§ 4. Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to compensate the domestic water ratepayers in the area of the Ryedale Joint Water Board for the extra burden that will be imposed on them when the Board is contributing to the capital cost of the proposed Farndale Reservoir, from which it will derive no benefit.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonMy right hon. Friend has no power to compensate the Board's domestic consumers for any additional burden which may fall on them as a result of this project.
§ Mr. TurtonIs there not a manifest injustice in adding to the burden of ratepayers who already pay 2s. 4d. in the £ and will get no benefit from this scheme, which will benefit those who are paying only 1s. 1d. or 1s. 6d. in the £?
§ Mr. RobinsonThe right hon. Gentleman talks about the immediate benefit. No one can say what the ultimate benefit will be, but the general policy embodied in the water authorities' charging schemes is to charge the costs of conservation works on abstractors generally.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? Surely it must be wrong to charge ratepayers who obtain no benefit from a scheme, to the advantage of ratepayers who are paying a far lower water rate and who will completely benefit.
§ Mr. RobinsonI have looked into this closely, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) knows. It would be short-sighted to consider only the special position at the moment without regarding the possibilities for the future. The differentiation between water rates in different authorities' areas is not a matter which should be taken into account in determining charging schemes.
§ 5. Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now reconsider his decision regarding the financing of the proposed Farndale Reservoir so that the cost of the scheme may be borne by those authorities who will benefit from it.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonNo, Sir. I think the river authority's proposals for financing this project are reasonable.
§ Mr. TurtonIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he forced the river authority to rescind its proposal and that, instead of letting Sheffield Corporation pay the capital costs of the scheme, which will be to its benefit, he forced it to spread this over an area which will derive no benefit?
§ Mr. RobinsonThere is no question of force here. It is precisely because of the unwisdom of treating this project as one for the exclusive benefit of certain undertakings that my Department and the Water Resources Board advised—not "forced"—the water authority to finance it under the present charge.
§ Mr. McNamaraWould my right hon. Friend not agree that, if he followed the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), they would fly in the face of the concept of the Water Resources Act of 1963, with regard to both identifiable beneficiaries and flexibility in the use of future water resources, and that this surprising piece of social legislation was passed when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in Government?
§ Mr. RobinsonThat is perfectly true, and the decision was taken in line with the principles enunciated by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. TurtonIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.