I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me this debate on water metering. The Isle of Wight faces many challenges in a changing world. We have a corrugated, stainless steel-clad low energy hospital that has not yet opened, a highly controversial, waste-derived fuel plant, which looks as though it will be joined by an equally controversial pellet and coal-fired mini power station, and to date 48,000 domestic water meters.

I had the first Adjournment Debate on water metering on 14 June 1989, and tonight is the culmination of our experience thus far, although the trial is to continue until 1993. The purpose of the debate is, I hope, to have some effect on national decisions on water metering, using the benefits of experience on the Isle of Wight, as well as encouraging Ministers to follow up and tidy up a few loose ends.

Mr. Ian Byatt, Director General of the Office of Water Services, visited the island in December last year, and the opportunity for the public and interested bodies to put their views to him on paying for water ends on 31 March this year. Mr. Byatt held his first public meeting on water charging on the island at Sandown, and I must put on record my personal thanks for his courtesy, kindness and refreshingly open approach to both myself and my constituents.

I hope to tackle in this debate first the national and then the local issues. Our experiences tell us that a higher standing charge, with a fixed block tariff, would be preferable to the very low standing charge and the rising block tariff that we have. That is because the Isle of Wight is a holiday destination with a massive seasonal fluctuation and a high proportion of second homes. The consumers involved are not paying an effective price for the infrastructure costs of water supply and sewage disposal, while those of us who are resident all the year round are effectively subsidising the absentee property owners. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an assurance that the position will be adjusted as soon as comparative data on the existing tariff structure have served their purpose, remembering that the trial continues until 1993.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England has said that water meters are the right answer to the environmental problems created by ever-increasing consumption of water nationally. The Isle of Wight escaped a hosepipe ban last summer, although we have to import large quantities of water to meet the peak demand in summer.

In my original Adjournment debate, I mentioned that the Liberal Democrats had called for the island to be metered, but had attempted to distance themselves from that position once the project was under way. It is a sad commentary on their political creed that a minority of their number have since sought to create fear and panic in the local population by suggesting that water metering has led to a rise in the number of cases of gastro-enteritis—a claim immediately dismissed as irresponsible and ill founded by the island's public health consultant, a doctor. We have only to think of Italy, Spain and France, which have exceptionally hot summers and water meters, to realise how idiotic such claims are.

The waste water charges have led to some concern, particularly among keen gardeners who resent being charged for a percentage of the water consumed on the basis of its being returned to the sewer: in their case, it usually goes on their begonias. The position is difficult to explain logically; some thought will have to be given simplifying that aspect of metering nationally.

I appreciate, however, that in many areas the company supplying the water is not the one responsible for disposing of the sewage. The current freeze-up has highlighted the need yet again to reassure metered property owners that their Bills will be adjusted to take account of leaks that are reported and repaired within a reasonable period. Lest anyone should suggest that the cost of water lost through frozen pipes should not be shared by the water company, let me point out that the water companies themselves have wasted many thousands of gallons through burst water mains during the severe weather, through no fault of their own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), wrote to me on 13 November following my meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who was then Prime Minister. I was concerned at the size of bills facing large familes with young children, and constituents with severe medical problems. I urged my right hon. Friend to consider a survey of all the meter trial areas to analyse the problem.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to me as follows: I agree that some further investigation is necessary and we are proposing to carry out a small study of all the trial areas to see if a problem exists. As a first step, the water companies involved in the trials will be asked to identify from their records those customers where the change to metering has resulted in substantial additional cost. Linking this information to data obtained during meter installation surveys about the type of property and the number of occupants should provide a basis for deciding if there are grounds for conducting a small social survey along the lines you suggest.As you know, Ian Byatt has published a consultation paper on methods of charging for water. That exercise will also provide an opportunity to throw further light on this particular subject and we shall look to see what is said about it in the responses to the consultation paper.