |
| Boyes, Roland | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Maxton, John |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Meale, Alan |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Michael, Alun |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Corbett, Robin | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Dalyell, Tam | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Darling, Alistair | O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) |
| Dixon, Don | O'Hara, Edward |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | O'Neill, Martin |
| Dowd, Jim | Pickthall, Colin |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Eastham, Ken | Purchase, Ken |
| Enright, Derek | Raynsford, Nick |
| Etherington, Bill | Redmond, Martin |
| Fisher, Mark | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Flynn, Paul | Simpson, Alan |
| Garrett. John | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Spellar, John |
| Hinchliffe, David | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Trimble, David |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Vaz, Keith |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Watson, Mike |
| Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) | |
| Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Tellers for tbe Noes: |
| Khabra, Piara S. | Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner. |
| Macdonald, Calum | |
| McFall, John |
§ Question accordingly negatived.