| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Lady's point is extremely worrying. We are talking about what is written in the Bill. We are legislating for all quarrying participants and abstractors. We cannot do that through behind-the-scenes conversations. Even if we could do so, the Minister's assurances may not be there for ever: perhaps he will be promoted, perhaps he will disappear on one of his ghost ships—who knows? It is extremely worrying that the hon. Lady suggests even for a moment that we can legislate with behind-the-scenes chats. I find that most unworthy of her.
Ms Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is allowed to misrepresent what was said in that way. There was a genuine point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not try to pursue on a point of order what is in reality a matter of debate.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will give way if the hon. Lady would like to have another crack at trying to tell us that we should be legislating through behind-the-scenes chats.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Apart from the obvious issues in relation to the quarrying industry, large numbers of people in all our constituencies are looking to the House next week to debate properly the issue of fluoridation, which could undoubtedly fill an entire day of the parliamentary calendar were that opportunity to be made available. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people will feel profoundly let down by a Government who fail to make adequate time available for a proper and full debate of a major and important public health issue about which so many feel so strongly?
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. I shall come to fluoridation in a moment, but the issue will affect every household in the country and particularly the people who have the young children who are most vulnerable to tooth decay. One may believe that fluoridation is the best way of tackling that problem or that other methods should be explored, but it is almost deceitful that such provisions should be slipped into the Water Bill. I accept the reasons given in Committee as to why the Government chose to behave in this somewhat underhand manner, but there will be a deficit in the length of our debate. No matter how much we would like to debate this provision in the Bill more,
there is another probably more sinister side to the matter. The decision on whether fluoride should be added to water will not be taken by us in the House. It will be pushed to the strategic health authorities, and that is a further derogation of our duty.
Mr. George Osborne: The votes on fluoridation will, unusually, be free votes for Opposition and Government Members. Does my hon. Friend therefore not agree that hon. Members may be more susceptible in those circumstances to listening to the debate and making up their minds rather than following a party Whip? Is it not then even more important that we have adequate time to hear all the arguments on fluoridation?
Mr. Wiggin: That is a tremendous point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, most hon. Members will have fairly open minds on this issue, particularly because the conclusions of the York report were so questionable. It did the work properly and suggested that there was a risk, but it said that further research needed to be carried out. The Government have failed to carry out that research and have proceeded with their legislative programme. That is astonishing. I agree that a great deal more time should be set aside so that we can obtain as much information as possible from the Government. They seem to be so confident that this is the best way to go ahead with mass medication that they have hidden it in the Water Bill.
Chris Grayling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been seeking to avoid discussing this issue in public? Two weeks ago I was drawn at No. 7 in the list for DEFRA oral questions, but Ministers transferred that question because they said that this issue was not a matter for the Department even though it is the sponsor of the Bill. The Government are trying to avoid discussing a matter of such great importance.
Mr. Wiggin: I remember that my hon. Friend and I discussed this at length, because I was horrified by the way that he had been treated. He is right. I suspect that Ministers were frightened of him. I can think of no other reason why they should shy away from his incisive questioning.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his customary generosity. Given that Ministers have a disagreeable habit of arguing in these circumstances that all the relevant matters have been exhaustively debated in Standing Committee, thereby justifying the circumscription of debate on Report, may I add ammunition to my hon. Friend's arsenal by making the point that some of us were not so favoured or fortunate as to be chosen to sit on the Standing Committee? That does not mean that we do not wish to inform the House of our views—if necessary, at appropriate length on Report.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes another extremely important point and I am very grateful to him for doing so. I suspect that, because he is such a tremendous debater, he will arm me with almost
weapons of mass destruction. I do not think that I would be too upset watching the Government crumble before him.
Mr. George Osborne: A 45-minute warning.
Mr. Wiggin: Indeed, a 45-minute warning.
On the time limit of licences, we must cover the 12-year problem and the presumption of renewal. The presumption of renewal is a key issue for those investing in quarrying and abstraction. Provided that they are not doing any damage, the Bill should contain a provision that gives them a proper presumption of renewal. However, it does not. There will be problems with those who wish to appeal, and difficulties arise because details of how compensation will be claimed have not been set out. We could have thrown a little more light on those issues on Report, and it is again a tragedy that there will be a shortage of time. In Committee, we said that the Environment Agency needs to take account of infrastructure, costs and investments associated with abstraction before making a decision on the life of the abstraction licence.
We should address the conduct of the regulator and discharge to watercourses. The functions of the chairman and chief executive of the new water service regulatory body should be separate to prevent one person from having too much power in the regulation of the water industry. Clause 98 must ensure that surface water is kept separate from foul water in calculations of sewage water capacity. When new sewers are built, proper calculations should be taken into consideration so that if flash floods occur, water has the proper facilities to run off. If sewers flood back, which they do at present, it causes horrendous foul flooding that is deeply upsetting to householders and causes much damage. That could be avoided with proper regulation, but the Bill represents a missed opportunity to do that.
Clause 83 addresses the important duty to conserve water and improve water efficiency. An amendment relating to that issue was tabled by Labour Members and we had an important debate. I hope that further such amendments will be selected by Mr. Speaker, but who can tell at this stage? The water conservation duties in the Bill are too weak, and I hope to strengthen them on Report. I hope that an hour will be sufficient to hold an in-depth and constructive discussion on how to ensure the future best efficiency of our water because, after all, we all want the best possible management of water. Unfortunately, I doubt that there will be sufficient time for the views of the number of hon. Members who are passionate about that to be heard. The matter is of interest to hon. Members of all parties who have said how keen they are for a duty to preserve water properly to be imposed on all office holders.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): My hon. Friend touched on the structure of the regulator and regulatory methodology. Does he agree that we do not yet know whether the time available—an hour—to consider a range of subjects including the structure of the regulator will be sufficient? It was evident in Committee that the Government's proposals on the structure of the regulator were questionable, and the Government were questioned by not only Conservative but Labour Members. The chances of the Government
tabling amendments should be high, in which case we might not need to debate them at length. However, we did not have time to consider the impact of regulatory methodology and the regulator's regulatory impact assessments in Committee. Under the programme motion, there is a risk that we will not reach those issues on Report either.
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend, who was a huge asset to the Committee because his wide-ranging experience of the way in which such legislation should be written was crucial. Tragically, he is absolutely right about the lack of time to explore the issues that he mentioned. However, the situation is worse than that. We want to use the framework on which he touched to ensure that proper regulation will exist so that people will behave in the way in which the Government want rather than having to be punished and pursued after a transgression. It would be helpful for the Bill to include such a provision but, tragically, it will not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |