---

Water Strategy

I do not have the figure, but I suspect that it is lower, and there is evidence that people with meters use somewhat less water, for obvious reasons. Irrespective of the introduction of water meters, however, there has been a universal increase in water usage because of the move to dishwashers, washing machines and all those other things that make quite intensive use of water. In the long term, part of the solution to the problem of keeping bills down is to make more sensible use of water, and I shall come to some of the big issues that that raises. Having debated this issue in the House in April 2007, I and other hon. Members from across the parties had a meeting with the Minister before Christmas. It was a positive meeting, and he made some very positive comments, but we now need to move forward and to take action. The results of Ofwat's consultation on its approach to the current price review—PR09—are due out next week. New price limits for 2010-15 will be calculated over the coming months and will be published next year. Ofwat is also consulting on its future strategy for customer charges for water and sewerage services. As I said, the Government have also published their strategy, ““Future Water””. Over the coming year, therefore, many of the issues will be fundamentally settled for the short term. As I said, Ofwat is looking much longer term and it is asking companies to do the same, which is welcome. We are talking not just about the next five years, so this is a decisive moment. I want to address two core issues. One is fairer ways of dividing the costs, and the other is better ways of dealing with the costs—particularly diffuse pollution and climate change—in the first place so that we can bring down water bills in the long run, rather than simply redividing them. In that sense, I want to talk about solutions, not the history of the problem. The best way to shift the burden from customers in the south-west—I have always argued this and I will say it again because I could not possibly take part in such a debate without saying it—would be to redistribute the costs more fairly across the country. The principle on which the Conservatives undertook privatisation, which landed 3 per cent. of the population with a third of the beach clean-up costs, was wrong. In the 1970s, the Labour party introduced legislation to allow costs to be shared across the country, but it was never used; indeed, it was also the Labour party that ultimately removed that legislation. The millions of people across the country who visit the south-west and who regard the country's beaches as a national asset are paying nothing or very little towards the clean-up costs. The burden falls on a relatively small number of people; hence the very large bills. I should like a mechanism for redistributing more evenly across the country the environmental costs of maintaining a landscape that is part of the national heritage. It could be done through the benefits system—I know that South West Water has advocated that—or through national funds. I know that as the Conservative Government started to lose seats across the south-west they began to consider whether more funds could be put in, but that the suggestion was turned down at Cabinet level, despite a recommendation from the Secretary of State. The issue destroyed the Conservative party in the west country and it could still cause great difficulties for Labour Members there. The principle in question is already accepted: Northern Ireland water bills are capped with UK taxpayer funds. It is accepted in relation to Scotland's electricity bills, with prices capped by UK funds. I do not understand why Ministers always argue that there is a problem in principle. Indeed, in the last debate, the then Minister suggested that a national fund to meet the extra costs in the south-west could weaken the link between South West Water and its customers. To be honest, that is a link that South West Water customers would be only too happy to have weakened. It could be argued that it would create a new link between them and the Government, which they might feel was more appropriate. The argument that all areas at one time or another must pay more for necessary costs will not wash either. It is true that different areas must pay for different investment at different times, but the south-west always pays the most, for the most investment. The suggestion that the situation is a case of swings and roundabouts rings particularly hollow. We are always on the swing and everyone else is always on the roundabout, which is substantially cheaper. I do not want to suggest that I have given up, but I know that the position I have set out is not accepted by the Government or the previous Conservative Government, so I have some suggestions for things that could be done even if the Minister does not follow the route I have outlined.