GOOD news and Gordon Brown are not a normal pairing. Many may find that easy to believe, but they are, well at least on one issue.

Our excessive water charges started back in the early 1990s as the new Tory-privatised South West Water set about its Clean Sweep programme.

That three per cent of the country's population were paying for 30 per cent of the nation's beaches did not trouble the Government of the day.

While water bills across the country rose rapidly, those in Devon and Cornwall soared out of sight.

Two of the poorest counties in the country ended up with the highest water charges.

I was leading the campaign in Teignbridge back then for lower bills and a fairer system.

When Labour won in 1997, I had hoped Prime Minister Tony Blair would accept the need for water justice, but no, he ignored our calls.

When Brown moved next door, however, matters did change.

Labour and Tories alike still voted against Lib Dem proposals for a more equal funding structure.

Ministers began to listen to the delegations of usually Labour and Lib Dem MPs knocking on their door.

The case was so strong that an independent review of water charges was set up.

The Walker Review, as it is known, recognised the special problems faced by water rate payers in the South West and made three proposals to create a fairer system.

Last Wednesday, led by Labour's Linda Gilroy, we met Prime Minister Brown in his office in Westminster.

Three Labour and three Lib Dem MPs pressed the case for water justice in the South West and Gordon responded positively.

He would not commit to an individual proposal, but he agreed to the principle something must change.

This is, hopefully, the beginning of the end of water injustice and the prospect of a real cut in our water bills is at last a real possibility.

The council tax replaced the poll tax but is only slightly less popular. The case for a fairer system is often made, but for now, we are stuck with what we have got.

Councils, of course, manipulate their council tax rises depending on when an election is due. High rises year one, low rises in year four, we have all seen this (this is a good argument for electing yearly by thirds).

So, to truly judge the level of tax rises in an area, it is best to look at the longer term.

Recent figures published for Devon's councils since the local elections in 2003 show an intriguing picture and a positive view of Teignbridge as it comes out with the lowest rise of the eight district councils.

Teignbridge is easily the lowest at a 19.1 per cent rise over the past seven years with Mid Devon second lowest on 25.9 per cent.

The sharpest rise was in West Devon at 39.6 per cent.

The district council bill, however, is only part of the total, indeed the smaller part.

County councils of all colours have cut their bills back this year in the run up to the general election, but overall no matter how well Teignbridge do, the burden from central Government has pushed council tax bills up faster than inflation.

For those on fixed and low incomes this is a real burden and why in the end we must axe this tax.

At Bitton House on Friday I was honoured to attend the third anniversary meeting of the patient and carer support group, Volunteering in Health.

It grew out of the patient transport scheme, which is a task it still undertakes, but it has built on that.

Like Bitton House's first owner, Viscount Exmouth, Admiral Sir Edward Pellew, they have not just accepted the rules, but have been inventive and said 'what else can we do'.

Their manager, Tina Graham, told the packed meeting they now had 107 volunteers who not only transport and support patients to hospital, the doctor and dentist, but also help with shopping, dog walking and befriending.

Martin Spearman, chairman, praised the Teignmouth League of Friends and the Dawlish League of Friends for their support and fundraising without which, he said 'we would not be able to provide our services'.

One strange occurrence was Lord Ashcroft admitting he was a non-dom. That is a person who while here pays his tax abroad. In Ashcroft's case the vast bulk of his wealth is offshore. There are two questions raised by him and Labour's Lord Paul, a Labour non-dom peer.

First, how can a non-dom become a lord who votes on taxes he doesn't pay and, second, if foreigners cannot fund UK political parties, why should a non-dom? In both cases they have British businesses which make it legal but is it right?

In Ashcroft's case there are other questions: why did he promise the Tory leader William Hague to give up his non-dom status before he became a lord?

Why have the Tories allowed him to continue as a Conservative peer when David Cameron said that such non-tax payers should be excluded from Parliament?

Why did the Tory party keep taking his money? There is a clear case for no representation without taxation.