HC Deb 10 February 1999 vol 325 cc400-13
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert 'any premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 32.

No. 13, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or

No. 14, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 15, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or
  • (d) a premises dedicated to further education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
 No. 16, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or
  • (d) a premises dedicated to higher education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
 No. 17, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 18, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 19, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or
  • (d) dwelling—houses for persons of pensionable age (sheltered accommodation) as defined under the Housing Act 1985.'.
 No. 20, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 21, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or No. 23, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or
  • (d) business premises occupied by doctors as defined under the Medical Act 1983.'.
 No. 24, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'or

Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Government manuscript amendment.

Government amendment No. 35.

Government new schedule 1—Premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of charges.

Mr. Meacher

I shall speak to all the Government amendments—Nos. 31 to 35, the manuscript amendment and new schedule 1—as they are all essentially part of the same package. They also deal with the substance of the Opposition amendments Nos. 13 to 24, so my remarks will address each of the premises described in those amendments. The Government manuscript amendment, which deals with a minor and consequential matter, should be made at the same time as the other, substantive Government amendments, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to make that correction at the first opportunity, rather than leaving it to be dealt with in another place.

In Committee, we had a lengthy debate about the extent of protection against disconnection. Our main focus has been to protect household customers, so that vulnerable families and individuals do not face the possibility of being deprived of water, which is harmful to their well-being and damaging to public health. The Government are determined to improve the health of the nation, and this measure will play a part in that overall strategy.

We recognise that premises other than households also fully deserve extra protection from disconnection and the use of limiting devices to enforce payment. Depriving such premises of their water supply could be harmful to particularly vulnerable groups that are of concern to society as a whole or to essential services. It is obvious that schools and hospitals fall into that category, so we have ensured that such premises could not be faced with the threat of disconnection.

In debate, the case was put for extending protection to a further range of premises that also provide important services to the community. I agreed that I would carefully and sympathetically consider such cases and would be prepared to table amendments to the Bill to ensure that, where it was necessary for good social reasons, protection would be offered against disconnection and the use of limiting devices, such as trickle valves, to enforce payment. We have done that in amendments Nos. 31 to 35, new schedule 1 and the manuscript amendment, which would offer extended protection, notably in medical care, personal care and education.

I shall briefly spell out the implications of that wide set of proposed changes. First, on medical premises, we propose to prevent disconnection for non-payment by nursing homes and mental nursing homes; premises used by registered medical practitioners and dentists; premises used as a pilot scheme for primary care under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; ambulance services and other emergency services.

Much nursing care is provided in hospitals, as they are described in section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. A relatively small number of premises fall outside that definition but offer vital nursing care to those who are mentally or physically ill. Those nursing homes provide care for vulnerable members of society and the Government consider that it is right to prevent such patients from being put at risk from the threat of disconnection of the water supply for non-payment of bills.

We have also considered carefully the case for extending protection to premises used by doctors and dentists. They do not, of course, provide the same degree of residential care as hospitals or nursing homes. However, they can and do provide an essential level of front-line care, and they do carry out a technically important role in the community. Primary care services play a vital role in protecting and improving the nation's health. On balance, therefore, we think that the case has been made for the protection of such premises against disconnection for non-payment of bills.

For similar reasons, we propose to extend protection also to surgeries—not necessarily headed by general practitioners—under the primary care pilot scheme.

The ambulance service represents a further crucial component of medical care, particularly in emergency cases. Disconnection of premises at which the ambulance service is based could lead to deterioration in service or in response times, which could put members of the public in danger. I should be the first to recognise that the ambulance service is not the only service which saves lives and protects the public in emergency situations, as the same is true of police and fire services. We therefore propose to extend protection against disconnection to ambulance services, police forces and fire brigades.

Mr. Gray

rose—

Mr. Meacher

I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always diligent.

Mr. Gray

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his compliment—I am as diligent as I possibly can be in the circumstances. Perhaps he will enlighten the House by explaining the circumstances in which fire, police or ambulance services could be disconnected. Is the provision not a worthless act? Moreover, he has exempted only premises occupied by the fire brigade but not, so far as I am able to tell from reading the Bill, fire hydrants. Therefore, if the fire service fails to pay its bill, is it not possible that, when it turns up at a fire, it will discover that the fire hydrant has been turned off?

Mr. Meacher

The issue of fire hydrants—their availability and usability—is covered by other Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Gray

What about this Bill?

Mr. Meacher

In this Bill, we are dealing with whether there should be protection from disconnection because of non-payment of bills. We are simply proposing that, in the case of all front-line emergency services, there should not be any risk of disconnection for non-payment. As I said many times when we were discussing the issue in Committee, in my view, the likelihood of such disconnections occurring in the case of the public services that we are talking about—the police service or the fire brigade—is exceedingly unlikely. The history of the past 10 years shows that the number of times on which there have been disconnections in such cases is virtually zero.

Nevertheless, taking the spirit of what was pressed on me in Committee, I want there to be absolutely no risk that those who could be endangered because of disconnection will be so endangered. It is for that reason that I have now erred on the side of including all institutions that could in any way cause difficulties to members of the public in emergency situations or to those who are vulnerable, disabled or ill. They should be fully protected.

Mr. Gray

The Minister is, of course, right to say that there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which premises occupied by the fire brigade would be disconnected. Equally, there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which a fire hydrant would be disconnected. The nature of my earlier intervention was therefore to ask why he has decided to specify that the premises occupied by the fire brigade will not be disconnected but omitted to specify that fire hydrants will not be disconnected. My reading of the provision is that if the fire service fails to pay its water bill because of some clerical error, although the fire headquarters will not be disconnected, it is perfectly possible that hydrants in the street will be disconnected. Will he correct my misapprehension—if that is what it is?

Mr. Meacher

The implication of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that every building—including every private sector building and every commercial building—with a fire hydrant should be protected against disconnection for non-payment. That goes a great deal further even than the latitude that I have been prepared to allow. In respect of non-household premises, we believe that water companies should have the right to disconnect on the basis of non-payment. The only cases where I am prepared to consider protection is where members of the public who are vulnerable or in an emergency situation could be disadvantaged or endangered. I am not prepared to go beyond that principle.

9.15 pm

I wish to refer to premises providing personal care. In this area, very strong arguments have made for protecting children's homes. I have made clear the importance that we attach to protecting children, and propose to prohibit the disconnection of children's homes. As some hon. Members may be aware, there are processes for local authorities to remove children from homes that do not provide an acceptable level of care. A home which could not provide children with water would clearly be failing in this respect. That provides considerable assurance that these vulnerable members of our society will not have to suffer the consequences of disconnection.

I am erring on the side of caution, but there are no absolute guarantees that the relevant local authority would become aware immediately that a home had had its water supply disconnected. I therefore consider that it is right to extend protection in this way to provide full assurance on this point to children living in children's homes.

On due reflection, we propose also to extend protection to residential care homes. By prohibiting disconnection of nursing homes, we shall protect those receiving nursing care. However, there is a wider group of vulnerable people who need the board and personal care provided by residential care homes. These include residents of homes for older people and, for example, residential premises providing personal care for people with learning disabilities.

There is a process of registration for residential care homes provided by the private sector, similar to that for children's homes. That provides considerable assurance that residents will not experience deprivation where homes fail to secure a supply a water because they would be deregistered. However, for exactly the same reasons that I have outlined, we think that it is right to provide the added reassurance by prohibiting disconnection of such premises.

I refer now to prisons and immigration detention centres. This further category of accommodation was brought to my attention in Committee. Prisoners do not automatically spring to mind as those among the most vulnerable in society. However, they do not have a choice in where they reside. [Laughter.] We hope that that continues to be the case. A significant proportion of the prison population could be affected if one prison had its water disconnected, requiring the transfer of inmates to other establishments.

I can, therefore, see that there is a legitimate case for protecting such premises. The amendment therefore prohibits disconnection for the non-payment of bills for prisons, remand centres, young offender institutions and secure training centres. For the same reasons, protection will be extended to immigration detention centres.

I wish to refer to education and children's day care. In education, we propose to protect premises used for children's day care and premises used for further and higher education—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Schools, where attendance is compulsory, are already protected under the Bill. However, the Government are not focusing our efforts only on children of compulsory school age. The national child care strategy recognises that pre-school provision can have a major influence on children's development through their school years and beyond. Day care centres do not involve compulsory attendance, but we think that the case is made for extending protection in such cases, to ensure that children have appropriate facilities.

At the other end of the spectrum, further and higher education premises also do not involve compulsory attendance, but it would cause substantial upheaval if they became victims of disconnection through no fault of their own so, on balance, we support the prohibition of disconnection for such establishments, including student halls of residence.

Mr. Burns

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher

Compared with his continual interventions in Committee, the hon. Gentleman's abstinence has been remarkable, so I am glad to give way.

Mr. Burns

I cannot remember from our discussions in Committee whether the definition of schools includes boarding schools.

Mr. Meacher

It includes boarding schools and schools in both the public and the private sector. We have made no distinction.

I want to add, for the sake of completeness, that I made two important commitments on the clause in Committee. I assured the Committee that the Government would not allow sheltered housing for the elderly to be disconnected and I said that we wanted to protect tenants in bedsits. I want to confirm that the amendments that we have proposed would indeed cover those properties. In line with our general approach on dwellings, disconnection of such premises will not be permitted in the case of properties that are someone's only or principal home.

We have taken the considered view, following the line of argument so eloquently and determinedly put to me in Committee, that we should provide for increased protection against disconnection and against the use of limiting devices to enforce payment, but I am sure that the House will recognise that our proposals continue to be carefully targeted on homes and premises that provide a vital role in the community.

We do not seek to inhibit the operations of water companies more than is necessary to meet the key welfare concerns that have been raised. Water companies in England and Wales will still have the ability to disconnect the vast majority of non-household premises for failure to pay bills. We still think that that is right.

In providing protection against disconnection, we have looked at the purpose of specific premises. We have not discriminated between the private and public sector bodies, or charitable organisations, that provide those key services. The Government have emphasised the importance that we attach to the prompt payment of bills for Departments and public sector bodies.

I do not expect that there will be any adverse impact on water companies' income as a result of the measures, despite the long list of exemptions and protections, but the proposals in the Government amendments are designed to provide absolute assurance to members of the public who may be adversely affected as a result of disconnection and to ensure that, in cases in which we believe as a matter of principle that it is right to protect against disconnection, appropriate measures are put in place.

I hope that I have listened attentively to all that was pressed on me and that I have responded positively and met the will of the House.

Mr. Burns

It is an especial pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. A significant number of amendments were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends after our discussions in Committee. The Minister generously said in Committee that he would reflect on the points made by Opposition Members on a range of matters.

If I remember rightly, it was two days ago that the Government tabled the new schedule and the ancillary amendments which, because of the procedures of the House, effectively leapfrogged the amendments tabled by the Conservative party, which urged the Government to adopt this point of view.

I must confess that when the Bill was first published and when we were studying it in the run-up to Second Reading and the Committee stage, we were puzzled not only that the Government had specified in clause 1 that the Bill would apply to domestic dwellings that were the prime residence of individuals, but that it would apply to two other categories—schools and hospitals.

As the Minister rightly said in Committee, no school or hospital has had its water supply disconnected because of non-payment of bills. We would all be extremely surprised if that had been the case. Nevertheless, the Government felt that it was important that these two types of institutions should be specified in the Bill so that there could be no confusion about the Government's intention.

We were genuinely puzzled that the Government should restrict the specified bodies to the two types in question, important though they are. On reflection, we came to believe that there were several other equally important types of institution which, were the water to be disconnected because of non-payment, could cause serious public health risks and other problems. Given that the Government had conceded the point by specifying hospitals and schools, we felt that it was important that, for example, children's homes and registered homes for the elderly should also be mentioned.

Some of the most frail and vulnerable members of society live in registered homes. By definition, they are not responsible for payment of the water bills, but they could be adversely affected if the owners of residential homes, or those responsible for running those homes, omitted to pay the bills, because of irresponsibility, a genuine mishap or forgetfulness.

Mr. Gray

Does my hon. Friend agree that our bewilderment about schools and hospitals being specified in the Bill remains, as there is absolutely no purpose to the provision? Does he further agree that the categories set out in the new schedule and, indeed, in our amendments are perhaps much more worthwhile on the ground that there is a greater likelihood of, for example, a privately run care home omitting to pay the bill and being disconnected? There is a curious conundrum in the Government's proposals.

Mr. Burns

I understand what my hon. Friend says. This is not a criticism, but one can get into difficulty if one starts to differentiate between various organisations on the ground of their supposed importance. However, my hon. Friend's point, which is 100 per cent. valid, is that experience shows that no school or hospital has ever been disconnected because of non-payment of its water bills, or of its water rates under the old system. However, as my hon. Friend correctly identified, there is a greater possibility of someone running, for example, a residential home for the elderly not paying the bill, because of forgetfulness or, in an extreme case, negligence. Prior to the Bill, that failure could potentially have led to the disconnection of the water supply.

I am grateful that the Minister has been prepared to listen to the arguments deployed in Committee and is prepared to include in the new schedule institutions of further and higher education—universities, colleges and their halls of residence.

9.30 pm

Again, it is possible that there could be a problem with halls of residence, if not with the main buildings. However, responsibility under the Bill for halls of residence is restricted to established halls of residence on campus, run by the college or university concerned. It does not include any private, freelance arrangements that students might make to rent accommodation in the town or city. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that analysis is correct.

We welcome the inclusion of nursing homes in the provision, and we tabled amendments in Committee to that end. I give credit to the Minister for including sheltered accommodation for elderly people. He did so without a fight, and it is a wise decision.

In Committee, the Minister raised the question of prisons. As he said earlier, prisoners do not usually stay in prison by choice, although—sadly—a small minority probably do. It would be catastrophic if prisons were to have their water supply cut off, but I suspect that the chance of that happening is non-existent. However, it is sensible to adopt a belt-and-braces approach: it means that the Minister will not have to return for extra powers within days of the Bill reaching the statute book if—sod's law being what it is—a prison were to have its water supply cut off.

Conservative Members pointed out in Committee—as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—that doctors and dentists desperately rely on water to carry out their professional functions. Again, it is possible that, through forgetfulness or inefficiency, a water supply could be disconnected for non-payment, and the difficulties would be especially acute for dentists. Some patients may need urgent treatment, and any delay or postponement would cause inconvenience.

We tabled our amendments in Committee for those reasons, and we are grateful that the Minister was prepared to listen to our arguments. I do not mean to be critical, but it is clear that, when the Bill was drafted, the Minister felt that it would be better if only a minimum number of categories were to be added to that of domestic dwellings.

On reflection, on the basis of our arguments in Committee, the Minister has clearly been persuaded by the logic and compelling reasonableness of our suggestions. To be fair to the Minister, and to his credit, he has on certain issues—prisons and sheltered accommodation especially—been prepared to go further. He has not been constricted by the language of the civil service and has not taken a narrow and blinkered view. He has decided in one go to accept the arguments.

Obviously, it would be churlish in the light of my remarks to say that the Opposition do not welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our amendments—albeit more finely drafted. The provisions have been more neatly encompassed in new schedule 1, rather than in a clumsy list in clause 1. I assure the Minister that, given that we are in total agreement on this issue, we shall not be opposing any Government amendment. In addition, for the obvious reason that the Government's drafting of amendments is superior, we shall not be pressing our amendments to a vote.

Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East)

In view of the length of speeches, I shall be brief.

I welcome the Government's amendments and the way in which they are designed to protect individuals. I thank the Minister for receiving representations from people who are part of the Anglian Water experiment in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough, and who feel that they will lose out as a result of the Bill. As customers of Anglian Water with pre-payment meters, they feel that the sanction of the limiting device is the only way in which they are able to budget successfully. They fear that the Bill when enacted will put them back on the slippery slope to a life of debt. The Bill does not address that.

In Committee, the Minister said that if the Government could find alternative mechanisms that assisted budgeting and did not lead to disconnections, they would be prepared to consider them. However, he said that responsibility for that lay with the water companies. If we are serious about social exclusion, we must protect the people to whom I have referred and find ways of assisting them with budgeting.

If research is left to water companies, it will be conducted for their benefit. Their finance systems and interests will dictate such research. The Government have a role to play in the research in order to protect the people who are concerned about losing out under the legislation. Although I accept that the provisions apply to a very small minority, I urge the Government to take part in the research, put their weight behind it and find alternative mechanisms that will help to deal with this small but vital area of social exclusion.

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

I should like to start by claiming a Liberal Democrat campaign success: Government new schedule 1. I was also very flattered to note that, in the past few days, the Conservatives have quite unashamedly retabled many of the Liberal Democrat amendments that were tabled on 15 December, in order to extend the list of excluded premises.

Mr. Burns

Let me please clarify the situation. I know that the Liberal Democrats will be terribly upset about not tabling any amendments on Report. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that both his party and mine tabled amendments that were debated in Committee, and once the Committee reported and the Minister had given a commitment, it was open to both parties to retable them. We tabled all the amendments as soon as the Committee finished its sittings. The hon. Gentleman still has not done so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not going to allow a post mortem on who tabled what. We have amendments before us and we must discuss those amendments.

Mr. Brake

It is a pity that the intervention was made. I simply respond by saying that Liberal Democrat Members favour a less tribal form of politics, and would certainly welcome a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, but would like to get the credit for it when appropriate.

Although I welcome the new schedule, I am surprised that, when the Bill was being drafted—I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has mentioned this—the Minister and his massed ranks of civil servants did not believe that it was appropriate to add to the list of exclusions other categories, such as sheltered accommodation, prisons, dentists, doctors, and so on. The Government have now done so, and I am pleased that they have done so; they have agreed to take our suggestions on board. I hope that, in future, attention will be paid to detail at the appropriate moment.

I must also question the role of some of the Labour Back Benchers on the Committee, who remained silent almost throughout its consideration of the Bill. However, I give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have been twisting the Minister's arm behind closed doors, and it may be for that reason that some of the amendments have emerged tonight.

Mr. Burns

I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not like confrontational politics.

Mr. Brake

But I am about to finish on a positive note.

In Committee, the Government would give no firm undertaking that they would support Liberal Democrat proposals to protect the groups that I have mentioned. I am very pleased that they have listened to our arguments, and to our concerns and those of Conservative Members. This is a refreshing and novel approach to government, and I would commend it to the House. We are very happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Mr. Gray

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment. He has an inexorable way of congratulating himself under all circumstances—he has that in common with the rest of his party. However, on this occasion, I am happy to congratulate him on the brevity of his remarks, if nothing else.

I am also pleased to congratulate the Government who, I am glad to say, listened so carefully to what Her Majesty's Opposition said in Committee that they have tabled new schedule 1, which seems to incorporate all the powerful and passionate arguments that we advanced in Committee. I only wish that, in some of the other Committees on which I serve, the Government were as ready to listen to the great sense and power of our advocacy as they appear to have been in this case.

I have severe reservations about whether domestic disconnections should be outlawed. However, if they were outlawed, it would be absurd if some of these very noble and distinguished public organisations were none the less allowed to suffer from disconnections. Equally, it would be absurd if, although schools could not be disconnected, institutions of further and higher education could be; and if, although hospitals could not be disconnected, organisations such as nursing homes could be. I therefore welcome the inherent logic in the Government's accepting our amendments Nos. 13 to 24—or, rather, replacing them with new schedule 1. There is a great deal of logic and sense in that, and Conservative Members welcome the Government's sense in listening to what we said and, to a limited degree, to be fair, to what Liberal Democrat Members said on the subject.

None the less, a huge absurdity underlies this debate. Several times in Committee, a certain phrase was used—the words escape my mind, but there was a definite absurdity in the way in which the debate took place, for the following reason. Of course those worthwhile organisations should not be disconnected, but there is no circumstance, and no one—in Committee, or in the Chamber tonight—has been able to outline any circumstance, under which any of those institutions would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a hospital would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a fire brigade—the headquarters or the fire hydrants—would be disconnected. None of the institutions listed in new schedule 1 has the remotest likelihood, under any circumstances, of being disconnected.

There is a curious feel about the debate. We are legislating against something that could not possibly occur. It is a waste of a debate and of a new schedule. The initial exemption of schools and hospitals that led to the new schedule and the debate was in itself an absurdity.

9.45 pm

The second absurdity is that if we accept that there is no likelihood that the listed premises will be disconnected, but none the less the Government are to legislate against the possibility that that will happen—this may have more to do with Labour's determination to live with regulation and legislation bearing on every minute detail of our lives; it loves control from the centre and loves saying, "This is what you, the water companies, will do"—and if we assume that it is reasonable that they should do so, and that they should say that schools, hospitals and the other worthy bodies listed in new schedule 1 should not be disconnected, what is the position of all the premises that are not listed in the new schedule?

For example, what is the position of Government offices? Under the Bill, it is possible that the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, at its splendid new building opposite Victoria station, will be disconnected if an obscure civil servant somewhere on some occasion fails to pay the bill. Is that not ludicrous?

Another example is barrack blocks. It is possible that soldiers in those blocks will be disconnected from a water supply because the Ministry of Defence has failed to pay the bill. The Palace of Westminster is not exempt from disconnection. It is perfectly possible under the Bill that the Palace will be cut off and that the water that Ministers enjoy as they sit on the Treasury Bench will therefore not be available.

Mr. Brake

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the House in what way hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster are a vulnerable group.

Mr. Gray

On reflection, one or two Members on the Liberal Benches might fall into that category. Those with minute majorities may well be looking vulnerable in two or three years' time. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are not vulnerable groups in proper terms. Nor, indeed, are many of the categories listed in the new schedule.

My point—perhaps I have chosen a vaguely absurd way in which to make it—is that Her Majesty's Government pay hospitals' water bills, as they do for schools and for most of the categories listed in the new schedule. The only circumstances in which the bill would not be paid would be either if the Government chose not to do so—if, for example, the school or hospital had become roofless or disused—or if, through some minor inefficiency in the lower regions of whatever Department, a civil servant on some occasion forgot to pay the bill. Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances, the water company would have the ultimate sanction of saying to the Government, "Look here, guys, you have not paid your bill; if you don't pay it we shall cut you off."

It is absurd that under the new schedule, many Government organisations may not be cut off even if they do not pay their bills, while other perfectly worthwhile Government organisations, such as the Palace and Government Departments, could be disconnected.

Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that civil servants pay the water bills of hospitals and other such premises. It is the employees of the health boards who do that. There are certainly health boards that I am acquainted with which make a mess of their financial affairs and might well come unstuck in this context.

Mr. Gray

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. He is right in saying that, technically, it is not civil servants who pay the bills, although they are public servants. Perhaps that would be the more accurate expression. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me with such care as to spot the slight slip. I am happy to acknowledge his correcting it.

These exceptions constitute an absurdity, as do the premises that are missing. The new schedule as a whole is not anything to do with real and important legislation; it is more to do with two other things. First, there is Labour's determination to limit, control and regulate every aspect of our lives. It is determined to write down in law the minutest detail of everyday life. When the Conservative Government introduced a voluntary code of conduct, we found that for many years, the water companies did not disconnect very many domestic customers. Far less have they disconnected any of the worthwhile bodies that are listed in the new schedule. A voluntary code of practice for the water companies has worked perfectly adequately for many years, but the Government have now chosen to regulate through the new schedule.

The second aspect of new Labour highlighted by the new schedule is its love of the politically correct. It is marvellous for Ministers to say, "We care greatly for vulnerable people. That is why we will exempt them from disconnections. It is the fat cats in the water industry—those disgraceful people who are earning large sums of money—who have been cutting off schools and hospitals. We, the caring new Labour Government, are determined to stop that scandalous activity."

The truth is that no school and no hospital has ever been disconnected. No school and no hospital ever would be disconnected. A school or hospital would be disconnected only if it had failed to pay the bill.

There are two aspects of new Labour that the new schedule and the amendments highlight. One is its determination to regulate, down to the minute detail of our everyday lives. The second is its determination to be seen to be kind and fair to the most vulnerable in our society. Who would not be? It is a waste of Government time, legislative time and the House's time to legislate against something that by no stretch of the imagination would ever happen.

Mr. Meacher

I shall reply briefly, as there were two or three points on which I can give a factual response.

I was asked about the application of protection from disconnection in respect of student lodgings. Halls of residence attached to places of further and higher education will be protected, as will bedsits which qualify as houses in multiple occupation, and private dwellings where students rent rooms. That goes pretty wide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) raised the important point about limiting devices—trickle valves—to enforce payment. I am aware that a small minority of people regard those as useful for budgeting purposes. I do not think that the retention of limiting devices is the best way to help them, but I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a role for Government to consider whether we should issue guidelines to water companies about ways in which they can assist individuals and families who want help with budgeting.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had enormous fun and made a fairly knockabout speech. He argued that the new schedule was entirely fatuous because none of the institutions listed is likely to suffer disconnection. He is not quite right about that. The figures that we have, which are not complete because the water companies do not always keep such information, show that, over the past five years, for houses in multiple occupation where the landlord is not resident, there have been 16 cases of disconnection, and, for tenanted properties where the landlord is responsible for paying the bill, there have been 17 cases of disconnection. Both types of property involve groups who are vulnerable, and both will be covered by the provisions.

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unconcerned in failing to recognise that there is a genuine purpose behind the provisions. I hope that we will not have a further lengthy discussion of the matter, and that he will accept that such protection is desirable and that he should support it, not mock it.

Mr. Gray

The right hon. Gentleman is right about houses in multiple occupation and the other worthy cause that he mentioned. My remarks were not directed at them. My point was about schools and hospitals in particular, which are the only two categories that he mentioned in Committee and that were originally mentioned in the Bill. Government agencies could reasonably be expected to pay the bills of both those categories.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert— '(2) After Schedule 4 to the Water Industry Act 1991 there is inserted, as Schedule 4A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991) to this Act.'—[Mr. Allen.]

Back to
Forward to