Water Supplies (Hansard, 21 May 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are determined that this country should have a world-class, reliable, water-efficient and environmentally sustainable water industry. At the water summit meeting in London on 19th May, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a 10-point action plan for the 382 industry in England and Wales, including the setting of tough mandatory leakage targets to help to secure those goals.

§ The Earl of Drogheda
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the most effective way to reduce domestic consumption would be the metering of water—in fact, mandatory metering? There would be nothing illogical in that. No one questions the propriety of metering gas and electricity. Should it be considered very unfair on poorer households, might not charges be made on a sliding scale whereby the unit cost would rise in proportion to the amount of water used?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, the Government remain opposed to the compulsory metering of water. We believe that water metering has a part to play but there are other areas in which we can tackle the reduction of demand for water. As part of the 10-point plan, the Government are committed to review the whole system of charging for water. We shall look at how metering works at present and examine particularly the basis of water charging and the fact that it is based on rateable values which are now nearly 25 years out of date.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather illogical to demand that water companies reduce leakage by an enormous amount and at the same time hit them with a windfall tax which will take away from them the money they could spend on curing leakages?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I do not believe that anyone else would consider it illogical to demand that the water companies tackle what is probably the greatest problem in relation to water supply in this country; namely, leakage. As regards the windfall tax, I am sure noble Lords will understand that that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Lord Ewing of Kirkford
My Lords, will the Minister accept that in taking away the money through the windfall tax, we can train people to repair the leaks that are losing all the water?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with interest that contribution.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, are not the Government already showing signs of complacency? The question my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara raised is hugely pertinent. How is it that on one side the Government state the objectives and aims of their water policy, which the noble Baroness outlined, while at the same time they hope to introduce a punitive, so-called windfall tax which will, first, cost a large number of jobs and, secondly, have a cost in relation to investment in the water industry which means that their aims and objectives will not be reached?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, the House and the country will judge whether we meet our aims and objectives as time unfolds. The charge of complacency 383 comes a little amiss from that side of the House considering that one of the first actions of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was to bring together the water companies, the regulator, consumers and other bodies for the water summit, showing, as is widely accepted, how we can tackle the problem.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her statement that compulsory water metering is not to be imposed will be welcomed by most noble Lords on this side of the House? Is she aware also that the water companies are failing their customers because, in the first place, they are destroying what water storage there is; secondly, their delivery and infrastructure is not as it should be; and furthermore, during the summer, when drought is expected, they are often abstracting too much water from ground and river sources which dries up the rivers and reduces their flow? Will the Government do anything about that lot?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Many of the issues to which he alluded are contained in the 10-point plan. In particular, the Government will be carrying forward a review of the water abstraction licensing system, arrangements for bulk water transfer and the drawing up of drought contingency plans.

§ The Earl of Radnor
My Lords, has the Minister given thought to the fact that practically every lavatory system in the whole of the British Isles is twice as large as it needs to be to do a decent job? If manufacturers could be persuaded otherwise, that could represent a monumentally large saving of consumption of water.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I have given consideration to that problem; I discussed it only this morning. There are two areas in which we can make progress. The first is in terms of the water companies encouraging customers to take action to reduce supply, particularly in older lavatory systems which use more water than is necessary.
There is also the issue of dual flush toilets which are currently banned as new installations under existing water by-laws. In making the new water regulations, which will replace those by-laws, we are looking to reverse that. The expert committee advising us has indicated already that it will recommend that dual flush toilets should be allowed and encouraged.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, there is one area of the country where the groundwater level is rising; that is, under Greater London, as I am sure the noble Baroness will know. Do the Government plan to help both situations—to stop London floating and the amount of water useable in the capital—by pressing Mr. Byatt, the director general of Ofwat, to enforce an abstraction of groundwater under London.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I am sure that that is one area which Mr. Byatt will examine when he looks at the whole issue of abstraction.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the statistics given by the previous 384 Government to the effect that we spent up until 1995 some £20,000 million on European water directives but only £1,000 million up to that time on infrastructure and supply? Bearing in mind that the idea is to spend a further £20,000 million on European water directives over the next eight years, do the Government think it worth while examining the possibility of some redistribution between those voices?

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and puts a spin on the issue which I should have expected, perhaps, coming from him. I shall certainly consider what he says.