To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she or officials from her Department have had with Sir James Ackers or other officials of West Midlands regional health authority in respect of the deficit faced by South Birmingham health authority.

Officials from my Department have held a number of meetings with the West Midlands regional health authority to discuss this matter.

Is the Minister aware that news of the multi-million pound cash crisis facing South Birmingham health authority started to filter out at the end of February this year, but was hushed up until after the general election? Is he also aware that the report into the causes of the crisis has still not been published, but the people of Birmingham are faced with proposals to close hospitals such as the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, the Accident hospital and several others? Will the Minister intervene to ensure that the report into the causes of the crisis is made public straight away? Will he further intervene to ensure that all options are considered before decisions are taken and that the people of south Birmingham will not be forced to suffer hospital closures as a result of financial mismanagement or Government underfunding, or both?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as the problem came to light, a report into its causes was commissioned from KPMG Peat, Marwick, McLintock. Extra money was allocated to the district to ensure continuity of service and also that all bills were being paid on time. Extra money is to be allocated over the next three years to ensure that the proposed action plan will come into effect smoothly and cause no disruption to service. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the report is a technical report to the region, which will have to decide whether and when it will be published.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his denial of the allegation of any hushing up will be warmly welcomed by those in the west midlands who know the true facts? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is mixing up two totally different issues? The first is the need to balance the books when there is underspending and the second is the BHB—Building a Healthy Birmingham plan—which is connected with the hospital closures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When Opposition Members see any change in the health service, they attack it. In the current case we are dealing with a £500 million capital investment plan to provide better and more modern hospital facilities for Opposition Members' constituents. That is what they are attacking.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any proposals to change the current arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of private care or nursing homes.

We have no plans to change the existing statutory arrangements. In England and Wales health authorities remain responsible for registration and inspection of independent nursing homes and local authorities for registration and inspection of care homes.

Has the Minister read the recent report by the Royal College of Nursing, which reveals that the placement of elderly people in residential care has little or nothing to do with the level of care required or with the wishes of the old people themselves, and everything to do with keeping costs down and a lack of adequate available accommodation? The RCN also warned that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, due to come into force next year, will do nothing to change a situation that it describes as a scandal waiting to happen. The Minister has been warned by those who should know. What does he intend to do about it?

I wholly reject the second conclusion that the hon. Gentleman cited from the RCN report. We are confident that when the new arrangements come into effect next year, the process of assessment that everyone will undergo will ensure that an individually tailored care package appropriate to their needs will be available. Some people may be able to stay at home, some may go into residential homes and some may go into nursing homes. Whatever the appropriate solution is, it will be found.

My hon. Friend will be aware that monitoring homes costs money. Is he aware that county council authorities that have a relatively small number of private homes but a large number of social services departments find that they are penalised under the standard spending assessment arrangements? Cambridgeshire is a particular example. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider that and to talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the composition of the SSA as it relates to care homes?

Decisions about SSAs are taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is a Cambridgeshire Member and will take a close interest in the Cambridgeshire SSA for personal social services expenditure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress on the implementation of community care.

We set out the timetable for implementing our community care reforms in 1990. Many of them have already been achieved. We are on course to achieve the remainder by April 1993.

How does the Minister reconcile that with the statement by the Institute of Health Services Management that the Government have inadequately planned and inadequately funded community care? Social services departments are being starved of the £134 million that they need for community care this year. How does the hon. Gentleman expect tens of thousands of carers to meet the needs of disabled relatives when the Government are doing so little?

The Government are doing a considerable amount—indeed, we have just had the second round of reports from local authorities, and those reports show that the authorities are making steady progress towards implementing the arrangements that must be in place.

Not true.

It is true. I am quoting from reports that we have just received. Funding will be considered within the public expenditure survey, and decisions on that have not yet been announced.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention that the private sector should play an important role in community care? As he studies the community care plans submitted by local authorities, will he satisfy himself that the private sector has been involved in the preparation of those plans and that it will be involved in their implementation?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance that we attach to giving people a clear choice in the homes to which they go. I also believe that the public generally attach some importance to having that choice. I assure my hon. Friend that, as we continue to progress towards the implementation of this important reform, we shall certainly bear in mind the point that he has made and will want to try to ensure that local authorities relate not only to the independent sector of provision but to health authorities, and GPs, because it is in the interests of everyone—primarily of users and their carers—that there should be a seamless robe as between the various statutory organisations.

Does the Minister accept that, without adequate resources for community care, there will be a disaster in April? May we have a commitment today that those resources will be provided and that they will be ring-fenced?

We have already made it clear a number of times that we shall ensure that the policy is adequately resourced, and I make the point to the hon. Lady again today. I understand her concern, but I hope that she will not be too keen to use words such as "disaster". This is an important policy, especially to people in the community who need opportunities for assessment. Many of them want to remain in their own homes, but thus far have not had the option to do so. We are not talking about disasters waiting to happen; we are committing all our efforts, with local authorities, to ensuring that the policy will be a real success.

Is the Minister aware that there continues to be considerable concern about community care for mentally handicapped people? Will he take an interest in the activities of VOICE, an organisation set up by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Boniface to campaign for better recruitment, training and monitoring of staff in small homes for the mentally handicapped following the recent tragic indecent assault on their daughter Nicole?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention and that of the House to that important matter. I can certainly give her the assurance that she seeks.

Will the Minister acknowledge that last month's survey by the Directorate of Social Services found wild variations in standards? Is he aware that among the 20 authorities with the worst records in the provision of home helps were Suffolk, represented by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), Cambridgeshire, represented by himself, and, at the very bottom of the table, Surrey, represented by the Secretary of State? Would not it ease their joint embarrassment if Ministers were now to accept the advice of everyone else involved in community care that any extra money should be ring fenced so that those councils must spend it on raising their poor standards?

I do not accept for one moment that the reports which we have just received show that there are "wild variations". Of the 108 local authorities that have reported, all bar one have their assessment plans in place. We shall work with them to develop those plans so that when they are managed with adequate resources we shall have a community care proposal and policy which will be welcomed by users and carers alike. I very much hope that before he leaves his present position—should that turn out to be the case—the hon. Gentleman will throw his weight behind the policy to try, as far as possible, to remove from it any partisan elements for the benefit of the frail and elderly in our community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the standards set out in the patients charter.

Considerable progress has been made by the national health service in implementing the patients charter which came into effect on 1 April.

The public and NHS staff have given the patients charter a warm welcome. The NHS has achieved significant success in putting the patients charter into effect. The efforts of the NHS in responding to and implementing the charter should be recognised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellence of the care available under the national health service has for far too long been blighted by scant regard for patients' ordinary comfort and convenience, especially in the administration of out-patients departments and investigations? Does not the introduction of the patients charter signal the end of off-hand, inefficient and uncaring bureaucracy?

All agree that the clinical care provided by the national health service has almost invariably been outstanding, but there are times when patients have not felt that they were treated with the courtesy and concern that they would have wished. The provision of information, arrangements for making a complaint and a discussion about their care are all part of making a health service which is truly patient sensitive and patient centred. The NHS has taken the patients charter initiative to its heart and is now providing high-quality services across the country.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the patients charter is virtually worthless if patients and staff in the nation's hospitals can be subject to violent and, in the case of one of my constituents, mortal attack by intruders? Does she further agree that an independent inquiry into funding and staffing levels for hospital security is long overdue, and will she take the necessary steps to set in train such an inquiry?

Certainly, the case in the hon. Lady's constituency in which someone was fatally attacked on the third floor while using a telephone was appalling and outrageous. New guidance has been given for hospital security. Hospitals have a difficult balance to strike between being places to which visitors, families and staff can have easy access but at the same time places from which perpetrators of foul crimes can be removed. I understand that inquiries under way at the hospital in question have shown that there was adequate security. Of course, any further lessons will and must be learnt, and we must ensure that the guidance is properly applied throughout the service.

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of trust hospitals in helping to carry out the objectives of the patients charter? Is she aware that the Royal Free trust hospital, which has already been mentioned this afternoon, has been responsible for treating many more patients since it became a trust hospital? Should not that be welcomed instead of being criticised by Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend will be well aware of the habit very quickly acquired by Labour Members of being able to refer to hospitals in their constituencies only by talking about the adverse aspects and the problems that emerge. Conservative Members are very much more ready to identify the positive aspects and the work being taken forward, especially in NHS trust hospitals, to deliver the spirit of the patients charter.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the patients charter made very specific promises to patients. One of those promises was that no patient would have to wait for NHS treatment for more than two years. In the first month of the operation of the patients charter, 1,999 people have been waiting for more than two years.

Another promise made by the patients charter was that nobody would have to wait for an ambulance for more than 14 minutes in an urban area. Is the Secretary of State aware that in London in the first month of the operation of the patients charter, 10,000 people had to wait for more than 14 minutes for their accident and emergency ambulances to arrive? What does she say to all those to whom the Government made promises in the charters and for whom those promises are now broken?

The hon. Lady will be aware that we were deeply disappointed by the small increase in the number waiting for more than two years. The figure amounts to fewer than one patient per hospital throughout the country. The matter must be kept in proportion. Whereas there were 51,000 waiting for more than two years a year ago, the figure is now down to under 2,000.

Once again, the hon. Lady has taken no trouble to investigate what is happening in a hospital in her constituency. I understand that at King's College hospital, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of patients waiting for less than 30 minutes. The figure for those waiting for less than 30 minutes was 30 per cent. a year ago; it is now 60 per cent. and rising. Better patient information is produced and more is planned. There are improvements in the accident and emergency department; there are improvements in the out-patients' department; there are improvements in the numbers of patients whose appointments are not being cancelled. There are further projects to improve the intensive therapy facilities—[Interruption.]

Order. Has the right hon. Lady finished?

There has been a great investment in new ambulances, in trained staff and in the communications service which is being modernised. Like the hon. Lady, I hope that the London ambulance service will continue to improve its standards and the care available to patients.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that patients in all parts of the country have access to NHS dental services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to assess the adequacy of the provision of the NHS dental services in all parts of the country.

We are committed to an NHS dental service for the whole country. The Government have built up NHS dentistry; there are 27 per cent. more dentists than in 1979, and more than 7 million more courses of adult dental treatment are carried out every year. In most parts of the country, NHS dental treatment is readily available. Where there are difficulties, family health services authorities may make use of long-standing arrangements to employ salaried dentists. As part of our determination to safeguard access to NHS dentistry, my Department wrote yesterday to all FHSAs reminding them of this option.

Surely the Secretary of State must accept that by increasing charges to patients and cutting fees to dentists, she is effectively privatising dental care, especially as many people cannot find an NHS dentist in their area. Instead of playing Mary Poppins, she has become the Cruella de Vil of the national health service.

The hon. Gentleman should look again at the facts. Our proposals would result in a reduction in the charges to patients. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that dentists on average should earn £35,800. It is proposed that they should keep a further £5,000 on top of that. More than £40,000 is a good salary from any professional standpoint. In addition, it is proposed that there should be an 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses. That is a good salary which should certainly safeguard NHS dental services.

Are not the Government increasingly pushing dentistry into the private sector through their policies? Is the right hon. Lady aware that one third of children have not been registered with a National Health Service dentist during the first six months of the new contract? What is she going to do about it? Is she not failing British children?

On the contrary, there are 27 per cent. more dentists than in 1979; almost 30 million people have signed up for continuing care; and, there are about 7 million more adult courses of treatment than in 1979. The NHS dental service is effective. I hope that we can get over the present fee situation and work with dentists for a fundamental review of the way in which they are remunerated.

I recognise dentists' vital role within our national health service, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House that, were dentists allowed to keep the total remuneration that they receive, it would set a sad and dangerous precedent for other vital groups of NHS workers, not least doctors, nurses and paramedics? In an endeavour to bring the unfortunate dispute to an end, is she prepared to discuss with representatives of the dental profession their right to pick and choose their patients?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a number of important points. Certainly, the increase in dentists' income recommended by the review body, at 8.5 per cent., was much higher than that recommended for nurses or doctors. I have to consider not only the interests of dentists, but those of patients and other NHS workers. I hope that the dentists will find their way through the present difficulties. Given present figures, a 23 per cent. fee reduction would be required to deliver that income of £38,500. We are proposing a 7 per cent. fee reduction only, which is sensible and fair. My hon. Friend made other points about the way in which dentists work, which are rightly and properly matters for the fundamental review. The Minister and I shall certainly be happy to see all interests concerned with the dentists on that review.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—

Reading.

Order. Let us have a little tolerance in relation to new Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Dental Association's withdrawal from the dental rates study group is an act of folly? Whatever the disagreements between the Government and the profession about fees, surely it is better for dentists to be fully represented in all negotiations over fees. If they disagree about the figures, is not the DRSG the correct way to discuss it—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman would do well with his question if he would sit down now and allow the Minister to answer.

I agree with my hon. Friend, to the extent that the public will be confused if dentists fail to attend the dental rates study group with the independent chairman, because that is the setting in which detailed figures should be discussed and examined. For example, I have heard dentists refer to their expenses, but on each of the last three occasions that that issue was debated it turned out that they had been over rather than underestimated. This year an 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses is proposed. The profession should get back to the dental rates study group to discuss the details.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the current dispute stems from the contract imposed by the Government only two years ago against the wishes of most dentists? If Ministers got their sums wrong then, why should dentists and their patients have to pay the price now? May I warn the Secretary of State that if, as a result of this dispute, more of our constituents are told by their dentists that they will have to go private, we shall not just hold her responsible for privatising the dental service but will suspect that the Government want such a privatised dental service?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dispute results from the new contract. It is the result of the long-standing method by which we have remunerated dentists, which dates back nearly 40 years. It is time that we reviewed that system of remuneration, which is what the chairman of the review body suggested. We want to make progress on that review as soon as the dispute is settled. Of course, I am concerned about the needs of national health service patients. That is why I have reminded family health services authorities of their power to take on salaried dentists to safeguard the national health dental service. I hope that dentists will think long and hard before turning their backs on an average income, with expenses, of £88,000.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests her Department has received from members of the public for copies of the patients charter since its publication.

The Department has had nearly 900,000 requests for copies of the patients charter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the patients charter not only gives rights to potential patients, but demands responsibilities from them? To that end, is he aware of the contents of the national fitness survey issued yesterday by the Health Education Authority, which not only showed that between seven and eight people out of every 10 in this country do not do enough exercise to keep themselves healthy, but that 80 per cent. of the population think that they are fit when they are not, including the parliamentary football team, as it displayed at lunch time? What action will the Government take to ensure that people understand the message, which is so important for good preventive health care?

My hon. Friend clearly appears before us at the peak of physical fitness. However, having seen the results of the Lords and Commons tug-of-war match yesterday, I am afraid that I cannot apply that comment more generally. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the national fitness survey because it underlines the fact that the patients charter is a two-way street. It confers right on patients, but it also confers duties on them to try to keep themselves fit and healthy. We shall be making that message exceedingly clear.

In view of the Secretary of State's comments to a local paper in Birmingham that patient care must come first, does the Minister share my concern at the letter sent by the South Birmingham health authority to general practitioners telling them not to refer patients for psychological services? Is it not time that the full details of the financial crisis in South Birmingham were published so that the people of Birmingham can see the full effects of those financial difficulties on patient care?

We have made it clear that we intend to take positive action to ensure no disruption in services as a result of the financial problems of the South Birmingham health authority. We have already commissioned a report and we have allocated extra funds to ensure that there is continuity of services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all those people who continually moan about the patients charter and national health service trusts should go and see them for themselves? They would find enthusiastic staff at all levels, more patients being treated and more money being spent on patient care. Will the Minister please give us more good news about the health service, because there is a hell of a lot of good news that we do not hear about?

I echo my hon. Friend's remarks, and I stress that the patients charter has been extremely well received by NHS staff.

As one who has tested the services of the national health service recently in an attempt to obtain peak fitness, I suppose that I could make some remarks about the local health district, but I shall refrain from doing so. In the context of the patients charter, what success has been obtained in reducing waiting lists in neurology in the Mersey region? Will the Minister investigate what is going on and do something urgently about it?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed information, but I will write to him.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a lot easier to keep fit if one did not have to spend so much time answering letters from one's constituents? Does he further agree that the substantial postbags that all hon. Members receive contain a large number of letters from constituents quoting the patients charter and using it as a yardstick against which to measure local services, the charter having had a salutary effect right through the health service and being taken into account by every decision-maker in the NHS?

I echo my hon. Friend's comments. The patients charter has not only provided a target for staff to strive for in the NHS but has informed patients of their rights, and that has had a salutary effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications she has received for hospital trust status; and if she will make a statement.

One hundred and fifty one applications have so far been received from hospitals and other units in England to become operational from April 1993. That is higher than the number of applications in the first or second waves and is a tangible demonstration that staff and managers in the NHS are behind the Government's reforms.

Given the rise in the number of applications, does the Minister accept that one of the greatest concerns expressed by NHS employees appears to be the determination of trusts to write into their employees' contracts a gagging clause which prevents them from speaking out against or challenging bad practice? Given that a consultation process on the issue is in place, does the Minister accept that every NHS employee should have a legally protected right, preferably through independent channels, to speak out as appropriate to ensure the best level of practice, irrespective of the system?

I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the increasing popularity of trusts. She will be interested to know that about a third of NHS hospital and community health service capacity is now managed by trusts. From next April, that will become about two thirds.

The hon. Lady rightly points out that this is an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have taken it seriously and have made it clear that consultations are to take place with a view to issuing guidance. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that that is a serious and considered response on a subject which has caused a certain amount of anxiety to a number of people, not least to the Royal College of Nursing.

Having reluctantly accepted our policy on the sale of council houses, our policy for moderate taxation and, more recently, our education reforms, how long will it be before the Labour party also endorses our policy on NHS reforms?

My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. There is already some evidence that Opposition Members are beginning to accept that our policies are increasingly commanding support among patients and staff of the NHS. The change in attitude that my hon. Friend predicts, and which I agree will come, will be driven by Opposition Members' constituents.

Is the Minister aware that his last comments were totally and utterly inaccurate? Is he further aware that if he represented an area such as mine, where a trust is already in severe financial difficulty—and where many elderly people are deeply concerned because of an application for a second trust to turn all the elderly and geriatric services into a trust—he would know that his moves are distorting the provision of health care, upsetting the staff, putting many jobs at risk and in general leading to a definite downgrading of health care throughout the NHS?

No, I do not accept a word of what the hon. Lady has said because it does not accord with the facts and it certainly does not accord with the popularity of the policies. It is clear that the hon. Lady will be among the last Opposition Members prepared to shed their ideological prejudices.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that Thanet district hospital has submitted an excellent application for trust status to enable it to attain full district hospital status and provide the 24 accident and emergency services and other acute services that my constituents require. Will my hon. Friend assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and me that that trust status will be granted as soon as possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that, after the consultation process has been followed through—as, statutorily, it must be—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will give serious consideration to the application.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the level of respite care available within the NHS.

We are looking to health, as well as local authorities, further to develop respite care services as part of the implementation of the White Paper, "Caring for People". We recognise the contribution which such services can make to providing practical support for carers.

Has the Minister had an opportunity yet to consider the recent survey carried out by the Carers National Association? Is he aware of the main findings of that survey, which are that no less than 20 per cent. of carers had no break for even a day from their caring responsibilities and that no less than two thirds of carers suffered ill health in discharging their caring obligations? In the light of those disturbing findings, will the Government take urgent steps to provide comprehensive respite care within the national health service, or is the Minister content to continue present Government policies which are clearly based on cynical exploitation of the compassion of those who care for others?

I am aware of the survey. Because of our concern about the position of carers, we have identified as the key objectives in our White Paper, "Caring for People", first, to promote the development of respite services and, secondly, to ensure that the service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. Respite care is available in hospitals, nursing homes and people's own homes through better domiciliary services. The number of short-stay residents in care homes is double the 1979 level.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the benefits given to carers have risen from some £4 million in the last year of the Labour Government in 1978 to more than £213 million this year? Is that not evidence of the importance that the Government place on the role of carers in the forthcoming programme for care in the community?

My hon. Friend, who is known for his expertise in the matter, is absolutely right. That level is likely to continue rising. It shows, in a practical way, exactly how the Government are determined to give carers the support that they need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to develop alternatives to the institutional care of elderly people.

We are taking forward a wide range of measures to encourage the development and co-ordination of health and social services for elderly people, and to promote choice and independence.

I invite the Minister—or, preferably, the Secretary of State—to visit my constituency to see at first hand the high-quality alternative provision by Manchester city council. The elderly persons' resource centre, known as the Minehead centre, is a model which should be replicated throughout the country. It provides services for people in their homes and in the centre, co-ordinated by social services and the health authority. Since its opening, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of elderly people seeking residential care in its catchment area. If the Government would make capital money available to local authorities, such centres could be opened throughout the country. Will the Minister visit the centre to see for himself what can be achieved by proper local authority provision?

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, unlike so many of his colleagues, has chosen to highlight some good practices. There are other good things happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The community health services have had a care team working with general practices and social services to maintain elderly people in their own homes, there is a new proposal for a hospital at home scheme to enable a number of elderly people to be rehabilitated in their homes, and the community care plan for elderly people in the district has been produced jointly by the health and social services and the voluntary sector. Those provisions reflect the additional help that we are giving in the community. Nationally, there are 37 per cent. more day places, 28 per cent. more home helps, 12 per cent. more meals on wheels and 19 per cent. more community nurses. Those are all Government achievements since 1979.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of care for the elderly through the private sector has developed some homely accommodation? Does he welcome Dorset Care Association's publication of a document giving a charter for the care of people in their homes, to be launched at the beginning of July?

I certainly welcome that charter, a copy of which has been sent to us. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the innovative work carried out by the private sector. It is because we want to see that work extended that we have invited local authorities to bid for £6 million to develop over the next three years more innovative schemes, particularly involving the private and voluntary sectors, to improve the range and responsiveness of day and domiciliary services so that more elderly people and others can stay in their own homes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Given the commitment that the Prime Minister gave to the biodiversity treaty in Rio over the weekend and in the House yesterday, while he advises other countries on how to solve their problems, will he try to solve some of the problems that we have in this country? Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency have been totally devastated by the peat extraction carried out by the Fisons company. Will the Prime Minister introduce legislation to stop the devastation of sites of special scientific interest, not just at Thorne and Hatfield moors, but throughout the country?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is stringent legislation to deal with sites of special scientific interest. I am not familiar with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but if he will let me have the details I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment examines the matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the general election campaign the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited the Isle of Wight, where he reacted to the policy of the Liberal Democrats to make the island a trial district for rabies vaccination? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate his Cabinet colleague on defeating the suggestion from Brussels that we should weaken our safeguards against rabies in pets, and for keeping mad dogs out of our country and the even madder leader of the Liberal Democrats out of power? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain controls against both those terrible diseases?

I think that my hon. Friend strikes a chord both with the House and with the country as a whole. I believe that yesterday's agreement of the Agriculture Council provides fully effective protection against rabies, and as such I think that it will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Now that the Prime Minister has agreed to Mr. Delors' reappointment, will he describe—principally for the benefit of his Back Benchers—the qualities in the President of the Commission which inspired the Prime Minister's confidence?

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman starts with a misconception. No such agreement has yet been made.

The Prime Minister must know that as recently as this weekend the Foreign Secretary was telling our European partners—and let Mr. Delors' office know— that the Government would not stand in the way of Mr. Delors' reappointment. Since the Prime Minister, or at least the Foreign Secretary, has said in private that the Government support Mr. Delors' reappointment, is it not deplorable that the Prime Minister does not have the courage to say so in public? Is that not typically second rate?

I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, who has more experience of second-rate matters than most of us in this House, that no firm decision, no Cabinet decision, on the reappointment of Mr. Delors has yet been made. There are many things still to be determined about that appointment.

Indeed, there are two appointments to be considered. I refer, first, to the temporary appointment for two years of the President of the Commission, to be made shortly, and thereafter to the appointment for five years, to run through the full length of the next Parliament. I am concerned to ensure that we get the right appointment for both terms.

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Has my right hon. Friend appreciated that in August this year the transatlantic tall ships race will arrive in Liverpool? Is he aware that in the eight years since the race's last visit the port of Liverpool has been transformed, justifying the Government's decision to award free port status to Liverpool? Will my right hon. Friend wish the port and the organisers of the event August every success?

I do so with great pleasure, for I think that such congratulations are well deserved—as are the congratulations to my hon. Friend on his recent award.

In the light of the Prime Minister's answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has he noted that one of his own officials described Jacques Delors as a President of the European Commission of outstanding integrity and competence? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

I think that Mr. Delors has many qualities.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the exchange rate mechanism affects the ability of Her Majesty's Government to set interest rates compatible with the level of activity of the United Kingdom economy?

As my hon. Friend knows, since we became members of the ERM we have used it as the centre of our anti-inflationary policy. As a result, inflation—both headline inflation and core inflation—has fallen dramatically since a period when it was far too high. It remains the Government's policy to meet the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty, not just for the treaty but for their own sake as well. For that purpose, and for the reduction and eventual elimination of inflation, we intend fully to sustain our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Although the Maxwell spying allegations make interesting reading and may prove that the Government have more responsibility in the affair than has hitherto been stated, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the banks should return the —200 million assets which they do not own? Does he agree that he should direct the Treasury to use its powers under section 4(3) of the Bank of England Act 1946 to recover the money which the banks do not own?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the special unit announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will actively assist the trustees in securing the return of assets.

If the earlier half of the hon. Gentleman's question was aimed in the direction I think it was, I can state clearly that the Government had no information about Mr. Maxwell's financial affairs, contrary to what was alleged in the Financial Times yesterday, whether in 1989 or subsequently. I saw no such information, my office saw no such information, and nor did any Minister—for the very good reason that it never existed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required in considering the Maastricht treaty is some objective analysis of its detailed effects? Is he aware that the Conservative Lawyers recently published a pamphlet saying that the doctrine of subsidiarity was virtually useless in terms of providing any protection against the further unwanted expansion of European laws and institutions? In view of the considerable misunderstanding that has arisen since the passing of the Single European Act, is it not important to publish either the advice of the Attorney-General about the effect of the treaty or at least a White Paper? It would be unfortunate if Ministers advocated the treaty in general and euphoric terms but it was subsequently found to have a different meaning when considered by the Commission or the court.

I always read carefully what the Conservative Lawyers have to say—often in agreement, but perhaps not always in total agreement. My hon. Friend asked about subsidiarity, and I agree with the substantive part of his point, which is that we should spedily clarify its practical applications. In the next few weeks that will most certainly be one of our priorities during our presidency.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish football team on its tremendous, spirited performance in Sweden? Will he also congratulate Scottish fans on their exemplary performance to date and reprimand the Secretary of State for National Heritage for his ill-founded and ignorant comments about "British" fans when British fans were not to blame?

I am happy to congratulate the Scottish team on its fine performance and I regret that it was not successful in proceeding further in the competition. I hope that on future occasions the team will do better. I certainly condemn the lawlessness of a small minority of English supporters. As my right hon. Friend has made entirely clear, they have sullied our reputation abroad.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to read yesterday's Hansard, especially the Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)?

And the money resolution last night.

There was no money resolution on the Adjournment debate. That debate was about the National Union of Students and about suggestions of abuse of public money, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was supported by many Conservative Members. Will the Prime Minister urge the Secretary of State for Education to act quickly to remove one of the last bastions of compulsory union membership?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is considering action on student unions. As my hon. Friend said, we shall seek to move in the direction of the voluntary principle.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

We all know that the Prime Minister opposes a national minimum wage. There are millions of people on low pay and hundreds of thousands on poverty wages. Does he disagree with his predecessor that low pay is better than no pay, or will he do something to ensure that people have a reasonable living wage? Does he accept that in 1992 there should be a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

I do not believe that anyone disagrees with the hon. Gentleman's final proposition, but it is equally true that people who receive low pay would rather that than receive no pay.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Can my right hon. Friend state whether his office has any information about the meeting in Liechtenstein tomorrow to explain the role of Liechtenstein lawyers and others in secreting away Maxwell family moneys? Will he confirm that the Government will take every action necessary against Liechtenstein to ensure that any money due to Maxwell pensioners is returned to the pension funds as soon as possible?

I had no knowledge of that particular meeting, but in the light of my hon. Friend's remarks I will make inquiries.

As the Prime Minister has read the reports in the Financial Times, he must be aware that they mention not only Maxwell but other national companies being under surveillance. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman say who signed the warrants allowing that to take place?

I have no intention of dealing with matters of that sort. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. Every previous Government have consistently declined to comment on the activities of the intelligence and security services. I made the point perfectly clear in respect of Maxwell because of the damaging effect that the report could have had on Maxwell pensioners.

Before we commence, I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House is alarmed at the record profits, record dividends and record salaries and perks of top management in the water companies, especially at a time when households are facing record water bills and record levels of disconnections; and calls on the Director General of Water Services to ensure that the interests of water consumers and the environment are given greater priority than the interests of shareholders.

This issue is causing increasing concern to many families. Water bills are now at such a level that they are a major item of expenditure for many, and an increasing number of people have found themselves in debt as a result. Many other families and small businesses have found that, in the main, the privatised water companies are unsympathetic to the problems that they have created, and use every opportunity to maximise their profits—from charging churches, mosques and scout huts as commercial operations, to demanding infrastructure charges for the change of use of a property, when no new connection is required. All that is happening at a time of severe restriction on water use.

To add insult to injury, in the year since we last debated the issue there have been further massive increases in the salaries of top management, and we have learnt more about the multi-million pound perks on offer to the favoured few.

Several years ago the present Secretary of State for the Environment—who is absent from the debate—and I served on the Standing Committee on the Water Bill, with other hon. Members. I regret that the Secretary of State for the Environment does not see fit to speak in this debate, as the issue is important enough to warrant the attention of a Cabinet Minister.

Who says so?

Me. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the problems faced by so many people in this country—the problems of the water industry and of water resources—warrant the attention of a Cabinet Minister. It is to the Opposition's credit that we felt that it was appropriate for a member of the Shadow Cabinet to have responsibility for environment protection. It is a pity that the Government cannot take the matter as seriously.

In Committee. the Government always had a majority, but we always won the arguments. The Secretary of State has returned to the Department of the Environment. Despite his absence, we shall remind his junior Ministers and others of what has happened to the water industry since those Committee days.

I shall draw the attention of the House to three main problems. The first is the difficulties that water privatisation has caused to so many people and families and the second is the inadequacies of the present system of regulating the water industry. Thirdly, I shall explain why the Government's obsession with water privatisation has directed attention away from the real and significant problems faced by so many consumers, which was highlighted by yesterday's decision by the National Rivers Authority.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the water industry needs more investment and that, since privatisation, there has been a massive increase in such investment?

The hon. Gentleman must bide his time, because I intend to talk about investment in the water industry. I share the concern expressed by the Director General of Water Services that consumers are having to pay too much for that investment. The responsibility for the size of the bills rests fairly and squarely with the Government because of the deal that they did at the time of privatisation.

Throughout the debates on the water industry in the late 1980s, Labour hon. Members warned of the problems on the horizon in relation to water resources. We now know that those problems could be even more severe because of global warming. Had the Government devoted as much energy, not to mention taxpayers' money, to tackling those problems as they did to privatisation, the problem posed by water resources might not be so severe today.

What has water privatisation meant for ordinary families? In Committee the then Minister of State, now the absent Secretary of State, often accused me of scaremongering when we discussed prices and the likely effect of privatisation on water bills. Let me remind Conservative Members of the increases in water bills faced by their constituents since privatisation. The increases range from 35 per cent. in Yorkshire Water to 56 per cent. in South West Water. The average household water bill has increased by 47.1 per cent. since privatisation. Water charges have risen by almost three times the rate of inflation. As I said, the then Minister of State accused me of scaremongering when I suggested such price increases.

I have looked at the Hansard reports of those Committee proceedings, which are very interesting, and which perhaps explain the Secretary of State's absence, because he then said:

"any price increase will be modest."

When he was cornered, he produced his own figures. He claimed that, by the end of the century,

"the increase in charges … is likely to be between 7.5 per cent. and 12.5 per cent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 January 1989; c. 539-42.]

I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be here to tell us why he was so wrong and we were so right, but he has failed to turn up to listen and to answer for the consequences of his remarks.

The hon. Lady said that water charges had risen by 56 per cent. in South West Water. In her calculations has she taken into account the fact that South West Water, like other water companies up and down the country, has had to carry out a massive capital programme, which was forced upon it by edicts from Brussels and elsewhere?

Conservative Members are searching for somebody else to blame. The simple fact is that at the time of debates on the Water Bill, we knew all about all the anticipated obligations from Brussels and we made our calculations on the basis of all the information that was available. It is such a pity that the Secretary of State sought to mislead the House and the country at that time.

The hon. Lady referred, fairly, to the cost of water charges in the west country and we will hear more about them today. Is she saying that the work being done in that region to clean up coastal waters is not necessary? While savouring that point, will she reflect upon the fact that if her arguments on privatisation mean that she would want to return the industry to state control, that means that, in addition to the £8 billion that would be necessary to renationalise the industry, she would have to find an extra £25 billion to go ahead with the investment programme? Will she deal with those points?

The hon. Gentleman is not well known for his patience—[Interruption.] If he exercises a little patience today and stays for some of the debate, I promise to explain why the nature of the privatisation is increasing the cost of that capital investment to the consumer and is causing concern to the director general.

It is not surprising that the enormous price rises should have led to difficulties for many families. Those difficulties have been made worse by the harsh attitude of some water companies, as is clear from the number of court actions for debt taken by companies and by the level of disconnections. It is a staggering fact that in one year alone, 900,000 court summonses were instigated by water companies. That meant about one house in 25, or at least one household in every street, receiving a summons for water debt. Many of those summonses were taken out against people who had never been in debt before. Often they were pensioners or people on fixed incomes, who receive no help with their water bills and for whom the water bill is often larger than the poll tax bill.

In addition to the financial difficulties that water bills have caused, plus the cost of the summons, some water companies have taken the ultimate step against consumers of turning off water supplies—of disconnecting families in debt. Last week's Ofwat report on disconnections showed the tragic consequences of water bills, with 21,000 households having had their water supplies disconnected. That represented a staggering 177 per cent. increase in the number of disconnections in just one year.

We also received last week a National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report giving graphic examples of the hardship that has been caused and of the cavalier attitude adopted by some water companies. The company in mid-Kent, in the constituency of the Secretary of State, disconnected a customer who was 80 per cent. disabled. The company then even refused to talk to the CAB representative about the problem.

The CAB in Berkshire reported on a water company that had gone so far as to seek possession of a tenant's home for arrears of £38.63. Yorkshire Water sent those behind with their bills incorrect information claiming that the DSS would make an allowance for those on benefit who were having difficulty paying their water bills. That statement was not true.

Disconnections on such a scale are not acceptable. I was informed—I checked the information—that 19 of 80 flats in a block of flats in Sandwell had their water disconnected last year. That is the scale of the problem. The Director General of Water Services has expressed concern about the issue. He should be concerned. So should the Secretary of State for Health. But it is not good enough simply to be concerned. The Government should be intervening to give protection to consumers facing such problems.

The water companies' licence should be amended to ensure that no one is disconnected unless they wilfully refuse to pay. Ministers should re-examine with a sense of urgency the arrangements for helping those on benefit, who receive inadequate assistance with their water bills at present.

All those problems for individuals and families must be viewed against the background of the water companies' financial performance. As the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), acknowledged in Rio, this country is in a deep recession. One of the consequences of the recession has been the record number of business failures and the downturn in profits for so many previously successful companies. Indeed, only last week we heard that Pilkington's profits had halved and companies in every sector, from construction to motor manufacture, have suffered because of the recession.

However, that has not been the case for the water companies, which is not surprising, as each of them has a private monopoly of an essential service. Ministers always object to our quoting water company profits, which is not surprising either when one looks at those profits. Thames Water announced recently that its profits were up to £236 million and North West Water's profits stand at £230 million. But in some respects, I agree with the Minister.

Does not the hon. Lady accept that North West Water's investment programme for badly needed environmental improvements is substantial? It is therefore inappropriate for the hon. Lady to criticise North West Water when it is clearly doing much to improve water quality, particularly in my constituency, and to combat the serious problems that were caused over many years by lack of investment by the Labour party.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult Blackpool landladies and ask them what they think of their water bills. If he is proud of the investment programme, he should look at the salary of the chairman of North West Water and the share option perks that he has received, for which consumers are paying.

I was going to say that I agree with the Minister that profits do not tell the whole story. We should also look at dividends and share prices and at how the water companies' performance compares with that of the stockmarket as a whole. In general, water share prices are 80 per cent. above their level at the time of flotation in December 1989. Dividends were 16£3 per cent. more than predicted in the flotation prospectus in the first year alone. Such a performance by the water companies should not surprise us. After all, the Government rigged the system so much in favour of the water companies at the time of privatisation that those results were inevitable.

Even City analysts accept that that is so. If the Minister and Conservative Members do not believe me, they may believe Credit Lyonnais Lang. In its assessment of the water companies, it says:

"we think that investors in water shares will earn a very high total return. But this high return will be because the taxpayer has sold the industry cheap".

It was not the taxpayer but rather the Government who sold the industry cheap. When Ministers first talked about water privatisation, the expectation was that it would result in an increased income to the Exchequer of some £5 billion. Ultimately, water privatisation cost taxpayers £3.3 billion. That is the figure which we used and which the National Audit Office verified in its report this year.

The report of the National Audit Office also confirmed our suspicions about perks. If any local authority had misused the money for which it was responsible in the way that Ministers have misused taxpayers' money, it would have been, at best, surcharged, and its officials might well have ended up behind bars.

When the Government made their arrangements for the privatisation of the water industry, they did a deal with the industry's top management, giving them hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of perks. Three chairmen of water companies have benefited from share options to the tune of £250,000. The lowest benefit available to a water chairman is £62,000, at a time when record numbers of consumers have had their supplies cut off. How can the Minister defend that?

In her list of beneficiaries, does the hon. Lady include those in charge of the publicity for water services and regional boards? I recently wrote to the chairman of the Water Services Association and received a reply, not from him, but from an obscure publicity officer who clearly felt that I was about to trim his empire. Does the hon. Lady agree that the amount of junk mail arriving through our mail boxes, even this week, seems to have multiplied? It has now reached a level where every water board bombards us with completely useless and expensive literature.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Individual water companies have bombarded us with information, most of it useless, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, junk mail—misinformation. It is a sign of the water companies' weakness that they feel it imperative to defend themselves by going over the top and employing so many public relations companies.

At the time of privatisation, we warned what would follow, and we gain no satisfaction from being proved right, especially when the cost to so many people has been so great. However, the problem does not merely involve prices. We also warned that access to old water authority land would be restricted or charged for after that land had passed into private hands, without any compensation being given to the public to whom the land belonged. Both warnings have proved correct.

Yorkshire Water has restricted access to land such as Wessenden Head moor, where it has taken steps to block public access, at the insistence of its grouse-shooting tenants. Now, North West Water is drawing up plans for widespread charging. A document available from North West Water given to me at the weekend makes it clear that North West Water is planning a new charge structure for recreational activities on its land—from fell running to canoeing. It is even considering charging for birdwatching. The one decision that North West Water has made is that it will not charge for hunting, which shows whom it wants to keep in with.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Welsh water authority has gone into the hotel business in a big way and made huge investments in it? It has also bought 15 per cent. of South Wales Electricity, at a time when the number of Welsh Water customers being disconnected has reached record levels.

My hon. Friend is right. The record of diversified activity by the water companies is incredible. As he said, Welsh Water has invested in a chain of hotels. In addition, one water company has purchased a stake in a television franchise—so much for its priorities.

Can the hon. Lady confirm that in socialist France the private water companies are encouraged to diversify? So why would a socialist Government in this country think differently?

France has a completely different system of public accountability in the water industry. That is what is so clearly absent in this country since privatisation.

Accountability brings me to the position of the watchdogs established at the time of privatisation. I will come to the role of the Director General of Water Services in a moment, but first I want to discuss the drinking water inspectorate—a rather grand title for the 20-odd civil servants at the Department of the Environment who monitor the information about drinking water quality given to them by the companies themselves. The last report of the inspectorate revealed more than 32,000 incidents of contamination. Such incidents are bound to happen from time to time, although with modern techniques and fail-safe devices they should be infrequent and minor. They are not always so, however.

What does the drinking water inspectorate do when there is a major incident? During debates at about this time last year, I asked the Minister about the outbreak of cryptosporidium in Humberside between December 1989 and May 1990, when 477 people were infected. It was clearly caused by the decision of Yorkshire Water to bypass the slow sand filters at Barnby treatment plant. Those affected have still not had a proper response from the drinking water inspectorate. The Yorkshire customer services committee has been pressing the Minister for action. He has refused action: he will not tell us in parliamentary answers what he intends to do.

Section 54 of the Water Act 1989 empowers the drinking water inspectorate to recommend that a supplier in these circumstances be prosecuted. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether such a recommendation has been made by the inspectorate and what he is doing to look after the interests of the people who were affected by the outbreak in Humberside? Either the drinking water inspectorate is toothless or the Minister is gutless and will not take on the privatised water companies.

Privatisation has meant record bills, record hardship and record disconnections. Where do we go from here to obtain proper protection for consumers and to deal with the essential problems of resource management? The role of the regulator is crucial in all this. We have said from the start that he has a difficult task. First, he is asked to serve two masters, the shareholder and the consumer, when what we need is a clear voice for consumers.

The second difficulty facing the director general stems from the initial deal that the Government gave the water companies. It was so generous that it is difficult for the director general to plough it back. That Government deal set the framework for what has followed—the debt write-off, the green dowry and the assumptions about the financial regime of the water companies. I refer especially to the assumptions about the ratio of debt to equity, which were far too generous to the water companies. So desperate were the Government to be rid of this industry that they did a ridiculous deal with the companies, as the report of the National Audit Office shows.

The director general has rightly raised the issue of the cost of capital. He has issued a consultation document about that cost, which clearly shows that water company investment could be financed in other and cheaper ways. The director general says:

"There is no reason why investors in the water industry should be rewarded with returns in excess of those generally available in the finance markets."

The Government's priority was privatisation, and not the easiest or the cheapest way to bring about some of the necessary improvements. Their priority was the triumph of privatisation dogma, even over common sense.

The financial regime of the water companies means that today's consumers are paying not only for underinvestment in the 1980s but for the assets that will benefit future generations. Those assets should be funded over a longer period and the Director General of Water Services should demand that the water companies invest more through borrowing and not at the immediate expense of today's bill payers. The director general recognises that and must pursue the matter. It would help consumers if the Government backed him.

Last year, the Director General of Water Services took some action on the windfall profits of the water industry, which were higher than they would otherwise have been because construction costs fell significantly. Unfortunately, consumers benefited from that action to only a limited extent. The estimated balance of savings on operating expenditure was £132 million. The director general negotiated a voluntary abatement with the water companies on their K factor of just £40 million. That left a big gap of £92 million, which was used to boost the return to shareholders. What is worse, the deal between Ofwat and the companies was struck in private and no one was able to ensure that the public interest was protected.

The Secretary of State should oblige the director general to give a full account of the way in which that clawback was calculated. After all, the Ofwat annual report stated:

"The regulation of an essential public utility can only be successful if it wins the trust and support of the public and the industry. The basis of this trust is transparency in decision making and the involvement of the general public and industry as far in possible in that decision making process."

That public need to have confidence in the regulator, and such confidence does not exist. Part of the problem is that the Government have abdicated their responsibility and have opted out of treating water as a vital natural resource. They are treating it as a marketable commodity. Water is too important in individual and public health simply to be left to the market.

That brings me to my third area of concern, the resource management of water. The Government recently announced that they intend to issue a consultation paper on water conservation. Perhaps we shall hear more about that in the debate. That action is at best a bit late in the day. It would have been better if the Government had addressed such problems in the late 1980s rather than pursuing their obsession with privatisation. The fact that they intend to act is, I hope, an acknowledgement—albeit a tacit one—that they cannot leave everything to the market.

Yesterday, the National Rivers Authority announced that it was stepping in to tackle the problem caused by the water companies abstracting too much water from rivers and ground water sources. It is right for the NRA to be concerned about that, although it is strange that, while that action is being taken, some water companies are being allowed to supply water to owners of race tracks so that horses can have ideal conditions on which to practise. Golf courses are also receiving abundant supplies. The NRA was right to act, but it should not make decisions without a national strategy for water management and, without a Government lead, there cannot be such a strategy.

It is too easy for the NRA to make decisions affecting water companies' costs and for the companies then to apply to the regulator for cost pass through and for the customer to end up paying even more. That shows again the priority that ought to be given to someone who can speak up for consumers.

Water metering is the most obvious example of an apparent solution to water shortages which could create more problems than it overcomes. The case for metering on conservation grounds is not proven. Countries using metering generally have average higher consumption than Britain. Furthermore, increased water usage is often at the luxury end of the market—dishwashers, jacuzzis, garden sprinklers, and even swimming pools. Those who can afford such fixtures can probably afford to make an extra payment. At the other end of the spectrum, the impact of metering on large families and those who need extra water for medical reasons can be severe.

I read in the newspapers recently—perhaps I should not use the word "newspaper" in connection with The Sun, but similar reports appeared in other newspapers—that Ministers favour water metering. An unnamed Minister was quoted as justifying metering in this way:

"There is no excuse for draining the Lake District so that people in the south-east can fill their swimming pools and dishwashers."

I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, whose constituency is adjacent to the Lake district, was responsible for that comment. It would be helpful if he would tell us.

We are told also that the director general favours metering, and from my own discussions with him I believe that that is the case. As a northerner, I am not in favour of draining the Lake district, but it is simplistic in the extreme to seek compulsory universal metering as the answer to water shortages. It would be very costly. Estimates vary, but it is put at about £2 billion, and it would create problems for many. Incidentally, I am concerned that the survey on the social impact of the metering trials has not yet been published. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about that.

Metering has also been promoted with the argument that rateable values will not exist after the year 2000. I do not like the council tax, but it would be better than putting people on compulsory metering. It is strange that a Government who talk about choice should even consider compulsory metering and will not offer the consumer a choice between it and banded charging. The compulsory metering of new properties has already created many problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) provides an example from his constituency. He has even given me photographs, but I cannot show those to the House. In one clearance area of Blackburn, the same type of new properties have been built on the same site by both the local authority and a housing association.

The local authority homes were completed first, and their tenants receive water bills according to the properties' rateable values—typically of £170 a year. At the other end of the Calder Bank development are to be found the housing association properties, which were completed slightly later. The average water charge to their occupiers is double that paid by local authority tenants.

The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), whose constituency is served by the same water authority as that which operates in my constituency, correspond almost precisely with figures currently being cited in respect of housing association properties in the Kirkby area. My hon. Friend's example is not unique, but is typical of the effect of water metering in the north-west.

It is not just North West Water that is creating such problems. They exist also in Yorkshire. Most water companies are stinging the owners of new properties. The experience of water metering generally is that it produces much higher bills and a great deal of hardship. I hope that before anyone goes headlong into promoting water metering, they will pause to consider the problems that it creates.

Does the hon. Lady accept that for many people, especially elderly people living alone, water metering may seem an attractive option? She seems to have entirely written it off.

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. I was advocating choice. Those who want water meters should be allowed to opt for them; what I object to is compulsory metering by water companies for people who will gain no benefit and, indeed, will pay more.

Let me issue a word of warning to the hon. Gentleman. He should not mislead many elderly people living alone into thinking that their bills will be reduced automatically as a result of metering. Owing to the structure of payment, the standing charge is often so high that the total bill is substantial.

When we discuss water resources, we should bear in mind one of the industry's most significant problems, the easing of which would help to increase those resources. I refer to the problem of water leakage from the infrastructure. Figures from "Water Facts" show that, in 1990–91, leakage amounted to 29.3 per cent., or 97 litres per head per day. That far outweighs any likely saving from water metering and is of great concern to those who are currently subject to restrictions on water use.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for the privatised water companies to decide, on the basis of common sense, to make leakage control a priority. That is no way in which to make decisions about our vital resources. The Government and the director general should insist that leakage is tackled, rather than pushing for compulsory water metering.

It is clear that water consumers face many problems, relating to both the level of charges and surety of supply. The Government should not sit back and leave the problems to the market: water is too important to each and every one of us. What is needed is proper public accountability, along with proper public decision making. It will be a sad look-out for every consumer if the Government turn their back on the problems.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'congratulates the Government on its highly successful policy of privatising the water industry, which will lead to £28 thousand million investment on water and sewerage infrastructure, maintaining the quality of drinking water, improving rivers, and reducing discharges into the sea, thereby benefiting customers and the environment alike; and welcomes the action of the National Rivers Authority to safeguard the water environment and the role of the Director General of Water Services as the powerful independent regulator to provide effective protection for the interests of all the industry's customers.'

The House may fairly ask why we are debating the water industry today. We are debating it because the Opposition are in a muddle: they are devoid of a leader, and devoid of policy or direction. In such circumstances, the Opposition always fall back on their old instinct to attack industry, enterprise and other people's successes.

No doubt in due course the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who has now left the Chamber—will initiate yet another policy review, commission a few more opinion polls, consult even more gurus in the shadow communications agency and conclude that Labour can win the next election only if it supports the free market economy and private investment and rejects the renationalisation of industry, including the water industry. Until that uncomfortable truth eventually dawns on Her Majesty's Opposition yet again, however, they will continue with their old prejudices—prejudices which they have aired in the Chamber today.

Will my hon. Friend be fair to the Opposition, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Although the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—and, for that matter, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—were keen for the industry to be renationalised, the hon. Member for Derby, South was doubtful whether the party would be able to afford it in the foreseeable future. Opposition Members are not entirely agreed about that.

That is absolutely true. There is quite a bit of confusion about Labour's plans for renationalisation of the water industry. I note that we have not heard from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) exactly what was meant by taking the water industry into "public control", but I may touch on that later.

How does the hon. Gentleman square his comment about renationalisation with the fact that, as far as I know, the only Government ever to nationalise the water industry were the Conservative Government, who did so in order to privatise it a couple of years later?

That is rather too subtle even for an Opposition Member. It is clear that there was total confusion during the election campaign as the Leader of the Opposition said one thing, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said another and the hon. Member for Dewsbury said yet another. The truth did not emerge then, nor has it emerged today, but we may touch on it later.

The Opposition have chosen to debate the water industry today, not because they are concerned about the real water issues but because they can think of nothing better to do than indulge in some private enterprise bashing. What have they chosen to highlight? Is it the massive investment programme of £28,000 million? No, they pooh-pooh that. Is it the management of water resources and conservation—the most important long-term issue facing us? No, all we had was a little bit about that tacked on at the end of the hon. Lady's speech. Is it the drought in the south-east or the EC directives on drinking water quality and bathing beaches? No, none of those things, infinitely important though they are, appear in the Opposition motion today.

Instead, at a time when they want to distract attention from their internal squabbles and failings, they have fallen back on the old socialist certainties of knocking profits and dividends without having the nous to realise that there is no investment without profits, and without dividends there would be no shareholders to invest in the first place.

I appreciate that the Minister is new to his Department and thus may not recall that the Opposition had a similar debate earlier this year, which proves that we are consistent in our concern about consumers and the environment. The Minister has attacked our motion, so do I take it from that that he is happy to defend the level of salaries, dividends and perks paid to water authority chairmen?

I do not mind being patronised. I have broad enough shoulders to take it. I shall refer to the level of salaries later. The Opposition always complain that they do not have enough Supply days. This is only their second this Session and they have a paltry 25 Members present to launch their attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many do the Government have?"] This is an Opposition day. It is not a Government day. We are supposed to be on the back foot defending a major Opposition attack. That is the level to which the Opposition have sunk.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I want to continue a little further.

We shall address the real issues. The fact that the Opposition do not know what they are is a measure of just how confused they are on this as on other policies.

Will the Minister give way on the real issues?

I will come to the real issues myself.

For many years the water industry was held back from doing what needed to be done by the fact that it was part of the public sector. Time and again, the amount that it could invest was subject to severe limits or even, as happened after 1976, to savage cuts. It is hardly surprising that serious backlogs developed.

The water industry could never compete with the national health service or education in public expenditure rounds.

Before the Minister broadens his argument so much that he loses sight of the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), will he explain to me the justice in a new three-bedroomed housing association property in Southdene in my constituency being charged twice as much through a meter for its water as a three-bedroomed council house just over the road whose charge is fixed on the basis of its water rates?

I shall not comment on individual cases in different water authorities. That is the job of Ofwat and its director general, who has a broad over-view of how metering may work and how water companies fix their charges. The hon. Gentleman falls into the standard Opposition trap of pretending to like independent regulatory agencies, but at the slightest excuse he wants Ministers and politicians to rig the system, to fiddle it, to pull strings. That we will not do.

The water industry has had severe under-investment over the past 20 or 30 years. Privatisation solved that problem. Transferring the water industry to the private sector has given the industry the freedom to invest and to manage its investment programme in the most efficient and economical way. Necessary investment no longer has to be put off because of more pressing public priorities. The programme will involve expenditure of £28,000 million at 1989–90 prices in the present decade.

There were many doubts about whether such an enormous increase in capital expenditure could be achieved so quickly. Last year it is estimated that expenditure increased by a further quarter to £3.1 billion, improving on the planned levels. That investment is more than double the total retained profits of all the companies put together.

On the question of past investment, will the Minister accept the figures which have oft been quoted in the House that the average investment in the water industry under the last Labour Government was £1,254 million per year and the average investment pre-privatisation under the Conservative Government was £922 million per year? That is a fact.

On the cost of capital, will the Minister say clearly whether he accepts the statement of the Director General of Water Services about the balance between equity and debt? Does he accept the questions posed by the director general in his paper on the costs of capital, which showed that if the financial regime of the water companies were different, investment could be provided at a lower cost to consumers?

The hon. Lady is always scrabbling around for statistics to try to justify the huge cuts that the last Labour Government had to make in their investment programme. She has to rake over history to try to justify their position. I accept that under all Governments investment in the water industry was not good enough, but at least we had the sense to recognise that only through privatisation could we achieve the massive level of investment that we require. The hon. Lady is now trying to suggest that if the water industry were restructured, there would be more investment. The hon. Lady's policy is to take public control of the water industry. I shall not take lessons from her on how to raise investment for a privatised water industry when it is her policy to take control of it.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I want to make some progress.

I have said that our investment in the water industry has been £28,000 million. That is a magnificent achievement by any standards. It is an indication of the Opposition's lack of confidence in the subject matter for today's debate that they cannot acknowledge that, but simply try to pooh-pooh it.