|
Mr. Lansley: It may be that I have missed something and the point has been covered, but will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention subsequently to confer order-making powers on the new authority? If it is the intention for it not to have such powers, I understand why the corporate structure set out in schedule 1 does not give any power of delegation to committees to make statutory instruments. I wanted to make sure that that was the case, otherwise there would be something missing from the structure as it applies to other utility regulators.
Mr. Morley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is indeed the case. There are no proposals to do that. As a final point, I would say that clause 55 requires a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. There is a statutory requirement for such an understanding, apart from the fact that we enjoy good and constructive relations.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Mr. Key: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Given that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is about to propose an amendment opposing Government policy, and given that she is very much feeling the cold, would it be in order for her to join us on this side, where it is warmer?
Column Number: 195
The Chairman: I think it best if I do not comment on that point of order. Clause 38
Consumer Council for Water
Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne): I beg to move amendment No. 230, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 245, in
clause 38, page 41, line 5, leave out from 'to' to end of line.
Ms Atherton: Thank you, Mr. Amess, and may I say that, cold or otherwise, I shall not be crossing the Floor?
The amendment is designed to clarify the Government's commitment to sustainability. It is a probing amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. It would place a requirement on the Consumer Council for Water to
''exercise and perform its powers and duties so as to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.''
That goes a little further than the Government allowed with an amendment in the other place, which my amendment would replace.
Sustainability is very relevant to consumers. It is central to the approach favoured by the Government, which combines economic, environmental and social concerns in the long-term interests of consumers. Last year, research by MORI showed that consumer interest in water went beyond price and included the quality of bathing water, cleaner beaches and protecting our environment. However, we all know that such programmes come at a cost. That is part of the wider debate about how we pay for our water. For consumers and the council that represents them it is vital that those issues are central to the wider debate—the big picture concerning water.
As I represent constituents in a low-income area with the highest water bills in the country, I believe that the wider picture is vital. I am anxious that we link the interests of consumers with that wider agenda, linking sustainability with affordability, and we could strengthen that link via the amendment. Only by addressing the wider issues can we properly tackle the question of how we pay for our water while dealing with problems such as water scarcity in East Anglia, or cleaning up the vast coastline of the south-west and polluted rivers throughout the country.
The Committee will note that the wording of the amendment echoes the requirement that page 46 of the Bill places on the regulator regarding sustainable development. It would add welcome consistency and coherence to the Bill. On Second Reading the Minister said:
''Both the new regulatory authority and the council will have a duty to contribute to sustainable development''—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 60.]
Column Number: 196
That is a little more than the Bill says, and I thought it important to clarify the point. I should welcome my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Swire: I am extremely grateful to be called to speak to this amendment. It has been tabled by a fellow west country MP, albeit one of a different political persuasion. The clause is weakly worded. It says that the council shall have regard to sustainable development, and the amendment would go some way to tightening it up.
I am very supportive of the amendment, and I believe that the hon. Lady made some extremely pertinent points. People in the south-west have a sense of great and increasing injustice as we look forward to incredible rises in water prices over the next few years.
I agree with Water Voice, which will soon be replaced, when it says that the whole structure of charging is unsustainable and needs to be looked at. We in the south-west are in an invidious position. We have a small population who must not only pay for the restructuring of our water and sewerage infrastructure system, but comply with an increasing number of directives from the EU such as the water bathing directive. We have to meet a disproportionate amount of those costs. Every study shows clearly that the south-west has to pay way and above what the rest of the country pays. The recent statistics, if I can find them, make for difficult reading.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I may have intervened at the right time. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Like the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), I am a south-west MP. I know that the interface between sustainable development on surface water and on groundwater has changed. The Minister made a pertinent point about Wessex Water. I agree with my hon. Friend that our long-term commitment to sustainability will be instrumental in the long-term implementation of the Bill.
Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent and timely point. Another problem that we have in the south-west is flooding, although we will not discuss that at this point. We also have the problems of our extensive seascape, the need to clean up the water along our beaches and the very high water charges.
Miraculously, I have now found the statistics that I mentioned. They show that the annual household bill for 1997–98 in the south-west was £352, whereas the bill for Thames Water—the Government Whip nearly leapt into the waters of the Thames a few minutes ago—was £191. In the east of Scotland, if we are prepared to go that far, the bill was £109. That clearly shows the large burden that the south-west has to bear.
The tourists who flock to our beaches—I hope that many Committee members visit the south-west on a regular basis and I would seek to do nothing to dissuade them—come to enjoy our excellent water and our excellent sea. Yet we in the south-west are left with the bill. There is also the sense that we suffer from our geographic position in the peninsula; people believe, rightly or wrongly, that decisions are made far away and somehow we are disadvantaged.
Column Number: 197
In the south-west, we will benefit from anything that gives the council greater transparency and more teeth, and leads to a greater requirement to take all elements into account and discuss them under the umbrella heading of sustainable development. We may benefit as disproportionately as we currently suffer under current water charges.
6.30 pm
Mr. Thomas: I, too, support the amendment. I am sorry that it is a probing amendment because it is a lot better than the current wording. What the Government have decided on, and achieved through an amendment in the other place, has more hedges than Hampton Court. The provision says:
''In the exercise of its functions the Council shall have regard''—
that is the first hedge—
that is another hedge—
that is a bit vague, so I think that it is another bit of hedging—
which limits it to people paying the bill rather than society as a whole.
That is a mealy-mouthed attempt to include sustainable development in the Bill. Can the Minister name one achievement of sustainable development that does not bring benefits to consumers? When it is considered from that perspective, the Government's attempt to achieve sustainable development is a load of rubbish and makes no sense. They are really saying, ''Yes, we will have sustainable development, as long as it doesn't cost too much.'' That is a disastrous approach to the water industry.
One of the huge problems facing us—perhaps not in the next five years but certainly in the next 20—is the decline of our Victorian sewerage system. It is already collapsing all over the place—in Aberystwyth and London—and will need huge investment. There cannot be a better example of sustainable development than ensuring that sewage is properly treated and disposed of in a way that does not affect the environment or the health of those who live in that environment, as we all do. How can we achieve that with cheapskate measures for sustainable development? We cannot.
We must adequately consider those in low-income groups, and we must examine the disproportionate water costs for people in some parts of the UK. I accept what has been said about the south-west of England, and considering the amount of water that Wales has, water bills there are also high.
Ms Atherton: We will swap you.
Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Lady is prepared to swap bills.
Water is, of course, free. The water is not the problem; it is storing, transporting and cleaning water and dealing with sewage that costs money. There is also the effect of tourists in some parts of the country. If there is to be a real sustainable development
Column Number: 198
approach to the problem, we cannot cut corners. We must place sustainable development firmly in the Bill, without caveats, without hedging about and without trying to restrict the benefits to one section of the population—namely consumers. The authority has the over-arching aim to achieve sustainable development, and it is important that the consumer body works in the same way.
The Government have been half-hearted. I am disappointed because, although the Minister has been a champion of sustainable development in many other respects, the Government have included it in the Bill in this narrow, hedged-about way. They could be more generous with sustainable development, and they could be more honest with consumers and the water companies about the task facing us in ensuring that our beaches remain clean, our sewerage system keeps going and our water remains clean and healthy. That does not come cheap, and every one of us will bear the responsibility for that. Together, that is sustainable development.
There is no achievement of sustainable development that does not bring benefits, and the way that the concept has been included in the Bill makes a nonsense of the Government's other laudable aims. I hope that they will reconsider the matter and return, if not today then on Report, with a better form of words.
| 
