|
Mr. Morley: The amendment is unnecessary. I repeat my earlier point that the Environment Agency already has the power to do all that the hon. Lady asks for. As for leaving environmental regulations to the last minute, I remind the Committee that the water framework directive does not come into force until 2015. We must transpose the directive by the end of the year and we are currently into our third public consultation on it. We are giving it an enormous amount of time and attention. I take the points made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee very seriously. It is a very important Committee and its advice is of a very good quality, but it did not say that the implementation of the water framework directive required any mucking about with the Bill.
Our river water quality has improved dramatically in recent years and I am very pleased to see that. The water framework directive emphasises the biological rather than the chemical quality of water and that makes some important differences to how we measure the standard of our rivers. We have until 2015 to put it fully in place, and we can have a review on discharge consents at any time. Because of the time scales, we feel that we do not have to disturb the four-year non-intervention period, bearing in mind that, if it should become necessary, the powers exist to do that to meet the requirements of the directive.
I ask the hon. Lady to free herself from the obsession that we cannot have the water framework directive without the Bill. The Bill has a set of clear objectives and criteria, some of which will help us to meet the water framework directive. The others will be implemented in the proper time scale laid out in relation to implementing the directive. I have no quibble with the hon. Lady over her commitment to seeing the water framework directive implemented properly and effectively, because that idea is shared by the Government. However, that does not have to be done in the Bill. Indeed, the measures that she is asking for exist in the current powers of the agency and are therefore unnecessary. I therefore urge her not to move her amendment.
10.15 am
Mr. Wiggin: In my brief opening comments I said that we should leave out the words, ''or 6 above''. It was unclear, from examining the Bill, what the effect would have been on the Water Resources Act 1991, so
Column Number: 329
I am grateful for the Minister's reply, although I am not sure whether he has touched on exactly what I wanted. However, the purpose of the amendment was to draw attention to the slightly confusing drafting and I feel that I have succeeded. Therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment, but I will have to leave discussion of new clause 24 to the hon. Member for Guildford.
Sue Doughty: I have listened carefully to the Minister's views, and there is nothing wrong with saying that there are cases in which the water framework directive should align with the Bill, but I appreciate that the Government are not keen on it. Indeed the response given to Lord Haskel was not the same as the response given today. It is clear that the Minister has examined it more closely since the Lords scrutiny of the Bill, and further information has come to light and been provided.
I am pleased that the Environment Agency has been given the necessary powers and hope that it will have the funding to get on with the job. We pile a lot on to the Environment Agency, which does a good job, and work will have to take place. Having listened to the Minister's views, we will not press for a vote but will by leave seek to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: We will come to that later in the order of business.
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: In light of our progress, we need a suspension for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to reconsider the further timetabling of business.
10.18 am
Committee suspended.
10.22 am
On resuming—
Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee of 16th September be amended, in the Table, by substituting for the entries in respect of the sittings on 21st October the following—
21st October
(8.55 a.m.)
Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation).
—
21st October
(2.30 p.m.)
Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9, Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation).
5.00 p.m.
Question put and agreed to.
Column Number: 330
Clause 90
Trade effluent consents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Wiggin: I just wanted to ask what ''trade effluent'' was. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an example.
Mr. Morley: Trade effluent and trade premises are expressions used in relation to the trade effluent consenting regime. Trade effluent is simply discharge from manufacturing premises that has been licensed by the Environment Agency. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Wiggin: My understanding is that the clause allows trade effluent to enter the sewers, but I may have got that wrong. I would be grateful for clarification.
Mr. Morley: Whatever happens to trade effluent, it must be licensed. Anything that passes from a trade or industry into the sewers is classed as trade effluent and must be licensed. Whether an effluent can enter the sewers very much depends on what the substances are. The powers will enable the Secretary of State to narrow or widen those two expressions and to make it clear, where the discharge is from particular processes, substances or types of activity to the public sewer, that it is subject to the trade effluent discharge consenting regime. The clause makes it clear that there are strict controls on what can go into public sewers and gives the Secretary of State the power—if she chooses—to restrict the definition of what that is. The clause is intended to result in better regulation of the trade effluent discharge process.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Trade effluent consents:
conditions of consent
Amendment proposed: No. 262, in
Mr. Wiggin: This part of the Bill refers to the Water Resources Act 1991. I have looked in that Act for the definition of ''controlled waters'', and the part to which I shall refer does not contain such a definition—that is quite confusing. I should be grateful if the Minister would point me in the right direction. There are definitions of fresh-water limit, miles, lakes or ponds, relevant lakes or ponds and just about every other definition that you could care for, except for ''controlled waters''. Could he give us a definition and an example?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I can. The clause has more to do with tidying up section 121 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which deals with conditions of trade effluent consents. Section 121(6) contains the meanings of ''harbour'' and ''tidal water'', as set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. We also propose to
Column Number: 331
include a provision in the subsection referring to the meaning of ''controlled waters'' given by section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That will consolidate all the meanings in one subsection—it is as simple as that. It does not change or do anything; it just makes things much tidier. Section 104(1), as mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster, deals with controlled waters. It is a tidying-up amendment.
Mr. Wiggin: The Minister did a valiant job there, and I could see messages passing backwards and forwards. I was pressing him for an example and I have not had one yet, but I hope that some scribbling is taking place and perhaps something will be produced. As I understand it, this has to do with the various parts of the sea. I think that is what the Minister means; I should be grateful for his confirmation of that. I do not seek to delay him or to confuse the Committee, but it is not clear—from what I have seen—what he meant.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that the definitions are in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894—I am sure that I can get those definitions for him. I understand that the definition of ''controlled waters'' is in section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That is: all surface waters and coastal waters. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Wiggin: I do not wish to pursue the matter further. I have asked the right question; I am not sure that I have had the right answer. However, we are getting somewhere. It sounds like a catch-all definition of controlled waters, and I am not sure that that is what the Government intended, but unless I am intervened on, I shall stop now. It would have been helpful to have a better definition. I accept that section 104 is unclear and needs to be tidied up. I suspect that the Government mean well in connection with the clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 92 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Provision of public sewers
otherwise than by requisition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Appeals: disputes over duty to provide sewers—
10.30 am
| 
