Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Borrie makes my first point for me. To some extent, the same applies to sustainability, which is written into Clause 38 as a responsibility of the authority. Of course, the other side of the coin of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says is that consumers have an interest in matters that are not related or definable under the term sustainability. Therefore, the consumer interest, while it overlaps with sustainable development, is not coterminous with it. Therefore, we wish to ensure that this body will primarily look after the needs of consumers in their broadest sense. If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, thinks that that is too broad, so do consumers. It is reasonable that we would not constrain it. I am concerned that his Amendment No. 90A, and to some extent Amendment No. 90, would constrain it unnecessarily.

On Amendment No. 91, clearly there is a wider range of issues. The Bill is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account of those in defining what consumer interests are, and that should be reflected in the role of the council. I am unclear as to

3 Apr 2003 : Column GC201

why students should be picked out in Amendment No. 93. They are known neither for their use of water nor for drinking it. If they were low paid, they would fall under one of the other categories. So I am afraid that, on all those grounds, I would refuse to add full-time students to the list.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am disappointed that the Minister does not think that students should be a special case. If they were, they might be encouraged—

Baroness O'Cathain: To wash.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: However, if the Minister assured me that students were covered under subsection (2C)(c), which provides for individuals with low incomes, I might feel happier about it. Perhaps that definition is already in his mind.

I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would achieve what I was seeking to do without having the slightly over-used word "sustainable"—I sometimes struggle to avoid using it. He hit on exactly what we are trying to achieve. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the issue is automatically covered by the reference to "future consumers". If price were the issue, one might

3 Apr 2003 : Column GC202

argue, if parents had to spend less money on water, that one was covering the interests of future consumers.

However, I hope that the Bill looks at the matter in its wider context. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I, if we do not feel that the Minister's reply satisfies what we seek to achieve, will be able to get together before Report stage to try to come up with an amendment that better defines the consumer interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 90A and 91 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to seek the Committee's opinion. Amendment No. 92 is particularly important to me, and I wish to speak to it at length. Would it be convenient to the Committee if we started with it at the next session?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think this may be a convenient moment, by general consent, to adjourn further consideration until Tuesday next at 3.30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 8th April at 3.30 p.m.

        The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page