 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Flood and Water management Bill |
Flood and Water Management Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Mick
Hillyard, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 January 2010(Morning)[Mr. Eric Martlew in the Chair]Flood and Water Management BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseFW 19
Environment
Agency FW20
Mr. Ewan Larcombe (additional
memorandum) FW21
Wildfowl and Wetlands
Trust FW22 Dwr Cymru
Welsh
Water 9
am
The
Chairman: I am conscious that we are programmed to finish
the Bill at 5 o’clock today. It would be helpful if hon. Members
and the Minister were concise with their
comments.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): On a point of order,
Mr. Martlew. If it would help, I am more than happy to write
in detail to hon. Members after the Committee stage if they want to
inform me of the points they would have raised in the stand part
debates on clauses for which no amendments have been tabled, rather
than delay the
Committee.
Schedule 3Sustainable
Drainage Amendment
proposed (19 January): 149, in schedule 3, page 47,
leave out lines 36 to 39 and
insert— ‘(1) In this
Schedule “drainage system”
means— (a) a structure
designed to receive rainwater
except— (i) a public
sewer, or (ii) a natural
watercourse; and (b) any
lateral drain or sewer communicating with a drainage
system.’.—(Miss
McIntosh.) Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 150, in
schedule 3, page 48, leave out lines 4 and
5 and insert— ‘(3)
“Lateral drain”, “sewer” and “public
sewer” have the meanings given by section 219(1) of the Water
Industry Act
1991.’. Amendment
18, in
schedule 3, page 48, line 8, leave
out paragraph 2 and
insert— ‘“Sustainable
Urban Drainage System” means a drainage system
which—
(a) facilitates attenuation, settlement or treatment
of surface water from two or more premises (whether or not together
with road water), and (b)
includes one or more of the
following: (i)
inlet; (ii) outlet
structures; (iii)
swales; (iv) constructed
wetlands; (v)
ponds; (vi) filter
trenches; (vii) attenuation
tanks, and (viii) detention
basins (together with any associated pipes and
equipment).’. Amendment
163, in
schedule 3, page 48, line 12, after
‘the’, insert
‘natural’. New
clause 12—Sustainable urban drainage
systems— ‘A full
definition of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is
“Sustainable drainage systems or sustainable (urban) drainage
systems: a sequence of management practices and control structures
designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some
conventional techniques (may also be referred to as
SuDS).”.’. Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I was not entirely reassured by
the Minister’s comments on the group, but we have debated it
fully. I will therefore not press amendment 163 to a
vote. I
enjoyed the Minister’s explanatory remarks, which weaved through
the issue of urban, suburban or otherwise with regard to SUDS. I did
not find his clarification entirely convincing. Amendments 149, 150 and
18, and new clause 12 are extremely important. We submitted the
proposal on the Scottish definition for the purposes of debate and it
was not as convincing as the
others. We
have received a number of submissions from across the industry. The
consensus is that we have to get the definition right in clause 32 and
schedule 3. A number of water companies, the water industry and the
Consumer Council for Water are convinced that we need a proper
definition. The terms “sustainable drainage systems” and
“sustainable urban drainage systems” are interchangeable.
As I mentioned at the outset, they were called SUDS originally because
they tended to be in urban
areas. It
is important to say to the Minister that we need to understand that it
is particularly drainage systems that might pass into the sewerage
system that are of concern with regard to later clauses and amendments,
so that we can be sure that we fulfil Pitt’s recommendation of
ending the automatic right to connect. We will therefore press the
Minister on amendments 149 and 150 and new clause 12. We have had a
good rehearsal of the remarks. He might be minded to accept the
proposals. I do not know whether there has been a change in his
position after two days of reflection, but that would be most welcome.
If not, we will press the proposals to the
vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
8.
Division
No.
11] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly negatived.
Amendment
proposed: 150, in
schedule 3, page 48, leave out lines 4 and
5 and insert— ‘(3)
“Lateral drain”, “sewer” and “public
sewer” have the meanings given by section 219(1) of the Water
Industry Act 1991.’.—(Miss
McIntosh.) Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
12] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly negatived.
Miss
McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 30, in
schedule 3, page 48, line 37, leave
out ‘consult’ and insert
‘as soon as possible instigate, publish and
have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons
pertaining to the costs currently incurred by local authorties in
maintaining private sewers before the Schedule is
commenced’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 55, line 39, at end
insert— ‘(8) The Minister
must consult persons who in the Minister’s opinion represent
interests likely to be affected by this Schedule and publish a report
detailing how the adoption and maintenance of drainage systems is to be
funded before the Schedule is
commenced.’. New
clause 11—Pilot schemes for adoption of private
drains— ‘The
Environment Agency must establish a pilot scheme with the aim
of— (a) auditing all
private drains and sewers; (b)
assessing their condition; (c)
estimating the likely cost of adopting all private drains and sewers in
2011, and (d) estimating the
likely cost on customers’
bills.’.
Miss
McIntosh: I am glad to move this little group of
amendments relating to private drains and sewers. Is the Minister
minded to share with the Committee his letter to me dated 30 December
2009 in which he responded to a constituency case about the transfer of
private sewers? I want to refer to certain parts of that letter, the
particulars of which will be of interest to the
Committee. In
the letter the Minister confirmed that on 15 December 2008 the
Government announced that the transfer of all private sewers and
lateral drains linked to the public sewerage system would take place
from 2011. He also said that the transfer was the only comprehensive
solution to the range of problems presented by private sewers. We know
from the floods in 2007 and previously, that owners are often not made
aware of their liability when buying a property, and think it unfair
when they end up being held responsible for pipework outside their
property boundaries, often in neighbours’ gardens or under
highways. Private
sewer and lateral drain owners are well in the majority of sewerage
bill payers. The Minister stated in his letter that the Government have
always been mindful of the fact that transfer will lead to an increase
in customers’ sewerage bills, but that customer research has
indicated firm support for the transfer. I want to place on the record
our support for the
transfer. The
Minister said that about 180,000 km of private sewers and lateral
drains connected to the public network benefit from no effective
operational regime. He said that the transfer will provide a better
planned and more integrated management of the wider sewerage network.
What work have the Government undertaken, and what stage has it
reached, to enable them to state definitively where the kilometres of
private sewers and lateral drains are, and whether they have identified
ownership? In the context of the schedule, and particularly this small
group of amendments, such information is extremely important,
especially since the floods of 2007. I know from the many visits that
both I and other hon. Members made what a huge problem this is. The
Government have now had sufficient time to be able to tell us
definitively where the private sewers and lateral drains are, how many
there are, who owns them and who has been maintaining
them. The
Minister also states in his letter that the Government’s ongoing
work resulted in a further consultation in July 2007, which
followed an announcement in February of that year that the Government
were proceeding with the transfer. The summary response was published
in July 2008. The Minister also states that subject to approval by
Parliament of regulations to effect transfer, which will determine the
full extent of what is covered, the proposed transfer will apply to all
private sewers and lateral drains that drain into the public network,
including pumping stations and associated rising mains.
When will the
guidance be published? If the transfer is to take place next year, the
guidance must be published this year. It would be immensely helpful if
the Minister could give us a definitive month rather than just loosely
saying spring, summer or
autumn. Again
let me underscore the fact that we and the local authorities estimate
that the Government’s figures are completely wrong in relation
to other parts of the Bill. For example, the Minister believes that the
local government resources will be funded by the sale of the drains. If
the Minister has done the work that the Government said that they would
do, he must accept that most of the
ownership lies outwith the ownership of local authorities. That is a
very serious point and goes to the heart of the resource and funding of
other significant parts of the Bill. For that purpose, amendment 30
leaves out “consult” and insists that we proceed to
instigate and publish the review of independent persons to establish
the costs incurred by local authorities in maintaining private sewers
before the schedule is commenced. That will require the Minister to put
together an independent panel to review the current costs to local
authorities of maintaining private sewers, and have regard to their
findings before the clause commences. The reason why that is so
important is that the vast majority of such sewers do not fall within
the ownership of local authorities, which means that the
Government’s sums are plainly wrong, and go to the core of the
fact that local government authorities will not have the money from
their existing budgets to implement core parts of the
Bill. The
Local Government Association rejects the assumptions on the cost of
private sewers and supports this amendment, which requires the Minister
to review the current expenditure by local authorities on the
maintenance of private sewers before the schedule is brought into
action. The
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that
local authorities adopting the maintenance of SUDS will be funded in
part through this transfer of private sewers to water sewerage
companies, thereby alleviating local authorities of the responsibility
for investigating and dealing with potential problems. I should like to
put it on the record that the Local Government Association rejects the
assumption on the costs of private sewers. In its view, the assumptions
used by the Department are based on data that is seven years out of
date and is garnered from only 12 per cent. of local authorities.
Therefore, it does not bear out that the local authorities will have
anything like the resources that they need to implement other parts of
the
Bill. Therefore,
in its assumptions, the Department is creating fundamental weaknesses
in the impact assessments and we press the Government urgently to
review them.
9.15
am Amendment
31 requires the Minister to consult persons affected by schedule 3 and
publish a report setting out how the adoption and maintenance of
drainage systems is to be funded in the long term before the schedule
is commenced. The reason for the amendment is that the LGA believes,
again, that the model for charging for sustainable urban drainage
systems is unfair. DEFRA has stated that the model is time limited and
will, in any event, need to be revisited in eight years’ time.
Therefore, it is important that the issue is addressed now, not in
eight years’ time.
Further, the
Bill will create an unfair system for charging for SUDS, which will
mean that people connected on SUDS will not pay the drainage charges.
That clearly does not follow the “polluter pays”
principle to which we are wedded and, I believe, the Government are
also firmly attached, and will mean that some residents in the area
will be paying drainage while others will not. That must be dealt with.
Local government authorities
believe that all properties should pay a drainage charge, including
those that are drained into sustainable urban drains. That would not be
a new burden on property owners because those connected on mains
drainage already pay a charge as part of their water
bill. We
are seeking to ensure that sustainable funding for sustainable urban
drainage systems is in place from the commencement of schedule 3 coming
in effect. Without the amendment, the Government run the risk of
undermining the implementation of SUDS across the country, because
local authorities will legitimately be concerned about simply not
having the income stream necessary to maintain these urban drainage
systems in the future. The LGA is working with experts on alternative
systems and will be happy to meet and work with the Department to
create a sustainable funding
model. New
clause 11 relates to the fact that it would be pertinent at this time
for the Environment Agency to establish a pilot scheme with the aim of
auditing all private drains and sewers, assessing their condition,
estimating the likely cost of adopting all private drains and sewers in
2009 and estimating the likely cost on customers’ bills. I hope
that the Minister will have some regard to the concerns of many of
those points and that he will look favourably on my remarks. As I said
at the outset, without these amendments, it is simply impossible for us
to make good the recommendations contained in the Pitt
report.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 22 January 2010 |