HC Deb 28 July 1961 vol 645 cc781-6

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the beginning to insert: (1) At the beginning of section twenty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (under which a local authority may recover the cost of maintaining a sewer from the owners of premises served by the sewer), the following words shall be inserted, namely:— Except so far as a local authority may resolve that the expenses hereafter described are expenses incurred or to be incurred in carrying out work rendered necessary by traffic upon a highway and shall accordingly be excluded from expenses recoverable from the owners of premises served by the sewer. Sir William, would it be convenient to the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments standing in my name in page 10, line 24, to leave out from first "of" to "(under" in line 25 and to insert "the said section twenty-four", and to Clause 18, in page 11, line 42, at the end to add: as they were not incurred in carrying out work rendered necessary by traffic on a highway and so far otherwise"? They both deal with much the same subject.

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, that would be convenient to the Committee.

Mr. Graham Page

The Amendment in page 10, line 24, seeks to amend Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936. That is the Section in the Public Health Act which entitles local authorities to recover from frontagers the cost of maintaining or repairing a combined drain. The Section first refers to public sewers, but, later, it is clear that it refers to what is commonly known as a combined drain—that is, a drain or sewer which serves a few houses.

There is something of a history to the Section. It is quite an anomaly as it stands. The general principle concerning drains and sewers and the liability of local authorities for them was laid down as long ago as the Public Health Act, 1875, in which local authorities were made responsible for all sewers. A sewer, to put a brief definition to it, is a drain which serves more than one building. If a drain serves only one building, it is a drain and not a sewer.

It was seen after the 1875 Act that local authorities had become liable for the maintenance of combined drains, drains which serve just a few buildings and which had up to that stage been considered to be private drains rather than sewers. That was partially amended in favour of the local authorities by the Public Health Act, 1890, but the position still remained in dispute. It was finally resolved by Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which now enables local authorities to recover the cost of maintaining or repairing combined drains from the frontagers who are served by those drains, although calling a combined drain a drain is really mistaken, for it is in law a sewer.

We thus reach this rather ridiculous position. If a householder finds that the drain joining his house to the public sewer is damaged, the question whether he is liable or not for that damage depends, first, on whether it was a combined drain laid before 1936. If it was, the local authority is responsible, but if it was laid after 1936, the householder has to discover whether the local authority has taken over that drain as a public sewer.

If it has, the local authority is liable and cannot call upon the frontagers for any contribution towards its maintenance or repair. If the local authority has not taken it over, it is wholly the responsibility of the frontagers. An unfortunate householder may find that merely because his drain was laid before 1936 he is responsible for its maintenance and repair.

It is more than likely that a drain laid before 1936 and running under a road has been subjected to damage by traffic on that road. The purpose of my Amendment is to throw on to the general body of ratepayers the damage which occurs to combined drains under roads by reason of the traffic on those roads. It seems to me to be fair and proper that the general body of ratepayers should pay for the maintenance of that type of drain if it has been damaged by the increase of traffic on the roads.

This is not just a theoretical point. I am sure that hon. Members have had constituents bringing it before them on many occasions. Certainly, it is a very practical point for householders. A combined drain for half a dozen houses may have been installed in the early days of this century, when no one contemplated the sort of traffic which might be passing along the road under which the combined drain was laid. Now, the traffic on that road might be very different to what it was on that road before 1936.

It is not the fault of the frontagers or of the householders that the volume of traffic has increased. In many cases, it is through traffic which has nothing whatever to do with residents in the road. I should have thought it was fair and proper that the general body of ratepayers should bear the cost of the maintenance and repair of such a drain if damage is caused by traffic, rather than that the liability should be imposed upon the individual householders.

That is the gist of my first Amendment. The second Amendment is consequential. The third Amendment, to Clause 18, page 11, line 42, applies the same principle to a Clause which has been introduced into the Bill for recovering the cost of repairing private drains by a local authority, and I am endeavouring to exclude from costs which could be recovered from the householder any costs incurred in rendering the drain fit by reason of the fact that it had been damaged by traffic on the roads.

11.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (MT. Graham Page) has repeated to the Committee something of the tangled history of these obligations of frontagers. He seeks to ensure justice to frontagers by giving the local authority discretion to charge to the rates rather than the frontagers that element of any repair cost which the local authority judges is attributable to traffic causes. I must point out to him that this Bill is not the right place and this is not the right occasion to try to do justice to frontagers, and I shall support that argument with several reasons.

I want to say, first, that my right hon. Friend accepts that there is a strong case for re-examining these residuary obligations of frontagers in connection with drains which must have been laid before 1936, which have the characteristic of what are called combined drains. My right hon. Friend is more than willing to look at the whole position under Section 24, and, as my hon. Friend will remember, I invited him during the Committee stage to send to my right hon. Friend all the evidence of hardship on which he could lay his hands, so that my right hon. Friend's examination could be a detailed and constructive one, and I stand by that commitment.

I still say that this is not the occasion to try to do justice. We have not got the facts, we do not know the full details, and we must consult the local authorities about the implications of any change such as my hon. Friend proposes. I still argue that it would be extremely difficult to isolate the effects of traffic as opposed to all the other causes that might bring about the fracture of what were combined drains, and, anyway, this Bill just is not the vehicle for changing the powers of local authorities in non-precedented ways. My hon. Friend knows that all these reasons remain equally strong. I hope he will be reassured by my repetition of my right hon. Friend's willingness to re-examine the whole of Section 24, and that he will send all the evidence to us.

So much for the general argument against any of these Amendments, but I must add one short point in connection with the Amendment to Clause 18. My hon. Friend is there proposing to do some sort of justice, as he suggests, but only to the frontagers who have to bear expenses imposed by the local authority in the particular circumstances of Clause 18. There are a very great number of other circumstances, particularly under Section 39 of the 1936 Act, where a frontager might have expenses imposed upon him, and I must point out that we can deal with the whole matter much more comprehensively and generally if given time to study the evidence and time to consult the local authorities themselves, even if it means that we shall have to await another vehicle in order to reconsider the whole effect of these old obligations. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Graham Page

One is always met with this argument that this is not the right vehicle with which to do the job. I hope that some day there will come before the House the right vehicle to do this particular job. I am greatly reassured by what my hon. Friend has said —that the local authorities may be consulted on this matter and that the Minister himself considers that there is a point to be dealt with in this Amendment.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will ask his right hon. Friend to remember, in considering this matter, how astonishing it is what householders have to put up with in the sacred cause of the motor car? They have meters in front of their houses, official parking places in front of their houses, without any sort of compensation, one-way streets, streets where there is no waiting and all the rest, and now, if the householder finds that traffic has damaged his drain, he is called upon to pay the cost of the repairs. This undoubtedly is something into which the Minister should look. I am greatly relieved that my hon. Friend has said that the Minister will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.