§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. SkeetI beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 66, line 44, leave out from first word 'A' to 'as' on page 67, line 1.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we shall take the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 45, in page 67, line 2, leave out from 'authorities' to end of line 11.
§ Mr. SkeetWhat I have in mind is the charges which may be levied for the discharge of trade effluent into drains. There is already considerable law appertaining to this matter, including the Public Health Act 1961 and the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937. Since all the necessary powers are available in Sections 59 and 60 of the Public Health Act 1961 it seems unfortunate that modifications should be made now. There is also good reason for retaining Section 30(4) of the Water Act 1973, which this clause seeks to abandon.
Again the problems in Scotland, England and Wales are dealt with differently in Clauses 48 and 49, and there ought to be some alignment of those provisions. The matter in Scotland is treated more advantageously than in England, which is the purpose of Clause 48. Surely there should be some harmonisation in these provisions.
In Section 59 of the Public Health Act 1961 there is provision for
payment by the occupier of the trade premises to the local authority of charges for the reception of the trade effluent into the sewer, and for the disposal thereof …Therefore, there is recommendation for charging. The provision continues that regard shall be hadto the nature and composition and to the volume and rate of discharge of the trade effluent so discharged, to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred by a sewerage authority in connection with the reception 983 or disposal of the trade effluent, and to any revenue likely to be derived by a sewerage authority from the trade effluent.Apparently, the Bill is to eliminate this provision. Therefore, if any additional revenue conies in, is it to be ignored?Section 59 deals with additional expense and ties it down to the actual work involved, but now charges are to be allowed to be made over and above the cost incurred. In the circumstances, it would be wiser to maintain the provisions of the Public Health Act 1961.
The same argument applies to the Water Act 1973. Section 30(4) states:
In fixing charges or services … a water authority shall have regard to the cost of performing those services …There will be no complaint if a water authority charges what it has had to defray, but to suggest that it should have powers to impose additional levies is going beyond what is a reasonable charge. Indeed, it would be to impose a tax.We are all aware that these water authorities have grown into big multipurpose organisations seeking to bring in a large amount of revenue. In Bedfordshire it is indicated that if the water authority were only looking out for the actual costs incurred the revenue would be small, but that it is building up its stocks of capital.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that the modifications contained in the Bill will not enable water authorities to top up their revenues by a considerable figure, and that they will be told that they may charge for the amount of work to be done at reasonable cost but that they should not go further and, if they get into difficulties, impose a considerable levy on industry in order to top up their revenues.
If the Minister is prepared to give me some assurances on this point and to say, as was said in another place, that he will be reluctant to use these powers, then I shall be most grateful to him. If he does not intend to use the powers, why take them? He said that he would see whether any modification of the water charging powers might be required. Therefore, perhaps the matter should be deferred till those modifications are introduced.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I believe that this important matter 984 was not raised in Committee. Therefore, it should be carefully examined.
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) suggested that adequate powers already existed. That is not so. Clause 48 deals with two kinds of charge. It enables the Secretary of State to make orders in respect of the discharge of trade effluent discharged into sewers or authorised discharges to rivers, estuaries and so on. The change in charging for discharges to sewers is necessary because under the existing law charges can only be revised at intervals of not less than two years. At a time of rising costs, this favours industry at the expense of the householder, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish that to happen. There has been no suggestion that industry has been opposed to this matter, and we wish to act for the protection of the householder.
On the other part of the amendment, there is no power in existing legislation to charge for discharges direct to rivers, Until the current studies have been completed, the Government will not know what charging principles are necessary.
§ Mr. SkeetRivers are controlled by the legislation on river control and pollution enacted in 1951 and 1961. Therefore, that point must be covered.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI do not think that intervention is germane to the point I am making. I am dealing with the current studies which we are undertaking into how far it is possible or right to make these charges.
The practical point is that if it is eventually decided that the charges would make a substantial contribution to the improvement of rivers and estuaries, while securing optimum use, the Government would not want to wait till time could be found for new and additional legislation. There is no suggestion that there will be no opportunity for the House to discuss these matters. That is why we shall proceed by order if the Bill is carried into law. We shall have full consultation in advance of any order, and dischargers will have the further protection of affirmative resolution procedure. I hope the House will be satisfied that, although we are seeking to avoid the need for further legislation, we are also seeking to protect the rights of 985 industry and the House will have the advantage of the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 48 deals with the situation in England. Clause 49 deals with Scotland. Scotland does not have the comprehensive charging powers which are contained in the Water Act 1973.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances.
§ Mr. SkeetI am obliged to the Minister, for he has partly satisfied me on some of my points. There will be reviews, and we know that these must take account of rises in costs. What appals me is that built into the legislation there is a heavy rate of inflation.
In view of what the Minister said, and bearing in mind that excessive use is not to be made of this provision and that there is a right of appeal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 67, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'appeals' in line 14 and insert:
'(a) shall include provision for'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this amendment the House can consider Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
§ Mr. HowellWe are seeking to meet A point raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in Committee.
§ Mr. Stephen RossI thank the Minister for honouring the undertaking he gave in Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 47, in page 67, line 17. at beginning insert 'may include provision'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]