| Water Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Morley: We consider that the policy does apply to such bodies, and we would expect them to conform to it, as they do when they introduce proposals. The process must be flexible enough to respond to new developments, such as equal treatment, environmental appraisals and rural-proofing, which could be overlooked if we started to specify regulatory impact assessments in great detail. Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations if the regulatory impact assessment showed that the costs outweighed the benefits. Of course, the whole point of Column Number: 241 a regulatory impact assessment is to consider that aspect. If the costs did outweigh the benefits, alternative mechanisms would have to be taken into account. That is part of the process. I believe that the matter is covered in the Bill. I do not disagree with the thrust of the argument put by the hon. Member for Leominster, but I do not believe that there is a need to apply the provisions in the amendments. The clause applies only to the Secretary of State; it does not apply to the regulatory authority. Nevertheless, those impact assessments are what we expect, and that is implicit in the Bill.Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I accept that we have a difficulty—we have had it all the way through consideration of the Bill, but particularly this morning—with what is implicit and what is not. I feel strongly that every time we are constructive in our amending, we are told it is implicit, and when we put our finger on something that the Government might have missed we are told that we are out of order.
10.15 amThe other change that it would have been useful to include in the Bill was that in amendment No. 95(b), which put into words the elements of sustainability. That would have added weight, and would have dealt with the argument that we all agreed with when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton)—who is not in her place today—introduced the issue of sustainability in an earlier amendment. [Interruption.] We voted to keep it in the Bill, the Minister will recall. It was he who voted against it. I had expected the Minister to object to the impact assessment proposals in the amendments on the basis of unnecessary cost. I am glad that that was not his argument. He instead chose to say that such measures were implicit in the Bill. The amendments were never intended to reduce the Minister's flexibility. We are faced with a difficult dilemma as to whether we believe sustainability is worth including in the Bill, or whether it is implicit that the Government would carry out impact assessments. We were also told that the Government had no proposals to increase taxation despite 60 subsequent tax rises. I am not sure that believing the Prime Minister is necessarily the wisest course for the Committee to follow. It does not give me a great deal of comfort to know that the provision is implicit, particularly as a change of Prime Minister could result in very different implicit procedures for Secretaries of State. I hope that the Minister will explain further whether, if he became Secretary of State, the proposals would still be implicit if the Chancellor became Prime Minister. Mr. Morley: It goes beyond implicit in the sense that any Bill must have a regulatory impact assessment. Mr. Wiggin: The Minister has risen to the challenge, and I am grateful to him for trying to set my mind at rest. It is only fair at this point that I withdraw my Column Number: 242 amendment. I hope that in future, if there is an opportunity to include the matter in the Bill, he will grasp it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 284, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 286, in
Sue Doughty: The Minister has given us various assurances about what will or will not happen. We have felt that good things could happen, but they are not being included in the Bill. I share the concerns previously outlined by the Conservative spokesman. Under the proposals, the word ''summarise'' would be used to give reasons instead of details. Subsection (5)(b) says that in new subsection (3)(a)
We have heard that the Minister will have regard to representations and will take the information on board, but we will have only a summary. People or groups who want to make representations, especially if they have alerted one another to a particular problem, will want to know more about the background to the problem that gave rise to the situation. They will want to know why the Secretary of State is taking action. They will want more detail to enable them to decide whether they have a good case before they go to the expense and worry of pursuing it. They will want sufficient information to be able to decide what applies to their organisation, although it may not apply to others. In the interests of transparency, and to provide support for the organisations, the Minister has already said that he is anxious that information should be available to the people and organisations concerned, and that is why we want the detail rather than a summary to be in the Bill. Mr. Morley: I can reassure the hon. Lady, as there is a slight misunderstanding of how the notices are used. It is basically a matter of process, because issuing a notice is a formal exercise to inform stakeholders of the existence of the proposal, rather than a means of providing for detailed analysis. It is a formal process to make people aware that discussion is under way. The notice is not designed to be a discussion of the merits of the regulatory proposal. The details would be set out in a consultation paper and a regulatory impact assessment for people to comment on and discuss. I have already made it clear that the Government are committed to producing a new regulatory impact assessment every time the powers are used. The RIA will set out the assessment of options that could be employed to achieve an outcome and provide a detailed explanation of the choices. The full details will be spelt out for people to consider the options. Column Number: 243 Sue Doughty: The Minister has given further pointers about the information that will be provided, and we will need to consider that. I am happy that the regulatory impact assessment provision is there, but I still have some anxieties. However, we will leave the matter there, and may return to it on Report if we have anything further to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 16 October 2003 |
