| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Water Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
- Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
That—
(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Programme Order of 8th September 2003 relating to the Water Bill be omitted;
(2) proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the following table, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on the day on which those proceedings are commenced at the time specified in the second column;
| Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments relating to Part 1. | 5 hours before the moment of interruption. |
| New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments relating to Clause 34, Schedule 1, Clause 35, Schedule 2, Clause 36, Schedule 3, Clauses 37 to 56, Schedule 4. | 4 hours before the moment of interruption. |
| New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation); amendments relating to Clause 57, Clauses 59 to 85, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 86 to 98. | 3 hours before the moment of interruption. |
| New Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; amendments relating to Clause 58; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 99 and 100, Schedules 7 to 9, Clauses 101 to 104. | 1 hour before the moment of interruption. |
- (3) proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.—[Gillian Merron.]
4.4 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): It is a bad reflection on the House that we are even having this debate. We are all short of time—no one more so than the Minister, perhaps—and trying to cram as much as possible into our lives. But the use of guillotines to restrict debate is wrong and dumbs down the freedom of speech, passage of information and argument that we all value so highly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave quickly and quietly? This debate deserves to be heard as much as any other.
Mr. Wiggin: All hon. Members make speeches, but if we try to go faster, we will reach the stage—I fear that we are there are already—where we are too busy to listen to other hon. Members' speeches. Perhaps this is a good moment to point that out, as one glance at the Chamber makes clear.
This programme motion is an affront. For that reason, if for no other, I shall urge the House to oppose it. However, we should oppose it for other reasons too.
It presupposes that the proposals on quarry dewatering, changes to the regulator, the ability to take possession of privately owned sewers and the regulation of water supplies are not sufficiently important to warrant more than a few moments of time each.The proposals in clause 6 mean that we need to protect the British drinking water industry from environmental damage, as small unlicensed abstractors will be able to drill bore holes into the aquifer. That could damage the aquifer and cause contamination to bottled water. We argued that the Environment Agency should have powers to monitor environmental damage. Small, unlicensed bore holes must not be able to undermine a company's investment and sustainable development. The Environment Agency must be able to be alerted to any problems.
In clause 17, we believe that there should be a link between abstraction licence applications and planning permission. In that way, a business wishing to abstract water could take more than one course of action. Provided that it has planning permission, a business should be able to go ahead with abstracting water, as long as it is environmentally safe to do so.
Abstraction and impounding are issues of extreme importance, but the Bill is inadequate to secure the investor confidence needed by water abstraction businesses. I have tabled two new clauses and some new amendments in connection with abstraction, and I believe that having just one hour for the debate will be inadequate. Enough time must be provided for discussion of all the complicated matters to do with that special issue, on which the livelihoods of water abstractors depend. I have severe doubts as to whether one hour will be sufficient.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): My hon. Friend is starting to set out a very persuasive case.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): But only starting.
Mr. Osborne: But only starting, as my right hon. Friend says. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is talking about abstraction licences, and the relevant part of the Bill could have a huge impact on the quarrying industry. One hour is wholly inadequate for discussion of the many points that constituents have raised with many hon. Members, including me.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for drawing the House's attention to that very germane point. The size of the investment that firms must make in quarrying machinery, and the fact that it is impossible to quarry without abstracting water, mean that the Bill puts a heavy question mark over the future of the industry. It is very worrying that we will have so short a time for debate of such a crucial matter.
I know that the Minister has taken the trouble to meet quarrying industry representatives and that he has been sympathetic to their concerns. However, his sympathy and assurances are not enough. We need to have the
necessary undertakings written into the Bill, and there will not be enough time to make sure that that happens.In addition, the Bill places time limits on licences. At the moment, licences will be certain only for 12 years. That is only one of the provisions that will undermine the key factor that is investor confidence. Although nearly all the costs involved in the water industry can be offset over a long period, that will be undermined if the Environment Agency can take licences away after just 12 years. In London, our drains, pipes and sewers were built by the Victorians, more than a hundred years ago. Water industry equipment is likely to last for a long time, but the Bill makes it difficult for investors to have the sort of confidence that they should have in such projects. The Environment Agency must be able to take into account the infrastructure costs and investments associated with abstraction and then make the decision on the life of the abstraction licence. That gives it greater freedom to issue longer licences when it is safe, especially environmentally safe, to do so.
Three topics of great importance to the future of our water industry, not only for businesses but for the customer, are the regulator, discharge to water courses and consumer council publications. Again, allowing only one hour for discussion of those three detailed topics is insufficient. We want to address several concerns surrounding those topics, such as the regulators of the new water services regulation authority and access to information available to the new council, but I fear that we will be short-changed in the amount of time that we have to do that.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): My hon. Friend is offering a probing analysis of the deficiencies of the Government's position. As he is renowned for his self-effacement, however, I would not want him to understate the case in any way. Will he therefore confirm, for my benefit and to provide elucidation to the House, that for a Bill with 104 clauses, nine schedules and an unpredictable number of amendments to consider, the Government propose a truly draconian truncation of the debate, which will allow three or four minutes to consider each clause? Will not that outrage the listening public as much as it outrages us?
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his usual eloquent manner, he states the case exactly as it is. I also hope that the listening—or watching—public to whom he refers are gripped by the very short debate, but, as he says, they will be disappointed.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is not Report supposed to be the stage at which those of us who have constituency interests have an opportunity to speak? As a Member with significant quarrying interests in my constituency, I want to contribute to the debate on the quarrying industry. I see clearly from this programme that I will not have the opportunity to do so—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because the Front Benches will take the time.
Mr. Wiggin: I will do my best not to take too much time, to allow the hon. Gentleman to make the points that he wishes to make. The point that he has just made,
however, is true. He is right that the quarrying industry affects many constituencies and Members of the House, who will not have the opportunity to represent their constituents in the way that they would prefer. It is a draconian motion, as my hon. Friend described it.
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that in relation to issues such as quarrying, talks are going on behind the scenes, through the Departments, with the various interest groups, to ensure that those issues are considered? That is an issue of concern, but it is being dealt with through the guidance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |