HC Deb 09 June 1972 vol 838 cc955-66

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the spring water of Chadlington. After the recent great debates on the Common Market which have raised great constitutional issues, this is a small but none the less important matter—and perhaps it is a constitutional matter for my constituents who live in the village of Chadlington. You may know this village, Mr. Speaker. It is a small village near Chipping Norton and stands relatively high, but it is unspoilt, with beautiful views.

I lived there at weekends when I first became Member of Parliament for Ban-bury. I recollect that one of the joys of arriving in Chadlington after a week in London was to have a glass of fresh and sparkling spring water out of the taps of Chadlington. Compared with the water we drink in London, which I believe has been through the human body an average of six time before one drinks it, one knew that the water of Chadlington had not been through one human body.

In those days the village was not on the water mains and presumably this spring water had been there from time immemorial. There had been no trouble in the village over the spring water and I am not aware that anybody died or became ill as a result of drinking Chadlington water.

The Oxfordshire Water Board decided last year to switch Chadlington over to mains water. This was done in January of this year and a considerable rumpus arose in the village between the great majority of villagers and the Water Board. Many questions arise and there are, of course, two sides, if not more, to every question on which there is deep feeling.

As Member of Parliament for the constituency, I have no desire to attempt to make a judgment upon the technicalities raised in the argument. What I shall try to do is to put both sides of the case as fairly as I can to illustrate the fundamental differences of opinion between the great majority of the villagers and the water board.

Where a dispute such as this exists between a water board and a village in which strong views are held, in my view an independent inquiry should be set up to satisfy both sides on the rights and wrongs of the argument, so that justice might be seen to be done. It is felt that in circumstances such as this the water board is bound to be a judge in its own court but that an independent inquiry set up by the Minister would show, one imagines, that the board had acted fairly, and the result of the inspector's inquiry would be accepted by my constituents in Chadlington. I know them to be law-abiding citizens. All that they want is for the case to be looked at independently. What is more, I have no doubt that the water board would like to have any suggestion that it had not acted fairly dismissed by an independent inquiry.

The argument runs as follows, and in trying to abbreviate it because of the shortness of time, I hope that I do not misrepresent either side. I am certain that the board will say that I have and that the villagers will say that I have. But I trust that they will forgive me. I do it because I am trying to condense the argument.

The board decided to switch over to the mains for several reasons. The first was that 10 or 11 houses in the village had low water pressure. The board said, quite rightly, that it was its statutory duty to supply water to the highest room in every house in the locality. In these 10 or 11 houses, the pressure was low with the result that water did not get up to the tops of the houses. Sometimes no water came through at all. The board felt that unless it fulfilled its statutory obligation to supply water it could be taken to court by any of the complainants and that it would lose such a case.

That was the board's first point, to which the village replied that the statutory duty was not in dispute but that, after all, only a few houses were concerned. In terms of the hundreds of years for which many of the houses in the village had existed, the houses in question were relatively new. Unfortunately they had been built upon a hill, and the builders must have known that the village's water supply would not reach them very satisfactorily. The village said that while it recognised the problem, rather than be switched to the mains it offered as a community to pay for the necessary installation to boost the spring water so that it could remain on it. It wondered also whether the pipes leading from the mains to the houses concerned were sufficiently wide. It was thought that they might have been laid at a time when pipes were narrower and that they might have become furred up. Those were the village's suggestions to counter the water board's first reason for its proposal.

The board's second point was that there was no longer sufficient water to supply the needs of the village. The village replied that it took only 24,000 gallons a day and that a great deal spilled over to be lost in the river. That point made by the board was not taken very seriously.

Thirdly, the water board said that it would be more economic and efficient to put Chadlington on to the mains. That was fair enough in its view, but the villagers felt that this was taking water from the spring, letting it go into the rivers and down to the Thames where it would be mixed up with sewage from Swindon—I cannot say that from experience, but that is what I was told—and then processed and pumped back to be drunk in Chadlington. If so—I do not know whether it was so—that would not be an economic way to drink a glass of water.

The fourth point made by the water board, which we must all take seriously, was the risk of pollution because, being spring water, it was not chlorinated. The water board said that it was not up to the standards of the World Health Organisation. The village action committee, which was formed to contest the water board's suggestions, had samples taken and submitted to experts. The experts said that it was not polluted or, if there were any pollution, it was marginal and not of danger to the people in the village. The villagers said, "No one in the village has suffered from the bad quality of the water; therefore, let us go on". That gives us some idea of the feeling on both sides of the argument.

As I said, a fine old rumpus blew up. I tended to be in the centre of that rumpus, as one would expect of a Member of Parliament. It is right that the water board, until the water was switched on, gave considerable attention to this matter. When the action committee was set up the board sent along its officials to meet the action committee and to have a discussion with it. When the village was not satisfied with that, the chairman of the water board, Mr. Whiteley, went along to meet the action committee and to discuss these matters.

The Board's action up to that stage was perfectly right and proper. It postponed the switch-on so that further investigations and discussions could take place. Unfortunately, there was no agreement between both sides in this argument. We all recognise that the board has the statutory duty to do what it did.

On the evening of 9th January I heard—I cannot recall how I heard, but I imagine it was from the action committee in Chadlington—that the mains water was to be switched on the next day. Early the next morning, 10th January, I went to the Department of the Environment to see the Minister, who at that time was in conference. However, I took the matter up with the Department. The Department consulted the Oxfordshire Water Board over the telephone and discussed the whole matter. At that point the Ministry got in touch with me and I thought that we had achieved a postponement while all these matters were considered.

However, on 11th January at some hour—I am not certain when it happened, but it happened secretly, I understand, because the water board officials were quite naturally afraid of becoming involved in a slight demonstration by the peaceful citizens of Chadlington who were then angry—the board switched on the water at a moment of surprise rather than secrecy and the water began to filter through, and the villagers noticed the difference.

The next day I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) which read: I can understand the reluctance of most of the villagers to lose a supply of spring water which they regard as of good quality. Water undertakers are, however, under no obligation to supply particular groups of consumers from particular sources, and we have no locus to intervene in a dispute of this kind. My hon. Friend went on to describe the statutory duties and then said: We had assumed that all this would provide a respite in which the various proposals and counter-proposals could be reviewed. I was on the point of writing to you in these terms when I learned from your phone call to the Department today that your constituents believe that the switch of supplies had been made quietly even before we had made our inquiries"— "quietly" is a better word than "secretly"— The Engineer is not prepared to comment formally on this belief. I am afraid that even if it is well-founded it gives us no jurisdiction and, having no jurisdiction, I think perhaps it will be better if I do not comment—though certainly nothing that I have learned so far would lead me to dissent from your view that delay for further investigation would be most reasonable and a good demonstration of concern for public relations and consumer interest. That illustrates fairly well the two sides of the case and the deep feeling that exists over this matter.

The point that I come back to is that when the position arises, as in this case, that about 97 per cent., or at any rate 95 per cent, of the population want to remain on spring water, where the evidence is highly disputed, where the villagers are convinced that they are right and the board equally is concerned that it is right, a public inquiry should be held independently in the way that I have outlined.

Can there be a public inquiry now on this issue? Can my hon. Friend in some way appoint an inspector so that this whole matter can be gone into? I hope that he can, and I think I am right in saying on behalf of my constituents that if that is done the inspector's report will be accepted in good faith.

I have a little anxiety about the future, because I have another letter from the same Minister dated 17th February in which he said: In my letter of12 January I expressed the opinion that a delay for further investigation in the Chadlington case would have been reasonable, so you will deduce that I have some sympathy with your suggestion that members of the public should have some recourse to Ministers for postponement of an unpopular decision by a public authority. But you will doubtless know that we are at present preparing the necessary legislation for consideration by Parliament to reorganise water services…and you will see from paragraph 43 of the Memorandum…that within the area of each of the proposed Regional Water Authorities, consumer councils are to be set up. Paragraph 43 of that Circular from the Department of the Environment says that within the area of each Regional Water Authority there should be one or more consumer councils reflecting the various interests involved, including local authorities, major users such as industry and farming, and amenity and recreation interests. That is all right, but one can see that unless a particular local authority is represented on the consumer council, the small village will not get any form of direct representation on the council itself.

The Circular goes on to say that the Regional Water Authority will be required to report annually to the consumer council on its plans; and to consider, and reply to, comments by the council on these plans…If the council is dissatisfied with the reply it will have direct access to Ministers. That is a fairly restricted access to the Minister. In other words, if the council is dissatisfied with a reply, it can go to the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend will not advance these consumer councils as a reason for doing nothing, because I do not think that a consumer council, in a case such as that which I have quoted where speedy action is required, would even begin to be of any use.

I come back to my final point, which is that in this case there is a constitutional point. The views, feelings and anxieties of the public should be examined independently by an inspector appointed by the Department.

4.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for the information he has given. I know he has the interest of his constituents at heart, especially in local terms, and has devoted much time and effort to the interests of the villagers of Chadlington.

The Oxfordshire and District Water Board has certain statutory duties placed upon it by the Water Act, 1945, which include obligations to supply a sufficiency of wholesome water for domestic use constantly and at such pressure as will enable the water to reach the top of the top-most storey of every building within its limits of supply. It has not been disputed that some of the dwellings within the village, because of low pressure in parts of the then existing piped system, were receiving an inadequate or intermittent supply. I understand that it was primarily for this reason that the board decided to switch over to the mains supply system. The mains already ran side by side with the existing system and the change could be made quickly and cheaply.

I know that there has been some argument about the number of properties receiving an inadequate supply. My hon. Friend has been told that there are 10 or 11 such properties, whereas the board says there are 15. Complaints had certainly been made to the board by some of the families who were anxious to receive an adequate and constant supply. Some were prepared to accept mains water derived from river sources provided that the supply was adequate. Others would have preferred arrangements to be made to ensure an adequate supply of the spring water. But, whatever the numbers involved, there is little doubt that the board was in default of its statutory duty to provide a sufficient supply for domestic purposes until it took steps to remedy the existing inadequacy.

There is no dispute either that most of the villagers wanted to keep the supply from the spring source. But I should point out that the proposal to link the village to the trunk mains system at some time or another had been contemplated for many years. As long ago as 1951 the predecessors of the board, the Chipping Norton Rural District Council, carried out improvements to the systems of a number of villages in their area, Chadlington among them, and these works were designed with a view to their being incorporated in the comprehensive scheme when it was implemented. The Northern Scheme, to bring water from the Oxford sources to North Oxfordshire, was carried out—additional works are still going on—and the spring sources of many of the outlying villages are being superseded as water is brought into the area from the River Thames.

The board is under no obligation to supply particular areas or particular groups of consumers from particular sources. The discretion is entirely its as to how it meets its statutory obligations. In this case it decided the time was ripe to switch the supply from the spring water source to the Oxford sources which come mainly from the River Thames intakes at Swinford and Farmoor. The villagers at Chadlington were dismayed that they were to lose what they call "pure natural spring water" in favour of what they regard as the less wholesome Oxfordshire mains supply. No doubt they have in mind that by the time it has reached this part of the country the Thames has received various discharges of treated sewage and industrial effluent, whereas spring water is unlikely to have been used before.

About one-third of all the public supplies of water comes from rivers after these have received treated effluents. The treatment which is given to the raw water by the statutory water undertakers is designed to make it safe for human consumption, and millions of people are, and have always been, dependent on treated river water for their domestic supply. That, of course, is not sufficient reason for insisting that several hundred more people should depend on reused water.

But to the extent that their case rests on the greater purity of the spring water, I am afraid that the facts do not bear it out. Spring and other underground waters are always liable to pollution from human activities above ground. I understand, for example, that recent analyses made of the spring water at Chadlington by the County Public Health Laboratory show that the nitrates content of the Chadlington water is 11 parts per million, whereas the level in the mains supply is only 5 to 6 parts per million. Moreover the local medical officer of health, who is also the county MOH—this to some extent is contrary to the villagers'advice—has stated quite firmly, as a result of bacteriological analysis of recent samples, that in his opinion the spring source of supply should not be continued without chlorination.

It would seem, therefore, that the spring water is not, after all, as pure as the villagers believe. They may reasonably point out that they have been drinking it and using it for other domestic purposes for many years without any harmful effects, and I would not question this. There are many instances where people have been using water from grossly polluted wells and other underground sources without any apparent ill-effects directly attributable to the unsatisfactory quality of the water. They may perhaps have acquired some sort of immunity. That applied to my hon. Friend when he was using it.

Mr. Marten

It is a very good thing to get oneself immune by drinking impure water, even if it is a little polluted, since when one goes around the world one's system stands up better to the local water. But my hon. Friend's point begs the question of the conflict between the local authorities and the villagers in that both received expert advice and neither of the two sets of advice agreed.

Mr. Eyre

This is often the case with expert advice, as my hon. Friend will recognise.

But any immunity would not be shared by visitors or newcomers to an area, and certainly the water undertaker and the public health authority would be acting irresponsibly if they continued to allow contaminated water to be put into supply.

The villagers have suggested certain measures to remedy the defects in the existing system and thus enable the board to continue to supply spring water and still fulfil its statutory obligations. In particular, they suggested provision of a pumping station, very reasonably at its own expense, to boost pressure. I think the board would be disposed to agree that the pumping station, provided it were enlarged to include the chlorination plant which the MOH regards as essential, would have provided a solution to some of the problems of supply.

But I understand that the main conducting the spring water is itself inadequate, and the cost of pumping and chlorination does not stop at the capital cost of the plant. There are running and maintenance costs to be considered. It would be necessary for the board to carry out frequent inspection of the un-manned plant for maintenance purposes, for protection against vandalism, for repair and so on, all of which would add to the cost of the running of the water undertaking as a whole. Again, the decision whether to attempt to improve the existing system or to switch to the available alternative supply system was for the board to take.

My hon. Friend approached the Department with a request, as he de- scribed, on behalf of the villagers, that the board be asked to delay the switchover until such time as the village action committee had had an opportunity to discuss further its alternative proposals with the board. I must stress that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to intervene in a dispute of this nature, but in any case it transpired that the change-over had already taken place. I regret this. I would prefer not to comment on whether or not, in the interests of good public relations, it might have been advisable for the board to have delayed matters a little longer. But I am told that there had been local discussions beforehand, and. notwithstanding that the changeover had taken place, the board subsequently reconsidered the matter.

Two board members, the county councillor and the rural district councillor responsible for the Chadlington area and delegated to inquire into the point of view of local consumers, visited the district, spoke to as many local residents as possible, ascertained their views and reported back to the special works committee towards the end of February. I am assured that it was only after full consideration of all aspects of the matter, and after hearing the two local board members, that the committee resolved to recommend to the Water Board that, "in the interests of efficiency, economy and public health", the village of Chadlington should continue to be supplied from the board's northern scheme system as was presently the case. The board's decision to accept its committee's recommendation was by unanimous vote.

My hon. Friend has suggested that provision might be made for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be in a position to order a postponement of a controversial decision by a public body pending further investigation of the issues in dispute, perhaps by way of a public local inquiry. He has further asked that an independent inquiry be held into this case.

My right hon. Friend has powers under Section 13 of the Water Act, 1945, to hold a local inquiry into the matter if a complaint is made that any statutory water undertakers have failed to carry out certain of their statutory duties or have failed to do anything which they are required to do by or under the Act. But it would seem that, in this case, by switching to the mains supply system, the board has already remedied any existing default and is fulfilling its statutory obligations; the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Section 13 does not appear to arise.

Section 49 of the Water Act, 1945, provides that the Secretary of State may cause such inquiries to be held as he may consider necessary in connection with the discharge by him of any of his functions under this Act". My hon. Friend's request for an inquiry must, therefore, be considered within the context of Section 49. It does not appear that this Section has any application, I regret to tell him. As I have already explained, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no function in this particular case and, therefore, at law, he has no power to hold a local inquiry as requested. He has no authority to intervene in this dispute between the villagers of Chadlington and the Oxfordshire and District Water Board.

This is how matters stand under present legislation. To implement any suggestion that powers might be taken to enable the Secretary of State to order a postponement of a controversial decision or to take powers enabling him to cause a local inquiry to be held into matters such as this would, of course, require legislation. As my hon. Friend will be aware, this is not a proper matter for discussion in a debate on the Adjournment.

I appreciate the great deal of trouble that my hon. Friend has taken in raising this matter, and I regret that the Secretary of State is not in a position to assist him further in these circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock