WATER CHARGES BILL

HL Deb 11 March 1976 vol 368 cc1460-82

5.55 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Birk, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Baroness WOOTTON Of ABINGER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Duty of water authorities to refund certain charges]:

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT(Baroness Birk) moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, after (" date ") insert (" together with any associated legal costs ").

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and to speak to Amendment No. 2.The purpose of these Amendments is to provide for the refund of court costs incurred by ratepayers without sewerage who withheld their general services charge and whose rating authority applied for a distress warrant or took out a summons against them. Where the costs were incurred through resisting a charge that was declared by this House to have been illegally demanded, it is right that those costs should be refunded.

I am happy to say that there are likely to be very few cases where a summons was taken out, and we have heard of none where a distress warrant was applied for solely in respect of general services charges withheld on unconnected properties because local authorities were advised not to pursue recovery of these charges while the Daymond case was still undecided. It appears that very few authorities ignored our advice.

When the issue of "legal costs "arose in another place it was clear that there was a very strong feeling that we should provide for refunds of court costs incurred in respect of the illegal charges. Those who spoke were particularly concerned that costs awarded in court against a ratepayer who withheld an illegal charge should be refunded. I am happy that in these Amendments we are now able to meet the point. I beg to move.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:

Line 2, after (" legal ") insert (" or surveyors' ").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I welcome the Government's change of mind on this issue of legal costs. The Committee will remember that in another place the Government were somewhat on the horns of a dilemma. Looking back to the proceedings in another place and to the Government reply at the time when pressed by all sides to allow legal costs incurred, one finds that their spokesman said: We have found that there would be insuperable difficulties about trying to define legitimate costs. I am very glad that they have been able to overcome these insuperable difficulties.

I should declare an interest—although I continue to declare my interests in this field—that is, I believe where you have this situation professional costs incurred should be refunded, not just legal costs. I use the words "or surveyors "in my Amendment simply to point out that there are other professions involved in rating. Surveyors are often called in specifically to advise on rating problems and rating valuations. There could well have been cases where surveyors were called to act as expert witnesses or even advise the client with the client not calling upon a solicitor to assist. I hope the noble Baroness will consider the principle of my Amendment sympathetically even if she cannot agree with the wording. I beg to move.

5.51 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

While I understand and sympathise to a great extent with the thinking behind this Amendment—and the noble Earl has explained its effect, that it should cover professional costs and not just surveyor's costs—it opens that particular cost door very wide. The reason for the Government Amendment is that it is specific; it uses established concepts and it meets the points raised by the Opposition in another place. It does precisely what the solicitors asked for when they wrote to the Member in another place, Miss Janet Fookes, regarding court costs. I do not think in this case it would matter whether it was a lawyer who was involved in court costs or a surveyor We have to draw a line; where do you begin and where do you end? The claim for costs could be endless. People could claim for travelling expenses, telephone calls, postages and make their own estimate of the time and trouble involved. As we know, some people will go to a solicitor or surveyor at the first sign of trouble. Being married to a solicitor has its advantages. Nevertheless, in this instance, where it is public cost involved, it has its disadvantages.

If there were cases—and I have already pointed out we do not know of any—where a distress warrant has been issued, I am inclined to take the view that certainly the Member of Parliament in the area might well have been in touch with us. If a case arose and the ratepayer went to his solicitors or conceivably a surveyor for advice, I feel certain the water authority concerned would look sympathetically at the matter it it were brought to their attention. Although there is no question of putting this in the Bill, the water authority in that case would probably be prepared to consider making an ex gratia payment if solicitors fees had to be paid. But such cases must be very few indeed.

An important point about this is that this can increase the charges for other users. We know that the effect of the original Act has caused difficulties and we are hoping in this Bill to deal with these problems. These matters have been gone into carefully and I have discussed the points raised in another place and the general point the noble Earl raised. The solution agreed on in another place was that costs should be limited to court costs. These are defined in the Amendment which follows in my name on the Marshalled List of Amendments. I hope that the noble Earl, having aired this matter and made some interesting points, will now withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her courtesy in replying fully to my Amendment. So far as looking after the increasing costs of those who have to foot the Bill is concerned, I do not think that is the point here; what we are looking for is a fair refunding for anyone who has had to pay these legal costs. The point was made in another place that the costs of a case are taxed in a court; I am saddened because the Government could not see that there might be a way round this which would allow the court to tax the costs, rather than simply allowing legal costs. I am glad that the water authorities would look sympathetically on any additional cost; I assume they would have power to do so. It is a well-known phrase among statutory bodies that they do not have power to be sympathetic. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would comment on that before I withdraw my Amendment.

Baroness BIRK

I thought water authorities might be sympathetic; that is my general informal understanding. It is a question of making an ex gratia payment. We have not heard of any cases and there are likely to be very few, if any. On the earlier point about the taxing of costs, one of the difficulties is that in a magistrates' court it is unlikely that costs would have been taxed because the amounts involved are likely to be small.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful for those words. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

We now revert to Amendment No. 1, unamended.

Lord SANDFORD

On behalf of my noble friends, and my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, I think the Government have succeeded in meeting the main points that were being made in another place. I should like to associate my noble friend Lady Vickers with those remarks. She used to represent the part of the country in which the case in question arose and has been following the matter closely. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be with us today. She, too, will be satisfied that the Government have succeeded in meeting a very vexed and difficult situation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.59 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1A:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert: (" Provided that in the case of such charges paid by a public Corporation or other body within the public Sector the duty of water authorities to make such refunds shall not take effect until 1st April 1977.")

The noble Earl said: I must apologise for any confusion but I hope that my manuscript Amendment has been circulated. This was discussed in another place but I felt it was of such merit that it was worth airing in this Committee. Its purpose is to allow the water authorities, when refunding legal costs, to stagger the refunding over a period of two years. The first group, and undoubtedly the most important, concerns the domestic users; the second, equally important but perhaps not so essential regarding the financial situation, concerns the national corporations. The whole problem with this emergency Bill is the balance between those who will be, quite properly, refunded and those who will have to foot the bill.

It was a previous Government which drafted the Bill in 1973 and I believe that a number of your Lordships feel, as I do, that, as it was the clear intention of that Government and of Parliament that water authorities should have the power to levy these sewarage charges on unconnected users, it is a little hard suddenly to find now that there is a bill of some £60 million to be refunded. It falls first on the water authority and then on the ratepayer. I do not think I am alone in believing that where the Government draft a Bill of this nature and where It gives the new authority the powers, and obviously advises the new authority about them, they cannot and should not wash their hands of the responsibility. Of course, we know that the Government have made that decision, as was made clear by the Lady Baroness, Lady Birk, on Second Reading.

Where is this £60 million to be refunded? It has not perhaps been made very clear in many peoples' minds that the vast majority of the sum involved—something like £35 million and £40 million, or over 60 per cent.—is to go to the national corporations: to the National Coal Board, to the Electricity Board and, I believe, even to the water board. Some £12,500,000 is to go to industry, and only £21,500,000, or 20 per cent., is to go to the domestic user. I am told that this represents something like £60 for an average house with a rateable value of about £200. The effect on the ratepayer in having to pay this £60 million is estimated to mean something like 20 or 30 per cent. on their water charges for next year. So this is not a small figure and, of course, most of the ratepayers will be domestic users.

The purpose of this Amendment, as I said, is to enable the staggering of the enormous load on the water authorities for the refunding they are doing over two years. I do not know whether the public corporations have been approached on this, but if they have I should be interested to hear what they have said. The reply of the Government in another place was that they felt it was rather hard on the public corporations, who were struggling to make ends meet already, to ask for this not to be done this year. I do not find that very convincing. I think that any public corporation or industrial body is very distinct from a domestic user. They will have made their own provisions and their calculations, and the fact that they are getting almost a bounty of a very large figure will be something to their benefit and not some thing they have missed.

Another point which was made by the Government in Committee was that the water authorities have power under Clause 1(6) to stagger the recoupment of the charges over two or three years. I do not think that the Bill specifically contains those words, but they have these powers and it does not say that they should not. Perhaps I might quote the exact words of the Minister during the Committee stage. He said: The Bill allows regional water authorities to consider recovering the money in instalments. Local authorities, on the whole, have said that they do not want that because it would create serious cash flow problems for them. They would have to borrow money for that purpose and pay interest charges."— [Official Report, Commons, 18/2/76; col. 1312.] I find that very difficult to follow, because if the water authorities are willing to wait another year to receive this £35 million or £40 million, where is the cost to the local authorities? The truth is—perhaps it is a sad one—that the whole issue of the recoupment and the payment of this refund has already been settled: in fact, we are probably wasting our time talking about it because it is already in the computers of local authorities. I would ask the noble Baroness to confirm whether or not this is true and whether the local authorities have already fed in and taken into account the necessary figure involved in order to issue the new rate demands on 1st April. If that is true, it is a serious breach of Parliamentary procedure.

That is the purpose of this Amendment and I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I feel that this is a fundamental issue. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I would ask the Committee to resist this Amendment, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will not press it. He is right in saying that it is absolutely true that all the charges have been calculated and communicated to the local authorities. They are on a computer and ready to go out. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that around 18 million ratepayers would be charged in any case. Another effect would be that the water authorities would make a profit for this year, but then, of course, Nemesis would come and it would have to be put back the following year. Delaying refunds in this way would greatly complicate the administrative mechanics of the refunds and would therefore make the whole administration more expensive. It would thus increase the bill to be met by everybody else.

I must remind the noble Earl that this arose as a result of a ruling of the Appellate Court of this House. Once that occurred, it is up to any Government—this is not a question of Party politics—to do what they can immediately to implement such a finding. This is how justice works in this country, however uncomfortable it may be on occasions; and therefore I really cannot accept the point made by the noble Earl that it was quite wrong for this to be done. It had been generally agreed and it had to be done. I stress that there has been no disagreement within Parliament, in another place and in this House, that this should not be done. Therefore, once there was this general consensus, the next point was to determine how it could be done in the most expeditious way and in a way which would cause the least trouble and expense, and could be done with the greatest ease, so that the problem could be quickly dispensed with.

I think I should also point out that the noble Earl does not seem to have taken into account that illegal charges paid by public sector bodies are just as illegal as those paid by any one else, and there is no reason why public sector bodies and nationalised industries should get specially unfavourable treatment, which is in fact what this Amendment would mean. Because of the peculiarities of cumulo rating, the public sector bodies will need to be treated in a different way, but they certainly do not qualify for special treatment, nor should they be penalised by it. If they need to wait another year for their refunds, this will have the effect that consumers of the commodities for which they are responsible—for example, gas, electricity and so on—will be subsidising the water charges, and cross-subsidisation is certainly a very bad thing in economic terms. The noble Earl distinguished between the domestic consumer and the nationalised industries, but the domestic consumer is also, of course, a consumer of gas and electricity, as well as of the services of the Post Office and all the other bodies in the public sector. So that if we proceeded in the way suggested by the noble Earl, he would be paying higher prices for all the other services which he uses and I do not think that would help anyone.

As the noble Earl knows, this kite was flown in exactly the same terms in another place and was then withdrawn. But an arrangement has now been made and the agreed percentage that the nationalised industries should pay will shortly be announced. As I said, there are a number of items for which they are responsible—for example, Post Office mail boxes, pylons, cables and pipes—and for which there is no sewerage, and it was necessary to prescribe a percentage in the collection of charges order. This has not yet been announced, but I expect that it will be around 50 per cent. It is probable that the nationalised industries would get higher refunds if they were subject to the normal test of connection, so that, taking it all round, I must come back to the point that this is the best possible method. Any other system would not only be impractical but would also be quite wrong and of no benefit to the domestic consumer, because what he did not pay in one way, he would pay in higher prices.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. May I ask her whether the nationalised corporations were consulted on this issue and whether they expressed a view, or are we to look forward to lower electricity costs in the next year because the Electricity Board is getting back this large sum? Will there be this benefit which the noble Baroness mentioned? I feel that the Government's reply was good theoretical stuff, but not sympathetic. The whole point is that it is the ratepayers who foot the bill, and we know very well that over the last two years the question of rates has become a very sensitive issue. Everything must be done to avoid further escalation of the rates. This is something which has not been the responsibility of local government, and it is very naughty indeed of the Government to turn around and wash their hands of responsibility.

I should like to ask the noble Baroness one further question. Who organised the local authorities to put this large bill on their computers? Was it the Government who organised it on a national level, or did each local authority take an individual decision? I do not know how my Front Bench feels about this, but I think it is very rare indeed to find a Bill of this nature on which the decision has already been made by the Government, and which both Houses of Parliament are being asked to rubber stamp.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I hesitate to take part in this debate in which I have such a close interest, but I might just add a piece of information as a matter of fact on the point that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has inquired about. There was a very long and complicated discussion between the water authorities as to whether they should ask for the repayment to be spread out over two or more years, or whether they should ask for repayment in one year. This was considered in very great detail and it was their decision, unanimously expressed, upon which the Government finally acted after the water authorities had passed their opinion to the Department of the Environment. That was the decision which actuated the local authorities. The local authorities' considerations were, of course, taken into account, but the water authorities themselves gave very careful thought to this matter, and one of the major factors which was in their minds was the wish to avoid getting into deficit.

My noble friend has spoken fairly lightly of what the consequences would have been had these payments been with held from the other nationalised industries for a year. But I cannot see the other nationalised industries lightly lending £30 million or £40 million to the water industry, without expecting something back for it—because that is what they would have been forced to do. So either they would have been forced to make loans, which I should think they would have been very unwilling to do, or the Government would themselves have had to make a loan. One thing the water authorities concluded, although they would have liked the Government to pick up the bill, was that they did not want to start deficit financing in the water industry. As we look around other nationalised industries, we see that this is the path to disaster. We are a new nationalised corporation, we are not in deficit and I hope we never shall be. But nothing is more undermining to the management strength and morale of an industry than deficit financing from the Government. So that this factor was very much in the minds of my friends in the water authorities when they finally agreed that the right course was to ask the Department of the Environment to give them the necessary powers to make the whole of the repayment in one year.

Viscount AMORY

Will my noble friend have those wise words, which he has just uttered, framed and put up in the boardroom of every water authority in the country?

Baroness BIRK

There is very little to add, because we have had the benefit of hearing the facts of the situation put very clearly and succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I would just answer one outstanding point which the noble Earl put to me. He asked whether the nationalised industries had been consulted about the matter and the answer is, Yes, there have been consultations all the way through with the nationalised industries, including the water industry, and also with the local authorities. There has been complete and constant communication. There has been no question of the Government washing their hands of anything. Having again had this point very well and clearly aired, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I shall certainly withdraw, but I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for intervening and helping the Committee in regard to this Amendment. He certainly helped me, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness BIRK

I spoke to Amendment No. 2 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 16, at end insert— (1A) In subsection (1)(a) above "associated legal costs "means any costs awarded in relation to a summons under Part VI of the General Rate Act 1967 issued solely in respect of non-payment of a general services charge under one or other of the orders mentioned in that paragraph or in relation to the obtaining of a warrant of distress under the said Part VI in respect of such a non-payment."— (Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.19 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 28, leave out (" communicating directly or indirectly ") and insert ("connecting, either directly or through an intermediate sewer or drain,").

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall deal with this Amendment and Amendment No. 4 together. These Amendments are intended to clarify the definition of "properties without sewerage". They make clear that a property is without sewerage, unless there is a formal and physical connection between a property and the public sewers; that is, by a pipe which carries the effluent from the property to the public sewer. The Amendment changes the definition only to ensure that it should be easily understood. If your Lordships remember, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised this point during the Second Reading debate, and I explained that it is really a clarification and does not alter the substance at all. Nobody wants another Daymond case to come about because this Bill is not clear, and further we do not want to increase the workload of local authorities.

As I stressed on Second Reading, when I indicated that I was going to move these Amendments, they are designed to make the situation crystal clear. It has become obvious from comments made by several honourable Members in another place, and as a result of representation from local authorities, that the Bill as previously drafted could have been open to more than one interpretation. The problem arose principally from the concept of indirect connection to surface water drain age which might have been taken to include a case where the water ran off the roof, over the pavement and into a gutter, and it began to appear that the number of cases in which disputes might arise was almost endless. Therefore, obviously we had to do something about it.

It is right that those who receive a service from a water authority should pay, and that clearly includes those who have surface water drainage. However, we have to be sure that the existence of the service can be clearly established and that the service is available specifically to the property that is being charged. We are covering the case where the water may get into the sewer by accident, so we are confident that the Amendment will remove these doubts and will ensure that only those who definitely receive a service can be charged. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, and I believe the Amendment meets the case as well as can possibly be expected.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.23 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 34, leave out (" communicating ") and insert (" connecting ").—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord WINSTANLEY

I have no wish to detain the Committee, but two questions arise from Clause 1 to which I should like an answer. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the duty to make refunds arises only on the1st April 1976; but, as the noble Baroness explained to us on Second Reading, it has been agreed that as a matter of administrative convenience with local authorities the refunds will take the form of rebates from next year's rates demands. My first question is this: What will be the position of a person who will qualify for a rebate but who has subsequently removed from that address and therefore will not be paying rates at all and will not receive a rate demand in that area?

My second point arising out of Clause 1 is that subsection (2) provides for refunds to be abated to take account of any rate relief paid in 1974 or 1975. The noble Baroness explained clearly that but for this some people would be getting back more than they actually paid. When we look at urban properties in places such as the town of Warrington, where there are a number of poor properties including terrace houses which have no sanitation at all, and where we are dealing with people of very low income, many of the people concerned will probably be entitled to a rebate; but there will also be people who are in receipt of rate rebates, which is a rather different thing from rate relief. I just wonder what kind of position will arise there, and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could deal with those matters before we leave this clause.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to ask two other questions. The first concerns the date, the 1st April 1976. She said a little earlier that she was keen that the Bill should be absolutely clear, and I must admit that on reading the Bill it looks as though those who are entitled to the refund will get it on 2nd April. Would it not be better, in view of all the administrative detail and difficulties that must follow from this Bill, that there should be inserted the words: on 1st April 1976 or as quickly as possible "? That would show a certain flexibility for the water authorities who have this duty to refund, and it may lead to a certain understanding by those who anticipate receiving the refund.

My second question—and this is an important factor—is: Is there a time limit by which these refunds must be claimed? Is it up to those who are entitled to receive a refund to claim it, or has the water authority to assume all the varying difficulties, including the sale of houses, new owners, and so on, when dealing with this problem? Referring to subsection (1)(d) where it refers to the "relevant date ", this point was raised in another place and it was said then that, if necessary, the matter would be discussed in this House. If perchance a house should have a water main burst on the relevant date, technically at that stage it would not have a supply of water and therefore would it be entitled to are bate? It is only a small point, but I should like the noble Baroness to reply to it. Finally, can the noble Baroness say whether the water authority intends to advertise the refunds that are due?

Baroness BIRK

I should like, first, to reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The problem of people moving is already being taken into account and in the advertisements that will appear directly the Bill goes through Parliament—because it would be wrong to put out advertisements before it goes through—it will be publicly stated, including by means of the radio, that where people have moved, they will be asked to let the authority, either in the district from where they have come or that to which they have gone, know their old address. It is important that they should do this because, where they have had a 50 per cent. rebate under the old system, the authority there will know who is entitled to the refund but if the people themselves do not hear from the authority then they should claim it.

With regard to the point concerning people in receipt of a rate rebate, as this will not be paid out in cash it is a case of the refund being credited on the general rate account. It will be on their general rate. I believe the noble Earl is thinking of people who, because they are in receipt of a rate rebate, would therefore not be able to have any rate refund credited to them. In those cases they will be paid directly in cash.

I think the noble Earl has rather misunderstood the case because, except for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, people will not be paid in cash. It will be credited to their rate charge for the following year, and there fore it does not really matter if the date is the 1st or the 2nd April because the principle will still apply. Obviously, there will be flexibility, and, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the local authorities will have a note of the people to whom they have paid back the 50 per cent. charge. We will be stressing in our publicity that people should know that they must ask for this credit. At the moment, there is not a time limit, but since the refunds are taking place next year, one would assume that people will want to get their refunds credited as soon as possible. So I do not think that point will arise.

I have dealt with the question of advertising. On the point about burst water mains, we must rely on common sense and rough justice. We cannot cover every possible eventuality. All the way through there has been the closest consultation with local authorities in all these things, and in most cases such matters will be satisfactorily sorted out.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Water authorities' power to charge]:

6.31 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 39, leave out (" communicating directly or indirectly ") and insert (" connecting, either directly or through an intermediate sewer or drain,")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee I will speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These Amendments apply the same definition of a sewered property for future charging as that used to determine eligibility for re funds. These Amendents are consequential to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 45, leave out (" communicating ") and insert (" connecting ").—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 4, line 1, leave out from (" rating ") to end of line 4.

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this Amendment I will speak to Amendment No. 8 at the same time. These are Amendments of drafting rather than of substance. Their main purpose is to ensure that the Water Authorities (Collection of Charges) Order 1976 can provide for a percentage charge to the formula-rated nationalised industries—electricity, gas, the Post Office, and the water industry itself—on a similar basis to that provided for refunds. As I said on Second Reading, there are special problems in charging these industries for sewerage and sewage disposal and so they have to be treated in a special way. Obviously, we want to ensure that there can be a percentage charge to the industries next year, just as there will be a percentage refund of the charges they have paid over the last two years. As I am advised, it is possible to interpret the Bill, as previously drafted, in such a way as to preclude a percentage charge for next year. I consider that these Amendments are necessary to clarify the position. I beg to move.

Lord. SANDFORD

I am entirely agreeable to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, but as we are dealing with both at once, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a question. What on earth is sub-paragraph (2)(ccb)? I think it is just the computer, but there may be more to it than that.

Baroness BIRK

I think it is the Water Authorities (Collection of Charges) Order to which I referred.

Lord SANDFORD

I do not think the noble Baroness need worry about this.

Baroness BIRK

This is Clause 1(8). It is something rather complicated and detailed, but I think I gave the gist of it.

Lord SANDFORD

I am sure that the noble Baroness gave the gist of it absolutely splendidly, but I still think there is a misprint there.

Baroness BIRK

If I may, I will look into it, to make sure. If there is a misprint, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.

Lord SANDFORD

Do not worry about it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 37, at end insert: ( ) At the end of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 6 to the Water Act 1973 there shall be added the following sub-paragraph: (3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (2)(c) above, an order may include provision for calculations on a special basis or bases of amounts payable in respect of here ditaments specified by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(ccb) above."."—[Baroness Birk.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

6.36 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 9:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Charges by local authority to cleanse cesspools, etc.

" .— After subsection (1) of section 74 of the Public Health Act, 1936, there are inserted the following subsections:—

(" (1A) A local authority shall not under sub section (I) of this section charge, in any year in respect of any here ditament without sewerage, for cleansing any earth closet, privy, as hpit or cesspool, more than the total sums which would have been charged by the water authority in that year in respect of the said here ditament for sewerage and sewage disposal if the said here ditament had not been without sewerage.

Provided that for the purpose of calculating the said sums the value of the said here ditament shall not be included in any totals of values of here ditaments not without sewerage in the area of the water authority.

(1B) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) above

1. (a) "hereditament "has the meaning assigned to it by section 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, and
2. (b) a hereditament is without sewerage if it it is a hereditament without sewerage for the purposes of section 1 of the Water Charges Act 1976."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I hope I can explain the gist of the purpose of this Amendment because it deals with earth closets, privies, as hpits or cesspools. The Daymond case proved to be something of an empiric victory for those owners of properties with cesspool drainage, because they now see that the costs of emptying the cesspools has changed, and could change quite dramatically. The simple purpose of this Amendment is to put a maximum limit, for the time being, on the charge that a local authority may levy on the owner of a property with a cesspool.

The Committee will recall that it was the clear wish of Parliament that local authorities should continue to have the responsibility for cesspools when the water authorities were set up and when, indeed, the water authorities took on the duty of general drainage. Prior to the Daymond case, I think I am right in saying, cesspool owners faced two charges: a general charge put through the local authorities from the water authorities for the treatment of cesspool sewage, and a charge every time the local authority emptied their cesspool. The emptying charge was in the region of about £6.50 a visit, and some properties were visited about four times a year. Therefore, there was a direct charge to the local authority of about £24, and approximately £6 through the local authority from the water authority. We thus took a gross figure prior to the Daymond case of about £30 a year.

With the Daymond case decided, understand that the water authorities now feel that they should charge £2.40 per thousand gallons of cesspool drainage for treatment. I do not dispute that that is probably very fair. But the local authorities, partly because of the Daymond case, are altering their charges to the cesspool owners. Instead of charging an average sum per visit, they are deciding to charge also so much per thousand gallons. I am told that in some cases, particularly in Kent, there is thought of charging a gross fee of £10 per thousand gallons. If that is a figure one can go on, it is not beyond the wit of man to estimate that a household with, perhaps, three or four people, could find them selves with a bill of some £120 per house for sewage costs. This is clearly wrong, and I am sure is something with which the Government are not in full sympathy. If they cannot accept the wording of this Amendment, I hope that they will see the merit of it, which briefly is to limit the maximum charge that a local authority can make. Because of the fact that we are dealing with the Water Authority Act, and this also goes into the realm of the Public Health Act 1936, the second part of this Amendment covers that part to bring it into line. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I must stress once again that this Bill is an emergency measure, designed, as I made clear on Second Reading and earlier in this Committee, to deal with problems that arise directly from the Daymond judgment. It is concerned really with nothing else at all, and it is not a suitable vehicle for bringing in other points, which, although of extreme importance, are nothing to do with the particular issue with which this Bill deals. It is essential, as we all know, that the Bill becomes law by 31st March if people are to get their refunds—and this is what the Bill is about—in the financial year1976–77. This point has been made very strongly to us by the local authority associations, who are quite content that the Bill should deal with this particular issue.

With regard to the Amendment, I can see the thinking behind it and its merits, but it introduces far-reaching changes which go quite outside the purpose of the Bill. It also raises questions which need fardeeper discussion and consideration than can possibly take place now in this particular context, which is quite wrong for it. That is why, as I said on Second Reading, the Government are to raise the issues for debate—and this particular issue will most certainly be raised—in the Consultation Paper on the Review of the Water Industry. This Consultation Paper will be published next week, and I am sure the noble Earl will agree, in view of that, that that is the place to discuss it, when the whole range of problems and future of the water industry will be discussed and consultations will be opened with everybody concerned. I therefore urge the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Lord SANDFORD

I wish the noble Baroness had started her remarks in response to my noble friend's Amendment with the latter part of her speech and indicated that she had sympathy with the point he was making, because I think he is making a good point. I have been less than enthusiastic in my support of my noble friend in what he said about Clause 1, but I think there is very real substance in what he is now saying. I would have to agree with the noble Baroness that this Bill, if it was to be enacted in time, had to be handled with dispatch; considerable consultations were required and it was well that they were concentrated on the issue raised by the Raymond case. But I hope that we could get her, either now or at the next stage, to be a little more forthcoming than to say that there is to be a review and that this matter will be contained within it. I hope we can get her to say that the legislation arising from the review will deal with this matter, because I think she can recognise from what my noble friend has said and from what has already emerged that there is a problem to be dealt with. We would not want to know at this stage precisely how it is to be dealt with, but we would not want this opportunity—and I think there is an opportunity here—to go by without being quite certain that there is to be a further opportunity in the fairly immediate future. Perhaps the noble Baroness would would like to respond to that now, but I should like to feel that she will certainly respond to it at the next stage, because otherwise I should feel inclined to encourage my noble friend to pursue the matter.

Baroness BIRK

Anything to stop the noble Lord encouraging his noble friend to pursue it gets me to my feet immediately. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was a little less than fair about the way I replied to the noble Earl. I am sure he will see when he reads Hansard tomorrow that I expressed both sympathy and understanding of the point of view. I was dealing with it in what I considered the correct logical sequence, dealing with the purpose of the Bill we are discussing and then explaining the framework in which the problems raised were to be discussed in the Consultation Paper.

If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I can certainly expand a little on that, but not to any very specific degree. The whole question of responsibility for emptying cesspools will be raised in the Consultation Paper on The Review of the Water Industry, but I cannot possibly pre-empt what will come out of it because it will be a paper open for consultation. It might be that the most sensible solution would be to transfer responsibility for emptying cesspools to water authorities, which would enable them to introduce comprehensive charging schemes so that everyone paid for the service he received, though I must point out that that might still mean cesspit owners paying more for the higher costs they impose. But these are difficult issues that will need to be discussed and considered further. Local authorities were anxious at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act toretain this responsibility. They will, therefore, wish to put their views, and will have to be given the opportunity of putting their views, on any transfer of function, and we will need to look carefully at what they have to say.

As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, a great deal of work has to be done, and a large number of people will have to be consulted before we can effect any fundamental rationalisation of the present system. It would be a great mistake—and I do not think the noble Earl is going to do this—on this occasion, or at a later stage of this Bill, to rush precipitately in any direction, particularly the one indicated by this Amendment. I would ask the noble Earl and Members of the Committee to accept at this moment that the Consultation Paper will be published next week, that this point will be one of the problems contained in that paper, and it will then be a matter of discussion and consultation. I cannot go any further; it would be quite wrong for me to do so, because I would be pre-empting the purpose of the paper, which is consultation.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I should like, first of all, to thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for his support on this Amendment, and indeed to congratulate him on extracting from the noble Baroness the further important information that the question of cesspools will be on the agenda under the review. I sincerely hope that it will receive a sympathetic hearing. I would say to the noble Baroness that, much as one appreciates that this is an emergency Bill, nevertheless one often comes out with consequences that one had not perhaps spotted at the time. I think this is one of the consequences that could have come out of it. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her second reply, which appeared to be much more sympathetic to the spirit of this Amendment than her first reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.