River Quality Survey (Hansard, 27 January 1987)

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, the report of the 1985 River Quality Survey—the latest of a series of surveys which started in 1958—was published on 16th December and my honourable friend the Minister for Countryside, Environment and Planning and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales wrote to water authority chairmen drawing their attention to its main findings. The detailed implications will be considered further with individual authorities in the context of this year's discussions of corporate plans.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer, which is not very informative as to what advice he is giving. Is my noble friend aware that while the report generally is satisfactory the 14 per cent. deterioration in inland watercourses causes some anxiety? It reverses the trend of the past 10 years. Is my noble friend aware that water authorities generally feel that the combination of government restrictions on borrowing and the stringent financial targets in operation—which the Government make obligatory—is depriving them of the necessary funds to maintain the environmental standards that they would wish? Would my noble friend consider relaxing those unrealistic policies?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the survey shows that although there has been a deterioration in a few areas such as the South-West and the North-West there have been improvements in others such as Wessex and Anglia. The overall quality of those waters continues to be high, with 90 per cent. of river and canal lengths and 92 per cent. of estuarial lengths assessed as being of good and fair quality. I am well aware that improvements in water quality were attributed in the main to investment by the water authorities and equally by industry. Deteriorations were attributed to deteriorating sewerage work effluence, sometimes due to increased loads, and to agricultural pollution.
With regard to moneys available to water authorities, of course they are responsible these days 1244 for their own finances. Within, that, they are already making available £500 million a year to improve the situation. However, as I said in my original Answer, further discussions will take place on this subject.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the survey methods used by the authorities during the year are open to question? That is admitted in the report. A certain number of adjustments has had to be made because of the unsatisfactory nature of some of the tests. Would it not be sensible, in order to get results on which we can rely, for the Government to put the overall control of the exercise into the hands of either the NERC or the WRCs so that we can be satisfied that the results we obtain are results on which we can work? Can the noble Lord also say whether any attempt is being made to meet the requirements of the EC directive on water for human consumption and whether our categories would be in line with that directive?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, on the point about the directive to which the noble Baroness referred, that is a slightly different subject though I take the point on board and will respond to her in writing. Following normal practice, I shall put a copy in the Library.
There has quite clearly been some changes in methodology since the last report. This is a matter that we shall discuss with the water authorities themselves. On overall control—the watchdog, if one likes—of this monitoring activity of water authorities, their operations will be monitored by the water pollution capability within HM inspectorate on pollution which we shall formally set up in April.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a point. It was not so much a question of monitoring the results as of making sure that the tests which were done were realistic tests and were generally agreed. There seems to be a different kind of test applied in different parts of the country. That means that the overall comparisons are not very valuable.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, it was that to which I referred. That is what I call the methodology. If I confused the noble Baroness by my answer, I can only apologise.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these financial stringencies which the Government are imposing are forcing the water authorities to raise their water charges by some 5 per cent. to 7 per cent.? Is that not unfair both to consumers and to the water authorities?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, as my noble friend knows very well, the financing of water authorities is based on a charge for a service—or rather a product—rendered. It is quite right that within the overall water cycle the charges should reflect the costs.

The Earl of Selkirk
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us the cause of the threatened crisis of water last week?

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many members of the public who are within the orbit of the Thames Water Authority will find his remarks most extraordinary? The fact is that the service in the past few months has been pretty deplorable. We had a very cold spell, then a frost, then no water; and now we are told that charges are going up. What for, my Lords? We are getting no service.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, in a period of very severe weather such as we have experienced particularly, but not totally, within the South-East of England over recent weeks, inevitably there will be burst pipes and as a result much water will go to waste. That is a major problem. I am informed that the Thames Water Authority is rapidly getting on top of the water shortage problem.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, what about the increase in rates for the service?