HC Deb 04 June 1965 vol 713 cc2207-19

3.11 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)

Can we now turn to another subject, namely, the return of the appropriate forms under the Water Resources Act, 1963? I must begin by declaring my own interest. A hundred years or more ago a spring was tapped behind what is now my own cottage and I, like everybody else who abstracts water, must now apply for a licence of right to avoid the loss of my water rights and also to avoid the penalties contained in the Act.

The provisions of the Act have received wide publicity. Apart from debates in this Chamber, the farming journals and the provincial Press have carried reports of the requirements under the Act. Farming and horticultural associations have also done their best, but not all those who are affected are farmers. Even so, not all farmers are members of farming organisations and it is obvious that the publicity has been somewhat less than 100 per cent. efficient.

To begin with, the necessary forms do not arrive on one's doorstep. They have to be applied for—the applicant must know about them and how to get them before he can make the return which is appropriate to his requirements. Clearly there are many people who possess a claim to a licence of right under the Act who do not appreciate the fact that they have only 28 days left to return the form to the water authority.

I must say frankly that I was one of these. It was only when I received a letter from a constituent that I realised that I was affected. He wrote to me to ask me to investigate a piece of quite incredible bureaucratic nonsense concerning the application for a 'licence of right' by existing drawers of water under the Water Resources Act, 1963."— Inter an awful lot of other explosive alia he said— :I cannot recall having seen such extraordinarily bad official forms before, accompanied by such poor official explanations. I find it extremely difficult to understand them and I have no idea what the answer is to many of the questions. These forms have to be filled in by the owner of every existing private borehole and I do not believe that many smallholders etc. will make any sense of them. Firstly, there are obviously people who are entitled to a licence of right who are still unaware of the provisions of the Act. Secondly, there are these awful forms, which are quite the most appalling pieces of bureaucratic abortion masquerading under the name of "forms" ever produced by the mind of misguided man.

On 28th April, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) prayed against the Water Resources (Licences) Regulations, 1965, Statutory Instrument No. 534. The opening words of my hon. Friend are beyond dispute. He said: These Regulations are extraordinarily complicated. Everyone is agreed on that …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1965; Vol. 711. c. 564.] I would comment in passing that there also seems to be far too many of them. In the last year—exactly 12 months—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has begotten no fewer than 59 of these Statutory Instruments. I trust that the Department will be a little less fecund in future. It is virtually impossible for hon. Members to keep up with such an output of paper, or anyone else for that matter, with the consequence that people may suffer substantial loss simply and solely because the administrative machine is operating so fast that even professional advisers are unable to cope with the output.

On realising the seriousness of the complaint in my constituent's letter, I did two things. First, I approached the Chair with a view to getting a little Parliamentary time in which to debate the importance of this matter. Secondly, I wrote to my own solicitor in my own interests. I must quote his letter because it is of some significance. After thanking me for my letter, he said: The use of underground water for household purposes by the occupier of the land does not require a licence but the use of that water for agricultural purposes does need a licence for the necessary Application Forms. You and I have written to the Water Authority … for the necessary Applications Forms. You may not require a licence if you take not more than 1,000 gallons but I cannot ascertain whether this is daily, weekly or monthly consumption as it does not stipulate the period. It may, of course, mean 1,000 gallons at a time, but that seems a very loose restriction". To put it bluntly, he does not know the answer either. This is a letter from an old established firm of solicitors in one of the biggest market towns of an agricultural area. It would be useful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, when he replies to the debate, could define the meaning of the phrase "household purposes". If a householder wishes to use his own water to water his garden, will that offend the provisions of the Act? Would a householder who has his own private water supply come within the phrase "household use" if he uses that water to irrigate his garden and sells the surplus produce commercially?

Thirdly, swimming pools are becoming more and more popular. Our coasts and roads are becoming more and more crowded and more and more private swimming pools are being installed. Would the use of a private water supply to fill a garden swimming pool constitute household use? In view of the wider popularity of private swimming pools, this question is of fairly common interest and importance.

As I understand it, anyone who has used a private water supply—whether it is a well or a spring, a borehole or a catchpit—must, under the requirements of the Act, obtain a licence to continue to do so. A provision was written into the Act to protect such users. This provision entitles them to a licence. The river authorities cannot deny them a licence; hence the phrase "licence of right". They have an indisputable right to a licence.

The rub, however, is that in the Statutory Instrument against which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester prayed a period of only three months was laid down in which users had to apply for their licence and protect their rights over their own water. That three-month period began on 1st April and it expires at the end of this month and there are still many water users who remain unaware that there is now considerable urgency about their applications.

Today I received an Answer to a Written Question, and from it I learned that river authorities in England and Wales had by 1st June received just over 3,000 applications for licences to abstract water. Having all my life been a countrywoman, and knowing the number of wells and springs which are in use, I am quite sure that that figure is considerably under the number of such users in the country as a whole.

In the debate on 28th April the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: The hon. Member asked what would happen if a licence of right was out of time. He asked whether there was any discretion to give a licence after the expiry of the date of 30th June. The answer is 'No'. A licence of right is a privilege, and it must be claimed by the prescribed date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th April, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 575.] There we have the problem. People who have had the use of private water supplies in the past stand to lose their right by the 30th of this month if they do not apply in time, and there is nothing, I understand, under the Act which the hon. Gentleman can do about it.

I think it is fair comment to say that the hon. Gentleman's Department could have been a little more helpful in this case. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Central Office of Information publish a leaflet headed Abstraction of Water: the new law". It is top headed: "Water Resources Act". But this leaflet only came off the printing presses a fortnight ago, I understand. It certainly was not generally available by 1st April when it ought to have been, and yet S.I. No. 534 was made on 19th March and laid before Parliament on 31st March. The most thorough and efficient way of appraising private water users of the effects of the Act would have been to have had the leaflet available for local authorities to distribute in the light of their much greater intimate local knowledge of their ratepayers to whom they could have distributed the leaflet with the rate demand notices. Some people risk incurring substantial financial loss which after 30th June they will never be able to recover.

I should like to take examples of these bureaucratic abortions, as I call them, the forms, 16 sheets of multi-coloured paper, a dozen of them of foolscap size. Having gazed upon these objects I have come to the conclusion that a law degree, perseverance, an estate agent's training, stamina and an expert knowledge of geology would be required by the poor innocent applicant who hoped to complete them fully and accurately.

Dealing with the form of application for a licence of right only, one is confronted with seven foolscap pages with 15 questions and six tables. One has to do that in triplicate, so that it works out at 45 and 18 respectively. At first sight they are quite the most confusing and bewildering and daunting forms I should think have ever been drafted. What is worse, they are virtually impossible to complete accurately. One of the tables calls for details of the amount of water abstracted annually per day and per hour over the past five years. Another table demands a forecast of water consumption per hour and per day, but is quite unclear for what period.

Apart from the sheer bad layout and design of the forms, it is just not possible to give accurate answers to such questions. Water requirements cannot be forecast unless the rainfall is known. If one wishes to make an accurate forecast, it is necessary to know not only the average mean temperature and the average wind velocity for that area but the nature of the soil of a particular field, and also the nature of the crop, because the water requirements of early potatoes, middle crop potatoes and late crop potatoes are all quite different.

If my legal adviser is uncertain about Clause 24 of the parent Act, owing to its indeterminate phraseology, surely it is unreasonable to expect a non-professional man to know exactly what he is meant to do with these forms? Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely unaware of the reception these forms have had, because in answer to my hon. Friend during the debate on the Prayer he said: The hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of having a simplified form of application. The difficulty here is that we cannot start changing our minds—to use an appropriate metaphor—in mid-stream. We have started with these forms and we must, for the present, carry on with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 575.] We must, I suppose, accept that we are landed with these forms and we must make the best of them, but I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to try to ease the difficulties in regard to these forms, and particularly in regard to those who are entitled to a licence of right, by using his influence with river authorities to get them to accept forms completed in the bare essentials only owing to the shortness of time and their very complexity.

There is evidence that some river authorities have adopted a very stiff attitude towards those who have had to return them. One clerk of a river authority wrote to one of my constituents saying quite flatly: The Authority cannot, of course, accept this as a valid application, and it will not he open to them to consider your request for licences unless and until they receive forms completed in accordance with the Water Resources (Licences) Regulation 1965. I must stress that applications for licences of right must be in my hands before the 30th June next. Some of these forms are quite impossible to answer, and perhaps I might quote my own case to illustrate this. On page 2 I am asked to describe in column 5 below: How, if at all, the work is or will be lined. My spring was tapped 100 or more years ago, and there is nobody alive today who knows how it is lined. The only means that I have of accurately filling in this form is to go and dig the thing up.

I have to return this form saying whether I have something which is called a heading or an adit and specifying the point of communication, length, diameter and orientation of each heading or adit. I do not know what this is. If I look at Nuttall's Dictionary, the sort of popular dictionary to be found in most homes, I see that it is something to do with mining, and that makes it a great deal clearer for everybody. I should have thought that a little imagination could have been deployed in sending out these forms, and that a glossary of technical terms could have been included so that those who were supposed to include things would know what information they were required to provide.

The layout of the form is most unimaginative. Question 4(b) says: if you claim to be entitled to a licence of right to abstract water from underground strata (see note (d)). in Table 1 below. One looks at that, but there is no note (d) on it. It is only when one gets to the end of the form, where one sees a threatening note that it is an offence to make a false statement that there is a collection of little notes which tells one to look at various Sections of the Act, and that is not particularly helpful, because when one reads the Sections of the Act, the phraseology is so confusing to the average person that it is quite useless. Therefore, I would urge on the hon. Gentleman that he should consider allowing river authorities to accept forms completed with the bare essentials which people can supply without going into the technical details which are so confusing to them.

I also ask him to consider the question (if the maps which have to be returned with the forms. Maps of six-inch scale are required. In the average country town maps of that scale are not normally stocked; they can usually be obtained in much larger towns, but even then with some difficulty. Will he consider allowing maps of lesser scale to be used? Where local authorities have a six-inch map available, would he allow tracings of it to be returned, because that would be a help?

It would also ease the difficulties of those returning the forms if some method of duplication were acceptable. The licence of right form requires three copies—of a seven page form. One cannot use carbon paper. Would the Minister accept as valid forms with the second and third copies duplicated, each having been signed by the applicant?

Applicants have to give an estimate of the quantities of water to be abstracted. Has the Minister any views on the use of meters? If any river authority contemplates making the use of meters compulsory, would the hon. Gentleman consider what could happen? I have lived in a house which was metered from a farm supply. These meters can be the most appalling nuisance, as I know to my cost. Like speedometers, they can he "fiddled". There is also the expense of their purchase, installation and protection. In addition, very often grit can get into them and stop them working.

Finally, could the hon. Gentleman clarify the position which affects not only my spring but many farms throughout the country? Where a spring or stream has been impounded near its source for the benefit of several farms, the main pipe runs from the point of abstraction and is tapped by various farmers using the water, so to speak, lower down the line. Should a licence of right be obtained by the person on whose land the point of abstraction is or by those who subsequently tap the pipe? In other words, should it be obtained by the tappee or the tapped?

I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in attending this afternoon, and I hope that I have not trespassed too much on the time available.

3.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

I thank the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) for having taken this opportunity to raise this question, which we discussed some time ago in great detail but which is a very important matter. It is a most public spirited use of her time that she should have used it for this purpose. I should also like to thank her for her courtesy in giving me some idea of the kind of point which she wanted to raise.

I do not think that I can be helpful on the question about people sharing the water pipe. The difficulty in answering that specifically is that it must depend a great deal on the facts of the particular situation. It depends, to some extent, on what the water is being used for and whether or not the land is contiguous to the river from which it comes.

If there is a dispute about a licence, of course, there is an appeal to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, in these matters where there is a dispute, I want to make it clear what is the particular responsibility, the immediate responsiblity, of the river authority. My right hon. Friend has no power or duty to interfere in the way they do their business. He is responsible in regard to appeals which may come to him later.

The hon. Lady raised the question of publicity. I think that there has been a good deal of publicity about this, though I agree that there cannot be too much. Not very long ago, I was awakened at 6.45 in the morning by a mellifluous voice inviting me to apply for a licence of right, which, as I am in the safe arms of the Metropolitan Water Board, was not relevant. It showed, at any rate, that a good deal of attention was being paid to the need to get these licences. Too much attention cannot be drawn to this need, because this is a very important and major operation. This is not just the bureaucratic front. I will come in a moment to the reason why I say this.

The hon. Lady made the point that there were, so to speak, only 26 shopping day left to Christmas. It is important that all these licences of right should be in by the end of the month, because there is no power under the Act to vary the time. That is not my idea, but is in the Act which we inherited.

I should also like to correct something which the hon. Lady said. She said that it was the Regulations which had fixed this date. The three-monthly period is not in the Regulations: it is in the Act. So the hon. Lady was wrong about that. I am not hiding behind the factors in the Act, because I want to emphasise that the longer one takes in getting one's licences of right settled, the longer one takes to deal with new applications, because one has, first of all, to get one's commitment for licences of right clear before one can go on to deal with new applications. If we are under fire for difficulties over the applications for licences of right, we are also under fire from people who want to sink a well but who are held up because they cannot get the licence. They can go on doing the work if they have made their appli- cation, though they run the risk that if they do not get the licence they may have done abortive work.

As regards the availability of forms, so far as we know, every river authority now has available application forms for licences of right, because everyone has had returned forms. So far as we know, only one river authority still has not a supply of the new application forms. The hon. Lady asked about exemptions—what were the domestic purposes for exemption. I would explain that the 1,000 gallons does not apply to regular use, but is meant for the occasional use by somebody who, for some particular reason, happens to draw a supply of water. It does not apply to somebody who regularly uses water.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the supply of water for domestic use. This is not a matter of administrative decision but of law and there is no clear definition of it. For example, I draw the attention of the House to the definition given in the Water Act, 1945, which refers to the supply of water for domestic purposes as being … a sufficient supply for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitary purposes, but not for any bath having a capacity in excess of 50 gallons. I do not know whether the hon. Lady's bath has a capacity of more than 50 gallons, but provided her requirements, and those of domestic users, are modest, they would come within the definition of "domestic purposes".

The moderate use of water for garden watering is permitted. If, say, a common, simple watering can was being used, nobody would get excited about that. However, I understand that a sprinkler is a different matter, because that might come within the definition of spray irrigation. It would be wrong for anyone to assume that he was covered for that purpose.

My right hon. Friend wrote to all river authorities on 31st March last on the subject of maps. He wrote: No doubt river authorities will arrange to state the scale of maps which they require to have submitted when they issue application forms … It will be helpful if river authorities will avoid demands for maps to a larger scale than is essential. I hope that that letter, and the publicity which will be given to this debate, in the OFFICIAL REPORT and elsewhere, will lead to people being sensible and reasonable about their requirements.

As to the difficulties and complexities of the form, I have taken the trouble to check some of the requirements in the form with the Act. I have found that almost all the matters which have been criticised are specifically referred to in Section 30 of the Act. I assure the House that they are not just matters which have been shoved into the form with a sort of lightheartedness by the drafters of the Regulations. That, equally, applies to the questions the hon. Lady asked about the amount of water being taken, when it is taken, and so on.

As I say, these requirements are not merely things that someone has suddenly thought up. This whole matter has arisen as a result of the grave shortage of water which we face. The consumption of water is increasing and there must, therefore, be controls governing its supply. The more we get the sort of fine weather we are having today, the more emphasised are the difficulties of the problem.

The hon. Lady referred to the timetable. I assure her that it is something which my right hon. Friend inherited, although we accept it as being necessary in view of the importance of obtaining quick control over our water resources. A licence of right application is a once-and-for-all thing and an essential requirement because until the river authorities know their commitments as a result of the licences of right they cannot judge how much water they will have available for future use.

We are asking users of water to co-operate, in a patient and understanding way, and to complete the forms as well as they can so that we will have the basic information which is necessary for river authorities to do their work. I appreciate the paralysing feelings of inadequacy which the hon. Lady confessed that she had had on examining the form. I examined the form and I admit that I wondered whether I could fill it in. But they are necessary forms and I think the river authorities should be sympathetic to some of the difficulties which arise.

In law I think that there is no way of saying that a river authority must accept a half-completed form. On the other hand, I think that where essential information is available to enable them to make their decision it would be reasonable for them to be a little tolerant in regard to the other information. I hope this would be regarded—

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The hon. Gentleman has reached a most important point, and has quoted Section 30 as to the items which have to be included in the licence. Is it really necessary for the applicant to include all that information when making his application? All he is required to do under Section 33 is to make an application to the river authority claiming his licence of right. This is the important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) made. If a person makes an application he need not necessarily fill in at that stage all the items required by this form and if he does not fill those in he surely does not lose his licence of right?

Mr. MacColl

What goes into the form is now covered by the Regulations and, within the terms of those Regulations, the river authority is entitled to require the information. I am not saying that it ought to require it merely as a system of bureaucratic authority but because it is necessary for its job. I hope that this will be regarded as a partnership between the people who are entrusted by Parliament with the very great responsibility of looking after the water resources and those members of the public who want to use water.

It should not be regarded as a criminal thing to want water. River authorities are there to serve the consumer and to provide him with the water he wants. That is the whole idea of the Act. Therefore, as far as possible, they should be reasonable and understand the pressure and difficulties under which water consumers are going to be. As the same time, I hope that water users will not regard this as a sort of a war between us and them.

It is a partnership in what is a grave situation. We want to be sure that our water resources are organised and dealt with prudently and I hope that the effects of this debate will be that people will understand some of the difficulties and will feel that the river authorities are there to co-operate with them. On the other hand, I hope that the river authorities, which are hard pressed and have had to work hard to get a new machine working very quickly, may not be too impatient with those of us who look a bit idiotic when we have to make out our forms.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Before the House departs from this subject I want to make this important point to those who are entitled to licences of right. They are required under Section 33 of the Act to make application for that right. In whatever form they make that application they are entitled to that right and nobody can deprive them of it. It may be that in Regulations certain forms are set down upon which they can make that claim, but the fact that the forms require innumerable items of information from them and the fact that they fail to fill in those innumerable items cannot deprive them of that right. If they make an application for that right and prove they have it, that they have already abstracted water in the past, it should be made perfectly clear that whatever regulations the Minister may make, he cannot deprive them of the right.

It is right that he should require this information in order to put it into the licence. The licence has to contain certain facts. He can go on requiring them, but if these people entitled to those rights get their application in before 1st July then they should not be deprived of this right. The authorities should be informed that they cannot refuse applications merely because some little item in the form is not filled in. I think that ought to be stressed and those who are entitled ought to be allowed to send in their forms even if they cannot, as my hon. Friend said, tell what is the lining of their well.