Clause 3.—(LICENCES.) (Hansard, 17 July 1964)

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "contiguous", to insert "or reasonably adjacent".
There was a short discussion on this point in Committee in another place. As the Bill stands, a person who can obtain a licence to abstract water for the purpose of spray irrigation is the occupier of land contiguous to a stream. It might be that a farm is only 50 yards or even 20 yards away from a stream. Does the Clause mean that the farmer is thereby excluded from extracting water unless, as the Minister of State implied in another place, he sought an arrangement with the riparian owner to 1666 get permission to put a pipeline across that farmer's land?
I cannot see what the position is. I think that a farmer whose land is 20 yards or 30 yards from a river ought to be able to apply for a licence and the river board should be entitled to consider whether it should grant him a licence. He should not be excluded merely because he is not a riparian owner.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I might be able to help the hon. Member, because this question was also discussed on Second Reading in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) raised a similar case of a farmer whose land was separated from a stream as defined in the Bill by a short strip of land. I was able to tell my hon. Friend that such situations are likely to occur very infrequently in areas of Scotland to be affected by these control orders for the extraction of water for spray irrigation.
Secondly, I pointed out that the common law right to abstract water for primary purposes is limited to a riparian owner and "riparian" means "contiguous". We looked into this matter very carefully from the legal point of view. It means that a person whose land is actually washed by the water of a stream is a riparian owner. Therefore, someone who did not actually own the land contiguous to the stream, but whose land was separated by a strip, is not a riparian owner and does not come within the common law right to abstract water. This Bill is not aimed at trying to change that basic law on this point but to build upon it. What I was able to do for my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and now hope to do for the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is to make perfectly clear that the legal right under common law does not extend to those whose land is cut off by a strip of land from the stream.
The hon. Member may regret this, but it is probably helpful that I should make it clear for anyone who finds himself in this situation. He will then know where he stands and be able to make alternative arrangements. Such people cannot normally expect to be included among those who can take water from a stream 1667 for spray irrigation because their land does not actually touch the water.

§ Mr. Bence
I am astounded at this situation. I know a case in which many years ago a road was cut alongside two lochs and a river. The side of the road which goes towards the loch is common land and the other side of the road belongs to the Forestry Commission. I take it that because the road was cut by a local authority and the land between the road and the lochs is now common land, the Forestry Commission could not take advantage of this Bill and irrigate its plantations with water from the loch because it is no longer a riparian owner there. If the road had not been cut the Commission would have been a riparian owner there.
There are many places in Scotland where a road has been cut by a loch and the farmer has disposed of land near the loch or near an estuary to a development department wishing to make a road. One sees instances of this all the way from Carlisle along by the Clyde where farmers have had their land separated from the river by a road intervening and they have lost their rights. If we are to have developments in Scotland which open up the Highlands, many farmers wanting to develop strips of land after they have given up land for new roads will lose riparian rights. They will then have little chance of getting a licence for abstraction of water from a river or a loch.
3.0 p.m.
This is an extraordinary situation. I dread to think of the case of a farmer who has a few hundred acres and has on the periphery of his farm a river or loch. At present, he can apply for and obtain a licence because he is a riparian owner, but in four or five years' time, because the Department in Edinburgh decides to construct a new road and the best place to put it is beside the loch, he finds himself deprived of riparian ownership because he is no longer the owner of the land on which the water laps. His farming has been dependent upon irrigation by water from the loch or river, but he is no longer the owner of land contiguous to the water. If this is the new situation, I am surprised that it was not envisaged earlier, especially when one thinks of developments now planned in Scotland. Thousands of farmers may lose riparian ownership in this situation.
1668 If the road is constructed by the local authority is it still to be treated as part of the farm so that the farmer will retain riparian ownership? At Loch Lomond, for instance, the road runs alongside the water in several places. If there is further road construction will Sir Ivar Colquhoun lose his riparian ownership? This may not be an important question for him but it is for the small farmer who may be placed in the same position. A farmer may lose the right because his landlord decides to fence off a 40-yard strip alongside a river because it is being poached.
If this is to be the case, it opens the way to tremendous exploitation. Indeed, there is the possibility of corruption and of all sorts of pressures. There is the possibility of a vicious landowner taking away the land adjacent to the river in order to deny to the farmer the possibility of having the right to extract water.
I am shocked that we should be in a situation where we are making it possible for spray irrigation schemes to be carried out, but only by people who have riparian rights, when, apparently, it will be easy for the landowner or the local authority to deny the farmer those rights. The Under-Secretary's explanation does not satisfy me. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is serving the interest of every small farmer in Scotland in putting forward the Amendment. I hope that he will demand a far more satisfactory explanation of the Clause and of why the Amendment is not necessary.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I explained the position briefly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and it was discussed on Second Reading. This riparian right is of long standing. It is a right in common law which existed long before spray irrigation was thought of. The situation under common law is that if somebody finds that for one reason or another his land is no longer contiguous he has lost the right to draw water for primary use, for man and beast and for domestic purposes. So there is no change in that, though I acknowledge that, with the coming of spray irrigation in areas where it happens to be suitable for agriculture, it has had greater significance.
If a farmer is concerned with a transaction under which a section of his land 1669 along the edge of a stream from which he is abstracting or might wish to abstract water is to be sold or taken over in some way, then, provided that he is able to keep a piece which is contiguous with the stream, he will still retain his right. This is something which in the past has always had to be considered. A farmer's legal adviser would inform him that if he sold off a section touching a stream, he would lose the common law right to abstract water therefrom, a right which might or might not be particularly valuable to him. In the future, if he wanted to go in for spray irrigation, it would be likely to be of more value.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Development Department. I am sure that the Department would be among the first to recognise that this is an important right and try to do something to protect it. In the making of a road, for instance, a section could be left to the farmer.

§ Mr. Bence
How could a section be left alongside a stream or loch if a road was being built? Would a bridge have to be put up?

§ Mr. Campbell
I am sure that there are ways of doing it. I do not want to go into all the possible permutations and combinations. I hope that it is enough for the hon. Gentleman to realise that the Development Department would be fully aware of this point and of how a farmer could be assisted by being left a section contiguous to a stream. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point about it, but I think it far more likely, in fact, that it would be not the Development Department but persons who, unfortunately, did not realise how much was at stake who might be involved in difficulty. I hope, therefore, that the fact that I have twice now, both in this Committee and on Second Reading, clearly stated the legal position at common law, which we are not trying to change in the Bill—we are simply building on it—will mean that, if situations of this kind do arise, there will be less and less likelihood of people dong things in ignorance of the rights involved.
The hon. Gentleman should realise that anomalies would be created by the Amendment. If we brought in a farmer 1670 whose land came within 50 yards of a stream, what about a man whose land came within 70 yards, or a man with a great deal of land coming within 100 yards? Hon. Members will accept that it would be very difficult to draw a line and one might create anomalies. As I said before, it is not the Government's intention to alter the common law in this respect. We are simply determining what it is at present and then building on to it by the provisions of the Bill.
I understand the apprehensions which hon. Members have raised, but I hope that, by clearly stating what the legal position now is, I have shown them that, on the whole, it is best for all concerned that we should not try to alter it but should merely understand what the consequences of it are.

§ Mr. Ross
This shows the value of discussion in Committee. No one can touch on the question of land, land tenure and rights going with land without appreciating the complexities of the whole subject.
The Under-Secretary of State has failed properly to realise the importance of this matter. It is quite wrong to say that we are not altering the common law by the Bill. We are conferring new rights upon particular people. Water is at present being extracted for spray irrigation, and there is no common law protection for people who are doing it. He is conferring on certain people the right to extract, with impugnity, under licence, but he is conferring it on a limited number of people.
I am one of those strange people who cannot understand how anyone comes to own a mountain or a river. There used to be a song "How Can You Buy Killarney?". That is an Irish instance, but it offends my Scottish pride of race that somebody can own a Scottish river. Riparian ownership is not limited to drawing water for drinking purposes. There is another right, namely, the right of fishing. This is a valuable right, as we discovered when the Hydro-Electric Board wanted to carry out a scheme in the Highlands and Lord Lovat—one of these patriots—was able to extract £100,000 in compensation for the disturbance of his rights.
1671 A landowner can alienate occupation of land and retain ownership of fishing rights. After this Bill is passed there will be nothing to prevent him from alienating occupation and retaining this new right of water abstraction but continuing to own the banks of the river. From the farmer's point of view, it probably does not mean very much until he wants to make use of the Bill and then discovers that he cannot apply for a licence. The right to a licence is limited to the occupier of the contiguous land. There is nothing to prevent owners from selling or leasing their fishing rights or water abstraction rights. They may not do it, but no one else can do it because they do not own the land concerned.
I have read a little of the history of our country, and I have a fair idea of what the people whom the Under-Secretary of State supports have done to it and of what they have extracted from it and about the land to which they have very dubious title. There was a Royal Commission on this matter in, I think, the 1870s. One of the things which it suggested should be done was that people who claimed to have fishing rights should produce their title to them. The evidence was that very few people who exercised fishing rights had any title to them.
Nobody owns a fish or a stream. No offence is committed by fishing in any stream in Scotland. Difficulty arises only when one catches a fish, and then only if it is of a particular type—and not a trout. Then it belongs to the riparian owner. While it is in the stream, it belongs to nobody.
The important thing about this matter is this. Is it right in the interests of agriculture? Is it right that we should give this new protective right only to people who happen to be occupiers, whether they be owner-occupiers or tenant occupiers, of contiguous land?
3.15 p.m.
This matter concerned another place. The word was not always "contiguous". In the original Statute, it was "abutting". Then, there was a feeling that "contiguous" was better. There is no reason why we should not use "adjacent". Of course, it will lead to difficulties; so will "contiguous". It 1672 confers a particular benefit on certain people.
I, too, feel strongly about this. We should discuss it for considerably longer than we have time to do today. It is a matter on which we should have time for reflection. The points made by my hon. Friend are extremely relevant. I was interested in what was said about water being taken across a road and whether the local authority will advise people of the rights that they will lose in any sales of land.
The assumption always is that it is the farmer who is interested. If he is only a tenant farmer, he does not sell the ground; it is the landlord. The Under-Secretary will appreciate that we gave landowners considerably greater rights in breaking leases on the death of a tenant farmer. That was done under the 1957 Act, part of which enables landowners to take pieces of land out of a farm.
I remember, during the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election, being approached by an old man who knew that when he died his son would not get the same amount of land on the farm as a result of the beneficent generosity of the Under-Secretary and his friends looking after the interests of landowners. Do not let us forget the powers of landowners.
We are now conferring this right upon landowners to take water so that, if they act within their licence, nobody can take them to court. This is being written in at a later point of the Bill. We are giving a guarantee to which these people have no right. I am not satisfied that we should give this benefit purely to people who happen to have riparian rights.
This was a matter which concerned the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who wanted to ensure that where fishing rights had been alienated, the farmer occupying the land, although he might have doubtful title to the contiguous part of the stream, should be able to get a licence to abstract water for spray irrigation. This is a complex matter.
If this is the only way out, let us appreciate what we are doing. We are conferring new rights upon riparian owners or, in this case, upon the riparian occupiers. Only the occupier, I understand, can make application. It is a 1673 difficult matter and one to which we should give far more thought than we have been able to do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) for having seen the point and put down the Amendment to enable us to have this discussion.

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
I should like to make one or two points before we leave the Amendment. I confess that when I put it on the Notice Paper I did not realise its implications. I am always glad to put my foot in a hornets' nest and then hastily withdraw and leave the experts to sort it out.
I understand the point to be that by this new technique in agriculture we are giving an extremely valuable capital asset to a restricted body of people who happen to own land by the side of rivers. I want to put to the Under-Secretary a hypothetical situation, but one which might occur under the Bill. I am not sure whether it can occur and I should like the hon. Gentleman's guidance.
Suppose a farmer wants to use the powers given in this Bill to extract water and he gets his licence, but that, prior to that, he has had discussions with a farmer 50 yards farther away from the river and has said, "I will get a licence and then, having got permission to extract water from the river, I will sell you a certain volume of the water which I am to be allowed to abstract." In other words, for a £5 annual licence fee he is getting a potentially enormous capital asset put into his hands.
This seems to me to be highly undesirable. Are there any provisions in the Bill—I do not think that there are—to prevent a riparian owner from subsequently selling water which he is allowed to abstract under the terms of his licence? Will there be anything written into the licence? I presume that there could be. In the light of what has been said, I think there ought to be written into the terms of the licence a condition that the water to be extracted shall be abstracted only for the land of the person abstracting it.
As my hon. Friend advanced his argument and as the hon. Gentleman opposite has put what I regard as the injustice of the common law as at present it stands, I have come more and more to the view that the land itself ought to be in public ownership. It is absolute nonsense to talk about own- 1674 ing or selling a river. The land ought to be owned by us, that is, by the public in general, and the more I hear the hon. Gentleman opposite talking about riparian owners and their exclusive rights the more I am convinced that public ownership is the only solution to the problem.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I should like, first, to clear up a misunderstanding, which, I think, also occurred between myself and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on Second Reading, and that was that I said that there has existed for a long time in common law the right for a riparian proprietor to take water for what were described as primary purposes. What I then said was not that we were conferring a new right for spray irrigation, but that it was open to doubt whether taking very large quantities for spray irrigation was within the common law or not. I just wanted to make that clear because the hon. Gentleman was implying, I think, that I said that spray irrigation was definitely not within the common law, but it is open to doubt.
Coming now to the point which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) raised, we would expect the conditions in a licence to make it clear that whether the applicant had to use the water himself or could pass it on to someone else. On the other hand, the Bill is flexible enough for it to be possible for a riparian occupier—the hon. Gentleman asked for a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical case and I am putting it in the same spirit—to apply for a licence on the basis that he is going to pass some of the water to somebody else who is not a riparian.
Whether a river purification board would be prepared to grant a licence on that basis and under what conditions would be a matter for consideration by the board, and there would be a great many circumstances which would enter into that consideration. The point is that the possibility is not ruled out by the Bill. In such a case as the hon. Member mentioned, if a farmer who is a riparian were to get a licence the licence would, I am sure, state as a condition that he must use the water himself, and I do not think that at that stage he could start trading it to somebody else, which is what the hon. Member suggested. I think that I can 1675 answer him by saying that that would be included in the conditions.

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "one calendar year" and to insert: a maximum of three calendar years subject to the discretion of the board". This, again, was a point which was raised in another place. To apply for a licence each year would seem to me to be an unnecessary hindrance. I appreciate that there may be reasons for it. Presumably the argument in favour of the yearly application is that with a steady increase in the use of spray irrigation more and more applications would come. Eventually, there would be a saturation point and it would be unfair to give a monopoly of these rights to the group of people who got in first. Nevertheless, I thought that discretion ought to be given to the board whether the licence should be for one, two or three years, according to the wishes of the board and the individual.
It may well be that an individual would wish to apply yearly for a licence; on the other hand, he might prefer to have a licence for three years. If he wants a licence for three years, and the river board has no objection to it, there would be a marginal reduction in administrative costs. I cannot see any objection to that degree of flexibility which is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) says, this is certainly a point for consideration and we have considered it very carefully. He mentioned one important argument about further applicants coming in during the period of three years and that it might have the effect of keeping out people who had a perfectly legitimate reason for applying after the first batch of applicants.
We also think that there may well be changes from year to year in the fluctuations of supply and demand and also in the supply of water. We have come to the conclusion that basing it on a calendar year would be the soundest way and fairest to all concerned, and for that reason we should like to keep to the calendar year.

§ Mr. Hamilton
In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move in page 3, line 16, at the end to insert: (6) In considering an application and any representations against it duly made a river purification board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, including—

(a) the interests of public health;

(b) the character and flow of the stream specified in the application;

(c) the extent to which that stream is or may in the future be used for industrial purposes or for the purpose of any public undertaking or for fisheries or water supply;

(d) the effect on land drainage or on any canal or inland navigation of any alterations in the flow of the stream;

and shall secure, so far as practicable, the protection of the rights of persons with statutory rights to abstract water from the stream, of riparian owners, and of other owners of lands or salmon fishings. This is an Amendment of considerable substance. The purification board proceeds now to the question of considering the applications that it has before it. As we have reasonably pointed out, it has not an easy task. There is nothing in the Statute which gives the board criteria for determining exactly why and how it should judge this matter. But there are certain reasonable criteria on which a river purification board should consider its functions, and this one as well.
3.30 p.m.
Therefore, the Amendment tries to lay down some generalised criteria that the river purification board should bear in mind, and it also lays down that it should, so far as is practicable, ensure the protection of existing water rights. It is laid down by the Amendment that: In considering an application and any representations against it duly made a river purification board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, including—

(a) the interests of public health;

(b) the character and flow of the stream specified in the application "—

Those are all basic. (c) the extent to which that stream is or may in the future be used for industrial purposes or for the purpose of any public undertaking or for fisheries or water supply; (d) the effect on land drainage or on any canal or inland navigation of any alterations in the flow of the stream; and shall secure, so far as practicable, the protection of the rights of persons with statutory rights to abstract water from the stream, of riparian owners, and of other owners of lands or salmon fishings."; 1677 So it is fairly comprehensive, and these things have to be borne in mind.
The Under-Secretary will probably say that it is not necessary and that the board will bear these things in mind. But there is nothing laid down in the Bill which suggests that it should. He may take refuge in the fact that the board will be doing this in the performance of its duties. But it is arguable that all that is laid down is that the board should consider an application for a licence and grant it either conditionally or unconditionally, and that there is nothing in the Clause requiring it to take into account existing interests in the stream. Once the licence has been granted, the spray irrigator can do as he likes irrespective of the conditions in the stream. We shall then be dependent on the board taking action. It is essential that the board should satisfy itself that the giving of the licence will not injure the interests of other people—and there is a considerable number of interests.
It may be that the Government will say that the machinery of control will be brought into operation only in those areas where there is a relative shortage. But during a shortage of water there will be an abundance of spray irrigation, and it is likely to become a problem. We should also remember all the important rights under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and the establishment of those things. We must bear in mind that these are pre-eminent and should be given first priority. It is only in circumstances where there is an abundance of water and where there are no chances being taken in respect of existing rights that we should confer the new right. It is only fair that that should be done. There are statutory water undertakings taking water from some of the streams and taking water from sources which are dependent on those streams.
When consideration was given to this aspect in another place, there was a tendency to say that this does not apply much in Scotland. But we must bear in mind what is likely to happen over water in Scotland over the next few years. We are making more and more demands on our water resources. An American firm is setting up a new factory just outside my constituency. It will cost the local authority more than £1 million to 1678 provide the water that the factory requires, and without that water we should not have any industry.
If we are to rebuild Scotland—I am sure we are; it would take more than 13 years of Tory rule to destroy Scotland and its spirit—it will mean more and more water. It will mean that the abstraction of water for progressive farming will be more desirable, but it will be more difficult until we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the water is conserved for use at the right time.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not answer on the basis of today's situation. We must look far ahead and bear in mind the importance of this matter. If spray irrigation is to be permitted and so much water abstracted from statutory undertakers, we may find the situation difficult in times of shortage. All these interests will be without remedy once the spray irrigators have their licences, for they will be entirely dependent in time of severe shortage on the purification boards exercising powers under Clause 7.
We must not take this on chance. It is essential to lay down the obligations of these boards when considering applications for licences. Presumably they will start with a general annual review of how many applications they can permit and how much water in aggregate they can allow to be abstracted under particular circumstances. We must lay down the criteria of public health interests, agriculture and the rights of others, including the statutory water undertakers.

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
The Amendment's intentions are perfectly legitimate and sound. We should spell out for the boards the criteria on which to base their decisions. But all this emphasises the difficulties under which these boards and other public bodies are labouring—the lack of a national plan for the development of Scotland as a whole. Like everyone else, the river purification boards are in ignorance about future development. Yet the areas in which spray irrigation is likely to occur and expand are precisely those areas which need more economic development.
I represent part of the eastern side of the country which is subject to this 1679 kind of problem. We need more industrial development there but one of the problems of local authorities is how to satisfy potential industrial developers about the adequacy of water supplies. It therefore behoves us to specify to the boards that, important though agricultural interests are, potential industrial development is at least as important.
There is also an interest, which is not mentioned in the Amendment, which may or may not be important. It is that of boating and sailing and the relationship to tourism.

§ The Chairman
Order. I am afraid that we get into difficulty if we mention things not in the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ross
But no difficulty arises, Sir William. The Amendment refers in paragraph (d) to canal or inland navigation.

§ The Chairman
In that case the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) misled me in leading me to believe that they were not mentioned.

§ Mr. Hamilton
It just shows that you, too, should have read the Amendment, Sir William. I apologise.
Inland navigation is an important consideration and should be spelt out in legislation of this sort.
There is also the increased use of water for purposes other than agricultural and spray irrigation. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of houses in Scotland without a water supply. We hope that when we get another Government, in October, those houses will have a water supply installed. This will mean an increasing demand for domestic water. A characteristic of recent years has been that the amount of water consumed per head of the population has increased substantially year by year. This is an important consideration to be borne in mind by all responsible water authorities.
The Under-Secretary will probably argue that this is a relatively minor problem at the moment and of concern to only three or four river boards, but he will probably agree that the problem is likely to increase, so that it behoves river boards to be increasingly concerned about other interests which have at least an equal right to the available water 1680 supplies. I hope that he will consider the Amendment in those terms.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I can assure hon. Members that I have studied the Amendment with admiration, because there is no doubt that in paragraphs (a) to (d) the hon. Members who have drafted the Amendment have included extremely important criteria on which boards, dependent on their local circumstances, will have to take their decisions. They have brought out some extremely valuable and important points which the boards will have to consider.
I say at once that the Government agree that these are matters which the boards should consider. All that we are worried about is that we should not include these to the apparent exclusion of other matters which the boards ought to take into account in their varying circumstances in different parts of Scotland. I should also add that we do not like the last three lines of the Amendment after paragraph (d), because we feel that they carry the implication that the object of the control of spray irrigation is to give some priority to the spray irrigator at the expense of other interests in the river. That is not so, and I know that the Opposition do not wish that to be so. However, with that reservation, I agree that the sense of the Amendment is right. These are very important matters and cover a very wide range of criteria which the boards will have to consider.
Nevertheless, I ask hon. Members not to press the Amendment. One of the reasons is that in Section 17 of the 1951 Act the duties of the boards on being set up are not spelled out in detail like this. We believe that it would be inconsistent to have these criteria spelled out like this and appear to be attempting to cover all the points. I congratulate hon. Members on covering so much of the field, but, with the best of intentions, I still think that the Amendment does not cover all the issues which the river boards would have to take into account. Nor would it be wise to try to do so, because it is almost impossible to foresee every circumstance which a board might have to take into account and which might be of varying importance in different areas.
I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the Bill to the areas concerned. I have said before, and I repeat, that we do not expect it to be 1681 applicable all over Scotland, because, fortunately, in many parts of Scotland there is an abaundance of water.

§ Mr. Ross
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the last three lines of the Amendment. We would not like to give spray irrigation precedence, but the hon. Gentleman's first point was a bad one because we have said: shall have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case including … We do not wish to secure only this point. These matters are to be considered without affecting the general considerations, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman said, and in the hope that he will accept the next Amendment, I beg to withdrawn this one.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "board", to insert: having regard to their statutory duties and

§ The Chairman
With that Amendment it will be possible to discuss the Amendment in line 26.

§ Mr. Ross
The Amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
While not accepting that this is absolutely necessary, I am glad to be able to say that we would accept these two Amendments.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end to insert: the point of abstraction of water".

§ Mr. G. Campbell
Again, this spells out one of the points of information which a board should know, and we are glad to accept the Amendment

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "application" to the end of line 29 and to insert: and in the case of refusal of consent the board shall communicate in writing their 1682 decision and the reasons therefor to the applicant".

The Chaiiman
With that Amendment it will be possible to discuss the Amendment in line 28.

§ Mr. Ross
I do not think that it is desirable to include the words but such consent shall not be unreasonably refused. But I think that where it is refused, bearing in mind the right of appeal which a person has, the board should give written reasons for its refusal to grant a licence.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
We are inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not essential to keep these words in the Bill, and of the two Amendments we would be prepared to accept the first one.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "allow", to insert "with or without conditions".

§ The Chairman
With that Amendment it will be possible to discuss also the following Amendments in line 43, and the two in line 44

§ Mr. Ross
I think that these are also fairly reasonable Amendments. I know that they take a certain power away from the Secretary of State but if we provide all these variations in subsection (9), the Secretary of State does not need to require this consideration in the first instance.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I would have liked to be able to say, after the recent run of acceptances, that I could accept these Amendments, but the fourth Amendment would not allow my right hon. Friend to deal with an appeal as if a licence application had been made to him in the first instance. This would remove what we consider to be a proper degree of flexibility which has been allowed to the Secretary of State on numerous other occasions where similar considerations apply—for example, in the town and country planning code—and for those reasons we would prefer to keep the Bill as it stands.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert: (11) Before determining any appeal under this section the Secretary of State shall, if the applicant or the river purification board or any person who under subsection (5) of this section has made representations regarding the application so desire, afford to them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose. The Secretary of State already has power to hold a local inquiry relating to an appeal against a river board's decision, but this is within his discretion. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that he will not determine an appeal without giving all concerned the opportunity of appearing if they so desire. The Amendment is in accord with the spirit of the arrangements generally envisaged for the determination of appeals by the Council on Tribunals.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out from "final" to the end of line 9.
I do not think that the words sought to be left out are necessary. If the Secretary of State comes to a decision he does not need to order a river purification board to act in conformity with it.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
In the spirit of meeting the Opposition as far as I can, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. W. Hamilton
I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "£5"and to insert"£20".

§ The Chairman
With this Amendment we can take the Amendment in page 4, line 12, after "sum", insert "not less than £10".

§ Mr. Hamilton
Yes, Sir William.
The reason I wanted to extract a figure from the Minister as to the administrative cost was precisely because of this Amendment. The administrative cost ought to be borne by the people who are extracting the water. I see no reason why there should be a charge on public funds in respect of the administrative cost. The hon. Member quoted a figure of £4,000 a year, and it would 1684 appear that that sum would not be covered by the payment of an annual fee of £5.
I have, therefore, suggested that the figure should be £20. This is a reasonable proposition. The farmer is getting very good value for money, if all the accounts are true of the increased productivity which arises from the use of this water, which is a national asset.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
I should make it clear that the figure that I gave was a net figure. That would be after the estimate of the numbers had come in. None the less, it was a very rough figure. I said it was approximate. The hon. Member will probably agree that the sums involved appear to be small altogether, and we would prefer to stick to the figure of £5 because we think that it is a reasonable figure for the licence.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I am not prepared to accept just the statement that the Government think that the figure is adequate. Is it enough to cover the administrative costs of the scheme? If not, I object to the public being charged for this, which is a very valuable provision for the people who are getting it. If the hon. Member cannot convince me on the point, then I must press the Amendment. I want to see the scheme self-supporting, with no charge on public funds at all. If it is not, then the case for the Amendment stands.

§ Mr. Campbell
The estimates and calculations must be approximate, but it looks as though the licence fees would not cover all the expenses of administration. On the other hand, I know that the hon. Member is as concerned about the interests of the farmers as he is about the interests of miners and others, and, particularly as they are getting a licence which may not give them nearly as much water as they would like to have without this system, the farmers may feel that the other interests concerned in the river are also getting value from the scheme. They may feel that they ought not to bear the whole of the cost and that the general public, in various sections of the community and various interests, is also deriving benefit from the scheme. If one tries to look at it equitably from that point of view, this seems to be a fair provision.