|
Mr. Morley: I hope that there is not too much boring for water in the Committee—we have a long way to go and are only at the beginning.
There is already guidance to planning authorities about applications to take into account water resources. Hon. Members are probably aware that the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in planning applications. Water companies have a responsibility to undertake forward planning for potential resource demand, and they are also part of the planning process. It would therefore be wrong to think, as the hon. Member for Salisbury seems to, that there is no consideration of planning applications and the expectation that water companies will provide water and sewerage. The system does not work like that and we would not expect it to.
Norman Baker: I thought that the position was exactly that, and that water companies could not resist applications in the way that they could before the Water Act 1989, when they could have a veto in certain circumstances. Now they cannot have a veto but are told that there is a statutory duty on them to connect and supply water. In a situation such as the one that we are facing in the south-east, where, according to Government policy, a huge number of houses are to be built and where water is least available, surely that is a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Morley: It would be if no consideration had been given to water resource management, but that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. He is quite right to mention the statutory obligation on water companies to provide their services, but water resource issues and availability must be taken into account in the long-term planning. That is certainly true of, for example, the Thames gateway. The provision of water and sewerage is taken into account for that project, which is a major planning proposal and, I might add, Europe's biggest brownfield development.
Mr. Key: Yes, of course, the Minister is right: those matters are taken into account and the advice of the Environment Agency is no doubt listened to. However, it remains a fact that the company providing the water and sewerage cannot refuse to do so on planning grounds, and that is unsustainable. It is true, I am told, that the provision of water for those extra hundreds of thousands of houses will not be a problem. However, what will be the cost to the area from which the water will have to be supplied? What will be the impact on the upper Thames valley of abstracting the water in the lower Thames valley?
The Minister cannot have the argument both ways. He cannot say on one hand, ''Yes, we'll take it into account,'' but on the other, ''It's absolutely right that they can't say no.''
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
Mr. Morley: Again, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the requirements on the water companies and the longer-term strategic approach to water resource management and supply. The issues are important, and the impact of transferring water must
Column Number: 034
be taken into account, if that is required. The Bill imposes a requirement on water companies to produce long-term water resource plans—and, incidentally, drought plans, which are slightly different from, but allied to, water supply. Those issues have been included, so it would be wrong to think that they had been ignored in relation not only to projections of housing demand and growth—water supply must of course be taken into account—but to new build and new design opportunities for minimising water use in a sustainable way. We need to explore those opportunities.
The hon. Member for Leominster said that he does not think that the amendment is properly drafted or legally compliant—indeed, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to link two regulatory regimes—the planning regime for quarrying and the proposed abstraction licensing scheme. I understand his point because some quarries have very long-term planning permission under the different legislation on minerals. That is a potential problem because quarry dewatering can have a significant impact on water resources and the environment, which is why such matters have been brought within the scope of the Bill.
The Government intend to close the current exemption for dewatering and to bring it within the regulatory regime for managing water resources. The Environment Agency was established for, among other things, that very purpose. It has detailed duties, including the determination of abstraction licences and the conditions attached to them. The agency is clearly the proper authority for that role. It is already a consultee of the planning authority, so the part of the amendment that relates to that is not needed.
I expect the agency and planning authorities to co-operate in dealing with such issues. They should liaise—as they do—on the scope of environmental impact assessments and to ensure that they cover the needs of both regimes. However, the effects of quarrying on the water environment are, by their very nature, difficult to predict. Opposition Members have made the point that the water environment is sensitive to the effects of climate change. The time scale for reviews may necessarily be different given the horizon of planning permission. Reviews may be out of sync, which is why different approaches are necessary.
If the quarrying industry is committed to dealing positively with impacts on the environment, I can assure it that because it is not a consumer of water, it has nothing to fear from the introduction of the new regime, and we will have the opportunity to discuss that point in further detail as we go through the Bill. For new sites, we must ensure that there is sustainable development from the start. Time-limited licences, with an option for review on renewal, are the sustainable approach, which we are trying to take. If the initial duration of the licence affects investment, it can be dealt with as part of the application and determination process by the agency, or indeed by the Secretary of State on appeal, if it should be required.
Mr. Wiggin: The Minister has touched on the Achilles heel of the argument. Investment, particularly in quarrying, is normally based on at least a 25-year
Column Number: 035
amortisation. The Bill seeks to reduce that period to 12 years—the period for which a licence will definitely be granted without review—which would dramatically change the calculation of the required investment. That will have a fundamental effect on the price of stone, which will be passed on to users. As the majority of users are councils, that price rise will in turn increase council tax. I know that the Government are not particularly shy about council tax increases—it has increased dramatically in my constituency—but investors calculating their investments in quarries will have a significant problem.
Mr. Morley: There will be an opportunity to go into that matter in detail later on, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill contains a presumption of renewal, and quarry operators will be able to work round the regulations. The Bill does not specify a particular period, and the Environment Agency will have discretion over the period to be applied. Of course, the measure does not extinguish licences currently held by quarries in perpetuity, but provides a power to withdraw them if there is environmental damage. I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm, and, as one of a range of options, it will be the last resort. Quarries may well find that moving to time-limited licences is to their advantage, but we will discuss that later.
Paddy Tipping: The Minister will accept that the Environment Agency is already very involved with the quarrying industry and is a statutory consultee on any planning application. But is not the real issue long-term investment? Surely it is necessary for the agency to discuss matters with the industry. There is no difference over principle; everyone is signed up to the principles, but an open and transparent process is needed so that the industry can continue to make long-term investment decisions.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend takes a sensible approach. A discussion of the issues facing quarry owners and the agency's concerns about sustainable management is in the interests of both parties. That opportunity is addressed here, but the amendment is technically flawed, so I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will accept my explanation and seek to withdraw it.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Guildford for her speech, although I feel that the disappearance of water voles has more to do with the release of mink than with abstraction.
Sue Doughty: I would agree that some water voles have disappeared as a result of mink being released, but I lived in the Lambourn valley at the time and I can say that there were no mink dealing with those particular water voles.
Mr. Wiggin: We are all a little the wiser.
I wanted, through my amendment, to do precisely the opposite of what the Minister just suggested and link the regimes. The hon. Member for Sherwood suggested that it would be tremendous if the agency and the quarrying industry sat down together and worked things out. I think that they would be happy to
Column Number: 036
do that; it was a sensible and helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, they would then have to go and work things out with the planning authority. The trouble is that the net result would not necessarily be beneficial for either the quarriers or the end users—all of us every time we drive on a road—so we need to link the two systems.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was tremendously helpful and showed the depth of his wisdom and experience in such matters as linking housing to sewerage and water. I was extremely grateful for that and for his previous speech, for which I neglected to thank him at the time.
Initially I felt prepared to withdraw the amendment, but now I do not. I shall be very clear about the reason: we want to link planning to the Environment Agency. When I found out that it was already a statutory consultee, I thought, ''Perfect, I can withdraw my amendment on that basis''; but I cannot do so because the Minister's argument is very much against linking the regimes, while I am very much in favour of that. I accept all the Minister's criticism of the amendment's wording, but I am not prepared to withdraw it because I want to see the principle changed and environmental policing linked with planning, and that is the amendment's purpose.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.
Division No. 2]
AYES
Baker, Norman
Doughty, Sue
Key, Mr. Robert
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Wiggin, Mr. Bill
NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy
Brennan, Kevin
Dobbin, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Iddon, Dr. Brian
King, Andy
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Organ, Diana
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Simon, Mr. Sio n
Tipping, Paddy
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
11 am
|
