I am delighted that the Council meeting focused on road safety - not before time. Although I welcome decisions to hold conferences, form networks and exchange valuable information, I must ask the Minister whether he agrees that actions speak much louder than words. He quoted statistics today which referred to the possibility that 4,000 lives were saved in Northern Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years. I remind the Minister that twice as many people died on Northern Ireland's roads over the past 30 years than died in the troubles. There is still not enough being done about that. In addition to those awareness programmes, concrete measures must be taken, such as traffic calming, reduced speed limits, greater enforcement by the police and the authorities and much more severe penalties so that we can save more lives, instead of waiting for the date of a conference to discuss it.

Traffic-calming measures are not within the remit of the Department of the Environment. However, the Member also mentioned penalties -

What about joined-up government?

Yes. Peter Robinson and I are working on that through joined-up government between our respective Departments. That will be wonderful when it arrives. I am glad that Mr Robinson was present to hear that.

From 2000 to 2001 there has been a 30% increase in the number of fixed penalty notices that have been meted out. I agree entirely with what Jane Morrice said. It is to receive publicity, but enforcement is also needed, as it helps to make the publicity more effective.

I said earlier that the three campaigns aimed to raise awareness and change people's attitudes. Ms Morrice said that such action is needed, but enforcement is also important. It is difficult to assess the impact of what we have done to reduce casualties. Levels have been reduced, but far too many people are still being killed or seriously injured.

What has been the outcome of the three campaigns? I shall provide some statistics. More than 90% of those surveyed - both North and South - are now aware of the message, contained in the advertisement, to encourage the wearing of seat belts. The message that we have a social responsibility to wear a seat belt has hit home, as has the message of how a back-seat passenger who does not wear a seat belt can injure or kill a front-seat passenger.

The number of people surveyed who, as a result of the advertisement, view it as irresponsible not to wear a seat belt has increased by 8%, from 63% to 71%. I hope that people see that as action. The survey found that 33% of drivers - 44% of 16- to 34-year olds - are more conscious of wearing seat belts than they were before the advertisement was first shown.

My next point is both positive and negative. As a result of the seat belt campaign, the number of six- to nine-year olds who wear seat belts has increased from 65% to 75%. It is good that the numbers have increased; it is action. However, the downside is that 25% of children are still not wearing seat belts. There is a lesson to be learned.

The Department endeavours to take appropriate action, but our responsibility is road safety and the mechanisms for it - not the legal implementation of the mechanisms, which is the police's responsibility. We are working on it as best as we can.

One is tempted to say: "Come back, Sam. All is forgiven."

Mr Nesbitt stuck solely to road safety issues at the meeting; no other transport issues were discussed. Is that an indication that the DUP Ministers' boycott of the North/South Ministerial Council, a body that he seems so keen to pursue, is stifling its work?

I looked to see whether my Colleague and Friend Mr Foster was present for Mr Poots's comment. I am trying to interpret it. Perhaps in the margins I shall be enlightened as to what he meant.

Road safety is the Department of the Environment's responsibility. It was the only issue that I could deal with at the meeting. One aspect of road safety is to deal with deaths and injuries. Is Mr Poots trying to say that that is unimportant? It is not unimportant. To ensure that lives are saved is singularly one of the most important issues.

I am concerned because I have a youngish family. When my daughter qualified as a driver and went out on the road for the first time, I said: "Oh, help." My gravest concern is that something might happen to her or to my son. Every week we hear of young people being killed on the roads, and every week there are parents who suffer the traumatic experience of losing their children in such a way.

In focusing on road safety, I say to Mr Poots that - by gum! - it is important, and I hope that he does not take away from that.

Pedestrians account for approximately one quarter of road fatalities. Has that figure been broken down to identify locations of particular danger and of a higher-than-average incidence of fatality? In that context, particular danger points are approach roads to built-up rural areas, such as housing estates, where there are no footpaths and which are perhaps poorly lit. I refer to those to make the further point that, as Jane Morrice said, it is fine to raise awareness of the dangers and the need for safety. However, there is also an urgent need to take practical steps to eradicate accident black spots, especially in places which seem to be unfairly neglected in contrast to other areas which are more than adequately supplied with footpaths and good lighting.

Mr Doherty made an important point. It is not enough to say that we want to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries. We must identify the particular circumstances which cause them. In a previous debate we tried to make that clear from a pedestrian's point of view. The Committee for the Environment investigated school transport and found that the danger was not in a pedestrian's travelling on a bus but in his alighting from or boarding a bus. We therefore focused on educating young people by providing material amounting to £650,000 and increasing the numbers of road safety education officers by almost 50% so that twice-yearly visits can be made to each school. That means more than 4,000 visits to educate the young about when and where they are most at risk.

Mr Doherty is right to say that the statistics should be used to show the danger points. North/South co-operation provides a road safety reporting mechanism. The Garda Siochána and the National Roads Authority are jointly responsible for the statistics in the South, and in the North the Police Service has sole responsibility. We are beginning to share data not simply for the sake of sharing but to examine similarities and differences and to identify the key problems which cause accidents and where they occur. That will show the necessary measures that must be taken by the Department of the Environment alone, or with other Departments, to improve the situation.

To return to road safety and school buses, £161 million capital and £63 million annually will be needed to implement key aspects, and it will mostly be for other Departments such as Education and Regional Development to decide whether to allocate the necessary funds - this is not just a matter for the Department of the Environment.

I thank Mr Doherty for asking that important question.

I thank the Minister for his statement. Would road safety be improved by seeking enforcement across borders, whether North/South, UK-wide or even across the European Union?

Enforcement would be improved if it were on a cross-border basis, because people travel across the border on the island of Ireland. If people felt that their penalty would stand, regardless of where they committed an offence, enforcement would improve. That is why I referred to the implementation of the new European Convention on Driving Disqualifications. If a driver has been fined in another country, the state in which the offence occurred can ask for the fine to be enforced in the person's home state, and it is important that that should happen.

There has been an interesting development in the penalty point system concerning discrimination. The EU has deemed it discriminatory that non-UK residents committing an offence in the UK are not subject to penalty points but to prosecution through the courts. The EU has requested that the penalty point system in the UK apply to everyone in the UK - UK citizen or not - so that all are treated equally in the EU.

Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to bring non-UK driving licence holders in the EU within the scope of the penalty point system. This is an example of why we must have fair and equitable enforcement to ensure that all are equal before the law, regardless of where misdemeanours occur.

Road safety is important, and I particularly welcome the analysis of road traffic accidents in the border area. Could the topic of different North/South trunk-road widths be included in the agenda for the next transport sectoral meeting in the autumn? The maximum trunk-road width in Northern Ireland is 7·7 metres, whereas in the Republic it can be up to 11·5 metres. I contend that narrowing roads at the border, from a broad trunk-road width in the South to a narrow trunk-road width in the North, adds to the number of accidents. I witnessed one this morning on the A5 in west Tyrone, which is part of the main arterial Dublin to Derry road. A Donegal-registered car was at the side of the road having been involved in yet another smash on the stretch between Omagh and Ballygawley.

The North/South difference in trunk-road width may be between seven metres and 11 metres, but the matter is not within my remit. Therefore it would not be for me to raise it at a North/South Ministerial Council meeting. However, the Department for Regional Development may have some input from a road safety point of view. If the Member were to write to the Minister for Regional Development, he might provide an appropriate answer.

It could be argued that wider roads are safer roads. When I was a district councillor I tried to prevent cars from parking on a village street by having double yellow lines painted. However, the council was advised that it was better to allow the cars to park there; they made the street narrower, which in turn forced other cars to travel more slowly. If the road were widened, cars would speed and perhaps cause more accidents.

I am not sure what the position on that is today. Widening a road can cause people to speed, and speeding is one of the primary causes of death and injury on the roads. After failure to wear to a seat belt and drink-driving, speed is the third most important element in road accidents. A balance must be struck between the width of roads and the speed at which people drive. It is an interesting question.

I call Mr Dallat. It would be helpful if the Member could be concise when asking his question and if the Minister could be concise when answering.

Are there any plans to publish details of the economic and social cost of road traffic accidents on an all-Ireland basis, including not only deaths and injuries but also the cost to the emergency services and to health and social services and the cost of days lost at work, insurance claims, and so on?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad that you asked the Member to be brief when asking his question, and I am even more glad that you asked that I be brief in my answer.

I cannot give a detailed answer on the economic and social costs of traffic-safety management. It is not easy to identify the terms of economic appraisals. The upfront financial costs can be identified, but what price do we put on a life or on the effect on the families of those who are seriously injured? What price can be put on the effect on the life of someone I know who was seriously injured years ago and has been in a wheelchair ever since? That is difficult to do.

One approach involves identifying two options. For example, one option might cost £20 million and another might cost £30 million, so we know the difference to be £10 million. We may not be able to quantify the benefit of the £30 million spent, but at least we know that the benefit is worth more than £10 million, so we would choose the option that cost £30 million instead of the option that cost £20 million. This is like shadow pricing - we do not know the actual price so we identify some other price. That is a complicated way of analysing the economic and social cost of traffic accidents. It is a fascinating, but complicated and intricate problem.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill:
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

TOP

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr Gallagher):

I beg to move

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, which has two main provisions. The first covers free nursing care for residents of nursing homes, and the second covers the establishment of a new practice and education council for nursing and midwifery. The Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to Friday 7 June to give it more time to consider the implications of introducing free nursing care and its separation from free personal care. This is a complex matter that will affect how residential care is funded for many years to come.

England, Scotland and Wales have already taken different routes with the provision of financial support for residents of nursing homes. The Bill will introduce a new entitlement that will cost £9 million a year and affect some 2,000 elderly residents, so it must be considered carefully. I ask Members to support the motion.

Water Service Meter Scheme

TOP

Mr Bradley:

I beg to move

I propose the motion in the sincere hope that, as a result of its content, it will receive action rather than sympathy and understanding. I thank the Minister for his attendance to hear my views and the views of others who may wish to speak on the subject.

In an effort to highlight the problems I will relate two conflicting situations. The first is the ongoing leakage of water as a result of the inferior and long-term neglected infrastructure. In the Northern Ireland Audit Office report of April 2001, 'Water Service: Leakage Management and Water Efficiency', the main conclusions, on page 12, state that the Water Service estimated that in 1998-99, 253 million litres of water put into the distribution system each day were lost as a result of leakage. Last year the Assembly was given similar figures from the then Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, who stated that the Water Service was losing in excess of 50 million gallons of water a day because of water leakage. On Monday 4 February 2002 the present Minister told me in a written reply that 54 megalitres a day - approximately 12 million gallons - goes unaccounted for from the Silent Valley reservoir alone. I realise that those figures give the total leakage from the distribution system and include water lost because of leakage from consumers' supply pipes.

I place no blame whatsoever for this ongoing loss at the door of the present Minister or that of his immediate predecessor. We all know the record of the Ministers before them regarding spending on necessities, and the least said about them the better. I also recognise and accept that Mr Peter Robinson and his Department are investigating the entire matter of leakage with a view to addressing the loss. Members of the Committee for Regional Development learned from departmental officials last Wednesday that over £25 million would be spent over the next four years in an effort to lessen the water leakage problem.

The second scenario is not specific, but it is a common enough problem throughout the region. I refer to a leakage problem that is discovered by the Department only when a consumer's water meter is being read. Unfortunately the consumer discovers it only when his account arrives. The undetected leakage can occur, on farm holdings in particular, for a variety of reasons, including underground pipes being damaged by heavy vehicles passing over them, leakages at water traps, particularly at outfarms, and, I am sorry to say, leakages caused by vandals who get their kicks from damaging equipment associated with the water supply.

The difference between the two situations is somewhat unacceptable and would not stand up to any equality scrutiny. The Water Service, as custodian of that part of the public purse relating to the water supply, is not held financially accountable for the loss of public money that flows away as a result of leakage. However, the same is not true of the unfortunate farmer or consumer who, through no fault of his own, is penalised in a sum that matches the cost of water lost within the confines of his holding. The consumers have the right to appeal, but that, in the majority of cases, is a pointless exercise, with no concessions offered or given by the Water Service.

I can only imagine what the reaction of the Minister or his departmental officials would be if the Executive or the Public Accounts Committee, acting in the public interest, demanded payment for water lost through leakage, even though such loss was, as in the farmer's case that I mentioned, through no fault of their own. I find it unacceptable that the same Department for Regional Development shows no mercy to consumers in a similar situation when it goes about recovering the moneys owing to it - even if that means taking the draconian measure of disconnecting the supply. I believe that it is correct to assume that the total extra money collected is a mere pittance compared to the Department's overall budget.

It is not, however, a mere pittance as far as the penalised farmers and consumers are concerned. The £300 to £400, which is the average sum incorporated when leakage has been identified, imposes additional hardship on rural consumers and others. Given the present state of agriculture, the sum could well equate to between six and eight months' profit for an ordinary farmer.

I am not seeking something unreasonable. I am asking the Department that, when a meter reading indicates water leakage in a farm or holding, the excess cost be waived on the first occasion and a bill based on average usage be issued. The problem should be brought to the consumer's attention immediately with a statutory warning that if the matter is not attended to within a specific period, or before the next reading, the entire sum will be deemed due. If such a system were implemented, nobody could accuse the Department of preventing fair play. The current system gives an innocent offender no chance: guilty is the only accusation made, and guilty is the only verdict reached.

I call on the Minister to take action if only to assure the public that his Department is interested in fair play. Members will agree that my comments are unique in that I have not asked the Minister for money - I simply seek the removal of an unfair penalty system.

The motion is useful and timely, and I congratulate Mr Bradley for moving it. Water is an important and finite resource - that is difficult to believe given the current weather conditions - and we need to preserve and conserve it.

It is important to eliminate all leaks in the water system thereby reducing the consequential loss incurred. Ultimately, leaks lead to increased water charges. All water systems age and need to be replaced by new, improved technology. Some water pipes in urban and rural areas are very old. Piped water supplies began in the early- to mid-nineteenth century in response to the public health reforms introduced by Edwin Chadwick following the outbreaks of cholera that caused havoc in south Belfast.

We are now entering a phase when the replacement of many outdated pipes is a matter of urgency. Water must be conserved, and systems must be maintained. Water charges will be an inevitable part of how we will fund the work. However, I wish to sound a word of warning. There are many difficulties, especially in rural areas. The Assembly is becoming too dependent on one source of income, and rates and water charges are key elements of that. Funding sources should be more diverse, and that should be considered urgently.

Lumping all Government finance under a consolidated tax such as rates is unwise and unfair. It makes more sense for taxation to be effected through citizens' choosing to pay tax according to purchases made - as happens in most places. I hope that water charges will not be part of a tax regime that needs to be reviewed. It should properly be part of the review of local government and public administration. Members may agree or disagree, but the argument is supported by overwhelming logic and justice.

It can take up to six months to identify water leaks in rural areas. As long as the meter is running, the cost is rising for the consumer. The farmer, or whoever is paying for the water, may not even know that there is a leak. A bigger emphasis should be put on the authorities so that they can identify leaks.

Water is currently almost as dear as electricity. More encouragement must be given to the idea of farmers getting a rebate on the amount that goes through their meters. It is totally unfair that farmers must pay for their water while other people who live on the same road may use more water but get it free. It is not as if rates or other payments are any less for farmers than for other householders. Farmers should be treated fairly. If there is a law for one, that law should be the same for all. We have now reached the stage where some decisions will have to be taken. Those decisions may be unpopular, but they will have to be made. We cannot fudge this issue any longer.

If big leaks and burst pipes have been noticed that farmers are not aware of, they should at least be given a choice. Often, water is running down the sides of roads, and the authorities are dependent on a two-way flow of information to determine where those leaks are. However, if that running water is going through a meter, someone must pay for it. I know where PJ Bradley is coming from. I do not know how it will be done, but concessions must be made. I support the motion.

I have some sympathy with the motion. We all, especially Members representing rural areas, would agree that this has been an emotive issue in the farming community for many years. Many farmers would say that their water bill is sometimes their biggest outlay, which is undoubtedly true at times.

However, we must return to the serious issue and the background to this debate - the serious underfunding of the Water Service over many years. The water industry recognises that the most effective method of managing demand is to reduce leakage. Having compiled a report on the economic level of leakage, consultants have identified a substantial programme of short-term measures, including active leakage control.

We could say much about the serious underfunding of the Water Service. During the last Regional Development Committee meeting, we saw the figures for the type of money that we will need to bring the Water Service and our water supply up to a proper state. PJ Bradley and the other Committee members know the huge amount of money that it will cost. The problem is that it may be unfair to put the total bill onto the farming community on occasions.

That will be a live issue in the Committee in the next few weeks. Through the review of the water system in Northern Ireland, we shall all have an opportunity to voice our opinions on the best way to fund the water system. That debate will last for several weeks, both in the House and in meetings of the Committee for Regional Development.

Another interesting side debate is taking place on water charges. It would be interesting to hear Mr Bradley's thoughts on the issue raised by the Minister of Finance of Personnel. Dr Farren made it absolutely clear that he would support domestic metering in future. That caused a stir, not only among domestic owners in Northern Ireland, but among political parties, including Dr Farren's own party.

The Minister, who is a member of the SDLP, advocates meter charges for domestic householders.

He does not.

Hansard will record exactly what he has said.

During a recent debate at which the Estimates and the running of Departments were being discussed, Dr Farren gave the impression to the House, through correspondence from the Minister for Regional Development, that he was suggesting that private consumers would be charged for metered water. The Minister for Regional Development will need to clarify whether he intends to look at charging domestic consumers for water.

Water metering is an emotive issue in rural areas, especially among the farming community. A one-off payment is to be made to farmers if they can prove that they have not been responsible for leakage on their farms.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This subject matter of the motion is not covered by any of the Committees that I represent. However, I welcome the opportunity to speak, and I support the motion, as I am interested in the agriculture sector. The matter is high on many farmers' agenda. It has received more attention in the past few months because of foot-and-mouth disease. During that crisis farmers were unable to have their meters read.

On some farms, including my own, there are at least three meters. Some of them record very little output to particular farms. However, where outlying farms comprise several divided pieces of land, farmers are liable for considerable multiple charges.

Some meters are never read, which would lead me to question the amounts charged. There is a standing charge of £27 a meter, which, I am told, is payable even if the meter is not read. Farmers are not sure if that is value for money. Meters were not read for several months due to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and farmers received considerably higher bills last year than if the meters had been read normally. Some of the leakages that farmers experienced were not discovered until recently. People have shown me bills of £800 and more. It is placing farmers in a difficult position. Those who have recently acquired land or property and have suffered leakages have also been charged.

The one-off reduction available to people who were not responsible for situations in which they found themselves is to be welcomed. As regards rebates, farmers will say that they pay a high price for water in any case. Perhaps a way could be found to help farmers to check drinkers over the winter. It is something that farmers do not do, particularly on large farms, where it is difficult to check everything. Water wastage leads to an enormous cost to the general taxpayer as well as to the farmer each year. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for the provision and treatment of water. However, it must also deal with the large volume of water that is running down the drain. That water would have had to be processed and carried to the farmers.

I have mentioned multiple charges and the high cost to farmers. Most dairy farmers spend £1,000 or more on water each year while trying to maintain high standards. Most farmers are paying considerable sums, and it has been suggested that domestic consumers be charged. Farmers may not be worried about that. However, I would oppose domestic users being subjected to a water tax, primarily on hygiene grounds. People are taxed enough, and the amount raised locally could be lost by a reduction in the block budget.

Farmers are also being hit by the aggregates tax, as some work part-time in quarries. Revenues raised on virgin aggregates go straight back to the Treasury. That is another tax on local people by the back door. The Government have taken money off us, but it has not come back in any other way. Ordinary taxpayers feel that they are already highly taxed without having to face water taxes. Some domestic users might use less water to make savings. People might run up bills only to have the supply cut off when they could not pay. That in itself is an important debate. The public would be against water charges.

This has been a good debate, and I support the motion. However, the Minister must do something to make farmers aware of what they need to do. They are paying massive bills that they have no control over.

Finally, there are problems with the Water Service's helpline. It sometimes feels that you have to go round the world when telephoning the Water Service, and it can take a long time simply to get through. That is unsatisfactory, and it needs to be examined. Go raibh maith agat.

I support the motion. I am concerned about the undue charges that some farmers have to face in their annual water bill. It is particularly galling if a farmer receives a bill that is completely out of sync with the past pattern of water bills.

The debate is timely, because the water supply in Northern Ireland has become a major issue, particularly given the demand/supply situation and the enormous amount of water leakage that escapes from the distribution system. The current volume of water leakage in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. Some 37% of captured water is escaping from the system without account. That has two major outcomes: first, an economic opportunity cost waste of captured water and, secondly, some areas of Northern Ireland are in greater danger of suffering from water shortages, especially in the west. The Water Service is working on a water resource strategy to set out a 30-year water supply and distribution system for Northern Ireland. The historic lack of capital investment in the Water Service is causing major problems, and other Members have mentioned that. It is causing major problems for both the short-term peak demand times and the longer-term strategic supply needs.

I draw the Minister's attention to the real concern in the western zone. The water resource strategy draft document that was presented recently to the Regional Development Committee shows that there is a real crisis in the west. In 2000, the daily demand was about 130 million litres, but the supply was 124 million litres.

The other three zones in Northern Ireland had an excess of supply over demand in 2000. That highlights the need for an urgent short-term remedial policy to get to grips with water leakage, particularly in my constituency of West Tyrone. I agree with my Colleague Mr Bradley that we are appealing for a short-term measure to alleviate the current difficulties being experienced by some farmers. However, in the long term, we have to face up to the fact that water leakage from our system is causing undue difficulty in the whole water supply.

I declare a partial interest in that I assist on my father's farm, and that has some bearing on the motion.

The Water Service should review its meter scheme involving business users and farmers so that improvements can be made for those main users who may be suffering adversely from the scheme. However, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently held a hearing on the Northern Ireland Audit Office's report on Water Service leakage management, I would like to highlight a range of issues.

As has been said, one third of the water collected in Northern Ireland escapes through leakage in our pipes. That is at least 253 million litres a day. A target has been set to try to reduce that, but unfortunately the figure has been on the increase. Therefore, it is important that everyone, including domestic users, business users, the Department and the Water Service, contributes to the reduction of those leaks. Earlier this year we found that, even in winter, the Minister was issuing warning notices of potential shortages in the water supply in the Silent Valley. If we contribute collectively to reducing leaks, this could be a thing of the past, and restrictions on water use will not affect us at home or in business.

Such leakage has major implications, and I understand that the Water Service had planned a grand £72 million expansion scheme to capture additional water from Lough Neagh. That is how it intended to address the shortage, but it has only started to address the leakage problem with sufficient vigour. Northern Ireland's water has been leaking over and above what is known as the "economic leakage level", so we can spend money usefully on repairing pipes and so forth in the system. The money saved will justify the spending on the work.

Following the Public Accounts Committee's report, the Minister announced an additional £25 million towards dealing with leaks. Already there has been underinvestment in this area, and we must acknowledge and welcome the additional funds because they show that the Water Service is starting to try to manage the leaks.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office's report indicated that it was not only the Department that was not investing sufficiently in the management of leaks. The report stated that an estimated 48 megalitres leaked each day from customer supply pipes in 1997-98, and it has been estimated that the economic level should be about 37 megalitres a day, so private users and businesses can also invest more money in the prevention of leakage because it is collective leakage that puts pressure on the water supply system, and it is important that they do that.

Substantial costs can fall on farmers, particularly in outlying farms, when frost causes leaks in pipes, and we have to ensure that farmers are not overburdened with costs. However, there also has to be an incentive for farmers and businesses to examine their properties carefully and to monitor their meters themselves or in co-operation with the Department. The Department could install electronic meters so that water could be monitored monthly instead of annually, particularly during the winter when driving up a road could capture the information and identify leaks earlier. This would benefit the Department and the farmers or businesses using the water supply. There is a problem with one-off annual bills as leaks are highlighted up to a year after they occur. Efficient information is needed, and business meters should be monitored more frequently.

The overall leakage programme is important, given how we use water collectively, and it even has a bearing on capital expenditure. The Lough Neagh scheme to capture additional water was going to cost £72 million, and it is important that, when considering overall capital expenditure, we do not invest too early when other improvements could be made. I ask the Minister to take these thoughts on board when responding to the Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to address this issue and to highlight some of the concerns which the people in my constituency of Strangford have brought to my attention. There is an unfair burden on the shoulders of some farmers and consumers due to unidentified leaks in the system. Over the past few years, those farmers and consumers have received large bills from the Water Service, which were above and beyond previous bills. Demands for payment have ranged from £1,500 to £3,500. To be suddenly confronted with a bill that is two or three times more than normal, and in some cases up to six times more than normal, is a shock to the individual and to his pocket.

The cases I speak of relate to breaks in the water system that occur during the winter months and are not noticed due to inclement weather and bad ground conditions. Many farmers and consumers can be completely unaware that there is leakage, that the meter is working overtime and that a hefty bill is in the offing. For first timers, the Water Service has been willing to reduce partially the resultant bills from unidentified breakage underground. However, the provision does not go far enough when bills could be two or three times more than the previous year's bill.

Many Members have spoken about the specific problem for the farming community. Will Mr Shannon agree that Seán Farren's "tap" tax, which he has made much about, has not promoted a sensible discussion on water rates and their effect on the public? Ripples of concern have radiated across the entire community.

Mr Shannon: I agree wholeheartedly with the Member's comments. The ripples and waves will turn into a tidal wave of opposition to Mr Farren's proposals.

It is unfair to give farmers and consumers a bill that is above normal and that is at odds with the normal charge. To expect consumers to shoulder the burden in times of hardship and decreasing margins further compounds what, for many, is already a dire financial situation. People who contacted me were unable to pay the increase and, on top of their farming problems, were now being faced with a possible court case and litigation. For many farmers, these financial problems followed a difficult trading year, with BSE and the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak pressing on their financial resources and squeezing them ever further.

The motion proposes a review of the Water Service's meter scheme. Due to the clear anomalies in the present system, the review cannot come quickly enough. It is a shock to any individual to receive a demand for payment he was not aware of. If that person had been aware of the speed at which the meter was running, he would have tried to stop it or make the Water Service aware of the situation. Farmers were not aware of the leakages on their land and so did not take any action. For that reason, and to prevent the unfair financial burden becoming an albatross hanging from the necks of the farmer and the consumer, we need to call a halt to such water meter charge incidents. I urge the Minister to ensure that a review will take place to address the issue.

Water metering, as we have heard from contributions, is an extremely vexed issue. The infrastructure has suffered from years of underfunding, and people always get into a tizzy about metering. In 1993, when I was working at Westminister for an MP, the great meter debate took place, and I received a call from one of the MP's constituents. The gist of the call was that, as it rained all the time in Northern Ireland, he was darned if he was going to pay for rainwater. We have heard the reaction to Seán Farren's announcement that there is a sentiment in favour of metering.

However, the water leakage problem must be considered seriously. We have heard that leakages account for a massive one third of water in the system. If the Minister carries out a review, he should consider the placement of water meters at key points. Although installation of meters in each house is not a possibility, meters installed at key points could identify the general area of a leak. The difficulty is that water leaks from the system from the moment it leaves the dam until it reaches the user, and the problem lies with identifying the specific point of leakage. Perhaps the judicious use of water meters at key points in the system would help to identify the source of leakages. I support the motion, and I call on the Minister to implement a review.

I congratulate Mr Bradley on initiating the debate, and I thank everyone who contributed to it. I recognise the importance of the issue to many of the Water Service's metered customers, including farmers. I will deal with as many points as possible in the limited time available; however, I will first explain the rationale of the current policy.

The debate concerns water supplies to non-domestic customers, such as shops, factories, offices, businesses and farms. Water supplies to domestic customers are not metered, and I assure the House that I have no intention of introducing metering for domestic customers. A water supply may contain both a domestic and a non-domestic element; for example, a single pipe might supply a farmhouse, other farm buildings and water troughs. Such a supply is metered, but an allowance is given for domestic use. That allowance is 100 cubic metres every six months, which is 22,000 gallons in "old money".

Customers with metered water supplies are responsible for - and must pay for - all water that passes through their meters, including any that is lost through bursts and leaks. That obligation should not come as a surprise to customers; they are made aware of those responsibilities when they agree to accept a metered water supply. Each spring they also receive a leaflet that sets out the water charges for the year and their responsibilities for the metered supply. Customers know that they will be charged for all water that passes through the meter. They are advised to inspect regularly all pipe work and supply routes for signs of leaks. If customers follow that advice, they should be aware of leaks or bursts early, so that they can have their pipes repaired quickly and avoid receiving unexpectedly large bills.

It was suggested that such responsibilities are too onerous and that farmers and others should be charged only for the water that they use. I understand why farmers might feel that way, but other factors must be considered. Despite recent comments, water is not free. My Department will spend about £250 million on water and sewerage services this year. Water may fall freely from the sky, but it is costly to collect it in reservoirs, to treat it to the standards necessary to protect public health and to deliver it to almost 700,000 households in Northern Ireland.

Someone must pay for the water that is lost through leakage at a farm or a business. Either the customer whose pipe work is faulty or the taxpayers and ratepayers must pay. On the basis of equity, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the customer to pay. That would be the case for any other product that a customer purchased. For example, if any of us lost our heating oil through a leak in the pipes, we would not expect the oil company to replace it free of charge - that would be unreasonable.

The Water Service recognises the difficulties faced by customers who are unaware that there is wastage. If a customer has not been negligent and has repaired the leak as soon as possible, a one-off reduction, equivalent to one month's consumption, will be made to the bill. In addition, repayment agreements are available to enable a customer to pay the bill over an extended period, usually 12 months. Given that the customer is legally responsible for all the water that passes through the meter, those measures represent a reasonable response to the difficulties.

Mr Bradley asked that a review of charging policy be carried out. I am pleased to inform the House that such a review is well under way. It is examining all aspects of the current policy, including charging customers for water lost through leakages or bursts to their pipe work. The review is well advanced, and I expect to receive a report on it in the next few weeks. I will, of course, consult the Regional Development Committee and other interested parties before reaching any conclusions on the review's recommendations.

I want to address briefly some of the issues raised in the debate. Mr Bradley referred to leakage in the public water distribution system. The Water Service accepts that the current level of leakage - which is probably nearer to 40% than one third - is far too high and must be reduced. However, water and sewerage services have been underfunded significantly for years. I am glad that Mr Bradley recognised that in his remarks. Current leakage levels are the result of lack of investment and certainly not of lack of effort. Key expenditure priorities - the improvement and protection of drinking water quality and the reduction of effluent discharges - continue to focus on protecting public health.

As Mr McFarland said, £22 million has been invested in leakage reduction measures over the past four years, and a further £25 million will be invested over the next four years. Ultimately, the extent to which the Department for Regional Development can deal with leakage in the water supply depends entirely on the amount of money that is given to the Department and its Water Service.

The House will be aware of the concept of an "economic level of leakage". There is a level at which it would be cheaper to allow leakage than to spend money repairing the leaks. I suspect, however, that we are nowhere near that level at present.

Mr Bradley also suggested that there is no equity between leakage in the public water network and the situation faced by those who have private supplies. That is not the case. The public water network is owned, as one would expect, by the public. If leakage occurs in the public network, it is the public who pay. If leakage occurs in a private network, it is the private individual who pays. Mr Bradley also said that he was not asking for money. However, he was asking for money. Water has to be paid for by somebody, if not by the customer, then by the ratepayer or taxpayer.

Several Members mentioned water charging. It is clear from the debate today, and in the weeks since Dr Farren made his remarks to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), that it is an emotive issue. I think that Dr Farren has been misunderstood. I am not aware of any occasion when he has advocated metering the water supply or charging on the basis of metering. However, he has indicated that charging will be considered in the rating policy review. The review is a public consultation process. The Assembly and its Committees will also have their say on the matter. The notion that people are currently not being charged for water should be done away with. Of course they are being charged. The issue is the method employed to charge them.

I regret that we moved away from the system that existed when the Assembly was brought into being. Water was charged for within the regional rate. Increases in the regional rate benefited the water service industry. That was clear and transparent. People knew what was happening. However, that link was broken when the regional rate was changed into a simple top-up tax to benefit general public expenditure.

All of those issues can be considered. I suspect that they will encourage a lively debate during the course of the rating policy review.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>