Skip to main content

Lancashire River Board (Blackpool Precept)

Volume 498: debated on Thursday 3 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

52.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the contribution of Blackpool Corporation to the expenses of the newly-established Lancashire River Board for the year ended 31st March, 1952, is £20,830 as against the average annual contribution previously of £2,233 for the old Lancashire Rivers Board and the River Wyre Catchment Board; and whether, as a corporation such as Blackpool derives small benefit from the increased expenditure, he will, at an early date, review the arrangements under which the expenditure of river boards is collected from local authorities.

My right hon. Friend is aware of this increase. It arises largely from the fact that only part of the town was included in the previous Catchment Area whereas it is wholly included in the present River Board Area. This is in accordance with the River Boards Act, 1948, which also lays down the arrangements under which the expenses of river boards are met. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Housing and Local Government see no reason to review these arrangements which have been so recently approved by Parliament.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases this Act has had the effect of placing the main burden of costs on those who are least concerned?

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that if wealthy Blackpool paid less, more unfortunate authorities would have to pay more?

May I ask if my hon. Friend is aware that precisely similar conditions apply in the not very wealthy City of Liverpool, where the proportion of the increased precept is almost exactly the same, without any compensating advantage?

53.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will provide figures showing how the total annual expenditure for all river boards in the country for the financial year ended 31st March, 1952, compares with the average total expenditure on river work by other responsible organisations during the five years preceding April, 1952, when the new river board machinery came into operation; and what steps are being taken to curtail unnecessary and extravagant expenditure by river boards in the light of the new economic circumstances of the country.

I am afraid that it is not possible to provide such comparative information. River boards have important functions to perform and my right hon. and gallant Friend has no reason to think that they are incurring unnecessary or extravagant expenditure.