Mr I Byatt
OFWAT
Centre City Tower
7 Hill Street
Birmingham B5 4UA7 May 1999Response to Consultation Paper (MD 147) on the Review of Guaranteed Standards Scheme
1. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond formally to the proposals in the consultation paper issued on 18 March 1999. There are two issues related to drinking water quality/public health, namely compensation for water unfit for human consumption and a discussion around the issue of advice to boil water notices. I comment on each in turn.
Compensation for the supply of water unfit for human consumption
2. I support fully the arguments set out in s3 of the paper which conclude that it would be inappropriate to require compensation for a breach of the regulations. It would be very difficult to distinguish between trivial breaches and those of greater significance. There is an enforcement mechanism to require companies to take action on non-trivial breaches. It should also be recognised that most of the health based standards relate to a lifetime of consumption and therefore, occasional breaches, which might arise through no fault on the part of the company, should not be subject to compensation as the consumers would not have been subjected to any risk or to have suffered any inconvenience. Whereas if a company is convicted of an offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption, that water would have been either unhealthy or unpalatable. In these cases consumers might have been ill or they may have received water which was not fit to drink due to its appearance, taste or odour. It is, therefore, appropriate that consumers should be compensated and I support the proposal of a one off payment of £20 for household customers affected by the incident.
3. The term ‘water unfit for human consumption’ relates to s70 of the 1991 Water Industry Act. It would also be appropriate for an offence under the proposed new regulations for cryptosporidium to be included for compensation. Water companies should operate their treatment plant effectively to meet the new treatment standard. A failure to operate the treatment plant effectively to meet the new standard would pose a potential risk to their health and consumers should be compensated.
Advice to boil notice
4. There is an understandable pressure from many consumers and from their representatives on consumer groups and others to seek compensation when consumers are advised to boil their drinking water. I can quite understand this because it is an inconvenience and there are some costs associated with boiling water although from consumer surveys many consumers tend only to drink beverages which have been made from boiled water anyway. Although understanding the desire for compensation, I oppose it strongly on the grounds of public health.
5. In this country, we are generally able to have confidence in our drinking water quality through a combination of the treatment processes including the use of disinfectants, such as chlorine, which has protected public health for nearly a century. Generally, these barriers are very effective and we can consume our tap water with confidence in its safety. However, from time to time the extensive monitoring may show that there has been, or would have been, some microbiological contamination of the water supply. As a safeguard while the potential problem is being investigated, water companies, in the interests of protecting public health, issue an advice to boil water notice. More often than not this is wholly precautionary. A full investigation shows generally that although there were indications of a possible problem, it turns out to have been a false alarm. Although an irritation to the consumers at the time, it is a necessary part of the public health armoury and I would not like to see any steps taken which could inhibit the use of a boil notice when required.
6. I would hope that the water companies would state that, irrespective of whether or not there were financial penalties for putting on an advice to boil water notice, they would always act in the interests of public health. I would like to think that to be true but it would be very surprising if there were not some pressures from those people in the water company responsible for the financial bottom line which could have some influence on the decision process for the issue of the boil water notices. There is, therefore, a possibility that consumers would be at greater risk.
7. It has been suggested that as most precautionary notices can be taken off within two days, that automatic compensation should be paid when a notice has been in place for a period of, say, 72 hours. That does not change the validity of the points which I make above - indeed, when a boil water notice needs to be maintained for more than 72 hours, it is likely to be associated with a potentially greater problem. It is vitally important that boil notices are left on as long as need be to ensure public health is protected, without the inevitable pressure to take them off early if there were a 72 hour deadline triggering automatic compensation.
8. If there is an outbreak of illness in a local community, say, of cryptosporidiosis and one possible source (there are others and, most commonly, outbreaks are associated with other factors) is the water supply, an advice to boil water notice is an important local precautionary action by an Outbreak Control Team (OCT). This team consists of representatives from the health authorities, the local authorities and the water company involved. It is essential that they work closely together with understanding in managing the outbreak and in deciding, collectively, wholly on public health grounds, when to put a boil water notice on and, equally importantly, when to take it off. If a water company had to pay automatic compensation, particularly if the compensation payments were calculated on a length of time basis, there could be difficulties within the OCT team if it was sensed that the water company was pressing for early removal of the boil water notice. This would be highly detrimental to the protection of public health.
9. Currently at a time when there isn’t an automatic requirement to pay compensation, there is pressure from consumers for such a scheme. If a scheme were in existence, there could be a situation in which, if there were to be illness in the community and for whatever reason an advice to boil water notice had not been issued, there would be the natural suspicion that the water company had merely tried to avoid the payment of compensation. This would be a worse situation than now. Although I can understand the consumers wishes for a compensation scheme, I believe most strongly that it is not in their best interests for there to be one. I don’t believe that compensation for boiling water is worth the potential risk or any loss of confidence, in the protection of public health.
Yours sincerely
Michael Rouse
Chief Inspector
| A - Z Index | Business and Technical | Consumer Information | Contacting us |
| DWI Home Page | News | Product Approval | Search our site | Wales |
Drinking Water Inspectorate,
Floor 2/A1, Ashdown House,
123 Victoria Street,
London, SW1E 6DE
Telephone : 020 7944 5956
Facsimile : 020 7944 5969
E-mail: dwi.enquiries@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Updated 11 July 2001
Return to Statements Index
Return to Drinking Water Inspectorate Home Page
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)Home Page
The National Assembly for Wales / Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru Home Page
Web site terms
© Crown copyright 2001