Water Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 06 February 1989 vol 146 cc653-703 3.52 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after 10 o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, he considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order— 'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day; 'the Bill' means the Water Bill; 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committe; 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The House will need no reminding of the importance of the Water Bill to which my motion would apply a timetable. The Bill will greatly benefit consumers, taxpayers, workers in the industry, future shareholders, and above all the environment. It will do this through a number of measures, which, by now, are well known to the House. It will establish a National Rivers Authority to take responsibility in England and Wales for the control of water pollution, for water resource management, flood defence, fisheries and navigation. The Bill will provide a new statutory framework for setting river quality objectives and other standards, with effective means of enforcement. The utility functions of the water authorities will be transferred to new limited companies, and the role of the 29 statutory water companies will be maintained, with provision for them to convert to plc status if they wish.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

The Leader of the House spoke about protecting the consumer. As early as possible in his speech will he explain how consumers will be assisted by the 30 per cent. increase that existing private companies will bring in as quickly as possible as a result of privatisation?

Mr. Wakeham

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that the 30 per cent. price increase is not justified. Water charges would have to rise, irrespective of privatisation, to help to pay for higher standards of drinking water quality and sewage treatment. The price of water is still low compared with the price of other basic services in western Europe. I repeat that there is nothing in our proposals that could justify statutory water companies raising their charges by 30 per cent. or more. The Bill will further seek to provide for the terms of the new companies' appointment and for the sale of their shares to the public towards the end of this year.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that these price increases, ranging from 30 to 50 per cent., are not justified. However, they will happen as we predicted they would in December—a prediction that the Secretary of State for the Environment pooh-poohed. People will pay more simply because of the Government's dogma in insisting on privatising water. It is no good saying that the Government do not like the price increases, because consumers are being ripped off.

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman may have no faith in the ability to negotiate anything and perhaps in his case he is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will discuss these matters with the water industry. These increases are not justified by anything to do with privatisation. Let us see what happens at the end of the discussions.

There will be a clear legal framework for the duties, functions and powers of the new companies, and water and sewarage law will be updated. A Director General of Water Services will be appointed to keep water and sewerage services under review and to protect the interests of customers. In all, it is the most far-reaching reform in the history of the water industry.

The Government's commitment to privatisation of the water industry is long-standing and well-known. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) first announced in February 1985 that the Government intended to examine the prospects for the privatisation of the water industry. A discussion document followed shortly thereafter. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced in February 1986 that the Government had decided to transfer the 10 water authorities in England and Wales to private ownership. A White Paper containing detailed proposals was issued, and this was followed by two consultation papers on sewerage law and the water environment respectively, which developed these aspects of the proposals. The Government consulted widely on all those documents.

In May 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the pollution control functions of the water authorities would remain in the public sector under a new National Rivers Authority. Privatisation on that basis was a feature of our manifesto for the June 1987 election, which saw the Government returned to office with a large vote of confidence. The detailed proposals were set out in two further consultation papers later that year. The result of all this is the extremely thorough and detailed Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading by 301 votes to 241.

The Bill has also received detailed scrutiny in the House. It had two full days for Second Reading, and the Standing Committee has so far devoted nearly 75 hours to the first nine clauses and four schedules. There are another 171 clauses yet to be considered. I welcome the careful attention that the Bill has received so far, but I am concerned that sufficient consideration be given to all parts of this large and wide-ranging Bill. Major issues still to be covered include customer service standards, drinking water quality, the control of pollution, sewerage, flood defences and fisheries.

The House would wish these subjects to be considered no less carefully than our proposals on the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services, and the duties of the Secretary of State. But this consideration must be balanced against our commitment to ensure that the legislation is enacted this Session. If we are to arrange for the sale of shares towards the end of the year and leave sufficient time for the necessary regulations to be made after Royal Assent, we must speed up our pace. I regret that we simply do not have available the 80 weeks, or about 1,400 hours, that it would take the Committee to finish its scrutiny if it were to continue at its present rate.

I am not suggesting that there has been excessive filibustering in Committee, but I believe that a constructive timetable motion is now necessary. I have brought it forward to ensure proper, measured discussion of all parts of a complex and important Bill. It is also important that the Bill receives this full scrutiny before it goes to another place.

In devising my motion, I have had in mind also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament—that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage of a Bill can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on the Procedure Committee's reports towards the end of last year, while I argued that it was important for the Government to retain flexibility on timetable motions, I said that I shared the Committee's desire to move towards the introduction of timetable motions, if necessary and where possible, at a time that allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor)

By imposing this timetable, in which the crucial date appears to be 7 March, is not the Leader of the House assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce in the Budget that the assets of the water authorities will be included in the following year's accounts, to the benefit of the Government and their policies?

Mr. Wakeham

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his plans, to which I am not party, did not form any part of the discussions that I had about whether this was the right time to introduce a timetable motion. We did so to ensure that the Committee and remaining stages are adequate to discuss the many remaining subjects in a balanced and sensible way.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

My right hon. Friend is being his usual polite and moderate self, and one welcomes the grounds that he is putting forward for the timetable motion. Will he bear in mind that we have had to listen to most of the contents of the Tatler magazine being read out by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and to the clubs and attainments of Lord Crickhowell? Those are just two illustrations of what we have had to endure over the long proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Wakeham

The first draft of my speech said that there had been "no filibustering" and I changed that to "no excessive filibustering" after I had read over the weekend the fascinating reports about the Tatler and one or two other incidents.

If the Committee continues to sit each week for 18 hours, which is about the number of hours that it has done so far, there is the prospect of another 78 hours or so of debate. As is customary, it would be for the Business Sub-Committee, which has the important task of allocating the amount of time for discussion of each part of the Bill within the total days available, to decide whether the present pattern of sittings should be maintained or might sensibly be increased. As a number of the remaining clauses are consequential or supplementary, I believe that the Business Sub-Committee will have considerable scope to ensure that time is allocated in such a way as to enable an adequate scrutiny of all the remaining parts of the Bill. In addition, there will be three full days of debate on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading. The motion provides that the first two of these days will run until midnight.

These generous provisions show that it is not our intention to cut short debate on this Bill. I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it represents the best and most realistic way to debate the Water Bill, a Bill of fundamental importance which will benefit the consumer and the industry and, at the same time, safeguard and improve the environment.

4.3 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

I compliment the Leader of the House, or perhaps his Private Office, on the sweet reasons that he came up with for the second guillotine motion of 1989. The first one was that on the proceedings of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the Leader of the House argued that we had to rush it through before the current Act ran out. I half expected him to argue that we had to pass the Water Bill before the water ran out. Knowing the ineptitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that might have proved a more prudent argument than the one the Leader of the House used.

Last year, the Leader of the House introduced no fewer than six guillotine motions—a record for any parliamentary Session. Now, with this Session scarcely two months old, he is introducing his second guillotine motion in a fortnight. Some think that he is going for his own record, hyped up by the wonder drug that drives on all his cringing Cabinet colleagues—fear for his job and fear of the Prime Minister. Others attribute this guillotine-happy phase to the bicentenary of the French revolution. As the modern Tory party has little sense of history, I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman that Dr. Guillotine, the eponymous proposer of the then high tech instrument of decapitation, did not get it into operation until 1792, so any bicentenary celebration of the guillotine is premature. The guillotine on the Water Bill is equally premature.

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)

While the right hon. Gentleman is going through history, could he tell the House whether it was a Conservative or Labour Government who tabled five guillotine motions in a day during the 1974–75 Session?

Mr. Dobson

It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He will probably be along later, because he does not miss many sittings. He introduced a Bill that enacted five guillotine motions in one day, but they were the only five in that Session. The Leader of the House is the record holder, having introduced six guillotine motions. Those motions were introduced by a Government with a majority of 100 and a guaranteed majority in the other place, and came in the first long Session of a Parliament—something that has never before been done. That either says something about the incompetence of the Leader of the House or shows that we are rather better in opposition than some in the Press Gallery give us credit for.

We are faced with the second guillotine motion in two months at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. The Government have failed to answer practically every question put to them by the Opposition about the Water Bill. They have also failed to answer questions put to them by people outside who are concerned about the future of the water supply. The Government propose to curtail debate in Committee to reduce their embarrassment at not being able to cope both with what is happening in the real world and the questioning to which they are being subjected by my hon. Friends. Today, I shall try to put some of the most important points again, not with much hope of getting a reply but in the hope that at least people will know that here in Parliament we are asking questions even if the Government will not come up with answers.

The main basis of the Government's credo on the Bill is that they want to hand over our water industry to profit-seeking private water companies because that will ensure that market forces work to the benefit of the consumer. Even the most fanatical supporter of Adam Smith, and certainly anyone who has read his works, should know that market forces can work only when the consumer has a choice, but the Bill will not give the consumer a choice. How can it? There will still be only one water pipe to each home. The Government are proposing a simple transfer of the ownership of water from the publicly owned water authorities and the strictly regulated statutory water companies to a collection of semi-regulated, money-grabbing monopolists. A dissatisfied customer will get no choice. The Government are saying to the customers, "If you do not like your water supply, get a bucket and get water from somewhere else."

Another major question is who will own the new water companies. Will one company own the lot, so that there will not only be no choice, but no chance to compare the performance of one company with that of another? The Government said originally that they would prevent that happening by having a golden share. We understand, however, that one of their former colleagues, Sir Leon Brittan, may rule that the Government cannot play the golden share to stop such takeovers and the formation of one monopoly company. We could do with an answer from the Minister on that, but it is one that to date he has refused to give.

The next questions are who would be likely to buy the water industry, and why. The recent history of takeovers, combined with the recent history of the sale of some public assets, can fill the water consumer only with foreboding. The most recent takeovers have had more to do with asset stripping and property speculation than with a better deal for customers. The same can be said of some of the privatisations. For example, the royal ordnance factories were sold to British Aerospace. The theory was that the sale would produce an all-purpose armaments company. In practice, it was merely a rip-off. When the factories were sold by the Government to British Aerospace, the land at the Enfield and Waltham Abbey sites was valued at only £3.5 million. The new owners immediately revalued the sites at over £400 million. The arms factories are to be closed so that the land can be sold.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

That is not true.

Mr. Dobson

If I have to choose between the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee and that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), I shall go along with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC.

The potential purchaser of the water industry will not be attracted by its pumping stations, its filtration plants, its thousands of miles of water connections and its customers. Not likely! All those facilities, including, perhaps, the customers, need money spent on them, as well as skilled staff and management skills. The real attraction of the industry—both the publicly owned water authorities and the regulated statutory water companies—is its land. We understand—I say "understand", because the Government will not produce the figures—that the industry owns over half a million acres. Some of that land comprises prime city centre sites while other land is in the suburbs, where it might be used for house building. Much more land is in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is on the land that potential purchasers' eyes are focused. They have their eyes on property for property speculation. We all know who gains and who loses from property speculation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is inconceivable that planning permission would be given for such development in our national parks?

Mr. Dobson

I am dealing with what might be described as the Department of the Environment's twin-track approach to land sales and property speculation in the national parks. The Secretary of State intends to put the companies in a position in which they can sell off assets, and at the same time he is trying to relax planning restrictions on developments in the national parks. In other words, he will get the national parks both ways.

If Conservative Members believe that nothing is wrong with property speculation, let me remind them of the words that were used in 1909 in Lancashire by the grandfather of the hon. Member for Crawley. I refer to the occasion when Winston Churchill spelt out that the prows of the property speculator were reaped in direct proportion to the disservice done to the rest of society. That is how we can measure what the property speculators will be doing.

We are told that the Government appointed Schroder—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker

May I advise the hon. Gentleman to cease scraping the barrel? If he took the trouble to read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, he would discover that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has anwered the questions that have been put to him.

Mr. Dobson

We shall come on to that. I think that it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to refer to the hon. Member for Crawley as a barrel.

We know that the Government appointed Schroder to value the water industry's public assets. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State—glasnost in reverse—refuses to disclose the valuation to the British people. I have no doubt, however, that he will show the figures to would-be buyers. I have no doubt also that the Prime Minister hopes that some of the profits will eventually be siphoned back into Tory party funds. That might happen as a consequence of a novel use of the water companies, as revealed by Rosie Waterhouse in The Independent.

The people generally, not only potential purchasers, are entitled to know the value of the land assets if only so that they can calculate in the fullness of time how much the water rip-off has cost every family in the land. Perhaps the Secretary of State, in looking to his future and being fearful for his place in the Cabinet, is thinking of following the example of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and British Telecom. Perhaps ere long he, too, will be able to complement the sell-off that he organised with a pay-off by becoming a director of the privatised company.

Ministers have refused to disclose the value of the assets, but they have been suggesting that sell-offs would benefit customers as the proceeds would be devoted to investment in the industry and environmental improvements. As we read the Bill, especially if it remains unamended, that is not true. How do Ministers propose to stop land assets being hived off to subsidiary companies or incorporated in a part of a conglomerate that takes over a water company? It that happens, profits will not accrue to the benefit of the customers. Equally, they will not be ploughed back into the industry to improve the quality of water or to reduce pollution. Instead, the profits will go where they always go, to the shareholders.

Ministers have told us that there will be regulations, and so there will. However, as Keith Court, the boss of South West Water, said when he thought that he was not being reported, the job of the industry will be to outwit the regulators. As the Secretary of State is to be the principal regulator, the smart money will be on those who are intent on outwitting him. His record so far—[Interruption.] I shall produce evidence to support my assertion. As Secretary of State for Transport and as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has an unenviable record in the courts. He has lost rather a lot of cases at the expense of the taxpayer. His record is so bad that he was once rightly described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—one of my witty hon. Friends—as having more form than the Kray twins. That is all the more reason why there should be plenty of time to consider these matters carefully and at length in Committee, if only so that the Secretary of State can learn in advance what his own legislation means before he is up before the courts again.

The Bill has been put over the Government as a green measure. That is true, but it is not the green of the environment. Instead, it is the green of envy. Their Tory friends have their envious eyes on the disposable assets of the industry and on the monopoly supply of water, which no one, not even the hon. Member for Crawley, can do without. That is about as green as the Bill gets. Even the sensible proposal to set up the National Rivers Authority, which we have welcomed, is undermined by both doubts and certainties. There are doubts about its powers and funding and certainties about its designated boss, Lord Crickhowell. In 1987, he appeared to be held as to either too old or too stupid to remain Secretary of State for Wales, or even as the right hon. Member for Pembroke. Yet now, along with all the other perks that he has had at the hands of the Government, he has been appointed to head the NRA.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the most offensive remarks that he has made about the former right hon. Member for Pembroke. He may know that Lord Crickhowell, as he now is, was seriously ill for a number of years as a result of a disease that he caught in the far east while on a Government visit to promote Wales. Thankfully, he has recovered from that illness and is now restored to his former health.

Mr. Dobson

If Lord Crickhowell was too ill to be a Member of Parliament, he is still too ill to be the boss of the National Rivers Authority. I stick to that position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will certainly not withdraw. There is nothing to withdraw.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

Is the hon. Gentleman's case so weak that he must disparage someone who served with honour in this House? Is that the hon. Gentleman's case?

Mr. Dobson

My case is that if the National Rivers Authority is to command the respect of everyone, it should not be headed by a partisan appointee who receives £40,000 a year for working a three-day week. That is my case.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

That is not the point. The point that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made which we found particularly offensive was his reference to Lord Crickhowell being stupid or old. The hon. Gentleman has qualified that. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is well regarded in this House, should withdraw what he has said.

Mr. Dobson

I always thought that he was too stupid and old when he was a Member of this House, so I will not withdraw.

The Government claim that the Bill means that the new private owners of the water industry will invest in environmental improvements and in improving water standards. However, as we read the Bill, those provisions are subject to the new companies making enough profits from their water supply functions to make that investment. If, as I have explained, they are likely to siphon off the profits from land sales to non-water supply subsidiaries and holding companies, where will the money for that investment come from?

We do not really need an answer from the Minister to that question today because we know the answer already. The money will come from increases in water charges. Increases in those charges have been pushed above the rate of inflation for some years and there is more to come. Last week the Minister announced that water charges by the publicly-owned water authorities would increase by up to 13 per cent. this year. This weekend we heard that the private statutory water companies are planning to increase their charges by anything between 30 and 50 per cent. At least for a moment, reality impinged again on the fantasy water world of the Minister for Water and Planning and he rushed to the news media to denounce those companies. He said that he was going to summon them to meet him.

The latest question for the Minister to answer is what increase will the statutory water companies levy this year. Can he confirm that they would not have considered increases of this size if they had not been threatened with this privatisation legislation? All those increases are making an impact now, even before the legislation is introduced. One of the reasons for the increases is that they are a preparation for what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act. That is usually called fattening the beast for market.

Who wants the Bill? The answer is a few of the self-same secretive, Right-wing weirdos who came up with the ideas behind the recent National Health Service White Paper—the loons who dare not speak their names. Most people do not want the Bill. They know that it is a rip-off and that it is designed to hand over a natural monopoly into private hands. If you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are even more fearful of the knowledge that those private hands have the ear of the Prime Minister.

The Government claim that the Bill is the only way to raise standards in the water industry. Those standards certainly need raising. Britain has been taken to court by the EEC for having poor quality water and foul beaches more often than any other country in Europe. The Government must take the blame for that. They have been in power for 10 years. The prosecutions have taken place under this Government and the responsibility is theirs. I am sure that people in this country will remember that responsibility when they listen to the Government giving answers to problems with the water supply about which people are not aware because the Government got us into this mess in the first place.

The Bill is long and complicated. It must be examined carefully. Questions must be asked and are being asked, but they are not being answered. The House and the public are entitled to answers. If Ministers do not know the answers, they should say so. If they do know the answers, they should make them public.

The timetable motion is intended to prevent that process of question and answer. We have been asking the questions, but the Government have not produced the answers. We reject the motion and in due course we believe that the country will reject the irrelevant and expensive Bill.

4.25 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

We have spent 74½ hours in Committee debating eight clauses out of a total of 180. I am sure that hon. Members can calculate the potential number of hours that would remain in Committee to complete consideration. It has taken 74½ hours to reach part II. Heaven knows how long it would take to reach part IV which is headed "Charges by undertakers." At the present rate of progress, that heading might have more relevance than hon. Members realise at the moment.

How has the time been used so far? Hardly had the ink dried on the extraordinary statement from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that the Government are stealing the water from the people and putting it into private hands, a statement which neatly sidestepped the fact that 25 per cent. of the industry is already in private hands, than we entered the world of economics.

Early sessions of the Committee were enlivened by the economic views and political dogma of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They deserve the most extensive circulation. On 10 January the hon. Member for Bootle managed to say: If the water authorities are in the public sector after the next election, which the Labour party will win, we shall lift public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on borrowing for capital purposes. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning intervened and said: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, will he tell the Committee why the water industry was subject to public sector borrowing restrictions between 1974 and 1979? To which the hon. Member for Bootle, unabashed, continued: Yes, because the Labour party got it wrong. I was not a Member of this place during that period. If it had got it right, it might have won the election … I was first elected in 1979 and regrettably one of the things that contributed to the Labour party's general election defeat that year was the imposition of public sector borrowing requirement restrictions on bodies such as water authorities. We have learnt our lesson and rethought our policy. What I am advocating is now Labour party policy. I asked him: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour Government lost the 1979 election because they did not spend enough?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1988, c. 88–89.] The hon. Member for Bootle answered "Yes." The hon. Member for Bootle does not appear to be particularly concerned with the detail—or should I say the trivia—of negotiations with the International Monetary Fund back in the 1970s.

Of course the hon. Member for Bootle did not claim the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who said: I am 41 years old and cannot remember a period of Socialist Government. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was a mature student in the 1970s and therefore can take a detached view on these matters. It is possible that he is a late developer. If that is the case, it would cause a few shudders on the Conservative Benches.

We heard at great length the economic views of the hon. Member for Bootle—straightforward 1930s, mark one, clause 4 primitive Socialism. We did not hear on all those matters from certain other members of the Committee. We do not know whether the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for example, agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, when he says, "This is Labour party policy". It will be nice if the hon. Member for Copeland confirms that that is so. Does he agree that there should be no controls on public spending, and that the 1979 general election was lost because the then Labour Government did not spend enough?

Perhaps the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland demonstrates that he does agree with his hon. Friend, so there is no need for him to say anything. But his silence may mean that he disagrees, and that he does not wish to say anything because he wants to avoid a row in public. Again, the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland may be because he is shy—but that is not a general characteristic of right hon. and hon. Members, so I must consider instead the first two possibilities. We hope to hear from the hon. Member for Copeland soon—and I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to detach from him the information I seek as soon as possible.

Later, there were equally lengthy contributions by Opposition Members on conservation and the environment—all elevated to a science these days. I suppose that, seen from Sunderland, Brent, Bootle or Burnley, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks must seem like the ideal picnic spots to those who desire to visit them. There is an element of truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. Not once in Committee was there any shred of acknowledgement that people live in such areas and have to make their living there. There was no comprehension that national parks are not nationalised parks. Above all, there was no understanding that habitat is all important, and that nothing is more destructive of habitat than people.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the point that I made in Committee concerning the destruction done to the valley in the Lake District by the water authority there? Does he not acknowledge that the Committee debated at great length the problems of people living in the Lake District and the fears they have regarding development after privatisation?

Mr. Knapman

As I mentioned previously, about 25 per cent. of water authorities are in private hands. Perhaps people already congregate on the streets and say, "It is a pity that we live in a private water company area, because it is much worse than being under a public water authority." I am making the point that it is the balance between conservation and public access that is vital. It is that balance which we seek to achieve—as my hon. and learned Friend explained to the Committee, time and again.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the record of the Essex water company in private hands? It has consistently denied to ramblers the right to cross its land, when they have a legal right to do so—and when it is clearly in the interests of the environment and of the public that such access should be allowed. Is that the kind of record he wants to see other private companies emulate?

Mr. Knapman

The hon. Gentleman forgets that the Bill's purpose is strictly to separate the poacher and gamekeeper parts of the water industry. I thought that the hon. Member for Copeland explained on many occasions that that was so. He also mentioned that it was the function, and not the ownership, of the land that is of prime importanc—and in that he is absolutely right.

The Committee proceeded—as I fear that I am proceeding—at a snail's pace, listening to the comical view of Opposition Members that legitimate country sports include fishing, because 3 million people, including the hon. Member for Copeland, fish—but that for some reason shooting and hunting are not legitimate country sports. What sort of hypocrisy is that?

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)

To do the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) justice, while agreeing with the Labour party's last general election manifesto that fox hunting should be banned, he made a special exception for his own constituency, which is in a national park, saying that it was all right for fox hunting to be allowed in national parks.

Mr. Knapman

I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for making that clear. The hon. Member for Copeland makes a habit of such exceptions. I believe that he has nuclear energy interests in his constituency, and that he sought to opt out of the Labour party manifesto's proposals in respect of nuclear power. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's exceptions are a more common occurrence than I previously understood.

The Committee heard also Opposition objections based on political dogma, yet there was no explanation of why there are private water companies in France, under a Socialist Government, but that it is deemed to be right that in this country, under a Conservative Government, the state should provide water and sewerage services. There were also objections to the sale in national parks of land that is surplus to requirements. Those objections were voiced despite my hon. and learned Friend's correct view, which he repeatedly expressed, that land function and land usage should be the determining factor, not land ownership.

Mr. Nicholas Baker

Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the amendment that I and my hon. Friends tabled at the end of the Committee's proceedings, the substance of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to consider sympathetically, to see whether he can bring forward on Report a measure to provide extra protection for national parks, in the way of consultation? That may answer the only point of any substance raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Had he read the Committee's proceedings, he would have found the answer to his question there, too.

Mr. Knapman

I wish to spare the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the duty of reading the Committee's proceedings over 74½ hours. Opposition Members generally failed to specify why surplus land in national parks belonging to water companies is so different from all other land in national parks that it requires a vast amount of red tape and a huge bureaucracy to look after it.

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Knapman

I trust that the hon. Gentleman has had time to look into the matter.

Mr. Dobson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in terms of access to the countryside, all manner of informal access agreements have been reached with water authorities that are not necessarily binding on their successors? Therefore, there are enormous tracts of land to which the public currently have access, but to which access will not be guaranteed when private owners have control of it—particularly if they wish to dispose of that land to other parties that intend doing something with it.

Mr. Knapman

No, I do not accept that. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spent a considerable time trying to explain to Opposition Members that a huge number of footpaths, bridle paths, and so on, will be respected. There are also concessionary paths. However, if one makes concessionary paths mandatory by subsequent legislation, who in future will grant such a concession?

The whole matter is summed up by an excellent leader in the Evening Standard: The Government has bent and bowed to so many … empire-defending water officials that its scheme to sell off the water industry to its customers is in danger of … over-regulation. The Opposition objected today, as they have before, to price increases—yet they insist on higher standards. How can one have one without the other? Finally, in Committee we listened for hour after hour to amendments for amending sake. Typical of the Opposition's amendments was the one requiring the National Rivers Authority to publish an annual report setting out details of borrowing. There was a lengthy debate before my hon. and learned Friend was able to intervene, saying: I can hardly believe my ears. The Bill requires the NRA to produce an audited annual report. But did that abash Opposition Members?

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman

No, I have given way enough. I know that the hon. Gentleman is always brief, but I shall not give way any more.

Opposition Members merely continued with the debate on who the report should be sent to and then, in great detail, discussed the North West water authority accounts, which were supposed to be brilliant. It is to be hoped that they had studied all the accounts of all the companies. Eventually my hon. and learned Friend the Minister commented: I am just wondering why the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to talk about every conceivable thing except the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 January 1989; c. 284.] But it was too late: the afternoon had gone.

Most people want a clear and constant water supply. They want effluent to be disposed of quickly and efficiently. Their objectives will be best achieved through privatisation, and particularly by separating the provider of the service from those enforcing standards.

4.40 pm

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned an occasion on which the Minister intervened after we had debated an amendment at some length to say that the amendment was not necessary because the annual reports were already required. If that is true, why did the Minister not intervene earlier? Was he deliberately allowing the Committee to discuss at length an amendment that need not have been debated?

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard)

That was because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I lived in hope—as I have done throughout the Committee stage—that Opposition Members might have genuine points to raise. Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that my expectations were sadly disappointed?

Mr. Pike

That is no answer, and the Minister knows it. Despite his qualifications as a learned legal man, he merely does the job that he is instructed to do under the heavy hand of the Secretary of State—to get the legislation through. As he knows, if he has a contribution to make on any amendment he can make it, because in Committee any hon. Member, including a Minister, can contribute more than once.

By no means all the amendments have come from Opposition Members: a number have been tabled by Conservative Members. Nevertheless, although the Minister has said that he is prepared to consider one or two points, and on one occasion told us that he was prepared to discuss certain aspects of the Bill with organisations that had expressed concern, on most issues the Government have been prepared to make no concessions.

Although we have debated only nine clauses and four schedules so far, they have dealt with issues to which we shall return at a later stage, and they will not all require the same depth of consideration. Today's motion, however, giving the Bill just a month from tomorrow to complete its Committee stage, seems unnecessary. If the Government thought that it was necessary, they could have provided more time.

We must remember that we are legislating for people outside the House, and many of those people are still anxious about many aspects of the Bill. Leaving the question of privatisation aside for the moment, let me point out that those people want to ensure that our heritage—areas such as the Lake District, the districts of Wales, national parks, the Peak District and the Trough of Bowland—are preserved for their children. They believe that the Bill needs tightening up. So do the Ramblers' Association, the British Mountaineering Council and many other bodies that make good use of the recreational facilities provided by the open spaces now owned by water authorities.

We must also consider consumer interests. It is clear that the capital installation and reading of meters will involve additional costs, and that the water authorities will eventually need more than they need at present. Unless we include adequate safeguards, the Bill will penalise unduly large families, the families of the incontinent, and those whose jobs involve extra washing of work clothes, and additional baths.

We believe that the industry should remain in public ownership. It is an issue too basic and crucial to the needs of the people to be privatised, when comparative competition—a phrase that has been used several times—economy and profit are allowed to become criteria that can be unfairly measured against such matters as water quality, pollution, conservation and access. There must be an appropriate balance.

As I have often said, a clear difference between the two sides of the House is that, while Conservative Members judge everything in cash terms and invariably take money as the criterion that matters, we see many other important issues. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment about river and estuary pollution made it clear that the public sector borrowing requirement and the external financial limit need not be applied to the water industry, even if it remained in the public sector. It was clearly possible to remove the industry from the limits on its capital investment through means other than privatisation.

We have spent considerable time discussing the National Rivers Authority. Let me make it clear that as yet no member of the Committee has expressed opposition to the principle of such an authority. We consider it right to separate the regulatory powers—to separate poacher from gamekeeper. But the National Rivers Authority must be able to do the job for which it is being established.

The Secretary of State described this as a green Bill and a great step forward environmentally. Setting up the authority can be a step forward, but only if it can be given the financial powers to do its job properly. We believe in the environment, but we have doubts about the commitment of the Conservative party to environmental issues.

A separate Bill could have been introduced to establish a National Rivers Authority. The Government would not then have been faced with a timetable motion. A National Rivers Authority could have been set up this year and the Government could have introduced a Bill to privatise water next year. However, they are impatient to privatise water because they want the money from its privatisation, and from the privatisation of the electricity industry, so that they can con the electors at the next general election.

The debates in Committee have been constructive. I was pleased that the Leader of the House used milder language in his opening speech than he has used on previous occasions. He said that there had been no excessive filibustering. I believe that there has been no filibustering. If there has been any, it is Conservative Members who have filibustered. They have taken up time unnecessarily by moving amendments that they had no intention of putting to the vote. The Committee could make progress and it should be given more time in which to do so. The timetable motion should be defeated so that these important issues can be fully considered in Committee.

The Leader of the House referred to the Committee needing, at the present rate of progress, a further 80 weeks to complete its consideration of the Bill. That was misleading. The Committee will make faster progress as certain points are dealt with and eliminated from the debate. Conservative Members who are doubtful about the implications of these important and wide-ranging issues should be prepared to vote against the motion and thereby ensure that more time can be devoted to discussing them. Only in that way can we protect the public interest.

4.51 pm

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)

Once again the Mother of Parliaments meets in absolute tumult and turmoil as it discusses another guillotine motion. Once again hon. Members can hardly get into the Chamber. They have to fight their way through so that they can discuss an important matter concerning free speech—whether it is right that the Government should curtail debate on an important Bill. We walk through the corridors discussing this vital matter of the day. The reality, however, is that we are not debating it in those circumstances.

I wish to spend a few minutes speaking about the procedure and practice of guillotine motions. There is a natural tendency in debates such as these to speak in general terms about the substance of the Bill that is the subject of the timetable motion rather than about procedural matters. However, the debates provide a useful opportunity to discuss procedure. A number of senior Members on both sides of the House have said on previous occasions that timetable motions should not pass without a reasonable discussion of points of procedure. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore spend a few minutes discussing them.

I sympathise with the efforts to reform the way in which parliamentary Bills are considered. In our daily lives outside this place we know that it is common sense to plan. It is also common sense for the Government and the Opposition to plan the business of the House. It is a constitutional fiction, to which we sometimes pay lip service outside the House, that this place works with a great deal of confrontation, when we debate hotly and when we do not speak to each other. That is how the general public believe that Parliament conducts its business. We know, however, that that is not the case. We get on with each other reasonably well. Those who sit on the Government and Opposition Front Benches consult one another, often behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, to ensure that the business of the House gets done. It makes sense to plan. At the moment, that is a relatively informal procedure.

The proposal to ensure that Bills are timetabled from an early stage suggests to me that informal consultation would become formal. If we were to argue outside the House that better planning is a drawback, that argument would not be given house room. However, we have often used that argument as a way of keeping our method of dealing with Bills intact.

It must also be right to ensure examination of all parts of the Bill from the start. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in a far better speech than that which was made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), referred clearly to the sort of matters that still have to be considered. There is a lot to get through; it is a difficult Bill. It makes sense to spend an adequate amount of time on everything. It would be better, though, to think about that earlier and to make plans right from the start. The informal procedure works to a certain extent but I believe that something different might work better.

An important constitutional point is that this Chamber is seen more and more as being subordinate to the other place. The media now spend much time and energy on what the other place does after Bills leave this Chamber. They expect Bills to be considered in more depth and they expect to hear more exciting debates in the other place. Public attenion is turned all too often to the other place rather than to this Chamber. That cannot be good. This place remains the premier Chamber and it is right that the public should concentrate on what happens in this House. If our procedures hinder that process, that cannot be good. That may be one reason for considering a change in our procedures.

Against the argument for change in the way that Bills are considered, one weighty argument is advanced: that it is to the advantage of the Government of the day that they should be able to plan.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

If there were more opposition on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House, where there is a large majority, and if Conservative Members argued the case, all hon. Members would pay more attention, but the fact is that the case is made on the Opposition side of the House. All that Conservative Members have to do is to use their big majority and vote down the Opposition's case.

Mr. Burt

It hardly lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) to suggest that opposition to the Government would be better if more Conservative Members opposed the Government. The opposition to the Government's case must come from the Opposition Benches. It is precisely because opposition to the Government's measures by the Labour party has been so inadequate that the Government have such a large majority. That is something which lies not in our hands but in the Opposition's hands to remedy.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)

Does my hon. Friend agree, with his experience of the Committee, which I share with him, that most of the constructive suggestions and debates in Committee have emanated from the amendments that were moved by Conservative Back Benchers?

Mr. Burt

My hon. Friend makes a sound point. Many good points have been made by Conservative Members in Committee. That is not unnatural, bearing in mind their expertise. If the hon. Member for Walton were a member of the Committee, perhaps we should enjoy a similar degree of expertise on the other side.

Against the various advantages of changing the timetable procedure there is the argument that the Government have a major planning advantage. They can prevent the Opposition from enjoying the great power of delay. In many of our debates on procedure it has been said that if the Opposition were to lose their power of delay, their power to wring concessions from an unwilling Government would be lost. I am not convinced that in the last 20 years there has been much evidence that that is a particularly powerful argument.

Mr. Heifer

How does the hon. Gentleman know? He has not been here for 20 years.

Mr. Burt

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I have not been here for 20 years. If the hon. Gentleman is quite content with the way this place has worked while he has been here—and he has been here for a long time—it suggests to me a degree of complacency and the self-satisfaction that I am rather surprised to see on his face.

The timetabling of Bills is a difficult matter. That is why hon. Members, with their varying degrees of experience—from the great experience of the hon. Member for Walton to the lesser experience of hon. Members of my intake and Members of the intake after me—should return to it time and time again. For the avoidance of doubt on the Treasury Bench, I wish to suggest that I am a reformer rather than an iconoclast. I am not suggesting an immediate—

Mr. Boateng

rose—

Mr. Burt

Here is an iconoclast, and of course I give way to him.

Mr. Boateng

Is not the hon. Gentleman a bit of a crawler as well? Is not that really the tone of what he has said during the past few minutes? Complacency and self-satisfaction describe the attitude of Ministers, not Opposition Members. They showed complacency and self-satisfaction in every response that they made in Committee.

Mr. Burt

The hon. Gentleman knows all about crawling. It was he who introduced to the Committee the Tatler magazine with its prominent spread of his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). If that is not an example of crawling, I am not merely new here, I am wet behind the ears—and that I am not.

Timetabling is difficult. The time has come to take a hard look once again at the possibility of introducing a more formal timetable procedure as a limited experiment. It should not be a complete change; the House must have time to consider the way in which it would work, but an experiment might be called for at some stage.

Certain informal practices which now exist mean that the Opposition and the Government are able to debate their various points. If a new procedure were put into operation, it would merely mean that this place would adapt and new conventions would arise around the more informal way of timetabling.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

There are a few hon. Members who would agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly need more than two months to consider a Bill of this size and complexity, and which is so important to everyone in this country. It would take about four months to consider adequately the Bill if his suggestion were adopted.

Mr. Burt

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the difficulty that any Government would have in dealing with a major item of their manifesto. There can never be a Panglossian solution offering "the best of all possible worlds". There will always have to be compromise. The Opposition will never receive as much time as they feel is necessary and the Government can never give them as much time as they want. The Government have allowed a reasonable time for discussion of the Bill, and the procedure I suggest would also allow an adequate compromise.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

If a compromise is to be reached, it should be between the projected amount of time necessary to complete the examination of the Bill as it is being debated, and the amount of time being allowed in today's timetable motion. That would be a real compromise and a sign of the Government's goodwill and desire for a proper discussion of the issues.

Mr. Burt

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but it is best not to become too deeply involved in the way that such new procedures would work. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so in the Select Committee on Procedure.

Today's timetable motion debate is a ritual which does not do the House a great deal of credit. The only response from the Opposition Front Bench was a fairly typical speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. A timetable motion used to be an opportunity for enormous outrage from Opposition Members—clearly it is not now. The only outrage came from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and, once again, he proved his capacity to let down himself and his colleagues by substituting unpleasantness for argument. That is to be deeply regretted, because the hon. Gentleman is well liked in the House, but, occasionally, he lets himself down.

It is time to get a move on with the Water Bill, whose contents formed part of the Conservative party's manifesto at the last election. It was endorsed then and should now proceed to the statute book. The Bill is similar to others that have come before the House, such as the Education Reform Bill, the legislation on the deregulation of buses, and the measure limiting the powers of general practitioners to prescribe certain drugs. All those measures were represented by Opposition Members as more or less the end of civilisation as they had come to know it. They said that such measures would irrevocably change services and prove completely destructive. However, none of those measures has done so: most of them were warmly welcomed by the public and were successful for the Government.

For the first 18 months after bus deregulation, the number of bus miles increased by 16 per cent. nationally, and minibuses now operate in about 400 areas. Since June 1988, there has been a net increase of 465 new operators. The socially necessary services—the very services that Opposition Members said would disappear completely—are protected by Government grant. About £240 million has been spent by the Government to subsidise them, out of an available total of £295 million, which means that £55 million was not even required for socially necessary services.

Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the record of private bus companies, in terms of the percentage of their buses that pass the annual PSV test, leaves much to he desired? Deregulation has not been a success in terms of proving that the safety of the travelling public has been enhanced.

Mr. Burt

The measure has proved that the safety controls contained in it—much criticised at the time—have proved useful and proved that it was quite right to introduce them. They have highlighted faults. The measure to deregulate buses, like the Water Bill, was presented by the Opposition as a measure that would lead to complete and utter disaster. That has turned out not to be the case: the measure widely and successfully improved transport services in this country. The Water Bill will do exactly the same for the water industry.

The Bill is wide-ranging and deals with the water industry and the countryside. I shall mention two specific matters which are sufficiently important to require the Bill to move to the statute book as quickly as possible, thereby greatly benefiting the British people.

First, the National Rivers Authority has been well debated in Committee and was mentioned again in the House by the hon. Member for Burnley.

Mr. Knapman

Will my hon. Friend beseech the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) not to leave the Chamber, since he is now the only Back-Bench Labour Member in the Chamber who is on the Committee?

Mr. Burt

I would always beseech the hon. Member for Burnley to remain in his place because he is a good House of Commons man and picks up on much of what is said, but I am sure he would wish to hear me conclude my speech.

The National Rivers Authority is long overdue and has been welcomed in many places. The distinction between the utility and regulatory functions of water authorities has long been recognised but only this Government, with their establishment of the National Rivers Authority under the Bill, provide a true opportunity to hoist our standard of environmental care. Concerns about pollution and other matters will grow in the Europe of the 1990s. This country needs to respond and the National Rivers Authority provides a real opportunity to do so.

I believe, as many others have mentioned, that splitting the gamekeeper and poacher roles and the authority's national characteristics will ensure consistency of practice and standards, while not losing regional sensitivity. That, together with the tougher new controls on pollution introduced in the Bill, will benefit the British people and be welcomed by them.

Secondly, quite unnecessarily, scare stories have been mentioned about conservation and the loss of large tracts of land in the countryside. That is linked to the way in which bus deregulation was treated by Opposition Members.

To be honest, existing pressures on open space are likely to continue and will not ease. Concerns about the use of our environment will continue and we shall be continually dependent on our planning system to hold the ring.

The choices offered under such pressures are by no means as clear cut as they are sometimes presented in Committee. It is hard to balance the wishes and interests of growing numbers of people who wish to use open water areas for legitimate purposes with those of people who want no changes. It is difficult to balance the rights and beliefs of all constituents. It is dishonest and unfair to say that overnight, or at a stroke—to coin a phrase—vast amounts of water-gathering areas and areas in the national parklands will suddenly be consigned to 10-storey skyscrapers and the like for immediate commercial benefit.

I believe that that will not be the case, and I am strengthened in that belief by the work of the North West water authority—the authority for the area that I represent—which is looking forward to the freedom that privatisation will give it, and which says quite straightforwardly that there is no foundation for any fears that conservation and leisure activity on or around its land will suffer. Its commitment and record of achievement in the matter is well known to many people, and it makes the straightforward point that most of the land it owns consists of water-gathering areas that need to be saved and protected, and on which access and conservation will continue to be of great importance.

In short, this timetable motion provides for the progress of a Bill that is important to the British people. ft may be necessary for the House to consider at some stage in the future whether there are better methods of handling the ways in which Committees look at major public matters. But that is of secondary importance now; what is important is that the Leader of the House has offered a generous period for further consideration of the Bill, and that major matters will be considered, and that the measure, when it is on the statute book, will prove to be a major item that will make more certain the re-election of the Conservative party.

5.12 pm

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor)

In the light of the time allocated under the guillotine to the Bill's Committee stage, it is quite clear that the word "generosity" has a different meaning in 1989 from that which it had previously. It is certainly my belief that less time has been allowed than in the case of other privatisations.

Guillotine motions have become a standard feature of the Government's legislative programme. Indeed, they seem to be coming forward earlier and earlier during the consideration of Bills. It has been estimated that the Committee had considered the Water Bill for 75 hours, covering nine clauses, before the Government brought forward the motion. That is a considerably shorter period than was allowed on the two previous public utility privatisations. In the case of gas, 13 clauses had taken up 85 hours before the guillotine was brought in. In the case of British Telecom, over 100 hours of debate had taken place. The Government seem to be getting increasingly intolerant of the Opposition when it comes to allowing sufficient debate on subjects of such importance.

Mr. Keith Raffan (Delyn)

First, will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that it was the Liberal party that first introduced the guillotine into our procedures? Secondly, will he accept the consequence of what he is saying, which is that there will be even more microscopic scrutiny of the early clauses of a Bill and a mere passing glance at the remaining clauses unless the guillotine is introduced at a reasonably early stage?

Mr. Livsey

The point I was making is that this Bill has had even less time than other similar privatisation measures, and I do not think that that can be justified, given the size of the Bill. I gather that, with 180 clauses, it is one of the longest Bills in the history of this House.

One can, I believe, seek reasons for this guillotine. The date of 7 March seems to be crucial in the timetable; it is precisely one week before the Budget on 14 March, so the Chancellor can say in his Budget speech that asset sales in the financial year 1989–90 will include those of the water authorities. I believe that this is a consequence of the Government's dogmatic target of getting public spending below 40 per cent. of GDP. This Bill is very much part of that strategy. The timetable is not just in the House; it is elsewhere in the Government's programme also.

The consumer will pay for this privatisation and, indeed, is already doing so. The consumer will also pay by the sale of the assets. Indeed, most of the assets, as we have seen in Committee, are already vested in the plcs.

Another reason for the guillotine must surely be that the Secretary of State for the Environment nearly lost the Housing Bill last year; indeed, it was saved by only one day. I think there has been over-reaction by the Government in the timetabling of this Bill.

The irony of the guillotine motion is that it could be argued to be in the Government's interests to delay the flotation of the water industry. First, it is already known that they have backed down from selling all the water authority stock this year, for fear that the market may not be able to carry it. No wonder the water authorities are in need of such massive infrastructure investment that they do not offer good prospects for the investors.

Mr. Pawsey

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the point that he has just made? As I understand it, no decision has been made on the flotation of the water industry. I think that the hon. Gentleman is really commenting on press speculation, which may, as is all too often the case, be totally inaccurate.

Mr. Livsey

It is therefore all the more important to persuade the Government of the wisdom of what I am saying.

The much larger electricity industry sale is just round the corner, with the danger that the two privatisations together may be more than the City can handle. That, I think, is a genuine problem which the Government ought to consider. The Government are still in dispute with Brussels over drinking water standards, as reported in The Independent today. The uncertainty that the dispute causes can only damage the prospects for the sale. Assuming that the Commission wins through, the result could be an enormous clean-up bill for the industry—not exactly the best lure to potential investors. It is surprising that the Government want to go any further, any faster, with the confusion besetting the sale at present.

Secondly, there are still huge question marks over the Government's plans for the sale. The legality of the special share announced by the Secretary of State last month is in doubt in the light of European rulings on similar arrangements set up for Rolls-Royce. The special share arrangement is vital if the water authorities are to be given even the remotest chance of remaining in the hands of the communities they are supposed to serve. I strongly support the inclusion of a special share provision in this legislation—that is, if we have to suffer the legislation, though I am diametrically opposed to the privatisation of water on principle.

Although arrangements for a special share need not appear in the Bill, the Standing Committee should have a definitive answer on the legality of such a share. If it were to be ruled out, the Committee might consider other methods of control—for example, by giving extra compensatory powers to the Director General of Water Services or, indeed, the NRA itself.

Why, then, are the Government rushing the Bill through before the legal implications of their proposals in relation to article 2(3)(ii) of the treaty of Rome have been clarified? That gives us cause for concern.

Where will the money raised by the privatisation go? What benefit will the community receive that justifies rushing the Bill on to the statute book in such a manner? If the Government said that they actually needed the £7 billion from the sale of water to plough back into public investment—for example, to give a boost to infrastructure investment—perhaps we could have some sympathy for their position. In the Welsh Select Committee the other day—perhaps I should not mention where this information comes from—we discussed infrastructure development in France to the tune of £1.7 billion of investment in the railway system. The British Government ought to be considering the use of public money in intelligent ways to improve communications to the regions of Great Britain.

Britain is being systematically asset-stripped to finance the Government's short-term policies. Not content with selling the family silver, they are now proposing to rip out the plumbing as well. What will happen when there are no more assets to sell? That is the big question.

Guillotine debates, including a summary of a Bill's main points and its virtues from the Leader of the House, have become something of a ritual in recent years. In this debate such a summary of the Bill's main proposals is likely to be far more significant for what it does not contain than for what it contains. Crucially, it does not contain any mention of competition. Increasing competition and the possible benefits it can bring to the consumer can be the only justifications for considering privatisations. This Bill achieves neither. The water industry will remain as much of a monopoly after the Bill is passed. There will be no choice for the consumer. As a result the consumer will be in a worse position after privatisation. For the 12 million consumers now supplied from the private sector the Bill has already had just that effect. The implications of the tight timetable for privatisation have led statutory water companies to announce price increases of 30 per cent. I believe that that is a sign of things to come.

It is reported in the newspapers that the Minister intends to call in the water companies about price increases. What does he intend to tell them? Does he accept that the consumer should not have to bear such price increases? Will he take any measures to reduce them? Does he accept that the rise is a direct consequence of the Bill?

It is ludicrous that this, the most controversial proposal before Parliament this Session, should be rushed through the House without adequate scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people. It only strengthens the case for wholesale reform of the workings of the House so that Bills are timetabled realistically, adequate time being provided to debate all their provisions. The House ought to revise its procedures so that its workings become more accessible to the electorate it serves, especially as television cameras are about to move in.

Most of all, the House should be elected under a fair electoral system. That is the only way in which to prevent a situation such as this. How is it that a Government elected on 42 per cent. of the vote can stifle debate on a measure which is opposed by 75 per cent. of the electorate—all in the name of democracy? In Wales, the Bill is opposed outright, as it is utterly unsuitable to my country. Welsh Water owns 66,000 acres of land in my constituency and my constituents do not want it to go into private hands.

In Committee last week, when we were debating clause 9, the Minister could give us no assurance about what would happen to water authority land if water plcs handed it to subsidiary companies. He could give no guarantee about its security or what would happen to it environmentally. I am, therefore, very happy to oppose the motion.

5.21 pm

Mr. Keith Raffan (Delyn)

I apologise to the House for not being able to be present during the winding-up speeches because I shall be receiving treatment for an injured back, but I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate.

We have heard some interesting things from the Opposition. We have heard, for example, that there is no such thing as comparative competition. I think that we have it here in the Chamber at the moment. We have great competition among Conservative members of the Standing Committee for an opportunity to speak in the debate, whereas the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has had none. Such is the passionate, crusading, campaigning opposition of the Labour party to the Bill that it cannot be bothered to turn up. So much for the credibility of Labour Members of the Standing Committee.

I strongly support the timetable motion, not simply because a Government should be able to get their business through and implement their manifesto commitments, but because if we do not have such a motion, discussion of the Bill will become even more unbalanced than it already is. Without the motion, there will be an uneven distribution of the Standing Committee's time. The early clauses will have been subjected to microscopic scrutiny while the vast bulk of the Bill will get merely a passing glance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said—he is one of seven Conservative members of the Standing Committee who are in the Chamber, as opposed to just one Labour—we have had more than 74 hours of debate in Committee. We have reached clause 9—only the end of part 1, which is described as the preliminary part of a five-part, 180 clause Bill.

The timetable motion will enable the Bill to be discussed in a structured way. It will allow much more disciplined discussion of the remaining clauses—many general points and points of principle having been debated at considerable length. I am sure that the Opposition agree that much remains to be discussed in detail. We have still to discuss the duties of water undertakers with respect to water supply and water quality, the provision of sewerage services, charges, the protection and management of rivers and other waters, the control of pollution and powers and duties in relation to the land.

The best work of the House is often produced under the pressure of a deadline. The Committee needs the pressure and, indeed, the discipline of a deadline to achieve an even and balanced discussion of all parts of the Bill—in other words, to do its job thoroughly and well.

The Water Bill is emphatically not one of those which has been rushed before the House and inadequately drafted, thus giving rise to the need for a host of Government amendments. Governments of all parties have done that from time to time. The Department of the Environment has examined the water industry in great detail for a considerable time, and the Bill has been prepared most carefully. The Opposition knew a great deal of what was likely to be in it, so there can be no justifiable opposition on those grounds.

Much of the opposition to the Bill is bogus. In many respects, the Bill does precisely what the Opposition have called for. The hon. Member for Burnley must have been promoted for being the only member of the Standing Committee to turn up as he appears to have joined the Opposition Front Bench. As he said, the Bill does much of what the Opposition have asked for by setting up the National Rivers Authority. The Government have listened to the Opposition's criticisms of previous privatisation measures and produced a regulatory framework which is heavier than has been found in any previous privatisation Bill. It will protect customers against excessive charges, reduced level of service and neglect of assets. It greatly strengthens the legal framework for setting standards of drinking water quality. It creates a powerful Director General of Water Services, who is independent of Ministers and accountable to Parliament. He will monitor the performance of water companies and ensure that they carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. He will have a network of regional customer service committees reporting directly to him.

The Bill also represents one of the most significant advances in environmental legislation during the past few years. The Opposition have, in effect, conceded that. The creation of the NRA shows just how much importance the Conservative party and Government attach to measures which protect the consumer and the environment Creating the NRA removes a glaring defect which has been highlighted as much by Opposition Members as by Members on this side of the House.

I am glad to see the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee present as he will endorse what I am saying. He will remember a report written some three years ago to which we put our names. It concerned the need to divide water authorities' responsibilities. They cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher—the monitor and discharger of sewage. We must separate those responsibilities if there is to be effective monitoring of pollution, and that is exactly what the NRA does.

One of the great fallacies of public ownership is that it protects the consumer. It gives no foolproof protection for the consumer, as the Camelford incident has so sadly shown. More blatant is the neglect of the last Labour Government. It was after that Government crawled humiliated to the International Monetary Fund for the biggest loan that it has ever given to the Government of any country—banana republics and Paraguay included—that they forced water authorities to cut capital spending on infrastructure by one third and, within that, to cut capital spending on sewerage infrastructure by one half.

Now, thanks to privatisation, water authorities will be freed from external financing limits. They will have access to the capital markets. They will therefore be able to accelerate their capital programmes to make up for the neglect of which the Opposition are so guilty. Should the nightmare occur—difficult though it is to conjure up, 10 years after the last time the Labour party was in power—and the Opposition were to form another Government, perform its usual economic miracle, run the economy into the ground and crawl again to the IMF, water authorities will not again be forced to cut spending on crucial infrastructure for water treatment and sewerage works.

I spoke earlier about the beneficial effect of the discipline of the deadline. The timetable motion will put pressure on all members of the Standing Committee to confine our remarks to what is strictly relevant. I do not believe that any debate has ever suffered from brief and succinct speeches. Nor has any Opposition been weakened by making their case concisely and to the point.

It is clear from examination of the first 17 sittings of the Committee that the timetable motion is likely to hasten not only the improvement in the quality of our water but also the quality and relevance of the speeches in Committee, particularly those by Opposition Members. We learnt more about the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) than we learnt from him. We learnt about his dexterity at fishing in netting 24 salmon last autumn in Scotland, accompanied by an extremely attractive blond friend. I add that this was his English setter Sam—before the News of the World reports anything else. Similarly, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us that his mother's maiden name was Owen and that his aunties and uncles were Evanses. We learnt about his admiration for Tommy Steele in "Half a Sixpence" and his crusade against undrinkable House of Commons tea, served in, "non-biodegradable bleached teacups".

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not here. His contributions to the circulation of Tatler have already been mentioned in the House. I shall not repeat the details, but certainly he should receive a free annual subscription to that magazine for all he has done to promote circulation by distributing it widely to his colleagues. We did not expect that to be their normal reading, but it is certainly an improvement on "Das Kapital". We heard the hon. Member for Brent, South reminiscing about nature study at school. He also commented obscurely about an obscure American economist called Schlieffer and gave us a delightful cameo about gloves, ending with the question: How many of us have ever kept a pair of gloves for longer than five years?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 January 1989; c. 101.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) who fleetingly passed through the Chamber a moment or two ago—one of the few Labour Back-Bench Members of the Standing Committee to attend this debate however briefly—informed us that when he was a teacher petrol was siphoned from his van in the staff car park.

The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) managed to introduce into our debates and at some length the White Paper on the National Health Service. But although it was close, and there was certainly strong comparative competition among Opposition Members, the prize for irrelevance must go to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who intervened to keep us up to date on the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea.

All that was entertaining and illuminating, but it was hardly a debate on the Water Bill. The Standing Committee, and not least the Opposition Members on it, need the discipline of deadline that the timetable motion will provide so that we can now debate the Bill; not the Opposition'a extra-curricular activities, their schooldays, their obsessions with gloves or the magazine Tatler but the remaining 171 clauses of the Bill. That is what Conservative Members intend to do because that is what the nation wants.

5.33 pm

Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower)

I do not know whether it is a pleasure to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). As he mentioned the Select Committee report on pollution of coastal waters in Wales, it is vital to remind the Government that the key conclusion that we reached some three years ago was that the Department of the Environment had deliberately avoided the directive issued by the EEC in 1976 on coastal bathing waters by defining a beach occupied by a number of bathers so that not a single beach in Wales could be considered as coming under the terms of the directive. Such situations deeply worry the people of Wales and we scrutinise any Government measure with great trepidation.

The only possible reason that I can find for the timetable motion is the Government's deliberate and cynical desire to stifle debate and scrutiny of the Water Bill. To protect the principles of democracy, a guillotine motion must be used sparingly, and only when there is a clear national need for speedy decision making. There is no need for speed in the privatisation of water, only for expediency for the Government's convenience and avoidance of further discomfort.

The proposed privatisation of water has aroused the interest and concern of my constituents even more than the privatisation of gas and British Telecom. Like all hon. Members, I have received a great many representations about different aspects of the Water Bill. I have passed many of those representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) so that they can be raised and clarified in Committee. I have told my constituents that I have done that and promised to send them relevant copies of the Committee proceedings so that they will be fully informed of progress, of any successful amendments and of the outcome of their representations. The guillotine means that there will be inadequate time for scrutiny of all the major and contentious issues in the Bill. Guillotining the Standing Committee debate and the scrutiny of the Bill will therefore deprive my constituents of the right to that channel of representation.

There will be no time to discuss the inevitable higher price for water. Only last month, the Welsh water authority raised its charges by an average of 9.9 per cent. Because of the way it chose to impose those charges, occupiers of lower rateable value homes will pay substantially more than those in properties of higher rateable values.

On Saturday, a pensioner who is a widow brought to my surgery a pension book which she had just received which contained counterfoils for her pension increase in April. Each counterfoil was worth 15p. That is how much better off that lady would be in April, but the increase in her water rates will probably be more than 27p a week. So she need worry only about how she will find the money to meet price rises associated with 7 per cent. inflation, rate increases and electricity price increases in preparation for privatisation.

Mr. Ashby

Can the hon. Gentleman say what that counterfoil increase would have shown 10 years ago when inflation was a good deal more than 7 per cent.?

Mr. Wardell

I am not concerned with that, as I was not here 10 years ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was here then.

Last April, the Government said that anyone who was worse off by more than £2.50 a week would receive transitional payments. However, if those pensioners receive any increase in their pensions on 1 April it will be deducted from their transitional payments. That is happening to many constituents throughout the country.

I assume that the Department of Social Security issued my constituent with an additional book rather than amending the current one because it will be easier to withdraw the new book than to re-amend the existing book when housing benefit is cut again.

After reading today's newspapers there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the water sell-off will mean much higher water hills. Water metering—a process that Welsh Water seems to be against—needs to be discussed and made clear in every detail. In addition, it is important for the Government to spell out whether, if authorities such as Welsh Water intend to move to a system that relies increasingly on raising the standing charge element of the water bill, they are considering the introduction of some sort of sliding scale for rebates similar to that proposed for the community charge.

Mr. Raffan

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the increase in charges has nothing to do with privatisation and everything to do with improving water quality and standards?

Mr. Wardell

I cannot agree with that for the obvious reason. Over the past few years, the Government have placed an external financing limit on water authorities which means that they have been unable to borrow on the open market to the extent to which they would have liked. As a consequence, they have been unable to finance their capital investment from borrowing on the open market and have had increasingly to resort to raising the money through current charges. The increase in water charges has come largely from the imposition by bodies such as the Welsh Office of external financing limits which have forced water authorities to cut back on their investment and to raise the money almost solely from current water charges.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts)

Is the hon. Gentleman disapproving of the increased capital spending proposed by the Welsh water authority for next year?

Mr. Wardell

Not at all. I am saying that over the past few years, the Government have been deliberately preventing the water authority from borrowing money for financing its investment. Now that privatisation is about to be carried out, the Government have permitted that borrowing to take place.

Mr. Howard

If the hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct, does he not welcome the Government's privatisation proposals? It will free the Welsh water authority and others from public sector borrowing restraints.

Mr. Wardell

The Minister has missed the point. The Government imposed the external financing limit and are now saying how great it is that they are removing it. If they had not imposed it in the first place, the argument would be unnecessary, as would privatisation.

Mr. Ashby

I asked the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back 10 years in respect of one matter. Would he do the same in respect of this matter? Will he say whether there were any constraints on public expenditure in 1978 under a Labour Government?

Mr. Wardell

I do not want to look back 10 years. I have only to look at this Conservative Administration to know that what is happening leaves a tremendous amount to be desired.

The Government are careless of public opinion and concern at any time other than during the nine months when they are giving birth to their pre-election programme. The Government's large majority is making them complacent and that complacency shows in the fact that they have made no concessions so far in Standing Committee. They have accepted none of the amendments that have been proposed.

A press statement for Wales was issued on 11 January, perhaps because the Secretary of State feels that he may be answerable to the press in a way that he is not answerable to the House. The statement said that because there is a need to keep Welsh water Welsh, individual shareholders will be allowed a maximum holding of 15 per cent in the new plc, unless or until a 75 per cent. majority of the shareholders vote otherwise. What a meaningless sop. Even if that is legal under European law, it is clearly in the interests of shareholders to vote to end that restriction as soon as possible if they want to maximise the price of their shares. That is surely the purpose of their investment. If a French company or a large institution came along with a juicy offer for 25 per cent. of the shares, the shareholders would fall over themselves to register their vote in favour.

The Secretary of State for Wales has felt no need to justify to the press or the House the erosion of Welsh Office powers and responsibilities brought about by the Bill. It is clear that at present the Welsh water authority is responsible to the Welsh Office. After privatisation the National Rivers Authority committees and agencies in Wales will be directly responsible to the central NRA committee, which is responsible to the Department of the Environment. The Secretary of State for Wales may have an input in the deliberations, but he will no longer be responsible for a range of functions associated with the NRA such as river and beach pollution control, drinking water quality control and environmental amenities and access, all of which are regarded as extremely important by the people of Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, it is clear that he is not fully aware of the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales. I have produced a digest of those powers and responsibilities which has been sent to all Committee members. I would he happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Wardell

I thank the Minister for that and I am glad that he intends to send me that information. Of course, it would have been helpful if he had sent a copy of the digest to all Opposition Members so that we could fully understand the point that he is trying to make.

It took the scrutiny of the Committee to reveal the major defect in the Bill. The Government have squirmed and wriggled and wasted valuable scrutiny time. They have not taken on board any of the proposed amendments, which were reasonably and rationally put to them. Now they propose to limit that scrutiny time. It is clear from the Committee proceedings that the Government do not intend to accept any amendments. They will not concede that there is a need for the NRA to be up and running with its complex structures and its obvious teething troubles ironed out before the plcs are given free rein. Committee members wanted to give the NRA a year's head start. Clearly, there is a need for that. Mr. Keith Court, chairman of South West Water, has been talking about finding ways of outwitting the NRA and Mr. Gordon Jones, chairman of Yorkshire Water and of the Water Authorities Association, said in the magazine Agenda—vol. 2, No. 7—that the duty of experienced water industry executives is to be responsible to their shareholders, not consumers.

The Government will not concede that there is a need clearly to state the relationship and responsibilities of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution and the National Rivers Authority beyond saying that they are clearly complementary. Of course, we know that. We know, too, that the inspectorate is being starved of cash and staff so that the Government can claim that it is ineffective and can cast it off completely. The Government are now not even prepared to concede the most eminently sensible step of ensuring that those proposals in the Bill, which would clearly be governed by European law, are scrutinised by specialists to ensure that they are legal before being enacted by the House. That is petty minded, arrogant nonsense. The Government have said that they will listen to further representations about access to open spaces—some of the most beautiful areas of Britain are at present owned by water authorities—but they have not accepted amendments which would largely meet those problems.

The Government have made no concessions regarding the adoption of unadopted and unadoptable sewers, which is a problem not just for my constituents, but for thousands of householders, and it is a matter which I have raised in this House on many occasions. The Minister, as a Llanelli boy, will know that problem well, but all that he promised in the Standing Committee was that he would write to the Law Society. That is the limit of what the Government are prepared to do. I do not know whether the Minister's Department has received a reply from the Law Society, but I believe that it is ridiculous that, in privatising water, the Government are prepared to let the practice continue whereby developers are required to build to building regulation standards which are different from those standards laid down by water authorities. Here was an opportunity for the Government to do something about it, and at least to protect future householders by ensuring that when they bought their properties they knew what they were buying. The Government have chosen not to take that opportunity. All that they have done is to write to the Law Society. A lot of writing must have gone on, but few results appear to have emerged.

No concessions have been made regarding the role and powers of the new Director General of Water Services. I am fascinated to find out, if this measure is passed, whether—in the same way that British Telecom and Sir Bryan Carsberg have effectively devised a formula for pricing British Telecom charges—the formula applied will be K plus RPI or K minus RPI.

Obviously, in proposing this guillotine, the Government are merely saying that—because they are not prepared to amend the Bill, to make any concession to legitimate representations of concern from the public, to listen to any argument, or to brook any opposition from any quarter—there is no point in the Standing Committee spending time scrutinising the Bill. Perhaps the Government are worried about what other foul-ups the Standing Committee might find. It is certainly apparent that so complacent, arbitrary and dictatorial have the Government become that they cannot even be bothered to go through the motions of complying with EEC laws, of listening, of making accommodations or of achieving consensus. Such words are like a foreign language to the Cabinet.

I remind Conservative Members that the people of this country regard water as free and as a natural, national asset. They do not yet believe that the Prime Minister controls our rainfall. They very much resent her belief that she can make them pay through the nose for something that they already own and to which they have rights. For the man or woman in the street, this Bill is about paying lots more to a few shareholders for something that they already have and own. Conservative Members believe that they and their leader know what is best for us all and that, if we do not like it, we can lump it. I would urge right hon. and hon. Members to think twice before acting in such a high-handed roughshod manner as guillotining legitimate procedure, scrutiny and representation about such an important Bill.

5.55 pm

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

We have listened to the usual ritual argument against the timetable motion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) went on at some length about it. It is fair to remind the House that all Governments have had recourse to that measure. There is little virtue in Opposition Members adopting holier-than-thou attitudes, as they have this afternoon, especially when one recalls that it was the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who in one day—20 July 1976—actually guillotined five separate and major bills. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] I hear the expressions of dismay and almost complete disbelief from my hon. Friends. Who could really believe that an Opposition Member could act in such an undemocratic fashion?

Mr. Ashby

They forget themselves.

Mr. Pawsey

Clearly, 20 July 1976 must be a black day in the annals of the Labour party since, if it seeks to condemn this Administration—as the hon. Member for Gower did—for what they are doing today, what must have been its thoughts on 20 July 1976? Clearly, whatever thoughts it had were kept well to itself, because those measures were driven through this House by a three-line Whip and supported by Opposition Members.

I shall deliberately not use the word "hypocrisy" to describe the comments made by Opposition Members.

Mr. Knapman

Why not?

Mr. Pawsey

I shall answer my hon. Friend. That would make me out of order. I shall, however, leave that unspoken thought to work upon the consciences of Opposition Members.

The Water Bill is a large and important measure. It has 180 clauses and 24 schedules and so far we have completed only nine clauses and four schedules in 74 hours. It might be thought by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the reason for the slow progress was the overwhelming dedication shown by Opposition Members. Sadly, that is not entirely the case. I shall provide hon. Members with just two samples from one day's proceedings in Standing Committee D. The quotations that I shall use will provide a mere flavour—a gentle taste—of our discussions on one day only. I shall refer to the 14th sitting held on the morning of Tuesday 31 January. The Committee, or at least Conservative Members, listened with rapt attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). They were briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). It is worthwhile quoting some of the hon. Gentleman's comments on that morning. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He said: This is the Mother of Parliaments…but tea is sold here in non-biodegradable, bleached plastic cups. Is that appropriate for the Mother of Parliaments? The plastic cup damages the environment, and the tea in it is also damaging. My tea was cold and it was poured from a flask. It was also undrinkable. The Mother of Parliaments should not treat in this way those at the hub of its legislative programme, when a cup of tea is served at one's desk in the meanest town hall. I responded to the hon. Gentleman's comments as I have an interest in this matter as a non-executive director of the group that manufactures the cups that he described. The hon. Member for Bootle proceeded truly to amaze the Committee with the depth and breadth of his wisdom on medieval affairs when he said: We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell"— [Laughter] The House will not be surprised to learn that the reaction of the Committee was precisely the same. The hon. Gentleman said: We should like to see the British landscape of William Tell, Robin Hood and Maid Marian. William Tell was a regular visitor to British forests, and used to hunt as a guest of the King of England. Hon. Members may share my belief that William Tell was a Swiss hero and a republican to boot. The thought of him hunting as a guest of the King of England beggars imagination.

Mr. Ashby

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave away the depth and breadth of his knowledge when he said of William Tell: The television series was certainly made in this country."? [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989; c. 626, 629.]

Mr. Pawsey

Yes. That day will be long remembered by those of us who had the pleasure to listen to those contributions.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not in his place, but it is worth while bringing out the flavour of his contribution that day, which was also touched upon by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). The hon. Member for Brent, South said: When we look at these matters it is helpful to look at the Conservative party's hidden agenda…revealed in a magazine…It is the Tatter a magazine such as one would find at the the dentist's or the doctor's. It tells of the fads, foibles, fancies and doings of the upper classes…The Tatter has changed in recent years. It is no longer a harmless and innocent publication. It has become the house journal of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman developed his case by saying: there are the fashions of Imogen Inglis-Jones and Nathalie Mountain, who are pictured in various fishing positions…the Tatter is the real house journal of the Conservative party. It is the Conservatives' equivalent of Marxism Today, shorn of some of the ideological pretensions of that magazine."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 31 January 1989;c. 670–1.] If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gairisborough and Horncastle)

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is a member of the upper middle classes. He is the son of a barrister and a lawyer himself'. Does my hon. Friend agree that he revealed his class origins when he assumed that Taller was the common preserve of dentists' waiting rooms in Bootle, Burnley or Sunderland?

Mr. Pawsey

My hon. Friend makes a typically telling point.

I have made a genuinely important discovery. The hon. Member for Brent, South is an amusing and entertaining raconteur, but his comments do not always appear to be totally relevant to the clauses under discussion. Yet another of his more diverting digressions was when he said that Fred Jarvis was a ghillie employed by some anonymous laird. The idea of Fred Jarvis being a ghillie is most unlikely. In my capacity as chairman of the Conservative party's parliamentary education committee I have met Fred Jarvis on a number of occasions and I would have thought that he would make an unlikely, unwilling, unhelpful and unco-operative ghillie.

I have greatly enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Member for Brent, South. They burst like a ray of sunshine into the dullness of our winter days. If that does not damage his chances of reselection, nothing will.

The House may ask what is the relevance of my observations about the hon. Members for Bootle and Brent, South to the Water Bill.

Mr. Gareth Wardell

Quite right.

Mr. Pawsey

Well, they are the quotes from your hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Pawsey

I beg your pardon, Sir. Although Opposition Members may seek somewhat obtuse connections with the quotes, you may think, Mr Speaker, that they represent a prime example of time-wasting or tautology on a massive and original scale. I am not seeking to suggest that Opposition Members have been involved in any deliberate time-wasting. In their case it would probably be unnecessary since they have an ability, indeed a talent, to meander round a subject rather as an old, silted-up river meanders round a landscape.

I must make it clear that I have enjoyed the contributions from the hon. Members for Brent, South and Bootle in much the same way as I enjoy those of Jasper Carrott or Lenny Henry. I hesitate to say that I enjoy Victoria Wood lest I be misunderstood. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen, however, could earn even better livings were they to join the ranks of Equity.

I have given the House an all too brief flavour of some of the contributions made to Standing Committee D—a sort of hors d'oeuvres to the main course. To be able to enjoy, and in good time, the main part of the feast, it is necessary to introduce a timetable measure. It will be recalled that the Water Bill was a central plank of the Conservative party manifesto of 1987. I need scarcely remind the House that, on the strength of that manifesto, the Government were returned for an unprecedented third term and with a substantial majority. Therefore, it seems that the British people are anxious to see this Bill enacted with the establishment of a National Rivers Authority and a new statutory framework for the control of drinking water and of river quality.

The Bill provides the terms of appointment and financial arrangements for the new limited companies to provide water and sewerage services in England and Wales. One of the things that I particularly welcome—it was touched upon by one of my hon. Friends earlier—is the appointment of a Director General of Water Services. He will be the consumers' white knight.

The Bill will ensure better value for money and more efficient service. The quicker it is enacted the better and that is why I support this motion.

6.8 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

Having listened to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I wish that I had been invited to join the Committee on the Water Bill, because it seems that it is the place where learning is combined with a great deal of pleasure.

The Leader of the House gave the game away when he said that, so far, the debate in Committee had not resulted in any excessive filibustering, but there was a need to curtail the examination of the Bill because the Government needed to get the legislation through to offload the shares in the new water companies during the forthcoming financial year. It seems that profit is being placed before the public interest and that the rights and needs of consumers have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

There seems to be no good reason for rushing the examination of the Bill. Even if we were to continue at the same rate it could still be on the statute book well before the next election. Despite the time being given to the Bill by the guillotine motion, inevitably some parts of the measure will not be discussed in the detail that is necessary. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, huge sections of the Bill have not been scrutinised. I could reel off at least a dozen such areas, but I shall not do so because the time allowed for this debate precludes that possibility.

I should like to look at one or two areas of great concern. The first is European Community legislation. That raises two issues and the first relates to any regulation that might be introduced about the nature of the shareholdings. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell us whether the proposal for a golden share in the case of the English companies and a 15 per cent. maximum holding in the Welsh company is completely acceptable to the Commission in Brussels.

The next issue is water quality. Over the last 18 months I have asked several questions about the quality of tap water and bathing water, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) have recently put down some written questions on these subjects. So far, the answers have been fudged, to say the least. I have been told that bathing water quality on the majority of our beaches does not come up to the EEC water quality standards and that the Commission, the Government and the water authorities are discussing a programme to enable all beaches to be brought up to standard in an appropriate time.

In answer to one of my questions to a Minister in the Welsh Office, I was told that there was a 15-year programme for Wales. From my knowledge of the Commission I know that would be far too long. Before the Bill is completed we ought to know the exact programme for bringing all the beaches up to the European Community standard and we should know how much that will cost. That will be a great deal of expenditure for the new shareholders. The same can be said about tap water quality, although not so much in Wales because I have been assured by the Welsh Office that all water supplies will be up to standard by 1992. There still has not been an answer to that question about the position in England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) alluded to the National Rivers Authority. There will be no separate National Rivers Authority for Wales, even though the Welsh people want to see such an authority. I remind Conservative Members that, given that there is a separate Welsh water authority, the will of the Welsh people at the last election was clearly not to see that part of the Conservative manifesto carried out. I hope that Conservative Members and the Government will take account of that.

The one good thing about the Bill up to the weekend was that the Government has introduced no amendments. On today's Order Paper there are 10. I do not know whether the trickle will become a flood, but I hope not, because it would make the guillotine even more of an injustice.

6.14 pm

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

To date the course of this ill-attended debate has been that those who oppose the Bill oppose the guillotine, and those who support the Bill support the guillotine. I have to break that pattern, because I am not a supporter of the Bill. However, I think that a timetable motion is the best way to ensure that what is undeniably an immensely important Bill is properly considered before being presented to the House for Third Reading.

I notice that under the timetable motion three and a half days—that is two days plus two periods of two hours—are allocated to Report and Third Reading. I hope that the Business Committee will allocate sufficient time for Third Reading, because hon. Members who abstained on Second Reading may wish to participate significantly on Third Reading in order to share with the House their reasons for deciding to vote for, or against, Third Reading.

In parenthesis, I hope that the reason for the Secretary of State's absence from the Front Bench is that he has left the House to reply to a letter that I wrote to him not weeks, but months ago inquiring about whether in the privatised water industry it would or would not be a criminal offence to supply water that is not potable. Many hon. Members will know that if water gets into milk during its production, even with no guilty intention, the farmer is automatically guilty of a criminal offence even if the milk is not thereby rendered unwholesome. It would be quite scandalous for us to pass into law a Bill privatising water that gave water companies exemption from such a criminal provision. I hope that that will be one of the matters discussed either in Committee or on Report.

In the last Parliament the Procedure Committee paid considerable attention to the public Bill procedure. We decided—I say "we" because I was then and am now a member of that Committee—to recommend to the House that if it seemed probable that a Bill would spend more than 40 hours in Committee, it should be timetabled right from the beginning instead of having to go through a ritual dance, hilarious examples of which have been given by some of my hon. Friends, so as to waste enough time in conventional wisdom to "justify" the adoption of a timetable. The Select Committee on Procedure said that it would be much better to timetable the Bill from the beginning, so that all its important provisions could be properly examined. That is not just for the benefit of the Opposition. Often the drafting of clauses has consequences unforeseen by the draftsman and unintended by the Minister. That is avoided only by going carefully through a Bill. The motion will have my support, even though the Bill does not, because I acknowledge the importance of the Bill, and wish to see it examined as it ought to be, and believe that a timetable motion is the proper instrument for that.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) opposed the timetable motion in totality, thereby rejecting completely the proposition of the Select Committee on Procedure. Speaking for the official Opposition, he did not say that the timetable ought to have one more allotted day for Report or Third Reading, or 10 more hours in Committee, which might have been a sustainable argument—I do not know, because he did not deploy it. Had he deployed it, seeing that I am uncommitted on the Bill, I might have found myself of that opinion. He has not put to the House any judgment that the time for the Committee stage should be longer, or that more time should be allocated for Report or Third Reading. Therefore, he has placed all of us in the position where we have to vote for this motion as it stands, on the basis—because it is this that he has asked us to accept or reject—of whether a better Bill will emerge as a result of this timetable motion.

It has been my fate, Mr. Speaker, in the last few debates in which I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, to speak for three minutes on the last occasion and four and a half on the one before. I have not found myself greatly constrained by that. It is the experience of many hon. Members that the discipline of time enables them to say what they need to say. There is a story—I forget which pope it is about—that shows quite a lot of wisdom. The pope received in audience three visitors. Of each he asked the same question, "How long are you staying in the eternal city?" The first said, "Three months, Your Holiness." "You will see a little bit in that time," said the pope. The next replied, "Three weeks." The pope said, "You will see a lot of it in three weeks." The last replied, "Three days, Your Holiness." "You will see everything worth seeing in three days," replied the pope.

I have been in the House for 28 years, and I have never been to the Royal Mint—it has now left London—I have never seen many things in London. I am convinced that the Procedure Committee's experiment, which it recommended to the House, of having a 10-minute limit on speeches has been justified by events, and the vast majority of Members would like to see that extended to most, if not all, debates on the Floor of the House. The same logic is compellingly appropriate of the Committee stage of Bills. The discipline of a timetable structured by the Business Committee, not imposed willy-nilly by the Government, is the only proven method of securing proper detailed examination of the Bill so that, whether its general principles do or do not commend themselves to the whole House, better legislation will result than would otherwise have been the case.

6.22 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that short speeches can be effective, and I intend to make mine extremely short. The Government have to guillotine the Bill because it sets out their policy and they want to get it through its stages. However, it raises many important issues. The timetable set out in the motion would not allow enough time to deal with some of the major problems such as the complications of the EEC factor and of the codes of practice, how that is applied to successor companies and to land disposed to third parties, and what is the definition of operational and non-operational land. The Committee is only just getting to grips with some of these issues.

We must explore all these issues in greater depth. For example, we must examine consumer rights, charges, how capital is raised for improvement—through revenue charges or borrowing—water metering, the kind of meters to be used, who will pay for them, how much they will cost, what access will be allowed and what protection there will be for the low paid, the unemployed and retired people, particularly if their water is cut off in times of financial stress. These are all major issues in a major Bill.

Some Conservative Members are as concerned about some of these issues as we are. However, those who are driving through this Bill and its guillotine do not care one jot about the implications to the environment, water quality, consumer rights and consumer protection. All they care about is dogma and ideology. In their minds, anything privatised is good and anything public is bad. The water companies were set up by public institutions and public bodies, often as a result of falure of private companies, and their record is not bad. What about compensation for the ratepayers who set up the water companies and the waterworks that are now being sold off to the private sector without any compensation?

We must examine all these issues in great depth, and the guillotine will not allow that.

6.26 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

I found the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) extremely interesting. I hope that, when and if he receives a reply to his letter from the Secretary of State, he will publish it so that we can see the interesting comments that the Secretary of State might have to make.

Guillotines can often be justified—for example, when major legislation needs to be rushed through the House because it is urgent, although usually there is co-operation from both sides of the House in such circumstances. Guillotines can also be justified, and have been found necessary, when delays have been caused. Many of the debates about guillotine motions have concentrated on whether a Committee has been making progress and whether there is undue delay. It is clear that there has been no undue delay in the Committee considering the Water Bill. For example, the Committee did not debate the sittings motion. The Opposition did not object to the doubling of our sittings, even though that was done from the second day of the Committee stage. We have not swamped the Amendment Paper with minor or trivial amendments or wasted time with unnecessary votes and points of order. The Government have not been forced to move closures on any of our debates on clauses or amendments. As the Leader of the House accepted, there have been no unduly long speeches from Labour Members.

This is an important and serious Bill. The Leader of the House also acknowledged that our discussions in Committee have been serious and concerned important matters such as the National Rivers Authority, which has taken up most of our discussions so far. Every attempt that we have made to strengthen the NRA has been rejected quite blatantly by the Government, who do not seem interested in ensuring that that body has the strength, resources and staffing that it requires.

Many other important issues have to be discussed. My hon Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned some of them. The Leader of the House gave us a list of those items that he thought ought to be discusssed, such as a customer services committee, drinking water quality, control of pollution, sewerage, flood defence, all of which we agree are important. On which of those does the Leader of the House think that we should skimp our debates? There will not be enough time to discuss all those issues as fully as they should be discussed. By giving us that list, the Leader of the House proved the point that the timetable will not give us sufficient time to do so.

Even the Leader of the House has admitted that there has been no undue delay in Committee. On the other hand, there is much evidence and a great deal of proof of undue haste on the Government's part. Second Reading took place on about the first possible day. Consideration in Committee started on the first day possible. We have a guillotine motion after fewer than 75 hours of debate in Committee. The Government are pushing ahead with this pretty desperate timetable when they still appear not to know the final outcome of their legislation.

The Government were forced to withdraw their plans for the privatisation of the water industry in 1986 because of the outcry that then took place, and did so in a typical hole-in-the-corner way. A statement was wrung out of them by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on a Thursday evening at 10 o'clock—it was obvious that the Government wanted the minimum notice taken of their withdrawal. Despite the rejection in 1986, and despite having two years to consider the matter—the Government have had two years to get their proposals right and to acquire answers to all questions—confusion still reigns in Government circles when it comes to their plans and the consequences of them. Ministers are still unable to come up with the answers.

Mr. Nicholas Baker

The hon. Lady may say that undue delay has not taken place in Committee, but 75 hours have been spent in Committee and only nine clauses have been covered. Does she accept that if she and her team had proceeded at a more reasonable pace and achieved much greater progress, as they could have done, the Government would then not have had a good case for introducing a guillotine motion? Alternatively, is the hon. Lady happy that the Government have introduced the motion?

Mrs. Taylor

I think that the Leader of the House dealt with that question in his remarks. He acknowledged that there had not been undue delay. Indeed, he said that we have been discussing important issues in Committee, as we have.

The issue that is concerning many is prices. The Leader of the House said earlier today that the Bill would greatly benefit consumers, but that was a completely inept remark to make today, of all days. The Secretary of State told us on 28 November 1988 at column 450 that we could expect water prices to rise in real terms between 7.5 per cent. and 12.5 per cent. by the end of the century. Last week, the water authorities announced increases of up to 13 per cent. This weekend, the statutory water companies told us that their price increases would be about 30 per cent., and even as much as 50 per cent. When we warned of these increases in December we were told that we were scaremongering, but now we have the reality. We are faced with the greatest price increases ever.

It is no use the Minister saying that he will call in the water companies. I am sure that we are all impressed by that! I am sure also that we know exactly what the Minister will say. If he takes the advice of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) he will say, "I say, chaps, can't you turn this down a bit?" The fact is that the Minister cannot control the water companies. They are not accountable directly to him, any more than the new privatised water companies that replace the water authorities will be directly accountable to him or, more important, to the House.

The position is worse than that. The Department of the Environment is implicated in the price increases that we have heard about from the water companies during the weekend. In December, Ernst and Whinney was appointed by the water companies to advise them on the run-up to privatisation. It wrote to the companies, giving the advice that they faced their last opportunity to increase tariffs before privatisation. It also advised each company to raise its tariffs to the maximum level permitted, which is what the companies have done. The letter stated: Following a meeting arranged by the Water Companies Association today with the Department of the Environment … it was agreed that I should write to you on an immediate basis to let you know of points which were agreed at that meeting. It is clear that the Department and the accountants were working together before advising the water companies to take the action which they announced during the weekend.

Of course, this is only round 1. There are plenty of other additional costs for the consumer that are still to come. We shall soon be seeing flashy adverts on television, for which we shall all have to pay. There will be the costs of flotation, which the City will not have to meet. It has already received £700 million from taxpayers. There will be the extra costs of higher management salaries, to which some in the industry are looking forward. There may be other costs, including, perhaps, VAT. None of us minds paying a bit more for a better service and better pollution control, but we mind paying a privatisation surcharge which is entirely avoidable and wholly unnecessary. We face enormous additional costs because of the Government's obsession with pushing every industry, however vital, into the private sector, where profit will be the first priority. As the director of the Water Companies Association said, the Government's proposals will put them under an obligation to put the shareholders first. There is no doubt about the consequences for prices.

There is no great doubt about the proportion of the industry that will be owned by the private sector after flotation in November. Will all the industry be owned by the private sector? Will 51 per cent. of it be so owned, or will the percentage be something between that and 100 per cent? How will the industry he sold? Will it be sold directly, through a holding company, or one region at a time? Will water supply be sold before sewerage? The Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee that no decisions have yet been taken, but it is now February. The motion is before us because of the urgency of the Government's privatisation plans, but they still cannot answer some basic questions.

Perhaps the Minister for Water and Planning will be able to tell us what will happen to the industry's debts. Are they to be redistributed? Will they be written off in part or in full? How much will it cost the taxpayer if and when debts are written off? What will happen with the Government's merger policy? On 11 January, the Secretary of State announced his policy. He promised that the necessary amendments would be with us as soon as possible, and I understand that the Government are tabling them today. Perhaps our debate in Committee on Thursday 2 February brought some good. We have still not been told, however, whether the amendments have been cleared with Brussels. There has been no confirmation of clearance. That is not surprising, as clearance has not yet been obtained. We adhere to the legal advice that we have received that the Government proposals may infringe European competition law.

The Secretary of State assured us that he would not ask the Committee to proceed with a matter that was in doubt. Clearance and many other matters are still much in doubt or unanswered, yet the Government are pushing ahead with the guillotine motion. Rather than guillotining the Bill tonight, the Government should suspend consideration of it in Committee until they answer vital questions. We shall oppose their motion.

6.39 pm

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard)

In a previous privatisation guillotine motion debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that his view on guillotines was consistent; when he was in government he was for them, when he was in opposition he was against them. From what we have seen of the way in which the Opposition have organised themselves in Committee, it will be a long time before my right hon. and hon. Friends need to be against a guillotine motion.

We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) made an exceptionally thoughtful speech. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). We shall certainly take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about Third Reading and do what we can to accommodate him. I am very sorry that he has not received a reply to his letter. I will look into that. He may find clause 51 of the Bill helpful in answering his point.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the time that has already been spent examining the Bill. He referred to the two full days—11½ hours—devoted to Second Reading. So far we have spent nearly 75 hours in Committee discussing nine clauses. Under the terms of the proposed timetable motion, there would be a further 78 hours in Committee making a total of 153 hours in Committee. That would be followed by three days on Report and Third Reading making a further 23½ hours and by then the House will have spent nearly 200 hours considering the Bill. By any standards, that is a generous amount of time.

The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that that was not sufficient time to consider the various provisions in the Bill. Anyone present during the proceedings in Committee would greet that assertion with astonishment. Even under the stern chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), time has been found, as many of my hon. Friends have explained, for many diversions, some more entertaining than others.

During the debate on clause 1, we were treated to a biology lesson by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). He told us how to test for chlorophyl—the stuff, as he put it, that makes leaves green. We also heard about the greatest ghillie in the world, called Fred Jarvis, although we did not quite discover his connection with anyone with a similar name.

The hon. Member for Brent, South seemed to gain particular pleasure from using Tatler as one of his great source documents for his contributions in Committee. However, he did not acknowledge that the editor of that magazine is the sister of my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

Mr. Boateng

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that it was Tatler which set the tumbrels rolling in relation to this guillotine motion? He knows full well that no matter whether that magazine is edited by the sister of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—and I understand that that editorship has caused a certain amount of embarrassment in the hon. Gentleman's household—its production during our Committee proceedings was highly relevant because it is geared to the parvenus and parasites who populate the modern Conservative party. It represents the greed and avarice which are the very motors of this Bill. We were right to reveal the true motives.

Mr. Howard

The Tatler certainly set the tone for the hon. Gentleman's contributions to our deliberations.

For the most part, the Committee deliberations were highly entertaining stuff. However, they are highly inconsistent with the picture that Opposition Members have sought to paint today of a Standing Committee desperate to stuff every available minute with scrupulous scrutiny of every sub-clause, but which was starved of the time to do that.

When we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House, I described the Labour party as the "say no" party. I suggested that it said no to change, new ideas and to any constructive proposals designed to improve the conditions of our people. Having listened attentively to the arguments, or what passed for arguments, advanced during almost 75 hours in Committee and in today's debate, I have been reflecting on that. The Labour party is not simply the "say no" party; it is also the "go slow" party.

Let us examine the Labour party's record in Committee. Almost the first act of Labour Members was to table amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the names of the entire Opposition first team for the Bill. Amendment No. 1 was to pave the way for amendment No. 2 which was intended to delay the appointment of the new water and sewerage undertakers for at least five years. Unfortunately for them, their futile attempt to wreck the Bill was completely transparent. The amendments were not selected for debate. Then they put their names to amendment No. 33 which would have delayed our plans for only one year. The amendment told us to go slowly and they proceeded to do just that in Committee. We spent one and a half sittings debating that amendment. That was just the first of the delays. It took us the best part of seven sittings—nearly 27 hours—before we even moved away from clause 1 and its accompanying schedule. That was the pace that the Opposition set for consideration of the Bill in Committee and that pace has not significantly improved.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Does not the Minister think that the establishment of the National Rivers Authority was important?

Mr. Howard

It was extremely important. Its importance could have been better dealt with by more relevant and pointed debate rather than the debate which took place. I hope that the House will not be taken in by the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. She tried to suggest that the Opposition's points were made in a genuine attempt to strengthen the powers of the NRA.

The hon. Lady's motives were made clear in an interview she gave to the Financial Times on 7 December 1988, which states: Her response is to try to ensure that the final shape of the legislation will incorporate so many new consumer and environmental safeguards and restraints that it will be unattractive to the private sector. That was not because she was really interested in the safeguards, but because she wanted to use the Committee stage to sabotage the whole principle of the Bill which had been granted a Second Reading by the House.

Mr. Leigh

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke most eloquently against the guillotine on the Bill. Will my hon. and learned Friend speculate on whether she spoke as eloquently against the guillotine on the Wales Bill when she was an assistant Whip on 18 July 1978? Her right hon. Friend the Member for Iswlyn (Mr. Kinnock), who is now the leader of the Labour party, said at the time: We are faced with an abbreviated guillotine on a runt of a Bill. The only reason why this Bill exists is in order to legitimise the panic that the Government"—[Official Report, 18 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 448–49.] find themselves in.

Mr. Howard

I am relieved that my hon. Friend relieves me of the necessity to speculate on the hon. Lady's attitude on that occasion. I am sure that the leader of the Labour party will bear in mind the contrast—[Interruption.] I was not paying the Leader of the Opposition that accolade, but I am sure that he will comment on the contrast between his attitude and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Will the Minister accept that in Committee many beneficial points have been made upon which the Government have given assurances on questions relating to disablement, the environment and the Secretary of State for Wales? Had such a guillotine motion affected the first part of our deliberations in Committee, we would not have given such attention to the benefit of the Bill.

Mr. Howard

The hon. Gentleman deserves an accolade for having spoken longer than anyone else in Committee. I will happily pay him that tribute, if tribute it is.

Yes, of course, the Government have taken note of many of the observations made in Committee. We have said that it will be appropriate to reflect on some matters. However, in almost every instance, the Government responded in that way to short debates that were relevant and to the point. Those debates secured the objectives that the Committee was entitled to see achieved; they were not achieved by the verbose meandering and irrelevant debates which repeated points that it was clear would not be accepted.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a sour little speech at the opening of the debate, and asked for a number of answers that had already been given in Committee—and some of his questions were repeated during the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about the golden share. There is no mystery about it—I made the position abundantly clear in Standing Committee. We do not anticipate any difficulty whatsoever in relation to the golden share, as we have said more than once.

Mr. Dobson

Are we to give as much weight to the hon. and learned Gentleman's anticipation concerning the value of the golden share as we are asked to give his anticipation that water prices will rise by about only 7 per cent. this century?

Mr. Howard

I will not take any criticism about water prices from a party that in 1975–76 presided over average water price increases of 42.8 per cent. That is the truth of the matter, and Labour Members will do well to reflect on their own record before questioning water prices.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also spread the calumny that Opposition Members are so fond of spreading in his allegation that the Government have been taken to the European Court on water matters more often than any other member of the European Community. I do not know why Labour Members are so fond of spreading that falsehood. It is entirely untrue. The fact is that the United Kingdom has not been taken to the European Court on a single occasion in respect of water matters. If Labour Members took more care over this country's reputation, they would desist from spreading that self-evident falsehood.

Many matters in the Bill are worthy of the Committee's time. They go far wider than questions of privatisation. Provisions in parts II and III of the Bill will establish a new statutory framework for controlling drinking water quality, river quality and other standards affecting the control of pollution. We are also amending and improving the law in respect of a wide range of matters relating to water supply, sewerage services, water pollution, management of water resources, flood defence, and fisheries. I hope that all those matters will receive the proper and serious consideration that they deserve in the Committee's remaining sittings. The motion's purposes is to ensure an even pattern of debate for the remaining sittings and that important issues gain the attention they merit.

The Bill will result in a more efficient water industry and a much-improved water environment. It will give the customer a more responsive service, and it will free the industry from political intervention of the kind that, in the past, delivered a triple achievement of massive price rises, more employees, and declining investment in sewers and infrastructure. I look forward to proceeding with the Bill in an orderly manner so that, with proper debate and consideration, the industry can take its place in the private sector by the end of the year. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Mr. Speaker, there is still one minute left.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady has spoken.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

She may speak with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

She may, with the permission of the House—but not now. Time is up.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills.)

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 199.

Division No. 75]	[6.52 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Aitken, Jonathan	Colvin, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Cope, Rt Hon John
Allason, Rupert	Cormack, Patrick
Amess, David	Couchman, James
Amos, Alan	Cran, James
Arbuthnot, James	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Curry, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Ashby, David	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Aspinwall, Jack	Day, Stephen
Atkins, Robert	Dicks, Terry
Atkinson, David	Dorrell, Stephen
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Baldry, Tony	Dover, Den
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Durant, Tony
Batiste, Spencer	Dykes, Hugh
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Eggar, Tim
Bellingham, Henry	Emery, Sir Peter
Bendall, Vivian	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Evennett, David
Benyon, W.	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Fishburn, John Dudley
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Body, Sir Richard	Forth, Eric
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fox, Sir Marcus
Boswell, Tim	Franks, Cecil
Bottomley, Peter	French, Douglas
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Fry, Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Gale, Roger
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Gardiner, George
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gill, Christopher
Brazier, Julian	Glyn, Dr Alan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Goodlad, Alastair
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Buck, Sir Antony	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Budgen, Nicholas	Gow, Ian
Burt, Alistair	Gower, Sir Raymond
Butcher, John	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Butler, Chris	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Butterfill, John	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gregory, Conal
Carrington, Matthew	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Cash, William	Grist, Ian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Ground, Patrick
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Grylls, Michael
Chope, Christopher	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Churchill, Mr	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hanley, Jeremy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Harris, David	Mudd, David
Haselhurst, Alan	Neale, Gerrard
Hayes, Jerry	Needham, Richard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Nelson, Anthony
Hayward, Robert	Neubert, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nicholls, Patrick
Heddle, John	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Norris, Steve
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hill, James	Paice, James
Hind, Kenneth	Patnick, Irvine
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Holt, Richard	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Howard, Michael	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Portillo, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Price, Sir David
Hunter, Andrew	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Irvine, Michael	Rathbone, Tim
Jack, Michael	Redwood, John
Jessel, Toby	Rhodes James, Robert
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Riddick, Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Key, Robert	Rossi, Sir Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Rost, Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rowe, Andrew
Knapman, Roger	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Ryder, Richard
Knowles, Michael	Sackville, Hon Tom
Knox, David	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lang, Ian	Scott, Nicholas
Latham, Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lee, John (Pendle)	Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)
Lightbown, David	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lilley, Peter	Shersby, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Sims, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lord, Michael	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Speller, Tony
McCrindle, Robert	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Squire, Robin
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Maclean, David	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Steen, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Stevens, Lewis
Major, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Malins, Humfrey	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mans, Keith	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Marlow, Tony	Sumberg, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Summerson, Hugo
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mates, Michael	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Maude, Hon Francis	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mellor, David	Thorne, Neil
Miller, Sir Hal	Thurnham, Peter
Mills, Iain	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Miscampbell, Norman	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Sir David	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moate, Roger	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Waller, Gary
Morrison, Sir Charles	Wheeler, John
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)	Widdecombe, Ann
Moss, Malcolm	Wiggin, Jerry

Winterton, Mrs Ann	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wood, Timothy	Mr. Alan Howarth and
Yeo, Tim	Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	George, Bruce
Allen, Graham	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Alton, David	Golding, Mrs Llin
Anderson, Donald	Gould, Bryan
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Graham, Thomas
Armstrong, Hilary	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Ashton, Joe	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Grocott, Bruce
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Hardy, Peter
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Barron, Kevin	Haynes, Frank
Battle, John	Heffer, Eric S.
Beckett, Margaret	Henderson, Doug
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Hinchliffe, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Bermingham, Gerald	Holland, Stuart
Bidwell, Sydney	Home Robertson, John
Blair, Tony	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Blunkett, David	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Boateng, Paul	Hoyle, Doug
Boyes, Roland	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Illsley, Eric
Buckley, George J.	Janner, Greville
Caborn, Richard	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Callaghan, Jim	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Kennedy, Charles
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Lambie, David
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Leadbitter, Ted
Cartwright, John	Leighton, Ron
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Litherland, Robert
Clay, Bob	Livingstone, Ken
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Coleman, Donald	Loyden, Eddie
Corbett, Robin	McAllion, John
Corbyn, Jeremy	McAvoy, Thomas
Cousins, Jim	McCartney, Ian
Crowther, Stan	McFall, John
Cryer, Bob	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Cummings, John	McKelvey, William
Cunliffe, Lawrence	McLeish, Henry
Cunningham, Dr John	Maclennan, Robert
Darling, Alistair	McNamara, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McTaggart, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McWilliam, John
Dewar, Donald	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dixon, Don	Marek, Dr John
Dobson, Frank	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Martlew, Eric
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Maxton, John
Eadie, Alexander	Meacher, Michael
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Meale, Alan
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Michael, Alun
Fatchett, Derek	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Faulds, Andrew	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Fearn, Ronald	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Morgan, Rhodri
Fisher, Mark	Morley, Elliott
Flannery, Martin	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Flynn, Paul	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Mullin, Chris
Foster, Derek	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Fraser, John	O'Brien, William
Fyfe, Maria	O'Neill, Martin
Galbraith, Sam	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Galloway, George	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Parry, Robert	Soley, Clive
Patchett, Terry	Spearing, Nigel
Pendry, Tom	Steel, Rt Hon David
Pike, Peter L.	Steinberg, Gerry
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Strang, Gavin
Prescott, John	Straw, Jack
Primarolo, Dawn	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Radice, Giles	Turner, Dennis
Randall, Stuart	Vaz, Keith
Redmond, Martin	Wall, Pat
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Wallace, James
Reid, Dr John	Walley, Joan
Richardson, Jo	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Robertson, George	Wareing, Robert N.
Robinson, Geoffrey	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N,
Rooker, Jeff	Wigley, Dafydd
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wilson, Brian
Ruddock, Joan	Winnick, David
Salmond, Alex	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Worthington, Tony
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wray, Jimmy
Short, Clare	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Tellers for the Noes:
Smith, C (Isl'ton & F'bury)	Mr. Ken Eastham and
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)	Mr. Frank Cook.
Snape Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 7th March 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 7th March may continue until Eight p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 8th March.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question of any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a 703 conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order— 'allotted day' means any day (other than Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day; 'the Bill' means the Water Bill; 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee; 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.