| Water Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: In the event that the agency decides to lower the threshold, would that apply retrospectively? Mr. Morley: I do not think that it would, because people would have the licence for what it was set for. The thresholds would be lowered in the case of future applications if it was felt that the amount of water being taken was at its limit, and therefore one could ensure that the thresholds were lowered below the 20 mark. Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Bringing in this 20 cu m limit effectively gives people a great deal of freedom, particularly the farming community. That is good, but the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the environment is protected too. Focusing the Environment Agency only on the quantity of water that is abstracted fails in terms of the quality of the abstractions. I do not suggest for one second that my wording necessarily achieves what I want to see done, but that is not the whole debate. Mr. Morley: To clarify, the Environment Agency has powers in relation to pollution control of the groundwater. It cannot guarantee or maintain the chemical composition. Mr. Wiggin: No one is asking for a guarantee of quality, but we want to prevent damage to the aquifer. This is a fundamentally different debate. All the quality controls exist after the water has come out of the ground. That is the responsibility of the water company. It is not allowed to bottle water that is not of a certain standard, nor may it add chlorine or any other chemicals. The water must be pure from the spring. It is worrying that these freedoms will open up the aquifer to many little abstractors. Surely the Environment Agency must have at least some responsibility for the quality of the aquifer. It does not have to protect the quality of the water. Punching lots of little holes into the aquifer will make it more liable to chemical pollution. Mr. Thomas: Did the hon. Gentleman get the same impression as I did from the Minister's final response when he said that the Environment Agency rightly had an overall view of the catchment area and the water being extracted from it? It could take action later on if the aquifer was being severely denuded. That would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, because the bottled water industry might be in a perilous situation by the time that happened. Mr. Wiggin: That is exactly the problem. The water bottlers do not want to have their source reduced. They do not want to be told that because of damage that others have done by drilling into the same aquifer they cannot carry out their business anymore. I am sure that the Minister has visited a water bottling operation. If not, I would invite him to visit Malvern Water, which is in my constituency, Radnor Hills, which is just over the hill, or Moreton Hills, which is part of Brooks Soft Drinks and is near my constituency. Such operations are extremely expensive to set up. I repeat that they are long-term investments. They do not require quality control from Column Number: 060 the Environment Agency, but they require some sort of policing.Under the Bill, the Environment Agency will grant licences on a first come, first served basis. There is no quality concept in the Bill; it does not have to make a judgment about who should be allowed to abstract and who should not. That is only in the big amounts. There is no policing built into the Bill for the small amounts. If a water bottler's aquifer was damaged by another person he could not ask the Environment Agency to reduce the amount that they both abstract. He would want either compensation or, better still, to ensure that people who wish to come in and extract first seek permission from the Environment Agency. One would hope that it would have an idea of what the aquifer could take without damage. We are trying to be constructive here. Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency will have an idea of what the aquifer can take without damage. While the threshold has been set at 20 cu m, it is in line with the definition of small quantities in existing legislation, which goes back to the 1960s. There is the other safeguard of catchment planning and strategies. If the threshold were lowered, those abstractors who currently fall below it would have to apply for a licence. We could then apply time-limited licences and use them as tools for water management within the powers in the Bill. Even on a small-scale abstraction, there are safeguards for overall management.
3.30 pmMr. Wiggin: That is very useful and I am grateful to the Minister because it is the first step in the right direction. There is another problem, which is that by the time someone has built a water bottling plant, they cannot afford to have their licence withdrawn. If the threshold is dropped and all abstractors in a particular catchment area or aquifer are expected to apply, some will be losers. Some will invest all their money in producing a water bottling operation and then lose their business. Norman Baker: If the limit is lowered and someone has to apply for a licence that they would not previously have needed, is not the system retrospective, contrary to the earlier impression given by the Minister? That person would have taken a decision based on the law, which will effectively change, leaving them in a new position, so the Bill is retrospective. Mr. Morley: It is quantitively the same. Mr. Wiggin: That is an important point because the figure of 20 cu m is a starting level for the Government. It is flexible, not set in stone. The Minister has intimated that, as the Bill will drop the threshold, people who previously did not have to apply for licences will now be forced to do so. However, that does not address the environmental issue—which we all cared about in the first place—of preventing the damage in the first place. Once muck starts to come through the bore holes into the plant, water bottling has to stop, and that is the end of the business. Owners of such businesses are not protected by the Environment Agency, and that is a real failure Column Number: 061 in the Bill. Although I recognise that the amendment's wording is inadequate, I hoped that the Minister might take away the important point that we should inform abstractors that they are being monitored for the damage that they cause to the environment, at least in areas where they are abstracting for human consumption. I hope that he will come up with something innovative that might calm me on that important subject.Mr. Morley: I am always seeking to calm the hon. Gentleman. I understand the concerns raised about people's businesses, and I hope to be able to reassure him about the mineral water business. Existing licensed abstractors, including mineral water companies, will enjoy special protected rights because they already have a licence. That means that the existing right to abstract must be safeguarded when new proposals are made. If the exemption threshold is too high—for example, if exempt abstractions cause problems—it can be reduced. The Environment Agency will know what the demands on the aquifer are and it will be able to take action before the damage is done, as it will be able to evaluate the demand of the main abstractor in a particular area. As I said, water companies that have held licences for some time have protected rights, which the agency will take into account. Mr. Wiggin: It is extremely helpful of the Minister to say that. I draw attention to the fact that I have drunk all my bottled water. If the Minister's comments allay companies' fears, I am grateful. If they do not, will the Minister be willing to meet a delegation from the sector and explain to them exactly how they will be protected? Mr. Morley: I will certainly look at that possibility. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many people feel that the issue has an impact on them. I have tried to meet delegations, and I will continue to try to do so within the constraints of my diary. Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that. We have had an important debate on the subject, and the Minister has gone some way at least to point out some of the safeguards in the Bill. I still feel that the agency could do considerably more, and that there is no appeals structure for any failure. However, in light of what the Minister just said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 186, in
Norman Baker: The Minister will be pleased to know that this is a gentle amendment, and not one that involves a matter of deep principle for me, so I hope that he can give some clarification that will enable us to move on. He will know that the water framework Column Number: 062 directive—that parallel legislation that we must not mention in this Committee, and which will be dealt with in other ways—talks about river basins. Indeed, river basins are central to the directive. That is reflected in the Scottish legislation, which of course does not implement the directive, according to what the Minister said this morning.The Minister will know that the directive requires the drafting of comprehensive river basin management plans to manage surface water and groundwater, with arrangements for providing information and consulting the public. In those circumstances, I am slightly surprised that river basins are not specified precisely in the clause, although the Minister may say that there is a good reason for that. A number of classifications of water are given, but they do not include river basins. Can the Minister clarify why those are absent? Secondly, I seek clarification on the exact parameters of the geographical area. After all, a geographical area could be nothing and everything, which seems to give the Secretary of State unduly wide powers under the clause. What does the Minister have in mind for a geographical area, and is it in any way constrained? Does he anticipate that a river basin might be one such area?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 16 September 2003 |
