§ Lord BRAYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, as stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment in her Written Answer of 30th January, domestic properties not connected to the main sewerage should be subject to a charge of 50 per cent, of the general services charge payable by domestic properties which are so connected.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)My Lords, in a further Written Answer on 27th March, I explained that all members of the community, whether or not their properties are connected to mains drainage, benefit from the existence of adequate sewerage and sewage disposal facilities as well as from the other services, such as surface water drainage and pollution control, covered by the general services charge. This explains why the relief is limited to 50 per cent.
§ Lord BRAYEMy Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that in the case of isolated domestic properties—and, indeed farms—this charge of 50 per cent, is somewhat excessive?
§ Baroness BIRKI am sorry, my Lords, but I did not hear the end of the noble Lord's Question.
§ Lord BRAYEMy Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the charge of 50 per cent, for main drainage, in relation to farms and isolated domestic properties which are not connected to the main sewerage, is very excessive? Would she not agree that people are being asked to pay for something that they have not got?
§ Baroness BIRKNo, my Lords. However isolated the properties may be, there are still other sewerage problems, road problems and problems of drainage. Furthermore, I should point out to the noble Lord that the charge was previously 100 per cent., and so 50 per cent, is 890 better than having to pay the whole lot. Therefore occupiers of these properties have now done considerably better.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that rates levied by local authorities are not levied in respect of specific services rendered to specific householders, but in order to pay for a general service? Is my noble friend aware, for example, that middleaged spinsters are compelled to pay for the maternity and child welfare part of the rate?
§ Baroness BIRKYes, my Lords; and people without children have to pay towards the education services.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, would not the noble Baroness explain to her noble friend that this does not apply to the particular charge to which this Question relates?
The Earl of DUNDONALDMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that unlike the general rate demand, in respect of which the accompanying leaflet gives details of what the funds are required for, no such details have so far been given for the general service charge, which is set out on an arbitrary basis of so many pence in the pound? Would not the noble Baroness agree that the time has now come for the water authorities to give fuller details of this charge?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, it is hoped that in about 1977–78, when the water authorities have taken over completely, they will be able to work this out with more precision, but for the moment it has been impossible to be more precise about it. It has been decided, with the advice of the National Water Council, that 50 per cent, is a very fair compromise.
The Earl of DUNDONALDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can confirm that while the transitional arrangements are proceeding properties not connected to main drainage will have their septic tanks emptied free of charge?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, the answer to that question is dependent on the local authority area. Some areas do this, but the local authorities are empowered to charge.