Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Roger Williams

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that work has continued since that reference point in September. The vast majority of those schemes will be completed by the end of the month, and temporary defences are in place to protect any communities where the work is still ongoing into November. The vast majority will be completed by the end of this month.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

5. What part her Department has played in negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

Water Bill

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Roger Williams

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman sets out his aspirations quite clearly by viewing the boundary between Wales and England in the same way as the sovereign state boundary between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, but I am addressing my remarks to the devolution settlement within the United Kingdom.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The Minister is well aware of the new clause’s implications for devolution. Does he agree that such a fundamental change would be better considered as part of devolution legislation, not as a new clause in a Bill on another matter?

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He has somewhat pre-empted the remarks I was about to make, but I am happy that we speak as one on this issue.

Licensing of water suppliers is also not devolved. I recognise the deep, historical reverberations in Wales—we heard about them in the heartfelt speech by the hon. Member for Arfon—about the management of water, which is an essential natural resource. Much of the responsibility for water is, I am pleased to say, now devolved. However, further changes to the current devolution arrangements would have implications for customers and household bills on both sides of the border. They would also affect the companies, their assets and their operating rules, and possibly the people who work for them. Therefore, changes should not be undertaken without very serious consideration of all the implications.

The UK Government position is that we will not make changes to the devolution settlement in advance of the review and report by the Commission on Devolution in Wales—the Silk commission—which, as hon. Members will know, is led by Mr Paul Silk. The commission is currently working on part II of its remit and is expected to report in the spring. It is reviewing the powers of the National Assembly for Wales in the light of experience. The commission’s terms of reference make it clear that any changes it proposes must enable the UK Parliament and the National Assembly better to serve the people of Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s views on social tariffs, which he feels have not been introduced in a speedy enough fashion. My point was rather about the issue of excess profits. I said that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to introduce a concept that is perhaps a subjective rather than an objective assessment of the profits made by water companies. The whole point of the price review process and price review period, however, is that a regulated process takes account of the need to attract investment and thus the need to make a reasonable return in profit.

[Roger Williams]

My understanding is that the water companies made larger profits because the period of very low interest rates benefited them to a great extent. However, basing an entire policy on windfall profits that might not occur in the future would certainly not be a very good idea.

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to point out that what is proposed is a new bold national scheme built on profits that might or might not go up or down in accordance with the markets and through the price review process. Although I accept that the intention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is, as always, to be helpful, I feel that his scheme could use a little work and I therefore urge my hon. Friends to resist it should he seek to press it to a vote.

Let me move next to new clause 8, also tabled by the hon. Gentleman. It would place a legal requirement on water companies to include information in their bills about the WaterSure scheme, but, as I have said—I provided information to this effect to the Committee—all water companies already do so voluntarily. He made a point based on anecdotal evidence. I would be happy to see that evidence and I am sure that he will want to share it with us, but I think we should base our policy making on the evidence provided to us, and the Consumer Council for Water has been quite clear that companies provide such information to customers.

In addition, new clause 8 would place requirements on water companies to provide information about tariff structures and the lowest available tariff, a point picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). The proposals simply fail to reflect the realities of the water sector as opposed, for example, to the energy sector. Water companies do not have complex tariff structures. The sole choice for the majority of household customers is whether to pay according to the amount of water they use through a metered tariff, which is particularly prevalent in areas such as my own, or according to the rateable value of their home through an unmetered tariff. The cheapest option for each household will therefore depend on the location of the property and the amount of water used by the household.

Many smaller households with low water use can benefit from a meter. Water companies are required to fit a water meter free of charge on request and they also advise customers on whether they might benefit financially from the installation of a water meter. A further point to bear in mind about the operation of WaterSure is that it caps the bills of eligible customers at the average of the metered and unmetered bill for the area. That could, in effect, put the bills of some eligible customers up and it is therefore not surprising that they have chosen not to apply for WaterSure.

There is no evidence, in my view, that further regulation is required in this area. As I have noted, all companies already include details of WaterSure in their household bills and they also all provide details of the support available to any customer struggling to pay their bill. Legislation to require the companies to do something that they are already doing voluntarily would be redundant.

The Consumer Council for Water works closely with the companies on the format of their bills. Its expert advice, as we discussed in Committee, is that one of the biggest risks in using water bills as a means of communication with customers is information overload. I do not, therefore, consider the new clause to be necessary.

Let me turn next to new clause 9, also tabled by the hon. Gentleman. We discussed an identical clause that he tabled in Committee. Section 45 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 already enables Ministers to introduce secondary legislation that would require landlords to provide water companies with personal details about their tenants or become liable for paying the bill. That was a point that the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was keen to emphasise, given her involvement with the passage of that Act.

Following extensive consultation with the industry and with landlords’ organisations the Government took the decision that a voluntary approach would be more suitable. During consultation, landlords argued that the additional regulatory burden would be disproportionate as they are not the source of the problem we are trying to tackle. At the same time, the evidence provided by the water sector to support the case for additional regulation was not sufficient to make the case for additional regulation of millions of small and micro-businesses.

The Government simply do not believe that more regulation is always the answer. As we discussed in Committee, good practice in tackling bad debt is not applied consistently across the water sector. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly took great pains to point that out. The significant variation in performance between companies tells us that the focus should be on driving better standards across the sector rather than regulating landlords.

One reason we do not propose to bring forward the bad debt regulations on landlords is that we do not wish to endorse the argument that performance on bad debt is not within the control of water companies. We think there is more that the companies can do to collect their debts and we want them to focus on that rather than look to the Government to solve the problem for them.

Of course, the real drivers of company performance are the incentives and penalties set by the regulator so I am pleased to be able to report that Ofwat has changed its approach to bad debt in the methodology it is using for the 2014 price review. The new approach will enable it more effectively to bear down on the costs of bad debt. It is doing so by insisting that the companies demonstrate that any increase in bad debt is genuinely beyond their control and that they have taken all available steps to control it. Unless they can prove that that is the case they will not be allowed to include it in customer charges. We are already seeing our focus on the industry’s taking responsibility for tackling bad debt bear fruit. As I mentioned in Committee, the industry is working with landlords’ organisations to establish a new voluntary scheme that will enable landlords to provide information about their tenants direct to water companies swiftly and easily.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Roger Williams

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

We want to focus our efforts on reducing air pollution, and we are confident that we will have enough information coming back from monitoring to ensure that we can update the position. As I said in answer to a previous question, this issue remains a Government priority and we will take action on it at European, national and local levels.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

There is conclusive scientific evidence that sheep as a species is not infected with a prion that causes new vCJD. Nevertheless, certain regulations relating to sheep, such as the compulsory splitting of carcases over 1 year old and the ban on on-farm burial, are based on the belief that sheep are so infected. What will the Minister do to take forward an investigation to ensure that these costly regulations can be brought to an end?

Badger Cull

Debate between Dan Rogerson and Roger Williams

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The debate has unfortunately become perhaps a little polarised, but we have had a determination to focus on the science. The interesting thing is that the same scientists are being used—if I might use that expression—by both sides.

The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my near neighbour, has highlighted the issue as it was set out to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I am still a member of the Select Committee, and I have served on it since 2005. As the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said earlier, we hope to look again at some of the vaccination issues in the near future. However, the main piece of work that the Select Committee carried out during that period was the one to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

I will come back to the science, but I want briefly to re-emphasise something that many hon. Members on both sides of the debate have pointed out. This is a very pressing issue in terms of cost to the rural economy and to the Treasury—indeed, to all of us as taxpayers—because of the amount of money having to be spent dealing with the effects of the problem, even if we are not dealing with the causes. Those costs will continue to rise, as has been freely admitted on both sides.

There is a human effect, too. We have heard about the disease’s effect on farmers—not just the distress caused, but the fact that ultimately it will push some people out of farming. I wrote to a court where a company was trying to repossess a farmer’s property, on the basis partly of the farm being under TB restrictions and therefore not being able to trade efficiently. The farmer and his family and others employed by the business constantly live with that worry.

The disease has an animal welfare cost for livestock and the wildlife population.

[Roger Williams]

Some people who keep cattle are saying, “I can’t put up with this any more,” so they sell their cows and buy a plough, with the result that more wheat is being grown, which is not what we want for the landscape.

[Dan Rogerson]

That is absolutely true, although in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency and of mine that choice is not available, so land will go out of production, with the loss of all the environmental “goods” such as stewardship and protection of the landscape.

The only piece of work that we have on which we can base an understanding of the science is, as hon. Members on both sides of the debate have said, the report that the ISG submitted to the Government based on the randomised culling trials. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon was right that its conclusions are crucial to the debate, but the question is whether one stops just before the end of the report, where the group said that culling has an effect and can help, or goes on to the coda, where it outlines its ultimate position and states that it does not think culling is practical. I argue that that is for the Government, politicians and those who will implement the policy on the ground to resolve. That I why the Select Committee felt that we needed to give the Government a chance to respond.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of the Select Committee’s membership in the previous Parliament: the late David Taylor, an active Member on many issues and on culling; the former Member for Stroud, David Drew; and Dr Lynne Jones. They were of such independent minds that it was a great comfort to Lord McAvoy when the Committee visited rural North Yorkshire or the south-west to look into the issue, because if instead they had been here, they might have been a little more challenging of the then Government’s position on whatever matter was being debated. They freely admitted that they were not convinced that culling was the answer to the problem, whereas others wanted to give those in the farming community the opportunity to show that it could work. The collective view that we reached appears in black and white.

The scientists—Professor John Bourne, Christl Donnelly, Rosie Woodroffe and Sir David King—gave evidence before us. The atmosphere between them was interesting; it was probably more of an atmosphere than we sometimes have in here for Prime Minister’s Question Time, such was their commitment to the work they had done. None the less, the Select Committee reached the view that it did.

I should like to look at the alternatives to the culling trials. I emphasise that we are discussing pilots, not country-wide implementation overnight, and moving forward carefully, sensitively and in line with the science in two areas to demonstrate that culling is effective.