Water Supply

– in the House of Lords at 3:32 pm on 17 May 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords 3:32, 17 May 2006

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to an Urgent Question in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Ian Pearson.

"The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of 1974-76. The Environment Agency believes that the drought in the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years.

"Water planning is on the basis that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.

"I recognise the public concern over leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and, over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent. However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets and more than £3.5 billion in 2004–05 alone.

"As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am currently considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern and Mid-Kent Water".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Photo of Baroness Byford Baroness Byford Shadow Minister (Food & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 3:34, 17 May 2006

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the urgent Question tabled by my honourable friend in another place. I have several questions for the Minister.

We have debated in this House, on 30 March, yesterday and on another occasion, the whole question of water and water supply. I do not blame the Government for the lack of rain, but one of the results of this shortage is that the management of our supplies needs looking at. One possibility is the concept of imposing water meters in households. I understand that Ken Livingstone said the other day that in London it is inevitable. If we move to meterage, what precautions will the Government or water companies take to protect the most vulnerable people, who, on the whole, tend to use more water than smaller households?

Thames Water has had an appalling water loss record in recent years. I understand it has missed its target for the past five years. Does the Minister consider that there is enough power within the regulatory authority to get the company to address this situation?

Much of the water is wasted through leakages. I have raised the whole question of investment and pipe replacement before in this House. I understand that a cap has been imposed upon companies. Will the Government review that, and what is the position?

Next I turn to the question of new house build, particularly in the south-east and East Anglia. We have been assured from time to time that water provision would be perfectly adequate for these new builds, but I understand that the water companies were unfortunately not included in the discussions when the ODPM was considering the projects. Will the Minister confirm that, and tell us what the Government are doing now to put that right?

Another question that was raised the other night when we were debating water was the number of applications that are coming in for individual abstraction licences. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because obviously one man's abstraction reduces the supply of water further along the line.

The Bewl reservoir is at an all-time low. How many reservoirs are less than half full, and how many have closed over the past 15 years?

Returning to the house building programme, in which the water companies are supposed to have 25-year plans to cover their needs, is the Minister satisfied that the plans that were in existence are adequate under the circumstances, and, if not, what are the Government doing to persuade the water companies to reconsider this issue?

Human health and safety is the first call on our water supplies, and the household accounts for 45 per cent. The restrictions being put in place will have an impact on businesses, tourism and agriculture. What priorities will be given to each of these sectors, and how will they be resolved? Will that be left to the water companies, or will it be dealt with by the Environment Agency?

It is difficult to get a balance between raising awareness of the difficulties placed on the water companies and our needs as individuals without scaremongering, but I am very concerned about the long-term planning for good household provision of water and for business requirements, particularly in view of the growth in building in the south and south-east.

As we know, there is plenty of water in Wales and the north and west of the country. Have the Government given any further consideration to having a national water grid? I know there are disadvantages to that, but we should not just dismiss it. We should actively consider it again.

Those are a very few questions for the Minister. I should be grateful for his response to them. It is a fine balance to know how much we need to conserve and preserve. It could rain tomorrow, but unfortunately our underground water supplies are very sparse and even if we have many downpours it will take some time for them to be replenished. I again thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

Photo of Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Spokesperson in the Lords, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 3:40, 17 May 2006

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I concur that the Government are not to blame for the lack of rain. However, if they fail to take stronger measures in the face of the fact that climate change will undoubtedly make rainfall less predictable—that is what the scientists are telling us—and that droughts are more likely, they will, of course, be to blame. My questions relate to the measures that they could take.

First, the Minister said in the Statement that leakage rates had been reduced by 30 per cent in 10 years, but that is only 3 per cent a year. Are there additional mechanisms that the Government can use? The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, was good enough to send a further written reply to the debate that I initiated on 9 May, to which she replied, in which she stated that in between the price reviews there were mechanisms for dealing with changes. Should those mechanisms now be brought in?

Secondly, I refer to one of the first Written Answers that the Minister was good enough to provide for me when he took up his current position at Defra. I asked the Government:

"Whether they have considered a national roll-out of water metering in the light of the water shortage".

The Minister replied:

"The Government recognise that metering is an effective method of charging customers according to consumption and that, with appropriate protection for vulnerable households, it represents a generally fair means of charging".—[Hansard, 15/5/06; col. WA15–16.]

Given that that is the Government's attitude, why are they not thinking of rolling out a universal metering system? According to all estimates at least 10 per cent of water consumption could be saved.

Further, does the Minister think that there is sufficient help for consumers in labelling of appliances so that they are not only targeted by the clever marketing of, for example power showers, but are aware of how much extra water they would use? That would apply to all sorts of white goods such as washing machines and dishwashers.

Finally, I refer again to a more detailed written answer that I was given following my debate on 9 May in which the Government said that there were controls to prevent the waste, misuse and undue consumption of water in domestic and commercial premises. Irrespective of those people who are metered, I wonder exactly what is meant by those controls. In addition to the hose pipe ban and the drought order such controls should now surely be brought in.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords 3:43, 17 May 2006

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baronesses' comments. I shall do my best to answer their questions.

They both mentioned meters. At present there are no plans to mandate universal metering throughout England, although I understand that there is provision for compulsory metering in water stressed areas. We fully accept that that metering can save about 10 per cent of water use. At present all new houses have meters installed. Nationally, about 26 per cent of domestic properties have meters. The matter is under consideration and discussions are going on. However, as I say there is no mandate and no expectation of compulsory water metering being introduced throughout the country, but the relevant powers exist for water stressed areas, if they are needed. I was asked whether the powers were sufficient. I do not have any information that there are insufficient powers to deal with these issues.

As I said in the Statement, the investment since privatisation has been some £55 billion; and £3.5 billion was invested in 2003–04, the most recent year for which I have figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly raised, in a moderate way, the issue of new build in the south-east and East Anglia, and I understand her reasons for that. The water companies are required by law to have 25-year plans. They take into account, for example, the proposals for growth areas contained in the communities plan. That allegation was made when I was at ODPM, and I was able to refute it. I do not have the words in front of me, but it is not true that the water companies were not involved in the production of the communities plan. I remember coming to the House and debating that. It was alleged that the water companies were ignored. They are required to factor potential and prospective new build into their 25-year plans. So it is not a surprise to the water companies that the new build plans are there—it is their responsibility; but they were not excluded from the putting together of the communities plan.

Applications for individual bore holes are looked at on the merits and circumstances of each one. We debated that the other day—just because one puts a bore hole on one's land does not mean that the water comes only from under that land. As a noble Lord said in Grand Committee, a spring 10 miles away can be dried up; and that has happened.

I do not have any details regarding which reservoirs are less than half full. A considerable number of reservoirs are not completely full, as we have seen in photographs; but I shall seek to get that information and write to the noble Baroness.

I have no information regarding the new build plans for growth areas. There is massive pressure to provide people with affordable housing in areas in which they have been born and raised and want to live—and there is enormous pressure in the south-east. But the new build plans have to be taken into account by the water companies. The noble Baroness rightly said that, in relation to public health, domestic water supply is the first call on the water companies. As we all know—and some noble Lords are better qualified than me—a clean, wholesome supply of water did more to cure disease in this country than any medicines and drugs, even before we identified the diseases. Then it is up to the individual circumstances of businesses, whatever they may be, and some use large amounts of water, including the agri-food industry. The water companies have been asked by my honourable friend to take reasonable decisions in the circumstances and not go to extremes. That is why there has been a hosepipe ban and the publicity. A drought order is the next stage in the process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the water grid and she received a few murmurs of approval. I have a view on the water grid: we have a country that is unequally balanced, both socially and economically—particularly economically. There is an alleged source of water in the north that, suddenly, is supposed to be transported south to feed the ever-growing south-east. I think that there is something iffy about that. The quality of life in the north is far superior to that in the south-east, anyway. It is said that more people and jobs should be created and that there are plans for growth, but I have a couple of killer statistics to put to bed the call for transporting water. I am told that one person uses 150 litres of water per day, on average. A family of five uses 750 litres a day, which weighs three-quarters of a ton. There are 30 million people. It is not on. You just cannot transport water. That proposal is off the radar. It would be much better if we made other social and economic changes.

The noble Baroness asked about climate change, too. Droughts are not unusual, and this drought is not necessarily an indication of climate change—although it may be. In the past 200 years there have been 10 multi-year droughts. Although I shall not read them all out, the last was between 1995 and 1997 and the drought before that was between 1990 and 1992. The 1975–76 drought was cured by Denis Howell—he dealt with the floods that followed the drought, as if he had made the rain. Before that, one occurred in 1933–34 and there was another one in 1921–22. In their 25-year plans, the water companies are required to meet the circumstances of the severe drought of 1933–34. So, with standpipes and drought orders, there is still sufficient water supply for at least one month's domestic use. This is factored to be an incident that occurs about once every 100 years and that is how it is built into the 25-year plans.

This may be an issue of climate change but at present there is no indication that it is. These multi-year droughts have come and gone and we have managed quite successfully. Obviously there has to be publicity. Everyone was warned that we would have a dry summer but they were also warned that we would have an exceptionally cold winter, so some things do not work out as expected. But the warning has been given and people have had sufficient indication that saving water in any way that they can will be helpful to everyone. There are plenty of ways that water can be saved—there is enough publicity about that and there will probably be more—and the drought orders are brought in to give the companies the powers to take the necessary steps. We hope that standpipes will not be required but, if they are, the necessary legislation for them will be contained in the order.

Photo of Lord Dubs Lord Dubs Labour 3:51, 17 May 2006

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. First, given that we seem to have had a lot of warning of this year's water difficulties, would it not be better if the water companies built more reservoirs? We have plenty of rain but we do not have the storage capacity to meet the needs arising from the weather we have had. Secondly, can my noble friend explain why, at a time of water shortages, the water companies are making record profits? People simply do not understand that.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I will come to the point about reservoirs in a moment. On the latter point, since privatisation water companies have invested £55 billion from their profits. There is no competition between companies in terms of supply through pipes to the customer, but the water regulator could say to them that their profit distribution would be restricted if they did not perform well, and that money would be diverted, in the public interest, to investment in the infrastructure. That is a very seductive point and I have made it many times in the past, wearing other hats, as I have talked about the rip-off merchants and so on. But the fact is that the water companies have invested £55 billion since privatisation. Wearing one of my previous hats, that is one reason why we are bringing in water charges in Northern Ireland—so that we can get proper investment. There is no water charge there, so there is no income stream.

The water companies have plans for five new reservoirs in the south-east of England and three extended reservoirs to be built between 2008 and 2020. The plans are public knowledge but planning permission has not been obtained and that will all be some way down the road. My noble friend is right that we need to save more water but reservoirs are not purely the answer. The mere fact that reservoirs exist means that water is removed from the environment, so we need to do lots of other things to make better use of our water resources.

Photo of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Conservative

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's conversion to the theory of privatisation, but I am with his noble friend Lord Dubs. Thames Water is one of the water authorities with the biggest leakage problems. It is reporting record profits and, indeed, its German owners are going to float it on the Stock Exchange because it is such a good cash-generating machine. How can the Minister possibly be satisfied with the operation of Ofwat as regulator in these circumstances when the company is writing to people in London telling them to plant in their gardens cacti or other plants that do not need water, and that their supplies may be threatened and they may be getting standpipes? It is the regulator's job to prevent that happening.

It is true that the Government cannot be blamed for a particularly dry period, but there is a normal distribution of rainfall and the regulator's job is to ensure that the companies prepare for that. I understand that the previous regulator of Ofwat encouraged the water authorities to reduce their spending on maintenance. Frankly, it is quite outrageous that consumers are told to share baths and so on, while the water companies are not doing everything they can—they have the resources—about the water that is pouring into the ground.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, it is true that Thames Water has a bad record on leakage compared with other water companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about that. However, it has undertaken additional spending in 2003–04 and has spent an extra £200 million out of its profits in that period because Ofwat would not allow the entire amount to be passed on to customers' bills, which it was planning to do. In some ways that was effectively a financial penalty, but it gets the work done. Thames Water failed its overall 2004–05 leakage target by 10 megalitres a day—1.1 per cent. To that extent, on leakages Thames Water is a failed company. I do not know any more about the detail. I certainly draw the attention of the House to Ofwat and what has been said. For the first time since 1999–2000, in the past year, Thames Water has reduced its overall leakage. The company may have failed in the past, but slowly it is starting to put things right.

Photo of Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth Spokesperson in the Lords, Welsh Affairs, Spokesperson in the Lords (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

My Lords, does the Minister know that Welsh WaterDwr Cymru—a not-for-profit company, which has been extremely successful and which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is now managing to invest its profits in infrastructure? One has only to go round Wales to see the amount of work and investment taking place in preventing leakage and such matters. Is that not a model that might be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Photo of Lord Borrie Lord Borrie Labour

My Lords, my noble friend has said that he would not wish to roll out a full national system of water metering, despite the fact that at the moment water metering operates in only a quarter of the country. In qualification, he said that in stress areas one could have drought orders, which would enable water metering to be introduced, but that is a short-term measure. Drought orders and stress-area orders are short-term measures. This occurs not just occasionally but seemingly every few years. We want a long-term measure, which I believe is water metering, so that there is an incentive to be cautious in the use of water. At present, there is no need for three-quarters of the population to be cautious or modest in their use of water. Naturally, I entirely agree with the Minister that there will have to be subsidies and special arrangements for vulnerable and large families that are poor, but that does not alter my general point that at the moment the incentives go all the wrong way.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I share some of my noble friend's sentiments. Currently the Government have no plans to impose universal water metering. However, the mere installation of meters is a massive incentive for people to save water and vulnerable people would need to be considered, as we said at Question Time on fuel poverty.

The regulations introduced in 1999 provide for the water companies to take forward compulsory metering in areas deemed to have water scarcity status. It is a back-stop provision. The first application for that status was submitted last year and approved by the Secretary of State in March 2006. Other companies may be considering applying. Companies have to assess the pressures on them and on their supplies and their access to water.

Photo of Lord Blaker Lord Blaker Conservative

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I live in the south-east, which is the worst affected area. The noble Lord appeared to say that the cause of the drought problem in the south-east is largely the size of the population and their propensity to consume water. Does he recall that, not many years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister declared it essential for 1 million new homes to be built in the south-east in not much more than the next decade? Was he aware of the problem that we have been talking about when he made that statement?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

Yes, my Lords. I covered that, because it was raised in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the extra homes which are rightly needed. People ought to have a choice over where they can affordably live. Too many people are being driven away from where they have lived and been brought up; that is not right. We therefore need more homes built at a higher density. The fact of the matter is that modern homes are much more water-efficient than the rest of the 25 million dwellings in this country. They use less water per head, because of how they are built and their installation. Those factors were fully taken on board.

The other question was about the water companies. The water companies and the Environment Agency were fully involved in the production of the communities plan. I am not blaming people in the south-east; it just happens to be where there is currently less water where water is drawn from. There is no blame attached to people for this, we just have to take account of it. But there is a large population in the south-east, and the water resources are not necessarily in the same place as the people.

Photo of The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar Crossbench

My Lords, when the Minister was explaining to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the difficulties of transporting water to people, it occurred to me that perhaps we should resort to transportation of people to water. Does the Minister agree that, while people have a right to houses in villages where they have lived for generations, there has also been an enormous influx of people to the south-east from the north of England and Scotland? Can some long-term planning not be done to encourage these people to go back to their roots, providing jobs where their roots are instead of expecting the south-east to cope with the indigenous as well as additional population? When I was a schoolgirl in the 1950s out in Kenya, I learnt that the eastern coast of England was much drier than the western side.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, those in—I nearly said the ODPM—the new department will be looking to me to knock that one on the head straight away. What the noble Countess has asserted is simply untrue. The influx and increase of population in the south-east is nothing to do with internal movement in this country. That is a very minor part of it. The growth rates of the population are nothing to do with people coming from the north-east and Scotland. One reason people from the north-east and Scotland cannot come to the south-east is that they cannot afford the housing. There is a lack of labour mobility because we are an unequal country. There are different factors causing the growth in the south-east population, but it is certainly not internal movement.

Photo of Lord Methuen Lord Methuen Liberal Democrat

My Lords, is the Minister aware of a 1930s scheme called the Grand Contour Canal, which I think was at the 600-foot contour? It was devised to take water all around England, providing both water distribution and navigation—or recreation, in this day and age. It would have covered the entire country to bring water from areas which had it to those that had not.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I am not aware of that proposal at the 600-foot level. I do not know off-hand where we are—I imagine we are below 600 feet here. Canals are fine. They are there as a resource, and may be necessary for transport and moving water. I do not know, but I will make it my business to find out about that plan.

Photo of Lord Monson Lord Monson Crossbench

My Lords, it may help the Minister to know that it was the 210-foot contour line.

Photo of Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours Labour

My Lords, is the department doing any work on the economics of desalination? On the national grid, it is not a question of trucking water from one end of the country to the other; it is the task of building and constructing ducts—piping—from the north of the country to the south.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, there is some work on desalination. A pilot desalination plant—I am not sure whether it is under construction yet—is proposed at Newhaven. One is proposed in London, but I understand that, using his powers, the Mayor opposed it. An inquiry is about to start on that.

Photo of Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain Conservative

My Lords, everybody has ideas for fixing the problem. They are all fixable, but how much will that cost? To return to the issue of metering, is it not in the Government's interest to point out that everybody can have a meter if they want to and that the water companies supply them for free? There should be an obligation on all of us to try to save water, and the one way of doing so is to find out how much one is using.

Secondly, there is a huge amount of ignorance in the other place, if I may say so, where a question was recently asked about why on earth the water companies dig up the sides of the street rather than putting the mains down the centre of the road. They really do not understand. People complain whenever they see leaks and the water companies get an enormous amount of flak about it. They try to do the work at night but are not allowed to because of the noise of drilling. They try to do the work during the day and get the Evening Standard and everyone else coming down on them like a tonne of bricks.

We have to expect there to be a leakage problem. A lot of our pipes are Victorian. Some of the pipes that were replaced in the 1960s were made of stuff which has now disintegrated. It is to be hoped they now have the answer to that, but it is a national problem, particularly down in the south-east. We have to get it right instead of point-scoring on desalination plants, where somebody says, "You can't do that because of the energy costs of desalination". Metering is really the answer. The Government should take the line—I hope the Minister agrees with me—of saying to people, "You can have meters, so have them".

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I will try to bottle that question because the noble Baroness is a one-Baroness publicity machine for advising people what to do. She has told everybody that the meters are free. There is enormous ignorance about what happens when you are digging up the roads, and people must make the connection between the work to be done and what comes out of the tap. She also, of course, praised the Victorians, because if it had not been for them we would have been in the soup a lot sooner.

Photo of Lord Christopher Lord Christopher Labour

My Lords, what instructions are being issued if there are to be standpipes? I declare the same interest as has been declared across the Chamber. I live in the south-east and I understand that the water company has told the population that the holes that are being dug are nothing to do with standpipes. I do not believe that: they are too small. What instruction is going to be issued to get water from standpipes to people who physically are quite unable to get it for themselves?

Secondly, will the second part of the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the number of reservoirs that have been closed be answered when the Minister writes to her? Thirdly, when the propaganda from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has worked, will there be some guarantees that, because the water companies will lose income, they will not be allowed unreasonably to increase the price of water, which I understand has happened on the Isle of Wight?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I do not know what instructions have yet been given for standpipes. Currently, no companies have approached Defra to discuss the need for standpipes under the emergency drought order. Obviously, it is not a question of simply doing it without any discussion. It would not be the first time this has happened. My noble friend asked about getting water from the standpipe to vulnerable people. That must be dealt with as a priority, as indeed I am sure it was the last time standpipes were used.

My noble friend's final question, regarding what the companies do after the effect of the drought to ensure that the burden is not put back on the customer and that they pay their fair share, is very valid. I shall make sure it is answered, along with the other questions. Although I cannot answer the question about reservoirs in a letter to noble Lords—I will write to the noble Baroness—I will make sure it is answered in the form of a Statement or something that we can put in the Library, because obviously this is a matter of general interest.

Photo of Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith Shadow Minister (the Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

My Lords, I have two interests to declare: first, I am a farmer and landowner with a licence to abstract water who has had a reservoir constructed on his own land. Secondly, I live in one of the drier areas of the country where we enjoy the benefits of inter-river basin transfer, so that, although Essex may have less rainfall than Kent, it is not as badly off in terms of water supply.

I was a little disturbed at what the Minister said early in his remarks about reservoirs. He implied, if I understood him correctly, that they remove water from availability for use. The fact is that a reservoir is specifically designed and always used to take water in times of surplus and to store it so that it can be used in times of shortage. If it is not built for that purpose, it is not built for any useful purpose at all. I think that we should be clear about that.

My question is this, however. I acknowledge all the success that there has been over the last few years in replacing the water infrastructure, although much of it is still extremely old. However, is the Minister satisfied that, despite that success, sufficient allowance has been made over the last one or two decades—certainly since privatisation, during which time we have really seen the huge expansion in funding for this work—to provide adequate resources to deal with the particular problems that we face and the monotonous regularity with which droughts occur?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Sustainable Farming and Food), The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, the noble Lord spoilt his question with his last comment. This is not a question of monotonous regularity. The fact is that there have been several droughts, but they are not that regular. One must look at the benefits and the cost. As I have said, shortages are not unusual, which is why we cannot allege that they are the result of climate change. But, let's face it, our record in this country on infrastructure replacement has not been brilliant in the last few decades. That applies to water, transport and rail. To that extent, the noble Lord hit the nail on the head—we have got to do more and we have got to do better. There is no question about it—not enough has been done, or quite clearly we would not be in the position that we are in now.

The point that I was making on reservoirs—it is not an unimportant point—is that five have been identified in plans and there are plans for three to be expanded. The note that I have says that they are not necessarily the only solution, although they can be part of a solution. They may not always be welcomed by local populations. Reservoirs are still taking water from the environment and may not mitigate environmental problems. So they are not a solution. They are part of a solution, but building more of them cannot be the be-all and end-all.