Water Bill [Lords]

[back to previous text]

Sue Doughty: We, too, have concerns about the obligations on licence holders, and I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's introduction. Although we have not asked for the deletion of the lines referred to in amendment No. 39, we feel that there must be clarity for licence holders. They must know what will be expected of them, what the financial

Column Number: 147

implications will be and what site restorations will be required. We accept that it would be unreasonable for such a provision to be included in the Bill, but it could be made by regulation, which would provide more opportunity for consultation on what might be reasonable. Businesses such as watercress growers need greater reassurance about where they stand, and such a lack of clarity is not good for them. They need to know the implications of the clause.

Mr. Morley: Perhaps the hon. Lady misunderstands the intentions set out in the clause. The agency currently has no option but to revoke an impounding licence at the holder's request. That could allow conditions of such licences—for example, to maintain flows downstream for other river users—to be avoided. The owner of an impounding works that is expensive to maintain could say, ''I do not want this anymore, I want the licence to be revoked,'' and the licence would have to be revoked, even if the works were beneficial to the management of the watercourse.

The clause will allow the agency to attach conditions to the surrender of the licence. For example, it could ensure that, if necessary, the impounding works are removed—another reason that someone might want to revoke a licence—or modified to ensure that they cause no problems for the environment or other abstractors. If the licence holder is dissatisfied with the conditions for revocation, there is a provision for them to appeal. In setting such conditions, the agency will consider issues such as the impact on river flows, abstraction rights and the environment. In some cases it might be best to preserve impounding works to maintain flows, and in others the structure might be removed. It would depend on the circumstances, and the clause gives the agency flexibility to do that. Amendment No. 39 would remove the ability to apply those conditions and damage the agency's ability to respond.

Amendment No. 199 would introduce an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form in which licence holders are notified of conditions to be met prior to a licence being revoked. It would also enable the Secretary of State to constrain the parameters of conditions that the agency must set. If the agency is perceived to be acting unreasonably, the licence holder will have a right of appeal, so the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will not press it.

Mr. Wiggin: I was especially impressed that the Minister was able to respond even though I read out part of clause 24 instead of clause 23. Fortunately the wording is almost identical, and I thank the Minister for dealing with the nub of the problem. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4 pm

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in

    clause 23, page 26, line 21, leave out subsection (5).

Column Number: 148

This amendment is somewhat different. Subsection (5) irritatingly refers to subsection (6) of section 52 of the Water Resources Act 1991, some of which the Government are deleting. The passage to be deleted says:

    ''A notice for the purposes of subsection (4) above, in addition to any other matters required to be contained in that notice''—

the notification of the instance of the authority—

    ''shall . . . name a place within the relevant locality where a copy of the proposals, and of any map, plan or other document prepared in connection with them, will be open to inspection by the public, free of charge, at all reasonable hours during a period specified in the notice in accordance with subsection (7)''.

The rest of the subsection is replaced almost identically. Why was it necessary to remove provision for what seems to be a helpful public service?

Mr. Morley: I have explained the intention of the clause in terms of applying conditions to an empowerment licence. I must admit I was surprised to find out that at present an impounding licence is required to be held only during the construction of impounding works. The holder may surrender it once the works have been completed, without any conditions being placed on it. The amendment would remove that requirement for those licences that are already in existence and allow those who have benefited from the impounding works to walk away and leave future problems for both the environment and other abstractors. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman was talking about, but that would be the result.

Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—but not that grateful, because it did not deal with what has been changed by this provision. Subsection (5) says that

    ''the holder of the licence may give notice in writing . . . and any other person may make representations''.

We are dealing not with whether the impounding takes place but with the notification that section 52 gives.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's comments were so similar to the previous amendment that I did not notice it, but I have a feeling that they relate to another amendment.

Mr. Wiggin: Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Morley: Yes, we are debating amendment No. 40, but his comments do not relate to it. Amendment No. 40 would remove the requirements in relation to existing licences.

Mr. Wiggin: The amendment would delete subsection (5), which refers to subsection (6) in the Water Resources Act 1991.

Mr. Morley: It does not work like that.

Mr. Wiggin: That is what I want to amend and how I drafted the amendment. All I want to know is why provision for useful information should be deleted from the 1991 Act.

Mr. Morley: The Water Resources Act 1991?

Mr. Wiggin: It might be helpful to explain it again. Section 52(6) of the Water Resources Act is amended by subsection (5), and my amendment would remove that alteration.

Column Number: 149

Mr. Morley: I may be misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman, but I have a feeling that he is talking about subsection (5) of clause 24, not clause 23.

The Chairman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman can raise the matter under clause 24 by withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Wiggin: In light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Claims arising out of water abstraction

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 201, in

    clause 26, page 31, line 29, at end insert

    'or to their property or to both'.

First, I want to check that ''damage to another person'' includes, by definition legally, damage to his or her property. I am sure that the Minister can assure me that that is covered, but I just wanted clarification. Secondly, do the rights included in the clause also apply to public bodies? In other words, will the definition of a person include a public body?

Mr. Morley: The clause introduces the right to sue an abstractor who has caused damage, whoever that abstractor is. Abstractors will therefore need to remain alert to the possibility that they are causing harm to others—other abstractors or the environment—if they are to avoid being subject to claims for damages. That ensures that the law relating to water abstraction is consistent with long-established rules in other areas requiring property owners and other occupiers or users of land to respect the interests of neighbours in terms of their water abstraction and the impact on the land. Subsidence could be covered by this, too. That is the intention. The amendment is unnecessary, as legally loss or damage to a person includes that person's property.

Norman Baker: That has answered one point. Just for clarification, could damage to another person be damage to a public body?

Mr. Morley: I think that damage to a public body would be covered. According to the definition and the way in which the Bill is applied, a ''person'' relates to property and can also relate to a public body.

Norman Baker: That is helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in

    clause 26, page 31, line 31, at end insert 'and the Environment Agency'.

The amendment is not particularly complicated. It would include the Environment Agency as someone who could be pursued by someone who had suffered loss or damage. The Minister is unlikely to welcome it, but it would give abstractors extra recourse.

Column Number: 150

Mr. Morley: In granting a licence, the agency will not have considered the effect of an abstraction on property of third parties, only on water resources. That is its responsibility and all it can do, in a sense. It is charged with considering water resources and the environment. It is also important to bear it in mind that it is the abstraction of water that can cause damage, irrespective of whether it is under licence. The agency does not have a duty to have regard to any potential third party damage caused by abstractors, and that would be inappropriate. It would be inappropriate for the agency to regulate relationships between property owners or to assume the liability that abstractors should bear. It is not appropriate that the agency should be liable for any such damage, because it is the abstraction that causes the damage. The agency considers the water resources, the environment and the impact on other abstractors, but it cannot be expected to judge other potential damage. That is a matter for the abstractor, and that is where the liability should rest.

 
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 18 September 2003