Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andy Slaughter (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 14 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill.


Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

I am grateful for that clarification. I have never signed up to the concept of the tunnel uncritically or without reservations—or, indeed, at all—because I have always held open the option that there might be a better solution, and if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, then we are on all fours with each other. That is why I have looked in some detail at proposals such as the ““Binnie Bubbler””, SUDS and the idea of separate rainwater and sewerage networks, which would also create the problem of huge disruption and much additional cost. Some of those projects, including water conservation, can be done and should be effective, both environmentally and from a cost perspective; the difficult thing is to find an alternative that does what the Thames tunnel would do.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
542 c301 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Apprentices Greater London Infrastructure Government assistance Pollution Water Water charges Water supply Regulation Water companies Sewers South West Water Thames Water River Thames South West Social tariffs
Legislation
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk