HC Deb 25 April 1967 vol 745 cc1413-7
Mr. Willis

I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 4, to leave out 'have regard to' and to insert 'be based mainly upon'.

The Amendment is a humble effort to put a little meaning into a subsection which at present seems to mean nothing or everything. It arises from the serious concern of Midlothian County Council about this aspect of the Bill. Subsection (2) says: Such a scheme as aforesaid shall provide for an apportionment between the constituent boards of a water development board of the aggregate amount to be requisitioned from those boards … In my opinion, it could have ended there, for all the meaning the remaining four lines have.

They simply mean that a scheme has to have regard to the general principle, which means that it can ignore it, accept it or anything else. One may say that one has had regard to it, but, in view of other circumstances, has decided that one cannot take account of it. My hon. Friend should tell us upon what considerations these apportionment schemes will be based. The Amendment suggests that they should mainly be based on the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board … is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to be supplied to that board by the water development board. We could even have left out the word 'mainly' and simply required that it should be based upon the general principle.

This is a good principle, which applies to most nationalised boards, that they should pay for what they consume. However, under these apportionment schemes, payment will be made not for the water consumed but on the basis of factors about which we are told nothing. My hon. Friend owes us some explanation of what these other considerations are likely to be. For instance, would one be the distance of a local authority from the source of supply? If so, Midlothian will be pretty well "clobbered" in connection with the Loch Lomond scheme.

The principle is a good one, but, as the Clause is worded, need not be taken into account. I am very suspicious of the words "have regard to" and we ought to have some indication of what factors will be considered when framing these schemes and of why it is not possible to base them upon the amount of water to be supplied or expected to be supplied. That is a reasonable basis for such a scheme and I should like to know why it cannot be done.

Mr. Eadie

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). We may seem to be rather parochial in forever mentioning Midlothian, but we are fortunate to be connected with the constituency. My right hon. Friend will probably tell us once again that this point was dealt with in Committee, but that discussion has failed finally to impress the representatives of Midlothian and people concerned about the county.

When they contacted us about it, they were specific about what they did not like. They said that the phrase they did not like was "have regard to", and founded their argument very strongly. They said: We do not think that this is too definite. We think that it is too indefinite and there should be no doubt that the apportionment scheme will follow the principle of uniform charges against constituent boards using water from the Loch Lomond scheme. They did not express only their own fears, but quoted the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.

In discussing the Bill, we must consider the Committee's findings. Dealing with this aspect of the financial arrangements, the Committee said, in paragraph 145: … the water from it should be sold on the basis of a uniform charge to all participating authorities and, second that a method of financing should be found during the early years of the scheme's operation, when only a fraction of its water would be required, so as to ensure that the charges for water necessary to meet the loan charges on the capital expenditure would not be unduly onerous. Paragraph 146 went on: … an essential feature of the method of financing the scheme should be that each of the participating authorities should be able to obtain the water it needs from the scheme at the same unit cost and that it would be inequtable that any participating authority should have to pay more for the water simply through being farther away from the source. We tabled the Amendment, therefore, on a sound basis. It was vital because of the considerable disquiet in Midlothian. We believe that my right hon. Friend is a reasonable man and, therefore, because of the Committee's Report and because the Amendment would give the wording of the Bill solidity, we hope that he will carefully consider accepting it.

Mr. Ross

What really matters is the aim of the Amendment and the effect on the Clause. If the Clause achieves that aim, this gets to the heart of the matter. I do not blame my hon. Friends for being parochial. After all, in matters like this, one must look after the interests of an area, although we all have in mind as well the interests of wider regions and Scotland itself—in whose interests the Bill was brought forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that he might be suspicious and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to fears which have been expressed. The apportionment schemes will not be drawn up by the Secretary of State, but by the boards. My hon. Friends' authority will be a member of the board concerned. The boards require only the Secretary of State's approval. We could have left it at that, but we have given a useful and desirable general principle on which they can base their schemes.

The words are: … shall have regard to the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to be supplied to that board by the water development board. When a Secretary of State approves a scheme which is put before him, he will consider whether that principle has been carried out. If not, he will want to know why and whether it is being fair or unfair to all concerned. We intend that a water development board, subject to that approval, should have a fair degree of freedom about the form of its apportionment scheme.

The subsection contains the guiding principle to the method of allocation recommended by the Water Advisory Committee. If we put in the restrictive wording of the Amendment, a Secretary of State might have no option but to say "no" to a board with a scheme which had been agreed by everyone, but which departed from this principle in some way. Bearing in mind the guiding principle in the Clause and the duties which a Secretary of State would have to see that any departure from it, whether slight or major, had his attention, I think that my hon. Friends should be satisfied.

Only where an agreed scheme departs from the principle would the Secretary of State not approve of it. It is inevitable that all apportionment schemes will have regard to the principles in subsection (2), because this would, in effect, mean that each board would pay for the water it got or expected to get. Therefore, there is likely to be little difference between the aim of the Amendment and the effect of the Clause. I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears, but I think that they are met by the wording of the Clause and the Secretary of State's responsibility in respect of approval to have regard to this general principle.

Mr. Willis

My right hon. Friend has tried to lure us to accept arguments which are appealing, but they do not overcome our fears. It is precisely because we wanted the schemes tied to the quantity of water supplied or expected to be suplied that we tabled the Amendment.

We did not want freedom to do all sorts of other things. I have asked a number of times for an indication to be given about what other matters might be included. What will be the "other considerations" in the framing of an apportionment scheme? Certainly, Midlothian County Council is worried about this and wants to know what considerations will be taken into account. My right hon. Friend has not given an indication of these considerations and I trust that he will, even now, give the matter further thought, because there are genuine fears about this matter.

My right hon. Friend used the argument to which we are accustomed; that he is bound to act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. Although we do not wish to tie his hands, we do not see why we should not attempt to do so if he will not tell us how he will act in future. Had my right hon. Friend been frank, and given some examples, he might have allayed our fears, but instead he merely said that he would act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. I still believe that this part of the provision means virtually nothing and that almost anything could be included in an apportionment scheme.

As I have explained, Midlothian County Council will be most dissatisfied any suspicious about this because it feels extremely strongly on this issue. I therefore cannot understand why my right hon. Friend has not been able to allay these suspicions. I can imagine what my right hon. Friend would have said only a few years ago on an issue such as this. I do not wish to start splitting hairs, except to say that this is one of the most wishy washy and meaningless pieces of draftsmanship I have ever come across. I do not want to get too emotional about it. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend does not intend to give way. Having explained the fears of Midlothian in this matter, I trust that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will have second thoughts and will at least supply a few examples of what is meant by "other considerations" because that would at least let local authorities know what to expect.

Having made the position clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.