HC Deb 19 April 1977 vol 930 cc46-8

4.11 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the liability to pay general sewerage and sewerage disposal charges levied by water authorities to all domestic ratepayers in their areas whose hereditaments are without sewerage and to remove from such ratepayers any liability to pay other charges levied by local authorities and water authorities in respect of collection and disposal of the contents of cesspools and septic tanks. The purpose of this Bill is to change the legal basis for payment for the disposal of sewage from those domestic properties, nearly all in rural areas, that are not connected to main sewers. Sewage from such properties usually flows into cesspools or septic tanks buried at the bottom of the garden, and these have to be emptied from time to time and the contents taken away.

Before local government reorganisation, the emptying of cesspools and septic tanks was generally undertaken by rural district councils, most of which provided this service financed by the rates, although I understand that there was no legal obligation for them to provide the service free of extra charge.

When reorganisation took place, responsibility for sewerage and sewage disposal passed to the new water authorities, which are distinct from local authorities, and it appears to have been the general intention, in applying the provisions of the Water Act 1973, that all domestic ratepayers should be liable to pay the general sewerage charges of the water authorities, irrespective of whether their properties were connected to the main sewers.

Whether that was the policy of the Government of the day who brought in the Water Act is not for me to say, but what has become clear is that the wording of the Act has not achieved the objective that was generally intended in regard to sewerage charges. When the rate demands went out in 1974, including amounts for general sewerage charges, some ratepayers with properties not connected to sewers challenged the validity of the charges in their case. The eventual decision of their Lordships in the Daymond case was that no liability imposed by the Water Act 1973 for general sewerage charges extended to ratepayers without sewerage, so no general sewerage charges have since been levied on those ratepayers.

However, their sewage still has to be collected, and most district councils have continued to provide the collection and disposal service for ratepayers without sewerage. But, as they have not been paying for the service in any other way, these ratepayers have found that local authorities have devised their own charging schemes for the collection and disposal of sewage, and in many areas these charges came into effect only this month.

The pattern of charges varies considerably from one area to another depending upon the policy of the local authority, but I have the impression that most authorities doing this are charging a set fee for each visit to collect sewage. Such schemes bear particularly heavily on those ratepayers who have cesspools rather than septic tanks, because cesspools allow for no liquid seepage into the ground and therefore soon fill up. Septic tanks, on the other hand, need emptying much less frequently, in some instances only once every two or three years.

The problem for cesspool owners has recently been clearly demonstrated in that part of my constituency which lies in the Doncaster metropolitan borough, particularly in the rural communities of Fishlake, Sykehouse and Hatfield Woodhouse. Because that area is low lying with a high water table, property owners without sewerage must have cesspools rather than septic tanks. The borough council, when first devising a charges scheme for cesspool emptying, proposed a fee of £7 for each 1,000 gallons collected.

For some of my constituents this would have produced an annual bill of some £400 to £500 per household—an intoler- able burden. Not unnaturally, they made strong protests. I have received more letters on this subject than on any other single problem since I first became the Member for the constituency six years ago. As a result, I feel duty bound to press for a change in the law on this question so that all domestic ratepayers will become liable for the general sewerage charges of water authorities, whether or not their properties are connected to main sewers, and that they should then have no other liability for charges levied by district councils for the collection and disposal of sewage. That is what this Bill aims to achieve.

In terms of general principle it seems right that all citizens should pay for the removal of their sewage on the same basis, whether that removal is through pipes into main sewers or by the emptying of the contents of cesspools or septic tanks. I ask the House now to approve that general principle by giving leave for this Bill to be introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. John Mendelson, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Michael Ward, Mr. John Watkinson and Mr. Alec Woodall.

    c48
  1. WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) 94 words