HL Deb 13 June 1968 vol 293 cc306-13

7.34 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)

Clause 10 [Emptying of septic tanks]:

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie have both had to leave at this late hour, but they have asked me to move this Amendment on their behalf. With the permission of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. I spoke at some length on Second Reading and in Committee about this particular clause, and in reply the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that we want the local authorities to undertake the duty of giving a service for emptying septic tanks. We feel that with this Amendment we are imposing upon the local authorities a duty to do so. They must then pass a resolution saying why they do not intend to do so; rather than that it should be left to the local authorities to pass a resolution which would say that they will, in fact, empty then. It is really a matter of an affirmative or a negative resolution from the local authority. 7 think the Amendment needs no further explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line II, after ("elect") insert ("not").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, at first glance it would seem that this was a very reasonable Amendment, and I must admit that I looked at it very much from the point of view of being disposed to accept it, because it did not seem to me to make a great deal of difference at the end of the day whether the local authorities should contract in or contract out. But it does make a basic difference. At the present time, as the Bill is drafted the local authorities are given a discretion to empty septic tanks serving premises in their areas, with an option to put themselves under a duty to do so. The Amendments would make it a duty of the local authority to empty septic tanks with the option of renouncing that duty.

For that reason I cannot accept the Amendments; and, incidentally, they are defective in so far as they do not make any provision for a change of mind. If a local authority made a decision electing not to provide a service, it would be making that decision in perpetuity—which I think would be the last thing that the noble Lord would wish them to do.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, could the noble Lord please explain why they would be doing so in perpetuity? Surely they can make such a resolution specifying a number of years.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the Amendment does not in fact permit the authorities to make an amendment. It does not say that they may make a decision for a period of time. It says that they may elect not to provide the service. If the Amendment had been that they may elect not to do so for the next two years, the noble Lord would have been right. It may be that if this provision had been going in I would have said that we accepted the Amendment in principle but would have to ask that it be withdrawn and brought back in a proper form. But I have to advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment. Therefore it does not matter at this stage whether the Amendment is defective or not, unless the noble Lord is going to try to insist on carrying his Amendment into operation.

I looked at this point very sympathetically because, as I have freely admitted to the House already, we have a position where in the populous areas people are going to pay for a drainage service which they are going to get and in the less populous areas some people are going to pay for a drainage service that they are not going to get. This state of affairs the noble Lord, Lord Burton, seeks to remedy by trying to create a position where those people who rely on septic tanks will get something for the money they pay. I have dealt already with the general principle from the point of view that rates are not payment for services rendered but are a form of local taxation. One of the unfortunate things about taxes is that neither the Government nor the local authorities ever guarantee that the return for the money paid is necessarily going to be value received.

Your Lordships know that this Bill will come into operation not immediately but when the Secretary of State declares the appointed day or appointed days; because it makes provision for different sections of the Act for different purposes of the Act, to be subject to different appointed days. The reason why it was decided that not all the provisions of the Act should be laid as duties on the local authorities is that we are doing two things. We are trying to bring about a long overdue reform and consolidation —because it is both—of the law on sewerage. We did not think we should be justified in deferring action on that any longer; but the fact remains that we are doing this and creating additional responsibilities which will fall on local authorities at a time when, because of the economic climate, the Government are asking local authorities to be careful about the way in which they spend money. The Secretary of State, accordingly, I think quite logically, said, "There must be a limit to the additional duties which I will place on local authorities at a given time". It may therefore be that the appointed day will not be fixed in relation to this service until the Secretary of State is satisfied that local authorities who will have this burden placed on them can properly carry out the service in relation to the general national position that exists.

My Lords, let us look at the position as the Bill is drafted. The local authority can do nothing until the appointed day is fixed. Once that is done the local authority can elect to provide the service. We must expect that the Secretary of State, when he fixes the appointed day, will have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe, at least in the greater part of the country, to bring the service into operation. But it may be that although the time is ripe over the greater part of the country it may not be in every part. Under the Bill as it stands, if a local authority passes a resolution electing to undertake this service it becomes operative only if the Secretary of State approves. If he is satisfied that it is the proper thing to do at that time, he will approve the resolution, and there the matter will end. If he does not think so, he will not approve the resolution and the service cannot be undertaken at that time in that area.

If the Amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to say to an authority which elects not to provide the service, "I think that you are wrong to refuse to provide this service, and I am not prepared to agree to your resolution". This would have the effect of laying down that where the Secretary of State thought that the service should he provided he could require it to be done. But if it were the other way round, if the authority, by omitting to pass such a resolution, were to go ahead with the provision of a service which the Secretary of State thought ought not to take place at that time, he would be powerless in the matter. There would be nothing requiring his approval or otherwise.

It may be said that this would be quite reasonable and would be leaving the maximum amount of discretion in the hands of the local authority, and if I thought that that was the way in which it would work I do not think I would necessarily depart from it in these circumstances. But, my Lords, that is not the way in which it would work. What would happen would be that the Secretary of State, no matter who he was, would be obliged to delay the fixing of the appointed day until he was satisfied that there were few areas in the country where the service could not be provided. As a result, the Secretary of State might find his hands tied, in the sense that, although he was willing, by naming the appointed day, to have the service provided over the great part of the country, he would have to delay fixing the appointed day, perhaps for another six months, a year or two years, because he did not know what would happen in counties A, B and C. The net result of this might well be contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wants, which is to have the service provided as quickly as possible in the maximum number of areas. As I am at one with the noble Lord in wishing, from a health point of view, to see this service provided as rapidly as is reasonably possible all over the country, I urge him not to press this Amendment which inevitably, in these circumstances, must have the contrary effect to that which he intends.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to say a little about the idea which I put forward during the Committee stage discussions; that there might be a differential rateable value where a sewerage system was supplied by a local authority and where it was provided by a private individual or by some non-local authority organisation?

7.44 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I feel strongly about this matter, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, who I think is on the side of those who wish this to become a local authority service, was not able to persuade his right honourable friend tart this would be a good way to do it. In my county we have for some time had a county service to empty septic tanks. It costs little and is a valuable service. We pay a small amount, according to the number of tanks that are emptied. I hope that if the noble Lord does not feel it possible to make it compulsory for local authorities to provide this service (which I think is just as important as having a good drainage system or a water supply in urban areas), he will urge them to provide it. Otherwise we shall have the same old story: that people who live in urban areas may enjoy this facility—though of course they have to pay for it —but those living in rural areas, where we want people to stay in order to encourage development, will not get the service. I hope therefore that, if the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment, he and the Secretary of Stare will urge local authorities to provide this service which I regard as being as important as the provision of a proper water supply or a drainage system.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has found a flaw in the Amendment, in that there is no provision for a period of time, but I feel that this is a small matter in comparison with the principle involved, and something that could be put right. The noble Lord must be aware that local authorities are adverse to incurring more expenditure than they need to, and that they have to account to the ratepayers. I am disappointed that he failed to persuade his colleagues that this was a good Amendment, and I am disappointed at the reason which he has given for turning it down.

It appears that the noble Lord's colleagues have no confidence in the local authorities. He has suggested that there might be delay in fixing the appointed day because one or two local authorities might not he ready to accept this. I do not think this a good reason for refusing to accept the Amendment. To say that St. Andrew's House is wiser than the local authorities in relation to their own affairs is to make a rather dangerous statement.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I may speak again only with the permission of the House, but if the House wishes me to reply to the questions which have been asked, I shall be happy to do so. First, in reply to the point raised by the noble Duke about the question which he asked at the previous stage, my Department has made inquiries and I am afraid that I have nothing very heartening to report. As we had supposed, the assessors are essentially concerned with fixing an annual value on which property may reasonably be expected to let. In arriving at their valuations the only sewerage factor they take into consideration is whether a service or apparatus is provided, not whether it has been provided as a public service.

The Secretary of State has no power to instruct the assessors in the carrying out of their duties under the Valuation Acts, and any change here would require legislation. But I think that, so long as there is a system of raising local revenues by reference to the letting value of property, it is only logical that the assessor should fix his valuation in the light of the factors that affect the letting value, taking no account of whether these factors are the result of public or private enterprise. I accept that there is room for more than one point of view about whether local authorities should empty septic tanks, but I doubt whether it would be feasible to amend the rating law to deal with any shortcomings which might be thought to exist in relation to sewerage.

My Lords, I must make quite clear that I have not been trying to persuade my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to do something he has failed to do. What I have done is to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. It is not a case of my having one point of view and the Secretary of State having another, and of his view prevailing because he is the Secretary of State. We had a full discussion of the pros and cons, and we started off from the point of view which I always try to take on Amendments, particularly when they are not matters of Party controversy, to find the best way of doing a thing, of accepting the Amendment as right and then examining its possibilities. But after full consideration, both the Secretary of State and I were of the opinion that the better way to deal with this point is the way provided for in the Bill. I would not like noble Lords to think that I am on the side of the angels, and that there is a big bad wolf over in Dover House who has stopped this. If the angels are sitting on the Benches opposite, then I am afraid that there are two big bad wolves in St. Andrew's House —and I am the second one.

I have made it clear that I sympathise with what the noble Lord suggests, and so does my right honourable friend. It is a question of priorities. Personally, I have a vested interest in what the noble Lord is seeking to do. Up to a few years ago my permanent home in Dundee was served by a septic tank, but it is now connected with the main drainage system and that is perfectly satisfactory. But I have a temporary home in Angus, which does not have a main drainage system and it would suit me down to the ground if what the noble Lord is asking came into operation. But the last thing on earth which I can possibly allow to influence my judgment is that I might get my septic tank in Angus emptied if I agreed to what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, wishes. It must in fact persuade me to lean over backwards in the other direction, to make certain that no one can say that I have acted in this matter out of personal interest.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a minor drafting Amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 18 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations, under which a local authority would compensate any of their officers or servants who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, because of the dissolution of a special drainage district. Line 12 of page 11 refers to the payment of compensation "to" such officers or servants, but I am advised that this is too restrictive, because it might not cover a payment to the legal representatives or dependants of an officer who has died before the payment was made. The insertion of the words "or in respect of" removes the doubt. The revised wording is precedented in similar legislation elsewhere. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pase 11, line 12, after ("to") insert ("or in respect of").—(Lord Hughes.)