|
Mr. Morley: Fine people.
Mr. Wiggin: Indeed—they are fine people. The agency is better equipped to decide whether damage is likely to be caused than the single abstractor who might be doing nothing more bizarre or illegal than something that has been done for hundreds of years. The amendment would therefore be useful.
Mr. Morley: I do not want to go into the arguments, because the same ones apply. However, I should like to throw in another point that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider. If he had his way in relation to the Environment Agency having some liability, it would inevitably apply the strictest
Column Number: 154
conditions to any licence to minimise any risk to itself. That would be undesirable and make the whole system unworkable. I come back to the point that if you have a licence, it does not exempt you from damages if you cause damage yourself—
The Chairman: Order. I must draw the Minister's attention, as I did with that of the hon. Member for Leominster, to the fact that I am not the one who is requesting the licence.
Mr. Morley: I do apologise for drifting off into that, Mr. O'Brien. I was discussing whether holding a licence creates an exemption from damages. An example might be that a driving licence does not give anyone any exemptions from any damages that they might cause as a result of holding that licence. They are still liable.
Norman Baker: If I may say so, that is a ridiculous comparison to make. A driving licence is a demonstration that a person has passed a necessary test and is equipped to drive on the road. The Environment Agency would not grant a licence by issuing a piece of paper and saying that you could go away and do what you wanted. When I say ''you'', I do not mean you, Mr. O'Brien, I mean ''one''. Rather, a licence will come with conditions: the Environment Agency is bound to say, ''Thou shalt not this,'' and, ''You must do this in a particular way.'' The Environment Agency does not hedge round the conditions on how people operate, because it is protecting the environment and trying to make it better—that is what it is there for. So, it seems unfair to use the analogy of driving licences.
Mr. Morley: It is better than ice-cream vans.
Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I wanted to include the Environment Agency as liable through amendment No. 41. This amendment would not do that, but it would protect people so that once they have applied for a licence they have complied. I refer the Minister back to the clause in question.
The Chairman: That is not a point of order; it is part of the debate.
Norman Baker: The example of the ice-cream van, which I came up with off the top of my head, was not that bad. It was a better comparison than that with driving licences.
I understand the Minister's points, and no one would pretend that they are not logical and do not have some justification, but does he feel uncomfortable, as I do, about an arrangement whereby somebody acts appropriately, goes through the proper procedures, obtains a licence, sticks to its conditions and yet can still be exposed to legal action? Apparently, the fact that they have done everything asked of them is not a defence.
Mr. Morley: I repeat that I think that the clause brings this form of licensing in line with existing forms and makes it consistent.
Mr. Wiggin: The Minister mentioned driving licences, but, if they are in accidents, those who choose to drive without licences are punished much more severely than those who hold licences. That is the system that the amendment would create. If someone
Column Number: 155
plays by the rules, they should be protected by them, but that is not the case at the moment. Unless the Minister will reconsider the intention of the amendment, I will press for a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.
Division No. 7]
AYES
Baker, Norman
Doughty, Sue
Key, Mr. Robert
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Wiggin, Mr. Bill
NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy
Brennan, Kevin
Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Iddon, Dr. Brian
King, Andy
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Tipping, Paddy
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Compensation for modification of licence on direction of Secretary of State
Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in
clause 27, page 32, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 42, in
clause 27, page 32, line 30, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
Amendment No. 228, in
Sue Doughty: Sadly, we return to the vexed question whether the time period should be four, six or seven years. There are various reasons, such as agricultural practices, to delete subsection (2), which changes the time period to four years. Clause 27 reduces the period of non-use of a licence from seven to four years, after which time revocation or variation does not entitle the licence holder to compensation.
In some situations, it would be good agricultural practice not to abstract water for at least seven years or maybe longer. Problems such as disease control might lead to water not being abstracted and they must be addressed. In the case of watercress growers, the specifications of supermarket contracts demand that the water must return to its previous quality before it can be abstracted. Again, the question of compensation arises. Farmers and growers should not risk losing a right to compensation after only four years of non-use. Despite the long and tortuous debate this morning and in previous sittings, we will pursue the amendment until we hear what the Minister is going to do about the matter.
Column Number: 156
4.30 pm
Mr. Morley: Currently, if a licence has not been used for seven years it can be revoked or varied and the holder is not entitled to compensation. Clause 27 reduces the period to four years. We have already had this argument. I explained that four years is a reasonable balance, given that the Environment Agency needs maximum flexibility in respect of its water management. There may indeed be very good reasons why some people want to hold stable licences—the provision of drinking water, for example—and I am sure that the agency will consider them carefully.
Amendment No. 228 deals with issues relating to farmers who are holding a licence but not abstracting because there is an irrigation ban to prevent an outbreak of plant diseases such as potato brown rot. I am assured that the Environment Agency would take such circumstances into consideration before formulating the process to seek revocation of the licence. We are not talking about a situation in which there is no flexibility and where people's circumstances cannot be considered. Of course, special circumstances such as the one that I mentioned will be taken into account.
I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Lady that four years is an appropriate time. It fits in with what we have agreed in relation to the protected rights and is consistent with other approaches in terms of the time scale.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am pleased that he has put it on the record that the Environment Agency will take circumstances into consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in
clause 27, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
''(4ZA) Subsection (4) shall not apply while the possibility of the abstraction of water under the licence constitutes part of—
(a) any water resource management scheme maintained under section 20, 20A or 20B, or
(b) any drought plan maintained under section 39B.''.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in
clause 29, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
'(1A) When the holder of the licence is a company appointed as a water undertaker under the WIA, the revocation or variation will not—
(a) require the undertaker, in order to meet all its existing obligations to supply water for domestic or other purposes, together with its probable future obligations to supply buildings and parts of buildings with water for domestic purposes, to incur unreasonable expenditure in carrying out works; or
(b) otherwise put at risk its ability to meet any of the existing or probable future obligations mentioned in paragraph (a) above.'.
Mr. Wiggin: I want to be sure I am on the right clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 157
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 27, page 33, line 7, at end insert—
'(4C) Whenever the Secretary of State determines that compensation should not be paid under this section in respect of the variation of a licence on the grounds set out in subsection (4A) above, the holder of the licence may dispute the determination by referring the dispute to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
(4D) When a dispute is referred to arbitration under subsection (4C)—
(a) the arbitrator shall take into account any representations that the Secretary of State, the Environment Agency or the Authority may wish to submit to him; and
(b) in making his award the arbitrator may confirm, revoke or vary the whole of the Secretary of State's determination, or any part of the determination whether the reference relates to that part of the determination or not.''.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 55, in
clause 29, page 34, line 17, at end insert—
'(2A) Whenever the Secretary of State determines under this section that compensation should not be paid under section 61 of the WRA in respect of the revocation or variation of a licence, the holder of the licence may dispute the determination by referring the dispute to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
(2B) When a dispute is referred to arbitration under subsection (2A)—
(a) the arbitrator shall take into account any representations that the Secretary of State, the Environment Agency or the Authority may wish to submit to him; and
(b) in making his award the arbitrator may confirm, revoke or vary the whole of the Secretary of State's determination, or any part of the determination whether the reference relates to that part of the determination or not.'.
|
