Flood Defences

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and it is now on the record. My officials and I will look carefully at it. However, that is not the information that I had when preparing for this debate, so I will take that point away and get back to her.

Let us look at the case that my hon. Friend raises, because it is important to understand the history. I apologise to other hon. Members who might wish to intervene, but I have only a few moments left. My hon. Friend called this debate and I want to be able to answer her points. Last September, an independent reservoir engineer was appointed to assess the proposals in the context of the Reservoirs Act 1975. The Act is designed to ensure that public safety is maintained. The engineer acted in accordance with guidance produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. At that stage, the engineer identified the reservoir as a category A reservoir. That classification means that a breach of what could be an 85,000 cubic metre reservoir could seriously endanger a community—we have already discussed what constitutes a community. As a result, it is only right that the highest standards of public safety apply. At best, a failure would increase the level of flood-water, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. At worst, a catastrophic failure would result in human tragedy. The engineer agreed necessary design standards that should apply in this case to maintain public safety.

In March, new modelling led the engineer to conclude that a higher design standard was necessary. In May, a second opinion was sought, again from an independent reservoir engineer. The second opinion confirmed that the Institution of Civil Engineers guidance on the 1975 Act had been correctly applied and that a higher standard was needed. That led to a redesign that incorporated the higher design standard of the spillway, to which we referred earlier. Inevitably, that pushed up costs. Despite the significant local investment already on the table, the shortfall in funding amounted to around £2 million. Frustratingly, at that level of cost, the scheme is not cost-beneficial under the Treasury Green Book rules. It is not my view that the guidance is wrong. That said, the case does underline the sense in reviewing the guidance. That is a firm assurance that I can give to my hon. Friend today. A review on highly technical guidance—I have already referred to the complexity of the document—is not a quick fix, and will require broad engagement. In the mean time, I welcome efforts to reassess these proposals.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area. That said, I know that many of the innovative approaches that my hon. Friend has described are continuing in parallel. It may well be that we can fairly quickly achieve a different scheme that complies with the Reservoirs Act 1975 and has a sensible cost frame and a sensible cost-benefit analysis result. All the work going into reviewing the guidance will not affect the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. If it does, Ministers will have the power to apply other criteria to assess whether, on the balance of risk, it is right that these schemes should go ahead even with the lower threshold.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area, so I genuinely applaud the real openness and innovation. There has been engagement with the local authorities, local landowners and many other partners, and leadership from my hon. Friend.

The Environment Agency and local partners are working hard to reassess the designs and to drive down costs. Other options that were originally put forward are also being discussed. Once consideration is complete—I expect that to be at the end of July—the agency is eager to continue working with local partners to explore what can be done while maintaining public safety.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully in this case, as he did when he enabled me to have a flood scheme in Teignmouth, for which I am extremely grateful.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to this debate; not all hon. Members come to debates to give a thumbs up. The difficulty with flood defences is that we only know that they work when issues are not raised because problems have been resolved. I know that the issue is a burden for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). There are serious problems affecting communities around the country. We are changing the way in which we approach flood funding.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing the debate and on raising this really important issue.

I shall start by reading from an e-mail that I have received from a hard-working 52-year-old constituent of mine, Mr Bamber. This is the first time that he has written to his MP:

“I’m having a pay rise of 0.0% this year, but being a good bloke it’s for the good of the country. Then my water bill arrives—it’s risen by 9.75635%. I’m mad, and I’d like something done about it.”

He is not alone; I have received several e-mails. Another disturbing fact was raised in an e-mail from a constituent who pointed out that his elderly mother, who is 80, has a water bill of £1,040, despite existing on a post office pension and being in substantial difficulties.

Although we all appreciate schemes such as WaterSure, many constituents have great difficultly in accessing them. I was particularly disturbed by a visit to my surgery this week by the husband of a constituent who suffers from severe multiple sclerosis. He brought with him evidence that he had sent to South West Water of her very much increased water usage as a result of her condition, and of the fact that she is on the higher rate of disability living allowance. They have, however, been declined access to WaterSure, which I am sure hon. Members agree is a complete disgrace. I hope that South West Water address that matter immediately.

The issue is one of unfairness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has pointed out, our constituents do not have any choice in the matter, other than to live somewhere else in the country, which is clearly ludicrous. The rises have been described as 8.1%, but for many constituents, they are nearer 10%.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for suggesting a cap, which would not allow the 8% rise to apply in the south-west?

[Dr Wollaston]

I agree completely. If Ofwat were doing its job properly, it would see that that is inherently fair. It is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to deal with a rise of more than 5%. Near 10% is totally outrageous, particularly given that our constituents have no choice whatever in the matter.

As other hon. Members have said, we are not, as is often assumed, a wealthy area. Some 22% of people in the south-west are pensioners, which is well above the national average. No one would suggest that pensioners are a wealthy group, but they are none the less being subjected to outrageous rises in their water bills. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take all those points into consideration? It cannot be fair for 3% of the population to shoulder the burden of cleaning up 30% of the coast. Of course, none of us feels that we could have continued using 200 sea outfalls to dispose of sewage, and we all welcome the economic boost from the infrastructure programme instituted by South West Water, but it is clearly unfair that the burden of that necessary programme should fall on our constituents.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this important debate and articulating so well the case for taking action, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on reinforcing his points.

My contribution will be relatively brief. I want to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. The privatisation of the water industry 20 years ago effectively created a risk-free money extortion system, as I said earlier. The company knows full well what the circumstances are in the south-west. It can almost print its dividend the year before, because it knows how the market works: it is not competing with anyone else, and the only variables are uncertainties about its input costs during the year and the risk that it might not be able to recover payments from all its customers, which is increasingly occurring in areas such as mine. Incomes in Cornwall have been at the bottom of the earnings league table since records began, and South West Water’s prices are and have always been significantly higher than in the rest of the country. In those circumstances, people have great difficulty paying the water charges with which they are presented. The legacy of basing water charges on the archaic and unjust rating system, which is not used for any other purpose, re-emphasises that significant reform is needed.

The one beneficial outcome of the circumstances in which the system operates is that it encourages people to recognise the advantages of water metering. South West Water has not engaged in an evangelical campaign to encourage people to install a water meter in their homes or premises; people have simply recognised that they can at least attempt to control their bills by various means, and in many cases the most effective way is to install a water meter. If there is a silver lining in the cloud, it is that people have pursued that. I think that it is accepted across all parties that the increasing move towards universal metering is broadly desirable in public policy terms, and certainly in environmental terms, if we are to address the proper management of natural resources.

In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, I drew parallels with other, similar national assets. Our beaches are a national asset, which people come to from all over the country all year round. It is not just a summer thing, as it used to be; in my constituency, kite surfers come down from London and from other parts of the country throughout the winter months to enjoy the beaches and the sea around our coast, and they do so with some confidence that they will not go away with a bug, due to the efforts of South West Water to clean up those beaches and ensure a significant reduction in the public health risks associated in the past with bathing in some waters in the south-west.

Those beaches are a national asset, like the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Olympic stadiums, which are being funded by everyone in the country. We do not ask London taxpayers alone to fund them.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the heart of his argument is about fairness. Everything that we have heard to date has been about affordability. As crucial as that is, I would be concerned if any future review or consultation did not address fairness. The points that he is making are absolutely right.

[Andrew George]

I know that Ministers are wrestling to produce a fair and equitable solution, and I know that this Minister has been engaging constructively and is well seized of the problem and the challenges that we in the south-west face—I have no doubt that he understands the issue fully. Discussions with other Departments, especially the Treasury, will inevitably be involved. I hope that the issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of the long-suffering water rate payers of the south-west. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that any solution must emphasise fairness.

It is worth while, when considering the issue, to compare water with electricity, telecoms and other utilities. In any other part of the country, it is at least possible to opt for another supplier of services. Therefore, whichever part of the country someone happens to live in, they will know that a regulator is regulating the market to ensure that there is fair competition and an even playing field, so that anyone in the country has the opportunity to at least obtain services—in this case, we are talking about water and sewerage services—that are no worse and no better than anywhere else in the country. We pay a significant amount more.

Flooding (Steart)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

That is the most weaselly thing I have ever heard from a port company—not from my hon. Friend who speaks with the best direction from her constituents. Fine. I am speaking for mine. Why do I care if a company claims a benefit for Bristol? What difference does that make to me? Some weaselly woman turned up to tell me what is happening, saying, “Don’t worry. Your little people will be okay. We are going to flood your area. We won’t give you anything for it, but it will be good, although we won’t allow visitors.” Come on. Bristol Port Company is dodgy. It is much better at complaining about pylons in front of the chief executive’s house than about container ports. I do not need a lecture.

We all thought that we had got rid of it, but next week it will be back in earnest. The Bristol Port Company will roll into the village of Otterhampton a week today with the first of a series of public meetings to tell the locals about its exciting plans or—dare I say it?—push them to accept its exciting plans, whatever form they may take. It is in league with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, guess what, another totally useless quango, Natural England, our friends. I am delighted to say—I thank the Minister for this—that the Government will clip its ridiculous wings as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, wing clipping may be too late for Steart. The Environment Agency has submitted its planning application for that huge tidal flood bank. The Bristol Port Company intends to apply for planning permission to flood an enormous chunk of land on the other side of the road near Steart later this year. All that Steart will get out of that is a pile of bird droppings and an invasion of twitchers.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with interest. Across the south-west we have huge problems. I have a similar issue with coastal erosion in Dawlish, and I share my hon. Friend’s concern that we need some conclusion on what is right and what is not. I agree that people are certainly more important than birds. Above all, we need some certainty, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we need the Minister to agree what plans will be approved and what will not, particularly in Teignmouth where we want a flood defence scheme, which we really need, as opposed to the scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency which sounds as though it is not needed.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

My hon. Friend has encompassed the problem in a nutshell. The organisation is out of control, and does not care about people or anything, except its little friends who live in Essex and who will do whatever they want to do. It is up to people like us to stop that, and to make companies such as the Bristol Port Company realise that we are not a load of hicks who live in the country. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who does her constituents a great service in bringing the matter to the attention of the House.

It is about time the Minister and Bristol Port Company considered compensation. A big infrastructure plan such as this requires a generous kick-back for those on the ground. How about some planning gain? Even Bristol Port Company is not talking about that. Unfortunately there are not enough people on the Steart peninsula to kick up sufficient fuss, but a fuss really needs to be made, and I am sorry to say to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) that I am going to put my boots on and start kicking.

The Environment Agency's latest consultation exercise has burned about £60,000 of public money. The Minister may be about to tell us how popular the scheme is, but I warn him to consider his words carefully—I know that they have been drafted for him. Bodies such as the Environment Agency are, of course, obliged by law to consult, and rightly so, but the fact that few people respond to a consultation does not mean that the plans are popular. We all know how that has been got round in the past. Perhaps the Minister would like to know how many people answered the Environment Agency’s consultation questionnaire. This is important stuff, even for Bristol Port Company. Five thousand consultees would have cost a tenner a head. A bargain. But if there were only 500 responses, the cost would have been about £150. But there were not 500, 50 or even five replies. The Environment Agency had replies from—wait for it—three people. Why? People do not trust the Environment Agency and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, they do not think it worth the effort to reply as the proposal will be steamrollered through by Europe.

The cost works out at £20,000 per respondent—£20,000. It is cheaper having the Bristol ports up the road. Why do people not bother to participate? I have an idea—they do not trust those involved. They see an overgrown jungle of interfering regulators who have been trying to do this for 10 years, who squander their money, and who do not listen. Everyone knows—this is not rocket science—that these are hard times for Great Britain plc. Around the country, we are bracing ourselves for cutbacks, job losses and austerity. They have started. We are supposed to be in this together, not individually, but the Environment Agency seems to assume that it has some special exemption. It has come to believe in fairy gold. The estimated cost of its plan to flood a corner of my constituency is £28 million of our money, and that is a disgrace, never mind what Bristol Port Company will spend. Our nation cannot afford that. There are more important priorities, and the Minister—he really needs to listen—should stop the project dead in its tracks before we have a real disaster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I have mentioned the Teignmouth flood defence scheme to the ministerial team on a number of occasions. May we have an update? Will funding be made available for those very important works?

[Mrs Spelman]

I cannot comment on individual projects ahead of Environment Agency decisions, which it has said it will make after the end of the consultation period on payment for outcomes, which concludes on 16 February. However, my hon. Friend’s concern about flooding in her constituency is taken very seriously by all of us.

Shoreline Management Plans

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for raising a very important issue. Coastal erosion is a key issue in my part of the country. My constituents in Devon have one of the most beautiful but also one of the longest and most prone to erosion bits of coastline in the country. In addition, we have a particular problem, because the south-west is tipping along an axis, so it will sink, while the north-east, happily for it, rises. Consequently, coastal erosion is an acute problem for us. By 2050, our sea level is predicted to rise by 22.9 cm, which is a significant amount.

Shoreline management plans are a vital tool in managing the problem. I am delighted that following their inauguration in the mid-1990s, they continue to be in existence, and shoreline management plan 2 is in prospect. My request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that we try to build some certainty and begin to secure some agreement because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal said, those plans have not yet been agreed. There was much debate about them before the election, then they were shelved, but now we have a new Administration.

We need certainty, because the plans have significant implications for our national plan for flood defences and for the renegotiation with the insurance industry—with the Association of British Insurers—about how we deal with covering the risk to those properties that are prone to flooding. We also need certainty locally so that local authorities can plan sensibly on where to build and where not to build. I am conscious that the arrangement that the previous Government made with the ABI, which in effect said that insurance would continue to be available provided that the Government continued to invest in flood defences, does not apply, as I understand it, to houses built after 2009, so this is quite an important issue to get right.

For my local area, tourism is the biggest generator of income, and it would be profoundly affected if we did not properly manage erosion along that beautiful coastline. Our shoreline management plan is part of the Dorset and south Devon plan. Within those many miles of beautiful coastal mileage, there are three particular areas of concern, which I shall highlight for the Minister so that he can understand why I am concerned about the need to reach agreement. At the moment, agreement is looking a little tenuous, and we need it.

Let me start with the easiest of the three areas. The Dawlish sea wall is crucial, because a railway line runs along that coast, and without the integrity of the sea wall, the railway line could not continue to run trains. The railway line carries 2 million passengers a year, and I can honestly say to the Minister that it is crucial to tourists travelling to and from the area, as well as to local constituents travelling to and from work. I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), confirmed in a previous Adjournment debate that that railway line was crucial and that therefore he would write—he has indeed written—to the Environment Agency and to Network Rail to indicate that retaining the defences to ensure that coastal erosion was kept to a minimum was what the Government wanted. That is great. I am pleased that we have a hold-the-line policy for the next 100 years there.

Let me move on to the other two areas, which are a little more controversial. Dawlish Warren is a beautiful sand spit and home to a thriving tourism industry. We have 800,000 visitors a year, and on a good day we might get 20,000 visitors in a single day. It is also a nature reserve, a conservation area and a place of great scientific interest. That is more problematic, and the area suffered significantly in 2004 when the level of the beach fell dramatically; about 10 metres of the beach was taken away. We have a hold-the-line policy until 2025, but after that the policy is mixed between hold the line and a managed realignment.

Because of the nature of the tourism industry, this issue is crucial for my constituents. The Environment Agency has been helpful, and to date it has maintained the groynes and supported the gabion defences. In the relatively recent past, it spent £100,000, which was good news. There is, however, a debate between Natural England and the Environment Agency about whether the defences to be put in place should be soft or hard defences. Clearly, there are arguments on both sides, but we need clarity so that we can move forward. I urge the Minister to remember that this is a key area for tourism, and without that tourism it will be hard for local businesses and people in Dawlish Warren to survive.

Another area of concern is the Exe estuary. A study of the area found—rightly—that we should be looking to implement a new wetland area. Because of the erosion, the wetland has been lost, which will have implications for our natural wildlife. However, the consequences of such an action will require a causeway to be created in the area so that the train can continue to pass along the coast. The challenge is who will pay for that work—should it be Network Rail or the Environment Agency? I ask the Minister for his input in trying to ensure that we reach a sensible agreement.

In essence, it is crucial that shoreline management plans are agreed. Without them, we will never ensure that a proper flood defence plan is put in place across the country, and we will never help local authorities plan properly for housing—a particular issue with coastal erosion. Furthermore, we will never have a sensible and meaningful debate with the ABI, and others, about how to cover insurance for properties after 2013 when the current arrangements fall away. Locally, I am passionate about securing the future of the railway and of tourism.

That, in a nutshell, is my contribution, but as a final comment, I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that we review the issue of compensation. It seems appropriate for compensation to be considered in cases of coastal erosion, as well as with other forms of flooding and disaster. I also commend my hon. Friend on her proposal for local people to be more involved in discussions about such matters, rather than leaving it to large Government agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to assist the farming industry to become more competitive.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to assist the farming industry to become more competitive.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The Government are determined to help our farming industry play its full role in the food supply chain by clawing back markets lost to imports and by increasing exports. We are therefore changing the whole culture of regulation to one of trust rather than one of threat. We provide investment assistance under the rural development programme and we are working with the industry on knowledge transfer, skills development and sustainability issues.

[Mr Paice]

As my hon. Friend knows, the legislative aspects of that issue relate to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I assure him that I am in close contact with my colleagues. We are determined to press ahead with the supermarket adjudicator, as recommended by the Competition Commission a year or so ago.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Animal disease is costly to the Government and farmers, both financially and emotionally. In 2009-10, the Government spent £330 million on animal health and welfare, and the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, which devastated the local farming economy in Devon, is believed to have cost the UK £8 billion. I recently had a meeting with farmers in Newton Abbot, and they are very concerned that the Government will not listen to them about shaping plans, going forward, for cost and risk sharing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member and I appreciate her commitment to the House, but far too many questions are prefaced with substantial descriptive statements. That must not happen. I ask her for a quick sentence, and then we will move on.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Will the Minister meet me and some of my local farmers to discuss their ideas on how to reduce cost and risk sharing?

[Mr Paice]

Yes, I will happily meet my hon. Friend. If you will allow me one more sentence, Mr Speaker, under the cost and responsibility discussions I am absolutely determined, and I will reassure my hon. Friend’s farmers on this, that they will have a major role in formulating disease control policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Lady probably saw the “Panorama” programme that touched on that subject, which starkly showed some of the problems. However, there are many areas of the seabed where scallop dredging is a perfectly legitimate and sustainable activity and does little or no damage. It has to be managed, but when we ban scallop dredgers from certain areas we have to remember that displacement can cause further problems elsewhere. That is why the marine strategy is so important: we can now zone different parts of the seas for different activities for a legitimate and, where possible, sustainable industry such as the production of scallops.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

T8. We have seen in recent weeks just how important the flooding issue is internationally. It is clearly, from what we have heard in the House this morning, an important national issue. In my constituency of Newton Abbot we have had some severe flooding incidents in 2004 and 2008. Teignmouth has been particularly badly affected and flood prevention works are taking place in Shaldon. Now would be exactly the right time for a green light to be given to the proposed plans for flood prevention work in Teignmouth. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that he will give that very careful consideration.

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns on behalf of the residents of the 413 properties in Teignmouth that are at risk of rapid tidal flooding. There is a procedure going on with the Environment Agency for a £4.7 million scheme, which is at an advanced stage of planning. I am happy to meet her. I understand that, if all proceeds well, construction can start in the winter of 2011.

Water Bills (South-West)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, indeed, and I shall return to that point.

It is welcome that all water companies are now expected to produce water resources plans for the Environment Agency and strategic direction statements for Ofwat, both of which are useful indicators to assist in the long-term planning for the sector, but also help in assessing the likely impact of such works on bill payers.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I very much support this debate. I would like to reinforce the point that although many people feel that we in the south-west live in a land of plenty—a land of flowing milk and honey—there are areas of great deprivation. For many people in our constituencies, the cost of living is high compared with the national income, and they are therefore hit particularly hard.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I concur with that view. Again, however, I will deal with that issue in more depth a little later.

Bills in the south-west are 25% higher than the national average, which over the course of a year equates to £100 more, while for unmetered customers the figure is considerably higher, at almost £300. For people on low or fixed incomes, that can mean a substantial amount of their income. Indeed, for those on the lowest incomes, water bills can take 10% of their incomes. For elderly individuals living alone on a basic pension—we in the south-west have a larger-than-average older demographic— or for lone parents with young children or single people in rented accommodation, water bills present a struggle.

The Minister will know that the area covered by South West Water is large and diverse, ranging from Cornwall in the far west through to Devon, and taking in parts of Dorset and Somerset. We also have some of the poorest areas of the country. Cornwall is the only area of the country to be in receipt of EU convergence funding—previously known as objective 1 funding—and poverty remains an issue, despite big moves in the right direction over the past 13 years. The Consumer Council for Water has actively campaigned to try to influence price levels in the south-west, and has carried out further, detailed research to try to discover what the bill payers themselves feel should be done to remedy the problem.

The bill payers whom I have spoken to—I am sure that other hon. Members have had similar conversations—feel that it is unfair and indefensible to expect some of the nation’s least well-off families to shoulder the burden of the cost of a system that requires them to pay for the upkeep of beaches that are largely used by wealthier holidaymakers from outside the region who do not pay for the coastline in the south-west. A solution to that long-standing injustice must be found. Many of my constituents have already lost patience with the process. A recent letter from one elderly constituent from St Budeaux expressed utter exasperation at the lack of transparency in how the costs are apportioned.

In acknowledgement of the problem, the previous Government set up the Walker review to examine the case surrounding water charges. Anna Walker was asked, among other things, to examine the current system of charging households for water and sewerage, and to assess both the effectiveness and fairness of the current and alternative methods of charging, and the link to affordability. Anna Walker delivered her extremely thorough report last year, having toured the country and visited the south-west and Plymouth on more than one occasion. The report acknowledged for the first time what most of us knew: that the long-standing high charges in the south-west were a direct result of the privatisation in 1989.

Anna Walker also suggested that the options for tackling the root causes should include a specific one-off adjustment, estimated at around £650 million, to pay off South West Water’s debt, or annual transfers either from the Government—I suspect that this is unlikely in the current economic climate—or from other water customers around England and Wales. That would not be popular either, because Thames Water customers are financing the Thames tideway project around the city, and water shortage issues have a significant future cost in a number of other areas.

A further alternative would be to rely on a package of proposals targeting specific groups of South West Water customers, perhaps through a series of measures such as the use of a seasonal tariff charged for additional summer use. That would pick up second-home users, but also businesses. It could help some residents to achieve a saving of between £40 and £50, but it is not a popular option. It is seen as a tourist tax, and would require compulsory metering, which would also have a cost. I know that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is concerned about second-home owners and their potential for benefiting significantly from having meters. He sees that as unfair. Indeed, in a debate on 2 June 2008, he said that metering was

“a way of rewarding people who should be paying more”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 619.]

Another option would be the wider use of affordability measures, and South West Water has been quite proactive in trying to identify and assist vulnerable customers in that regard. Such measures could be more widely applied and could deliver around £80 per annum for low-income households. That would have to be linked to water efficiency, however. It is essential to encourage that, not only for economic reasons but because water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource at certain times and in certain areas.

As a result of this debate, I have received some useful briefings from people on related matters, especially on the re-use of rain water and on building regulations. I suspect that there is a whole new debate to be had on those matters, but I want to put on record my gratitude to the businesses and organisations that have e-mailed me. This flags up just how useful these debates in an often rather empty Chamber can be—it is actually quite full tonight, so thank you to everyone who has stayed.

Low-income customers with medical conditions could benefit significantly if changes to the current WaterSure scheme, as recommended in the review, were adopted. That would result in it being capped, either at a national average or on a regional basis, whichever is the lower, and would have a redistributive effect within the region, but that in turn would mean that other South West Water customers would pay more, which would probably not have broad support. This is not a straightforward issue, which is partly why I am back here tonight, five years after I secured my first debate on the subject.

A national levy is another idea that has been put forward. That would have the effect of supporting South West Water bill payers now, but they could well find themselves having to pay for similar schemes in the future, such as additional reservoirs in the Thames Water area or elsewhere in the south of England, for example. The Consumer Council for Water’s research suggests that water bill payers would consider that option, and we local MPs certainly need to explore it with our constituents. I appreciate that many of the options would have consequences for bill payers elsewhere, but we must resolve to produce a fairer system that does not penalise low-income families merely for living on a peninsula surrounded by the sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I absolutely accept what the hon. Lady says. This year, the average bill for households in the region is almost £490, which is about £150 higher than the national average bill and—to refer to a particular point that she made—about £80 higher than Wessex Water bills, which is the next highest bill area. Affordability is very important. Although we often examine the average water prices across the country, we must also recognise that certain areas contain pockets of poverty where people may pay less in water bills, but utility bills may have a marked effect on their quality of life because they account for a high percentage of people’s net income.

Clearly, bills vary between water companies. That reflects the cost of providing water and sewerage services in an environmentally sustainable way. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator of the water industry, ensures that bills are no higher than they need to be. The reasons for the relatively high bills—my use of “relative” is, of course, a relative use of the word—in the south-west were looked at by Anna Walker in her independent review of charging for household water and sewerage services. As has been said, she published her final report and recommendations last December, and I should like to take this opportunity to put on the record this Government’s recognition of the thorough and collaborative way in which she undertook her review.

As the hon. Lady said, the Walker report found that at the time of water privatisation, in 1989, South West Water had the lowest regulated asset base per property of any water and sewerage company. Since then, the company has invested about £2 billion, much of which has been spent on sewerage infrastructure and on improving sewerage services. That has brought sewerage standards in the area up to the same level as those elsewhere in England and Wales, and the cost has been met by local customers.

The cost per household has also been compounded by the relatively low number of households in the south-west, together with the relatively high proportion who live in rural areas. Those factors make it comparatively expensive to provide these households with water and sewerage services. Anna Walker recommended that Ofwat should advise the Government on options that could tackle the issue of high water bills in the south-west. The hon. Lady and those who attended a meeting with Ofwat representatives today will know that Ofwat is already working on that.

Some of the options suggested by Anna Walker could benefit all households in the region. In particular, a one-off or other financial adjustment funded by the Government, or an annual adjustment of bills financed by the Government or water customers nationally, could bring average household bills down by about £50 a year. Another option suggested by Anna Walker that would benefit all households in the south-west is a seasonal tariff, which would have the advantage of pricing water in a way that reflects the additional costs that tourists place on the water and sewerage system when they visit the region.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The Minister makes a good point, but when we examine the issue of affordability I want us to ensure that the WaterSure provision does help those who are particularly in need. I have looked at the detail of this and it is clear that it is not simply a matter of someone’s health need, the amount of money they have and the benefits that they are on. The way in which the system works means that it does not help those who really need that support, and I want the Government to consider that when we examine affordability.

[Richard Benyon]

As my hon. Friend did in her earlier intervention, she points out the important and urgent need to represent the needs of the most deprived and poorest households in the south-west. I shall discuss WaterSure in a moment and I am conscious of the amount of time available to me, but I must say that she rightly points out that when we address the urgent needs of the poorer families in the south-west we may have to examine the WaterSure provision.

Anna Walker estimated that, if water charges in the summer were four times higher than they are for the rest of the year, the average bill for all households in the region would be reduced by £60 a year. The other options identified in the review focused on providing additional support for vulnerable or low-income households, both in the south-west and elsewhere. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that that includes a proposal to revise the national WaterSure tariff and to discount the bills of all low-income households or of low-income households with children.

Let me add that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 enables water companies to offer social tariffs to households that struggle with their bills. However—this will be of concern to hon. Members from the south-west—the cross-subsidy under WaterSure or under social tariffs would have to be met by other customers in each company’s operating area.

As Anna Walker’s report made clear, the options are complex and, contrary to what I believed before I came to this side of the House, there certainly are no easy answers.