| Water Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): I find this discussion slightly incredible. Has my hon. Friend examined the reason that solicitors do not inform property buyers that they could find themselves in that situation? Andy King: That is a very good point. The Minister and the authorities have considered it on several occasions. The search asks only whether a property is connected to a public sewer, yes or no, but it should also allow the answer, ''yes, eventually.'' We are trying to remedy that, and we are putting matters right with new standards. We have drawn a line under the situation. Before 1936–37, we were okay, so the problem is just with the years since then. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): It is worth putting it on the record that solicitors have started doing environmental as well as legal searches in the past two or three years, and those facts and figures are now starting to emerge. People who now buy houses have knowledge of the problem, so the Committee's concern is with the historic problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Andy King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Indeed, with buyer's packs, we are beginning to give people much better information so that they can make an informed decision. We have a timely opportunity. In the early days, the water companies did not want to know about the problem, but they, too, have moved considerably. Only a year ago, the managing director of Severn Trent made it clear that adoption was the only way forward. Let us get it right and put in the money. Adoption could be phased in but, even if it were done Column Number: 344 tomorrow, it would mean adding about £3 a year to household bills throughout the country.Mr. Wiggin: I just wanted to clarify that point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an addition of £3 to household bills across the country, but that is not quite right. There is a certain geographical distribution of the problem. For example, in my constituency, the majority of houses are in rural areas and have their own septic tanks, so they will not pick up the bill. Will not the cost hit some areas much harder than others? Andy King: That is a very important point. In my area, we are starting to put matters right. Flecknoe was the last village in my area in which the septic tank was causing problems and giving rise to worries about the environment through seepage and all the rest of it. We have put in new sewers to villages, and I am delighted by the progress that has been made. We must treat the problem as a public health matter and share the burden properly across the whole country. The cost will work out at about £3 per household among those who pay water rates for being attached to a public sewer. Those who are not attached to a public sewer will not receive that part of the bill until their properties are connected. My final point is that people in my estate are incensed because they pay exactly the same amount as the people across the road in a different estate whose sewers are adopted, and they say that they want a 30-year rebate. We have an opportunity to put right a grave injustice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who says that this is a prodding amendment. We want the Minister to take it on board. Mr. Morley: I have listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood, for Stroud and for Rugby and Kenilworth and by the hon. Members for Salisbury and for Lewes. I have attended the all-party group on sewers on several occasions to discuss the particular problems in some detail. I understand that this is a major problem throughout the country. There will not be many constituency MPs who have not had the matter raised with them—people have certainly raised it in my constituency. We are trying to address the situation. We commissioned a study by W.S. Atkins to ascertain the scale of the problem and to give us some options for tackling it. The results of that consultation are being analysed and will probably not be known until the beginning of next year. One problem with the parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is that the results are still coming in, but I can tell him that so far we have received 150 responses from individuals and organisations. He might also like to know that 86 per cent. of respondents are in favour of a change of ownership for private sewers. Of that 86 per cent., 92 per cent. consider that sewerage undertakers are best placed to take on that responsibility. There are, however, financial implications, which hon. Members have touched on. We must consider what will happen to people's bills, and a lot of work Column Number: 345 must be done to assess that major consideration. I understand the strength of feeling about this problem, and our work appears to indicate that it is much larger than people thought. The figures suggest that 50 per cent. of all domestic properties are connected to private sewers in one form or another.The bad news is that costs may be very high. The good news is that if the problem affects a lot of people, there is a stronger justification for adopting a solution involving the sewage companies and, therefore, spreading the cost. We must consider those matters when we have had a chance fully to evaluate the representations received as part of the public consultation on the W.S. Atkins report. I appreciate that this is a prodding amendment. It would add to the Bill permissive powers to take the Column Number: 346 matter forward through the adoption of private sewers when all the analysis and work has been completed at the end of the consultation. However, it might take some time to phase in the adoption of private sewers because of the cost implications. I do not know about that, but we must do the work and be open and transparent.My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has made a powerful case on permissive powers. I understand the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—the issue is important in his area—and other members of the Committee. It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 21 October 2003 | |
