| Water Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister, who is giving a measured and helpful response. He is right that the general issue of debt goes way beyond this Bill, but he will also accept that there are particular circumstances that relate purely to water, including the charging regimes, the distribution of water and the notional element in income support. As part of the Government's overall debt programme, what steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury are aware of the specific issues relating to water debt? Mr. Morley: I shall come to that in a moment. We are taking a very specific step, and I shall outline exactly what it is. I should also point out that there are considerable differences in debt between companies. We need to look at why there are such differences. Some companies are better at collecting debt than others. That deals with the point that there are some people who are not paying who should be. The courts often have to be used. We need to understand why there are disparities and why some companies have less of a problem than others. We are looking at that. Water Voice feels that many companies could be doing much better at debt collection. Specifically, at the beginning of this year, DEFRA held a public consultation on extending protection for vulnerable households. That consultation ended in May and the responses are currently with the Department. We are examining them to see what steps we could apply. It is a little difficult at this stage to pre-empt in the Bill some of the work that is being done because it is not straightforward. There is a wide range of issues, forces and pressures here, some of which go way beyond utility bills, including the nature of the support mechanisms in this country and the nature of the debt pressures that there are on people. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): United Utilities told me on Monday that the scale of the debt in the north-west adds £10 on average to everyone's Bill, including those with a debt. It also told me that in areas that have been left in a bad condition by the industrial revolution, water companies have to spend significantly more clearing up the aftermath. It is those areas that have high unemployment because the development of new industries has left those people behind. Will my hon. Friend the Minister bear that in mind when looking at water bills? Mr. Morley: Yes, that is a fair point. It is true that many industrial areas have legacies of heavy industry and old, Victorian infrastructure that needs to be replaced. That is not unique to the north-west and north-east. I can assure my hon. Friend that we take that seriously. It is one consideration in the periodic price review. To keep costs down, we recognise that the water industry is a long-term business. We have had some discussion on that. It is about long-term asset management and long-term borrowing. The longer the term over which planning can take place, the lower the costs and impacts on consumers. That is an issue for the regulator; in the end, it is the regulator who will determine prices. The regulator is Column Number: 235 independent. We as the Government will make our submission to it, including the issues that concern us, and many of the points that have been raised, including my hon. Friend's, will be in our submission. Water quality is a very serious issue.The amendment is flawed, but the debate has been useful, because it has allowed the Committee to explore the pressures and problems, and the fact that there is a wider issue, what steps we can take and that there are disparities in debt. If there are high levels of debt in a region, it falls on consumers. We do not like that very much and we are considering what we can do about it and why there are disparities in particular regions. There is a consultation, which we are considering now, about what steps we may be able to take to assist vulnerable groups that come into the category of water poverty. That is not a pressing measure in relation to the Bill. Those are issues that we will apply later on, when we have had a chance to consider them in some detail. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Lewes that I agree with him. Water poverty is a serious issue and the Government take it seriously. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the reassurance that the Minister takes the issue seriously. I take it that by ''consultation'', he is referring to potential amendments to the vulnerable groups regulations. Mr. Morley indicated assent.
Norman Baker: That is useful. However, we have not heard anything from the Government about any measures to eliminate not only disparities in collection, to which he has referred, but disparities in water charging and the basic rate, which is still based on the privatisation arrangements, the K factor and all the problems that were inherent at that time. I should like to see a commitment from the Government to try to even out water prices across the country, rather than continuing in perpetuity the flawed privatisation arrangements. I know that the problem is difficult and the solution will not be easy to find, but there are inadequacies and unfairness in the present arrangements that should be addressed. The Minister is right to refer, as I did, to the upward pressure on water prices, not least today. I urge him to find a way to deal with water poverty quickly. There are conflicting pressures. People such as me and probably most of the Committee will agree that it is proper to invest, for environmental reasons, in the longer term, which may require water bills to rise above inflation. No one likes that, but we accept that it may be necessary. Equally, if water bills rise above inflation, that potentially makes debt and water poverty worse. As a result, understandably, there is a pressure to keep bills down, so that people are not adversely affected when they are most vulnerable. The way to deal with the matter is to recognise that investment is needed from those who receive the water—the consumers—but that that has to go hand in hand with a proper mechanism to ensure that those who are most vulnerable at the bottom end are not adversely and unfairly affected by the increases. That is why the matter is urgent—water prices are rising—and why it is important that a mechanism is found in Column Number: 236 the short term to deal with the problem. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
'(g) the public.'.
I am pleased with the amendment, because it is extremely inclusive and very short. It would ensure that, on subjects of environmental importance, the public were included in the consultation. It would be wrong of the Minister to misinterpret that and think that the public, in the form of every voter, had to be consulted widely. The clause states that the Secretary of State shall consult the authority, the council, relevant undertakers, licensed water suppliers and such other persons as the Secretary of State or the Assembly considers it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance. My amendment would clarify that and just say ''the public''. There is no point in speaking for hours about the benefits of including the public, except to say that, on this sort of issue, they are generally very sensitive, rather sensible and well worth consulting.
10 amMr. Morley: It is of course important to ensure that there is public consultation. However, the Secretary of State and the Assembly already have an obligation to consider persons whom they think appropriate, and I think that the public are pretty appropriate in this respect. I make that absolutely clear. Furthermore, it is the Department's practice to put consultation papers about whatever it is doing on its website, so that they can be accessed by the public. The problem is that we cannot be sure of the implications of including the amendment. The hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be excessive to send someone around to every house, knocking on doors and asking for opinions. The Consumer Council for Water is already a statutory consultee in the process and is responsible for representing the interests of water consumers in such consultations. We are back to the question of balance. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's points. The provisions do not rule out a full public consultation, if Ofwat felt it appropriate. It is important that the public have access to information through the websites and the consultation process, and we believe that the Bill caters for that. Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that answer, which was pretty much what I expected from the Minister. There is always a danger when we include a provision referring to
considers appropriate. We are going around in a circle, to some extent. It is the Secretary of State who decides everything in that respect. Therefore, by including the public in the clause, we would have circumvented his or her ability to avoid consulting people who might have turned up and been difficult. However, it will be like pushing water up a hill to get the Government to concede on that point. As I have other important Column Number: 237 amendments that I wish to get to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 16 October 2003 |
