HC Deb 24 June 1976 vol 913 cc2015-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

We have been listening to an interesting debate about people who are in difficulties—pensioners and others on fixed incomes. I want to raise a grievance affecting very much the same sort of people. I am grateful to have the opportunity tonight of doing so. My subject is one that affects many householders throughout the country who are obliged, through circumstances and situation, to use sealed cesspits for their soil drainage systems.

I find that there is still some confusion in the minds of people as to the difference between a septic tank and a cesspit. I am sorry that at 12.47 a.m. I have to go into detail on this. Generally speaking, the former, if properly constructed with adequate filter beds and easy drainage through the surrounding soil structure, should operate effectively for many years without attention. I have had a house with septic tank drainage for 22 years and it has been emptied only twice.

A sealed cesspit, by the nature of its construction, must be emptied as soon as it is full. It depends very much upon its size how often that is done. Often it is as much as once a quarter, or possibly even more frequently if it serves a large family or business concern, or if it is of small capacity, as is often the case.

I do not blame the Government for the present situation. They are not responsible for the structure of local government or for the undemocratic regional water authorities with which England and Wales are unfortunately saddled. Nor could they reasonably have anticipated the outcome of the now famous Daymond case heard in the other place earlier this year which necessitated the more recent Water Charges Act, which, quite rightly, had to take account of the Law Lords' decision in that case. The decision was that householders without the benefit of a main drainage system should not have to pay a sewerage charge.

I suggest to the Minister that the Government cannot continue to hide behind the excuse that they can do nothing further until some decisions are reached on the recent consultation document. This is the sort of answer we get every time we put Questions down in the House. Of course these deliberations will take a considerable time. But the fact is that many of our fellow-citizens are now facing hardship as a result of the Daymond case and the extraordinary differing scales of charges being levied by local councils and the various water authorities.

Take some examples from my own constituency to illustrate what is happening. In 1974/75 the Medina Borough Council provided two free emptyings of cesspits a year, after which a fixed rate of £4 was charged for each subsequent emptying, irrespective of quantity. In the current financial year the council has a fixed charge of £15 for each complete emptying, including the disposal. It intends to review these charges every year with a view to levying charges by 1978 which are sufficient to cover the full cost of the service, whatever that may be. It contemplates that the charge of £13 will rise, and rise substantially, by 1st April 1978. Out of the £13, the council has to pay £2.44 for each 1,000 gallons removed to the Southern Water Authority, which claims that its charges are amongst the lowest of any regional authority in the country.

The South Wight Borough Council used to make four free emptyings of cess pits a year. It is now charging £13.43 for removing the first 1,000 gallons alone, and £11.27 for each subsequent visit. For the average size cesspit of 4,500 gallons, a householder is charged as much as £60 for each emptying. It is not unusual for a constituent to want four emptyings a year. Total charges can be as much as £250. I have checked these figures with the Southern Water Authority.

No wonder my constituent, Mr. Arthur Pitt, of Bonchurch, near Ventnor, complained in a recent letter to the Isle of Wight County Press that he is facing charges of £53 to £63 for each emptying of his cesspit. His total charges are over £250 a year, and that is on top of £149 for his rates. As he is an old-age pensioner, he has not got the sort of income to pay these excessive charges.

He is not the only one. The fact that people have cesspits at all is often the result of planning or public health requirements, and they find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. To add insult to injury, these people are required to pay VAT for the service, and they cannot get rate rebates on the charges.

Another constituent, Mr. Lister, of Lake, near Sandown, needs to have his cesspit emptied five times a year, and he is faced with the choice of not flushing his toilet—a pretty grim prospect in this hot weather—or of allowing his cesspit to overflow. He will probably fall foul of the public health inspector. Others resort to knocking a hole in the bottom of their tanks because they cannot afford these charges.

A third constituent lives in a water catchment area. He is obliged by the water authority to contain his effluent in a cesspit. When I applied on his behalf for a reduced charge for emptying the cesspit, because he had been drawn into having a cesspit by the rules of the water authority, I got no response.

On inquiry, I found that charges in other parts of the country varied from £20 for a first emptying and £10 thereafter in Cardigan to only £7 in Devon and £12 in Oxford. I heard of other cases in Scotland where the charge would go up as much as £200. There is just no consistency, and I believe that the Government must surely do something about that. It is their duty to request local authority associations and the water authorities to agree on a standard and, if necessary, a subsidised fixed charge throughout the country pending some further legislation which I would hope would return us to the position which obtained formerly when everyone paying rates made a contribution towards drainage.

The only alternative is to advise householders to appeal to the valuation officers for reassessment of their gross values. If the valuation officer does the job properly, I suggest that there will have to be some substantial reductions. Who would pay a rent of any size for a property which will face charges of up to £250 a year to empty the cesspit? These householders include old-age pensioners and other people on fixed incomes who fact not only these charges but huge increases in electricity and gas charges and the rates. This matter can be left no longer. It is a terrible worry to the people concerned, and I hope that tonight the Minister of State will give an assurance that something will be done to help. I am glad to give the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on having succeeded where I failed in securing an Adjournment debate on this subject. I congratulate him on what he has said and thank him for his courtesy in allowing me a couple of moments to reinforce his case.

I imagine that many hon. Members would also be reinforcing that case if they had the opportunity, because this is a matter of immense importance to most rural areas. Townsfolk may take sewage disposal for granted, but the Minister of State will know that in many rural areas it is a matter of crucial importance to thousands, perhaps millions, of people. In my area of the Swale District Council, which has many parish councils, large numbers of individuals have expressed their great and understandable alarm about the charges they face this year for cesspool emptying.

I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that the question of how this situation arose and why we face these circumstances is less important than the main issue. These are matters of history. It is more important now to know how we shall tackle this serious problem. I hope that the Minister will recognise how serious it is and say that there is some way in which action can be taken to deal with it, not in the years ahead, but this year.

Perhaps I may give an example—just one of many—from my constituency of the sort of case which has arisen. A constituent of mine last year paid £3024 for cesspool emptyings. This year he is faced with paying £140.58. That is not as serious as many cases, but it is a tangible example of what is happening. One can imagine the alarm felt by a person faced with the prospect of paying that amount of money. Even taking account of the credit on the general service charge of £26, my constituent will still be paying £114 more than last year's bill.

Many people are facing extra payments of hundreds of pounds. Some way must be found of ensuring that this extra charge levied by the water authorities is lifted. I should like to see the restoration of the position before re-organisation when it was the widespread practice of local authorities to make no charge, or only a nominal charge, for emptying and to deal with treatment as part of their overall responsibility for disposal without a special charge being levied above that of the amount included in the general rate.

If a village is put on the main drainage, it is inconceivable that the major capital cost would be borne only by ratepayers in the village. Just as that cost would fall upon the general ratepayers, the reception and treatment of sewage from cesspits should be part of the general responsibilities of water authorities.

I hope the Minister has some words of comfort and hope for the many people who are alarmed by the present situation.

1.1 a.m.

The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell)

I am grateful to the two hon. Members who have taken part in this debate for putting in a moderate manner a case about which they and their constituents feel very strongly.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for appreciating my difficulties and making clear that he exonerates the Government from any responsibility—at least so far.

It is not possible to change the law, as the hon. Members have asked, in the forseeable future. I am well aware of the extent of concern on this matter. There are no reliable figures, but we estimate that there are about 900,000 cesspits in this country, which gives an indication of the scope of the problem.

I sympathise greatly with the many people who have found themselves in difficulty. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred to the difficulties faced by pensioners. The only immediate comfort I can give him is to say that I have ascertained that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will consider these increased charges as a matter for its concern. The hon. Member could suggest to old people on supplementary benefit that they make inquiries in that direction. I recognise, of course, that this will not bring much comfort to pensioners who do not receive a supplement.

We must ask what has caused these increased charges. There are two elements. First, local authorities can charge for emptying cesspits, but they do not have to. They can provide the whole service or some emptyings free of charge. The Secretary of State has no power to interfere with that unfettered discretion.

Hon. Members will have more influence than I with their own local authorities. If this problem is of the dimension suggested, the first thing to be done is for hon. Members and their constituents to press local authorities to ensure that the full economic charge is not made in certain cases. It is for the local authorities to decide, but I think it is for the hon. Gentlemen and their constituents to press their local authorities to exercise their discretion rather than to ask me to take immediate action, which cannot be taken having regard to the difficulties of the parliamentary timetable.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I have made representations, as I am sure other hon. Members have, to my local authority. I have illustrated the wide variation in charges throughout the country. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should contact the local authority associations, for example. Surely this is a matter that he could take up with them.

Mr. Howell

I shall refer to the associations later, but perhaps more enlightened members should be elected to the local authorities. If the pricing policy is producing a heavy burden on certain sections of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it would seem that he has a legitimate point to put to the authority.

The second element in the cause of the increase is that the water authorities can charge for the disposing of the contents of cesspits. The local authorities do the emptying and the water authorities carry out the disposing. As a result of local government reorganisation, there are now two authorities involved, both of which are increasing their charges.

That is the legal position, but let us consider what is actually happening. The Department of the Environment, together with the local authority associations, has asked all local authorities to keep down public expenditure—that seems to have the support of both sides of the House—by reviewing their charges and ensuring that the services they perform for their electors are carried out on an economic basis.

I take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy for those who are facing these greatly increased charges, but one of the consequences of the Daymond case was for local authorities and water authorities to carry out a real economic costing of the actual charges of the services they had been rendering. They found that they had been offering these services at an uneconomic price.

It may be right that local authorities and water authorities should be prepared to keep down the price by subsidising these activities, but the cost has to be paid by someone. That is why I said that 900,000 households are affected. If we did not charge the householders the full economic charge, the bill would have to be met by someone. That would inevitably mean increased charges for other householders.

Many of those who were making loud noises at the time of the Daymond case and who demanded immediate relief failed to realise that they would set in train reviews of economic prices. To a large measure that is what happened. The recipients of the benefits obtained by the Daymond case, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) fairly pointed out, have had a rebate this year. They have had a rebate this year as a result of that Law Lords' judgment. As they have had a rebate, I suppose that it is inevitable that they are now faced with this action by the appropriate authority.

Concerning charging policy, my Department has given, as I say, only general advice to local authorities about charges—to keep these matters under constant review. However, I agree that it is reasonable to ask local authorities, when doing that, also to weigh the social consequences of what they are doing and questions of economic hardship upon various people. I hope that they will do that. I certainly undertake to draw the attention of the local authority associations to this debate and to what both hon. Members have said, in order that the authorities may weigh the economic considerations concerning their finances against the individual hardships which at present are undoubtedly occurring.

I should like to make one point in response to the comment that people might knock the bottoms out of their cesspits and let them drain away naturally. That would be an illegal act under the legislation for control of pollution. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight was not condoning in any way any sort of illegal practice, because all of us have spent a lot of time recently trying to tighten up our control of pollution legislation. It is important not to send people off down that path.

I come finally to the question of what we are to do about all this. There is no escape from saying that we have to wait for the review of the water industry, because if the Government are to intervene at all, they can do so, as I have already explained, only if the law is changed. There is no prospect of a change in the law on the water industry until this review has been carried out.

What is interesting is that the new water undertakings, the nine regional water authorities which have been established, which are nine separate nationalised bodies, have been running for only two or three years. Normally it would be totally unthinkable for this House, having established such a machinery, immediately to conduct a review of it. But that is what the Government are doing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and I have made common cause on this on many occasions. We know that the reorganisation of local government and water, taken together, have perpetrated a great nonsense upon the people of this country, and the reorganisations have been found to be very objectionable by most people. I appreciate that feeling. That is why we issued the consultation document and stated that we were prepared to look at the water industry.

However, we have outlined our proposals. They are, specifically, that, instead of having nine or 10 separate nationalised industries in this country and in Wales, we should have one national water authority, although the present regional water authorities would continue within their regions. There would then be a nationally co-ordinated strategy and nationally co-ordinated planning. But until we have got that, we cannot get what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is asking for, which is some form of national agreement about charging policy concerning emptying cesspits and disposing of the contents.

The present system hallows the different approaches by different regional water authorities, and we have no power to interfere. It is already clear from what we are being told that different views are coming forward as to what might happen in the near future.

There is one possibility, which I mentioned when answering a Question yesterday, and which was also put forward by the hon. Member for Faversham, with which I have much sympathy. That is that the whole of this business should be taken over by the water authorities, which should empty the cesspits and then charge people the normal water rate, as they charge other householders. However, I am putting that forward only as one of the ideas that we are considering, without any commitment, because I am bound to consult all the local authority associations. One cannot take away powers from the local authorities without their agreement, and one would not dream of even considering that without having their careful advice, which I have not yet seen. Many of the comments from the regional water authorities go down that road. Others suggest that we should have a number of free emptyings a year—two or three, for instance—and then charge for the others. There are various views on that.

I want legislation to come forward as soon as possible after comments on the consultation document on all the problems. But it will be difficult in the next 12 months to bring legislation before the House because of devolution and other important matters.

I realise the problems that are involved. We will ask the local authority associations to take both the hardship and the economic factors into account. We have asked for all comments on the consultation document to be in by 31st July this year. We shall proceed with all possible speed to try to clear up the mess that the legislation has caused and to introduce more satisfactory arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past One o'clock.