Water Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2003.

Standing Committee D

Water Bill [Lords]

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Water Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., except that on Tuesday 14th October it shall meet only at 4.30 p.m.;

(2) 11 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings to be taken at the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLE Sitting ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 16th September (8.55 a.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33). 16th September (2.30 p.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33). 18th September (8.55 a.m.)Clauses 1 to 32: Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33). 18th September (2.30 p.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33).5.00 p.m. 14th October (4.30 p.m.)Clause 33; Clause 37, Schedule 1; Clause 38, Schedule 2; Clause 39, Schedule 3; Clauses 40 to 58; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33, and to Part 2 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the licensing of water suppliers). 16th October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 33; Clause 37, Schedule 1; Clause 38; Schedule 2; Clause 39, Schedule 3; Clauses 40 to 58; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33, and Part 2 (except new Clauses and New Schedules relating to the licensing of water suppliers).11.25 a.m. 16th October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation). 21st October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation). 11.25 a.m. 21st October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill. 23rd October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill. 23rd October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill.5.00 p.m.''

TABLE

May I first say how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien? I look forward to your firm guidance of the Committee. I also welcome the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). I understand that it is his first experience of steering a Bill through the House for the Opposition and look forward to constructive and meaningful debate. I also welcome my colleagues on the Committee. I am pleased to be joined by such a bunch of battle-hardened veterans, with whom I have shared Committees on several occasions. I am pleased to have their support for what is an important measure for sustainability. I welcome them and thank them for serving. I think that hon. Members would prefer to get into the detail of the Bill rather than talking about the formal proceedings. As we discussed last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, we have tried to ensure adequate discussion on the main points of the Bill. Members will rightly want to scrutinise aspects of the Bill in detail. There are important issues of principle on the subject of fluoridation, on which there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and extra time has been allocated for proper discussion of that. The programme motion is fair and offers adequate time for what I hope will be an interesting discussion on issues of considerable importance. The measures are important to ensure proper sustainable management of a resource that we often take for granted but would be foolish to continue so doing. It is an important resource that must be managed effectively, and the Bill gives us the powers to do that. Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I echo the Minister's kind words about you, Mr. O'Brien, and welcome you to the Chair. We all look forward to serving under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his kind words about me and agree with him that the purpose of this and future Committee sittings is to be constructive and meaningful. Those two ideas were foremost in my mind when I drafted some of the amendments that we will debate later. I also note that we have 11 sittings. That is helpful because there are a lot of important issues to cover. Although it is by and large a well-meaning Bill, there are one or two lost opportunities. I look forward to members of the Committee filling some of those small but important gaps. I also welcome the extra sitting to discuss fluoride. It became clear on Second Reading that hon. Members feel very strongly about that. I am sad that the debate will not be led by the Minister before us today, but by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). The Minister is right to describe water as an important resource. It is particularly unfortunate that I am sitting right in the sun on a day when we shall discuss rainfall, flooding and saving water. I look forward to an important and meaningful debate. Norman Baker (Lewes): On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and myself, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have served under you before and I look forward to your guidance as we progress through the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. Indeed, we are grateful to the Government for providing the extra sitting to deal with fluoride. We think that that is sensible. The fact that the Under-Secretary will be taking that sitting for the Government again demonstrates that it belongs in a different Bill. We will nevertheless deal with it as best we can. I notice that we have a good deal of harmony as we start the Bill. I will be interested to see how long it will last. I look forward to more than just silent support for the Minister from Labour Back Benchers: I hope that his battle-hardened colleagues will join in the debate. Too often that does not happen. Question put and agreed to. The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there are money and ways and means resolutions in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendment that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Duty to conserve water resources Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'implement', insert 'effective'. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'use', insert 'clean'. Clause stand part. Government new clause 16—Duty to encourage water conservation. Norman Baker: Perhaps we can maintain some harmony, because there seems to be general agreement that we should include the duty to conserve water resources in the Bill. It is simply a question of how we achieve it. The current formulation does not lend itself to support from the Government. They have tabled new clause 16 for the reasons that the Minister set out in a letter, which I imagine he sent to all members of the Committee— Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): No. Mr. Morley: To Opposition spokespeople. Norman Baker: I see. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, as he has not received the letter, I shall read the relevant paragraph: ''Clause 1 was added to the Bill by an amendment in the Lords. While the intention of the amendment is sound, as drafted it presents a number of significant concerns. The duty is very wide so there is a danger that it might have unforeseen and undesirable implications. In particular, it has been suggested that it can cut across the statutory responsibilities of regulators. The Government amendment retains the principle of the clause, whilst addressing these concerns. This will place a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage the conservation of water and report to Parliament every 3 years on the action taken.'' I am not against the Government's move in principle, because the intention is to strengthen the duty to conserve water resources. However, I note that new clause 16 includes that dreaded phrase ''where appropriate''. That seems to be the opposite of the wide duty that the Minister complains about, and can be a narrow duty if he or his officials choose to interpret it in that way. When does he believe that it would be appropriate to ''take steps to encourage the conservation of water'' as the new clause says?

May I first say how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien? I look forward to your firm guidance of the Committee. I also welcome the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). I understand that it is his first experience of steering a Bill through the House for the Opposition and look forward to constructive and meaningful debate.

I also welcome my colleagues on the Committee. I am pleased to be joined by such a bunch of battle-hardened veterans, with whom I have shared Committees on several occasions. I am pleased to have their support for what is an important measure for sustainability. I welcome them and thank them for serving.

I think that hon. Members would prefer to get into the detail of the Bill rather than talking about the formal proceedings. As we discussed last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, we have tried to ensure adequate discussion on the main points of the Bill. Members will rightly want to scrutinise aspects of the Bill in detail. There are important issues of principle on the subject of fluoridation, on which there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and extra time has been allocated for proper discussion of that.

The programme motion is fair and offers adequate time for what I hope will be an interesting discussion on issues of considerable importance. The measures are important to ensure proper sustainable management of a resource that we often take for granted but would be foolish to continue so doing. It is an important resource that must be managed effectively, and the Bill gives us the powers to do that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I echo the Minister's kind words about you, Mr. O'Brien, and welcome you to the Chair. We all look forward to serving under your chairmanship.

I thank the Minister for his kind words about me and agree with him that the purpose of this and future Committee sittings is to be constructive and meaningful. Those two ideas were foremost in my mind when I drafted some of the amendments that we will debate later.

I also note that we have 11 sittings. That is helpful because there are a lot of important issues to cover. Although it is by and large a well-meaning Bill, there are one or two lost opportunities. I look forward to members of the Committee filling some of those small but important gaps. I also welcome the extra sitting to

discuss fluoride. It became clear on Second Reading that hon. Members feel very strongly about that. I am sad that the debate will not be led by the Minister before us today, but by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). The Minister is right to describe water as an important resource. It is particularly unfortunate that I am sitting right in the sun on a day when we shall discuss rainfall, flooding and saving water. I look forward to an important and meaningful debate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and myself, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have served under you before and I look forward to your guidance as we progress through the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. Indeed, we are grateful to the Government for providing the extra sitting to deal with fluoride. We think that that is sensible. The fact that the Under-Secretary will be taking that sitting for the Government again demonstrates that it belongs in a different Bill. We will nevertheless deal with it as best we can. I notice that we have a good deal of harmony as we start the Bill. I will be interested to see how long it will last. I look forward to more than just silent support for the Minister from Labour Back Benchers: I hope that his battle-hardened colleagues will join in the debate. Too often that does not happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that there are money and ways and means resolutions in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendment that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Duty to conserve water resources

Clause 1 - Duty to conserve water resources

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 173, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'implement', insert 'effective'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'use', insert 'clean'.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 16—Duty to encourage water conservation.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps we can maintain some harmony, because there seems to be general agreement that we should include the duty to conserve water resources in the Bill. It is simply a question of how we achieve it. The current formulation does not lend itself to support from the Government. They have tabled new clause 16 for the reasons that the Minister set out in a letter, which I imagine he sent to all members of the Committee—

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

No.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

To Opposition spokespeople.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I see. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, as he has not received the letter, I shall read the relevant paragraph:

''Clause 1 was added to the Bill by an amendment in the Lords. While the intention of the amendment is sound, as drafted it presents a number of significant concerns. The duty is very wide so there is a danger that it might have unforeseen and undesirable implications. In particular, it has been suggested that it can cut across the statutory responsibilities of regulators. The Government amendment retains the principle of the clause, whilst addressing these concerns. This will place a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage the conservation of water and report to Parliament every 3 years on the action taken.''

I am not against the Government's move in principle, because the intention is to strengthen the duty to conserve water resources. However, I note that new clause 16 includes that dreaded phrase ''where appropriate''. That seems to be the opposite of the wide duty that the Minister complains about, and can be a narrow duty if he or his officials choose to interpret it in that way. When does he believe that it would be appropriate to

''take steps to encourage the conservation of water''

as the new clause says?

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Could the hon. Gentleman kindly tell us where new clause 16 comes in the Bill, because we do not have that information?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The new clause is on page 1078 of the amendment paper, if that helps members of the Committee.

I want to tease out with the Minister some issues relating to the phrase ''where appropriate'', and I hope that he will respond when he replies to the debate. I am reassured by the fact that the new clause requires the Secretary of State, after three years, to prepare a report about the steps taken, and any steps that he proposes to take. That seems entirely sensible. The report will be laid before Parliament, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to comment on the action taken and not taken. I am reassured by that safeguard.

The language in the Minister's letter amuses me slightly in a wry sort of way. He says that the duty is very wide, so there is a danger of unforeseen and undesirable implications. Presumably that means that we might save more water than is intended or be even more efficient at the conservation of water than is anticipated. I hope that that is not the reason why he put that in.

In general, I can support new clause 16, so in due course I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the Committee is acutely conscious of the dilemma that we will face during the passage of the Bill. I am referring to the fact that the Environment Agency is considerably more empowered by the legislation. Its mandate is to ensure that the environment is protected, and I do not think that any of us has a problem with that until we come into conflict with human needs. That is why we must be clear about the type of water that we are discussing at each stage. There is a significant difference between

river water and clean water or drinking water—water that does not pass on diseases and is safe for children and elderly people to drink. That is a fundamental difference. If we do not separate clean water and water as it is in the river outside, we will be unable to distinguish between the powers that are positive for protecting the environment and the powers that the Environment Agency may have to increase dramatically the cost to consumers. That is why we must be careful.

It rains in this country, as we know, all the time. Certainly if we ask someone from France or almost anywhere else abroad, they will say that the thing about Britain is that it never stops raining. That is why I am grateful for the sun shining in my eyes today. However, we fail to conserve a great deal of that water. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that only 2 per cent. of rainwater was conserved. If that is so, we must be clear about the type of environment that we are protecting and the type of water that we are conserving. That is why I saw fit to seek to insert the word ''clean'' before the word ''water''. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) spoke on Second Reading about the scarcity of clean water per capita in the south-east.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. I can understand trying to separate out water that is fit for human drinking and water in our lakes and rivers, but is he advocating that the Environment Agency should not ensure that the water in our rivers, lakes and canals is as clean as we can make it? He seems to be distinguishing between one kind of water and another. I hope that he means that all the water in our natural environment should be as clean as it can be.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Lady is extraordinarily naive if she thinks that canal water should be of the same quality as the water that comes out of the tap. That is not the point of the amendment. I am grateful for her intervention for that purpose alone.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I am perfectly well aware that we would not want canal water or British Waterways water to be fit to go straight into our drinking glasses, but I hope even so that the Government will give the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for the quality of our natural waters, enough powers to ensure that our waters are as clean as possible. Unfortunately, in past times, river water and river basins have been severely polluted.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister referred to his supporters as battle-hardened. I suggest that this is the wrong battle: we are talking about the duty on organisations to conserve water that has been cleaned. Most of the cost of delivering water to people's houses derives from the cleaning process, so it is extremely important to differentiate between the water in people's houses and the water outside. Throughout the Committee stage, we will be locked into a dilemma, discussing the quality of water that comes out of people's taps and the quality of water in rivers, streams, swamps, marshes and canals. We must be clear early on what the Bill will cost the consumer.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Is it not true that the Bill is about the abstraction of water for many purposes? It is about how we look after clean water that has already been treated and untreated water. This summer there has been a severe drought and river levels have fallen, with a consequent effect on the environment. Huge capital costs have been borne by water undertakers to get new supplies or to hold on to their untreated water supplies—water that is not defined as potable—thus there is a query when we discuss whether water is clean or potable. The Bill is not just about clean water but about water.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Very cruelly, on Second Reading, I said that the hon. Lady had not read the Bill, and I apologise to her for making that personal comment. However, it is clear that she has not read the beginning of the Bill, which refers to the duties of persons who use water to do so without wasting it. If people are watering their garden with water that they have collected in a water butt, they are not wasting the same asset as if they had filled up the water butt from the tap. There is a clear differentiation between the cost of collecting, cleaning and distributing water and water that falls from the sky.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I have spent a substantial time on the Bill. Personal insults about whether I have read it do not alter the facts: we are discussing the amount of water used as a whole, and clean drinking water. The proposal is about abstraction of water from rivers and reservoirs, some of which goes through a treatment process to create potable water and some of which is used in trickle irrigation, for example, which does not use potable water.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her point. She is right: the Bill covers all the things that she mentioned, but the part that we are discussing now is about the duty to ensure that everyone who uses water does so without wasting it.

I want to move on from the clarification of clean or not clean water, water that has been cleaned rather than water from rivers or other sources—I referred to fresh water, I have not mentioned sea water. The Government have decided to replace the original clause. In the House of Lords, there was great concern that a Water Bill without the concept of conserving water was wrong—I agree with that opinion—and the Government have addressed many of the concerns raised.

I am sure that the Minister sent me a letter on the new clause, but I did not receive it, which is a shame. However, he has accepted much of the criticism levelled in another place, so I will not need to press my amendment, although I hope that the Committee will have taken note of the important difference between clean water and water that has not been through the cleaning process.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I welcome the comments from Opposition Members and their indication that they will not press their amendments. As they rightly stated, the Government do not disagree about the principle behind clause 1. Indeed, we accept it and have supported it. We simply want to ensure that the provisions stand up to the various legal pressures and

that there is no confusion about responsibilities cutting across other regulators. We recognise that the need to conserve all water resources must be embedded in the Bill.

Opposition Members recognise that our concerns about clause 1 are significant because a wide, general duty could have unforeseen and undesirable consequences. The question whether a particular activity constitutes an appropriate use or a waste of water will be difficult. The phrase ''appropriate use of water'' is well understood and appears a lot in legislation—that should answer the question of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We have to consider whether there is a problem and whether it is appropriate to take action. The term ''appropriate'' means proportionate and cost-effective in terms of the measures that could be taken in an assessment of investment for both drinking water and other environmental benefits. It is an accepted term, which places a duty on the Secretary of State for the clear objective of conserving water.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

For clarification, in areas that have the potential of flooding and where there is long-term standing water, would the Minister envisage the possibility of water holding tanks for the renewal of reservoirs? There is also a proposal for him, when he is wearing another administrative hat, to consider inland holding tanks for flood water. Would he see those ideas as part of what he is trying to do with regard to clean water?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Possibly. We should get away from the term ''clean water'' when discussing this part of the Bill. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster, but we are talking about all water resources. As was mentioned, the definition of ''clean water'' is potable water, but we are talking in a wider sense of water management.

With water management for flood protection, it is common for internal drainage boards to impound their drainage ditches for the summer. They raise the water levels in the summer, so that there can be summer abstraction for agriculture. That is a perfectly sensible way of managing water. In the winter, they lower the dykes so that there is carrying capacity for rainfall. As was said, we see a holistic approach on water management for a range of benefits, one of which is flood defence.

Amendment No. 167 and new clause 16 have been tabled by the Government to replace clause 1 with a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage water conservation and report to Parliament on progress and proposed steps. That will advance the interest of water conservation without cutting across the existing duties of regulators or water undertakers, which was a potential problem with clause 1 as drafted. The changes will also give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the sufficiency of the water conservation measures that have been adopted.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am happy to see the new clause, but will the Minister explain a little more how the original clause would cut across the regulators? I am

keen for the Government to consider the reduction of water use in the home or business as part of water conservation measures, and they could look at various measures, including hippo bags. However, is he saying that such measures would cut across the regulators? What would be affected?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Such measures are perfectly reasonable, and I can give the hon. Gentleman some examples of how we would see the duty to conserve being applied. First, however, I want to point out that the clause as drafted would have caused confusion among the drinking water inspectorate, water companies and the Environment Agency about where responsibility lay. The new clause will make it clear that the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the report to Parliament on the measures taken to conserve water.

The duty placed on the Government to promote conservation has been fulfilled in a number of ways, including: the establishment of Envirowise, which is a body that promotes water conservation; the introduction of enhanced capital allowances for investment in reducing water consumption; the promotion of the Watermark project, which enables benchmarking of water use to take place in public sector buildings; working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning for sustainable communities and facilitating water-efficient new housing development; the development of a voluntary water-efficient product labelling scheme, as recommended by the Water Regulations Advisory Committee; and carrying out reviews, such as the recent review of the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999. Those are a few examples of how the duty to conserve water can be fulfilled by Government intervention and support.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I wonder whether the Minister would also consider establishing a water saving trust to promote water-efficient technology, on the same lines as the Energy Saving Trust. Will he also examine the planning process governing the creation of reservoirs and dams, which is long, complex and expensive?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

On the latter point, there are clear procedures for putting reservoirs and dams in place. As the hon. Gentleman aptly states, those procedures are governed by the planning process and often involve a public inquiry. It is difficult to short-circuit that process, because there is always a great deal of interest in those issues.

I am familiar with the proposals for establishing a water saving trust, which have been around for a long time. I am fairly open-minded about taking such an approach, but we must ask whether the establishment of a body such as a water saving trust would achieve anything different in promoting the efficient use of water. I am not sure that it would, although the argument should be considered. At present, the priority is to ensure that the mechanisms in place deliver efficiently. The Bill is one of the ways in which we are trying to ensure that there are efficient regulations and controls and a duty on the Secretary of State to promote water conservation.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Let me pick up on the point about planning, because it is important that the duty placed on the Government is placed on all Departments, and not just on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The issue of conservation in Government was raised by my colleagues in the House of Lords.

New clause 16 establishes the Secretary of State as the relevant authority in relation to England. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will be able to influence other Departments, for example by changing building regulations to ensure that water is saved in new dwellings? If so, will such measures be included in the triennial report to Parliament referred to in the new clause?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Many of those measures are devolved and therefore are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It is important to encourage the efficient use of water across the UK, but there is a devolved aspect to it, of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Does the Minister envisage that the Secretary of State will formulate long-term extraction licences, which have been in place from time immemorial, into a more coherent system than at present? Would he see that as being provided for under the new clause?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Bill includes provisions for dealing with licences that are currently held in perpetuity. Our long-term intention is to move all licences to time-limited licences, because our objective is the sustainable management of water. There are mechanisms in the Bill to encourage that to happen, and we will discuss them in various clauses, as we go through the Bill.

The Government take the issue of proper water resource management seriously, and that is the intention behind the new clause. We do not disagree with the principle or the reasoning behind the amendment that was made in the other place: the new clause will make it workable in relation to the legislation. I hope that the Committee will support it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have one more question. Why does the new clause contain a three-year reporting stage? Why did the Minister not choose annual reporting?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The reason is simply that, in an industry such as water, in which large infrastructure investment is involved and things do not happen overnight, a three-year reporting stage will permit a clearer picture of what is happening on water management.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I need not delay the Committee further, because we have had a good run through the provision, and we are probably in the same position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 disagreed to.

Clause 2 - Protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in

clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out 'furthers the establishment of' and insert

'establishes to the legally binding timetable required'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 175, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert

'and, in respect of each calendar year from 2004 onwards, lay before Parliament an annual report on their implementation.'.

Amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end add—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of each calendar year from 2004 onwards, lay before Parliament an annual report on the implementation of regulations made under this section.'.

Clause stand part.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We may disagree on the amendments with regard to how European directives are enacted in domestic legislation. I am not happy with the Government's position, which is that simply because something has always happened, it must continue to happen. In other words, if someone is hanged for sheep stealing, people who steal sheep should continue to be hanged in the indefinite future. Sometimes we must reflect on and alter past practices. That must apply here due to the magnitude and importance of the water framework directive. There is no argument about that.

I refer the Minister to comments made by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The first line of the summary of its 2002–03 report states:

''The Water Framework Directive is a hugely important piece of legislation.''

Everyone accepts that. The measure has been on the stocks for a considerable time. It has been progressing through the European Parliament and the EU process for some years, and so cannot have taken the Government by surprise. However, according to my colleague in the House of Lords, Baroness Sue Miller, it seems that there are two separate teams in DEFRA, one working on the Bill and one on the water framework directive, and never the twain shall meet. Is that joined-up government? A joined-up Department might be useful for a start.

The Minister's predecessor, in a letter of 3 March 2000, attempted to explain why the Utilities Bill had been carved up and all the water provisions taken out. By the way, those provisions reappeared without amendment in this Bill three years later. He wrote:

''As we have been developing the draft Water Bill, it has become increasingly clear that it makes more sense to tackle all the changes we want to see made to the regulatory framework for water in a single piece of new legislation.''

As was often the case, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) knew what

he was talking about on the environment. He was right. We should have had a joined-up Bill that included the water framework directive. It is not impossible to have such a Bill; we have seen that approach in Scotland. Scotland has managed to have a joint piece of legislation that has been well received by all sides. The environmental lobby, business and all political parties have recognised the value of that approach; it is a great pity that it has not been replicated in England and Wales.

The Secretary of State herself recognises the problems encountered in implementing European Union directives. In a speech to the Water UK conference on 2 May 2002, she said:

''While we contest where we disagree sometimes we have been forced to accept judgements that we have under-implemented in the past. The lesson for the future is absolutely clear: we must engage from the first stages of such discussion, be more certain of what commitments actually mean, and play a full part in negotiation of new directives.''

The thrust of her speech, which has considerable validity, is that past directives have been under-implemented. Situations such as that of the fridge mountains have arisen, and we do not want them to happen again. DEFRA's preparation, and before that the preparation of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, should have brought together the Water Bill and the water framework directive in one Bill. However, that will not happen, and that is faulty, not joined-up, government.

A democratic point also has to be made. Although the directive is hugely important, and it is recognised as the most far-reaching environmental legislation since the EU began, it will be dealt with by secondary legislation. That cannot be right in a democracy. It should be implemented by primary legislation with a full debate and with the scrutiny that this Bill is receiving.

The Minister's response in the letter sent to Opposition spokesmen simply repeats the assertion that primary legislation is not appropriate. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and others, the relevant section states:

''Formal transposition of the Directive must be achieved by 22 December this year.''

That suggests that the Government are late in beginning their consultation and preparation process. One might have thought that, given that warning, they could have combined the directive and these measures in primary legislation. Instead, they are scrabbling around at the last minute trying to complete consultations before a deadline that was announced some time ago. The letter continues:

''The Government published a consultation paper in August with proposed draft transposing regulations. Our consultation period runs until October.''

It also says:

''An enabling power already exists in the European Communities Act'',

and as it is standard practice, we should not worry about whether it is implemented by primary legislation.

I do not think that the Government have deliberately decided to bypass Parliament or stop us scrutinising the measure. However, there has been a chronic failure in the Department and its predecessor properly to anticipate what is required by the EU directive and what the Government want to achieve through the Bill. Different teams have worked on the two matters separately and, too late in the day, someone has asked, ''Why does this Bill not incorporate the directive as the Scottish legislation does?'' I guess that the Minister has been advised that it is too late to do that now. As a consequence we have a hybrid process, which is unsatisfactory.

It is not now sensible or achievable to incorporate the directive in the Bill, but I want to put it firmly on the record that it is wrong that the Government have got themselves in such a position and that the Bill will be less satisfactory as a consequence. Problems may arise between the terms of the Bill and those of the water framework directive when it is enacted. Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that, when the directive is introduced by secondary legislation, it will not be necessary to amend what will then be the Water Act? Will the Act be sacrosanct, or will bits and pieces require amendment because we did not properly anticipate what would happen? I will lay money now that regulations will be introduced to do just that when the statutory instruments are considered in the not-too-distant future.

The amendments are an attempt to recognise that it is right to have not only primary legislation to introduce the directive but measures to check how that is progressing. For example, amendment No. 174 refers to

''the legally binding timetable required.''

Members should be aware that the timetable for the directive is strict. It is helpfully set out on pages 13 and 14 of a Library research paper—the Library's research papers are always helpful. About 10 or 15 dates have to be met for the water framework directive. We should be discussing that and monitoring what the Government do to ensure that it is implemented properly, instead of squirreling it away in secondary legislation as the Government want. The purpose of amendment No. 174 is to ensure that they are firmly tied to that legally binding timetable.

Amendment No. 175, which is not dissimilar to Conservative amendment No. 2, would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the implementation of the directive. Again, that is not unreasonable. It is no use the Minister saying that we can have Adjournment debates or raise matters in written questions. That is no substitute for a proper debate on major legislation. That is not simply the view of my colleagues or that of the Conservatives, although they will speak for themselves on this matter. It is the view of companies.

I note the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the directive. The note sent by the Library says that the view of the Committee was that there would be a requirement for primary legislation in respect of the water framework directive. The report states:

''South West Water Limited, however, reported to us that 'primary legislation is recommended strongly as the preferred vehicle to enable the transposition of the Water Framework Directive into national legislation' . . . We do not make a judgment on this point: although the status and comprehensive nature of the Directive amply justifies the introduction of a 'standalone' bill, the important point is the effectiveness of the transposition of the Directive into national law, not the means by which that is achieved.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Precisely.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am being fair; I am giving the whole quotation. The Minister should not display a satisfied smile too quickly. The report goes on to say that

''until the administrative arrangements which will enable the Environment Agency to function as the competent authority have been properly explored, DEFRA cannot be certain that primary legislation is not required. We therefore repeat our recommendation that possible shortcomings in such administrative arrangements be identified as early as possible, and we recommend that the Government keep an open mind about the need for primary legislation to address such shortcomings.''

That is a pretty clear shot across the bows of the Government.

I return to the point that we are talking about the biggest piece of water regulation ever. That comes from the sustainability forum in Brussels in September 2001. Presumably the Government know about that. It is major legislation, but we will have it in dribs and drabs through statutory instruments.

Let the Minister come clean today and say that the Department got it wrong. We will live with what we have now. We will try to go forward constructively together, but let us not pretend that this is the ideal way to deal with the water framework directive. It is not, and it is an affront to democracy to suggest that it is. It is also far from joined-up departmental thinking on a crucial issue. I look forward to the discussion on the clause.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes, particularly for the sheep-stealing analogy with which he opened his speech. It was extremely accurate. I am curious as to why the Government do not want clause 2 in the Bill. I was particularly struck by the passionate intervention by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), about water cleanliness. I cannot understand why any hon. Member who serves on a Committee such as this would have a problem with such worthy regulations to

''prevent further deterioration of and protect and enhance the status of the aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems''.

The whole list—I could read it, but I am sure that members of the Committee can do so perfectly adequately for themselves—is extremely worthy and important. The Government recognise that because they have already encompassed most of it in the directive. Therefore, I do not understand why they do not want the clause in the Bill. If it were damaging in any way, I would accept that, but I cannot believe that a single one of the items in clause 2 could be construed as anything other than helpful. Nor can I understand

what is so bad about the directive that it makes it a problem to say it twice.

If the legislation is going to go through as secondary legislation, why cannot it also appear as primary legislation? What is wrong with that? We were reminded of the debacle over the fridge mountain. We cannot have water mountains, but we can have water shortages. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to identify that such matters are not being handled in a way that people who are passionate about water and the environment are keen to see done. I do not understand why, if there are items in the list that contradict the rest of the Bill, the Government have not chosen to amend those, instead of removing an entire clause.

I would like to know whether the water framework directive pilot scheme in, I think, the Ribble basin, has drawn any conclusions yet. If, as I suspect, it has not—because it has not been operating for long—it makes even more sense to include the aspirations in any Bill, but particularly a water Bill. The Government's failure to act in a joined-up way is a shame, but if the Minister has good answers as to why that is unnecessary, I would be pleased to hear them. However, I believe that there cannot be a good explanation for why all these things are bad, when the Government have signed the water framework directive. That is a natural contradiction.

Amendment No. 2 would require the Government to report annually, rather than every six years. If the legislation is so important and worthy of our attention, and if it is even worth doing through secondary legislation in relation to the water framework directive, we should still know about it. The Minister's answer to my question about why he wanted to report every three years was understandable, but not necessarily acceptable, particularly as the Government are trying to take the water framework directive out of the Bill. I hope that the Government recognise that we are interested in and care about the legislation, so we want to know what is happening annually. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Important points have been made during this short debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes that the way in which Parliament deals with European environmental legislation is far from satisfactory. He made a number of points. It is interesting that when one visits the Commission, the Commissioners speak highly of British officials and environmentalists. In the working groups the value of the input from British civil servants is extremely highly regarded.

There are two problems. A problem that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State herself has identified is that at the political level, there is a tendency not to get involved in the discussion at an early enough stage to shape the framework of forthcoming legislation. There is also an issue about not examining the outcomes or the impact of the legislation. That was well exemplified by the debacle of refrigerators.

My hon. Friend the Minister has his eye on the ball of forthcoming directives, so I will tell him gently that

I have real reservations about the end-of-life vehicles directive and the so-called WEE—waste electrical equipment—directive. My impression is that we are far from prepared for the outcome of those. That reinforces the point that Parliament needs to deal more thoughtfully with European environmental legislation. The European Scrutiny Committee does valuable work but the oversight of the detail of such matters is fairly limited. There is a wide issue about how we transpose European environmental directives into British law.

This is an important Bill; no one should underestimate that. Set against the impact that the water framework directive will have, however, the Bill is a dwarf against a giant. The directive will be a major change to the way in which we examine the environment. The hon. Member for Lewes was perfectly fair when he talked about the Select Committee report. The Committee kept an open mind about whether the directive should be dealt with in primary or secondary legislation, and the Government decided to use secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman accepted that. The decision has been made; the clock has ticked on, and there is no point re-examining the matter.

There is a need to raise awareness about the impact of the directive. It has to be implemented over 15 years, and we are well into that time scale. The directive will have a major effect on planning issues for local authorities, so we must ask how they will be involved, and on the way that we farm the land. The directive's significance has not yet been appreciated, and we need to get on with raising awareness. The need to consult the public is implicit in the directive, and a campaign is needed to deliver its aims. We are just at the beginning of that process.

The hon. Member for Leominster mentioned the Ribble pilot study. We should remember that initially it was decided that the United Kingdom would not have a pilot study—the Environment Agency was used to dealing with catchment areas—but subsequently there was a change of mind, and it was decided that a pilot study would be carried out.

My views as to whether the directive is dealt with in primary or secondary legislation are fairly catholic. The necessity now is for a big, detailed campaign on the directive, because we underestimate its significance at our peril.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

May I first say what a pleasure it is to be back in Room 14 with you, Mr. O'Brien? We probably first sat on a Standing Committee in this Room in about 1983. The face of politics has changed since then, just as it is about to change again at the next election.

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster on amendment No. 2. I support the hon. Member for Lewes as far as he goes, but he does not go nearly far enough. He is far too kind to the Minister. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but I believe that the way that Parliament scrutinises these affairs is wrong. The hon. Gentleman assumes that the Minister is simply doing

what he is told, because that is what Parliament has decided. That is not a good enough excuse. When the water framework directive is discussed by the House it will be in a single Committee sitting, and the Committee will not take any substantive votes to amend anything because it cannot. There is a popular misconception that statutory instrument Committees talk about things and then vote on them; they do not. It is a travesty that this extraordinary parliamentary chicanery continues.

I find it quite extraordinary that Government and Labour Members are prepared to delete clause 2 against the wishes of a wide range of national organisations. I am astonished that they are not prepared to listen to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts, the WWF, the Woodland Trust, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Herpetological Conservation Trust, Friends of the Earth, Buglife or the British Ecological Society. All those bodies are astounded that the water framework directive, the most far-reaching legislation to affect the water industry, the consumer and the environment, will be dealt with in a statutory instrument by a small Standing Committee. The directive raises such important issues that we should give it much more urgent consideration. It is a powerful tool that, if used properly, could result in much more efficient and equitable use of public money and bring huge benefit to our rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands.

The directive requires controls on abstractions, which must be periodically reviewed to meet European standards—that does not conflict with the Bill, so why can we not just say so? There is also a range of issues on which Ministers have failed to establish the appropriate administrative structures. An example is integrated catchment management; why can that not be included in the Bill, if we are all signed up to it, which, apparently, we are? In addition, there has been insufficient investment in the Environment Agency to ensure that the science underlying classification and risk assessment is robust. The directive must proceed with solid science underlying it. I am not convinced that that is the case, so we should say so and invest properly in the Environment Agency.

As the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, the Government have failed to link water planning with land use and agriculture policies. I find that astonishing, as I said on Second Reading. I certainly will not support the amendment to delete clause 2, but I do support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

There are four parts to this. The first, which is where the Minister has it wrong, concerns nitrogen deficiency and nitrogen-susceptible land. The directive will cover that. The Minister has been involved in many debates about the fact that the use of nitrogen and fertilisers in sensitive areas causes more trouble than it is worth. The retention of the clause will deal with that.

The second part concerns the Forestry Commission and the massive areas of afforestation. Trees create ecological change, which is covered by the directive. It can be used in the ecological planning of large areas of

forestation, which has been the policy of successive Governments since the war, and is set to continue.

The third part, which is closer to the Minister's power, is drainage boards, which plan the control of aquatic life a long way ahead. The Minister commented earlier on water levels, and the directive covers those too, which is vital.

The final matter is the vital role of the management committees of the Environment Agency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned. The Environment Agency does a phenomenal job, and its management committees look after waterways throughout the United Kingdom. The directive gives them protection, not just from the Secretary of State making arbitrary decisions or passing laws, but in the context of the European Parliament. Ecologically, it is a great shame that the Minister is looking to remove that protection; he is missing something vital.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I decided to take part in the debate because it became so interesting that I had to say something. It is a pleasure, Mr. O'Brien, to serve under your joint chairmanship—[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I served on the Select Committee that inquired into the water framework directive. The Committee recognised that it is an important measure; possibly the largest and most important of the European directives. It recognised, too, that a water basin management approach was the best model for conservation and for the protection of water and the water supply.

I, too, am anxious that the Government should take note of the need to prepare to enact the water framework directive in its entirety. Why is it necessary to remove the clause now? It would be appropriate to keep it to protect the waterways. I want the Minister to clarify why the clause should be removed.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Once again, I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Amess. It is nice to see you here.

I take my hon. Friend's point about the directive. I am concerned about the tenor of some of the discussions that suggest that we cannot implement the directive without a Bill, and that because we do not think a Bill appropriate we are not signed up to the concept of the directive. That is not true, and I am happy to explain why it is not appropriate to include the measure in this Bill.

First, as has rightly been recognised, the timetable is legally binding on the Government. We have signed it, and it has been agreed in the Council of Ministers and scrutinised by the European Parliament. Incidentally, amendments cannot be made in the European Scrutiny Committee; the European structure is the place for amendments—that is the nature of our relationship with the European Parliament and the European Council.

The directive will provide many long-term benefits for this country. It is the largest directive ever to come from the EU—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right to say that it is of fundamental importance—and it will be challenging. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is not due to be implemented fully until 2015. We do not need the Bill to transpose it; we will transpose it at the end of the year, when we are on target with the general framework directive. We are on our third consultation on the framework directive, as hon. Members who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are aware.

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that there are wider issues related to transposition and the formulation of European directives. One improvement that the EU could make would be to adopt the UK system of regulatory impact assessments of legislation. Sometimes, the EU signs up to what seems to be a good idea, without thinking about the long-term consequences or the time scales and frameworks. I

fully understand the point that my hon. Friend made about the WEE directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive, and I assure him that I am aware of those issues.

I shall outline the reasons why we do not support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. First, the comparison with Scotland is incorrect. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, from the Scottish Parliament, does not give full effect to the directive. Much of it will be implemented through secondary legislation. The Scottish Executive acknowledges that further work needs to be done, and it is explicit in the directive that this is the start of a long-term process.

The full water framework directive cannot be implemented in the Bill because there are years of work still to be done in relation to the directive. Moreover, although I do not disagree with much of the text in clause 2—it is appropriate in relation to the objective of the clause, and to the implementation of the directive—there are some specific issues to which I will draw the Committee's attention. For example, the difference between ''excellent'' and ''good'' in relation to water quality has enormous cost implications, because similar benefits may accrue for ''good'' and for ''excellent'' status. Such issues should be properly scrutinised and subjected to proper consultation. They should not be banged into the Bill because that is considered desirable—albeit with worthy objectives—without thinking of the long-term consequences of measures that will take years to implement fully.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Reference was made to the Scottish legislation, which incorporated the European framework directive. Did the Minister have a good look at what happened in Scotland and, if so, what view did he take on the fact that the Government of the day implemented it in the 2003 Act?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

But we have not implemented it into the Act—that is the point that I made. There is a misunderstanding. The 2003 Act does not fully implement the framework directive. It is included because the Scottish Parliament does not have the range of secondary legislation that is available to this Parliament. The Act will not implement the framework directive—the full process must be gone through.

The wording in clause 2 is premature, unnecessary, and has not been subjected to proper scrutiny. We need to examine that wording carefully as part of a proper consultation process—[Interruption.] It may well be said that we should do it now, but the Bill concentrates on a range of important and specific issues concerning resource management. Those issues will be complementary and will form part of the ultimate water framework directive, because the Bill will put in place tools that will be helpful in achieving the outcomes of that directive. The Bill is on the route, but it is not the definitive and conclusive method of implementing the directive, because of the directive's huge implications and the work that still needs to be done on it up to 2015. I cannot understand the reason—it seems almost to be panic—to have the measure in the Bill, when the Bill already fits nicely into the route for full implementation.

I am pleased to say that we have a pilot scheme. The Environment Agency has much experience in catchment area management, but in my view the pilot scheme goes beyond that. I particularly like the way in which communities are being involved. I have been to the Ribble valley to see the implementation of the catchment plan and to talk to the various stakeholder groups. I am a great enthusiast for that sort of approach.

A great strength of the framework directive, particularly in engaging people to meet the objectives that I believe are desirable, is that it will increase the range of people who have an interest in water. However, that process rightly involves proper public consultation and scrutiny, which I might say goes beyond this place. We have an important role as legislators, but I happen to think that scrutiny goes beyond Parliament. I believe that we should involve community groups, and have proper public involvement and scrutiny. The framework deals with that, and it is premature to start being so definitive as suggested in clause 2. The clause is unnecessary, and its language is confusing.

The Department is taking a joined-up approach. The water framework directive team and the officials who have been working on the Bill are in the same directorate within DEFRA. They are working together, but on different time scales. The time scale of the Bill and that of the directive are different. The Bill is an important and continuing part of implementing the directive.

The Government and I are fully committed to the directive. Perhaps I am being unfair to Opposition Members, but my impression is that they think that if the provisions of clause 2 are not included in the Bill, we shall not have a water framework directive. That is not the case.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

My hon. Friend makes a passionate defence of the Government's position. I am less concerned about the water framework directive; it is a worthy approach. However, it is long on words and relatively short on how it is to be implemented. I look for reassurance from my hon. Friend on what greater protection can be given to estuaries. We know about the Ribble pilot scheme, but one of the great threats to the Severn is that there is no consistency in water management, especially in relation to flooding, the use of the river, buildings and so on. What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that we will take estuaries much more seriously and put management policies into place that will stop some of the daft things that were done in the past?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend will know that, as part of our approach to flood planning, we are moving to entire catchment studies. We have committed a lot of money to them, and he will know that the Severn is one of the areas where they will be implemented. The effects of planning on the estuary will be studied. We are also moving towards better coastal planning and shoreline management plans, and how to integrate plans in order to protect estuaries, of which the Severn is an important one. Some important issues are arising in relation to shoreline management plans and potential management on the Severn that will result

in better environmental and coastal defence. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of these exciting proposals, and there will be an opportunity for an ongoing discussion on the topic.

I feel strongly about the water framework directive, to which I am committed. It is exactly the right way to go. We should take a holistic approach to biological quality as well as to chemical quality. I sometimes feel that people are unnecessarily distracted. The Bill contains many important measures. The directive will continue to be subject to the consultation to which we are committed and to the scrutiny of a European Standing Committee, which I would not underestimate, speaking as someone who is often at the end of it. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also provides detailed scrutiny, and it has already done a good job on the water framework directive. As I mentioned, it said that it is the implementation of the directive, rather than the mechanism of implementation, that is important.

I am saying only that we do not need to include the provisions in the Bill. I am surprised that Opposition Members, who often complain about bureaucracy and excessive legislation, are asking for unnecessary legislation. Considering the wider public consultation and involvement, it would be far better to proceed along the time scales and mechanisms to which we have committed ourselves, rather than distract the issue in a Bill that cannot possibly implement the directive. We would risk going off half cocked if we tried to rush it through in that way. A directive of such fundamental importance deserves better scrutiny than that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am impressed by the Minister's reply—I wish I could do indignation as well as that.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Such righteousness.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Indeed, it was a most righteous, indignant and passionate defence of what is clearly indefensible. The Minister made a fundamental mistake in suggesting that clause 2 would implement the water framework directive, but we all heard him say, time and again, that leaving clause 2 in the Bill would not, by itself, implement the directive. The Minister is right, and it is not the intention behind the Bill to implement the water framework directive, which we know is rolling forward like a juggernaut. We merely want to ensure that the principles that everyone, including the Minister, has accepted remain in the Bill, which is not the same as asking the Government to implement the directive in the Bill. We want the principles that we all admire to be implemented at our speed rather than by 2015. If we agree that the principles are good, we must include them in the Bill. We do not need to wait until we have completed third consultations or for the water framework directive to be introduced. We can do it now and lead the way.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Did my hon. Friend listen with as much interest as I did to the contributions from Government Members? They again questioned whether the Government have an overall strategic

approach to water management. Would not clause 2 and the amendments help the Government with their own supporters by setting out in the Bill their overall strategic approach for water management?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I suspect that his opposite number has other ways of dealing with Labour Members. I was also grateful to all the interventions and speeches from all my colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, because they were right. There are many problems with the water framework directive, but no one has a difficulty with the principles currently in the Bill. My constituency is not a million miles from the River Severn—the River Wye flows into it—and when we are legislating about water, it is important to take such principles on board.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is the point that I was trying to make. The principles will become law if they remain in the Bill, but they may or may not be relevant to the principles in the way that we transpose the water framework directive. Members realise that the Bill cannot implement the framework because the time scales are wrong. The phrases deserve proper scrutiny, and it would be a serious mistake to start including bits of implementation in one Bill when they apply to another.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister is right, but his comments highlight the difference between us. We want not to take a bite out of the water framework directive and sellotape it to the Bill, but to take the parts with which we all agree and ensure that that they are included. The Minister may say that that would mean that the water framework directive would not work, but we disagree. I believe that it would. The principles are worthy, so if there is a problem with the wording in the Bill, we must amend that rather than abandoning the principles altogether.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's persuasive arguments, but which of his arguments for including the framework directive in the Bill would not also apply to the ten commandments and to the Magna Carta, with which we all agree? Shall we also put those in the Bill?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am not certain that I have completely understood the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If we were legislating on mediaeval history or biblical matters, we might choose to include the ten commandments or even the wording from the Magna Carta. We are, however, debating water, so there is nothing wrong with including some of the best principles from the water framework directive in the Bill. That would have two advantages. First, it would ensure that the Government are kept on the environmental straight and narrow. Secondly, it might ensure that the legislation is enacted before 2015.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I understood the Minister to say that he disagrees with parts of the clause, or that they were ill thought-out, or that we had not examined their implications. My reading of the clause is that it contains only good things. Does my hon. Friend agree

that it would help the Committee if the Minister could set out—now, or by writing to Committee members—where he disagrees, or where the Government disagree, with the objectives in the clause?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister will have to reply to that intervention.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have already done so. One example springs to mind: the definitions of ''good'' and ''excellent'' and their implications. We have to think about the implications in relation to how the definitions are applied, cost-benefit analysis and the likely results. I want the best water quality, but those wordings have implications that must be properly scrutinised. The public should also be properly consulted. The Bill is not appropriate for that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the Minister's reply. If the consultation on the water framework directive is at its third stage, and if the wording of the clause has come straight from the water framework directive, I do not understand why that consultation was not done properly.

I agree with the Minister's comments about having the proper wording so that the difference between ''good'' and ''excellent'' is clarified. The correct way to deal with the problem is not to abandon the clause. It would reassure me if the Minister were to choose which words he would like edited, amended or even removed. To remove the whole clause is to abandon the principle, which would be a great mistake.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not the European framework directive is implemented, the clause needs to be in place to address all the environmental issues that we have been discussing?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Lady is right. We must stick to our guns on this matter because the clause is right. The Minister knows that it is right, as do the Government, otherwise they should not have signed up to the water framework directive. We have to be firm with our principles.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible exit strategy from this mess may be for the Government to hold their fire at this stage and not remove the clause? The Minister could then reconsider the wording to see whether there is anything that he particularly wants to amend, and we could discuss it again on Report. The Government can then remove the clause if they believe that it should not be in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I thought that that was a helpful intervention until I saw the Minister shaking his head in a most unhelpful manner.

It is apparent from this debate that there is a desire throughout the Committee to do good with the Bill. There is a desire to see proper environmental and water resources protected. We are failing if we remove this provision lock, stock and barrel, without saving at least some of the principles. The Minister looks as if he is going to say something helpful, so I shall conclude.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will find what I am going to say helpful. To reiterate, clause 2 is a regulation power. We do not

need that regulation power in the Bill. This is not a Bill for implementing the water framework directive; we have an adequate process for that. Much of the content of clause 2 is perfectly worthy and involves principles to which the Government are happy to sign up. Those will be transposed, in the timetable that we have agreed with the European Union in the water framework directive. It is not appropriate for this Bill to deal with those matters, which are distracting us from the Bill's main principles.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Amess; we have seen a lot of each other this week, one way or another.

The Minister pulled every lever to try to justify removing this clause. We have been given every possible reason from the ministerial book of excuses, from page 1 to page 93—or even later. We were told that the Opposition had somehow said that clause 2 was being removed because the Government were not committed to the water framework directive. Of course they are committed to the water framework directive; no one has suggested otherwise. That was an Aunt Sally put up by the Minister. No one has suggested that; it is a complete red herring, and I invite hon. Members to disregard that comment.

The most important point concerns how we deal with major European Union directives. The hon. Members for Sherwood and for Forest of Dean made that point to the Minister, quite rightly, non-confrontationally and constructively, saying, as I understood it, that we cannot go on dealing with major legislation from Europe through secondary legislation. That is not an acceptable way for Parliament to deal with such legislation in the 21st century. I am sure that the Minister knows—he is an educated chap—that other European Union countries do not deal with secondary legislation in that way. They do not even do so in Scotland—he gave the game away on that. Scotland has bits of the water framework directive in the Bill because, as the Minister said, they do not have the range of secondary legislation there that we have. That is right. They decided to deal with things in the new Parliament rather more democratically and effectively north of the border.

It is time that we changed the way in which we deal with secondary legislation. The situation has come to a head with this measure, as the Minister knows, for two reasons. First, the water framework directive—as everyone accepts, including the Minister, his colleagues, and Opposition Members—is a hugely important piece of water legislation that affects everyone in the country. No one denies that. Secondly, its implementation by regulation and consultation is running in parallel to a Bill dealing with water. There does not seem to be much evidence of a joined-up process; even if there were, there is an argument for bringing the two together. Those two arguments, about the nature of the directive and the ongoing process, suggest that we should not have secondary legislation for such a directive. It is frankly indefensible that the arrangements in Parliament mean that such a measure is dealt with by secondary legislation.

The hon. Member for Salisbury is right to say that scrutiny in the Standing Committees on statutory instruments is not the same. It is not the same at all. I have tried in this Parliament to give hon. Members the opportunity to amend statutory instruments. It is an all or nothing situation. I am sure that hon. Members, whether in opposition or in government, will recognise that the situation is not satisfactory. We cannot suggest sensible amendments to statutory instruments, because we are in a Russian roulette situation, or a shoot-out: we accept either everything or nothing. No one wants to reject an entire SI, so the Minister—whoever it happens to be—bluffs his or her way through and says that we should accept it, when actually it should be amended. That cannot be a satisfactory way to approach legislation.

The Minister said that the directive cannot be amended. Of course a directive has been accepted by the European Commission and the European Parliament, but a directive is an enabling piece of legislation. It is not a regulation like that on tachographs in lorries. How each country implements a directive changes. We have flexibility in how we implement the objectives set out in the directive.

Other countries use that flexibility. Scotland used it, notwithstanding the Minister's comments. Of course the entire water framework directive is not there. No one said that it was. That was another Aunt Sally in the Minister's response. Scotland has recognised the need to bring the two elements together. We have not done so down here. We are told that the water framework directive is all or nothing. We can take it or leave it. We can vote it down or vote it through. Honourable Members on the Labour Benches—I use the word ''honourable'' deliberately—will want to look at these things properly, but they will not want to be disloyal to their Government. They will end up voting for things that they would prefer to amend.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

In fact, it is even worse. Members of a statutory instrument Committee are not asked to agree or disagree with the substance of the discussion on the instrument, but to agree the motion that they have considered it. There is no question that they are approving what they are asked to discuss.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will be faced with a major piece of European legislation, asked to say yea or nay with no opportunity to amend anything. We will then be in the hands of the officials at DEFRA and we must hope that they have got it right. We, as elected Members, will have no meaningful input into that process.

Another lever that the Minister pulled was to say that we have scrutiny outside Parliament. Well, dear me. Of course we have scrutiny outside Parliament. We have pressure groups, the media and all sorts of people, but that does not mean that we should not have scrutiny inside Parliament. That argument could be applied by Robert Mugabe for what is happening in Zimbabwe. There is scrutiny outside the Harare Parliament, but there is still a need for some democratic processes there.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that DEFRA should take lessons from the only Government in the world who treat their farmers worse than we do.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I would not wish to align the Government with that of Robert Mugabe. The Minister and his colleagues at DEFRA are far more amenable to democracy. The fact that people outside Parliament are looking at something—as indeed they should—does not obviate the need for people inside Parliament to do the job for which we were elected, which is to scrutinise legislation, suggest amendments and make them. That applies to us wherever we are on the political spectrum. That is taken away from us by this ludicrously archaic system of unamendable secondary legislation.

I know quite a bit about Sweden, and the Swedish method of dealing with European legislation is far superior to ours. That applies to other European Union countries, as the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Forest of Dean will doubtless know. We should learn lessons and not be afraid to say that we do not do things properly in this Parliament. Even Norway, which is not even in the EU, scrutinises European legislation rather better than we do. I have been there and I have seen how it is followed in a shadow process. Half the time, people there know more about what is going on than we do.

The Minister's argument simply does not wash. He pulled another lever when he said that we should not have bits of legislation pushed into bits of Bills. We have fluoride here, so that argument falls for a start. Bits of other legislation are coming into this Bill. Even the Government admit that it is a health measure, because the Health Minister is coming along to deal with it. The only argument left to the Minister was that it was not appropriate. Dear me, is that the best we can come up with under the circumstances?

The Minister has not convinced me at all. If he does not like the words in clause 2—that was another red herring—let him amend them. I am happy to accept his views and listen carefully to him and his officials when they say that ''good'' should be ''excellent'' or vice versa. I am happy for him to say that a few words here and there are wrong, but because a few words are wrong is no reason to throw out the whole clause. The clause contains an important principle. It demonstrates even at this late stage that there is a connection between the water framework directive and the Water Bill. We all know that there is a connection, but the Minister does not want to state it explicitly in the Bill. He should. I asked him earlier to give me an absolute guarantee that the regulations would not amend the Bill, but he did not. I should like him to do so now.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Absolute guarantees are rare in any walk of life. The draft transposing regulations for the water framework directive will not affect potential changes to the Bill. Another argument against clause 2 is that I cannot say whether there will be implications for the Bill as we go through the consultation process.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I hear what the Minister says, but the water framework directive requires us, among other things, to

''promote sustainable water use based on long term protection of available water resources''

and it requires

''comprehensive river basin management plans to manage surface water and groundwater''

and

''member states to ensure that there is no deterioration in the ecological status of water bodies,''

and so on. I suggest that the regulations might impact on what we shall have agreed here in terms of extraction licences and other matters. I am grateful that the Minister has conceded that, although he does not anticipate problems, he cannot guarantee that this will not be amended. That demonstrates, yet again, that our processes are not linked, and should be.

My final point is that it is time that Members of Parliament stood up and said, ''We want to do our job. We expect to do it properly, and to scrutinise properly, and we expect important European legislation to be subject to proper scrutiny by all parties, so that hon. Members are able to know what is going on, with a proper time scale, to consider primary legislation in the way in which it should be considered and to amend.'' That point trans—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Transcends.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Thank you. It transcends all political parties and all Members of the House. For that reason, I invite the Committee not to delete clause 2. In that light, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 13

Clause 3 - Licences to abstract water

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in

clause 3, page 2, line 29, at beginning insert—

'( ) Each licence to abstract water shall be issued in response to an application for planning permission.

( ) The Environment Agency shall be consulted as part of the planning decision.'.

Unlike my colleagues, Mr. Amess, I have not welcomed you to the Chair, and I should like to do that straight away. The amendment addresses the relationship between water abstraction and planning. I am no expert on legal drafting, planning or water abstraction. However, I want to ensure that any business that wishes to abstract—when I wrote the amendment I had in mind quarries and mineral water companies—has to take just one course of action in order to develop. At present, it would have to have an abstraction licence that was a separate entity to the planning application that would need to be granted in the case of quarrying abstract sand, gravel, rock or any type of stone.

It is rarely possible to quarry without abstracting water. That is why the amendment would draw together the planning application and the abstraction licence application. It would ensure that for environmental reasons the Environment Agency is part of the consultation when the planning application is under review.

I hope that that is clear. It is not a complicated concept but it is important, because if planning applications are separate from abstraction licences, the abstraction licence may have a shorter life than the planning application, in which case businesses that have permission to extract rock, for example, may not be allowed to do so in the long term. It would be short-sighted of any measure to allow such a delay; if it is environmentally safe to abstract water, the business should be able to go ahead, provided that it has planning permission. Would not it be so much better if it were all part of the same process? Would not it be better to streamline the legislative burden so that businesses could compete on a level playing field with those abroad? We recognise that there would be a benefit, especially for quarries, if their abstraction licence was coterminous with their planning permission.

There is little point in issuing planning permission without an abstraction licence, because when that expires so, effectively, will the planning permission. Businesses should not be hamstrung by separating the two.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

I support my hon. Friend's argument. He used the example of quarries, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) mentioned canals and other sources of water extraction, and I shall refer to them and to farms. We must consider three things in respect of the proposal: first, who will take the final decision? Counties and districts consider planning applications, and in a dispute between a county and a district or a parish, the application may eventually go to appeal before the Minister, which may cause enormous problems, because such matters are time-sensitive. If they have to go through the planning mechanism, they take an enormous amount of time. Another point to be borne in mind is that the weather conditions in this country change rapidly.

Secondly, as subsections 1(a), (b) and (c) of new section 24A of the Water Resources Act 1991 refer to a period of 28 days or longer, are there any provisions for a system of roll-over licences? For example, a quarry may want to remove a tonnage of stone but something goes wrong and it will take longer to extract the material. Can the planning application be rolled over, rather than people having to re-apply and go through the whole process again?

Thirdly, boring for water is one of the most inexact sciences I have ever come across. You bore a hole and it does not quite work, so you bore another hole and keep on. [Interruption.] The Minister kindly refers to divining, which I have tried but not mastered. The scientific world is probably better at divining than anything else. Boring for water, which is frequently undertaken in this country, may cause problems for the Minister, because water moves around rapidly. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the planning system must be flexible enough to take that into consideration, and this proposal is not flexible enough to do so. The Minister may like to think about that.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I genuinely want to hear from the Minister what the Government propose to do about this problem. Things have moved on over the years, but the Bill makes no mention of the relationship between sustainable water supplies, sewerage and planning issues, such as housing developments in industrial use. Nor is there any reference to water in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which is currently before the House. The situation seems to be completely unsustainable, and must be remedied.

It is nonsense that a planning authority can consult a water company, but that the company is not a statutory consultee. In any event, the water company is obliged under statute to supply whatever it is asked to supply. It cannot refuse to supply a certain housing development or support an industrial development. It cannot refuse to supply water, or to take effluent, treat it and return it to the rivers.

We must address the problem of the interface with planning if we are to be serious about issues such as the water framework directive. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince me. This issue is of great practical significance. Water companies in my part of the world have real problems with sewage flooding in winter, because the land is primarily chalk-based. We have the problem of winter bournes and the water table rising substantially most winters. Indeed, it used to rise absolutely predictably and regularly until we started abstracting a lot. We will store up enormous problems for ourselves if we cannot solve this problem for the planning authorities. The implementation of catchment management schemes will also make nonsense of the water framework directive. We need answers from the Government now.

I wholly support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster in raising this extremely important issue.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. Given your substantial

environmental interests, we look forward to your wisdom in dealing with us through our deliberations.

I have no current declarable interest. I do, however, declare a minor interest as a former water company employee, and I will be a pensioner of that water company in the future. The amendment is interesting. We awaited the explanation for it, because it appeared merely to introduce more bureaucracy.

These are difficult times for water—there are the problems of climate change—and I appreciate that the constituency of the hon. Member for Leominster may have had more rainfall this summer than did other parts of the country. Maps produced by the Environment Agency, which are reproduced in the Library's research paper on the Water Bill, show that the precipitation is desperately low. Our main problem is where we will get our water from and how we plan for it, especially in areas of very high use—the Thames gateway development was referred to on Second Reading.

The Minister very usefully told us that we now have the Committee to worry about this problem. However, it remains to be seen whether the Committee will do the rain dances at the right moment, or whether it has other plans in place. We wait with anticipation and excitement to hear where the water will come from.

It was said on Second Reading that we would all be against the Thames gateway development for some peculiar and parochial reason of our own. There was no reason to make that statement. We do not necessarily oppose it. However, we recognise that that development, more than any other, encapsulates the major problem of water shortages, water planning and announcements made about housing and other developments while there is no clear idea of where the water will come from. The amendment is therefore useful.

Thames gateway has the highest consumption of water per capita. We are using more water not only, as some like to say, because it is leaking, although there are problems to do with that, but because as individuals we water our gardens and like to take a shower when the weather is hot, as it has been in the past few months. We wash our clothes much more often and put things in the dishwasher. We are cleaner than we used to be, and that is not a bad thing, but it increases demand.

The points that the hon. Member for Salisbury made about winter bourns are true. There are a number of winter bournes in the Thames basin system, but they have been depleted, and species such as the water vole have been lost because they have not been replenished in the winter owing to over-abstraction in the Thames area. There are problems there that are not unconnected with new developments.

We must recognise that when applications are made we must be satisfied that we know where the water is coming from. Because of those concerns, we shall support the Conservatives on the amendment.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I hope that there is not too much boring for water in the Committee—we have a long way to go and are only at the beginning.

There is already guidance to planning authorities about applications to take into account water resources. Hon. Members are probably aware that the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in planning applications. Water companies have a responsibility to undertake forward planning for potential resource demand, and they are also part of the planning process. It would therefore be wrong to think, as the hon. Member for Salisbury seems to, that there is no consideration of planning applications and the expectation that water companies will provide water and sewerage. The system does not work like that and we would not expect it to.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I thought that the position was exactly that, and that water companies could not resist applications in the way that they could before the Water Act 1989, when they could have a veto in certain circumstances. Now they cannot have a veto but are told that there is a statutory duty on them to connect and supply water. In a situation such as the one that we are facing in the south-east, where, according to Government policy, a huge number of houses are to be built and where water is least available, surely that is a recipe for disaster.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It would be if no consideration had been given to water resource management, but that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. He is quite right to mention the statutory obligation on water companies to provide their services, but water resource issues and availability must be taken into account in the long-term planning. That is certainly true of, for example, the Thames gateway. The provision of water and sewerage is taken into account for that project, which is a major planning proposal and, I might add, Europe's biggest brownfield development.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Yes, of course, the Minister is right: those matters are taken into account and the advice of the Environment Agency is no doubt listened to. However, it remains a fact that the company providing the water and sewerage cannot refuse to do so on planning grounds, and that is unsustainable. It is true, I am told, that the provision of water for those extra hundreds of thousands of houses will not be a problem. However, what will be the cost to the area from which the water will have to be supplied? What will be the impact on the upper Thames valley of abstracting the water in the lower Thames valley?

The Minister cannot have the argument both ways. He cannot say on one hand, ''Yes, we'll take it into account,'' but on the other, ''It's absolutely right that they can't say no.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Again, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the requirements on the water companies and the longer-term strategic approach to water resource management and supply. The issues are important, and the impact of transferring water must

be taken into account, if that is required. The Bill imposes a requirement on water companies to produce long-term water resource plans—and, incidentally, drought plans, which are slightly different from, but allied to, water supply. Those issues have been included, so it would be wrong to think that they had been ignored in relation not only to projections of housing demand and growth—water supply must of course be taken into account—but to new build and new design opportunities for minimising water use in a sustainable way. We need to explore those opportunities.

The hon. Member for Leominster said that he does not think that the amendment is properly drafted or legally compliant—indeed, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to link two regulatory regimes—the planning regime for quarrying and the proposed abstraction licensing scheme. I understand his point because some quarries have very long-term planning permission under the different legislation on minerals. That is a potential problem because quarry dewatering can have a significant impact on water resources and the environment, which is why such matters have been brought within the scope of the Bill.

The Government intend to close the current exemption for dewatering and to bring it within the regulatory regime for managing water resources. The Environment Agency was established for, among other things, that very purpose. It has detailed duties, including the determination of abstraction licences and the conditions attached to them. The agency is clearly the proper authority for that role. It is already a consultee of the planning authority, so the part of the amendment that relates to that is not needed.

I expect the agency and planning authorities to co-operate in dealing with such issues. They should liaise—as they do—on the scope of environmental impact assessments and to ensure that they cover the needs of both regimes. However, the effects of quarrying on the water environment are, by their very nature, difficult to predict. Opposition Members have made the point that the water environment is sensitive to the effects of climate change. The time scale for reviews may necessarily be different given the horizon of planning permission. Reviews may be out of sync, which is why different approaches are necessary.

If the quarrying industry is committed to dealing positively with impacts on the environment, I can assure it that because it is not a consumer of water, it has nothing to fear from the introduction of the new regime, and we will have the opportunity to discuss that point in further detail as we go through the Bill. For new sites, we must ensure that there is sustainable development from the start. Time-limited licences, with an option for review on renewal, are the sustainable approach, which we are trying to take. If the initial duration of the licence affects investment, it can be dealt with as part of the application and determination process by the agency, or indeed by the Secretary of State on appeal, if it should be required.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has touched on the Achilles heel of the argument. Investment, particularly in quarrying, is normally based on at least a 25-year

amortisation. The Bill seeks to reduce that period to 12 years—the period for which a licence will definitely be granted without review—which would dramatically change the calculation of the required investment. That will have a fundamental effect on the price of stone, which will be passed on to users. As the majority of users are councils, that price rise will in turn increase council tax. I know that the Government are not particularly shy about council tax increases—it has increased dramatically in my constituency—but investors calculating their investments in quarries will have a significant problem.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There will be an opportunity to go into that matter in detail later on, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill contains a presumption of renewal, and quarry operators will be able to work round the regulations. The Bill does not specify a particular period, and the Environment Agency will have discretion over the period to be applied. Of course, the measure does not extinguish licences currently held by quarries in perpetuity, but provides a power to withdraw them if there is environmental damage. I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm, and, as one of a range of options, it will be the last resort. Quarries may well find that moving to time-limited licences is to their advantage, but we will discuss that later.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The Minister will accept that the Environment Agency is already very involved with the quarrying industry and is a statutory consultee on any planning application. But is not the real issue long-term investment? Surely it is necessary for the agency to discuss matters with the industry. There is no difference over principle; everyone is signed up to the principles, but an open and transparent process is needed so that the industry can continue to make long-term investment decisions.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend takes a sensible approach. A discussion of the issues facing quarry owners and the agency's concerns about sustainable management is in the interests of both parties. That opportunity is addressed here, but the amendment is technically flawed, so I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will accept my explanation and seek to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Guildford for her speech, although I feel that the disappearance of water voles has more to do with the release of mink than with abstraction.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I would agree that some water voles have disappeared as a result of mink being released, but I lived in the Lambourn valley at the time and I can say that there were no mink dealing with those particular water voles.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

We are all a little the wiser.

I wanted, through my amendment, to do precisely the opposite of what the Minister just suggested and link the regimes. The hon. Member for Sherwood suggested that it would be tremendous if the agency and the quarrying industry sat down together and worked things out. I think that they would be happy to

do that; it was a sensible and helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, they would then have to go and work things out with the planning authority. The trouble is that the net result would not necessarily be beneficial for either the quarriers or the end users—all of us every time we drive on a road—so we need to link the two systems.

The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was tremendously helpful and showed the depth of his wisdom and experience in such matters as linking housing to sewerage and water. I was extremely grateful for that and for his previous speech, for which I neglected to thank him at the time.

Initially I felt prepared to withdraw the amendment, but now I do not. I shall be very clear about the reason: we want to link planning to the Environment Agency. When I found out that it was already a statutory consultee, I thought, ''Perfect, I can withdraw my amendment on that basis''; but I cannot do so because the Minister's argument is very much against linking the regimes, while I am very much in favour of that. I accept all the Minister's criticism of the amendment's wording, but I am not prepared to withdraw it because I want to see the principle changed and environmental policing linked with planning, and that is the amendment's purpose.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

Clause 4 - Restrictions on Impounding

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 176, in

clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out

'which are not discrete waters'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 177, in

clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out

'which are not discrete waters'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I did not have the opportunity earlier, Mr. O'Brien, to welcome you to the Chair; I have pleasure in doing so now.

We tabled the amendment to find out why discrete waters are not covered by the Bill. The Committee has expressed strong support for the environmental

aspects of the Bill, and we would expect it to include discrete waters. Section 221 of the Water Resources Act 1991 defines discrete waters as

''inland waters so far as they comprise—

(a) a lake, pond or reservoir which does not discharge to any other inland waters; or

(b) one of a group of two or more lakes, ponds or reservoirs (whether near to or distant from each other) and of watercourses or mains connecting them, where none of the inland waters in the group discharges to any inland waters outside the group''.

A number of other discrete waters come to mind, including navigation waters, navigation reservoirs and other substantial bodies of water with their own environmental systems, which are used for various purposes. It would be wrong to exclude them.

Ponds, lakes and reservoirs have important ecosystems, and other parts of the Bill look to protect those ecosystems. On the face of it, however, a substantial amount of water seems to be excluded from the Bill's provisions. Several discrete bodies of water are sites of special scientific interest, and I would like to know how they are to be protected. It might be decided to remove water from a discrete body of water—the idea is floated every now and then that we should have a national water grid or a similar mechanism—but I want to know how we would support the water levels in those reservoirs. Those levels will rise and fall, but removing too much water can cause environmental damage. It seems that the Bill does not provide the protection to those habitats that is afforded to the other areas of water that it covers.

I would like to know what the Government are going to do to protect those ecosystems, and I wonder why discrete waters are excluded. I would welcome the Minister's comments on how discrete waters are treated in the water framework directive and whether the directive might offer more protection. Certainly, the Bill offers them no protection. We would like the amendment to be accepted because it could form the basis of an efficient way to tackle the environmental problem of supporting such systems. What will the Government do to protect those habitats?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I understand the hon. Lady's point, which is reasonable. The amendments deal with discrete waters—lakes, ponds and reservoirs or groups of such waters, which do not discharge into other inland waters. The licensing system, whether for abstraction or impounding, does not apply to discrete waters. Our proposals for the Bill, on which we consulted in 2000, did not suggest a change to that position. The changes proposed in amendments Nos. 176 and 177 would control the impounding of discrete waters but not abstraction from them, so they would not preserve the ecology of those waters.

In discrete waters, where impacts downstream cannot occur, impounding controls would be of little benefit in managing water resources. We recognise that we must consider discrete waters in fulfilling the requirements of the water framework directive, which does not necessarily exempt them from abstraction or pollution controls. Some discrete waters should perhaps be water bodies for that purpose.

As we have said in the other place, DEFRA and the Environment Agency are exploring how best to amend the definition of discrete waters to meet the objectives of the directive. I understand that the consultation has ended and the agency is considering the outcomes.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister give us a flavour of the process that the Government will use to determine which discrete waters harbour important species and how they should be protected? That may give us some confidence that the ecology of those waters will not be diminished.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

On that latter point, certain species may be protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or by SSSI status. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states, we must consider the characteristics of bodies of water. The agency is currently working examining those characteristics with a view to producing definitions, and it must finish its work by the end of 2004. The obligation will be included in the regulations to transpose the directive. There is still work to be done, but this point will be addressed.

We must consider how discrete waters are treated under the regimes rather than simply imposing abstraction controls. The controls must be co-ordinated and planned in light of the needs of catchment areas. The amendments are intended to bring discrete waters fully into the licensing regime, but they would not achieve that as they would not bring discrete waters under abstraction control. They would take a different approach to abstraction controls from that taken in any other regime, and they would pre-empt the outcome of the consultation by DEFRA and the Environment Agency on how the directive should be implemented.

I understand the hon. Member for Guildford's point. It is being addressed by ongoing work on the directive, and those definitions and clarifications will emerge as part of that consultation.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am sorry to pop in at this juncture, but it is unclear whether the measures would affect ordinary people who build ponds or swimming pools in their garden. [Laughter.] Well, those are discrete waters. Would they be affected if there were a drought? If they then, for example, pumped out their swimming pool and it contained more than 20 cu m, would they require an abstraction licence?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

They would not require an abstraction licence to pump out a swimming pool, unless it was the size of Lake Windermere—that might be a bit excessive. Perhaps some people could afford a swimming pool that size, but that is not generally a problem that we face.

There are restrictions on the impounding of water, which make it an offence to begin, construct or alter impounding works unless a licence has been obtained. If someone starts to impound a stream, that will have consequences downstream and upstream.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I have listened to the explanations and thank the Minister for examining the subject and providing that information. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I support

the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes that this is another example of a lack of joined-up government and clarity.

The hon. Member for Leominster posed an additional helpful and important question about the scale of a discrete water, which demonstrates that some of that information should have been made available to the Committee and that, when we are considering such an important Bill, such information should be clearly understood.

We look forward with interest to the results of the consultation. However, these matters are very worrying for members of the Committee, who are trying to look after the relevant interests at this stage. We seem to be working with one arm behind our back as we discuss whether we are in or outside the European framework directive. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about there being two different activities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Existing impounding works

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert

'unless the impounding works are contained in an area less than 50m x 20m x 3m'.

I suspect that this also has to do with whether clause 5 stands part of the Bill. This is not a wrecking amendment. In the previous debate I intimated that I wanted the Minister to clarify the Bill's implications for the smaller user, impounder or pond builder and to recognise the significant differences between somebody who digs a hole in a field and watches it fill up with water during the winter and somebody who actively seeks to store water to spray on their crops during the summer. Nobody should have more red tape thrust on them. I am, however, worried that the Bill seeks to do that. On reading earlier legislation, I could not see enormous differences, so I should be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the purpose of this change to section 25 of the Water Resources Act 1991. We shall need illumination when the details come out.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

The amendment gives measurements of 50 m by 20 m by 3 m. As we are talking about clarity, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify whether that is the size of his swimming pool?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I like the easy ones. I have no swimming pool, and I do not think that I could afford one that size. I sought to draft an amendment that would refer to something the size of a swimming pool because we should be talking about significant amounts of water that will have some environmental impact. We require clarity on that.

If the hon. Lady were to build a swimming pool, I should be grateful if she would let me swim in it.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the amendment to refer to a body of water the size of a swimming pool. Did he deliberately choose the size of an Olympic pool—because that is what his amendment describes?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are not going to enter into the question of the provision or size of the swimming pool.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am distraught by that, Mr. O'Brien, because my constituents in Leominster are trying to build a swimming pool to replace the one that has just been closed.

It is important that we find out exactly what dimensions the Minister requires, and I look forward to hearing his illuminating response.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I repeat the point that I made earlier: even a small impounding can have detrimental consequences downstream, so I cannot support a threshold for exemption. Any small works could have an impact and must be considered carefully, so those involved must apply to the Environment Agency for advice about the necessary licence.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Is the Minister talking about the damming of a stream rather than the construction of a reservoir that fills only in the winter?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Yes, because impounding takes place where there is water flow. If a person digs a hole, that is somewhat different, unless they are affecting the water table.

People might want to impound for ornamental purposes, and the Bill does not prevent them from doing so, but they must apply for a licence. We need to consider the potential effects on the ecology of even very small streams, which must be protected. The measure would not generally apply to swimming pools, which come under separate planning controls; in some cases, water authorities insist on compulsory metering for swimming pools. There are cases of swimming pools that are designed by impounding to have a flow through them. I saw a design for a swimming pond that cost £20,000—one could buy a house in certain parts of the country for that kind of money, so I am not so sure that that is a good use of resources.

Clause 5 provides the agency with a new power to serve notice to require that an impounding licence be obtained. Such licensing is generally for impounding works that never had a licence, because they happened before the current legislation took effect, but may now be causing a problem. Failure to comply with such a notice will be an offence. Clause 6 provides the agency with the power to serve a works notice.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Can the Minister tell us how much one of those licences will cost?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Not just at the moment, but I am sure that I can provide that information for the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

An obscure example has sprung to mind. Will the few people who live in castles with moats need a licence? We need to consider all the

implications for ancient monuments. Am I right in saying that anyone who has impounded any sort of water in the past will now have to buy a licence without knowing what the price will be?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The licence will cost about £100. As far as ancient monuments are concerned, I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that some ancient earthworks that impound water for defence purposes come under the Reservoirs Act 1975. We have to ensure that earthworks are maintained because of the risks that they pose to people. In some cases, regulations on impounding are needed.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am slightly bemused by this exchange. The implication of my amendment was that anything smaller than an Olympic-sized swimming pool should be exempt. I accept the Minister's argument that if one dams a stream, there are consequences downstream. However, there is a difference between people who save water, say for farmland use, and those who do damage by damming streams. We have all been to the countryside and seen people who have dammed streams while children have been playing—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Not with a cement mixer, they haven't.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister is right. They have not dammed streams with the intention of causing long-term environmental damage.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Would not a more topical and appropriate example than castle moats be the American fashion of impounding water for golf courses? That has caused a lot of damage and created ponds and pools smaller than Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amendment would allow that to continue.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that intervention. We are considering how the clause will make a difference. If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that golf courses are causing damage, I do not have a problem with his point. However, I have had difficulty in getting a feeling for size. My probing amendment was designed to tease out from the Minister the volume of water that we are talking about.

Several hon. Members rose—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Lots of hon. Members want to intervene. I shall start with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend know whether slurry pits on farms will need a licence? If not, perhaps he could ask the Minister.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I cannot think of a better time for the Minister to take an intervention.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can assure the hon. Member for Salisbury that slurry pits will not require a licence under the Bill.

I also wanted to give some clarification on the powers to require a licence for impounding. The agency will not necessarily seek a licence for every impounding works. The power will be discretionary, and it is intended to deal only with problem sites. The agency will not require applications for all unlicensed works, as no benefit would be had from that; it will do so only where there is a problem.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

Siôn Simon (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Is not the hon. Gentleman missing a trick as regards the golf course element? He has been such a valiant spokesman for ordinary people with swimming pools and those who live in castles with moats, but what about ordinary people with golf courses?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is amusing, but it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman said that, because all the factors that I mentioned are important in the abstraction and retention of water. I was probing the Government for the answers that, funnily enough, I have just had from the Minister. I suspect that more people play golf than swim—

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

Maybe in the Tory party.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It is certainly true in my constituency, because the swimming pool has just shut.

Andy King (Labour, Rugby and Kenilworth)

You should have used it more often.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It was shut for health and safety reasons.

The important thing is that we are, at least, teasing out what the Government mean. Whether we are talking about a golf course or any other scenario, what we seek from the Government is the assurance that people who are not causing environmental damage but are storing water will not be penalised, and that people who are storing water, for whatever reason, are doing so in such a small way that their actions are highly unlikely to have an environmental impact. I have had an assurance from the Minister that the Environment Agency will show discretion and that it will not require licences from such people.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on whether, if the Environment Agency invites a person to apply for a licence and that person chooses to appeal, he or she is entitled to continue impounding while the appeal is heard? It would be useful to get that on record.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is an extremely useful request. My understanding of the Bill is that the clause applies to existing, not potential, impounding works, so I think that the person must have already done some impounding to have caught the agency's attention. However, I am happy to stand corrected by the Minister if that is not the case.

Mr. Morley indicated assent.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

In that case, I think that we have exhausted all the questions apart from that of the hon. Member for Lewes, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Existing impounding works: works notices

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 6, page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in

clause 6, page 6, line 15, at end insert

'within a specified time limit'.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I know that we do not have a great deal of time left. I am again probing the Government. I ask them to leave out subsection (2) because, again, it does not seem to make a great difference to existing legislation. One of the difficulties with the Bill is that a lot of it amends existing legislation, and a lot of it is about fine detail. That makes it quite a difficult Bill for people to follow. When I was going through it, I tried as best I could to see why the Government were amending legislation, because in some cases the

amendments were very small. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to find that out, although it is coupled with amendment No. 8.

I shall pause here, because others may wish to speak, and because I am not absolutely sure which part of the clause I want explained. [Laughter.] I will keep going.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 6 - Existing impounding works: works notices

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 8, in

clause 6, page 6, line 15, at end insert

'within a specified time limit'.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. These are minor probing amendments, but I thought that it would be helpful if they were included. Going back to the original Water Resources Act 1991, this aspect of the Bill is succinctly covered in the old legislation. It is short, straightforward and pretty clear. By tabling the amendment, I hoped to discover from the Minister what advantage the new wording delivers. I am sure that he has plenty to say on that, but I thought that the amendment would be helpful.

The purpose of amendment No. 8 is to treat the Environment Agency in the same way as it treats other people. That would be constructive. We are dealing with empowerment of the agency. We are giving it quite strong powers that, if used wisely, will help the environment, but we also have a duty to secure some constraints on the agency to ensure that none of the new powers is taken too far. If the Minister could throw some light on that, we would be grateful.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Amendment No. 7 would remove the definition of a works notice for the purposes of the clause. It would broaden the scope of the agency to include whatever it wanted in such a measure. I do not know whether the intention is to limit the agency's powers to use works notices, but it would not achieve that. The subsection limits what a works notice can include, and although, of course, I do not expect the agency to misuse the power in any way, the definition will provide some protection to the owners or operators of those works. There are no current powers to serve works notices on impounding works that are causing problems. This provision provides the ability to do that.

On amendment No. 8, I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 36 of the Bill, lines 33 to 35. They do precisely what I think he intends by his amendments. The relevant provisions are incorporated into the works notices provisions by subsection (3). I hope that that gives him the answer that he was looking for.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the second part of the Minister's answer. That allays my fears on that aspect of the legislation. The first part is covered best by subsection (2)(a), which deals with such works or operations as

''appear to the Environment Agency to be required for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b)''.

That relates to the protection of the environment. It is a pretty-wide ranging power. It would not be beyond the wit of the Environment Agency to include just about anything within it. The Minister argues that by removing that part of the clause, my amendment would widen the powers, but I suggest that they are already wide and that my proposal would not necessarily do exactly what he says.

I recognise, however, that my simple deletion would possibly not be the best way to achieve the objective. I am happy to withdraw the amendments safe in the knowledge—a nod from the Minister will do—that we are looking at constraining some of the agency's powers so that they are proportionate. That is a tremendous word to use in the circumstances, particularly as the Minister used it earlier when we talked about other wide powers having unforeseen consequences. He said that ''appropriate'', ''cost-effective'' and ''proportionate'' were the criteria to be used, and with that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in

clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 21 to 23.

I am once again seeking clarification. The amendment would remove the words:

''including any power to make regulations or give directions, but references in those provisions to the Secretary of State shall be treated as references to the appropriate authority.''

It is not the clearest bit of legislative prose, but I believe that it empowers the Secretary of State to do just about anything that he or she feels is appropriate, which is an enormous widening of powers. I may be mistaken, and I again seek comfort from the Minister that the Bill will not do that. We should be proportionate—that is the word for the afternoon—in the powers that we allow to be adopted in the legislation, and I am concerned that the Bill is more generous than it should be.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The power of the Secretary of State is subject to a range of provisos and limits, some of which are set out in the Bill and some of which are the subject of normal parliamentary processes. The hon. Gentleman explained that the amendment is about the Secretary of State's powers. It might appear to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations on works notices, but it would not achieve that. The amendment would remove only the ability of the National Assembly to make regulations for Wales, which seems a little hard on Wales.

The regulation-making powers, which are clarified in the lines that the amendment would delete, relate to the form and content of works orders, the consultation to be undertaken locally, compensation to any person on whom a right of entry to undertake the works is

imposed and arrangements for the appeals. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support such provisions. Far from extending the powers of the Secretary of State, they protect those who may be affected by the use of the works notice. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Secretary of State is constrained by the lines that he wants to delete.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that explanation. I did not read the Bill in that way, but on the strength of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in

clause 6, page 6, line 33, leave out subsection (7).

If the agency is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person, subsection (7) gives it the power to appeal to the High Court. Although I recognise that we may be dealing with both individuals and huge companies, I am not sure that that is the best way to empower the agency. It makes it the judge of whether a company can afford to deal with it, which I find difficult to understand. The law should apply equally, and it should not be up to a Government agency to decide which offenders should be punished by which institutions. It is possible that the drafting is misleading, but I suspect that the subsection allows the Environment Agency to offer different punishments to different people. I am uncomfortable with that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have two concerns about the subsection, for slightly different reasons. If a person fails to comply with a works notice, subsection (6) provides that the Environment Agency may

''do what that person was required to do and may recover from him any costs or expenses reasonably incurred''

in doing so. That seems entirely appropriate, and is in line with, for example, planning procedures, in which a council can restore a listed building and recoup the money from the owner of the building who has ignored the notice to repair it. There is nothing controversial about that. If subsection (6) contains a remedy, I do not see why subsection (7) is included—it adds nothing to subsection (6).

I agree that the agency should not perhaps make legalistic judgments. I also wonder why we are scrutinising legislation that may lead to an ineffectual remedy. If those who drafted the Bill believe that that might be the case, we should sort it out at this stage, rather than waiting for a problem to occur in future.

I therefore believe there to be three problems with the clause: the duplication of the powers given to the agency in subsection (6) by subsection (7); the question of whether the agency is the right body to make legalistic judgments; and whether we anticipate that the remedies will be ineffectual.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can answer the hon. Gentleman's points. The amendment links to the previous amendment. It would remove from the agency the

power to seek a civil remedy—an injunction—to deal with an immediate problem. The subsection gives the agency the power to seek an injunction, which can be obtained from the High Court but not from the Crown court.

Immediate action cannot always be achieved by prosecution or the threat of it. It is envisaged that the power to seek an injunction would be used only in rare circumstances, in which an activity is under way that is causing damage, or has the potential to do so. The power is permissive, and will be used by the agency only when it considers that immediate action is necessary. That is likely to be in cases in which a works notice is not achieving its objective of remedying an environmental or water resource problem. If that power were removed, it would undermine the ability of the agency to deal with such a problem, and could lead to continuing environmental damage. That is the intention behind the inclusion of the subsection.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Although that is a reasonable explanation, it is not relevant because the clause covers existing impounding works. If the works are already occurring, immediate action will not be required, because the situation will have been in existence for some time before the Bill is enacted. I therefore do not accept that the Minister's reply is accurate, because he suggests that such a situation will suddenly appear, when existing impounding works must have been going on for quite a long time.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Such action may or may not be required. There may be profit in the activities that are currently taking place that is greater than the impact of the criminal sanctions. The power enables the agency to take immediate action in circumstances in which an activity needs to be stopped because it is causing damage.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I do not dissent from the objective stated by the Minister. Perhaps I am being rather dim, but can the Minister tell me why the Environment Agency cannot use the powers in subsection (6) to achieve that, without the need for the addition of subsection (7)?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The answer to that is that it is a matter of speed. Taking an injunction out under subsection (7) would be a much faster process. The court, rather than the agency, will decide whether an injunction should be granted, depending on the particular circumstances. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the powers of the agencies, the courts therefore represent a safeguard. I would have thought that we would all be keen to see action taken in a situation in which there is a serious risk of immediate damage.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

There are already some fairly draconian measures that can be taken against people who break the law. I learned that the words

''on conviction on indictment, to a fine.''

in subsection 5(b) refer to a fine from the High Court. The Minister already has the power to refer anyone breaking the rules to the High Court, so subsection (7) is again unnecessary.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that if the issue is speed, which elicited his last response to me, it could also be covered by subsection (6)? It states:

''If a person on whom a works notice has been served under this section fails to comply with any of its requirements, the Agency may do''

and so on. The phrase ''any of its requirements'' could involve a time scale, which could be as little as 24 hours. I do not understand why that does not cover the point.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is absolutely right. Earlier, we debated subsection (2), and what can be specified in the notice, which could also include a time period. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the part of the argument to which subsection (6) relates. I stand by my amendment: subsection (7) is not necessary.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Again, I will try to explain the situation. The problem is that a conviction or indictment under, I think, subsection (6)—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Subsection (5)(b).

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am not sure about that. Conviction or indictment means going to a Crown court, which takes time. The High Court can accept emergency actions and the agency can go there out of hours, which it cannot do in a Crown court. It might help hon. Members if I lay out the sequence of events that subsection (7) will permit. In the event of a problem with unlicensed impounding, the sequence of action would be to serve first a notice requiring the action to be applied for, and secondly a works notice if urgent action is needed. The problem is that they may be ignored. It is all very well saying that the power exists, but what happens in that case? The next step would be an injunction if the works notice is ignored. Finally, the agency may have to do the work itself in default.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister helpfully sets out the sequential arrangements, the second of which is serving a works notice. Under subsection (6), if the notice has been served and any person fails to comply with its requirements, the agency may do what it needs to do. Thus according to subsection (6) there is no need to take out an injunction.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is a time issue. The hon. Gentleman says that the agency may do the work, but it has to go through processes to do so, including that of access. From experience of previous such issues, I imagine it would need the court's authority and an injunction to do so. That is my interpretation of the matter.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This has been a useful debate. The Minister has not yet convinced us that subsection (7) is vital to the Environment Agency. It seems to be the icing on the cake—the extra powers that the agency might like—but it is not convincing to say that it is for alacrity. The proposal deals with existing impounding works, which are already doing tremendous damage to the environment, so I cannot accept that it is a useful power for the future. Any future impounding will be covered by a separate provision, and will be

automatically in default of a licence, and therefore subject to a completely separate procedure.

We are talking about works that are already going on, about someone who has taken his concrete mixer to the beach or stream and started impounding, today, yesterday or weeks ago. I do not understand why the speed is relevant, and I will therefore find it difficult not to press the amendment. However, I can see that the Minister is seeking guidance, perhaps from minds greater than my own, so I shall remain on my feet until he is ready to dive in and reply.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I confirm what I have been saying: it is a final resort to seek powers to go on to someone else's land, as that involves all sorts of restrictions. Notices can be served, but that does not give the agency the power to intervene and, if necessary, rectify. A court injunction may be needed for that.

I repeat that that is an extreme example, but we must ensure that all avenues are covered in a case in which damage is caused and the landowner, for whatever reason, refuses to co-operate. There is a safeguard in place, which is that the case must be made to the High Court before an injunction is served. That kind of fall-back power should be included in the Bill.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We are now given the new reason of entering land. I do not dismiss that as not being an important legal aspect—it is relevant—but if subsection (6) does not give access to land, what does it do? It seems to be an empty subsection. If it does give access to land, subsection (7) is not necessary, but if it does not, it is unnecessary itself. Both subsections cannot be necessary.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has done a sterling job in defending the current drafting. I said earlier that we are keen to make progress, but I do not see how I can withdraw my amendment unless the Minister is prepared to consider the dilemma of subsections (6) and (7) and perhaps reword them on Report.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We are getting into heavy-duty legal issues, but if it helps the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him—and send a copy to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—with the detailed reasons for the differences and why subsections (6) and (7) are both important. It is fairly clear that their principal importance is that they are emergency powers, but I will write in greater detail if that will help.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and I hope that the letter that he wrote to me—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It has appeared.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Indeed, it appeared this morning, but only after the morning sitting. However, if the Minister writes, I will be grateful. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes because we have teased out some real difficulties thrown up by the drafting of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Rights of navigation, harbour

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 7, page 6, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 19 on page 7.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 7, page 6, line 45, leave out 'without intervening use'.

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 7, page 7, leave out lines 32 to 37.

Clause stand part.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Much of the Bill relates to river systems, water companies' reservoirs and abstraction from streams and rivers for such purposes as sprinklers and trickle irrigation, and yet a large amount of water is in the navigation system. That concerns us, because if one takes a holistic view of water management, there does not seem to be a good reason to manage rivers but not canals, which also extract water. Water is pumped to the head of a canal and used to manage the waterway. That pumping and the holding of water creates reservoirs.

Consideration has been given over the years to using canals and waterway systems as a national water grid. That has been an unpopular proposal, and there have been several objections to it.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The hon. Lady may be interested to know that a considerable amount of water is taken from mid-Wales by canals to Birmingham and the west midlands. What she has just suggested already happens in Wales.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is important to understand what we are doing with water, particularly when moving it from one part of the country to another. That also relates to how we might transport water to the Thames gateway.

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

Is the hon. Lady aware that one effect of the amendment would be that, on all 2,500 miles of inland waterways, every lock gate and sluice would have to be licensed? Does she not consider that over-regulation?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

At this stage we are talking about the reasons why we need some regulation in this matter. If it is possible to exempt locks and lock gates I would be happy to hear about that. There are wider environmental considerations. Moving water from one place to another in the normal course of events probably involves moving like to like—hard water within a hard water area and, when one is looking at holistic river systems, soft water through soft water areas—but if we use navigation systems as a grid, we will increasingly move hard water to soft water areas and soft water to hard water areas. That brings problems. Joints are weakened: in a hard water area they can be calcified, and running soft water through will weaken them and cause bursts and leaks.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I want to draw the hon. Lady's attention to our problems in Wiltshire. She is being a bit optimistic. Where there are compensation schemes to top up one chalk stream from another chalk stream that is flowing better, even minute chemical differences in the composition of the water can have a substantial environmental impact on the flora and fauna. That cannot be balanced out. If on a micro-scale there can be that upset a quarter of a mile away, the problem that she describes is much greater when one starts moving hard water to soft water.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that useful point. The problems that I refer to multiply the problems that he describes. Once hard water has been used, it may be returned to a river that runs soft water. The problems that he described would be massively increased. We seem to be saying that water movement in one water system is acceptable but has to be managed, but that movement from one to another is acceptable but there is no management. I have some sympathy with the lock gate argument, but I wish to draw attention to the problem of the environmental and ecological balance.

The Environment Agency has regularly said that there should be controls. Some 60 per cent. of British waterways are allowed to pose a risk of impact on watercourses without any statutory control to protect the environment, safeguard other abstractors or manage water resources in a sustainable way. There is an anomaly when one looks at the future water framework directive. Again, we are managing waters, but not in a holistic way. The agency has already expressed concerns about this. There are ecological concerns. The life cycle of many species depends on how much water is in the river or reservoir. That reservoir might be used for pumping by a navigation system. If the water levels fall at the wrong time of year it may affect the breeding life cycle of the species living in it. We want to look at what the Government are doing with the catchment abstraction management strategy, but that seems difficult if we are to exclude a large amount of waterway systems in this way.

In closing it might be useful to give an example. English Nature has been particularly concerned about the navigation reservoir at Weston Turville. It is a site of special scientific interest. An important part of the wildlife interest is the reed bed that forms a nesting and feeding habitat for a range of species. A draw down at the wrong time of the year for prolonged periods would damage the reed bed and its ecological function and harm the conservation interests. The water table and its fluctuation are all part of that cyclical management. That is why we are so concerned about the mismanagement of ecosystems in these situations and why we should like to see them brought back into the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Amendment No. 12 is much smaller. It would simply remove the words ''without intervening use''. I still look forward to finding out from the Minister why ''intervening use'' is so important. 12. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for her intervention. It is a shame that some

amendments that she tabled have been withdrawn, but—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. To correct the hon. Gentleman, the amendments were not withdrawn. They were not selected, so it would be perfectly in order if the hon. Lady wished to catch my eye.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am most grateful, Mr. Amess. How useful to know that the amendments have not been withdrawn, just not selected. Glancing at them, they seemed to be constructive and helpful. I look forward to finding out why removing the phrase ''without intervening use'' would be such a damaging and corrupting amendment.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can reassure the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), in particular, in relation to her concerns. Amendment No. 179 does the opposite of what she said, as I shall explain. I can reassure her that a key objective of the Bill is to bring significant transfers of water within the scope of the licensing system. That would apply if canals were used as a water grid, and there are such proposals. In those circumstances, there would be licensing in, if water is being used for the grid, and licensing out. They would not be exempt in those cases.

Clause 7 recognises, however, that some activities, particularly day-to-day operational movements of water within navigation, harbour and conservancy systems, can continue to be outside control without risk to the environment. That picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. It is true that if we did not provide those exemptions, we would require a licence for every lock, every impounding and every dry dock in the inland waterway system, as well as reservoirs, which only feed that system. The three sets of circumstances in which we think that exemption can safely continue are described in the table in the clause.

Amendment No. 12 would extend further the scope of those exemptions. It envisages continuing an exemption for transfers with intervening use. However, that would still apply only if they came within the scope of the exempt activities described in the table: for example, the passing of transferred water through the cooling system of a power station. That extension of an exemption is undesirable. The principle of the new regime in the Bill is that any use of water—such as abstracting water for a power station, or from a canal water grid—comes within the scope of the Bill and would normally require a full licence if it is above the exemption threshold. That is a key test, whereas simply transferring it will require only a transfer licence, again if it is above the threshold. Abstraction from canals and harbours for use will require a licence, so the amendment would introduce a significant inconsistency into the system to allow instances of use above the threshold without the need for a licence. That would be inconsistent with the principle of use, which is why I cannot accept amendment No. 12.

Amendment. No. 178 would remove a number of features of the revisions that we are proposing to section 26 of the Water Resources Act 1991. It would

require the licensing of all transfers by navigation authorities within their own systems. We do not think that that is necessary. The amendment would increase the burden on the Environment Agency and navigation authorities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said—with little real impact on water resource management. It would have little benefit, but a great impact on navigation authorities.

The proposed third exemption in the table for supply reservoirs belonging to navigation authorities is limited to reservoirs whose sole outlet is directly into a canal and therefore where no other waters depend on flows from the reservoirs, and only where transfers are made by a navigation authority acting as a navigation authority. Therefore, we are applying very restrictive exemptions.

For example, British Waterways has about 40 reservoirs that may qualify for the exemption. Many are small, most are close to the canal that they serve and some do not even have a catchment. In the winter, surplus water is pumped or flows into the small reservoirs. It is impounded and, in the summer, allowed to flow back in. In some cases, there will not even be a flow, so there will not be an impact. Water in such reservoirs or canals can be requisitioned under the drought orders in the Bill. If water that is abstracted from such a reservoir or a canal served by a reservoir is used for sale, it will also be subject to abstraction licensing.

Amendment No. 179 would remove the qualification for exempting reservoirs that I have just referred to and allow all transfers from reservoirs to canals to be exempt in all circumstances. From the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford, I do not think that that was the intention behind the amendment, but even so we cannot support it. When reservoirs can affect other sources of supply outside the navigation or harbour authority's water systems, they need to be controlled, for the reasons she outlined.

I hope that I have clarified the reasoning behind the current drafting, and I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I take his point about the difference between using and not using water. We are debating one of the more difficult issues that the Bill tries to address, because all water, be it is used, consumed or unused, will still take part in the great cycle from sea to evaporation to rain and back to the sea again. I recognise that amendment No. 12 would not be helpful, so I do not have any problem in not pressing it, but we would not have needed this debate if the definition of ''using'' water had been clearer.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The Minister has dealt comprehensively with the points that I raised. We wanted to press him to see what was being done to manage the environmental cycle and the issues surrounding the idea of a national water grid. The understanding that that is effectively being managed is heartening, and it was useful to secure that assurance.

We are still concerned about the reservoirs with important ecological systems. As the Minister does not look like intervening, we will probably have to leave the point for another time. However, I continue to have concerns about the reservoirs that are SSSIs. We need to know that they will be managed one way or the other, whether or not they are included in the Bill.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I do not know for certain, but some of the reservoirs that feed canals may be SSSIs or contain specially protected species. If so, special protections and restrictions will apply to them separately from the measures in the Bill. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

As a boater of some 20 years on our 2,500 miles of waterways, I know that quite a number of our reservoirs are covered by SSSI legislation and a range of environmental Acts. They are well loved and nurtured, and British Waterways has done much to enhance and protect the wildlife on our canals. We would all support that, having seen the work carried out on the Kennet and Avon canal, and on some waterways near the hon. Lady's own constituency.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank both the Minister and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. We have had an interesting and useful debate. We could have further discussions about improvements to canals, which also affect the ecology, but that was not really the purpose of the amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Rights to abstract small quantities

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in

clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

'(1A) Where the construction of a bore hole in connection with an exempt abstraction could affect the essential characteristics of water resources used by the licensed natural water abstractor, the consent of the Environment Agency must be sought.'.

The amendment is important because it addresses the fears of the drinking water abstractors. I shall begin by saying how much I appreciated the 20 cu m small abstraction allowance. That is a positive provision, and I welcome it. However, if smaller abstractors sink a bore hole into the substrata and start abstracting water for use as drinking water, such as this Hildon water, or the excellent Radnor Hills, or the various other drinking waters and mineral waters that we all enjoy, they are subject to an enormous number of inspections and their water quality must be of the finest. I can see that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is itching to intervene on behalf of that blue-bottled water of which he is so fond.

There is, however, a risk. Not only will the abstraction licence for such a business be for 12 years, when it would normally expect to spread its costs over 20 years, but there is now a risk that others may also sink bore holes into the same rock substrata,

which could have a damaging effect on the quality of the water that the original company abstracts.

We are all aware of how much marketing is done on that type of bottled water, particularly with reference to the name of the spring. That means that those companies have very little flexibility in moving their source of water and so, since they have gone to the expense of setting up bottling facilities and quality control, they need to be protected. The amendment would offer them that protection and would also enable the Environment Agency to fulfil admirably what we would like to see as its role: policing the abstraction that takes place, for the quality of our environment.

I hope that the amount of water abstracted by bottling companies is not such a huge quantity as to be damaging, and it is important that we support that particularly British industry. Some 1.4 billion litres of domestic bottled water are drunk annually, out of a total of 1.8 billion bottles. A huge proportion of our domestic consumption is supplied from domestic sources, and we look to the Environment Agency to protect that industry properly. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I hope that the Minister, if he does not find my wording perfect, will at least adopt the concept that I have proposed. The issue is important to us all, and particularly to hon. Members, who are lucky enough to find mineral water in Committees such as this.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am all for protecting the mineral water industry, although I would point out that in some parts of the UK the tap water is of better quality than mineral water—although I am sure that that does not apply to the water that comes from Ceredigion. Moreover, from an environmental point of view, the emissions from transporting bottles of water here, there and everywhere should be borne in mind. However, let me not be churlish about that industry and instead turn to the amendment.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is right to raise the possible consequences for the industry of what would otherwise be exempt abstractions. I am not sure that the wording works, but it is the Minister's job, not mine, to tell the hon. Gentleman. It is not clear from the amendment who would be required to seek the consent of the Environment Agency, and if it is the person who wanted to sink the bore hole, whether he would have the necessary expertise to determine whether there may be an effect that would require the Environment Agency's permission. It is not clear to me how the system would work.

What is clear is that we need a remedy either of upfront consent—I agree that we want to avoid that for very small abstractions—or of giving individuals the right to take action subsequently. I do not know the answer, and I hope that the Minister has found a way of striking a balance between the legitimate rights of those who wish to abstract small quantities and those who may be affected by it.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Let me say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I am sorry

that I missed this morning's sitting; we were trying to sort out the leadership of Plaid Cymru overnight, although it will take a lot longer than that.

I support the thrust of the amendment, which relates to an important matter that was mentioned on Second Reading. It is right that we have the opportunity to consider it in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about how it might work.

I shall outline my concerns. There are two types of bottled water, that which is bottled at source, such as Ty Nant, in the famous blue bottle, which comes from my constituency, and generic bottled water, which may be called Brecon beacons bottled water or whatever, and can come from all over the place, not from one aquifer. It is not of the same importance as water bottled at source. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, the fountain, stream or aquifer cannot be moved, therefore although Ty Nant is no longer owned by a local family it still employs about 30 people, which is important in the area.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes that from an environmental point of view it is better to drink water from the tap, which I do except when I am in London, where I would not touch it with a bargepole. As I am used to the clean springs of west Wales, hon. Members would not expect me to defile my body with London water.

It is important to protect the industry and ensure that it can plan for its future. The Bill will introduce a licensing regime; some producers are concerned that it will limit the scope for investment when they discuss matters with banks and so on, because they will not have the guarantee of a long-term licensing system. On the whole, environmental considerations must outweigh other considerations. Water is such a precious resource, we cannot give licences willy-nilly and say, ''It is available for as long as you want. Invest on that basis.'' We must be able to say, ''Now the aquifer is exhausted we must protect the resources.''

It must be the case, too, that a company that has a licence for only 12 years, for example, should be able to protect its investment. Bore holes, perhaps drilled by people who are trying to exploit the same water, should not undermine the company's investment and its long-term sustainable development. Much of our bottled water comes from rural areas, and depends on the source and purity of the water being maintained. It is easy for farmers to drill a small bore hole, particularly for summer use, and it is right that they should not be covered by the measure. Like the hon. Member for Leominster, I welcome the Government's approach, but it is also right to give the Environment Agency some powers of scrutiny so that it can be alerted to any problems. If a water resource in an area from which there is a lot of extraction is also being exhausted by several small unlicensed bore holes, the agency must have the ability to step in and say, ''Hang on. Let's consider the whole resource and its conservation. Let's accept that we have licensed one extraction and protect that, and try to deal with the rest.'' I do not really care how we do that. It is simply important that we get it right in the Bill, and the

amendment provides a useful opportunity to debate that and for the Minister to respond.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I certainly understand hon. Members' concerns on this issue. I appreciate what they are saying and I have some sympathy with it. There are some problems with the amendment, however, as I shall outline. The Bill introduces deregulation for small abstractions: they no longer have to be licensed. That is welcome in relation to agriculture in particular. It also means that we can concentrate on the bigger issues of water management. There is a balance within the Bill.

I understand the concerns of mineral water companies that are extracting from a particular bore hole because that is important in respect of the composition of the water that they market. It is worth noting, however, that an abstraction licence does not offer a guarantee. The licence that the company holds does not offer a guarantee as to the continuing composition of the water that it can abstract, because compositions can change over time, for various reasons. The licence offers no guarantee that that particular chemical composition will remain in perpetuity. It may do, but there is no guarantee. Changes over time are a risk that mineral water companies face.

Under the current regime, the Environment Agency has a duty not to issue an abstraction licence that would derogate from the quantity of water available to a water bottler. That is useful in itself. The agency has separate duties to ensure that the groundwater is not contaminated, which is also important. If a company markets a product on its purity, it does not want groundwater contamination, and the agency has powers to deal with that, which are not changed by the Bill. The agency does not have duties to maintain the exact chemical composition of groundwater—indeed, it would be very difficult to do so, as I am sure hon. Members recognise. The agency does not have powers to control the drilling of bore holes where those are below the exemption threshold. The Water Resources Act 1991 regulates the abstraction of water and drilling of bore holes where abstraction is above the threshold. Therefore, there are protections for mineral water companies in terms of the amounts of water that can be taken out of the aquifer that serves them.

The amendment would require a person wishing to construct a bore hole for abstraction to obtain consent from the Environment Agency to do so if the bore hole might impact on groundwater that is bottled. I do not believe that the amendment would have the desired effect. The abstraction licensing system does not generally enable the agency to consider effects on water composition, only potential impacts on water quantity. The amendment would not change that.

It is possible that, if there were worries that there might be a large number of small extractions from the water company's aquifer, the Environment Agency, under the catchment strategies that it will put in place, would have the power to lower the existing thresholds. That would reduce the number of bore holes. The agency has some powers to deal with problems should they arise.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

In the event that the agency decides to lower the threshold, would that apply retrospectively?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I do not think that it would, because people would have the licence for what it was set for. The thresholds would be lowered in the case of future applications if it was felt that the amount of water being taken was at its limit, and therefore one could ensure that the thresholds were lowered below the 20 mark.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Bringing in this 20 cu m limit effectively gives people a great deal of freedom, particularly the farming community. That is good, but the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the environment is protected too. Focusing the Environment Agency only on the quantity of water that is abstracted fails in terms of the quality of the abstractions. I do not suggest for one second that my wording necessarily achieves what I want to see done, but that is not the whole debate.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

To clarify, the Environment Agency has powers in relation to pollution control of the groundwater. It cannot guarantee or maintain the chemical composition.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

No one is asking for a guarantee of quality, but we want to prevent damage to the aquifer. This is a fundamentally different debate. All the quality controls exist after the water has come out of the ground. That is the responsibility of the water company. It is not allowed to bottle water that is not of a certain standard, nor may it add chlorine or any other chemicals. The water must be pure from the spring. It is worrying that these freedoms will open up the aquifer to many little abstractors. Surely the Environment Agency must have at least some responsibility for the quality of the aquifer. It does not have to protect the quality of the water. Punching lots of little holes into the aquifer will make it more liable to chemical pollution.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Did the hon. Gentleman get the same impression as I did from the Minister's final response when he said that the Environment Agency rightly had an overall view of the catchment area and the water being extracted from it? It could take action later on if the aquifer was being severely denuded. That would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, because the bottled water industry might be in a perilous situation by the time that happened.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is exactly the problem. The water bottlers do not want to have their source reduced. They do not want to be told that because of damage that others have done by drilling into the same aquifer they cannot carry out their business anymore. I am sure that the Minister has visited a water bottling operation. If not, I would invite him to visit Malvern Water, which is in my constituency, Radnor Hills, which is just over the hill, or Moreton Hills, which is part of Brooks Soft Drinks and is near my constituency. Such operations are extremely expensive to set up. I repeat that they are long-term investments. They do not require quality control from

the Environment Agency, but they require some sort of policing.

Under the Bill, the Environment Agency will grant licences on a first come, first served basis. There is no quality concept in the Bill; it does not have to make a judgment about who should be allowed to abstract and who should not. That is only in the big amounts. There is no policing built into the Bill for the small amounts. If a water bottler's aquifer was damaged by another person he could not ask the Environment Agency to reduce the amount that they both abstract. He would want either compensation or, better still, to ensure that people who wish to come in and extract first seek permission from the Environment Agency. One would hope that it would have an idea of what the aquifer could take without damage. We are trying to be constructive here.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Environment Agency will have an idea of what the aquifer can take without damage. While the threshold has been set at 20 cu m, it is in line with the definition of small quantities in existing legislation, which goes back to the 1960s. There is the other safeguard of catchment planning and strategies. If the threshold were lowered, those abstractors who currently fall below it would have to apply for a licence. We could then apply time-limited licences and use them as tools for water management within the powers in the Bill. Even on a small-scale abstraction, there are safeguards for overall management.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is very useful and I am grateful to the Minister because it is the first step in the right direction. There is another problem, which is that by the time someone has built a water bottling plant, they cannot afford to have their licence withdrawn. If the threshold is dropped and all abstractors in a particular catchment area or aquifer are expected to apply, some will be losers. Some will invest all their money in producing a water bottling operation and then lose their business.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

If the limit is lowered and someone has to apply for a licence that they would not previously have needed, is not the system retrospective, contrary to the earlier impression given by the Minister? That person would have taken a decision based on the law, which will effectively change, leaving them in a new position, so the Bill is retrospective.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.