| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I concur that the Government are not to blame for the lack of rain. However, if they fail to take stronger measures in the face of the fact that climate change will undoubtedly make rainfall less predictable—that is
17 May 2006 : Column 275
what the scientists are telling us—and that droughts are more likely, they will, of course, be to blame. My questions relate to the measures that they could take.
First, the Minister said in the Statement that leakage rates had been reduced by 30 per cent in 10 years, but that is only 3 per cent a year. Are there additional mechanisms that the Government can use? The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, was good enough to send a further written reply to the debate that I initiated on 9 May, to which she replied, in which she stated that in between the price reviews there were mechanisms for dealing with changes. Should those mechanisms now be brought in?
Secondly, I refer to one of the first Written Answers that the Minister was good enough to provide for me when he took up his current position at Defra. I asked the Government:
"Whether they have considered a national roll-out of water metering in the light of the water shortage".
"The Government recognise that metering is an effective method of charging customers according to consumption and that, with appropriate protection for vulnerable households, it represents a generally fair means of charging".—[Official Report, 15/5/06; col. WA15-16.]
Given that that is the Government's attitude, why are they not thinking of rolling out a universal metering system? According to all estimates at least 10 per cent of water consumption could be saved?
Further, does the Minister think that there is sufficient help for consumers in labelling of appliances so that they are not only targeted by the clever marketing of, for example power showers, but are aware of how much extra water they would use? That would apply to all sorts of white goods such as washing machines and dishwashers.
Finally, I refer again to a more detailed Written Answer that I was given following my debate on 9 May in which the Government said that there were controls to prevent the waste, misuse and undue consumption of water in domestic and commercial premises. Irrespective of those people who are metered, I wonder exactly what is meant by those controls. In addition to the hose pipe ban and the drought order such controls should now surely be brought in.
3.43 pm
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baronesses' comments. I shall do my best to answer their questions.
They both mentioned meters. At present there are no plans to mandate universal metering throughout England, although I understand that there is provision for compulsory metering in water stressed areas. We fully accept that that metering can save about 10 per cent of water use. At present all new houses have meters installed. Nationally, about 26 per cent of domestic properties have meters. The matter is under consideration and discussions are going on. However, as I say there is no mandate and no expectation of compulsory water metering being introduced
17 May 2006 : Column 276
throughout the country, but the relevant powers exist for water stressed areas, if they are needed. I was asked whether the powers were sufficient. I do not have any information that there are insufficient powers to deal with these issues.
As I said in the Statement, the investment since privatisation has been some £55 billion; and £3.5 billion was invested in 2003–04, the most recent year for which I have figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly raised, in a moderate way, the issue of new build in the south-east and East Anglia, and I understand her reasons for that. The water companies are required by law to have 25-year plans. They take into account, for example, the proposals for growth areas contained in the communities plan. That allegation was made when I was at ODPM, and I was able to refute it. I do not have the words in front of me, but it is not true that the water companies were not involved in the production of the communities plan. I remember coming to the House and debating that. It was alleged that the water companies were ignored. They are required to factor potential and prospective new build into their 25-year plans. So it is not a surprise to the water companies that the new build plans are there—it is their responsibility; but they were not excluded from the putting together of the communities plan.
Applications for individual bore holes are looked at on the merits and circumstances of each one. We debated that the other day—just because one puts a bore hole on one's land does not mean that the water comes only from under that land. As a noble Lord said in Grand Committee, a spring 10 miles away can be dried up; and that has happened.
I do not have any details regarding which reservoirs are less than half full. A considerable number of reservoirs are not completely full, as we have seen in photographs; but I shall seek to get that information and write to the noble Baroness.
I have no information regarding the new build plans for growth areas. There is massive pressure to provide people with affordable housing in areas in which they have been born and raised and want to live—and there is enormous pressure in the south-east. But the new build plans have to be taken into account by the water companies. The noble Baroness rightly said that, in relation to public health, domestic water supply is the first call on the water companies. As we all know—and some noble Lords are better qualified than me—a clean, wholesome supply of water did more to cure disease in this country than any medicines and drugs, even before we identified the diseases. Then it is up to the individual circumstances of businesses, whatever they may be, and some use large amounts of water, including the agri-food industry. The water companies have been asked by my honourable friend to take reasonable decisions in the circumstances and not go to extremes. That is why there has been a hosepipe ban and the publicity. A drought order is the next stage in the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the water grid and she received a few murmurs of approval. I have a view on the water grid: we have a
17 May 2006 : Column 277
country that is unequally balanced, both socially and economically—particularly economically. There is an alleged source of water in the north that, suddenly, is supposed to be transported south to feed the ever-growing south-east. I think that there is something iffy about that. The quality of life in the north is far superior to that in the south-east, anyway. It is said that more people and jobs should be created and that there are plans for growth, but I have a couple of killer statistics to put to bed the call for transporting water. I am told that one person uses 150 litres of water per day, on average. A family of five uses 750 litres a day, which weighs three-quarters of a ton. There are 30 million people. It is not on. You just cannot transport water. That proposal is off the radar. It would be much better if we made other social and economic changes.
The noble Baroness asked about climate change, too. Droughts are not unusual, and this drought is not necessarily an indication of climate change—although it may be. In the past 200 years there have been 10 multi-year droughts. Although I shall not read them all out, the last was between 1995 and 1997 and the drought before that was between 1990 and 1992. The 1975–76 drought was cured by Denis Howell—he dealt with the floods that followed the drought, as if he had made the rain. Before that, one occurred in 1933–34 and there was another one in 1921–22. In their 25-year plans, the water companies are required to meet the circumstances of the severe drought of 1933–34. So, with standpipes and drought orders, there is still sufficient water supply for at least one month's domestic use. This is factored to be an incident that occurs about once every 100 years and that is how it is built into the 25-year plans.
This may be an issue of climate change but at present there is no indication that it is. These multi-year droughts have come and gone and we have managed quite successfully. Obviously there has to be publicity. Everyone was warned that we would have a dry summer but they were also warned that we would have an exceptionally cold winter, so some things do not work out as expected. But the warning has been given and people have had sufficient indication that saving water in any way that they can will be helpful to everyone. There are plenty of ways that water can be saved—there is enough publicity about that and there will probably be more—and the drought orders are brought in to give the companies the powers to take the necessary steps. We hope that standpipes will not be required but, if they are, the necessary legislation for them will be contained in the order.
3.51 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |