Water Industry

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I do not follow that argument; it does not apply in other sectors and I do not see why it needs to apply in this one. Disconnection would not assist consumers when making that switch because they may well be deterred by the fear of disconnection, so I do not accept that argument.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is completely right to reject the outrageous suggestion made by the shadow Minister that there should be the power to disconnect householders. Does he recall whether the Labour party, when it was in government, had any form of social tariffs or anything like what it has been calling for today? Or is this something where the Labour party has woken up and jumped on the bandwagon?

[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.

European Union Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

Beautifully put, as ever, by the hon. Lady, who describes the problem exactly. The Danes’ mandate becomes an open negotiating position and they lose their ability to be flexible and to push other member states in the give and take that sits at the heart of true business or governmental negotiations.

Finland, like Denmark, does involve its national legislature, but the difference is that in Finland this is done in private. The Finnish grand committee meets in private, away from the cameras and the spotlight, so it can have that important discussion.

I do not know what other Members think, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has some good points to make. He makes them with great passion and often at great length, and he is well informed. He passes the Linlithgow test, because he reads all those boring papers, whereas all the rest of us put our heads in our hands and then flip through them quickly to pick out the main points. My hon. Friend actually reads this stuff—I do not know how he does it, but he does—so he is able to have a substantial and serious discussion about the issues. I put it to the Minister—I hope that he will respond in due course—that we need a mechanism, perhaps a Committee system, whereby those hon. Members who are interested, even obsessed, with the European Union can represent the House’s interests and hold discussions in private, as the Finnish grand committee does, before a negotiation happens.

The Intelligence and Security Committee knows what goes on, and therefore builds in some democratic accountability, but it does not blab to everyone exactly what our spies are up to around the world and what our security interests are. If it were possible to have a mechanism similar to the grand committee system in Finland, so that Parliament could be involved, perhaps there would be a greater sense of trust and a greater sense not only that we have the essential transparency, but that we do not send our Ministers in to bat in Brussels with—as I think a former Prime Minister put it—one arm tied behind their backs, so that they cannot negotiate in this country’s fullest interests.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in relation to Finland. Does he not agree that the system in Sweden, which is quite similar to that in Finland, would provide a useful way forward? Such a committee could meet, usually in closed session, and give a mandate to the Minister. The Minister would have discretion to depart from that mandate, but the position would be clearly defined before the Minister went to the Council. That has all the attractions of the systems that my hon. Friend has been ably advocating.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I do not think that it is for me, as a Back Bencher, to find the detailed solution, but those who are senior in the House, such as Front Benchers, should consider the other models of accountability used in Europe. They should consider the fact that we want accountability and transparency, without prejudicing the United Kingdom’s negotiating position in the discussions that are held in European Councils. So long as we have to put up with being a member of the European Union—or, indeed, are enthused by that fact—we need to negotiate well and get the best possible deal for this country.

European Union Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Robert Buckland

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

We come to the vexed question of Lisbon, when the push for a referendum reached its apogee and the people felt that they were outrageously cheated. If there were a Lisbon question once again, and if the facts were the same or similar, could the new clause 9 committee be relied upon to sit and, in making a determination, to ensure that we had a referendum? If a Government had said in their election manifesto, “We will have a referendum on this matter, the committee will sit, and we will make sure that it recommends a referendum,” would the committee then do so? Some people have grave doubts, because of the Whips’ system, and that is why the new clause should not be the preferred way.

The Bill’s measures on a referendum lock are the way forward. The amendments are all about breaking up that lock, and they would take us back to where we were with the Lisbon treaty, which was rammed through both Houses. The new clause is a concern for that reason. It would water down the referendum lock and leave us with significance tests writ large. Do we want that, or do we want to ensure that the British people have a referendum guarantee? That is very important.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my hon. Friend agree—I tried to make this point earlier to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—that in the new clause there is an absence of any time scale for a report by the committee to the House? In itself, that significant omission would lead to more delay and obfuscation and not deal properly with the matter at hand.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree strongly. That is the risk: the whole thing could be buried in committee. The new clause is also slightly defective, given that it would allow the committee to

“determine its own procedure…broadly in line with…the Joint Committees of the two Houses.”

That is not sufficiently precise. I defer to those more expert in how such committees are set up, but I am concerned about the defects in the drafting of the new clause.

The Government’s Bill, which the new clause seeks to amend, sets out strict and exact tests on what a referendum would be and details how it would bind Ministers in terms of the law of the land. Those provisions would not be in place if the new clause were passed. We would end up with the classic old Whips’ fix, and we would not have the people’s guarantee.

I believe—because I am a bit old fashioned—in government for the people, by the people and of the people, that that should not perish from this earth, and that my constituents should have a say on the great matters of our times. Given that, the Bill is important and the right step towards more public power. The people and their sovereignty should be recognised, and they should be given that say, which time and again they have been cheated of—to my mind, unacceptably.

New clause 9 would give Parliament more power; I believe in giving the people more power in our modern age. I do not agree with both Houses of Parliament having a veto on a referendum. I do not think that the House of Lords should have a veto on a referendum, particularly given the substantial concern that recent events have given us about what goes on there.