HL Deb 17 March 1949 vol 161 cc449-76

2.35 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Levy of rates in respect of expenditure on water supply]:

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON)

This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("purpose").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, leave out ("said").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Provisions as to liability for domestic water rate

(2) The domestic water rate shall not be leviable in respect of any premises, being lands and heritages situated within the district of a local authority, unless—

(c) in the case of any other premises a supply of water provided by a local water authority is used for any purpose for or in connection with which the premises are used or by or for persons employed or otherwise engaged on or about the premises in connection with such purpose.

LORD MORRISON

had four Amendments down to Clause 2, of which the first was, in subsection (2) (a) after "water" (where the word first occurs) to insert, "provided by a local water authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment can be taken with the next three. They are drafting Amendments which meet a point raised by the County Clerk of Selkirk and also by the Town Clerk of Greenock. The object is to make it clear that the local authority have the right to levy a domestic water rate on any premises if water provided by a local water authority is provided in pipes within the premises. It is not necessary, for the domestic water rate to be leviable, for the authority that supply the water themselves to take the water in pipes within the premises. Under Section 54 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, the duty of bringing water within the premises remains that of the owner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD POLWARTH

I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, to thank the noble Lord for having met this point, which I know considerably exercised certain county clerks and others I hope that this concession, so early in the passage of the Bill, will augur well for the rest of its progress.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

These are the drafting Amendments of which I have spoken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "provided" to insert "within the premises." The noble Earl said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) applies to premises which are neither dwelling houses nor agricultural heritages, and provides that in the case of persons occupying premises who use water provided by local authority, whether inside or outside the premises, domestic water rate becomes payable on those premises. Some of us feel that in certain cases this will be an unreasonable and onerous requirement. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Imagine that there are a dwelling house and a shop next door to each other, with what is called a standpipe—that is, a private fountain on the end of a tube. The dwelling house would pay no rates in such a case, whereas the shop would—even though the shop used the water only for consumption by the people who were on their premises. Or take the case of a tenement having a water pipe, and one next door to it not having a pipe. One pays water rate and the other does not, even though he may use the water. We do not consider that to be a very sound principle. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, after ("provided") insert ("within the premises").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry that at this early stage in the proceedings I must disagree at once with my noble friend—though I do not suppose he is surprised at that. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is intended to cover the levy of domestic water rate on all premises other than dwelling houses and agricultural land and heritages. It was drafted with the particular intention to cover circumstances that arise in the area of the Airdrie, Coatbridge and District Water Board (I do not know whether that is the area which the noble Earl has in mind) and no doubt in other areas also, where certain shops, instead of being connected to the main, draw their water as they require it from a neighbouring shop that is so connected. There is no statutory duty on the owner of an existing shop to bring the piped water within it. Therefore, if paragraph (c) were amended as the noble Earl proposes, the shops that draw their water from their neighbours would escape payment of the domestic water rate—and I am sure that that is not what the noble Earl desires. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of his Amendment. The Amendment would, in fact, defeat one of the objects for which the paragraph has been framed.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The example I gave was of a dwelling house and a shop being adjacent, where the shop has to draw its supply from the dwelling house.

LORD POLWARTH

If a shop has a public drinking fountain in the street outside, and the occupants of the shop go out from time to time to get a drink, will they be liable to pay a domestic water rate?

LORD CLYDESMUIR

Is it not correct to say that paragraph (a) was amended in another place and that that Amendment requires local authorities to provide a piped supply into houses? It seems logical that the same requirement should be included in this paragraph (c).

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is considering the case where local authorities cannot connect premises for lack of materials. It is not fair to make a man who wants to bring the water into his premises pay rates for something he has not got.

LORD MORRISON

I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have already said, that in the event, which often happens, of two shops adjoining each other, one of which has a water supply and the other of which has not, if the noble Lord's proposed Amendment were carried it would be possible for one shop entirely to escape paying the due amount of the water rate. As it is accepted that it is impossible for any shop to conduct its business without the use of water in some form or another, for drinking, for washing the windows, washing the floors or for any purpose like that, I feel it is only fair that they should pay.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

Before the next stage, will the noble Lord look into this matter to see whether there is any discrepancy between paragraphs (a) and (c)?

LORD MORRISON

I will gladly do so.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

In view of that undertaking, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects]:

LORD MORRISON

This, again, is a drafting Amendment to ensure that Clause 3, which relates to the levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects, follows Clause 2 in providing that the domestic water rate will be leviable only if water is provided by a local water authority within a dwelling house comprised in the premises. The present wording of the clause seems to suggest that a dwelling house provided with a supply of water from a private source would be liable for domestic water rate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Levy of domestic water rate on certain public utility undertakings, mines, parks, etc.

5. Where the domestic water rate is leviable in respect of lands and heritages occupied as waterworks, gas works or sewage works, or as a mine or a quarry, or as a public park or recreation ground, it shall be levied according to one-quarter of the gross annual value thereof.

LORD MORRISON

This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words from "ground" to the end of the clause and to insert: the last foregoing section shall apply to those lands and heritages as it applies to the premises specified in subsection (4) of the said section with the substitution of 'one-quarter' for 'one-half' and of 'one-eighth' for 'one-quarter', wherever these words occur. The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at Clause 4, which we have just passed, you will observe that that clause, Which applies to shops, offices, factories, theatres and such premises, renders those premises liable to one-half only of the domestic water rate, and it gives the local authority discretion further to reduce it to a minimum of one-quarter. In addition, where the gross annual value of such premises is particularly high, the occupier can take his supply by meter and pay a still further reduced domestic water rate. I recapitulate that because I am not quite clear—and I move this Amendment in order to obtain clarification—why the same flexibility and possibility of accommodation is not extended to the premises to which Clause 5 applies. Those premises are set out in the clause. It seems to me that some of them, such as public parks or sewage works, may use only a small quantity of water for domestic purposes. If that were the case, it might well be that a rate of one-quarter of the domestic water rate would be unduly high. I move this Amendment in order to find out the reason why the measure of flexibility given in Clause 4 was not accorded to a local authority in dealing with these premises also. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("ground") to end of clause, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)

LORD POLWARTH

Before the noble Lord replies, I have two points to make. The first is a question: what exactly are considered "domestic purposes" in the case of premises of this kind? For instance, in the case of a mine, water is used for pithead baths. Pithead baths would appear to me to be a domestic purpose, in the interests of health and cleanliness, and they might consume a very large quantity of water. That is only one example to show the great disparity that there might be between the water consumption at the different types of premises dealt with by this clause. My other point is this. In the Report of the Bryce Walker Committee, the recommendation on this point was more or less on the lines of this clause, with the exception that, where a local authority had their own Act and under that Act could charge a lower proportion than one-quarter, they could apply to the Secretary of State to have that lower proportion continued. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee. I am not quite clear whether or not such an arrangement could continue under the Bill as it now stands.

LORD MORRISON

I am not able to give the noble Lord an authoritative reply in regard to the exact definition of "domestic water supply" in this connection, but I think I can be reasonably sure that the instance he has given is correct—that water used in pithead baths would be regarded as domestic water, as would water used in lavatories, for washing purposes, for cooking purposes and in connection with canteens in the works. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to give local authorities a power to reduce to one-eighth the fraction of gross annual value on which the domestic water rate is leviable on water works, gas works and various other subjects specified in the clause. The view was taken, after due consideration, that the fraction of one-quarter suggested by the Bryce Walker Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, for this group of subjects would operate fairly if no power were given to the local authority to vary it.

The principal argument that I have to urge to my noble friend is this. During the whole of the consultations that took place between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations in the preparation of this Bill—and with his experience he knows how prolonged and exhaustive those consultations are—neither in the consultations nor in the detailed observations which were submitted to the local authority associations was there any suggestion from any local authority that they should be empowered under the clause to levy the domestic water rate at a lower fraction than one-quarter of the gross annual value of the various premises concerned. It might also be mentioned that no suggestion that the fraction is too high has been received from any bodies concerned as ratepayers under the clause. The noble Lord will realise my difficulty. As no responsible body in Scotland, during the long time that this Bill has been under consideration and while it was passing through another place has apparently thought of this Amendment, it makes it rather difficult for me to give any encouragement to him at this late hour of the day.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

Possibly people do not always realise what is good for them! But I do not wish to try to be more royal than the King or to press this Amendment further. I should have thought there would have been advantage in giving some flexibility to the local authority to deal with cases such as my noble friend Lord Polwarth has instanced—that of the pithead bath. But it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that nobody else has raised this matter. I still think that the last word of wisdom has not been said, but I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, having, given it an airing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Levy of domestic water rate on shootings and fishing]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 17, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

2.54 p.m.

Clause 8:

Contributions by county council in aid of domestic water rate

8.—(1) If in any year it appears to a local authority being the council of a county that by reason of the cost of works undertaken or to be undertaken in connection with the provision or improvement of a supply of water in their district or by reason of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act requiring a major portion of the rate-borne expenditure of the authority in providing a supply of water to be defrayed out of a domestic water rate payable by occupiers only, the financial burden imposed or to be imposed on occupiers in their district is greater than they can reasonably be expected to bear unaided, the authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State in that year defray such part of the cost of providing or improving the supply of water in their district in such manner as appears to them equitable, and where part of such cost is defrayed out of rates it shall be defrayed out of the county rate.

(2) Subsection (2) of section two hundred and thirty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which subsection relates to the information required to be contained in demand notes for payment of rates) shall have effect as if expenditure under this section were a branch of expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph (f) of that subsection.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I am moving to delete this clause because I consider it is a very dangerous one. Under the Bryce Walker Report a recommendation was made that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total burden, or a rate of 6d. in the £, whichever was higher. I do not know why, but the powers-that-be thought it would be better not to follow this recommendation of the Committee which had been set up, and in Clause 1 they have not only raised the maximum to one-third in place of one-quarter, but by this clause they render an unlimited increase possible. In other words, if the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, come to the conclusion that the burden imposed upon occupants in a district will be too heavy for them to bear unaided, an unspecified additional burden can be transferred to the public water rate. This is more likely to happen, as we understand it, in the parts of Scotland where, for geographical reasons, the public rate will be paid by a great many people who do not now receive Public water supply, and who are not likely to in the future, either because they are too high up or they are too far away.

As I said on Second Reading, I am not against a system of a flat rate, because I believe that in time that will be inevitable with everything. The urban population of this country have had two lessons, in the 1914–1918 war and in the last war, and surely they realise that they are dependent upon the rural communities. We shall be unable to keep the rural communities in these far-flung districts and the urban population next time will be well on the way to being starved. Therefore the rural population must be given as many as possible of the amenities which their brethren have in the towns. And that means accepting the principle of a flat rate whereby, possibly, the urban people will have to pay more order to subsidise those that do not get these amenities. It is the same with electricity, and so on. What I do feel is wrong is that His Majesty's Government should not have some limit to the burden which they or the local authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State (which is the same thing), can place upon the domestic rate.

I am not suggesting that local authorities are all unreasonable people, but of course some are. I am not even going to suggest that all Secretaries of State are unreasonable, but sometimes we find one who is not so reasonable as others. Sometimes, for instance, he is a man who is a little weighed down with party politics, or is perhaps not so well able to stand up to the Sassenachs here by whom we are ruled so centrally and steadfastly. Some of them do not go far enough for us in protecting our interests in Scotland—I except in present company, any Secretaries of State of the past. However, for the safety of the people in Scotland I think we should insist that His Majesty's Government give a clear indication of the circumstances in which they propose to invoke this clause and, what is even more important, should also give some idea of what the maximum burden on the public rate might be. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD POLWARTH

I would like strongly to support what my noble friend has said. It would be a great help to us if we could have some idea, in the first place, of what the anticipated public water rate is liable to amount to. We have heard that it will be a fraction varying between one-fifth and one-third, but it is a fact that we have no indication of how much, in pence or shillings in the pound, this will represent in any particular area in Scotland. If we are to allow this clause to pass, I think we should have some idea of what the public water rate is likely to be before we start considering increasing it under the provisions of this clause. I do not know whither the noble Lord can give us any figures by way of example.

LORD MORRISON

When the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, decides to put down an Amendment, he does it properly; where other noble Lords put down an Amendment to delete one word, he moves to delete a whole clause! From his position of splendid and glorious independence in this House he is able to do things that, if he were sitting on the Front Bench opposite, he would perhaps hesitate to do. However, I will give him an explanation of what is the position, as I understand it, in regard to this clause, in the hope that he may consider the reasons for retaining the clause in the Bill stronger than those for deleting it.

I suggest to the noble Earl that to delete this clause altogether would be a retrograde step. Under the special district procedure, a county council have had power, since the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was passed, to contribute towards the expenses of a special district where the burden on the special district ratepayers would otherwise have been greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear. The words: "reasonably be expected to bear" have been carried forward to the present Bill, and as county councils have apparently had no difficulty in the past in assigning an appropriate meaning to the expression, it is not thought that any difficulty should be experienced in future in deciding at what point the domestic water rate leviable on the consumer would prove too onerous a burden.

May I say here, in parenthesis, that the Bryce Walker Committee, to which reference has been made more than once this afternoon, proposed that a county council should have power to help from the county funds where the 25 per cent. public water rate was insufficient? That was in paragraph 19 of the Report. All this clause does is to translate, in relation to contribution from general county funds, the existing special district procedure, to which reference has already been made, into terms of the new system of a county public water rate and a county domestic water rate. In any case, the county councils must be trusted to use responsibly the power given to them by the clause. Moreover, they cannot exercise it without the authority of the Secretary of State—though I doubt whether that will bring much feeling of confidence to the mind of my noble friend. Without the power which the clause gives to the county council to come to the assistance of the domestic water rate out of the county rate, the domestic water rate on the limited number of ratepayers liable for it in some counties might be so heavy that schemes would never be carried out at all.

The maximum for the public water rate, as such, is determined by Clause 1 and, as the noble Earl well knows, will thus depend on the amount of water expenditure and on the fraction—varying from one-fifth to one-third—which the local authority decide should be de frayed from the public water rate. In deciding whether approval should be given under Clause 8 to a contribution from general county funds, additional to that provided by the public water rate, the Secretary of State will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the general level of rates, the magnitude of the proposed expenditure and the extent to which further public supplies of water are essential in the public interest.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I can say only that, so far as I know, no attempt has been made to forecast the future level of the public water rate since, in addition to the amount of expenditure and the fraction of that expenditure to be allocated to the public water rate, the rate will be affected by the special rating provisions dealing with shops, factories, and so on, as dealt with in Clauses 4 to 6 of this Bill. I hope that with that explanation of the real object of this clause, the noble Earl will be satisfied, and will feel disposed to allow the clause to remain in the Bill.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

Before my noble friend Lord Airlie speaks again I would like to make one or two observations on this matter. I am bound to say that I feel rather unhappy about this clause. Sir Robert Bryce Walker, who conducted a very careful review of this whole question, came to the conclusion that it was wise to strike a limit and to say that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total or a rate of 6d. I think that in doing so, he must have had in mind those very large and sparsely-populated counties in Scotland in which many people do not receive the benefit of a piped water supply. It is with regard to such counties with a low rateable value, where capital works may be necessary and may be very expensive, that this problem will arise. I find it difficult to see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said suggests that he regards the removal of the whole clause as too sweeping. Perhaps between now and the Report stage we might apply our minds to this problem (which Sir Robert Bryce Walker obviously regarded as serious) and see whether we can hit upon something which can be done to meet the point. If so, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will consider it. I do not know if my noble friend would be agreeable in those circumstances to withdraw his Amendment now. Certainly, some of us do not feel happy at the idea of leaving things as they are in the Bill.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I thought I had made it plain that I am not disagreeing with the principle of a flat rate, or with the idea of one district helping another. What I wanted to see was that there should be some limit to which the rate could be raised. In Clause I the maximum to which the public rate can be raised is one-third of the burden, and I understand that if one district has laid upon it a burden which is more than it can reasonably be expected to bear, the contribution to the public rate can be increased, provided that the Secretary of State agrees, to lessen the burden of the domestic rate. I want to see some safeguard, so that the contribution cannot be increased out of all proportion or in unusual ways.

LORD MORRISON

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, I can only say that I have no control over Amendments which noble Lords put down at any stage of this Bill. If any noble Lord thinks that there is a further point to be made on this Amendment, I have no power to prevent him putting it down for consideration at a later stage—and, indeed, if had the power, I would not desire to exercise it. At the same time, I can make no promise that any more sympathetic reception will be given to it. This is a free country and if, when the Report stage is reached, the noble Earl still desires to delete Clause 8 then he must try to do so.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am not going to enter into any debate with the noble Lord as to whether this is a free country or not. He knows exactly what my views are about that, and whether or not I think there are shackles upon his neck and upon mine. We all know what the position is in that respect. If the noble Lord will agree to give further consideration, between now and the Report stage, to the points which have been raised, I am willing to withdraw.

LORD MORRISON

I certainly assent to that, but the noble Earl must clearly understand that I am not entering into any commitment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Then I will release the shackles!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

3.7 p.m.

Clause 9:

Dissolution of special water supply districts

(6) Where immediately before the appointed day a local water authority are entitled under any enactment or agreement to take a supply of water from any stream or other source for the purpose specified in the enactment or agreement being a purpose relating to the functions of the authority with respect to water supply, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the said enactment or agreement or in this Act, the authority shall continue to be entitled to take that supply for that purpose, so, however, that they shall not be entitled to take in any year thereafter an amount of water greater than the amount they were entitled to take in the year immediately preceding the appointed day.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out the words "continue to." The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee this Amendment and the next one will go together. The purpose of subsection (6) of Clause 9, in which these Amendments are to be made, is to guard against a possible consequence of the dissolution of special water supply districts. In some cases, a county council, when acquiring rights to take water for use in providing a supply to a special water supply district, agreed that the waver should not be used to supply premises outside the special district. With the dissolution of special districts, water supplies previously earmarked for them will be required as part of the county water supply system, and the purpose of the subsection is to enable the authority to use for county purposes a supply previously limited to a special district. The Amendments now to be moved are to meet an observation made by the county clerk of Nairn (at whose suggestion subsection (6) was originally included in the Bill) that the subsection as worded might not enable a local water authority to make use, for the general purposes of their undertaking, of water which they originally acquired for use in one particular special district. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 19, leave out ("continue to").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("any purpose relating to their functions with respect to water supply").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Expenses of local authority supplying water in district of another authority

(3) If in any particular case the authorities concerned are satisfied that the allocation in manner provided by the last foregoing subsection of the expenses of a supplying authority among the local authorities concerned would impose on any of those authorities (including the supplying authority) a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear they may enter into an agreement for the purpose of regulating the manner in which the expenses of the supplying authority in that case are to be defrayed, and if the Secretary of State, being satisfied as aforesaid, makes an order approving the agreement the terms of the agreement shall during such period as may be specified in the agreement come in place of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "could reasonably" and to insert "would otherwise." The noble Lord said: This is rather an involved clause. I will try not to take too long but I must endeavour to explain what the clause in effect means. Under it there are to be new arrangements for the charging of water where a local authority supplies water outside its own area to premises in the district of another authority. The practice at present is very often that the supplying authority can levy a water rate on the premises outside its own area. I think the classic example, cited many times in this connection, is that of Glasgow supplying water to Rutherglen. Usually, the area outside the district of the supplying authority has paid a higher rate for its water. I do not think there has been much complaint about that. In general it would be to the advantage of the people outside, because they have still a supply cheaper than they would have if they had to install their own waterworks. In general, I think there has not been any injustice on that score. Under the clause, however, such arrangements will not be able to continue. The cost of the water supply will be levelled out and will be borne equally by the people supplied inside and outside the supplier's district. Instead of rating directly on the people outside, there will be a requisition on their council, who will then collect the amount.

There are two loopholes to this process. The first is that if the authorities agree that an unreasonable financial burden is placed on the people in either area, they may come to some other agreement about the cost of the supply of water. Secondly, failing agreement, either party may go to the Secretary of State for Scotland and say they are being hardly treated and ask him to alter the rate; and he may do so if he thinks "a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear" would otherwise be imposed on the authority. Incidentally, I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that on page 7 the words are "they could reasonably" and, on page 8, "they should reasonably." Or is that merely one of those coincidences which may be ascribed to the fact that to-day is St. Patrick's Day, and that has affected the sense of propriety of the authorities who want these things? The Second Reading of this Bill was given on St. David's Day, and perhaps we shall have to wait until St. Andrew's Day to see the Bill through!

I should like to ask how this will affect cases where water is supplied to a district outside, not on a system of rating but in bulk. I know that the Burgh of Montrose is concerned about that. They supply water to villages in the County of Angus, and the county pay for it in bulk and then distribute it to the villages in the county. They would like to know whether that sort of arrangement will be able to continue, and whether it will not be superseded by the arrangements under this clause. While it is right and proper that different parties should pay fair rates for their water, we feel it would have been better to let existing arrangements continue on their present basis. I do not think there are any cases of hardship. There is a somewhat competitive spirit among local authorities in Scotland. They are rightly very jealous of their rights, and I think that any arrangements at present existing have been struck as a fair bargain. I should have thought it better to let the present arrangements continue, while still providing these two loopholes—namely, that either the parties could agree on a new rate or, having failed to make an agreement, could go to the Secretary of State and ask him to alter the present arrangement. I think that would give much more latitude in coming to agreement than having to go to St. Andrew's House. That is the reason why I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 41, leave out ("could reasonably") and insert ("would otherwise").—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The point in regard to Montrose is not confined to Montrose. It also affects Dundee, which delivers water in bulk to an estate in the County of Angus.

LORD MORRISON

The point about Dundee will arise later in the proceedings, where the question of a change in the Bill may affect the special position in Dundee.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

That point is only in regard to time. The question now is whether Dundee will be allowed to continue to deliver in bulk to estates.

LORD MORRISON

In regard to the last argument of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I think the convincing answer is that, so far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware, the clause as it stands at present is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. That does not seem to encourage the noble Lord in his plea that they should be left alone to continue as they have been doing and make the best of it. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, they are all agreeable to accepting the proposals in the Bill. The point as to why the word "should" is used in one place and "could" in another, I confess is too difficult for me. I can only think that the natural desire of the Scot to introduce in Acts of Parliament as much variety of language as he possibly can has led to that variation. There may be a better explanation, but if there is, I do not know it. Generally speaking, this clause does not disturb the existing arrangements whereby one authority sell water in bulk to another for distribution by the latter through their own water supply system. That meets the points of both the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. Montrose's arrangements will not be disturbed by the Bill at all. The terms on which water is supplied bulk are a matter for agreement between the authorities concerned and, failing agreement, may be referred by the authorities for determination by the Secretary of State.

The clause in its present form, which I may say is the result of Amendments made in another place to meet the representations of the local authority associations, is designed to give the maximum elasticity in the procedure for the allocation of expenses where one local authority are supplying water in the district of another. As I was saying, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, the clause as it stands is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. It may be asked what rates are likely to result from the operation of the clause. It is difficult to give any precise information on this point, but I think it can be said that where the whole of the district of one authority is supplied with water by another, the water rates in the two districts should be approximately the same. At present the common practice is for the supplying authority to levy a higher rate outside their own district. With that explanation, I hope the fears of the noble Lord may be lessened, and that he may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Arising out of what the noble Lord has Said, I want to make the position clear. My point is a different one. My point is that Dundee delivers water in bulk through the meter to an estate, not to an authority at all. I was asking whether under this clause that system will disappear, and whether it will come under a new system.

LORD MORRISON

I cannot answer that point off-hand, but I will make inquiries and let the noble Earl know.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I have listened with care to what the noble Lord has said, and recognise that this clause, as amended in another place, has not met with objection from the local authority associations. But surely we cannot always go on the principle that Parliament can do anything wisely so long as no one objects. None the less, I see that there are advantages in the flexibility secured by this arrangement. I would, however, say that I think the Secretary of State and his advisers will require the wisdom of Solomon in deciding what is a reasonable rate to pay.

LORD POLWARTH

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. In particular, we are grateful for his assurance about the case of Montrose. I know they will be relieved to have that assurance. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment, as there appears to be general agreement on the principles. However, I think it will add considerably to the work involved after the passing of this Bill, and I hope that St. Andrew's House will not find they have a great many knotty problems on this point to solve.

LORD MORRISON

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I may say that I have obtained further information on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I understand that Dundee will be allowed to continue to supply other authorities in bulk, but not estates. Subjects on those estates will have to be rated.

LORD POLWARTH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 10 and 11]:

LORD MORRISON

The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments, to make clear that the duty of the clerk of the local authority to whom the requisition falls to be issued is merely to provide the clerk of the joint water board or supplying authority with a copy of the valuation roll for the district of his authority; that is to say, to make available the necessary information regarding the valuation of premises within that district. It is not his duty, but that of the supplying authority, to state in detail which premises are in fact supplied with water. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 47, leave out ("or any part of that district").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 2, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 3, and insert ("that roll").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Provisions as to valuation roll

(5) If in any year the apportionment mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section has not been completed on or before the fifteenth day of August as respects any premises to which subsection (1) of section three or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section four of this Act relates, the domestic water rate, in so far as it is leviable in respect of those premises, shall be levied in that year according to the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day.

LORD MORRISON moved, at end of subsection (5), to insert: or, in a case where no water rate was so levied, according to the rateable value (as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947) of those premises. The noble Lord said: The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, raised a point concerning a particular difficulty which would affect the County of Angus if this Bill were passed into law. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for raising this point and giving the Government the opportunity of dealing with it, and also to thank the County Clerk of Angus for his help in trying to deal with this special difficulty. As a result of the provisions of Clauses 3 and 15, many county assessors will have a large amount of work to do in apportioning the value of agricultural lands and heritages as between the value of the dwelling houses and that of the remainder of the premises. It was therefore necessary to make some provision for the value on which the domestic water rate should be levied temporarily until such time as the work of apportioning could be completed. Farms in Angus County supplied by Dundee—and also farms in some other areas—are, however, metered, not rated. In such cases the phrase, the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day, which is used in Clause 15 (5), has no meaning and does not serve to provide an interim arrangement. The Amendment which I now move will enable the domestic water rate to be levied on the rateable value of agricultural lands and heritages—where no water rate has hitherto been paid—until the assessor can complete the necessary work of apportionment.

The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this Amendment has been accepted by the County Clerk of Angus as meeting the particular difficulty of that County Council. I am not claiming, however, that it will meet the difficulty confronting the supplying authority in that case—namely, Dundee Corporation—whose circumstances are somewhat exceptional. But the difficulty in relation to Angus has been resolved and I am authorised by the Secretary of State to say that he has the difficulty of Dundee Corporation under active consideration. I hope at a later stage of the Bill—either on Report or on Third Reading—to be able to move an appropriate Amendment which will perhaps solve the problem of the Dundee Corporation. I hope what I have said will be satisfactory to the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page l0, line 43, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am informed by the County Clerk and others that their point has been entirely met. I would like to take the opportunity of offering my gratitude to the noble Lord on behalf of Angus and Dundee for the trouble he has taken to deal with this matter. I feel rather like the man who comes out of the ring shaking hands with himself.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Transport and electricity hereditaments

(2) Where a water rate was in the year 1947–48 levied in respect of premises being a railway or canal hereditament or a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority, an Area Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, on the fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and no charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed was made, no charge by way of meter or otherwise shall be made in the year 1948–49 or in any subsequent year during which the premises are occupied as such a hereditament as aforesaid in respect of a supply of water (whether for domestic purposes or otherwise) to those premises by a local water authority.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) after "aforesaid" to insert: and used for substantially the same purpose or purposes as in the year 1947–48". The noble Lord said: While I dare not think that I am going to come out of the ring in quite the same manner as the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I do want to draw attention to this point, which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is the clause concerned with the supply of water to certain nationalised undertakings—what are described in the Bill as "a railway or canal hereditament"—or "a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority," and so on. I will not enter into discussion with the noble Lord about the use of that particular word, however much we may feel on the point. It is not a word that is in common usage in Scottish law.

However, the point is that these undertakings are rated by the Local Government Act, 1948, on a global sum; that is to say, each local authority, instead of getting the rates on these subjects according to the length of railway line or the number of power stations in the county, gets a share of the whole rating of the undertakings in the whole of Scotland, divided up according to the county or burgh's rateable value. Under this clause, any premises belonging to these authorities in 1947–48, or earlier, which were being supplied with water by a local authority, cannot from now on have any charge levied on them for the supply of water. All they bear is their share of this global sum of rating. The point I am concerned about is where there is a large increase in consumption of water on one of these premises.

I know it is said that it is not very likely to happen, but I can think of a number of cases, particularly as I understand that the word "premises" includes land and not only buildings. For example, water might be laid on at a small wayside railway station and it might be decided, in the interests of expansion, to build a junction or a larger station and put in facilities for large supplies of water to railway engines, and so on. It might even be, decided to lay water troughs for picking up the water, and in that way there might be a large increase in the amount of water taken by that undertaking.

Under the present arrangement, the local authority supplying the water will not be able to recoup itself directly for the increased supply. The only way in which it will do so is by a very indirect share of any increase made in the total rating of the railway system or electricity authority. I believe there is provision that this total rating can be increased. I believe that it can be increased on an electricity undertaking in accordance with the number of units of electricity produced. I do not know whether, in the case of a railway, the rating is based upon the number of tickets sold. We would like to see some arrangement by which the local authority who are supplying the water can get some increased sum in return for having to give a greatly increased supply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 27, after ("aforesaid") insert the said words.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am sorry that we are unable to continue in the note of exaltation raised by the noble Earl on the previous Amendment. But, alas, we must come back again to hard facts, and all that I can say with regard to the noble Lord's Amendment is to draw his attention to what is provided in Clause 16.

Clause 16 provides that premises occupied by a railway or canal or electricity undertaking, in respect of which a water rate was payable and no charge was made on the basis of water consumed in 1947–48, shall be exempt from further charges for water because a sum in respect of water is included in the standard amount payable under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, by the occupying bodies. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable a local water authority to impose a charge for water in a case where there is merely a change of use in premises—for instance, a change from use as a warehouse to use as a repair shop—even though there is no change of occupation. This would have the effect of requiring the occupying bodies to make a double payment in respect of water, as there would be no compensating adjustment of the standard amount and, clearly, that would be inequitable.

A change of use may increase or decrease the amount of water used, but in cases where a supply of water was normally covered by a rate charge, that charge would not have been varied according to the amount of water used, and there is a provision in the 1948 Act which allows for an annual variation in the standard amount which will take account of any changes which would in the past have resulted in a higher valuation of premises for rating purposes. One of the objects of Clause 16 is to ensure that the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board do not pay twice for water in respect of the same premises. With that explanation of the real purpose of the clause, I hope the noble Lord may not feel disposed to press his Amendment.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

This illustrates one of the difficulties we shall encounter with nationalisation. As the noble Lord said, we must come down to hard facts, and he has put them before us. But it is surely a very hard fact for the local authority which are supplying water in an area where there is a greatly increased consumption on the part of some nationalised industry, not to receive any benefit in increased rates. I agree that there is the standard amount, but it is a long shot before that helps the local authority. I can see the difficulties in the way of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the consideration that this is the type of trouble which is going to grow in this country; and we shall have difficulties affecting many local authorities unless we can find some means of adjusting them.

LORD POLWARTH

I must admit that I am not entirely satisfied with the noble Lord's answer. I appreciate that this particular Amendment would probably not meet the case, but I feel that we shall have to see whether we can find some solution to this. Of course, any increase in general consumption will be reflected in the general increase in the total amount of rates payable by these authorities, and I can only assume from the noble Lord's answer that if justice is to be done perhaps he is considering the day when all the water supply authorities may be under the same control. In that case, fairness might be achieved; but we have not quite reached that stage yet. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Provisions as to orders under section 16 of the principal Act]:

LORD MORRISON

The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the same order that provides for a combination of local water authorities to empower the combination to borrow money. If the order gives the combination this power, they will then have available to them the borrowing powers of Part XII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 26, leave out ("(other than the power to borrow money)").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Although this appears to be a very long Amendment, I can assure your Lordships that it is merely drafting. The new clause consists of subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 3, which are moved from Part I of the Bill, which deals with rating, to Part III, where provisions relating to the supply of water for non-domestic purposes are more appropriate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 24, page 18, line 21, insert the following new Clause—

Provisions as to supply of water to agricultural subjects

"25.—(1) Where a supply of water for purposes other than domestic purposes is provided for premises being agricultural lands and heritages, the local water authority shall require the supply to be taken either by meter or on other specified terms as they may from time to time in their discretion determine.

(2) Where a local water authority supply water by meter for purposes other than domestic purposes to any premises being agricultural lands and heritages and also supply water for domestic purposes to any dwelling house comprised in such premises, the authority shall, if it is reasonably practicable so to do, provide the whole supply of water to such premises and dwelling house through a single meter.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) of this Section upon a local water authority shall, in relation to premises being agricultural lands and heritages on the appointed day, be exercised by them as soon as may be after the appointed day and in any case not later than the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Termination of right to supply of water on special terns

(8) No local water authority shall after the appointed day by agreement or otherwise incur any obligation of the kind to which this Section applies.

3.40 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit subsection (8).

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I would like to draw your Lordships.' attention to what seems to me to be something of an anomaly, and the noble Lord, in his reply, may be able to clear it up. Clause 24 (3) directs every local water authority to keep a register into which they shall enter particulars of agreements for supplying non-domestic water on special terms and conditions. On the other hand, Clause 26 prohibits local authorities from entering into agreements to supply water, domestic or otherwise, on preferential terms. There is an apparent contradiction between those two clauses, with the result that local authorities would appear to be able in future to conclude only disadvantageous agreements. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the Government, and possibly the noble Lord may be able to explain.

Then, going further, it seems to us desirable that local authorities should not be precluded from entering into special arrangements with large users of water which may result in their ratepayers benefiting. It might be very advantageous on wide grounds for a local authority to grant special terms to a factory or paper mill, or something of the kind coming into the district. I hope there is no intention in the Bill of prohibiting local authorities from making such an agreement. Perhaps the noble Lord could advise us on this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Clydesmuir.)

LORD MORRISON

I think I can give the noble Lord a fairly satisfactory assurance. Take the case of a number of large organisations requiring a considerable quantity of water and seeking to take water out of one of the Scottish lochs, say; they make a bargain with the water authority that, in return for their laying the pipes and carrying a certain amount of capital expenditure, they should be allowed advantageous terms. It is intended that that kind of bargain should be allowed to continue—and there is no reason why it should not, because one of the parties would be bearing part of the capital expenditure. But the kind of deal which it is proposed to prohibit in future is the case where an owner of land might say "Unless you agree to give me a certain amount of water, entirely free, I will not allow you to put your pipes across this field." That is an entirely different matter.

Subsection (8) of Clause 26, which the Amendment seeks to leave out, is the logical consequence of the remainder of the clause. If local authorities are to be empowered to bring to an end, on payment of compensation, obligations undertaken by them to supply water free or on special terms—and I draw the noble Lord's attention to the word "obligation"—then it is clearly undesirable that they should still be able to incur fresh obligations of the same kind. Obligations to supply water free or on special terms were commonly incurred in the past in return for the granting of wayleaves, or of rights to take water. As a result of the passing of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, a local authority need no longer obtain way-leaves for their mains, and the procedure under which they can obtain rights to take water is all laid down in Section 21 of that Act. The main reasons for undertaking these obligations in the past, therefore, no longer apply.

The obligations to which the subsection refers are those defined in subsection (4) of the clause—that is, obligations to supply water free of charge, or on terms more favourable than those that would otherwise apply. For that reason, subsection (8) does not strike at the power of a local water authority under Section 11 of the principal Act to enter into agreements to supply water for non-domestic purposes on other than the normal terms and conditions. It is these special agree ments (which are not obligations to supply water) that the local water authority are required by Clause 24 to record in a register. I hope that this makes the position clear.

LORD POLWARTH

There is evidently nothing between us on this point. It is clear that we both have the same intention; we all feel that, after all, if the authority enter into an agreement to supply a certain consumer on more favourable terms and conditions, which are not within the terms of Clause 24, they are then giving an undertaking to supply on those terms. It is just a question of words. I hope the Government will make it absolutely clear from the legal point of view and that the matter will be made water-tight. But there is obviously nothing between us on the point.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

The noble Lord has given us a clear explanation. So far as I have been able to follow it, I think he has cleared away the doubt I had in my own mind about helping local authorities to offer advantageous terms in the special case I have mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on an Amendment made in the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 46, leave out from ("mains") to ("exceeds") in line 2, on page 23.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 4, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses and schedules, agreed to.

House resumed.

Back to