HC Deb 23 July 1997 vol 298 cc921-7

1 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce this important debate, which is not just about water regulation. It concerns water conservation; jobs; our balance of trade; and, perhaps most importantly, public health. As well as being interested in those technical matters, I have a constituency interest because Armitage Shanks, the biggest manufacturer of bathroomware in this country, is based in the town of Armitage near Lichfield in my constituency.

I shall begin by outlining the current position. Current water regulations prevent WCs from being installed in the United Kingdom unless they are of the siphonic type perfected by Sir Thomas Crapper in the last century. That is a fail-safe system. When the chain is pulled or the lever turned, a vacuum is created. Water is sucked up a pipe and then flushes into the lavatory. When the water flow finishes, the vacuum is broken. The water cannot then continue to flow or leak; nor can foul water be drawn back into the drinking water supply. As I have said, it is a fail-safe system.

The inferior valve system, which is currently banned, does leak. Like a plug in a sink, it inevitably corrodes, and water constantly trickles or even gushes from the cistern into the lavatory. Tens of millions of gallons of water are wasted every year in France alone through the use of this inferior method,

So why have I called for this debate today? At the beginning of this month, draft water regulations were published for public consultation. They are intended to replace the existing water byelaws. One aspect in particular gives rise to grave concern.

The draft regulations include a proposal to allow valve-flush cisterns to be fitted to WCs as an alternative to the currently exclusive mandatory requirement for the siphon flush. If this proposal to relax the current high standards of the byelaws is permitted, it will prove impossible to prevent the import of cheap and inefficient Sanitaryware that will waste water through leakage. The effect on the environment will be significant. I put it to the Minister: at a time when the Government are rightly pressing the water companies to control leaks, will she allow a change in legislation that will create even greater water loss?

Moreover, the valve system also has the potential to compromise the integrity of the drinking water supply if the back-flow prevention capability is less than the current high standards demanded by the existing byelaws. Will the Minister give an assurance that she has considered the proposal properly, and will she explain how the negative results can be justified?

If inadequate regulations are made, the effect on the United Kingdom sanitaryware industry will be dramatic and immediate. The United Kingdom will see a flood of cheap, inefficient imports; one of the consequences of the resulting unfair competition will be lost sales for UK manufacturers, and, in turn, lost jobs. There will be an immediate adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of trade, and a weakened British industry will be less competitive in its existing export markets, thus exacerbating the adverse trend in the balance of trade.

The impact will be felt hardest in the regions—those very parts of the country that the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to supporting by the Labour party manifesto.

Will the Minister confirm that she has consulted the Deputy Prime Minister on the impact of the proposals on his constituency in Hull, where one of the more important United Kingdom sanitaryware producers, Ideal-Standard Ltd., is located?

Let me be clear about this: my interest in this matter is to save jobs that are threatened in a British industry, which, for more than a hundred years, has been a positive contributor to the United Kingdom balance of trade; and, perhaps even more importantly, to conserve water at a time when ever-increasing demands are being made on a diminishing and essential national resource.

This is no parochial issue affecting a relatively small, albeit successful, industry. The regulations will directly affect every man, woman and child in this country. Water byelaws represent "best practice" for the supply and installation of plumbing fittings, and any departure from them may be retrograde. They are the means by which water companies meet their obligation to prevent water wastage, undue consumption, misuse of water and contamination of the drinking water supply.

Although established by the water companies, the regulations are endorsed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the regulations, if implemented, will maintain the fundamental objectives of the existing byelaws?

Although today's siphon is essentially the same in design as Crapper's "water waste preventer"—as it was called 100 years ago—it is a much more efficient device. In Crapper's day, a 40-litre flush was not uncommon— although it did not measure litres in those days. Over the years, flush volume has been reduced as the Sanitaryware industry has responded to revisions in byelaws, which are updated every 10 years. Since the 1960s, flush volume has been reduced progressively from 13 to six litres. United Kingdom manufacturers are already introducing six-litre siphonic flush WCs ahead of proposed further reductions in the new regulations.

Given the longevity of Sanitaryware, it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that there are at least 50 million elderly WCs installed in the United Kingdom that flush more than 13 litres of water—and I suspect that many of them are working here in the Palace of Westminster. The potential for water saving by replacing those rather thirsty appliances is clearly enormous. Has the Minister calculated the water savings to be made by replacing the existing population of nine, 11 and 13-litre flush WCs with six or seven-litre flush WCs? Has she compared that with the savings to be made merely by making their installation a requirement in new-build situations?

The byelaw requirement for siphonic flush ensures that not a single drop of water is wasted. It is supported by the Environment Committee, which took evidence last year from the deputy commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection on the leakage from valve-flush WCs in New York. A survey of apartments found that 7 per cent, of WCs were leaking at a rate of 197 gallons—good old gallons—per day. That waste should be viewed in the context of the average daily per capita consumption in New York of 148 gallons per day. The wastage is significant.

New York's experience is not unique. At a recent conference on water conservation and public health, the Building Research Establishment reported that 16 per cent, of all WCs in France leak.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently commissioned from the Building Services Research and Information Association a research project into the comparative performance of siphons and valves. Of eight different types of WC flush valve tested, four leaked, two had to be adjusted, and two had to be replaced to overcome leakage. It was concluded that any type of valve would leak eventually, and so should be installed only in conjunction with a water meter. However, there are flaws in that argument, as I shall explain.

In 1994, the British Bathroom Council commissioned the independent consulting company W. S. Atkins Ltd. to carry out field research in Germany and France on the reliability of valve-flush WCs. In France, leakage was a problem through cheap replacement valves being fitted in the DIY sector. W. S. Atkins's report was provided to officials at the Department of the Environment in 1994. Can the Minister explain why she supports the introduction of WC flush valves in the face of compelling evidence that they waste water?

I understand that the draft regulations are the recommendations of the Water Regulations Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State. Against the advice of the sole member drawn from manufacturing industry, which knows about these things, the committee has stated that WC valve flushing will save water, as it is more effective at lower volume. That is patently untrue.

The well-established reality is that all valves eventually leak and waste water. Leaks often go undetected or unremedied, even where a water meter is fitted. Furthermore, valves often leak at rates not picked up by water meters, and the total waste would be significant. In any case, the UK is unique in Europe in having only about 8 per cent, of domestic premises fitted with water meters, and it will be years before their use is widespread.

There is a further issue. A WC flushed with a valve is fundamentally less hygienic than a siphon. A valve flush does not scour the pan as effectively as the slightly slower flow from a siphon. It follows that poor scouring will result in fouling of the WC pan and be a health hazard— and lead to waste of water, because of the frequent need to double flush. There is an additional hygiene risk where a WC is blocked and there is a leaking valve. It is theoretically possible for foul water to be carried up into the cistern through a valve by eddy currents flowing against the downward flow. The result could be catastrophic—contamination of the drinking water supply.

The construction of the siphon precludes that risk, as it incorporates a dry, protective air gap approaching 10 in. Can the Minister confirm that she has assessed the additional hygiene risk associated with allowing WC flush valves in regulations? Might it be more than a coincidence that, in continental Europe, with its WC valves, we are often advised not to drink the local tap water?

The Water Regulations Advisory Committee proposes that the new water regulations should come into effect in October 1998. It seems to me that there are a number of practical problems in that timetable. The legislative process, including the current public consultation, must be followed by redrafting in the light of any comment before the proposal can be submitted to the European Commission for approval. The speed of that process risks errors and omissions.

If the Minister were to proceed into this headlong dash, manufacturers, merchants, retailers and the plumbing trade generally will have only a matter of weeks in which to implement changes in manufacture, stock holding and installation procedures. What consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the plumbing trade of the proposed timetable?

Given that WCs can be designed to flush effectively with a siphon at six litres—I am assured by UK manufacturers that they can—this question must be asked. Why is the WRAC prepared to admit inferior, wasteful, dangerous flushing designs for no gain? Could it be that commercial pressure from importers and Brussels has some bearing on the issue? Does the Minister support this?

The CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, is years away from agreeing performance which might be used as the basis for legislation or the process of enforcement. Surely the United Kingdom can justify the retention of its excellent and efficient, if unique, flushing method—although I have seen the British system in use in the United States—until the CEN can introduce a European standard that defines a level of flushing performance that is no less efficient than our own. The uniqueness of the United Kingdom method is not, per se, an argument for its harmonisation out of existence.

The treaty of Rome allows the retention of technical legislation that can be justified on the grounds that it applies to all and is for the public good. A change to these water regulations will cause millions of gallons of water wastage. It will damage our balance of payments and threaten jobs. It will be a major health hazard. Cannot the Minister confirm that the existing byelaws are indeed pro bona publica?

Perhaps the most important question of all that needs to be answered today is this: can the Minister give the nation an unequivocal assurance that whatever decision she makes will not result in greater use and wastage of water than is now the case?

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister and the House will be aware of the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Government should think twice, thrice, four times again before embarking on this dangerous course of action.

1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. His knowledge of, interest in and unashamed enthusiasm for the British lavatory and its siphonic flushing mechanism appears to know no bounds. He has waxed lyrical about the history and development of flushing mechanisms in a way that should perhaps make us all look at this familiar but vital contraption in a new way.

Indeed, I have the hon. Gentleman to thank for the opportunity to see my ministerial desk full to overflowing yesterday with a display of toilet flushing mechanisms of every conceivable kind in order that I might more effectively understand the points at issue in today's debate. I would have treated the House to that display had I not been mindful of the very strict rules preventing the use of visual aids in the House.

However, I feel that the hon. Gentleman has let his fertile imagination and well-known enthusiasm run riot. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the nightmare scenario that he has painted for the House today of destroyed British jobs, poisoned water supplies and the triumph of inferior continental conveniences. Indeed, the House might be excused for thinking that the hon. Gentleman is completely potty for harbouring such lurid fears. I shall take this opportunity to reassure him.

As part of our commitment to water conservation, the Government will introduce new water regulations to replace the water byelaws, which have served to prevent the waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of water. They cover all plumbing installations in premises and a range of water appliances, including bathroom and kitchen fixtures and fittings, washing machines and dishwashers. The new regulations will cover similar areas, but will actively promote water conservation.

I should make it clear that no decisions on the contents of the regulations have been taken. The Water Regulations Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Government late in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that I have already made up my mind on the introduction of valve-flush systems. He is premature in that judgment. When the committee's report is submitted, my ministerial colleagues and I will consider its advice. In doing so, we will take full account of the key issues of water conservation and also of any impact that changes may have on business, employment and public health. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not make any changes that place unacceptable risks on either.

The hon. Gentleman particularly asked whether I had consulted my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue. I am tempted to tell him that we talk of nothing else, but the real answer is that, when there are some proposals to consult my right hon. Friend on, I will do so.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the symphonic flush system—

Mr. Fabricant

Siphonic.

Angela Eagle

Well, mine sounds symphonic.

I agree that the siphonic system has served us well for more than a century. Over the years, as the industry has developed more efficient designs, it has certainly been possible to make significant reductions in the amount of water used, with no loss of effectiveness. The security that the system gives to public health as a result has also been valuable, and I do not underestimate it.

However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is great potential for water conservation through reducing the amount of water used for flushing WCs, which currently accounts for a third of all household water usage. Clearly, if there is a mechanism that can reduce the volume of flushes, it would be right to consider its introduction in this country.

In its report last November, the Environment Select Committee said that reducing the maximum WC flush volume to six litres should be a priority. Most developed countries now have a six-litre maximum flush, without any discernible effects on public health. The hon. Gentleman reports that UK manufacturers are already introducing six-litre systems. Good. I shall certainly look to the industry to investigate further whether we can reduce that even more.

Depending on the advisory committee's recommendation, we might consider allowing the introduction of dual-flush systems with a maximum flush volume of six litres, providing the option of a lower volume of four litres. I leave the question of when a lower volume might be appropriate to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.

Valve systems offer such a choice, and therefore merit consideration. They can deliver a lower volume of flush when that is required, and allowing their installation would involve further potential benefits. They need less force, and can be electronically activated, which would help the elderly, the disabled and young children. The hon. Gentleman need not worry: I shall insist on being convinced that there is no significant risk of contamination of drinking water and no threat to public health before I proceed.

I presume that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was a link between flush valves and advice not to drink tap water in continental Europe was yet another example of the Europhobia so often displayed by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be particularly worried about France. He knows, however, that all European Union member states must comply with the stringent drinking water quality requirements in the drinking water directive. Indeed, countries outside Europe—the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many others—have valve systems, and experience no problems with the drinking of tap water. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been to those countries—

Mr. Fabricant

I have.

Angela Eagle

Then perhaps he has a particularly delicate constitution.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rate of leakage from valve systems. I do not dispute the fact that any seal—in time, or immediately if incorrectly installed— will leak, and that is obviously worrying. There is no point in introducing a valve system to conserve water if it fails to do so. A leaking valve will, however, cause noise, as water will be required to refill the cistern. That will make the problem obvious. If the committee recommends change, precautions can be taken or complementary schemes can be established to minimise the problem. We shall certainly want to ensure that any valves that are installed meet stringent performance standards.

The hon. Gentleman fears that, in the absence of water metering, people may not replace old and leaking valves, because they do not bear the additional cost of water that is wasted. I should have thought that the disturbance of a constantly refilling cistern would provide a sufficient incentive for what I understand is not a difficult DIY job, but I think it possible to encourage conservation with or without metering.

As the hon. Gentleman should know, the Government have reservations about the impact of widespread and compulsory metering of water for domestic use. Regulation and education of domestic customers can play an important part in cutting waste and over-consumption. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do about the effect of the "hippo", especially in the larger cisterns that he mentioned—many of which, I suspect, lurk in this building.

The hon. Gentleman said that United Kingdom bathroom manufacturers would not be able to compete with foreign companies. Indeed, according to the Building Services Research and Information Association report from which he quoted, many manufacturers expressed that view. I think that they are being too pessimistic, however. If the hon. Gentleman has read the whole report, he will also know that distributors and importers expected much less market penetration by imported goods. The British sanitaryware industry currently exports more than it sells at home—and, indeed, exports flush valves. The hon. Gentleman should have more confidence in the industry's ability to compete: I certainly have.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

The industry is exceptionally important, not just to the Deputy Prime Minister but in my constituency, which contains Ideal-Standard and Caradon Twyford. It is an extremely successful industry, employing many people. Surely the last thing the Minister wants is damage to investment or employment prospects. Will she take such factors into account when considering the new water regulations?

Angela Eagle

As I thought I had explained to the hon. Gentleman, we will take exactly that kind of issue on board when making decisions—once we have the advisory committee's recommendations, that is. The hon. Lady need not fear that we shall not give careful consideration to the industry's concerns.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and has given me an opportunity to emphasise again just how committed the Government are to promoting water conservation. I welcome his comments about that.

We are currently undertaking reviews of water charging and abstraction licences, as well as considering new water regulations. Businesses that manufacture appliances, however, should understand that they must seek to improve water efficiency at every opportunity, rather than simply waiting until the regulations change. I look forward to any advances that the industry can make in creating appliances that are more water-efficient than those that we now have. The more ideas, the merrier; the better they work, the better it will be for all of us.

Before I resume my seat, let me emphasise that all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be taken into account. He has lifted the lid on the worries that exist in the industry. I hope that I have managed to reassure him that no precipitate action will be taken, but, should he have any other questions, I should be only too happy to write to him at his convenience and—I hope—put his mind at rest.