Clause 19.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF AVERAGE WATER SUPPLIES.) (Hansard, 19 July 1961)

§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If the House wishes.

§ Sir K. Joseph
The House will be glad to know that we are plunging into the intricacies of the rating of water undertakings. This Amendment was first moved in its original form by the noble Lord Lord Latham in another place, and my right hon. Friend has since had discussion on both with the British Waterworks Association.
The Amendment deals with non-potable water and the rating of non-potable water. The Amendment preserves the principle that non-potable water is to be treated for the purpose of water formula as equivalent to half the volume of potable water. This is because the supply of non-potable water generally involves much less in the way of capital works and is charged for at a lower cost. The Amendment removes the distinction between bulk supplies of potable water on the one hand and bulk supplies of non-potable water on the other. The undertaking which gives a bulk supply of non-potable water to another will count that supply at half its volume whether the water is potable or non-potable.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be delighted with this because he asked me in Committee what was the definition of potability. I assured him that there was no difficulty about this whatsoever. In fact, we are now worried a little lest the 1289 Bill enables a supplier of water to reduce the rateable value of that supply by claiming that it is non-potable, even if in fact it is only non-potable by a mere technicality and a mere trifle has to be done to the water to make it potable. We felt that the way was open for one undertaking to put part of the rate burden on another by claiming for purely technical reasons that its water was non-potable. That is why this Amendment is put forward. There are consequential Amendments to that part of the Schedule which deals with rating arrangements for water undertakings which are new.

§ Mr. Mitchison
"Non-potable" is a beastly word. The Government in another place described this set of Amendments as non-potable undrinkable Amendments, and I must say that, although I do not often agree with the Government, I do not think that they were far off the mark about that. Why is it necessary to use this word "potable." and what does it mean? Does it mean that you cannot drink the water; does it mean that you will invariably die if you do; or does not it simply mean that you drink it at your own risk?
The only place in which I have seen non-potable water labelled as such was inside a lavatory of a railway carriage, and I was informed by someone well-qualified in such matters that it was perfectly potable and drinkable and would do no harm if one drank it. I did so. Why the Government or the draftsmen or the Minister uses "non-potable" as a phrase passes my understanding. If they mean undrinkable, why do not they say so? "Undrinkable" is at least English. Non-potable must have been evolved by some dreadful magician in words.
On the merits of the matter, I have looked into this Amendment and what was said in another place, and I would not venture to differ from Lord Latham on this question. I agree in principle with what has been done, and I see no objection to the Amendment.