EMPTYING OF SEPTIC TANKS. (Hansard, 10 April 1968)

§ Mr. Speaker
We come to Amendment No. 18, with which we shall consider the Government Amendment No. 21 and the following Opposition Amendments: Amendment 19, in page 5, line 10 leave out from 'may' to 'elect' in line 11.
Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 13, leave out from thereof ' to it ' in line 14 and insert 'and when they so elect, and the Secretary of State approves'.

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 10, leave out from 'may' to 'pass' in line 11.
The Government Amendments are drafting Amendments which give effect to a Government undertaking in Committee. As the Clause is drafted, it gives the impression that local authorities cannot pass a resolution by which they elect to empty septic tanks without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. The 1465 intention is, of course, that such a resolution, once passed, should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and I hope that the Amendments make this perfectly clear.

§ Mr. Wylie
Our only criticism of the Amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is acceptable to us with that qualification. Amendment 19 and the consequential Amendment 20 seek to take out of the Clause a further provision telling a local authority what procedure to adopt. The Clause at present states: A local authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, pass a resolution whereby they elect to empty all septic tanks serving premises … The matter was raised in Committee. The Government have accepted the first criticism concerning the need to take out the Secretary of State, but they seem reluctant to take out the provision about passing a resolution. It is not for Parliament to tell local authorities what procedure to adopt when making a decision on this or any other matters. The words "pass a resolution" are quite unnecessary to the Clause. If our Amendment were made, the Clause would read: A local authority may elect to empty all septic tanks … That seems eminently sensible and the kind of thing the public would readily understand.

§ Mr. Willis
I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) should say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not go as far as he would wish. It seems to me that the Government Amendments go further than the hon. and learned Gentleman's, because they remove all reference to the Secretary of State, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments would keep him in.

§ Mr. Wylie
Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that when we are accepting one Government Amendment and adding to it it is unnecessary to rewrite the whole thing in a separate Amendment?

§ Mr. Willis
I thought that this was some rather carping criticism by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am surprised at him, because he is usually much more magnanimous. Just because he has a majority of 64 he should not make 1466 these carping political criticisms. He is not proving worthy of himself this evening. He should say to my hon. Friend, "Thank you very much. We are most grateful for the changes and we welcome them."

§ Mr. Buchan
I must say why we cannot accept the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, though I hate to become involved in an inter-Edinburgh argument between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought that in Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that there was merit in having a specific reference to a resolution. That is the point of substance between us. It is true that the decision to empty septic tanks as a duty might extend to a fairly small area, but it could be a substantial departure in policy. I do not think that the procedure will be cumbersome. It is desirable that in taking a fairly important policy decision the local authority should be guided towards importing this degree of precision into its proceedings, particularly as it might be necessary to define the boundaries of the areas within which the service is to be provided. Therefore, we believe that "resolution" should remain in.