| Water Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Wiggin: The position of the clause is useful because we dealt with the bulk of the argument at the beginning of the Bill. We revisit it now, and it is helpful to have read Government new clause 16, which would amend the Bill to take into consideration the views expressed in another place. This is an important part of the Bill because it is incumbent on everyone in authority, not just members of the Committee, to conserve water. New clause 16 provides for that, but does not go into the same detail or place the same emphasis on duty as amendment No. 211, which will be popular with hon. Members, as similar amendments have been tabled by Members on both sides of the Committee. It is extremely important that we get this part of the Bill right. When speaking to clause 80, the Minister was keen to emphasise that there must be Column Number: 311 improvements in terms of leakage and water efficiency. In that way, we could avoid the need to build new reservoirs—with all the costs and awkwardness involved—for as long as possible. We are trying again to tackle the same problem, but this time I seek to tighten up the wording so that we put a duty on each public authority.The alternatives are the named authorities such as the Welsh Assembly or the various authorities named throughout the Bill. The difference is that the duty would apply not just to the authority, but to its members, who would have to further water conservation so far as they could while carrying out their functions and where it was consistent with the exercise of those functions. The structure of the amendment is different from the Bill, although at first glance they appear similar, because the amendment implies that it is the duty of everybody to conserve water in the way in which they carry out their job. It is a useful amendment and, although I accept that the Government have captured the spirit of it in their new clause, it would do no harm to add this wording. It would shift the emphasis enough to satisfy those of us who want proper conservation to take place at every opportunity, and it would facilitate that process. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): My hon. Friend's clear explanation of the reason for his amendment is reinforced by amendment No. 166 in my name. It would be very difficult for us to justify not placing a duty on the Secretary of State—that is the point—but we need to be tougher about that. The time has come when this country must take the issue seriously; either we are serious about it or we are not. For once, rather than listening to the cautions of officials and lawyers, we should have the courage of our convictions to say that water conservation shall be a duty—as simple as that—not ''if and when it might, possibly, one day be desirable, if the sun is shining on alternate Thursdays'', which seems to be the attitude with which we are saddled. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Committee will also support amendment No. 166. Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne): I speak to amendment No. 231 in my name. As hon. Members will see from the number of amendments to the clause, there is a desire to push the Government on the level of responsibility that public authorities should have in promoting better management of water. I take pride in saying that mine is the shortest amendment and less of a mouthful than that tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). Amendment No. 231 goes a little further than the duty to further water conservation by making it a
I do not need to tell the Committee that the need is there. The amendment would put an onus on public authorities to promote water conservation. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we have been through, but I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment. Column Number: 312 Norman Baker: As we have just heard, there is a good deal of cross-party consensus on the need to deal with the matter in a more robust way than is suggested in the Bill. Two amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members, one by a Liberal Democrat and one by a Labour Back Bencher. All point in the same direction; they stem from a belief that the Bill's wording is inadequate and suggest that the Minister should strengthen it. I hope that that gives him pause for thought. There is a rather unfortunate phrase in line 23 of the clause: ''where relevant''. What does that mean? Mr. Key: Not much. Norman Baker: It means that somebody can say, ''Well, water conservation is not very relevant here, so I shall ignore it.'' In other words, it completely destroys the purpose of the provision. It should always be desirable to conserve water supplied to premises. It may not always be possible and there may be other demands that occasionally act against it for some reason that we cannot specify, but it is always desirable, so why does the phrase ''where relevant'' qualify that? As has been implied, those seem to be weasel words, producing a clause that is motherhood and apple pie without apples or mothers anywhere being near it. The Minister has admitted to this sort of thing. He should consider the words carefully and make a bold statement, instead of coming up with phrases that can be disowned. In five years, someone could say, ''Well, water conservation wasn't relevant'', or we could have a meaningless discussion in Committee or on the Floor of the House about why no action was taken because someone had decided that it was not relevant. I do not want to have that discussion in five years, so I ask the Minister to act now.
9.15 amMr. Morley: There is no disagreement about the principle of the proposal relating to the duty to promote the wider consideration of water conservation throughout the public sector. However, I remind the Committee that new clause 16 imposes a duty on central Government to encourage water conservation, so the duty is at the heart of Government. Clause 85 imposes a duty on all public authorities to take water conservation into account. It is worded as it is because there is an issue of legal interpretation and the way in which Bills must be drafted. For example, local authorities do not have the primary duty when it comes to furthering water conservation. That cuts across the water companies, for example. It is not the local authorities' primary duty, although we do not disagree that they should have a duty to consider water conservation across their sector. The legislation is drafted in this way because it takes into account the fact that local authorities have other duties, such as firefighting. I cannot ever imagine a local authority in court, accused of not furthering water conservation by using large quantities of water to fight fires, but those are the legal considerations that must be taken into account when drafting a Bill so that its meaning is clear. What the clause means in respect of promoting water conservation is very clear. It is Column Number: 313 drafted in such a way that it meets legal demands, including those of parliamentary counsel.Mr. Wiggin: I am afraid that the Minister has failed to convince me. The idea that firefighters would be sued for emptying the village pond when putting out a fire at the local pub is a nice idea, and I am sure that his advisers are doing their best to come up with more innovative ideas as to how the proposal could go wrong, but the principle is that people in any sort of authority should turn the taps off themselves and do their best to ensure that that takes place whenever possible. The Minister touched on the duty in new clause 16, which, unfortunately, we are not allowed to debate now. The important point is that the duty is there, but not as we have expressed it in the amendments. Having heard the Minister's response, I am not convinced that the Bill's wording is sufficient, and clearly all the people who read the Bill and made the effort to table amendments agree. Although as usual the Minister means well, his explanation is not satisfying the Committee that the duty really is there. Mr. Key: Having spoken to my amendment, I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that the meaning of the clause was absolutely clear. Indeed it is; it is absolutely clear in its indecisiveness. In practical terms, it means nothing at all, so I shall press my amendment to a vote. Mr. Morley: I can only repeat that the Bill adds to the duty to further water conservation in carrying out the functions of local authorities and central Government, and places a new water conservation duty on the Secretary of State. That is important. The Environment Agency, too, has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources. Those are all in the Bill and are very clear. I do not disagree with the intention behind the proposal, but I do not see how someone could argue that the clauses undermine it. Mr. Wiggin: Is it not already incumbent on the Secretary of State to conserve water? Why does the Secretary of State need to be given this particular power in this way? Mr. Morley: It recognises the strength of feeling expressed in the other place and in this Committee that water is an important resource and that we should take steps to conserve it across the public sector, and in the way in which the agency and the water undertakers carry out their duties. That duty is clearly written into the Bill. One might argue about the ifs, buts and maybes, but we are back to the issue of balance. That duty is not the primary function of local authorities, but we recognise that they have a role to play. That role, with regard to the balance of their duties, is reflected in the clause in a rational, responsible and legal way. Ms Atherton: I sought to explore the views of the Government and the Minister, and I am satisfied that the duty to promote is in the Bill. Column Number: 314 Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 14.
Division No. 10]
AYES
NOES
Amendment proposed: No. 166, in
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 14.
Division No. 11]
AYES
NOES
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 21 October 2003 |
