HL Deb 16 March 1995 vol 562 cc931-3

3.25 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the conclusions of the report by the Policy Studies Institute entitled Water Debt and Disconnection and published on 14th March, that the number of households in water debt has gone up by nine times since the industry was privatised in 1989, and what proposals they have to mitigate the effect on low income households.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, PSI questioned fewer than 2,000 households in the whole of Great Britain. Despite the perception of increased water debt in England and Wales since 1989, the real issue is how those who have difficulty in meeting their charges are treated. Disconnections are falling, and water companies have put into effect procedures to provide the earliest possible assistance to customers through the availability of optional instalment arrangements and budget plans.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he tell me whether he agrees, as the Question asks, with the PSI conclusion? He did not answer the Question. Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated in my Answer that PSI had questioned fewer than 2,000 households. The problem is that in arriving at its estimate of 2 million households in arrears in 1994, PSI asked people: over the past 12 months, have you been behind with your payments or owed money for your water?

They were considered to have difficulties if they answered yes.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I still cannot get an answer from the Government. Do they or do they not agree? Will the noble Viscount please answer that question yes or no? If they do agree, will they accept that the people who cannot pay and who find difficulty in paying come from lower income households and that disconnection is normally the answer? That is simply another example of how this Government ignore the poor in favour of the rich.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I tried to indicate why the Government do not believe that PSI is giving a true perspective on the matter. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, the legislation provides that in virtually all cases a water company must obtain a court order for the repayment of arrears before disconnection can be undertaken. The Government believe that that offers the best protection to customers to ensure that only those who can pay, but will not, face the prospect of disconnection.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, is it not correct (in my noble friend's opinion) that whenever we hear that a question demands to be answered yes or no, in at least 90 per cent, of the cases the question is unfair?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, sometimes my noble and learned friend is right, but on some occasions he may be wrong.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, does the Minister accept that I think it unfair to cut off the water supply of many of our deprived families, as can happen before a case is brought to court? Is it right and proper that people in that category should be brought before the courts and fined for being unable to pay their water bills, and then be subject to a prison sentence because they cannot pay their fine?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I would start from the other side. I believe that it is right to expect bills to be paid and to take action against those who can pay but will not. The same report indicated that 66 per cent. of those who were disconnected were connected again, having paid, within 48 hours.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, can my noble friend say how much the price of water has increased thanks to the £9,000 million which we have spent, or are committed to spend, on two European water directives—the urban waste water treatment directive and the bathing water directive—much of which, in the opinion of Ofwat, was unnecessary and may therefore have been wasted? Will Her Majesty's Government do all that they can therefore to resist the proposed new drinking water directive and the proposed new bathing water directive which are likely to cost very much more?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend that all those directives are not required. We need higher environmental standards in this country. The new price limits allow for an enormous sum of capital expenditure, something which was not done when water distribution was in the public sector. The level of investment since privatisation has been far higher, and the director general has allowed expenditure of some £6 billion to implement the urban waste water treatment directive.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, thinks that all the questions asked of the Government which cannot be answered are unfair, let me ask another unfair question. Does the Minister agree with the authors of the report that, Government and politicians need to reconsider whether or not disconnection continues to be an appropriate sanction for non-payment"?

Do the Government agree with that or not?

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Yes or no!

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, yes. The PSI recognises that the drop in levels of disconnection has reflected Ofwat's guidance, and in 1993–94 the 10 water and sewerage companies carried out fewer disconnections than in 1986 before privatisation.