Water Supply Quality (Hansard, 3 July 1991)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is satisfied that all companies are making good progress with virtually all the schemes within their existing compliance programmes. The inspectorate is reviewing the undertakings given by companies in relation to pesticides and later in the year will commence a review of their other undertakings in order to see whether these continue to be appropriate.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Baroness aware that the latest Digest of Environment Protection and Water Statistics indicates that, since 1988, 90 water authorities carry an overload of nitrates in the drinking water? That represents an increase of 20 per cent. Salaries for people in charge of the water authorities have increased by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent. Charges to the consumer have increased by an average of 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. Does the Minister consider that the consumer now has a fair deal from privatisation? Is privatisation working in the way that Government intended?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, with regard to nitrates, most suppliers already comply with the standards. Companies are taking steps to bring other supplies into compliance by 1995. We are already operating to levels well below the World Health Organisation limits. The water companies are doing their best to ensure that those which are above the level are well within the safety level and are bringing their standards within the limits set by the European Commission.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether or not the Severn Trent Water authority has stopped adding substances to its water supply as a deterrent against Iraqi terrorism as they were widely reported to have done.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not taking that comment seriously. It is a comment that has been picked up in the papers and is pure speculation. The noble Lord refers to "substances". I ask him: what substances?

§ Lord Cockfield
My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter based on personal evidence. If water is spilled 982 in London on a smooth surface and allowed to evaporate naturally, it leaves behind a heavy chemical deposit. If such water is ingested, does it leave similar heavy chemical deposits inside the human body?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I can say that the water in this country is safe to drink. Where some of the companies do not comply with the standards, it is on mainly aesthetic grounds as opposed to standards of health and safety.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, the whole country is grateful to hear that water is fit to drink. Will the Minister accept that the improvement of the water supplies and reduction in price is rather more important than an increase in dividends and huge increases in salaries in this now private monopoly?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, no, I do not agree with the noble Lord. Because the water companies have become more profitable, their investment is up by 50 per cent. They plan, and will achieve, an investment of £28 billion over the next 10 years. I do not believe that increases in salaries represent a detraction from what I consider to be a hugely successful story.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while the main Question on the Order Paper is objective, the first and last supplementary questions are examples of the blanket opposition that is expressed on any operation that has been privatised?
With regard to a possible lack of quality of water, that did not occur overnight. Time has to be given before the problems of the past can be rectified.

§ Baroness Blatch;
My Lords, my noble friend again makes an interesting point. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite will turn the clock back to when the water industry was sadly neglected, not simply by the present Government but by previous governments too. We have put in place a Water Inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, and a Director General of Water. They are concerned with effectiveness of service and service to the customer. Those measures were not in place when noble Lords opposite were in power.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is the "polluter pays" principle part of the measures applied by the new water companies? If so, which of the polluters will pay? Will it be the chemical companies which produce the offending chemicals or the user who allows them to get into the water source? Is it not unfair that water consumers should have to pay while the profits of both those areas of exercise remain untouched?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, in all cases where limits are not met the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that everything that can practicably be done is being done; and he will accept an undertaking that the company is working towards meeting the limits and will achieve the objectives. Those undertakings are accepted only when all possible means of achieving the limits are being pursued by the water company. The principle that the polluter pays is right but where an undertaking has been agreed it is only where the 983 company is doing its best to conform with the standards. The standards are safe; we are talking about aesthetic standards and meeting the new rigorous standards on pesticides.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, the Minister has given detailed answers and has herself gone a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Is she aware that this morning Welsh Water announced an increase of 88 per cent. in the salary of its chairman? That announcement comes after the consumers in Wales have had to meet an increase of 32 per cent. Can the Minister guarantee that the improvement in the quality of the water supply in Wales will be commensurate with that appalling increase that has been levied on consumers to pay for high salaries?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have nothing to add on the subject of salary increases for employees of the water company in Wales. However, I repeat the important point that the profitability of water companies has allowed a 50 per cent. increased investment in infrastructure for the water industry and a promised intention to spend £28 billion during the next 10 years. I believe that promise will be kept. That would not be achieved by any other means. The noble Lord would turn the clock back so that the money would not be available to improve the water supplies in this country.