Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Richard Benyon has said that he “remains sceptical” on the cost of Thames Water’s proposed Thames Tunnel supersewer and that he could not possibly say that these would definitely be pegged at the current estimated level of £4.1 billion.

Speaking in last week’s debate on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament, the Minister described the river Thames as the main point of concern in the Bill and the proposed Thames tunnel as  offering “the most timely, comprehensive and cost-effective solution” to the combined sewer overflow problems and the dumping of raw sewage into the river.

Andrew Love Lab/Co-op MP for Edmonton expressed concern about the ongoing costs and the delays of the project and asked Environment Minister Richard Beynon to provide reassurance that the £4.2 billion cost could be kept to. He asked:

“Will the ambitious time scales upon which that cost is based be realised? Can such a complex and, if I may say so, risky project be delivered at that cost? ….Are the Government getting to the bottom of how to get value for money? We could go into the issues of public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative, but I remain to be convinced that the project will be delivered on time and to cost.”

Richard Benyon said the Government was “ever mindful” of the costs involved in the Thames tunnel project and remained convinced of the economic case. However, he added:

“Let me say that I remain sceptical on cost, which is where I believe Ministers should be on a project of this size. We are receiving the best possible advice, and the work will be ongoing. I cannot possibly stand here and say now that costs will definitely be pegged at the current estimated level, but we will try to deliver this project within budget and effectively for the people of London and the country as a whole.”

MP calls for more Government investment in water infrastructure

His comments came in response to a call by Kate Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston, for the Government to make “substantial national investment” in UK water infrastructure.

Ms. Green asked the Minister to consider extending the provision which “relates to the substantial infrastructure investment  that the Bill envisages” to make additional funding available to finance Thames Water’s proposed supersewer to infrastructure development throughout the country.

Ms. Green referred to United Utilities’ Davyhulme sewage and water treatment plant, in her constituency, and its groundbreaking sludge treatment project, which when fully up and running will be the largest such programme in the world, take raw sewage and effectively transform it into renewable energy sources.

Describing it as an “interesting and remarkable project (which) has already benefited from modest financial support from the Government for its pilot stage”, she commented:

“If drawing such green energy supplies from sewage and water treatment is to be a real runner, we might want to encourage substantial national investment in it.

“It is estimated that the Davyhulme plant, when fully operational, could supply green energy to 5,000 homes in the north-west, so there is substantial potential for such energy sources to become a major part of the Government’s renewable energy strategy. I should therefore be interested to hear from the Minister what discussions are taking place with his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to link investment in our water treatment sector to the development of new energy supplies.”

In response, Richard Beynon said that as the water White Paper made clear, given a growing population and changing climate, the need for infrastructure investment would not diminish. Although the Government currently had no plans to use the powers in the Bill other than to assist South West Water customers and in relation to the Thames tunnel, it should leave itself “the flexibility to offer similar Government support to future projects if the case is strong.”

Concerns about delays to legislative timetable

Speaking on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, Gavin Shuker Lab/Co-op MP for Luton South flagged up the Opposition’s concerns about delays to the legislative timetable, commenting:

“The Government promised us a proper water Bill—significant legislation, far-reaching market reform and action for customers. However, their own water White Paper—their blueprint for water—was delayed by six months….. What we need is a proper water Bill, but Ministers have lost their slot in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, just last week I asked the Minister across the Dispatch Box:

“If tackling drought, conserving water and reforming abstraction are so important, why has the Secretary of State delayed her own Bill?”

"His response was that he was not privy to the contents of the Government’s legislative programme for the next Session of Parliament. That is a shame. I would have hoped that someone would have pointed out to the Minister that he had lost his slot. Everyone in the House seemed to know that, apart from him.”

Gavin Shuker described the current Bill as a mini-Bill which proved that “the pilot light is on at DEFRA, but that there is little legislation coming through any time soon.” He added:

“This delay is serious: we are to see no action to curb the unsustainable abstraction of our rivers and streams, no time scales to increase competition in this highly regulated monopoly market, no changes to ease water scarcity—exacerbating the extreme drought conditions that we are already experiencing—and no action to keep water affordable across the UK.”