| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.22 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on obtaining this debate and on outlining such a thorough and comprehensive case. He has genuine concern about those complex problems and I express my sympathy with those of his constituents who have been affected, especially Mr. Bushell and his neighbours. The hon. Gentleman has raised several helpful points and I am pleased to be able to address them in some detail.
Flooding problems are all too familiar and many hon. Members, including me, have constituents who have suffered. We know very well of the misery that such problems can cause. The Government are anxious that the problems should be addressed and I shall try to respond as positively as I can.
Sewer flooding and the protection of the environment from waste water discharges from sewage treatment works and sewerage systems are a key concern for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In tackling those issues we need to take into account such things as statutory obligations under European directives on waste water treatments and habitats—I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Itchen. We also have domestic obligations in respect of sites of special scientific interest. Sewerage companies and regulators should, and generally do, take those obligations seriously.
The hon. Gentleman described the particular problems in Eastleigh and I shall address those before setting out the Government's general response to some of the other issues that he raised. My understanding is that a substantial contribution to the problems in Eastleigh is the fact that the pumping station at Bishopstoke and the Chickenhall sewage treatment works are unable to cope with both foul water and rainwater during especially heavy rainfall. That is the root of the problem. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, although increased heavy rainfall contributes to the problem, there is a range of other issues. I do not dispute that.
The facilities at Chickenhall include tanks to store storm water until the increased flows subside. However, the tanks do not have sufficient capacity to contain storm water during severe weather conditions and that has led to occasional flooding of adjacent land and properties. Addressing that problem will also limit pollution of the River Itchen and could prevent flooding of upstream properties by restricting flows to the works. For those
reasons, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that, by 31 March 2005, Southern Water plans to install additional storm water storage capacity at the Chickenhall works. Furthermore, the company proposes to change the storm water management arrangements at the works.Those proposals—if they go ahead—will allow excess storm water to be discharged directly into the river when the storage tanks are full, instead of flooding the surrounding area. Any discharges from the existing outfall, which are only consented to by the Environment Agency during heavy rainfall events, will contain screened foul water highly diluted by rainwater. No proposal has been made, or would be considered by the Environment Agency, for the construction of a new raw sewage outfall at the works. That would not be approved.
Mr. Chidgey: I concur with the Minister: there is no question that raw untreated sewage will go into the river. However, as he knows, there are three stages in sewage effluent treatment. We do not have tertiary treatment, although the sewage is treated to ensure the removal of bacteria. I am worried that although we may be meeting the standards downstream at Gaters Mill, where there are excellent treatment works to make the water potable, we do not have the protection that I want in the river itself—between the sewage works and the water extraction treatment works. The area is supposed to have improved protection from pollution due to its environmental importance, so I am worried to hear the Minister say that Southern Water's management plan is to increase, at times, the flow of partially treated effluent into the river.
Mr. Morley: I very much hope that will be an interim measure. In addition to the work to improve the storm-water handling capacity—in essence, at peak times—I expect the company to provide more stringent treatment standards by 31 December 2005. The hon. Gentleman is right to note that there is only secondary treatment, but the proposal is that standards should be tightened up.
Tighter standards are required to take account of population growth in the area and to protect good water quality in the River Itchen. I expect improvements at the treatment works. A range of new technologies is becoming available, which will considerably improve discharge quality. They are currently under consideration by all water companies, and I hope that Southern Water will look into them.
I shall touch briefly on the general principle of sewer flooding, as the hon. Gentleman is right about its prevalence. Last autumn, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to consider further measures to tackle sewer flooding. It specifically asked companies to prioritise sewer flooding alleviation projects primarily on an assessment of the severity and frequency of the problem, not simply on the cost. Companies were also asked to include the worst cases of external flooding in addition to internal flooding.
We expect that additional investment by companies before 2005 will be considered by Ofwat, as part of the logging-up process, and I understand that Southern Water has agreed to spend an additional £10 million on major flood alleviation schemes in the period up to 2005. In the longer term, as part of the current price control
regime, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to include a prioritised list of projects and costs in their business plans for 2005–10. Companies could include costed proposals to extend or improve their sewerage network.I understand the pertinent points that the hon. Gentleman made about the level of investment and dividend, efficiency savings and costs to consumers. Southern Water's draft business plan suggested a 35 per cent. increase, but that was the initial business plan. The regulator will put those plans under rigorous scrutiny. I am sure that all the assumptions and bids will be carefully scrutinised. I want to see continued improvement, but I do not want the cost simply to be passed on to consumers. Efficiency gains, company profits and long-term investment programmes must be considered. We would expect the regulator to look at all those issues, and I have every confidence that the regulator will do so.
My Department's role in the review is to make clear to companies, regulators, customers and investors the Government's views on such issues, as well as the maintenance and renewal of sewerage assets. In the initial guidance that the Secretary of State issued to the director general of water services in January, it was made clear that sewerage undertakers' assets should be maintained in a way that will deliver a high standard of serviceability to customers and the environment and that, within the priorities of water company programmes, there needs to be an increase in the rate at which companies rectify sewer flooding problems if they are to get on top of the situation. That guidance has been given to the regulator. We want to ensure that sewer flooding and sewer repair and maintenance continue to be high on the agenda of both Ofwat and the companies.
As part of the current stage of the price review, we are considering issues that should be included in the final periodic review guidance to Ofwat, which will be published in January. That ministerial guidance relates to the kind of priorities that we want to see. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the issues that he has raised, including costs, will certainly be taken into consideration as we prepare that guidance.
Mr. Chidgey: I can see that the Minister is getting to the end of his response, so I want to intervene quickly. One of the issues that he has perhaps not been able to address so far is that of local authorities being in the loop with water companies as statutory consultees. I mentioned that in my remarks. Could he perhaps give me some guidance on what is proposed in that respect?
Mr. Morley: I am happy to do so. Those are important issues, and we are considering that point. It is true to say that water companies are not currently statutory consultees in the planning process. I agree that, in relation to further housing development in Eastleigh, it is important for Southern Water to be involved in the process to understand the projections, so that it can consider the implications for its infrastructure. We have addressed that to a very large extent.
Planning guidance, which is issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, makes it clear to planning authorities that they need to work closely and at an early stage with water and sewerage undertakers, so that new water supply and disposal infrastructure is timed to coincide with the development that it serves so that, if expansion in needed, the plans for that investment can be put in place. Of course, that is the point of structure plans and district plans, which are publicly available so that everyone who has an interest can be aware of what is planned for the long term.
I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that those non-statutory arrangements are inadequate. My information is that Southern Water is often consulted on planning authorities by the local authorities and that it is happy to offer guidance and advice, so it feels very much involved. Of course, if it were felt that the current arrangements, which are based on planning policy guidance, were not satisfactory, we might want to consider that in the future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |