I am delighted to have this fifth Adjournment debate on the subject of water. I make no apology for that, or for the fact that I intend to focus specifically on aspects of the forthcoming Walker review of water metering and charging and their effects in the hard-pressed south-west. I welcome the engagement of the Minister and his predecessors with these debates and other opportunities too numerous to mention.

The Prime Minister has also taken a personal interest in this issue. When he was Chancellor, he met my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck)—whom I am pleased to see in her place— and me to discuss the water affordability pilot, and in Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday he again agreed to meet us, this time to discuss the findings and implementation of the Walker review.

Absent over the years from these occasions has been much in the way of any contribution from the Conservatives. To the detriment of my constituents as well as their own, that party has had minimum engagement with these important issues, as any search of the internet will reveal. Scarcely a single mention of them can be found, let alone evidence of a substantial and consistent campaign. It was therefore welcome to see one of their number initiate a debate in this House last month. There was no apology for the botched privatisation in 1989 but there was at least realisation that “something must be done”. Of course as, in many other areas, they are jumping on the bandwagon of an idea on which others have campaigned relentlessly, including many Liberal Democrats and colleagues of mine.

The Walker review is very welcome and comes at an opportune time. Plymouth and the south-west have certainly experienced their fair share of difficulties in the current economic climate. I hope and anticipate that the Walker review interim report, which is due to be published shortly, will offer us light at the end of the tunnel and ultimately, if we get it right, the chance to make a real difference to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hard-working families and individuals who face bills that are after all for one of the basic essentials of daily living.

Anyone who doubts the effect of these high bills should take a look at the Consumer Council for Water’s recent report on living with water poverty. Its research shows that out of 14 items of household expenditure, the one for which respondents are most likely to be “sometimes or always” in debt is water. It is easy for arrears to build up so that people are no longer just struggling to meet bills, but are unable to do so, resulting in feelings of powerless, hopelessness, anger, guilt and of being worn down. It is vulnerable groups and individuals, such as lone parents, who are most likely to end up in debt. Some of the most telling evidence presented in the report is the responses from those on low incomes. They tell of how they are reluctant to flush the toilet every time, can afford to have a shower only every other day or cannot wash their clothes as frequently as they would wish.

In getting to grips with this issue, we are not only addressing water poverty, but meeting the Labour party’s historic mission to tackle poverty in general and this Government’s particular commitment to tackle child poverty. Earlier this year, I was pleased to host a workshop in my constituency with Anna Walker, the person charged with this important review. It was a chance for her to establish a dialogue with some of the key stakeholders in our region, including South West Water, which in recent years has become much more willing to engage on the issue. After the workshop we visited the home of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport to see first hand some of the innovative water-saving measures that have be introduced to save water and save bills under South West Water’s water care scheme—a video of which the Minister can see, should he wish, on YouTube, with a link on my website www.lindagilroy.org.uk. We saw how this could be combined with advice about benefits to make a difference to that particular household, which if I remember correctly actually exceeded in value the cost of the bills that had been so troubling. That was an example of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s pilot scheme on water affordability, carried out by eaga plc. Those contacted during the pilot reported significant results arising from the combination of benefit checks and water efficiency devices. Such measures can help to reduce the impact of high bills, but they do not make them any fairer. Like-for-like bills for use are still much higher in our region than in others.

There are a number of things I hope that the Walker review will propose in its interim report. First, sewerage works, such as those that cleaned up the south-west’s beaches and cost the South West Water charge payers millions, should be seen as a public good and the costs should be shared by all regions. That should include the costs of the debts incurred to do past work. As the costs arise from servicing the huge debt that has been taken out to pay for that work, those costs should be shared in a way that recognised that.

The Minister knows that as pressures arise in other regions there is a real concern that some fix might be found for future such investments that could compound the unfairness we already experience, so I hope there will be an equalisation proposal in the Walker report. However, it ought to address the legacy costs, such as the accumulated debts. Since that is the root cause of our high bills, there is real hope that if the review makes such a recommendation—and if it is accepted by the Government—we could see some relief in our bills. I know this is a big ask, because someone—either the taxpayer or water charge payers—will need to pay the difference.

It is worth reflecting on the scale of what that could mean. The South West Water clean sweep programme cost a total of £1.5 billion in extra capital expenditure. That is £5 million each year of additional operating costs, which adds about £90 to the South West Water average bill of £454. The draft business plan published in April for the current periodic review proposes to raise the average water price by 6 per cent. above inflation by 2015. That would take the average annual south-west water and sewerage bill up to £481 by 2015.

Other companies have of course also invested in coastal works, but proportionately at a much lower level. South West Water has had to spend about 16 per cent. of the national total in coastal improvements, but the cost is borne by 3 per cent. of the population. The extra burden for South West Water customers is about £75. If the clean sweep burden were shared equally with all English customers, the South West Water average bill could be reduced by around £75 to £379 at present prices.

Although such a move might have been out of the question a few years ago, I think that similar investments that might be construed as being a national public good are being considered in other areas of service provision. It has not gone unnoticed, for instance, that the “Digital Britain” announcement last week envisages a 50p per quarter addition to our phone bills to ensure that everyone can be part of the new digital superhighways. I support that on the grounds of social inclusion, but as one of my constituents said to me earlier this week:

“Water charges in the South West are high because of the cost of sorting out the coastline sewage. This problem, which we had because of our geographic position, received no assistance from the rest of the country who rejoiced in having little or no coastline”—

I am not sure that that is something in which to rejoice, but never mind. He went on:

“Now we have a parallel situation in which people in rural areas, because of their geographic position, face high costs for broadband. But it seems that for them the problem is to be sorted out by a tax/levy on phone lines throughout the country. If we are to have this broadband levy to help the rural people should there not be a levy on all drainage users to help us pay off our exorbitant sewage charges? Alternatively, this shows that the precedent is against the broadband levy which therefore should be opposed”.

I do not think that any of us want to oppose the broadband levy, because it is of such importance to future social cohesion. Digital access is vital, just as water is. Some would even say it is a human right to have such a basic commodity as water supplied for the same price in Plymouth, Cornwall and Devon as in Peterborough, Cumbria and Dulwich. There are various ways of bringing about equalisation, and I hope that the Walker report will have considered the costs of that so that we can understand them and base our arguments for social inclusion on facts.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and I went to see the Prime Minster in 2006, he said that he would work with the south-west Labour MPs to develop proposals that would help to reduce water bills for low-income households. I know that he asked his officials to consult with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is, of course, responsible for implementing the water affordability pilot that was then in prospect, to ensure that it gathered information in a way that could help us to develop practical solutions. The affordability pilot gathered some evidence, and I hope that the Walker review will use it to develop some idea of what it would cost to bring real help to our constituents. That way, when we go back to see the Prime Minister, we will know exactly what we are talking about.

The Minister will know that when the all-party water group, of which I have the honour to be secretary, called for the introduction of universal water metering, Members suggested that a rising block tariff could be the basis for some socially beneficial tariffs, which could also serve environmental purposes. Of course, we recognised that there would be households that would not benefit from such a move, and that they would need to be protected. Since we wrote that report, Wessex Water has been experimenting with a social tariff. Now United Utilities Water is doing something similar. South West Water is also looking at whether a variation of the tariff could be employed in our area. I shall look with interest at what the Walker review has to say about such tariffs and the role that they might play.

I should like to see changes to WaterSure, formerly the vulnerable household scheme. It gives assistance with high water bills from a meter where the household, because of its size or because of health needs, cannot now benefit to any great extent from a water meter and would not do so in future, even with a rising block tariff. At the moment, our capped charges are £100 more than the average capped charge in other regions, which is simply not fair to the poorest households.

I would also like the regulator, Ofwat, to be required by law to be more geared up and ready to tackle the issue of affordability. It should step in more quickly and more often to help individuals, and groups such as pensioners, who find the bills too high. Along with others, I argued strongly for that when the all-party water group drew up a report on the future of the UK water sector—a report with which the Minister will no doubt be familiar. At the moment, such action depends on the Secretary of State requiring it in his guidance to the regulator at the beginning of a price setting review. That is simply not good enough; there should be a year-round duty on the regulator, year in and year out.

The all-party group suggested that the definition of “customer service” should be extended to include the most vulnerable customers, and that it should become part of the price review as a performance target, as well as a means of proactive assessment of the WaterSure tariff. That is very important, and integral to ensuring that measures designed to help the majority do not disadvantage people who are vulnerable but who use larger quantities of water out of necessity.

WaterCare, which provides benefit entitlement checks and efficiency advice, developed from the affordability pilot. It should be extended, and its services should be accompanied by help in the benefit system. The numbers of people reached by both systems, WaterSure and WaterCare, are far too small for the systems to be effective. If there was a link to a benefit, such as housing benefit—that is relevant, as water is supplied to households, of course—they could, in a targeted way, reach far more people who need help. Who should pay for that is, of course, an important question. To some extent, the costs must depend on other measures that I mentioned, such as changes to the tariff system. In the end, I am sure that the taxpayer or the water charge payer would have to pick up some of the bill. Perhaps it could, or should, be a mixture of both.

I believe that I am right in saying that the timetable for PR09, the current price review, will not prevent the Walker review recommendations from being implemented. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister indicated, in reply to my question during Question Time, that the interim report is likely to be available next week. Can the Minister confirm when the final report and recommendations will be available? Finally, before I end my remarks and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, to say a few words, may I ask the Minister to confirm in his response that he will meet me and a cross-party group of south-west MPs before the summer recess to discuss the interim findings?

I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) for calling for the debate, and acknowledge what a champion she has been on the issue of water poverty and water efficiency on behalf of our constituents in Plymouth. Her role cannot be overstated.

The Minister will know, from the importance that my hon. Friend and I place on debates and meetings on the subject, that people living in the south-west have major problems with water affordability. My postbag, weekly and sometimes daily, includes casework relating to the high cost of water. Last week I was contacted by a Mr. Carpenter, whose comments reflect the concerns held. He is the owner of a modest flat but finds the charges too high. He cannot understand why we are still paying for the clean-up of the coastline, which is a national asset and which should, in his view, have been paid for nationally. He is not unique in having that view.

That is why I, too, welcome the Walker review and know that the meeting in Plymouth, which I also attended, enabled local people to make very clear to Ms Walker and her team just how damaging the high charges are in keeping families and older people in poverty, rather than getting them out of it.

In the interests of fairness, a cap on bills at the national average would be a starting point in an equalisation process. This, along with help for the most vulnerable families and a move towards universal metering, plus the beefing-up of Ofwat, would dramatically improve the way in which water costs are spread across our community. I look forward to the publication of the Walker review and would welcome a meeting before the summer recess. I have great expectations of the Government’s response to the review.

I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing it. As she points out, it is—rightly—the fifth debate on an issue of major concern to her constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton in no small measure. Over the seven months that I have been in post, she has led delegations of some MPs from the south-west to meet me and advocate on the issues of poverty and affordability for all their constituents.

Let me deal with the points that were raised. I have made it clear to both my hon. Friends on numerous occasions that we understand their frustration about the fact that we have not yet seen Anna Walker’s review. We are all keen to see Anna’s ideas. She has done a very good job, from what I have heard. She has indeed been down to the south-west and, I think, intends to go back there. The interim report is due to be published on Monday, so the waiting is almost over.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton referred to last month’s Adjournment debate on water charges in the south-west, secured by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who has been part of the delegations that have come to see me. As I said then and reiterate now, I cannot pre-empt the recommendations that Anna might make in her independent review.

I am not an unfair person and I would not normally remark on this, but on an issue of such vital importance, on which delegations have repeatedly come to see me, and following Anna Walker’s visit to the south-west, cross-party support for a way forward is needed. It is a Friday afternoon and there are important things to be done in constituencies, but it is disappointing, with the interim findings due to be published on Monday, that there are no Opposition Members to engage in such a critical debate. The subject is one of the most highly pressured in the UK, and we want everybody to engage and tell us how they see the way forward.

Order. I should correct the Minister. The half-hour Adjournment debate at the end of the day is essentially the property of the Member who moves it, with the guarantee of a ministerial reply. It is not intended for widespread participation.

I accept entirely what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I still have much to learn, as the years go by, in this place.

There is a good reason why the Walker review’s interim findings have not yet been published. The time needed by the review team reflects the wide-ranging nature and the complexity of the issues that the review has been considering. Those include the fairest way to charge for water, the question of affordability, how water efficiency can be improved, and how the problem of bad debt in the industry can be solved.

As my hon. Friends will recognise, there are no easy solutions or quick fixes, and almost every proposed method of charging creates both winners and losers. That underlines the importance of a thorough review, underpinned by robust evidence, which I think Anna will produce. Inevitably, it has taken time to collect the evidence and to listen to the views of different stakeholders, including my hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton referred to the workshop that she hosted in her constituency, which I understand was very productive. I am sure that she will agree that Anna has worked hard to engage stakeholders and to collect that evidence throughout the country, including in the south-west. Despite the delay in publishing the interim report, I can assure the House that the Walker review remains a vital part of the Government’s future water strategy.

A key issue that the review is considering is the fairness of different methods of charging for water. In “Future Water”, we said that we believe that near universal metering will be needed in areas of water stress by 2030. The Walker review will also advise on the appropriate pace of progress with metering. Outside areas of extreme water stress, the case for metering is less clear cut, but within those areas of high water stress there are compelling reasons for it.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and the south-west is not an area of high stress in the way that the south-east is. Does he agree that once one reaches a certain proportion of meters—it is now about 66 per cent. in the south-west—it makes sense to consider how to move further in order to have a sensible tariff structure?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I understand that one of the things that Anna Walker is considering is whether increasing the pace of universal metering in areas where companies have already 60, 65 or 70 per cent. would make a lot more sense. As she knows, some companies have either not started at all or are very far behind the curve on this, but she makes a good point.

We believe that metering can deliver real benefits. It provides a financial incentive to use water wisely and encourages home owners to install water efficiency devices to save money. There are many wins with that approach. There is no better incentive to be water efficient. It also enables companies to design tariffs that encourage the efficient use of water and protect vulnerable customers. My hon. Friend mentioned some examples of tariff trials that are under way. The Walker review is specifically considering the effectiveness of different types of tariff, such as innovative social tariffs, rising block tariffs and seasonal tariffs.

Let us see what Anna Walker suggests in her interim review. She is also considering the costs and benefits of smart metering for water customers, and smart metering provides the opportunity to develop smart tariffs, so they go hand in hand. However, metering can incur costs. It costs money to install and read a meter, and meters need to be replaced when they wear out. Over 30 years, the cost of metering is estimated at about £30 per household per year over and above the cost of unmetered charging, although there is much variability around that figure.

I recently had a visit from some people in connection with smart metering for electricity, and they pointed out that some of the figures have been grossly inflated because some people do not want meters to be installed. I would view that figure with particular caution and urge the Minister to do so too.

As I was careful to qualify, there is great variation in the figures that are quoted. I am not saying that that is the only figure that we should go by.

The costs are met not by individual households, but by a company’s customer base as a whole. The Walker review is carefully assessing the benefits and costs of metering, and the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to metering. For example—my hon. Friend and I have discussed this—a targeted street-by-street roll-out of metering could lower the cost significantly.

The metering rate is increasing by about 2 per cent. per annum, mainly because customers are opting for meters to cut their bills. That incentive is apparent. Meters can help some customers to save money, but the Government are very aware that some customers—whether metered or unmetered—are struggling with their bills now. They include households that are on a low income but have a high, essential use of water—households that cannot resile from their high use of water—and households in areas with high water bills, notably the south-west.

Water affordability is a key issue for the Walker review. As I said in last month’s debate, households in the south-west do pay more—we cannot get away from the fact—for their water and sewerage services than any other customers in the UK. That reflects the substantial investment that South West Water has made, and has had to make, since privatisation. The cost of such work has fallen on the company’s customers. I am aware that 30 per cent. of our nation’s beaches are in the south-west, and that South West Water customers meet the costs of cleaning up those beaches that everybody makes use of—myself included. I have to declare an interest, as I have regularly camped in the area. I do not stay in luxurious, five-star hotels; I like the outdoor thrill of camping there with my family and making use of the wonderful beaches.

Anna Walker is considering the pros and cons of paying for environmental costs nationally—the “equalisation” to which my hon. Friend referred—and I look forward to seeing Anna’s interim conclusions on the issue. I also referred in last month’s debate to the assistance that is available now—right now—to vulnerable customers through the Government’s vulnerable groups tariff, which is also known as WaterSure. The Walker review is looking at whether that tariff should be widened and capped at the national average bill in high-cost areas. The review is also looking at whether the water care package, which has been piloted in the south-west, should be expanded, and at the role that Ofwat might have on affordability. I look forward to seeing Anna’s thoughts on all those issues. The good thing about Anna Walker’s review is that it is looking at those issues comprehensively, not at one or two in isolation, because it knows that they join up and that the solution will be joined-up.

My hon. Friend asked whether the timetable for the periodic review, PR09, will prevent Anna Walker’s recommendations from being implemented, and whether we will therefore have to wait for the long term. I absolutely assure her that there are procedures for implementing new legislative requirements if they emerge after Ofwat PR09 water price limits. It would not be necessary to wait until the next price review in 2014.

In conclusion, I am confident that Anna Walker’s review can help to achieve the Government’s “Future Water” goals, which my hon. Friends share.

How long will the consultation period be? An interim report is due out, but how long will we have to make any further views known?

I do not have a definitive date, but our initial discussions with Anna Walker indicate that we are looking for her to consult throughout the summer on her interim findings. They have a lot of meat on them and need proper consultation. She also wants to return to the issue after the summer and in the early autumn. We do not have a definitive date, but, if I seek inspiration, it will be October-ish, probably. That is not a ministerial October-ish but October as in the calendar. I shall have to be held to that now, I realise, but I think that Anna would like to work towards that.

My hon. Friends’ proposals tie in with the Government’s “Future Water” agenda, and I know that we are all intensely looking forward to seeing Anna’s interim proposals after the weekend. There is only one thing that I am looking forward to as much, and that is seeing the result of the British Lions match on Saturday at 1 o’clock.

I shall of course be happy to discuss the proposals further with my hon. Friends, and with any other south-west Members who have been members of the delegation that my hon. Friends have brought to see me as part of the engagement process; and I shall be happy to do so before the summer recess. That would be in addition to, not instead of, the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised. He has, as it was pointed out, taken a personal interest in the issue, too.

I also understand that Anna will return to Plymouth on 17 July to discuss the emerging recommendations. I know that my hon. Friends will be there for that, and I thank them for keeping up—if I can use only one pun—the water pressure, politically, for their constituents in the south-west.

Question put and agreed to.