§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
10.15 pm§ Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of water metering in Norwich. I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to reply to the debate. I was worried whether he would get to the Front Bench in time, but he is there and I welcome him and his colleagues.
This is an important subject, because East Anglia has the lowest average annual rainfall of any region in the United Kingdom, comparable to that of the southern coastline of the Mediterranean. I had the privilege of raising the implications for Norwich and Norfolk of that water scarcity in an Adjournment debate back in February 1992.
You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at that time we had had a long period of drought and water depletion. I remember arguing strongly for the installation of water meters. That is the subject to which I am returning tonight. It was an important subject then, and it is more important now. The efficient use of water and water conservation measures matter more to us than to people in other parts of the country.
My concern is not specifically the provision of water meters to consumers in my constituency, but the decision of Norwich city council to deny the opportunity to its periodic or weekly tenants to have meters installed. The city council owns almost 20,000 homes in Norwich —more than one third of all homes in the area—so a large number of people are being denied the opportunity to cut their water bills. That is particularly true of elderly people, small families and individuals. When making its decision and ignoring the well-informed local campaign work of people such as Bashir Khanbai, John Fisher and Robert Kinghorn, the Labour majority on the council has shown itself to be out of date and seriously out of touch with the people of Norwich.
The ostensible reason for the policy appears to be that the installation of water meters would discriminate against those who may need to use large quantities of water—the disabled, those with long-term illnesses and people with large families. The council defends its position on the further ground that any advantage to existing tenants may prove a disadvantage to subsequent tenants of properties with water meters. It has been alleged that there are grave public health concerns over the issue. As a result, the city council has barred its tenants from taking advantage of the metering options offered by Anglian Water.
Other councils in Norfolk—such as South Norfolk district council and North Norfolk district council—with Broadland housing association and others, have no objections in principle to the installation of water meters in their properties. I understand that the Anglia housing association judges each application for the installation of water meters on its merits and supports the installation of meters in homes occupied by elderly tenants. The Wherry housing association in my constituency also agrees to the installation of meters when tenants request them. Single and elderly tenants welcome the opportunity to cut their bills by up to three quarters. Wherry housing association has had no complaints about water metering from its 1079 tenants. The tenant profiles of the associations must be broadly similar to that of Norwich city council—they certainly operate in comparable areas. If metering is acceptable to them and to their tenants, it should also be acceptable to the city council.
The logic of the city council's position is dubious and its motives must be open to the gravest suspicion. I do not believe that the council is in a position to judge who among its tenants will benefit from the installation of water meters. That is a decision that the tenants themselves are best fitted to take. The present system of basing water charges on the former domestic rating system means that bills in Norwich are high because rateable values were high.
Elderly people and single occupants have higher bills than they would with water meters. For example, a single person pays an average water bill of £294 a year in Anglian Water's region. That could be cut to between £89 and £179 with a water meter. Couples with or without children could save between £75 and £150 per year. Many pensioners and others among the city council's tenants find themselves subsidising other water consumers, including other council tenants, because they are forced to pay for their water on the basis of rateable value. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that cannot be right.
Pensioners and people who are disabled, or who have large families, or are suffering from illness, are precisely the people who are most likely to be living on a limited income and who are most keen to be able to judge whether they would benefit from careful use of water. Anglian Water has estimated that 70 per cent. of its customers could save at least 10 per cent. on their water bills by using meters, which typically save up to 15 per cent. of water usage.
Boreholes are already being sunk under Norwich to guarantee future water supplies. Without further water conservation measures, there might have to be a new reservoir—costing about £300 million. Why should council tenants be prevented from cutting their bills and saving water? No council can tell that all future tenants will be disadvantaged by having the opportunity to occupy premises with water meters. Norwich city council assumes that all future tenants will come from large families and will not want water meters. There is no guarantee of either.
If tenants think that they may benefit from installing water meters, they should be able to choose to have them. The issue in this debate is choice. They should be able to choose to have meters installed without town hall obstruction. The rights of tenants, therefore, must come first and not last in Norwich city council's thinking.
The attitude of the council is particularly worrying since our local water supplier, Anglian Water plc, has shown itself to be acutely aware of its social responsibilities. It has created a wide range of schemes to help customers meet their water bills. Large, low-income families have been targeted for that aid. Customers can pay by cash, through any post office or high street bank, by direct debit through bank accounts, by instalments paid at post offices or banks, with water savings stamps, which can be purchased at most post offices, through the Girobank or through the post. People on income support can apply for payments to be made direct from their 1080 benefits by the Department of Social Security. It is no accident that the Norfolk area has proved to be the second most enthusiastic of all those covered by Anglian Water for accepting water meters.
Moreover, Anglian Water recently announced that all domestic customers who pay for their water through the use of water meters will have their service pipes from the stop tap to the side of the house maintained free of charge as from 1 January 1997. At present, the owner of the property is responsible for the service pipe unless specific cover is in place. Norwich city council could save itself a good deal of money by encouraging its tenants to go on to water meters, thereby saving it the cost of repairing service pipes.
Anglian Water has also been conducting trials of special pre-payment methods, using smart cards in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough. The cards enable customers with large, accumulated debts to pay for their water and a small proportion of their arrears on a regular basis. I understand that they have proved extremely popular and that the potential exists for the extension of the technology to other parts of the East Anglia region.
I want to mention the creation of the water trust fund, which is administered by an independent board of trustees to help customers in serious arrears to make a fresh start. Anglian Water contributed £2 million to that fund earlier in the year, and the first grants have already been made, using the machinery of the citizens advice bureaux.
The Office of Water Services, the regulatory body for the water industry, believes that metering is the best and fairest long-term method of paying for water. Its view is that all customers should have the option of using water meters and that customers with high discretionary usage should certainly do so.
Ofwat has the support of its national consumer council for the position that council tenants should have the option of having water meters installed, giving them more control of their bills. The national consumer council believes that local authorities that deny their tenants that option are behaving unreasonably.
Despite what I said earlier about the case put by Norwich city council, no instance of a risk to health arising from the installation of water meters is known to Ofwat or to the water supply companies. It is clearly in the wider interest of efficient water usage that meters should be installed in new homes and in older ones where tenants desire them. That is one reason why Ofwat has opposed unduly high standing charges for domestic customers and has taken action to balance tariffs.
The cost of installing meters has been significantly reduced since 1994–95; 23 companies have reduced their charges, five have not changed them since 1994, and no company has increased its installation charges since 1995–96.
Does the 1991 water legislation require water companies to supply water meters if they are requested by tenants or occupants of residential property? If so, can Norwich city council be sued by its tenants for not allowing them to install meters? The Environment Act 1995 certainly places a duty on water companies to encourage the efficient use of water in their area of operation, a duty that Norwich city council has decided to prevent Anglian Water from fulfilling.
The sorry truth about water metering in Norwich is that the city council does not trust its tenants to make decisions in their own interests. They are not allowed to choose 1081 between metering and the present system of payment, which is to the disadvantage of many groups, especially the elderly, because that would diminish the control that the council exercises over them.
To allow tenants to make savings on their water bills would compromise their dependent status. Properties with water meters might well prove more attractive than those without. Once the floodgates of metering had opened, the council might be compelled to widen choice for all its tenants. The record of old Labour and new in Norwich suggests that it may be time for the council's control over such a large proportion of the housing stock to be ended, and for modern social landlords, responsive to the needs of tenants, to take up the reins of management in the interests of the wider community.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am sure that many of his constituents will be grateful to him for so forcefully expressing his concerns.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, he has a background of concern about conservation and water issues, and I am sure that he speaks for many individuals in Norwich, especially the tenants of Norwich city council, when he so clearly expresses his worries about the denial of choice by the council and its failure to take into account the needs of environmental good husbandry. As he rightly said, it is regrettable that tenants are being denied choice and that the needs of the environment are being ignored by the council.
We accept that the good husbandry of water resources is an important part of sustainable development. It is also part of the challenge of global warming, not least for an already dry area such as East Anglia, as my hon. Friend so clearly stated. The development of new sources of water supply may be necessary, but our first recourse should be to make the best use of existing supplies. Last month, the Government published a comprehensive examination of the problem, "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action", with a number of action points for the Government, the regulators, the water companies and consumers.
I shall mention a few of the steps that are being taken. The Government, through the Office of Water Services, are pressing water companies to reduce leakage in their distribution system to an economic minimum. The Director General of Water Services has published each water company's long-tern leakage target and the targets for the next financial year.
Reducing the use of water through demand management makes sense. Since 1 February, all water companies have had a new duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Efficient use of water means using water-efficient equipment and cutting leakage in customers' pipes, as well as informing the public about the relationship between water use and supply. When all other measures that should be taken have been taken, the key to the efficient use of water must lie with the user. In that respect, my hon. Friend's concerns have great force.
Domestic demand has been growing over the years, with the widespread use of appliances such as automatic washing machines and the increased ownership of 1082 dishwashers. The popularity of gardening and the use of garden sprinklers also has a marked impact in summer. In one hour, a sprinkler can use enough water to supply a family of four for two days. We are not trying to discourage clean cars or green gardens, but there is a strong case for saying that customers should pay for them.
My hon. Friend argued eloquently for the merits of water metering as a means of conserving water resources and postponing or eliminating the need for new boreholes or reservoirs with all their environmental implications. I agree with his remarks. The encouragement of metering is a key element in the Government's water strategy. There is widespread resentment, especially in times of water shortage, that neighbours can be using vastly different quantities of water without any effect on their bills. Metering is fair: one pays only for what one uses. It is also successful.
Trials have shown an immediate reduction both in water use and in many customers' bills. Customers are being denied that opportunity by Norwich city council and water use is being affected adversely. I must make it clear that the Government do not control or impose the method of charging for water. That decision is for the water companies. The proviso is that they should operate within the rules set by statute and supervised by the Director General of Water Services.
On the method of charging, the law simply requires that companies should not set prices that are unduly discriminatory or preferential. The decision is up to water companies but, of course, the Government have a view on the charging method, which we have spelt out. We believe that the gradual extension of metering, together with the development of more sophisticated tariff structures, has an essential role to play in managing demand for water. In general, we believe that the introduction of water metering should be selective and that switching to metered charging should be voluntary for occupiers who are charged in their present properties on the basis of rateable values. However, new properties should be fitted with meters as the norm, as should those with high external use for garden watering and swimming pools. Where an occupier moves to a dwelling with a meter, charging should be metered.
I welcome the fact that companies are reducing the cost of their voluntary meter option schemes and that eight companies, including Anglian Water, offer free installation for customers who want meters. That is the Government's policy on metering, although it is for companies to make the choice of charging methods. This is the background to what is happening in Norwich.
Anglian Water is pressing ahead with the installation of water meters. I understand that it has adopted a programme of installing meters in all properties. That is a long undertaking, with a target of 40 per cent. coverage by 2000. Where it fits meters, it gives existing customers the choice of continuing on the old rateable value basis or switching to a metered bill, whichever customers choose as the lower for them. For normal domestic uses, it is only with new or substantially altered properties or where new customers enter properties that already have meters that the company requires metered payment. In those cases, the customer should know beforehand what he is taking on as part of the dwelling. Anglian also requires metered payment when the customer uses a garden sprinkler or has a swimming pool. Anglian will install meters for 1083 customers on request. That offers many customers a quick route to immediate savings, as my hon. Friend's calculations showed.
I understand that Norwich city council has adopted a policy of root and branch opposition to water metering. It is apparently not interested in the environmental arguments for saving water or in giving its tenants the choice of whether to be metered. It should be noted that for many of the least well-off, especially single-person households and pensioners, metering would offer savings on their current water bills with no change in their water consumption habits. Meters offer every household greater control over water bills. The sensible use of water can go a long way to trim bills.
My hon. Friend asked about the legal position on the installation of meters, and wanted to know whether tenants have any recourse if the city council obstructs the installation of meters even when they have been requested. When Anglian Water or any other water company is carrying out a programme of meter installation, the company gives notice to customers and then has powers, like other statutory undertakers, to enter premises and fit meters even over the objections of the council or any other landlord.
In the long term, Norwich city council or any other council cannot prevent the steady progress of meter installation. Where, however, the company is fitting at the voluntary request of the tenant, the situation is different. In meeting the customer's request for a meter, Anglian Water is not invoking any powers of compulsion.
There is a duty on local authority tenants under the Housing Act 1985 not to carry out an improvement without the consent of the landlord, which may not be unreasonably withheld. The law treats adding a water meter as an improvement. If the local authority landlord refuses consent, the tenant may not make an unauthorised improvement. Where the tenant has asked for the meter, it is like the tenant calling the builders in. It is up to the tenant to ensure that he has the necessary consent.
1084 If the water company is asked by a tenant to install a meter, it will assume that the customer has any necessary consent. It will continue installing on request. If a tenant has a meter installed without the consent of the landlord, that is in law a matter between the landlord and the tenant, not the water company.
If a tenant is refused consent, his recourse would not be to sue the landlord. The law provides that such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. That would be the issue. In the end, it would be for the courts to decide whether the council had been reasonable in withholding its consent.
I hope that the issue will not come before the courts. I hope also that Norwich city council will listen to the force of my hon. Friend's arguments and reconsider its policy on water metering. I understand that, even now, the eastern customers service committee of Ofwat, which represents the customers of Anglian Water, has written to the city council to ask it to support water metering.
Whatever policy the council adopts, the legal position is that it cannot prevent the progressive installation of meters under Anglian Water's rolling programme. The council can delay only by depriving individual tenants of the choice of voluntarily moving at once to lower metered bills.
Metering is the fair and sustainable way to charge for water use. I hope, as I have said, that the debate will be heard by the council, and that it will listen to the reasonable arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend. I hope also that it will consider the interests of its tenants, including those who wish to exercise there choice in this matter, and grant them that choice. In doing so, it will act in the interests of consumer choice and in the wider interests of the environment. Those are two forceful arguments in favour of the council acceding to the reasonable arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.