House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 1998 (pt 22)

6.52 pm

Mr. Quentin Davies: This debate, on an important Bill, has been much too short. Once again, that is extremely revealing of the fundamental arrogance with which the new Labour Government treat Parliament. We have had examples of that over and over again; I need not list them, as they are fresh in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The debate has been a monumental example of a Government's taking Parliament entirely for granted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made an extremely powerful speech about precisely that. The Government may think that they can get away with it, and that they can win vote after vote with their enormous majority. That may make them even more self-confident and arrogant, but such pride comes before a fall. The British public will begin to notice that our institutions are subject to extremely frivolous treatment.

The Bill is extraordinary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly said that it should go into the textbooks as an example of how Parliament is taken for granted. The Bill says that whether or not Parliament subsequently expresses approval, the powers, once accorded to the Government, will remain. In the debate on the last amendment, I asked the Financial Secretary what would happen if the House refused the Bill a Third Reading. Apparently, the powers--and the rights that they confer to spend taxpayers' money--will simply continue. The Government have not answered that question, or told us what they would do in those circumstances. That is simply not good enough.

We have said many times that we are not opposed in principle to the idea of working families tax credit. We therefore will not divide the House, and I do not urge my colleagues to vote against the principle of the paving Bill, because that would be interpreted as a desire to stymie the whole process. We do not want to do that, but we must ensure that if we go down this road, we do it properly. We must plan properly, but the Government have not satisfied us on that. They have rejected the sensible and

14 May 1998 : Column 570

businesslike approaches in our amendments.We proposed that there should be a proper cash limit, a proper budget, proper controls and a proper time limit. They turned those amendments down, and there is a limit to our patience and indulgence.

We shall keep the matter under review. At least three major shortcomings in the Government's planning for the whole exercise were revealed on Second Reading, and have been revealed again today. Over the next few months, the Government must focus on those, and come up with clear answers. Up to now, we have had no answers on crucial issues.

Let me help the Government by reminding them what the key questions are on which they must do some homework over the next few months, and on which the British public will expect an answer before we consider how to vote in the autumn on Second Reading of the substantive Bill that will follow this. The first question has been put to the Financial Secretary repeatedly, but we have had no answer. What happens in the event of a dispute between partners over the working families tax credit? If the partners cannot agree whether the credit will be received by the partner in work through the tax system--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a Third Reading debate. It should look back at the terms of the Bill, not look forward to what will happen in future.

Mr. Davies: It is indeed a Third Reading debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are, indeed, looking back. I am trying to draw conclusions from our debates, which will be extremely important to the substantive Bill to which this paving Bill looks forward. The Bill forces the British taxpayer to spend a lot of money in anticipation of the substantive Bill. It seems reasonable to make it clear that if the taxpayer's money will be spent on preparing for another Bill, the lessons of our discussion should be properly taken on board by the Government. When they next address the House on this subject, they may be a little better prepared than they were on this occasion.

There is another matter on which the Government had better do some rapid homework. There is considerable and growing anxiety about the burden of compliance costs on employers. The administration of the working families tax credit will be borne by employers. I put specific questions on that to the Financial Secretary, who, with her usual charm and parliamentary skill, deflected them all. We have had no answers.

What about the cash flow issue, to which I have already drawn attention? In many cases, under the tax credit, net pay will be greater than gross pay, and employers will pay more to their employees than they have contracted to pay. No doubt they will receive some compensation weeks or--who knows?--months later from the Benefits Agency, but who will pay for that? There has been no answer. It is not good enough for the hon. Lady to use the analogy of statutory sick pay and maternity pay. In most cases, employers do not pay the current pay that they are contracted to pay to employees in that position, but pay the maternity pay and the statutory sick pay instead. There is no cash flow loss in such cases; we want to know what happens when cash flow loss occurs.

14 May 1998 : Column 571

The third general point--to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred in his interesting speech--is the way in which this form of expenditure will be classified. Among the promises that the Labour party made to the electorate before the last election--many of which have already been broken--was a promise to reduce social security expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. If the Government are going to make progress towards that objective, it must be real progress. It must not be done simply by cooking the books, by falsifying the figures, by reclassifying what is now social security expenditure--the family credit--as something that is regarded as a tax credit, which is, in other words, negative tax and not public expenditure. That will not wash. If the Financial Secretary thinks that she can bamboozle the Opposition, or, indeed the British public, she had better think again.

I draw from today's interesting debates several lessons, in an attempt--my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst probably will not like this--to help the Government and to be positive. They may want to be taken seriously in bringing forward a new working families tax credit, but, next time around, in the autumn, we will not be so forgiving. We will expect clear precise answers to these important questions. We will expect the Government to do their homework--they have not done so up to now--and come to Parliament with proper modesty in proposing and explaining their legislative proposals, not the arrogance that we have had from them, with the Government thinking that, because of their enormous majority, they can simply take Parliament and its procedures for granted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

14 May 1998 : Column 572

River Kennet, Wiltshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

7 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I should start by saying how grateful I am to Madam Speaker for the chance to raise this serious matter on the Adjournment.

In environmental terms, the River Kennet is one of the jewels in my constituency. It is not only one of the finest trout streams in England; the stretch of river to which this debate refers is a top-quality chalk stream and a site of special scientific interest in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Rising by Avebury with its ancient and awe-inspiring standing stones, it flows along a broad green valley, through the royal borough of Marlborough, by the Roman relics at Mildenhall and the riverside gardens at Ramsbury and past Chilton Foliat into Berkshire, where it finally escapes my representation. Just before Ramsbury, it runs by Axford, where much of the cause of this debate arises.

The Kennet is a special river not only to the angler, but to the conservationist, the environmentalist and, above all, the genuine countryman. It is not a large river, which makes it vulnerable. It is not a fast river, which makes it precarious. It is the epitome of a crystal-clear chalk stream, bringing quality of life to the community through which it passes, habitat for local flora and fauna, and great pleasure to all the people who live near or along its banks.

The River Kennet is under threat--from a changing climate, which has, as we all know, recently produced episodes of drought, from man-made activity along its banks, but, above all, from the abstraction of its precious water to feed developments outwith its catchment area, which are mostly in and around Swindon, to its north.

I have watched the River Kennet at close quarters for some eight years. I have read all the technical data about the river and have tried, along even with experts, fully to interpret those data. It is not easy, especially for the layman. I hear the arguments about levels of flow and their effect on the ecology of the river. I struggle with cost-benefit analyses. My plea tonight, however, is based as much on my instinct as a simple countryman as on any of those matters. To a simple countryman, the fact is that the River Kennet is declining and the main cause for that decline is the amount of water that is abstracted from it both at Axford and further up the river.

It is deeply depressing to see that the River Kennet to the west of Marlborough is, in the summer, effectively a dry and overgrown river bed, and to the east of Axford an unnaturally slow and reduced flow. It is an alarming spectacle when, each year, the extent of those problems appears to increase. It is not only of direct and understandable concern to people who fish or earn their living from fishing on the river; they have a direct and legitimate interest in being concerned. It is also a cause of anxiety to all the people who just value the countryside and the natural environment. However, that depression, that alarm, that concern, that anxiety are seemingly just brushed aside by those who have an interest in abstracting water from the Kennet, and it seems recently, I regret, by the Government as well.

Ironically, anyone who looks at the River Kennet today might wonder at this debate because, after a month of unusually high rainfall, the river is in what is known as

14 May 1998 : Column 573

spanking condition. It is looking as it always should look. The sad truth is that this is the exception which proves the rule. Normally these days, a much diminished version is seen. The river's flow has been reduced and that cannot be denied.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd., which abstracts the water, blames river modifications for the changes in flow patterns and droughts for the reduction of flow. I find that a somewhat specious argument as, in the absence or with a reduction of abstraction, those other circumstances would themselves be less significant.

Blaming drought in particular begs the question. If the risk of flooding on a flood plain is measured on a ratio of 100 years as a relevant criterion in considering planning applications for housing, surely the risk of drought measured on a similar ratio and for similar reasons in applications for water abstraction licences should equally apply. That is to say that, unless it is shown to be likely, rather than the exception, it should not be relevant. The real point is rather simpler: without drought, abstraction still reduces the river flow by the amount abstracted and the damage of that reduction still occurs. With drought, that problem is merely compounded.

None of us argues that no water should be abstracted, only that it should be contained within the limits that the river can, without lasting damage, afford. People need water, but so does the environment. It must be a matter of proper balance. It is the lack of that balance that gives rise to such anxiety.

The subject has long been a matter of local concern. I pay tribute to the group Action for the River Kennet, which is known locally and affectionately as ARK, for the way in which it has informed and guided local opinion and ensured that it has been directed constructively. The extent of that local concern has been demonstrated over a long period by substantial attendances at local meetings--not least one three weeks ago. My constituents mind about the Kennet. I mind about the Kennet. We are looking to the Government to mind, too.