Water Industry

Debate between Charles Walker and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I hope that this debate will continue in a spirit of looking to the long-term future of the industry, rather than descending into anything approaching point scoring. I do not think that is worthy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and I am sure that we will not see such a descent in his contribution, because this issue predates this Government.

As I was explaining, price rises started to increase significantly in the middle of the past decade. The average Thames Water household bill was £254 in 2005-06 and it has now risen to £354. One of my constituents sent me his own list of increases, where he recorded that in 2005-06 his bill increased by a whopping 21% and that since that time his bills have increased by 84%. So we can see why consumers and residents are asking, “Why us? Why do we have to bear the burden?”

I am pleased that Ofwat has issued a preliminary decision to disallow Thames Water’s request to raise prices by £29 for customers’ bills with effect from 2014-15. Thames Water said that it wished to spread that increase over several years but, as Ofwat has said, Thames Water has produced insufficient evidence to justify such a rise. It is unique this year in terms of the other water companies and the issue is compounded by the prospect of indefinite rises of up to £80 for my residents in order to pay for the £4.1 billion Thames tideway tunnel. I am in no way an opponent of bold and imaginative infrastructure schemes. They represent the best spirit of what inspired the Victorians to create the infrastructure on which, in many ways, we rely today. Buildings such as this place were the result of such boldness. It is right, however, that we should ask the legitimate question about whether dealing with the problems experienced through the discharge of sewage into the River Thames is worth that £4.1 billion.

I have no doubt that there are serious issues with pollution, but air pollution in London affects more people than the issue that the tunnel seeks to address. Other proposals, such as those for sustainable drainage, would be a more incremental way of dealing with the problem than inflicting this large hit on consumers.

[Mr Charles Walker]

What does my hon. Friend suggest that London does with its faeces if we do not put them into the Thames or build a tunnel to take them away from the Thames? Where will it all go?

[Mr Buckland]

I am not saying that there is not a problem, but that there are alternative ways of dealing with it through sustainable drainage. Earlier, my hon. Friend made an intervention about the need to build more infrastructure. I heard what he said, but to my way of thinking the Abingdon reservoir was the wrong response to the problems that still besets Thames Water—that is, the massive leakages. Thames Water is still losing 646 million litres of water a day.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Charles Walker and Robert Buckland

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important point. She is entirely right. It is a question not just of removing legislative barriers, but of encouraging a change in culture. Owing to a lack of understanding, frankly, far too many businesses and organisations still display that outdated and unfortunate response to those with mental health conditions.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Good practice needs to be recognised, and I am pleased to report that next week Legal and General is hosting a major conference in the City about mental health and tackling stigma. I believe that the company should be congratulated for doing that, particularly in the City, where there is a sort of macho culture in which people deny any weakness in case their colleagues think the worse of them.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The equation of mental health problems with weakness is something we must destroy utterly. We all know about that culture in the City, and it exists elsewhere. Organisations such as Legal and General and Swindon’s Mindful Employer network, an excellent organisation that brings together companies large and small in my constituency to encourage and share best practice with regard to employees with stress or mental health and other related conditions, can demonstrate the way to go when it comes to dealing with these conditions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend brings a great hero of mine to our attention: Field Marshal the Viscount Slim, leader of the forgotten army, a man who led an outstandingly courageous operation in the far east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that huge experience to bear in this debate, which allows me to make an important point. We must be very careful when we use words such as “vulnerable”, because many people I know who have mental health conditions—I am sure other Members of the House know such people—would not like to be described as vulnerable. Often they are very tough people indeed who have gone through the toughest of circumstances.

I make that point because a good-natured and well-intentioned approach that describes people with mental health conditions as vulnerable brings with it a danger that the vulnerability becomes the basis by which, rather than encouraging and enabling such people to engage fully in society and public life, we assume that they need to be looked after in a different way and separated from mainstream society. Such a view is only a short step away from the old thinking about institutionalisation—the thinking of previous generations, which did so much harm and damage to people with mental health conditions. Although it is undeniable that people with disabilities or mental health conditions can find themselves in vulnerable situations, that is very different from making glib assumptions about their vulnerability.

The Bill would be a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, it would also reduce and repeal legislation—something that I, as a Conservative, am always happy to support. In three particular respects it deals with provisions that are not only discriminatory, but wholly superfluous. The provision relating to Members of Parliament, as has already been noted, is not only dangerous, with the additional vice of potentially driving hon. Members to deny mental health problems, but in the light of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows for a person lacking capacity to be detained without losing their seat, section 141 is utterly redundant. On the principle that redundant legislation is bad law, we as legislators should act swiftly to remove such a provision.

It has been reported today that people with stressful jobs in which the ability to control events is limited—I most definitely include being a Member of Parliament in that category—are at a 23% greater risk of having a heart attack. We really would be idiots in this place if we denied the possibility that the mental health of hon. Members is not invulnerable. In my opinion the 2005 Act caters well for cases in which, sadly, detention for mental health reasons is the only alternative available but, importantly, it does not allow the automatic vacation of a seat because of the fact of a mental health condition. That is the important distinction that we must draw between the mere fact of a condition and the question of capacity. The two things are very different.

As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had more than my fair share of experience of dealing with the great British jury, to quote the words of W. S. Gilbert, whether I have been sitting as a Crown court recorder or appearing as counsel in criminal cases. I say with all the experience that I can muster that the court system is perfectly capable of catering for and dealing with people with conditions—sometimes lifelong ones—that can be managed by the administration of medication.

When somebody with diabetes, or another type of physical condition managed by regular medication, comes to the court, the well adopted practice is for sittings and administrative arrangements to be adjusted so that the person’s needs can be accommodated, they can take their medication and can serve as a juror. In other words, no assumption is made that, just because a potential juror has a physical condition or disability, they cannot serve as a juror.

The assumption in the Juries Act 1974 about mental health is wholly wrong. The blanket ban serves not only to reinforce stigma, but devalues the contribution that people with mental health conditions make to society and can make as jurors. In my humble opinion, there is no more important public service for an individual than to serve on a jury in judgment over their fellow citizen. To drive underground necessary disclosure of some mental health conditions that could affect the capacity to serve is, in my view, what is happening now—inevitably, as result of the outdated provisions in the 1974 Act. That is why those provisions must go and why I particularly welcome the Bill.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I take my hon. Friend back to his earlier comment that on occasions he felt a victim of events in this place? Today, with this excellent speech, as on so many other days, he is driving events and is to congratulated for it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a friend indeed.

I turn to the final provision, which relates to company directors. The proposed removal of the provisions in the schedules to the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 has the function of removing not only discriminatory provisions but unnecessary ones. Why is that? It is because the model articles themselves already contain provision for the termination of a director’s appointment if a registered GP is of the opinion that that person has become physically or mentally incapable as a director and may be so for more than three months.

The provisions are a complete waste of time. They need to be removed for the sake of simplicity. Frankly, this is another example of removing unnecessary red tape and burdens when it comes to the setting up and creation of a business. From a practical point of view, the removal is effective and necessary. Let me also deal briefly with the existing provisions on orders made by the Court of Protection. Those orders are based on a lack of mental capacity, not the mere fact of a mental health condition.

I have mentioned that difference before, and I will say it again—I will keep saying it until everybody understands. Having a mental health condition does not mean that someone cannot play their full part in our society. That is why I warmly welcome the Bill as a real step forward, on a day of honour for the House.