Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Earl of Selborne

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I think those on the Conservative Benches should support the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as well—as indeed I am sure many of us do. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who says that we simply have to value our natural resources. We in this country are totally out of step with the whole movement towards valuing natural capital and understanding the extent to which our natural resources underpin our economy and our quality of life. It makes obvious sense, therefore, that we should all be aware of our footprint, and if we think that we have the right to buy water at a rate that reflects some old rateable value as opposed to our actual consumption, we are simply denying our responsibility to understand our long-term impact.

As I understand it, this amendment is tabled more in order to demonstrate that the water companies can already do what the amendment seeks that they do, so I expect that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary, but it is certainly not unnecessary if it demonstrates what is obvious. I cannot understand why anyone should say that it is against the tide of the day; it is my understanding that every party supports the idea that we should value our natural resources properly, and who could say, therefore, that water should be exempt from that process?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for laying this amendment, and I think I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his contribution, with all his liquid metaphors. I was pleased to speak at the WaterAid reception last night, which he attended, so I assure him—I think he knows it—that we recognise the importance of water, whether it is in developing countries or in the United Kingdom.

We have thought carefully about metering in bringing this Bill through Parliament. Our position on metering seeks to strike a balance between the benefits that metering brings and the consequences that it can have for customers and their bills. We agree that metering is a fair basis for charging, but we are also concerned about the potential impacts on struggling customers. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has observed, any customer can request a meter. The company must then fit a meter for free. That customer has a year to decide whether to revert to paying according to the rateable value if it turns out that they are worse off.

We are already seeing increasing levels of metering across the country. Next year will see the number of metered households reach 50%, with a trajectory towards 80% by 2040. Where there is a credible economic case, any company may install meters across all or part of their area. The only restriction is on imposing metered charges on customers without their consent. Companies could, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, suggests, install a complete street or neighbourhood at the same time; and to answer my noble friend Lady Parminter, companies can put in meters throughout.

The evidence shows that the case for imposing metered charges on all customers in an area can be made in water-stressed areas where there is an insufficient supply of water to meet projected demand. The amount of available water varies around the country. When it makes social, environmental and economic sense to do so, charging all customers according to a meter is already a possibility, but in areas where water resources are not under pressure, imposing meter charges is restricted because of our concerns about affordability.

There are two sets of costs that must be considered here. First, the investment cost of installing meters across an area can put up bills for all the customers in that area. Secondly, imposing metered charges across an area can increase the bills of some of the worst off in society. This is not something that anyone wishes to do in areas that have sufficient water to meet demand.

The balance will doubtless change over time. With climate change and population growth, the case for universal metering in particular areas will no doubt shift. That is why we revised the water stress designation last year: to take better account of long-term climate projections and information about environmental pressures. We wanted to ensure that the designation of serious water stress is forward looking. It is also updated on a regular basis, and we will continue to keep the situation across the country under review. I hope that that does something to reassure noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, asked me to clarify the circumstances in which companies can install meters, and he made the point that a number of organisations were not clear about the situation. I hope I have answered his question, but for the avoidance of doubt let me do so again for the record. Water companies are able to install meters wherever there is a good case for doing so. There is a variety of reasons why they may choose to do this, including to improve leakage detection and enhance their understanding of consumer behaviour. A number of companies already do this. What the companies are not allowed to do is to impose charges by reference to that meter without the householder’s agreement. The exception to this rule is in areas of serious water stress, for the reasons that I have mentioned. It is not the installation of meters, therefore, that is restricted; it is making people pay a metered charge without their consent in other areas. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.

The noble Lord also mentioned the complexity of the legislation in this area. We agree that the prescribed conditions regulations, which govern the restrictions around metering, are complex and hard to follow. I am glad to be able to confirm that under the Government’s Red Tape Challenge, we have a commitment to consolidate these regulations by April 2015.

Water companies can install meters wherever it makes sense to do so, but it is the householder who decides whether they wish to be charged by reference to it in the areas where that is permitted. There is flexibility to allow universal metering in the wider interest of water efficiency in areas of serious water stress. This is a careful balance. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment, although I am sure he will do so with great reluctance.

Trees: British Ash Tree

Debate between Baroness Northover and Earl of Selborne

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who put their names down to speak in this debate, which comes at a slightly later hour than perhaps we expected. I declare an interest as chairman of a farming company that has woodlands and a fruit nursery.

The word “crisis” is often overused in the context of environmental concerns, but the sudden realisation that the British ash could go the way of the elm in the 1970s is without doubt the recognition of a crisis. I will start by setting out the facts as I understand them. I am sure that if I get them wrong, the many experts who are due to speak will be able to put me right. Ash dieback disease is caused by a fungus called Chalara fraxinea. The disease was probably introduced to northern Europe on nursery stocks from Asia. Over the past decade it has had a devastating effect on the ash trees of northern Europe. It was first confirmed in Britain in March 2012, on young ash trees in a nursery in Buckinghamshire. Subsequently, other sites of infection were discovered, linked to imported nursery stock from Europe.

Last month, ash dieback was identified in older, native trees in woodlands in East Anglia. I will bring noble Lords right up to date by saying that today the Forestry Commission and Defra reported that after a weekend of intense activity by volunteers and experts, Chalara had been identified in 82 locations, including 14 nurseries, 36 planting sites and 32 forests and woodlands, including some in Kent and Essex. Last Friday, the count was 52 rather than 82, so the expectation must be that as surveillance and monitoring extend, many more sites will be identified.

While cases of infection in nurseries are clearly caused by importing infected stock, cases in mature trees in woodlands in the east and south-east of England are thought to have been caused by spores that were blown from the continent, or which possibly were brought in by migrating birds. In August, the United Kingdom plant health authorities undertook a pest risk analysis on ash dieback, which concluded that once trees are infected, they cannot be cured. However, the analysis also stated that not all trees die of the infection; a number are likely to have genetic resistance. Swedish research suggests that this number might be significant.

The pest risk analysis formed the basis of a fast-track consultation that ended on 26 October. On 29 October the Government introduced a ban on ash imports and the movement of trees. At the same time, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, was asked to convene a tree health and plant biosecurity expert taskforce. A number of companies have proposed treatment solutions for Chalara, which Defra has promised its scientists will rapidly evaluate. So much for history; I recognise that this is almost a running commentary on a fast-moving epidemic.

The public reaction has been one of disbelief that once again we have been caught by surprise by yet another threat to a native tree species from invasive pests and diseases. After the disastrous outbreak of Dutch elm disease in the 1970s, when we lost more than 30 million elms to a new and more virulent fungus spread by beetles, we were challenged by a plethora of tree pests and diseases, including acute oak decline, which is of great concern, particularly in the east of England; plane wilt; chestnut blight; and bleeding canker of horse chestnut, to name just four from a much longer list. Time and again we seem to act too late. For all those diseases, as for ash dieback, we put in place policies once we had found that the diseases were already with us. What we need are measures aimed at keeping out these serious pests and pathogens and such measures need putting in place years ahead of the anticipated arrival of the disease.

We knew years ago that ash dieback was a threat. We discussed four years ago with the European Commission's standing committee for plant health whether an import ban might be appropriate, but it seems that we were not able to produce the scientific evidence to justify a ban then. Instead of a ban on imports, which we now have, we carried out a small-scale survey. By the time Defra launched its Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan in October 2011, ash dieback seems to have been relegated to a low priority. Indeed, there were plenty of problems in this country on the tree health front to deal with. This allocation plan allocated £7 million over three years to tackle tree diseases. That is not just on research, but on all other measures that might together address these issues.

Ahead of that biosecurity action plan, the Forestry Commission produced in May 2011 a revised table of top pests and pathogens that threaten tree health in Great Britain—a list of about 16 species. This listed the prioritisation criteria for potential impact for each disease: its risk or probability of entry and its expected economic, social or environmental damage. Those were the right questions to ask. The problem is that having asked the right questions no one seems to have answered the questions correctly or alerted the Secretary of State that ash dieback, although not yet thought to be in this country, like many of these other diseases, was an imminent threat, that its economic, social and environmental damage could be enormous and that we should act immediately to ban imports of ash plants. Defra got permission for the ban in October. Why on earth could the scientific evidence for justifying the ban not have been produced three or four years ago when the Horticultural Trades Association and others were asking for a ban on ash imports?

We do have a taskforce convened by Professor Ian Boyd charged with reviewing our approach to plant health. Rather than dwell on our failures in protecting plant health let me list what this taskforce now needs to recommend. Landowners and the public need to be assured that whenever a suspected incidence of an infection of whatever disease is reported, a rapid identification service will be provided. Detection and identification methods using molecular approaches such as the portable DNA tests have undergone rapid development and tight targets for response rates must be set. We need greatly to increase the surveillance, monitoring and inspection of nurseries and plantations.

The Forestry Commission has lost a significant proportion of its staff in the field. Its regional staff used to be able to spend much more time in the woodlands and forests, and they knew their forests. Likewise, its research capacity has declined. Research on pests and pathogens of trees is woefully underfunded, whether in universities or research institutes, and bears no correlation with the cost to the economy of woodland pests and diseases or to their impact on society. An assessment must be made of eradication and containment methods for ash dieback and indeed for other diseases, reviewing the role of a quarantine system for plants and plant passports for species for which the import ban does not apply. We need to develop biological control approaches such as looking for natural enemies to these new pathogens.

Trees are a long-term crop and amenity. Our approach to this sudden threat must be long term. We need to recognise that within our ash population there will possibly be some strains of ash with resistance to dieback. We need to protect this diversity. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that tree health will in future be given the priority it deserves and that if the taskforce comes up both with short-term and long-term recommendations that command the confidence of experts, the forestry sector and the public, the Government will without reservation commit to implementing those measures.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that, unlike previous debates this evening, this is a strictly time-limited debate and that, therefore, when the clock reaches six minutes, noble Lords have had their full time.