Water Bill [Lords]

[back to previous text]

Clause 4

Restrictions on Impounding

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in

    clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out

    'which are not discrete waters'.

The Chairman: 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: 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

Column Number: 037

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?

Mr. Morley: 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.

Column Number: 038

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: 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.

Mr. Morley: 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.

Mr. Wiggin: 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?

Mr. Morley: 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: 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

Column Number: 039

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

Mr. Wiggin: 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: 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?

Mr. Wiggin: 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.

Column Number: 040

Kevin Brennan (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?

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

Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 16 September 2003