HL Deb 05 July 1991 vol 530 cc1185-6

11.20 a.m.

The Earl of Buchan asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied with the monitoring by the National Rivers Authority of the privatised water companies in England and Wales.

Viscount Astor

Yes, my Lords.

The Earl of Buchan

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full Answer! As the Government are responsible for 20 per cent. of the revenue of the National Rivers Authority, will the Minister throw further light on the mode of departure of the recent chief executive of that body, bearing in mind a somewhat sour comment by one of our most influential daily papers which stated that "Buying silence in the Government watchdog leaves a bad taste in the mouth"? Will he give assurances to the wretched water consumers who have seen 30 per cent. increases in their bills that all is well in view of the fact that recently the only other 30 per cent. increases seem to be thaw which the directors of those companies have awarded themselves?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, Dr. Bowman's departure from the National Rivers Authority is entirely a matter for the chairman of the authority and his independent board. It is not for me to comment. As regards the industry generally, the water companies are spending a great deal of money on improved services for consumers. During the past year capital investment was up by 59 per cent.; long-term investment programmes, which total in excess of £28 billion for a 10-year period, are on target; and the industry is currently spending £7 million per day.

Baroness White

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the present arrangements for monitoring are quite unnecessarily complex? They are divided among the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is based at the Department of the Environment, and the Welsh Office—they produce nothing but paper audits—and the environmental health officers of the local authorities. Does he agree that it is time that that arrangement should be reviewed so that there can be a more sensible system? At present, the National Rivers Authority is responsible for sewage but not for drinking water. That seems to me to be absurd.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I believe that we have a sensible system at present. The National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services and the Drinking Water Inspectorate are there to ensure a better level of service, a better quality of environment and to ensure that the companies of the water and sewerage industry meet the stringent standards which have been set.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that his disclaimer of responsibility for anything to do with the internal arrangements of the National Rivers Authority will be widely seen as a sign of Government complacency? There are clearly severe problems among the chief executive, the senior staff and the chairman of the authority. Does that not give credence to the point made by my noble friend Lady White that we need a pollution inspectorate responsible for all aspects of water pollution and not the divide and rule system which we have at present?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely wrong. The National Rivers Authority is a major undertaking with some 7,000 employees. In March it published a review of action and forecast demand for public water companies and it concluded that the water companies are planning new developments and have sufficient resources to meet the existing level of demand. The National Rivers Authority is doing an extremely good job.