---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I am tempted to say that new clause 3 and the Bill are for the people of Hatton and Hilton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), and of the Haddocks estate, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), and for every Member speaking today to try to remedy some of the problems that have rightly been identified. I am never one to rise to things—I am an eternal optimist and a fairly convivial chap—but the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has tempted me to respond to the accusation that the Government are laggards. The same was said during the debate on the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, but we are now introducing the marine conservation zones. After two or three consultations—I cannot remember the exact number; I was involved in them all, some times as a Back Bencher when they first started, so I know its importance to constituents, as all hon. Members have said—it has fallen to me as the Minister to deal with the tricky and complex issue of the transfer of private sewers. I pay tribute to the work of my predecessors in getting to this stage—I shall come to some of the consultation in a moment—and bringing the provisions forward in good shape. That means that any hitches will be less likely. The scale of the transfer is unprecedented, so we need to get it right; I shall come to that point in a moment, too. I will take the criticism that we are slightly late, but I will also take the plaudits for the Government for getting the job done properly. I shall get straight to the meat of the amendments and new clauses, although I do not know whether I can persuade the hon. Member for Vale of York on this matter. I was trying to remember who wrote the song, "Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood", because I think that I may be misunderstood here. Nevertheless, I will do my best to explain the rationale behind my response to the new clauses and amendments. New clause 3 would require the Environment Agency to establish a pilot scheme, as has been mentioned, to ascertain the extent and condition of private sewers and drains, and to estimate the likely costs of the transfer to water and sewerage companies. Hon. Members have already expressed some concerns about that; I ask the House to allow me to express mine. The proposal would impose an unnecessary and a disproportionately costly new burden on the EA, as we discussed in Committee. The EA has no direct responsibility for private sewers, so the impact on it would bear no comparison to any real benefit. To reiterate what I said in Committee, the latest estimate from UK water industry research into the costs of a full audit to ascertain the extent and condition of private sewers is in excess of £1 billion. Even to undertake pilot schemes would be proportionately extremely expensive—and all before a single penny is spent on the cost of repairs. It would also duplicate work that is already more appropriately undertaken by water and sewerage companies and their independent economic regulator, Ofwat. The estimates were set out in the impact assessment accompanying the Government's announcement in December 2008 of their decision to proceed with the transfer. Moreover, the new clause is entirely unnecessary. One water and sewerage company has done some preliminary work in its area and found that, although there were more private sewers than it expected, they were also in better condition than it expected. Another experienced difficulty in getting property owners' co-operation. Pilots are not a new idea. The Government consulted on them in July 2007, and 70 per cent. of respondents rejected the case for pilots. The stakeholder steering group assisting DEFRA's review of private sewers agreed with that view. I do not accept, therefore, that pilots—well intentioned as the idea is—are likely to yield sufficiently useful information to warrant the cost and, as mentioned, the delay in bringing the benefits of transfer to householders. The cost of an audit would be better spent tackling the real problems with private sewers. Amendment 17 refers to the transfer of sewage treatment works alongside other assets and access rights.