COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES

HC Deb 10 November 2003 vol 413 cc21-42

'After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—

"46B Commencement and expiry of licences

(1) A licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—

1. (a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or
2. (b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ('de-watering abstractions'),

shall be stated to take effect to expire simultaneously with any planning permission or any extension or amendment to any planning permission granted for such mining, quarrying or engineering operations instead of a specific date, or dates, in the licence for the de-watering abstraction itself.

(2) In all other aspects, reference in this chapter to the date on which a licence is stated to take effect and on which it expires, insofar as a licence for the de-watering abstraction is concerned, refers to the commencement and expiry dates comprised in any planning permission authorising the mining, quarrying or engineering operations relevant to the de-watering abstraction.".'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.31 pm

Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Renewal of licences (mines and quarries)— 'After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted— 46ZA Renewal of licences (mines and quarries)

1. (1) An application to renew a licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—
   1. (a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or
   2. (b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ('de-watering abstractions'),
   shall be subject to the three tests specified in subsection (2).
2. (2) Those tests are that it can be reasonably demonstrated that—
1. (a) environmental sustainability can be achieved;
2. (b) the need for the licence is demonstrable; and
3. (c) the water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively.
3. (3) If the tests specified in subsection (2) are met, the licence will be renewed for a minimum of six years.
4. (4) Where an application to renew a licence under the preceding provisions of this section is refused, a person who made the application may appeal to the Secretary of State within such period and subject to such procedures as may be prescribed by order.

46ZB Renewal of licences (mines and quarries): compensation

Where an application to renew a licence is refused under section 46ZA above, or the terms of the licence are varied and the effect of the resultant restriction or working rights would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree—

1. (a) the economic viability of operating the site; or
2. (b) the asset value of the site,

compensation shall be payable in accordance with arrangements prescribed by order.".'.

New clause 12—Presumption of renewal of licences— 'After section 38 of the WRA there is inserted— 38A Presumption of renewal of licences

There shall be a presumption of renewal of a licence, subject to the provisions of section 38(1A) above, where the Agency is satisfied that—

1. (a) abstraction under the new licence is environmentally sustainable;
2. (b) there is a continued justification of need; and
3. (c) water abstracted under the renewed licence will be used in an efficient manner.".'.

Government amendments Nos. 54 to 58.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 6, page 7, line 23, at end insert— '(1A) Where the construction of a bore hole in connection with an exempt abstraction could affect the essential characteristics of water resources used by the licensed natural water abstractor, the consent of the Environment Agency must be sought.'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 5, at end insert 'if it is to address an issue of national importance'.

Government amendment No. 59.

Amendment No. 25, in clause 14, page 17, line 39, leave out 'in prescribed cases' and insert 'where it would be against the interests of national security'.

Government amendments Nos. 60 to 70.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 17, page 21, line 42, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.

Government amendments Nos. 71 to 73.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 19, page 23, line 31, at end insert— '( ) The expiry date shall take into account the availability of water in the source of supply to which the licence applies and the investment needs of the applicant.'. Amendment No. 11, in page 23, line 33, at end insert— '(5B) In determining the period that a licence under this Chapter shall remain in force, the Agency shall take into account—

1. (a) the life expectancy of any associated infrastructure works (existing and prospective),
2. (b) the costs of those works (actual and projected), and
3. (c) the period over which these costs may be reasonably be expected to have to be recovered.'.

Government amendment No. 74.

Amendment No. 12, in clause 20, page 24, line 27, at end insert— '(5) There shall be a presumption that any licence in respect of which the conditions of this section are met shall be renewed unless the Agency is able to show that revocation is necessary in order to protect any waters or underground strata, or any flora or fauna dependent on them, from serious damage.'. Government amendments Nos. 75 to 82.

Amendment No. 126, in clause 24, page 31, line 11, at end insert— '(5A) In this section "loss or damage" shall mean loss occasioned by physical damage to tangible property.'. Government amendments No. 83 and 84.

Amendment No. 32, in clause 25, page 31, line 43, at end insert

'and (b) at the end there is inserted "except in the case of licences where water would otherwise be abstracted for use on land which is subject to phytosanitary restrictions.".'. Amendment No. 33, in clause 27, page 33, line 17, at end insert 'or such later date as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe'. Government amendment No. 85.

Amendment No. 26, in clause 30, page 36, line 39, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£50,000'.

Government amendments Nos. 117 and 104 to 106.

Mr. Wiggin

The new clause would ensure that the commencement and expiry of abstractor licences occurred simultaneously with planning permission, so that as long as a business had planning permission it should be able to go ahead with abstracting water if it is environmentally safe to do so. If the dates of an abstraction licence are separate from those of the planning permission, the abstraction licence may expire before the planning application. That undermines the long-term certainty of a water abstraction business, restricting its competitive edge. Businesses wishing to abstract should have just one course of action to take. For quarries and mineral water companies, for example, the legislative burden is not sufficiently streamlined and may jeopardise their ability to compete on a level playing field with companies from abroad. The new clause would ensure that the expiration date of a licence must take into account the commencement and expiry dates of any planning permission. That would be fairer on abstractors, who would have a much more stable basis on which to attract investors. Long-term industries such as water abstraction, watercress growers and quarries need assurances of certainty, but the Bill does not offer them. The new clause would provide them with that assurance and with the certainty that they need for long-term investment.

New clause 3 is focused on the quarrying industry and its need for certainty in the renewal of its de-watering transfer licences. It would include in the Bill three clear tests by which a renewal licence may be granted. To make it fair to the industry, the presumption of renewal needs to be made explicit by including in the Bill test renewals such as those set out in "Taking Water Responsibly". The industry is well aware of the assurances that the Minister has given to the House and to the other place. I am also conscious that during the past month my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt) have taken part in meetings with industry representatives in the Minister's office, and that the assurances given have been confirmed in writing. That may provide safeguards for the immediate future, but they have no long-term credibility. The new clause seeks to redress that. Equally, it would include the steps for appeal and compensation to be taken when a licence is refused renewal under the tests. It is imperative that the presumption of renewal is included in the Bill, not hidden away in statements or policy documents—otherwise, long-term industries will not have any real assurances that their investments will be safe.

The second part of the new clause would ensure that if a de-watering transfer licence is not renewed or the Environment Agency changes the conditions, thereby making an operation unviable, the operator can claim compensation. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that the agency can give an operator six years' notice of non-renewal and simply not renew and not provide compensation. That is unacceptable, especially when the agency is clearly a law unto itself and not directly accountable to the House. The new clause would put in place the genuine assurances of licence renewal, appeal and compensation that the water abstraction sector needs.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

It is clear that the new clause is extremely well thought through, but my brow is furrowed by my hon. Friend's reference to circumstances in which exploration takes place and a licence is not renewed. It sounds deeply unjust. Is my hon. Friend telling me that there is no right of appeal?

Mr. Wiggin

My hon. Friend is right to have a furrowed brow about the Bill. Indeed, my brow has been furrowed for some time. It is especially difficult for those who abstract water because he is right about the difficulties that they will face if their licences are not renewed. There is an appeals procedure but I believe that it is to the Environment Agency, not the Secretary of State.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)

It is to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wiggin

The Minister corrects me, but a lesser agent of the Secretary of State would fulfil the duty. The essence of the problem is not so much that licences cannot be renewed—environmental damage may be taking place—but the lack of compensation. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As usual, with his incisive mind he has put his finger on the nub of the problem instantly.

Amendment No. 10 deals with the fears of drinking water abstractors, who are rightly subject to an enormous number of inspections to ensure that their water quality is the finest. However, if abstractors of less than 20 cu m sink a borehole into the substrata and start abstracting water for use as drinking water, the licensed abstractor's water quality could be affected. The safeguards in the Bill are not quite strong enough to prevent the risk of small abstractors causing damage to the business of water bottling. I am worried about the risk of others sinking boreholes into the same substrata as the original business, thereby damaging the quality of the water that it abstracts.

Many bottled water companies bottle their water at source and depend on the spring to market and sell the brand—for example, Hildon and Radnor Hills. They cannot move their water aquifer. Water bottling operations are extremely expensive to start up. As long-term investments, they need the protection that the amendment offers. It would enable the Environment Agency to police abstraction for the good of our environmental quality, which must be the overriding consideration. The Environment Agency should monitor abstractors, no matter how small, for the damage that they cause the environment. Damage done to a business aquifer by another drilling into it could take a company out of business. That problem must be resolved but the Bill does not currently address it.

It is vital to support the British bottled water industry. Domestic bottled water companies comprise nearly 80 per cent. of the total that we drink in the United Kingdom. The issue therefore affects us all. Now is an opportune moment to have a quick sip of water. We must not only protect the industry, but ensure its long-term plan for the future.

The licensing that the Bill introduces raises concerns that the scope of the investment will be limited. Small, unlicensed boreholes must not be able to undermine a company's investment. I know that the Minister has sympathy with the point. In Committee, he said that if there were problems the Environment Agency would have the power to lower the existing thresholds to reduce the number of boreholes. He said that the agency had powers to deal with problems should they arise. If so, why does not the Bill include such a provision? We want to prevent damage to the aquifer and ensure that the Environment Agency has more responsibility to protect it. The amendment would protect the important British drinking water industry and ensure the high quality of our environment through giving the Environment Agency such policing powers.

Amendment No. 4 deals with a time limit on licences that will be certain for only 12 years. Clause 17(8)(a) provides for a time limit of four years for those who are not using their licence. That reflects neither the seven-year weather cycle nor the catchment abstraction management strategy. The amendment, which provides for a time limit of six years, takes into account the extended period that allows for crop rotation. That was part of the Government's intention and would also influence their ability to license genetically modified crops.

Reasons for non-use of a licence might be as basic as having sufficient rainfall as to render irrigation unnecessary, or growing another crop on the land due to the basic rules of crop rotation under good agricultural practice to avoid the build-up of, for example, pests and diseases in the soil. A much more serious reason might be a the presence of a notifiable disease such as potato brown rot having resulted in a ban on the extraction of water from water courses for use on vulnerable crops.

In Committee, the Minister managed only to fumble his way through this issue and did not give us a good enough reason why the limit should be four years. He stated that the four-year period could be extended by the Environment Agency if the licence holder had a legitimate case for wanting a longer period, but what qualifies as a legitimate case for extension? This is all a bit vague and uncertain, and we should like a provision in the Bill that would clarify the matter.

The Minister's argument in Committee for the reduction from seven years to four was that it struck a balance between meeting the needs of the abstractor and being fair to those who wanted to start abstraction but were unable to do so because others were just sitting on their licences. He then admitted, however, that there had been a grand total of zero incidences of people being denied licences for abstraction because others were holding on to unused ones, thereby undermining his own argument. My amendment to change the time limit from four years to six would allow for changing cycles, which the licence holder would deal with, and bring the provision into line with the catchment management scheme.

Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 also deal with the time periods relating to licences, which are currently too short in that they are meaningful for only 12 years. Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that the expiry date on licences takes into account water availability and the investment needs of the abstractor. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the life expectancy of associated infrastructure works was taken into account by the Environment Agency, in that it should make a decision on the life of an abstraction licence only when it had considered the infrastructure costs and investments associated with the abstraction. That would provide the benefit of a more consistent and transparent framework for decision making. The British Soft Drinks Association is extremely concerned about this matter as that industry is dependent on high-cost machinery, and that is not reflected in the length of time a licence lasts. The length of a licence must take into account the type of investment involved and compensation when licences are cancelled.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to write a presumption of renewal into the Bill. In Committee, the Minister read out the four test criteria for consideration of licences longer than 12 years, as set down in the policy document "Taking Water Responsibly". He also read out two sets of criteria to comfort companies that have a presumption of renewal. These are clear tests, which is why they should be included in the Bill rather than in separate documents, which would be most unfair to companies that would consequently have to ask for investment on the basis of trust, as the abstractors would not be properly financially protected in the legislation. We want to amend this unreasonable and disproportionate provision.

Furthermore, the reason given by the Minister for not putting such measures into the Bill was that the tests for renewal could be changed at a later date, which would create a further fundamental problem for anyone investing in an affected business. The Government have completely failed to consider the effect that this uncertainty would have on businesses that were unable to find willing investors because the measures could be altered. My amendment would ensure that abstraction licences would take into account longer-term considerations by putting the presumption of renewal and the compensatory element into the Bill.

Amendment No. 32 would retain the seven-year period during which compensation would be available on the removal of a licence due to non-use, plant health reasons or the more normal crop rotation reasons. The Bill would reduce the period from seven years to four.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to ensure that the revocation of any licence causing damage would be undertaken only when a thorough examination under the habitats directive of all sites had been completed, rather than trying to do so on an arbitrary basis on 15 July 2012 as is provided for in the Bill. The Minister and the Environment Agency should have some flexibility in the Bill to avoid a potentially difficult situation in 11 years' time if, due to unforeseen circumstances, the assessment of an abstraction licence had been delayed and abstractors had been caught by a guillotine. The addition of such a measure to the Bill would provide assurances to all those involved. The amendment does not seek to set a later date, or even to remove the right of the Environment Agency to revoke a licence that is causing serious environmental damage; it would simply provide a mechanism for the Minister to delay, should that become necessary.

3.45 pm

Experience has shown that deadlines do slip. In that event, such a serious consequence as the removal of a valuable property right would not be acceptable without being based on transparent and robust examination of the facts. Any removal of the right of abstraction must be supported by robust scientific evidence, and not driven merely by the precautionary principle or a looming deadline.

The revocation of a licence is a serious matter, especially when the continuation of a producer's business depends on access to water. It is clearly not in the abstractor's interest to cause serious environmental damage, and it must be a minority of licences that fall into this category. Sustainable abstraction is the goal that the Environment Agency, farmers and growers work towards, and should not be jeopardised by a last-minute administrative panic by the regulator, who is bound by a rigid end-date. Our proposal would allow the flexibility that is reasonable.

Norman Baker (Lewes)

We are under some time pressure, especially as many Members will probably want to speak about fluoride, so I shall be fairly brief.

I am grateful to the Government for tabling the programme motion last week. That helped a little. I am bound to say, however, that a day and a half for discussion would have been more appropriate than a day, which is why my colleagues and I voted against the motion.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was right to raise the presumption of renewal of licences. New clause 12, tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), seeks to achieve approximately the same end. It takes its wording from the Environment Agency's guidelines on the presumption of renewal. Many industries requiring licences have expressed a fear that it will be difficult to obtain investment with time-limited licences. That applies to the watercress industry, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) have rightly expressed an interest. It also applies to quarrying, which I know interests my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He has been assiduous in protecting the industry in his constituency.

We should strike a balance between environmental protection and the necessary limiting of licences, and providing a degree of certainty for businesses so that they can plan ahead. That means legislating for a presumption of renewal such as that in new clause 12. Such a move would go a long way towards satisfying industries that have rightly and understandably expressed concern, while also protecting the Government's agenda.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for those who fail to deal properly with enforcement notices served on them. There is a great deal of money to be made in many industries, and it is wrong for people to be able to calculate that failing to reply to a notice is more beneficial financially than replying. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 simply seek to tie down the issue of when the Secretary of State should be able to exercise what is, in the Bill, a wide discretion by limiting the matters in question to those involving national security. In Committee the Minister indicated that national security was the reason for the provision in the Bill, and no one dissented at the time. The amendments seek to prevent it from being interpreted too widely.

Amendment No. 126 deals with the watercress industry, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole may wish to speak later.

These are modest amendments, but I think that they will go a long way towards improving the Bill, and I hope the Government will view them sympathetically.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I want to say a little about quarry de-watering, in which, as the Minister knows, I take some interest. I know that the Minister and his colleagues have been very active in trying to discuss it with the industry, and to find a way out of the impasse that has developed.

The issue is simply stated. The difference between the lifetime of a de-watering licence and the lifetime of a permission for mineral extraction means that there can be no certainty, which is a necessary component if investment is to be made in a quarrying undertaking. That has a knock-on effect on the company's profitability and on the more general environmental interests of the type of community that I represent. The Minister will know that probably the highest concentration of limestone extraction workings in the country is found in the east Mendips. I accept some of the reasons why the Minister would reject establishing a link—I realise that it would set a precedent for other industries—but if there is no link and no clear presumption in favour of renewal, certain problems will arise.

First, as I said, it will be difficult for companies to make the investment decisions that they need to make when approaching a new permission, which will have a knock-on effect on the profitability and viability of the industry. I have some experience of this issue, having sat on a minerals planning authority for 12 years and gone through a long phase of arm-wrestling in some cases, co-operation in others, with the quarrying industry to establish a sensible regime for the granting of permissions. The second problem I foresee is that if quarrying companies cannot go deeper and use the present spatial extent of their permissions to go below the water table, which inevitably requires a degree of water abstraction, their alternative is to use extant planning permissions to go wider. Often, those extant planning permissions are not in areas that the local community, the local planning authority or the Government want the industry to turn to for the stone reserves that national and local interests require.

The issue harks back to interim development orders and the regime with which the Minister is familiar, which has produced difficulties over the years. I vividly recall the long debate that we in Somerset had before giving permission for the first sub-water table working. We had difficulty identifying the hydrogeology of the east Mendips and determining whether we would destroy aquifers and what the long-term consequences would be. It seems to me that, despite the undoubted difficulties of sub-water table undertakings, managing them in an environmentally sensible way is probably preferable to the alternative, which is opportunistic use of existing planning permissions balanced by neither a compensatory regime nor a control regime.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

As one who represents another part of the country with quarrying interests, I strongly support my hon. Friend's views. Does he agree that this is a classic case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? The Environment Agency is happy with the way in which the regimes are working, and the lack of synchronisation between the existing regimes and the proposed new regimes in terms of time scale is extremely worrying from the point of view of effective planning.

Mr. Heath

I agree. That is the difficulty we face. We do not want to throw the doors wide open to anyone to abstract water over any period simply because they have a planning permission. I understand the Government's position, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). However, there are differences between the quarrying industry and other industries that might seek abstraction licences. Essentially, quarrying is a non-consumptive industry. First, it does not take the water away, which would be a clear potential environmental threat, but stores it and replaces it in a manner determined via the licence and permission. Secondly, a quarrying company has few alternatives. If a company that wants to abstract water for its use cannot do so because of an environmental licensing argument, it can go elsewhere, but a quarry cannot go elsewhere. It remains where it is and it has to be de-watered; otherwise, it is a large hole with water at the bottom and is of no use to anyone. There is a case for individual treatment of the quarrying industry.

I have examined the amendments and new clauses carefully. I can understand the argument of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) in support of new clause 2, but I also understand why the Government may not be entirely satisfied with it. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am worried about the compensation provisions of new clause 3 because I have some experience of the effect of compensation on the quashing of inappropriate interim development orders. In fact, it paralysed the planning authorities and prevented them from taking any sensible decisions on behalf of local communities simply because the costs were out of all proportion to the resources available to the local community. If I have a quibble, it is simply that. I am aware of that particular difficulty.

I am certainly taken by the Liberal Democrat new clause 12, which is very simple and states what we believe to be the policy of the agency, on which the Minister has provided assurances, and we would like it to be incorporated in the Bill. I enthusiastically support new clause 12, not only in the interests of the industry, which is important in my constituency, but in the interests of the local environment.

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)

I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 126, which was tabled by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Guildford (Sue Doughty). It is similar to an amendment that was moved in Committee, but it has been reworked to reflect the ensuing debate.

The amendment is designed to draw attention to the fact that loss or damage is not defined in the clause, and that consequently it could become a charter for claims against long-established and ecologically valuable businesses such as watercress growers. Special natural conditions have led to the bulk of UK watercress growing occurring in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset. In Dorset, watercress is grown in Bere Regis. It is a long-established and sustainable activity, but the Bill has created concerns about its future.

I thank the Minister for meeting representatives from the industry, me and hon. Members with constituencies in Hampshire. However, concerns remain about clause 24, which provides a new means for persons who suffer loss or damage arising from the abstraction of water to bring a claim against the extractor. Previously, the grant of a licence by the Environment Agency was a defence, and any action had to he taken against the Environment Agency for issuing the licence in the first place. The National Farmers Union is concerned that watercress growers might be exposed to unreasonable claims from those who might perceive that their property value has been adversely affected by variations in the flow of watercourses and winterbournes.

Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have agreed that there was no intention for the legislation to provide a means of prosecution of business by residents in an area where the change of watercourses or winterbournes was felt to affect the amenity value of properties by removing a desirable characteristic such as the noise of a babbling brook in the garden. By their very nature, many watercourses on chalk down land are intermittent and the extraction of ground water by a watercress farm will not be the only factor in determining how long and how high such a stream will run.

Subsequently, officials said that they did not feel that such claims were likely, but the Watercress Association has already heard of homeowners who want to take legal action against businesses for precisely that reason—despite the positive contribution of the industry to employment, tourism, inward investment, ecological gains and the preservation of a traditional industry. I hope that the Minister can respond positively today and provide further reassurances to watercress growers.

4 pm

Mr. Morley

I was very interested in the points put forward by hon. Members because those points were not unreasonable, and it might be helpful if I repeat the assurances that I have given the industry groups that have come to see me about a number of issues addressed in new clauses 2, 3 and 12 and amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12.

It might be helpful if I first stress some of the safeguards in the system. I know that hon. Members are united in the desire to ensure that the Bill is an effective and sustainable resource management tool for a resource that is under increasing pressure of demand. That aim is not particularly controversial. Indeed, I am glad to say that the various industry groups have been united in saying that they support the principles behind the Bill. Not unreasonably, they want some safeguards for their own sectors and I understand that. I have tried to go as far as I can in providing safeguards without undermining the basic principle of the Bill, which is sustainable water management. I shall give details of some of the safeguards for the benefit of hon. Members.

First, new licence applicants can provide a business case to the Environment Agency to support the need for a licence with a longer duration. The agency must have regard to all relevant considerations and if there is a strong business case for a licence longer than 12 years—which is a guideline only, and not set in stone—the agency can take that case into account.

Secondly, as I have stressed on several occasions, the policy presumption is in favour of licence renewal. That was initially set out, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) said, in the Government's policy document, "Taking Water Responsibly" in 1999. If a licence is still required and water is being used efficiently, the licence will be severely curtailed or not renewed only if the activities are causing unacceptable damage to the environment. Indeed, companies will have opportunities to discuss mitigation measures, which, in some cases, may not lead to curtailment. However, the means to curtail or refuse a licence is a powerful tool to enable the Environment Agency to deal with unsustainable extraction of water, as has happened in some cases. Abstractors will be given six years' notice of likely non-renewal or changes in the terms of their licence, which will give them time to find a sustainable arrangement, such as a negotiated solution with the Environment Agency.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, rights of appeal to the Secretary of State already exist under the Water Resources Act 1991 in relation to agency decisions on the granting of licences, including licence length and licence revocation or variation. The Bill does not take those rights away. Therefore, rights of appeal exist if abstractors feel aggrieved by the Environment Agency's decision.

Mr. Wiggin

I apologise for missing the first 30 seconds of the Minister's speech. Why is it important that the safeguards that he has just mentioned—I am sure that the industry is grateful for them—are not included in the Bill?

Mr. Morley

To put it in a nutshell, it is to do with the Environment Agency's need for flexibility and the risks of restraint and unforeseen consequences if such requirements are included in the Bill.

Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)

My hon. Friend met representatives from the Quarry Products Association and subsequently wrote to its chairman, Lord Sutherland. Where will the Bill leave the quarrying industry? It is right that new licences can be for a longer period. It is also right that the presumption will be that licences will be renewed. However, is it not the case that in only three instances the Environment Agency has been concerned about water abstraction by quarrying and that all were resolved satisfactorily by technical solutions? Can my hon. Friend give the industry an assurance that it will have a long-term future and the opportunity to make long-term investment?

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is concerned about quarrying, and I understand that. I believe, of course, that quarrying has a long-term future in this country. The idea of putting points in writing to the Quarry Products Association, after my meetings with members on both sides of the question and with the association, was to clarify formally what is intended in the Bill. It is important to any company or trade organisation to have such clarification, and the industry has what I am saying now, on the official record, and what I said in the letter, which gave the reassurances that the QPA sought. There is a fair degree of flexibility in the Bill for dealing with a range of issues.

There are compensation provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991 for when licence revocation or modification results in loss or damage. Clause 102 of the Bill provides powers to make regulations governing compensation to be paid to any previously exempt abstractor who is not granted a licence or is granted a licence that will constrain his activity when the Bill takes effect. In addition, the Environment Agency has published draft guidance on how it will address the duration and renewal of licences. The agency will review, consult on and reissue that guidance once the Bill has been passed. It will take account of views expressed in Committee and on Report. We believe that the legislation has been framed in such a way as to provide an equitable, flexible and sustainable approach to abstraction licences.

Mr. Heath

The Minister is being very helpful. Will he say something about the relationship, if any, between the Agency's approach to licensing and the minerals plans for specific areas? Is there any correlation between the two? Does he expect one to inform the other?

Mr. Morley

One will inform the other on the planning boundaries and the long-term availability of mineral resources. One of the new clauses suggests that we should link the length of planning permissions to the length of licences. I cannot accept that, and I shall explain why. New clauses 2, 3 and 12 and amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 would all limit the Bill's operations and would fetter the Environment Agency's ability to manage our water resources sustainably. They would also fetter the Secretary of State at appeal. That is my concern about them.

There is a question of balance, which has come up a few times. We must recognise the needs of industries that may be affected by our proposals, and we have tried to take them into account. The other side of the balance must be sustainable management. The Bill is about giving the Environment Agency the tools to do its job, and to do it effectively, while still providing the checks and balances on the agency's operations that one would expect in a democratic society. Getting the balance right is the problem, but I believe that it is right in the Bill, right in how we have tried to take account of the legitimate concerns of hon. Members, right in how I have given assurances on the record and in writing, and right in how concerns will be addressed in the Agency's guidelines.

Norman Baker

In what way would new clause 12 fetter decision making? Surely it provides the balance that the Minister wants by containing a presumption that licences will be renewed while setting out conditions under which they may not be.

Mr. Morley

I shall come to that point. I think in a linear way and the hon. Gentleman keeps jumping in and throwing me off my nice linear thought patterns. I assure him that I shall get there, along my linear course, so he should not worry.

New clause 2 would remove from the Environment Agency responsibility for determining the time limit applying to licences granted for de-watering activities. The effect would be to transfer to planning authorities the responsibility for determining a key abstraction licence condition—the duration of an abstraction licence. It is not appropriate for the planning authorities rather than the Environment Agency to have that responsibility. Furthermore, if planning authorities were concerned about possible water problems, they might restrict the length of the permission. The proposal could have that unforeseen consequence.

Mr. Wiggin

The Minister may have missed the point. The whole point of planning is to allow a company to know how long its business will be viable. If the planning authority has to take de-watering into consideration and has to issue planning permission of an appropriate length, investors can look at the situation and decide whether they want to invest in the company. We should not have that certainty under the two-part planning system. The Minister may have put his finger on the nub of the problem but he has not come to the right conclusion.

Mr. Morley

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point although I do not necessarily accept that it is as significant as he thinks. Companies may require different permits for a range of operations. Some permits are annual and some are reviewed and renewed from time to time. I come back to the point about the presumption of renewal, which provides some comfort in relation to long-term planning. As I said, if the business case merits it, the length of the abstraction licence may be greater in some circumstances. The Environment Agency is always consulted about mineral plans, as are mineral planning authorities about catchment abstraction management. There is a link between the two, which relates to the question put by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

Mr. Tyler

The Minister has come to the point about which I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath): if it ain't broke, why fix it? The Minister has just said that the Environment Agency has a proper and effective role, so why must we change it?

Mr. Morley

Because there have been some severe problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is right. Offhand, I can think of only three cases that were resolved. The Environment Agency has been asking for those powers, so the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) should not think that everything in the mines sector is problem-free. If people are de-watering, they are abstracting from the aquifer. There may be ways of mitigating that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, but it should be within a regime that gives the Environment Agency some tools for managing the process. That is an important general principle in the Bill and I think that it is accepted; we are talking about the detail in certain circumstances. Although I understand the points that are being made, I cannot accept them. I feel that we have addressed the concerns raised in the discussions and that the balance is right.

New clause 3 would introduce two new features, both concerned with the renewal of time-limited licences and both relating only to quarries. Our provisions are intended to create a system for sustainable water resources management that applies to all abstractors. There cannot be a separate regime with one sector being treated differently.

The new clause would provide that compensation be paid to a quarry if a licence was not renewed or if it was curtailed. However, the only reason that a licence for quarry de-watering would not be renewed or would be curtailed would be that there was an environmental problem that could not be overcome. We should not compensate people for causing environmental damage. That is another principle in the Bill: the polluter pays.

The proposal would include the presumption of renewal for mines and quarries as a statutory requirement. It would also introduce, in a well-established statutory decision-making process, a requirement that, where certain conditions were met, the decision would effectively be taken out of the hands of the proper decision-making body—the Environment Agency.

New clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), would place the presumption of renewal in statute, for all abstractors. My concern is that such a provision would fetter the agency's ability to consider other relevant factors. It is difficult to define in a Bill every factor that might arise in sufficient detail for all those cases where the presumption cannot apply. The presumption of renewal reiterates the effective presumption of grant existing at the time of the original application, provided that there is continuing need and that environmental sustainability is not threatened.

4.15 pm

The Environment Agency must have concrete grounds for not granting or not renewing a licence, and its decisions can be challenged by appeal. We have to be careful about including undue restraints in the Bill because one of the considerations that the agency must take into account in renewing a licence is the efficient use of water. The hon. Member for Lewes has not included that in his criteria, as far as I am aware.

Norman Baker

That is covered by environmental sustainability and water abstraction in new clause 12.

Mr. Morley

I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that that is his intention, but new clause 12 does not say that. [Interruption.] He can imagine how such meanings could be argued over in court. We should be as clear as possible in framing legislation. If it is impossible to deal with every circumstance in relation to the presumption of renewal, there must be flexibility to allow the agency to do its job. That is why it is unwise to stipulate in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests in new clause 12. It could lead to great difficulties in the future. My worry is that it could tie one hand behind the agency's back, and I would not want that to happen.

Mr. Heath

I am concerned about how the agency can deal with the cumulative effect of a number of permissions on a single aquifer. Each planning permission and each licence may well not have an environmentally unsustainable effect on the aquifer, but the cumulative effect may be unsustainable. In those circumstances and under the Minister's scheme, would the agency be right to cancel all permissions in a given area?

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman goes into hypothetical detail. However, as a rule of thumb, the agency will certainly take into account the cumulative effect of abstraction. If a further application could add to the overall effect of a number of existing licences that would certainly affect whether a new application was granted. Of course, there is nothing new about that—the agency currently operates in that way in respect of its resource management duties—so the existing situation would not change.

Of course, we have powers to direct the agency in how it deals with such issues if it becomes necessary to do so in the light of experience, so the presumption of renewal need not be included in the Bill, as that could be too restrictive. The presumption of renewal exists, as has been emphasised on a number of occasions, and I do so again now, so that there is no doubt or argument about it.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 would impose particular considerations in specifying the expiry date of a licence. Incorporating criteria, such as fixed duration, or the need to relate licences to asset-lifetime criteria could have the effect of overriding other criteria, not least environmental considerations. So those amendments are unacceptable.

Amendment No. 12 would significantly limit the ability of the agency to refuse to renew a licence to the very narrow set of circumstances set out in that amendment. It would remove the tests to ensure whether water continues to be used efficiently or is still required. The hon. Member for Lewes says that such things are covered by sustainability, but there could be argument about that.

I come now to amendment No. 10. I met representatives of mineral water companies, and I understand their concerns about what might happen if someone wishes to construct a borehole adjacent to the site of their existing abstraction licence. Of course, existing licence holders do have protected rights in respect of quantities. I realise that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is concerned that boreholes might affect the chemical composition of the water, and I pointed out in my discussions with mineral water companies that I would ask the agency whether it could take such issues into account. However, there are real problems. The agency does not have a duty to take into account the effect of boreholes on the mineral composition of water. The agency's duty relates simply to quantities, so amendment No. 10 would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman argues for. Moreover, there would be real technical problems. The greater protection is on the quantities and on the rights of existing licence holders. As has rightly been stated, there is deregulation under a certain threshold, but if a problem arose the threshold could be lowered.

Amendment No. 24 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to direct the agency to apply for a threshold order under new section 27A of the Water Resources Act 1991. The Secretary of State would be able to exercise this power only in relation to issues of national importance. The power to intervene, exceptional as it is, may be used to make changes to reflect important national policy matters, but it could also be used in respect of matters on which the agency had yet to have the opportunity to take action. To enable full accountability between the Secretary of State and the agency, it is necessary to have the ability to intervene in unforeseen circumstances, which may encompass wider issues than those of national importance. Again, we must ensure that the agency has flexibility.

Amendment No. 25 deals with advertising regulations a—matter to which Members did not give a great deal of attention—and amendment No. 4 is concerned with protected rights. There seemed to be some confusion in Committee about the question of the time limit, and I must make it clear that we are talking about protected rights, not the right to abstract. Clause 17 preserves the protected right of those abstractors who no longer require a licence as a result of the Bill's various deregulatory measures—in other words, those who are below the current threshold. But where the right to abstract is not exercised, the protected right may lapse after four years, or—as was rightly pointed out—after another such period, as agreed by the agency. The intention is to prevent any unused abstraction rights from blocking access to water resources by preventing the issuing of new licences. But I must stress that that the loss of a protected right after four years does not prevent an abstraction from taking place. Unlicensed abstraction can continue lawfully at any time because it is below the threshold; it is simply the status of the abstraction that changes.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to change the period from four years to six years—an issue that was discussed in Committee. We believe that the proposed normal four-year period achieves a balance between the needs of an abstractor for the resources that they have a right to abstract, and the needs of other licence applicants, and, of course, of the environment.

Clause 24 introduces the right to sue an abstractor who causes damage. Abstractors will therefore need to remain alert to the possibility that they are harming others, if they are to avoid being subject to claims for damages. That will ensure that the law on water abstraction is entirely consistent with long-established rules in other areas—for example, the requirement for property owners and other occupiers or users of land to respect the interests of their neighbours. I understand what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said about the concern that that might lead to some house owners taking action. She gave an example of people in the watercress industry, and amendment No. 126 would provide a restricted definition of loss or damage. Different rules would apply to loss or damage under these provisions compared to the usual principles that apply to other cases.

Although the most common type of damage will be tangible damage to property, people who have suffered kinds of otherwise recoverable harm should have the ability to obtain the appropriate compensation. However, if the hon. Lady thinks that that might provide an excuse for someone to take legal action because they might argue that the water flow in the stream outside their house has devalued their property because it is on the waterside, I assure her that that is not the intention of clause 24. Just like anything else, such a case would have to be made in a court of law, and our legal advisers inform me that it would be very difficult to make such a case. In the end, it is for the court to decide, but it is not the Bill's intention to provide such a right. The Bill simply intends to put in place provision for similar rights to apply in similar circumstances so that there is consistency. I do not believe that it will necessarily bring about major changes.

I think that I have covered the main points that have not unreasonably been raised. I hope that I have addressed those points in a serious and detailed manner and provided reassurance to Members who have spoken on behalf of companies in their constituencies. I emphasise that we take such points seriously and are seeking to address them as far as possible as we seek a balance between sustainable management, the powers of the Environment Agency and the rights of abstractors.

Mr. Wiggin

The Minister was correct when he said that he had addressed these important and well made points.

Will the Minister consider a suggestion about the letter that he sent to the chairman of the quarrying industry? I accept that the Minister is worried about putting the contents of that letter in the Bill, and he made very clear the reasons for his not doing so. However, is there anything more that we can ask him to do to clarify the contents of the letter? I suggest that putting a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library might be the easiest way of allowing everyone to see its contents. [Interruption.] There is some nodding in the distance. I hope that that is a positive sign.

We talked about the presumption of renewal being needed in the Bill. The Minister says, "No, I do not agree on that one." We also talked about contamination affecting the bottling sector.

Mr. Morley

Although the letter was written to a third-party organisation, I confirm that, as far as we are concerned, it is a matter of public record. I am quite sure that we can arrange to put a copy in the Library.

Mr. Wiggin

I am delighted by that good news. It is a positive response and I know that many people have worked hard to obtain such assurances from the Minister. I am grateful to him for allowing everyone to see the letter's contents by putting a copy in the House of Commons Library.

To return to the point that I was about to make about bottling rights, the Environment Agency is responsible for the quantities abstracted but not for the quality. I completely accept and understand that, but I was not so happy with what the Minister said about the contamination effect. Although in most cases this would not happen, drilling into an aquifer can have a negative effect and pollution might reach the public through bottled water. I accept that many checks and balances are in place.

Mr. Morley

I want to make it clear that although the principal consideration is quantity, quality and the potential for pollution are other criteria that the agency must take into account. Whether there is potential for pollution is an important consideration in whether a licence is granted.

4.30 pm

Mr. Wiggin

I am clearly on a roll today because the Minister is being very helpful.

The Environment Agency must also be responsible for environmental impact and if that is manifested by pollution, it should be responsible for that, whether it wants to be or not. Pollution causes environmental damage, so it does not matter how it occurs. The agency should examine its remit on the damage of aquifers carefully. I am also grateful to the Minister for touching on protected rights.

The majority of what the Minister said was extremely helpful. I am grateful for his words and the letter that he will put in the Library, but we do need to amend the Bill somewhat.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 318.

Division No. 354]	[4:30
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Ancram, rh Michael	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Arbuthnot, rh James	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Lansley, Andrew
Bacon, Richard	Leigh, Edward
Barker, Gregory	Letwin, rh Oliver
Baron, John (Billericay)	Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Bellingham, Henry	Lidington, David
Bercow, John	Loughton, Tim
Beresford, Sir Paul	Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Blunt, Crispin	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Boswell, Tim	Mackay, rh Andrew
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Maclean, rh David
Brady, Graham	McLoughlin, Patrick
Brazier, Julian	Malins, Humfrey
Burns, Simon	Maples, John
Burt, Alistair	Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian
Butterfill, John	May, Mrs Theresa
Cash, William	Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfied)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Moss, Malcolm
Chope, Christopher	Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Clappison, James	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Osborne, George (Tatton)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Ottaway, Richard
Collins, Tim	Page, Richard
Conway, Derek	Paterson, Owen
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Pickles, Eric
Cran, James (Beverley)	Portillo, rh Michael
Curry, rh David	Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)	Redwood, rh John
	Robathan, Andrew
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Djanogly, Jonathan	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry
Duncan, Alan (Rutland)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Duncan Smith, rh Iain	Rosindell, Andrew
Evans, Nigel	Ruffley, David
Fabricant, Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael	Selous, Andrew
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)	Shepherd, Richard
	Simmonds, Mark
Flight, Howard	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Flook, Adrian	Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)
Forth, rh Eric	Soames, Nicholas
Fox, Dr. Liam	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Garnier, Edward	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)	Spring, Richard
Goodman, Paul	Steen, Anthony
Gray, James (N Wilts)	Streeter, Gary
Grayling, Chris	Swire, Hugo (E Devon)
Green, Damian (Ashford)	Syms, Robert
Greenway, John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Grieve, Dominic	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Hammond, Philip	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hawkins, Nick	Tredinnick, David
Hayes, John (S Holland)	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David	Tyrie, Andrew
Hendry, Charles	Walter, Robert
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Waterson, Nigel
Hogg, rh Douglas	Watkinson, Angela
Horam, John (Orpington)	Whittingdale, John
Howard, rh Michael	Wiggin, Bill
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Wilkinson, John
Hunter, Andrew	Willetts, David
Jack, rh Michael	Wilshire, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Jenkin, Bernard
Johnson, Boris (Henley)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Key, Robert (Salisbury)	Mr. Mark Francois and
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Mr. John Randall

NOES
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Davidson, Ian
Ainger, Nick	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Allan, Richard	Dawson, Hilton
Allen, Graham	Dean, Mrs Janet
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary	Denham, rh John
Atkins, Charlotte	Dhanda, Parmjit
Austin, John	Dismore, Andrew
Bailey, Adrian	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Baird, Vera	Dobson, rh Frank
Baker, Norman	Donohoe, Brian H.
Banks, Tony	Doran, Frank
Barnes, Harry	Doughty, Sue
Barrett, John	Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Beard, Nigel	Drew, David (Stroud)
Beckett, rh Margaret	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bell, Stuart	Edwards, Huw
Bennett, Andrew	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Berry, Roger	Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)
Betts, Clive	Etherington, Bill
Blackman, Liz	Farrelly, Paul
Blizzard, Bob	Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)
Borrow, David	Fisher, Mark
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Flint, Caroline
Brennan, Kevin	Flynn, Paul (Newport W)
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)	Foster, rh Derek
	Foster, Don (Bath)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Browne, Desmond	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen	Francis, Dr. Hywel
Burden, Richard	Gardiner, Barry
Burnham, Andy	Gerrard, Neil
Burstow, Paul	Gibson, Dr. Ian
Byers, rh Stephen	Gilroy, Linda
Cable, Dr. Vincent	Goggins, Paul
Cairns, David	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Grogan, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hain, rh Peter
Caplin, Ivor	Hamilton, David (Midlothian)
Casale, Roger	Hanson, David
Caton, Martin	Healey, John
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Challen, Colin	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hendrick, Mark
Chaytor, David	Hepburn, Stephen
Chidgey, David	Heppell, John
Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)	Hesford, Stephen
Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hinchliffe, David
Clelland, David	Hodge, Margaret
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)	Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Coaker, Vernon	Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)
Colman, Tony	Hope, Phil (Corby)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)
Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)	Howarth, George (Knows/ey N & Sefton E
Cooper, Yvette
Cousins, Jim	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cox, Tom (Tooting)	Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Crausby, David
Cryer, Ann (Keighley)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Cummings, John	Humble, Mrs Joan
Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)	Hurst, Alan (Braintree)
	Hutton, rh John
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)	Iddon, Dr. Brian
Cunningham, Tony (Workington)	Irranca-Davies, Huw
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
David, Wayne	Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian	Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	Oaten, Mark (Winchester)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
	Olner, Bill
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Organ, Diana
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Jowell, rh Tessa	Perham, Linda
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)	Picking, Anne
Kaufman, rh Gerald	Pickthall, Colin
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Pike, Peter (Burnley)
Kelly, Ruth (Bo/ton W)	Plaskitt, James
Kemp, Fraser	Pollard, Kerry
Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)	Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
	Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)
Khabra, Piara S.	Pound, Stephen
Kidney, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
King, Andy (Rugby)	Primarolo, rh Dawn
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow	Prosser, Gwyn
	Pugh, Dr. John
Knight, Jim (S Dorset)	Purchase, Ken
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen	Purnell, James
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Quin, rh Joyce
Laws, David (Yeovil)	Quinn, Lawrie
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)	Rammell, Bill
Lazarowicz, Mark	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Leslie, Christopher	Raynsford, rh Nick
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)	Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Linton, Martin	Rendel, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Llwyd, Elfyn
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Luke, lain (Dundee E)
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas	Ruane, Chris
McCabe, Stephen	Ruddock, Joan
McCafferty, Chris	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McDonnell, John	Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
MacDougall, John
McFall, John	Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Salter, Martin
McIsaac, Shona	Sanders, Adrian
McKechin, Ann	Sawford, Phil
McKenna, Rosemary	Shaw, Jonathan
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sheerman, Barry
McNamara, Kevin	Sheridan, Jim
McNulty, Tony	Short, rh Clare
MacShane, Denis	Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)
Mactaggart, Fiona	Singh, Marsha
McWalter, Tony	Skinner, Dennis
McWilliam, John	Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)
Mahmood, Khalid
Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)	Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
	Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Martlew, Eric	Steinberg, Gerry
Meacher, rh Michael	Stevenson, George
Michael, rh Alun	Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)
Miliband, David
Miller, Andrew	Stoate, Dr. Howard
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Moffatt, Laura	Straw, rh Jack
Mole, Chris	Stringer, Graham
Moonie, Dr. Lewis	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Moore, Michael	Stunell, Andrew
Moran, Margaret	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Morley, Elliot	Tami, Mark (Alyn)
Mountford, Kali	Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)
Munn, Ms Meg	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Teather, Sarah
Naysmith, Dr. Doug	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Wicks, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy	Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Tonge, Dr. Jenny	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Touhig, Don (Islwyn)	Winnick, David
Trickett, Jon	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)	Woolas, Phil
	Worthington, Tony
Turner, Neil (Wigan)	Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Ms Joan	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Ward, Claire	Wyatt, Derek
Wareing, Robert N.	Younger-Ross, Richard
Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Watts, David	Tellers for the Noes:
Webb, Steve (Northavon)	Gillian Merron and
White, Brian	Ms Bridget Prentice

Question accordingly negatived.