HL Deb 13 November 2003 vol 654 cc1683-5

8 Clause 9, page 10, leave out lines 36 to 39

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Byfordrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8A as an amendment to Amendment No. 8. These amendments are very confusing and I hope that I am in the right place. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have been quite helpful, but I should like to go over the ground again. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 8A with Amendment No. 3.I hope that that is in order.

The question of trickle irrigation was debated at length during the passage of the Bill through this House and I still have one or two observations that I should like to make. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few points. We feel that existing users should be given priority over new applications. I have read carefully what was said in Standing Committee D by Mr Elliot Morley in response to our amendment on crop rotation. He said: We understand that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that, when the agency takes individual licensing decisions, it must consider how trickle irrigation has been practised. If that was the intention, we have no problem—it is not an unreasonable position to take".

The Minister has slightly clarified the matter for me and I am grateful for that. He continued: When making transitional regulations that will bring trickle irrigation under licence control, we can include a requirement that the agency should consider the history of the irrigation scheme".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 16/9/03; col. 76.]

I am grateful that that issue has been clarified but I am not clear whether in the overall scheme someone who had come in within, say, the last two years would take preference over someone who traditionally had been drawing water for a longer period in the past.

Obviously the Environment Agency will have to consider whether such people are using water efficiently and whether there is good practice. If they are not, that would be an extra reason for the Environment Agency not to renew their licence or, in this case, approve their licence.

We believe that extra consideration should be given to those who have had long practice. For example, it takes some 50 years to establish watercress beds and, although their water requirements are high, they would be very much at jeopardy if the amount of water allocated to them was withdrawn or not approved.

In moving the amendment to the amendment, I am seeking greater clarification on this issue. Why should someone who has had a licence since 2002—or has been in business; they have not needed a licence—take precedence over someone who has been using water without a licence because in the past the law did not require them to have one? Ministers at both ends of the Corridor have stated quite clearly that trickle irrigators did not require licences.

I am trying to clarify how the Environment Agency will go about its business. I accept the base premise that there must be good practice and efficient use of water but, other than that, I am not quite clear as to how people will be judged in the current situation. I seek greater clarification. That is the reason for bringing forward the amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Byford.)

Lord Whitty

My Lords, there is not a huge amount of contention between the noble Baroness and myself. The problem with keeping in the amendment which was carried here and is proposed to be deleted by the Commons is that it would appear to allow the Environment Agency to make a policy decision as to whether the current exempt irrigators would be subject to licensing. The noble Baroness is speaking in terms of preference but the wording seems to suggest that they would not be subject to the provisions of licensing at all—that they would be granted a licence— whereas the Act provides that they should be subject to licensing and, therefore, to the same conditions as any other licence.

I was trying to reassure the noble Baroness that the Environment Agency is bound to take into account the history and the length of time that irrigators have been using the abstraction in making that decision. That is not systematic preference. It will deal with matters on a case by case basis and take fully into account the amount of time that people have been using the abstraction. Therefore, in that sense, someone who has been using it for a long time in a sensible way would have some degree of preference over someone who had been taking it for a short period of time in an excessive way. So it is not absolute preference, but it reflects the history for those irrigators who have been operating an efficient irrigation system for some time. Keeping in the original amendment implies absolute preference in the sense that they would be exempt from the conditions of licensing entirely.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Am I to understand that the Environment Agency will not make policy decisions anyway? I am not quite clear about that.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the implication of the wording of the original Lords amendment was that the Environment Agency was free to make a policy decision on whether irrigators should be in or out. In fact, the rest of the Bill has already made that policy decision. Irrigators are subject to the same licensing conditions as anyone else, but in making that assessment the agency has to take account of the history of the irrigator and others who have come in to the system of licensing for the first time. The Environment Agency will not make the policy decision—the legislation has done that. In the assessment, the history of the irrigator will be fully taken into account.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As he said, we are not poles apart. I sometimes wish that when that is the case, the Government would accept some of our amendments, but not tonight, I think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.