Water Bill (Hansard, 8 April 1981)

§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with great respect to you, raise the question that the Opposition amendments to the Lords amendment are not to be called? It puts us in a little difficulty, for three reasons.
First, as the Opposition spokesman, I learnt of this only at a late hour. Secondly, this matter, although not called tonight, was dealt with in Committee. An amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) specifically referred to breakages in the sewerage system and the effect upon large areas of the country. Thirdly, under the Water Act 1974 the concept of the hydrological cycle was accepted, by which regional water authorities have responsibility for water supply and the cleaning of dirty water and its being fed back into the water system.
Therefore, in our law and in our practice the question of drainage and sewerage is now inescapably linked with the supply of clean water. When sewers are collapsing, particularly in the North-West, the effect on the clean water system is very serious indeed.
While fully respecting your decision, Mr. Speaker, as we wish to raise these matters, which are of considerable importance, may I ask for a little tolerance in the debate on the Lords amendment in order that we may make clear to the House the relevance of the sewerage system to the water system?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for the way in which he presented his point of order. I am sorry that he did not know until a late hour that the amendments had not been selected. Part of my difficulty is that, although what the right hon. Gentleman says about the linkage in law is correct, and although water undertakers are responsible for sewerage, the Bill has no provisions whatever relating to sewerage. It is concerned entirely with the water supply. I am, however, prepared to meet the reasonable request that the right hon. Gentleman has made and to show, in the discussion of the the Lords amendment, the same degree of tolerance as the Chairman showed in Committee.

§ Mr. Howell
I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word of apology to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
During the debate on Third Reading, in dealing with clause 2, on the subject of water for fire-fighting purposes, I rejected somewhat strongly the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the North-West water authority intended to make good the sum of £500,000 presently charged to users of fire-fighting equipment by charging domestic as well as measured consumers.
1042 As I have subsequently informed the right hon. Gentleman, his information was more up to date than mine. My Department had been informed in writing and subsequently by telephone by the North-West water authority that it intended to recover the sum only from measured consumers. However, the authority subsequently changed its mind and ultimately decided that the £500,000 should be recovered from all consumers who recieved a water supply. That clearly includes the domestic sector.
I unreservedly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House for misleading them on that occasion.