---

Flood and Water Management Bill

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.