| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendment 16, in page 27, line 35, at end add-
'(8) As soon as practicable after the bringing into force of this section, the Secretary of State shall make such building regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 as may be necessary for the purposes of this section.'.
Amendment 17, in page 28, line 7, at end insert-
'(4) At the beginning of subsection (4) of section 105A (schemes for the adoption of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works) insert "Subject to section 105AA".
(5) After section 105A of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert-
"105AA Transfers of sewers and property rights
(1) A sewerage undertaker shall not be required to make a declaration pursuant to a scheme made under section 105A in relation to-
(a) a sewage disposal works; or
(b) a sewer or lateral drain forming part of a sewerage system which-
(i) incorporates one or more pumping stations, or
until the undertaker has acquired all the property and rights described in subsection (2) below.
(2) The property and rights referred to in subsection (2) above are-
(a) all lands, easements and other rights necessary for securing, maintaining and operating the sewage disposal works, pumping stations and outfalls; and
(b) all consents to discharge that may be required under Part III of the Water Resources Act 1991 (Control of pollution of water resources) in relation to the sewers, lateral drains, pumping stations, sewage disposal works and their associated outfalls.
(3) The sewerage undertaker must use its best endeavours to acquire the property and rights referred to in subsection (2) above, in particular (in relation to the property and rights referred to in subsection (2)(a) by offering to enter into agreements with the owners of such property and rights for the acquisition of those property and rights on such terms as may be reasonable.
(4) Any questions arising under subsection (3) above between the sewerage undertaker and an owner of any property or right referred to in subsection (2)(a) above over the terms on which the property or right should be acquired may be referred by either party to the Authority for determination under section 30A above."'.
Amendment 14, in page 28, line 12, at end add-
'(5) The requirement under Condition 2 must comply with regulations made by the Minister.'.
Amendment 18, in page 28, line 12, at end add-
'(5) After "1st September 1989" in subsection (7) of section 199 (Sewer maps), insert ", or adopted by it under a scheme made pursuant to regulations made under section 105A,"'.
Amendment 2, in schedule 3, page 50, line 1, at end add-
'(c) increasing the efficiency of the use made of available water.'.
Amendment 3, in page 50, line 16, at end add-
'(f) protecting health and safety, and
(g) increasing the efficiency of the use made of available water.'.
Amendment 23, in page 51, line 5, leave out 'county council' and insert
'local planning authority (as defined in section 1(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)'.Government amendments 53 and 54.
Amendment 19, in page 54, line 26, at end add-
'(4) The Minister shall ensure that provisions are in place which guarantee the cost of a new development's connection to a SUDS and sewerage system are born equally by the new households that benefit from the new connection.'.
Government amendments 55 and 56.
Amendment 15, in page 59, line 4, at beginning insert-
'(1) At the end of section 1A add-
(1) In making building regulations, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of section 106B of the Water Industry Act 1991."'.
Miss McIntosh: I shall make some introductory remarks before speaking specifically to our group of proposed changes, which, if the House will bear with me, range over a number of issues.
Recommendation 10 of the Pitt report goes to the heart of this group of proposed changes and, I would argue, to the heart of the Bill's purpose and aim. In that recommendation, Pitt clearly concluded:
"The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed."
I hope that this is just a semantic difference, but in Committee we had quite a debate-one might almost say a major argument-about whether the automatic right to connect related only to SUDS, whether we understand SUDS to mean sustainable urban drainage or sustainable drainage systems, and new drainage. The purpose of this group of proposed changes is to give effect to Pitt's overall aim, which is what I believe the Government intended. If we are to give legal effect to recommendation 10, we have to follow through the logic of Sir Michael Pitt's argument, and that involves sustainable drainage relating not only to existing ponds, which might relate to major developments, and highway overflows, but to major new developments. I hope that I can carry the Minister and the House with me.
New clause 3 sets out the framework and scope for pilot schemes on the adoption of private drains. I have introduced the proposal because I understand that the Minister still cannot tell us the status of the investigations. Ofwat, as part of the agreed 2009 price review, has set aside substantial amounts of money to undertake those investigations, and I understand also that the Minister is in default by not having come forward with the guidance that is required to give legal effect to the transfer of lateral drains and sewers by 2011. The water and sewerage companies say that the guidance should be consulted on now, well before the election, whatever that may bring, so that the Government can meet the obligation to introduce the transfer from 2011.
I am sure that the Minister, like other right hon. and hon. Members, will have received a huge amount of correspondence from the small drainage companies-not exactly the Dyno-Rods of this world, but the small family firms-undertaking repairs that are small in size but large in number. Throughout, they have vociferously argued that they have not been properly consulted on the transfer and adoption of private drains and sewers. I should like the Minister to tell us what consultation has taken place and what assurances have been given to those small family firms. The Dyno-Rods of this world will probably continue. I do not know Yorkshire Water's position on the matter, but even a major water company, such as Yorkshire Water, would be hard-pressed to undertake all the work that will be required after the transfer. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister to tell the House where we stand, because sole traders and small, family-run firms are concerned that they might be put out of business.
Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): Do I have to go back to my constituents-some 1,000 electors-on the Haddocks estate in Tilehurst, who have waited almost 10 years for legislation on the drains that they thought were in the public domain but by accident discovered were not, and tell them that the laudable objectives of the Pitt review and of this legislation could be delayed as a result of new clause 3, which requires a pilot scheme to be set up and that we take cognisance of the needs of some drainage companies over people who have been living with a nightmare for many years? What exactly is the hon. Lady trying to achieve?
Miss McIntosh: I am calling not for a delay, but for a sense of urgency. The hon. Gentleman's Government have delayed bringing forward the guidance and the investigation that is needed. Some constituents, many of whom may be small employers in their own right, will owe their livings to these small drainage companies. They are saying clearly, not only to Conservative Members, I am sure, but to those in all parties represented in this House, that they are worried that they have not been consulted on this. I want an assurance from the Minister that they will be consulted and that there will be work for them in future. I want to know what pilot schemes have been in place and why there has not been an audit, where that is the case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we still do not know how many kilometres there are or where these private drains and sewers are. I am not calling for a delay-I am asking the Government to speed up and reach a conclusion so that we can meet their target date of transferring by 2011.
7.30 pm
Martin Salter: I am in no way impugning the hon. Lady's motives-if she wants to speak up for these contractors, she has every right to do so. My problem, as a constituency Member, is that I am looking at a new clause that says:
"The Environment Agency must establish a pilot scheme with the aim of...auditing all private drains and sewers".
In my constituency, the audit has been done, and we are merely awaiting the transfer of powers. I worry that if this provision were built into the Bill, it would put another layer of delay in the way of my constituents who have been waiting for more than 10 years for their drains to be adopted.
Miss McIntosh: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are arguing the same case. I want the Minister to confirm that the guidance is ready to go. Those in the industry-not the small contractors but the large water and sewerage companies-are saying to us that they would like to be consulted on the guidance now. The Government have a mixed record on consulting on guidance; this is their opportunity to say that the guidance is there and ready to go, but that they have had to undertake these consultations. I have seen heartbroken people, not only in my own constituency, because we are all affected by this. I can take the hon. Gentleman to see constituents who are affected by these provisions. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), people had no idea that they owned these drains and sewers until they flooded in 2007.
Mrs. Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of consultation of these people is symptomatic of the Government's lack of
detailed thinking on this entire issue? The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) should remember that the Government promised to make these transfers in 2007. If they had taken action then by mapping out the sewerage network, perhaps they would be in a better place today.
Miss McIntosh: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In some areas, water companies know about this and are ready to go, but in others they are not. There are two elements involved. We need the guidance so that the industry can be consulted, and we need to reassure the smaller drainage companies that currently do this work that it is intended that they will be consulted.
In his letter to me dated 30 December 2009, the Minister seemed to indicate that the ongoing work had resulted in further consultation, but that the regulations are not yet in a position to be published. Let me repeat my question: when will the regulations be published, and what consultation has there been on them? If these regulations are not published prior to April-May, before the general election, will that delay the coming into effect of the transfer?
New clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 relate to the definition and ownership of sustainable drainage. Most importantly, new clause 7 would write into the Bill that there will be an end to the automatic right to connect. It is unacceptable that major new housing developments are being built because of an arbitrary target that the Government have introduced to have a major housing programme of x million houses by x date. As a result, residents of fairly recent developments may, through no fault of their own, be flooded by sewage because it has not been possible for the water and sewerage companies to attach conditions and take the opportunity at the planning stage to ensure that the infrastructure will accept new capacity from these major new housing developments. I believe that the polluter should pay. The residents of houses in major new developments may be affected in the event of flooding, as we saw in the floods of 2007. As we know, Madam Deputy Speaker, if sewage is coming into your home, or the Minister's home, that is polluted water, which means that the homeowner or tenant cannot return for a substantial period because the public health hazard means that it will take longer to clean up.
New clauses 7 and 8 say that there should be no automatic right to connect. The water company should be a statutory consultee on the same legal basis that has been established with the Environment Agency, which now sets conditions. Those conditions are sometimes overlooked or overruled, and then we go on to experience flooding. In this regard, we want water companies to be treated on exactly the same basis as the Environment Agency. I would argue that new clauses 7 and 8 would go to the heart of implementing Pitt's recommendation 10 in ensuring that there is no automatic right to connect. It is unacceptable that existing customers of water companies in possibly quite recent developments should be asked to pay for any potential incapacity problems if sewage backs up and then overflows into their homes. The polluter should pay. It should be open to the water companies to say to the SUDS-approving body at the time when the planning application is
sought that they can accept such conditions to reduce any potential floods. I think that the new clauses speak for themselves.
The Local Government Association has expressed concern about what the layers of approving bodies should be. As the Minister is aware, if district councils are not included, that will have perverse consequences. We try to resolve that issue in this little group of amendments. District councils, which are usually the planning authorities in two-tier areas, should have responsibility for approving SUDS relating to major new housing developments. County councils should have responsibility, as at present, for SUDS relating to the overflow from highway spillages. It is important to have clarification in that regard.
I hope that the Minister will accept, and take the opportunity to say so, that he is over-egging the amount that local authorities will save in the transfer of private sewers. Those figures are out of date. Private sewers are in private hands-they are not the responsibility of local authorities. We are also worried that because owners of private drains and sewers know that they will be transferred in 2011, there is a strong probability that their maintenance will lapse, so that when water and sewerage companies take over their ownership and maintenance there will be serious problems as regards the state of those assets, thereby imposing an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
In passing, I ask the Minister to clarify the implications of Government amendments 53 to 56 for the IDBs and others affected and whether, in his view, there will be any financial consequences.
Amendment 13 is, I hope, fairly clear. In our view, any development should be sustainable. If a major housing development causes an overflow and spillage from the existing sewerage system, it is clearly not sustainable because it is leading to pollution and unacceptable flooding. It cannot be sustainable if the capacity is simply not there. If amendment 13 and our other amendments in this group are accepted, we will comply with Pitt's recommendation 10.
The amendments cover universal build standards; the facilitation of access to and the operation of transferred sewage disposal works, pumping stations and outfalls; and the exemption from mapping of transferred sewers. Although the Bill provides that all new sewers and drains must be built to universal build standards, it allows the connection of new sewers and drains to the public sewerage network even if those standards have not been complied with. That cannot have been the Government's intention.
Our amendments therefore suggest that adoption agreements under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 should be supported by a non-performance guarantee. They further propose making it clear that adoption agreements must encompass protection of the existing public sewerage system from overloading, and thus from being a source of cost and pollution. The approval of new sewers and drains by sewerage undertakers would overlap with the functions of local authority building inspectors, so the Building Act 1984 would need to be consequentially amended so that regulations could be made to accommodate that overlap.
Our amendments would not make express provision for ending the automatic right of connection to public sewers, but they would give water companies enabling
powers to control the right to connect and hence reduce the risk of overloaded sewers, flooding and pollution.
Clause 42 will insert into the 1991 Act a new section 106B, which relates to the future of lateral drains and sewers, to which I referred earlier. We believe that the water and sewerage companies support the use of properly constructed and maintained SUDS, and that our consequential amendments are necessary to ensure that the existing system will not be overloaded by new developments. Any concerns about that problem would be satisfied by our amendments, particularly amendment 13, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). It sets out that adoption agreements should include provisions for protecting public sewer networks from becoming overloaded by the connection of new sewers, provisions for the reinforcement of the public sewer network if necessary, and provisions for water and sewerage companies to determine the point at which the new sewer is connected to the existing public sewer.
The amendment would also require the agreements to include a requirement for a non-performance guarantee or security to be provided by the developer, so that it could be called upon should they fail to complete the work or to construct a sewer to the required standards. That would allow a water and sewerage company to complete or rectify the works at no cost to itself.
The Minister might say that the Government are unable to accept the amendments because they will not enable them to meet their housing targets and because house builders will respond unfavourably. I believe that he is wrong in that regard and that if he follows the logic of our arguments, he will see that it is important to end the automatic right to connect and to recognise that water and sewerage companies should have the same legal basis as the Environment Agency. That is important not necessarily so that they can block major new developments from proceeding, but so that they can attach conditions to ensure that if there is any pollution, the developer will pass the potential costs on to the new householders. Amendment 19, to schedule 3, effectively sets that out. As I have said, it is unacceptable that through no fault of their own, existing customers of a water company should be asked to pay. Amendment 15 would make good the building regulations in that regard.
7.45 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |