« Michelle Obama and Wal-Mart | Main | Venice and New York »

May 13, 2007

Where Does the Money Go?

If you'd like to know why we've got a leaky water infrastructure, hosepipe bans and all, despite the massive investments that have been made in hte water supply system in recent decades, here's your answer:

What seemed to escape the MPs was the astonishing degree to which capital spending on water is skewed by the need to comply with three EU water purification directives. On April 24, Lord Pearson of Rannoch pointed out in the Lords that, up to 1997, we had spent £48 billion on complying with the often absurdly over-the-top requirements of these directives (the companies had to spend over £3 billion, for instance, on "denitrification plants" to solve a problem that turned out not to exist).

Lord Pearson asked the minister how much more money had been largely wasted on these directives since 1997, and how much had been spent on the infrastructure needed to improve the efficiency of our water supply and sewerage systems. In a letter, Lord Rooker, as "Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food", has now given the answer. Spending to comply with the directives now totals £65 billion. Only £14 billion has been left for infrastructure. It is hardly surprising we still have hosepipe bans, despite our ever-soaring water bills. But we cannot expect our MPs to notice the embarrassing reason for this.

Can we leave yet?

May 13, 2007 in European Union | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where Does the Money Go?:


You forgot to point out that Lord Pearson is a UKIP peer!

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 13, 2007 1:20:43 PM

So how do you spend money complying with a directive on water purification without spending it on "infrastructure"?

Posted by: Alex | May 13, 2007 4:39:00 PM

"You forgot to point out that Lord Pearson is a UKIP peer!"
What on earth has that got to do with it?

Posted by: Little Black Sambo | May 13, 2007 6:26:17 PM

What on earth has that got to do with it?

It is simply another indication that The Sunday Telegraph (and big media in general) want no mention of UKIP in a positive light.

The second important point is that the vast majority of the questions asked by the UKIP peers are drafted by the UKIP researchers, thus the question came, effectively, from UKIP.

I'd say that both points were pretty relevent.


Posted by: Devil's Kitchen | May 14, 2007 1:06:38 AM