EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DISSOLUTION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. (Hansard, 10 April 1968)

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment I propose that we discuss Amendment No. 37, in page 11, line 17, leave out ' five' and insert 'nine'.
Amendment No. 38, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'year' and insert 'five years'.

Amendment No. 39, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'second' and insert 'sixth'.

Government Amendment No. 40.

Amendment No. 41, in page 11, line 21, leave out ' third ' and insert 'seventh'.

Government Amendment No. 42.

Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 22, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'eighth'.

Government Amendment No. 44.

Amendment No. 45, in page 11, line 23, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'ninth'.

Government Amendments No. 46 and No. 47.

§ Mr. Buchan
When the Bill was in Committee there was a very lengthy discussion on the principles of Clause 18, which lasted pretty well all day. At the end of that discussion we undertook to reconsider the length of time allowed in subsection (4) for the transition from the existing rating arrangements, with the cost of sewerage falling substantially on special district sewer rates charged in special drainage districts, to a system in which the cost of sewerage will fall on the general county rate.
These Amendments substitute for the five-year period in subsection (4) a transitional period of up to seven years. There is a consequential change in the amount of rates that can be raised during that period in the former special drainage districts. For the first two years, instead of the first year, the sum raised by the transitional rate may be as much as the yield of the former special district sewer rate. Thereafter, the proportion drops by 15 per cent., instead of by 20 per cent., for each of the remaining five years until in the seventh year it falls to not more than 25 per cent. of the yield of the former special district sewer rate. A local authority can, of course, switch over to charging the whole cost to the general county rate, if it wishes, over a shorter transitional period. The percentages quoted in subsection (4), both as drafted and as proposed to be amended, are maxima.

§ Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll)
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that I have been remiss in my duties. On many occasions when Amendments have been made in response to commitments, it is right that one should get up and say "Thank you". I thought it would be tedious if I got up and said "Thank you" so often to things which we suggested should be done and which, on consideration, it has been decided should be done. My "Thank you" on this Amendment is modified because Clause 18 was difficult. It brings in what both sides of the House, including the Liberal Party, which does not appear to be represented today, felt was a serious problem, because many people in rural areas would have to pay rates for something they did not receive and were unlikely to receive in many areas.
We discussed this problem in detail for a whole morning. Reading the account of our debate, I am still certain that the Amendment which we are making today marginally improves the situation, because it gives a slightly longer period. However, it does not remove the basic objection in principle for the county councils in the rural areas who were opposed to the new scheme which the Minister has brought in under this Clause. The county councils asked us to do everything that we could to improve it one way or another. I hope that before we leave the Clause the Minister will be able to tell us the names of the county councils which he said were not against the proposal. He said that there was a number not against the proposal. We asked him on four or five occasions during the morning which they were but he had not the names with him. They were not on his cuff at the time. He has now had several weeks and I am sure he will be able to tell us which they were.
The evidence that we had and have had since then shows that county councils with mainly rural populations are seriously worried about the effect of this Clause on a great many of their ratepayers. When they see that there is an extra two years in which to continue their present system I am sure this will be some relief, but it will not solve the principle that they were against. Therefore, their appreciation of what the Minister has been able to do will be distinctly modified.
1482 If it is churlish not to say "Thank you" for small relief, then I will say "Thank you", but I hope that before long the Minister will be convinced that this is an inequitable principle in rural areas. Perhaps it will take until the Bill comes into operation—and by that time the Minister is unlikely still to be in charge of any part of Scotland, though that is neither here nor there—but I believe that the Scottish Office will have to look into this again fairly soon after it comes into operation because it will not work in its present form.

§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) referred to county councils in rural areas being opposed to the provisions of this Bill, and particularly this Clause. As recently as this morning I received a telegram from the clerk to my county council asking that we press for modification, as we did in Committee. Although we have this slight concession from the Government—and we welcome it—I hope that they will again consult with the local authorities on this vital question which affects the sparsely populated rural areas. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us which county councils were in favour of this proposal. I hope that he will get down to this and possibly, when the Bill goes to another place, will incorporate what we originally asked for in our Amendments in Committee. If he cannot go that far, I hope that he will at least incorporate the Amendments on the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) in giving a limited welcome to this Amendment. It is a little better than we had before. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will remember that he scraped home by only one vote on what was the most important debate in Committee.
The principle has not really been changed. All he has managed to do is to 1483 change the five-year transitional period to seven years. That has not altered the same principle that we opposed in the Water Bill, namely, that many people will have to pay for a service that they are unlikely to receive. Hon. Members on this side were able to quote various local authority figures: 60 per cent. in Dumfries, 50 per cent. in Wigtownshire, 54 per cent. in Roxburgh, and 60 per cent. in Perth. These were the figures of those who, during the transitional period, would begin paying higher rates and receive nothing in return. Nor do we get any alleviation under Clause 10, which relates to the emptying of septic tanks. There is no doubt that the ratepayers being most harshly treated by the provisions of what in general is a most helpful Bill are those in the rural areas who will never receive the service.
I accept that this two-year increase is a step in the right direction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give careful thought and a favourable reception to the suggestion that the nine year period would be better still. I hope, too, that as he promised in Committee, he will tell us which rural councils are supporting his proposal. When we were discussing the matter upstairs, he said: I do not know which counties off the cuff, but I hope I can give him the answer later. I have been assured that is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 346] The hon. Gentleman has had rather more than a month in which to find out which counties are supporting him on this method of paying rates.
I give the Amendment limited support, but I still hope that he will accept our Amendments, which are very much better.

§ Mr. Buchan
It is always a consolation to be thanked by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), even though he always waits for the opportunity when his thanks can be slightly barbed.
I think that one of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen opposite are facing is that they have moved in our direction. What has now happened is that, with this Amendment, they have accepted the basic principle which we put forward in Committee, because they are now trying to modify our proposal by a period of an extra two years. For this, too, I must give 1484 thanks that the light sometimes strikes in strange places.
We have extended the period from five years to seven to make things easier. The Opposition have suggested nine years. I suspect that if we had put down nine years, they would have suggested eleven. There is no argument in favour of nine years. This is really stretching it beyond the crack of doom, because one must remember that the various provisions of the Bill will not be brought into effect until the Secretary of State decides that they should be. They will not come into operation straight away. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have accepted the principle, and we are disagreeing only about the number of years—seven years, as against nine.

§ Mr. Noble
To keep the record straight, perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not accepting the principle, but we have been in this House for long enough to know that if we put down the same Amendment as we tabled in Committee and ask Mr. Speaker to consider it for discussion on Report it will not be called. That is the simple fact, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to pretend that we have accepted something which I assure him we have not.

§ Mr. Ross
The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Buchan
As my right hon. Friend suggests, it might be more suitable if the Opposition were to withdraw their Amendment, as there does not appear to be any principle behind it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) based their Amendment on a firm principle. The right hon. Member for Argyll has not based his Amendment on any principle whatsoever.

§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the North Eastern Water Board put forward a provisional water Order to make provision for an interim period of nine years? There is, therefore, a good precedent for suggesting nine years in this case.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am sorry, but I did not altogether follow that. If the hon. Gentleman is recognising that that is an interim measure, that is fair enough.
I think that we must adhere to the Government's Amendment. I accept that 1485 the county councils, particularly those outside the central belt, will need time to provide sewerage services for their areas, and the purpose of a traditional period is to recognise that need.
I come, now, to the question whether I undertook to name the rural councils which supported our proposal. This is to some extent an invention by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). In Committee I said: Not all counties are opposed to the proposals. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 345–6.] I did not refer to rural counties being in favour.

§ Mr. Noble
rose—

§ Mr. Buchan
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech.
The Bill will not become operative until we recognise that the economic climate is such that local authorities can reasonably be expected to start expanding their sewerage services. Thereafter, they will have seven years in which to make the provision which would justify finally charging the whole cost of sewerage to the general county rate. This is not only a matter of providing main drainage. What we have in mind is the provision of small sewerage treatment works, often in the form of septic tanks. At the moment almost all the rural county councils are meeting the cost of sewerage, to a substantial extent from the general rates. This is often forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are a few rural counties in which the contribution from the general rate is less than one-third of the total rate income, and in several it is substantially more than half. I think that I quoted some of these figures in Committee.
If the present standard of service justifies that level of contribution from the general rate, I do not think it is unrealistic to take the view that local authorities can do enough work in seven years to justify the transition to charging the whole cost to the general rate. In the nature of things, the general rate will very largely be paid by people living in the existing special drainage districts, 1486 since these tend to be the most heavily populated areas.
In addition, I have grave doubts about the initial period of five years suggested in the Opposition's proposal. Our suggestion is seven years. Here we are extending the first year of waiting to two years of waiting, and a phase-out from then onwards. The Opposition have put forward this cabalistic figure of nine. They have put in a five year waiting period, with a decrease in rates to the end point. I envisage a situation in which sewerage services will be improved outside the special drainage districts. We are anxious that this should happen as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes operative, and when it begins to happen I think that there will be a certain justice in transferring some of the burden of rates away from those who are living in the former special drainage districts.
I accept that local authorities will need time to prepare for the new conditions, but I doubt whether a period of as long as five years is necessary. To some extent the fixing of priorities and advance planning can be done before the Bill becomes operative, even though the work cannot be undertaken immediately. Apart from that, it seems to me possible that the period in which special district sewer rates can continue to be charged in full will be regarded by some local authorities as a period in which they need not attempt to improve their existing services, and I should not like these first five years, after all the argument and discussion that has gone into this, to be regarded by these councils as a period of total inactivity. For this reason I prefer our proposal to give a two-year standstill.
The other detailed figures both in the Government Amendment, and in the Opposition one, represent a smooth transition, and I do not want to comment on them. To some extent this is narrowed down to being a matter of judgment. The transitional period allowed for in the Government Amendment will not expire before 1976 at the earliest, because the rating provisions should come into force at the beginning of a local authority financial year, that is, on 15th May of the appropriate year. The earliest possible date will be 16th May, 1969. Under the Bill it will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, which will mean at 1487 least 1976, and I hope that the Opposition will not push an Amendment which will mean pushing our more sensible proposal into the almost literal millenium.

§ Mr. Noble
I tried to intervene earlier. The hon. Gentleman took up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) about naming the councils which were not opposed to this proposal. The hon. Gentleman read only part of the discussion. In Committee the hon. Gentleman said: 'Not all counties are opposed to the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour? to which the Minister replied: We might be able to deal with that later. The hon. Gentleman was asked again, and he said: If I can find the answer … I will give it to the hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 5th March, 1968; cc. 345–6.] It is no good his trying to say now that he did not mean that. All he has to do is say straight that there are no rural counties, or, if he likes to go further, that there are no counties at all which take this view. We would accept that he made a mistake, but let us have no more of this double talk.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am not sure that any double talk is involved. I said: If I can find the answer before the morning is up I will give it to the hon. Gentleman … I hope I can give him the answer later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968, c. 346.] I still cannot give him the answer, but I certainly fulfilled what I said, and this was not a matter only of rural counties.

§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)
The Under-Secretary is being unnecessarily obtuse, which is one of the reasons why the Committee stage took longer than any of us expected. Everyone can make a mistake. If he made a mistake and can now say at least that some counties—I would have thought that it was easy enough to limit it to some rural counties, but let us extend it, if it makes it easier for the hon. Gentleman, to any counties at all—support this proposal, we would accept that. There would be no disgrace in his admitting a slip of the tongue in 1488 Committee, and it would save an enormous amount of time if the hon. Gentleman made a clean breast of it. We should like to know whether any counties at all favour this method, or, better still, if any rural counties do. If he cannot tell us, I should be grateful if he would say so and we can then pass on to the next business.
I was not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's criticism that we have abandoned the principle of our Amendment. He must know that we cannot discuss again now the principle of our original Amendment in Committee. If he can tell us how we could do so, we should be happy to argue it again, but it is not in order, so we are justified in raising the matter again to try to improve the position which was left after Committee.
Nor was I impressed by the hon. Gentleman's insistence that, by trying to lengthen the period in which there would be no change, we were delaying the implementation of the Bill. In the first place, the Government are delaying it indefinitely since no date has been placed on its implementation. For him to criticise us for writing in a certain delay is a two-edged argument. He says that we are postponing it to the millenium, but he is postponing it infinitely. It is not logical for him to criticise us.
We are trying to mitigate the financial effects of the Bill on people who will never, in the foreseeable future, benefit from it. Yet they will eventually, even under our Amendments, have to pay a proportion of the cost. These Amendments have the support, I think, of every county council in Scotland. That is surely a good reason for the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic and accept our Amendments, which are more generous than his.

§ Mr. Willis
I am intrigued by the vigorous interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their worthy desire to protect people from paying for something which will not benefit them, but I did not notice them supporting me and my hon. Friends, in Committee or here, in trying to do the same for the people in the cities—to prevent ratepayers being compelled to pay additional rates for something which would not affect them. Why this discrimination? After all, many people in 1489 the cities do not enjoy high standards of life and can no more afford this payment than those in the rural counties. I wonder why this dichotomy of thought—

§ Mr. Noble
Of course we sympathise with city ratepayers who have to pay more, but they are at least getting the drains and the sewage. We are trying to help those who are getting nothing.

§ Mr. Willis
Hon. Gentlemen did not support those in the cities who will get nothing additional for an additional payment. I will get no benefit by paying for sewers for people moving into private housing estates in Barnton and other areas, but I will have to pay for them, under the Bill. We graciously accepted that this was the right social approach: we all pay for things which do not benefit us. I have no one at school, but I pay about £30 or £40 a year rates for education. There is a whole list of similar obligations. This is the basis of our society, that we help people—

§ Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)
Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the House that he has had no education?

§ Mr. Willis
I have had considerable education in the Scottish Grand and Standing Committees, in the House and in my political life, which enables me to realise the ideology which is usually behind the propositions of hon. Members opposite. It is slightly out of date and should be replaced with something more suited to the modern world.
My hon. Friend has gone out of his way to meet their request with Amendments which try to be helpful and they should be grateful for this spirit of compromise and good will. He has shown the reasonable and non-political attitude which one expects of an administrator in this Government. Hon. Gentlemen should pay tribute to this instead of being so grudging. When we were in opposition, we always expressed gratitude, in a fulsome way, when it was called for—although it was only rarely that I had to do it. In fact, I can think of only one occasion in 13 years. Hon. Gentlemen should say that they appreciate the Government's difficulties and are grateful for the help which they are giving.

§ Mr. Wolrige-Gordon
Although I did not have the privilege to serve on the Committee which considered the Bill, I am interested in the principle being adduced by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that even if one does not receive a service one must pay for it. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave the example of education. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned roads, saying that not every road went to the door of every croft in every county in Scotland. The example of the right hon. Gentleman showed the fallacy of his case because one need only listen to him to identify the complexity, depth and sophistication of his education—and he had to pay rates to get it.
The argument that although one does not receive a service one should still pay for it for the benefit of others is unfair because in this day and age, when relics of that system still exist, our aim should be to reduce them and not to use them as a premise for legislation. For that reason the Government should accept the Opposition proposal.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
At a late stage in the day the debate has suddenly taken on an unexpected ideological overtone. I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of not agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in matters affecting the Highlands. He is the doyen, the architect, of many advances in the Highlands and is very much aware of the issues facing us. On this occasion, however, I have some sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As I expressed my views on the Clause at considerable length at an earlier stage of the Bill—along with my fears about the inequity of the transitional arrangements—it is unnecessary for me to cover the ground again, particularly since the Amendments, both Government and Opposition, are, in principle, not different. We must choose between two clear evils and there is nothing to be said for the Opposition proposals over those of the Government.
There are those in the Highlands who feel reluctant to go the whole way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in the view that they should pay for services which they not only do not get but which they will not 1491 stand a chance of getting in the forseeable future. This state of affairs is only too common in the Highlands, where some of the services which are taken for granted in the more populous parts of Scotland are beyond the horizon. I therefore find myself reluctantly accepting the Under-Secretary's argument. There is no principle behind the Opposition stand. It is a simple illustration of opposing for the sake of opposition. I cannot enthusiastically support the Government Amendments, although I accept that they somewhat ameliorate the position.

§ Mr. Ross
I rise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have felt so much at home during this discussion that I thought I was back in the old Scottish Committee. I felt that I could not let the occasion pass without making the few remarks.
The issue is not as simple or as black and white as some hon. Members have suggested. We are trying to provide a service where no service exists, and we want to be fair to everyone. It has been suggested that we are asking local authorities to take over far too much and to provide benefits which people are not at present getting at the expense of the rest of the population. If there is any place in which our sewerage service is bad, it is the rural areas of Scotland. It is there that we can make improvements, but we will never make them as long as we have special sewerage districts. It is as simple as that.
We appreciate that the cost of providing this service will be considerable for local authorities. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite refer to the attitude of local authorities and county councils towards the Clause, I suggest that that opposition may be related not to how it will apply to individuals but to how it will apply to the finances of local authorities. Once the special districts are abolished and people are paying more and more, when they have hitherto not been paying so much, there will be a greater demand for this service to be applied to them. It will then not be possible to relate this matter to, for example, the provision of electricity and the expense of the subsidy that is provided by the rest of the community who are linked up in the supply of electricity. 1492 This is merely a question of checks and balances.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite question the transitional period, it is wrong for them to say that the Bill is being held up and that we have no right to talk about an extra two years. Whatever the delay, it was suggested in one Amendment—it has not been called—that it would be two years beyond that. I believe that we have struck a happy medium by having the period of seven years. I would have liked the five-year period, which was the original suggestion, but we have decided to advance it by a further two years.
This will be a reasonable time in which local authorities can improve their services and I am sure that an improvement will take place. As we want to ensure the proper dispersal of our population, it is desirable that this step is made. Many of the people who do not have the advantage of such a service have complained about this lack and I hope that there will be a diminishing number of people who will be penalised by the lack of this service. I am convinced that we must take this step. Unless we do, we will never achieve the improvement we must have.
A lot of fuss has been made about what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Committee one morning. It is usual form for a Minister to say: "If I can, I will find out". He spoke about counties and not about rural counties—about counties which have less rural territory and which are less concerned about this aspect. He did not give a list in which they were named and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will not produce a list of every county which supports him in his argument.

§ Mr. Younger
I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman nor to the Under-Secretary, but the Under-Secretary said that not all local authorities were against this. Could he give the name of just one?

§ Mr. Ross
He did not say that all the counties are opposed to the purpose. He did not think they were all opposed and then someone took him up on the non-rural counties. I think we are making far too much of this in relation to the numbers.

§ Mr. Younger
Can the right hon. Gentleman clear this point up? The last thing I want to do is to waste time, but in Committee on 5th March the Under-Secretary said: Not all counties are opposed to the proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March 1968; c. 345.] That is perfectly clear. Was that true, or was it not?

§ Mr. Ross
From the point of view of counties declaring their position, that is true. People who oppose write in to say that they oppose, but generally speaking those who are in favour do not give that indication.

§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

§ Mr. Ross
No, I am not giving way.

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
The right hon. Gentleman should explain to the—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

§ Mr. Ross
We have been wasting a lot of time on something which does not matter in relation to the principle. So far as my hon. Friend understands, and this is still the position officially, not all counties are opposed.

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

§ Mr. Ross
Usually when people are concerned about opposition they let us know. The proposal which the Government has put forward is a reasonable compromise which gives time for works to be done and for people to appreciate a changed situation and to prepare for it. There is a seven-year transitional period, p us the time until the actual appointed date. I hope that the House will accept tt at and will accept the Amendment.