---

Water Strategy

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing this debate. I also congratulate him on the expertise that he has built up over the years. Any Yorkshireman would be shocked that Cornwall could even begin to compete with the wealth of resources that we have on our beaches in North Yorkshire, let alone the whole of Yorkshire. I await what the Minister will say but hope that this does not turn into a war of the roses. Moving rapidly on, one thing that this debate has established is that the demand for household water has risen by 55 per cent. since 1980, and that the trend is set to increase. Water metering should be seen as part of an integrated approach to providing information and helping to adapt consumer behaviour. I do not see any reason why a rising block system could not be introduced without universal smart meters, and I hope that the introduction of smart meters does not require us to be too smart in using them. The concept of meters that are able to talk to each other so that households, whatever their income, will be able to see, particularly in the coldest months of the year, their consumption of all utilities is exciting. On affordability, I draw attention to the fact that there is currently a vulnerable groups tariff: metered households in receipt of certain state benefits who have three or more dependent children and people with certain medical conditions should pay no more than the average charge for their region. We should all draw attention to that. A vulnerable groups workshop in September 2006 produced recommendations that I find very persuasive: tariff and associated information should be given more positive branding, application forms and guidance should be simplified and standardised, and all relevant parties, including the Department for Work and Pensions, should collaborate in targeted publicity. The recommendations also stated that there is a strong argument for extending qualification to include pensioners. I should like to ask the Minister, having heard this debate, what discussions he has had with his opposite number in the DWP in the context of the 2009 review and the consultations on and reviews of the water strategy. It strikes me, particularly when talking about those on benefits and the plight of pensioners, that the recommendations bear some regard. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell focused heavily on beaches, for reasons which are perfectly understandable. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest: I was an MEP for 10 years and probably dealt with the European Union bathing directive, drinking water directive and several other directives. In my time as the representative for the whole of the Essex coast, I handed out a blue flag to one of the beaches on behalf of the district council. I make a plea to the Minister and to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate to consider the implications of the price review for sewerage and water supply generally. I have some sympathy with South West Water customers, but I am a Yorkshire Water customer. I have had a series of meetings with the company, and I pay tribute to the work that it did in the clean-up exercise, given the number of houses in one city alone—Hull—that were flooded last year. Our price change involves an increase of 7.5 per cent., which may dwarf even the South West Water price increase. Could the Minister say something about his adaptation agenda in the context of the price review and the water strategy generally? The Association of British Insurers has come up with its own adaptation agenda. It specifically asks for more investment in flood and coastal defences and in urban drainage and strengthened land-use planning. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and his colleagues spoke about land use. There is some idea that we could move forward with that, in the context of the Ofwat review. Would the Minister accept that water companies could play a role in slowing water down by co-operating with the landowners and farmers who work the land and allowing some water to be retained on that land? Is it possible or feasible for water companies to do that, or is it even appropriate for them to do so? The concept of storing water on land upstream to prevent flooding downstream is worth exploring. It is not something that we are looking at Yorkshire Water to do, but it is something that we are looking at in my constituency. As the Minister well knows, Thirsk was flooded twice within five years. One business there is now unable to get any insurance cover at all. There is a flood alleviation scheme—I know that this is not about the price review—but we felt a bit aggrieved when, having worked for five or six years to get Cod Beck enmained, we found that the Government changed the point system, so that it did not matter that it was enmained. A different point system applied, so that Cod Beck was still not due to get money. It is worth exploring whether Yorkshire Water and other water companies, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, could work with landowners for the greater good of the local community. As recently as 14 March, the Minister responded to one of our great concerns, which was reflected in the Pitt review recommendation. At present, water companies are obliged to offer all new developments—I believe that this probably relates to substantial new developments—the right to connect to the public sewerage system under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. As the Minister is aware, one of the interim recommendations of the Pitt review is that there should be an end to the automatic right to connection. The Minister will appreciate that we support that recommendation wholeheartedly. In his answer of 14 March, he stated:"““It has not yet been determined how the money…will be allocated.””—[Official Report, 14 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 709W.]" I believe that the Government have allocated £34.5 million in respect of the Pitt review. Based on discussions that I have had with water companies, it strikes me that ending the automatic right to connection would be done for no other reason than to ask water companies to perform a similar role to that of the Environment Agency in determining whether there is indeed the capacity for any substantial new development of houses to feed waste water into drains. Missing from the debate was the concept of water companies dealing with surface water run-off, which caused flooding in substantial parts of the country last year, and the end to the automatic right to connection having cost implications for water companies. Has the Minister given some thought to who will pay, and how the water companies will raise the money to enable them to perform that duty? Finally, just what should be the role of Ofwat, as the economic regulator? Obviously, it is there to protect the interests of consumers, to promote effective competition and to set the framework for new water supply licensing regimes. We note with some concern the increases in water bills, not just for those who are clearly not in a position to pay but for middle earners—those hard-pressed families who have probably been hit by other substantial, above-inflation increases in their energy bills.