HL Deb 02 February 2004 vol 656 cc511-24

7.34 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 11 December 2003, be annulled (S.I. 2003/3242).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order laid before the House on 11 December 2003 be annulled.

I do not think it will surprise the Minister to know that I have chosen to pray against these regulations. It was of great regret to me and, indeed, many other noble Lords, that when the Water Bill went through your Lordships' House last year, the Water Framework Directive was not included in it in some form; there was not even a reference to it. What we feared at the time—that the regulations, although good in intention, left much to be desired—has come to pass.

I would like to recap my views for the record, although the Minister is quite clear about them. The Water Framework Directive is a very good piece of European legislation. It is visionary and it has firm outcomes within a timescale. It recognises that water is a precious commodity. Indeed, it says that it is, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such". The Water Framework Directive recognises that there is a big problem to be tackled, especially with point and diffuse pollution. It accepts that there must be a correlation between the clean-up and the pricing of water. There are also issues surrounding the sustainable use of water. Most European countries need to move a long way to improve aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands.

The Water Framework Directive recognises that it can succeed only with full public participation. Article 14 refers to the active involvement of all interested parties. This point is perhaps the most graphic illustration of how the transposition of this excellent directive into UK law by these regulations has been disappointing—even minimalist. I shall come back to that point in a moment.

The Environment Agency is the competent authority chosen by the Government to undertake the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. On public involvement, perhaps the Environment Agency does not have enough experience of real public engagement. Does the Environment Agency have the capacity to undertake this work at the moment?

In January, Environment Business magazine contained an interview with Barbara Young—the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, herself. It says: Young is forthright in stating that the Agency is 'very, very pressed on our environmental protection work, with more and more new duties coming from Europe'. She went on to say, that means finding smarter ways to keep business in line. In other words, doing more with less. 'There are two issues—have we got enough money and have we got enough staff, she says. 'Government agencies never have enough money'". In the light of those comments, does the Minister think that the Environment Agency is now sufficiently funded and that it has sufficient capacity?

How does the agency feel about the regulations? I quote from an agency document, written by an agency member of staff, stating that its view is that, in general, the regulations are acceptable but a significant number of issues still remain which need to be resolved". The document was dated 12 January 2004, so the agency had seen the final form of the regulations.

The agency has particular concerns that the diffuse pollution powers needed to tackle diffuse pollution are simply not explicitly referred to in the regulations. It says: These are critical to the implementation of the Directive". The next point refers to the powers of other relevant authorities. The document says, there is an important need to bind other relevant authorities (both public and private) into the process of River Basin Management planning"— the building block on which the Water Framework Directive exists.

I ask the Minister to comment particularly on this point: The Agency cannot be held accountable for the non-delivery of the Water Framework Directive requirements if other relevant authorities do not deliver on their responsibilities". The regulations do not ask any other authorities directly to do anything.

There we have a quite a number of large worries. The Water Framework Directive considers persons to be consulted—I remind the Minister that the European version refers to the active involvement of all interested parties. The UK regulations give a list of people needing to be consulted under Article 12.4. They are the usual suspects—conservation bodies, water undertakers, fishery committees, harbour authorities—everybody one would expect to be involved in the water environment, along with such other persons as "the Agency thinks fit". I suggest that everybody, whether be they communities, industrialists, farmers or landowners, needs to be fundamentally involved in how the framework will be implemented; otherwise, it simply will not work. By raising everyone's status in that way, the agency can tick the boxes—there is restricted capacity, as I have mentioned—and it will then be deemed to have involved the public. I cannot emphasise that point enough—and it is that point that has impelled me to pray against the regulations this evening. The involvement of the public is critical to whether the regulations work.

It is ironic that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has just been discussed in your Lordships' House, because the implementation of the Water Framework Directive rests heavily on planning mechanisms. However, that Bill misses out any reference to the Water Framework Directive. The Government had a great chance to cross-reference the powers to which the Environment Agency referred and to bind local authorities into the Water Framework Directive. Local authorities, being such a fundamental part of the democratic process, would have been a good place to begin. I therefore suggest that the Government bring forward their own amendments to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in your Lordships' House to fill that glaringly obvious gap.

Regulation 2 lists the other Acts to which the Water Framework Directive might need to be cross-referenced. No reference is made to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I expect that the Minister can offer a reason, but perhaps it should be included.

As has been recognised by everybody, if transposed correctly, the Water Framework Directive offers cost-effective ways of delivering clean water and clean water environments without water bills having to rise enormously to achieve that. That is why the framework directive has such unexpectedly unanimous support from the water industry, consumer representatives and environmental organisations. The Government's support, however, was perceived by everybody to be a little late in coming. Ministers expressed a little more enthusiasm at the time of the issuing of the regulations. That lateness applies also to the nub of the issue; namely, the pricing of water.

We are in the middle of an Ofwat pricing round. That round is in full swing. Indeed, the Government should already have issued guidance on what Ofwat must allow for in the new pricing round. Where is that guidance? It was supposed to have been issued by the end of January. When will it be issued? It is impossible for any body to plan for the Water Framework Directive, particularly the water industry in this country, without knowing on what basis to proceed. Pricing is fundamental to that.

Of course, the characterisation to which the Water Framework Directive referred should have informed the pricing round, but now we are stuck with it being the other way round: the pricing round will happen and the characterisation process will take place afterwards. That is somewhat difficult.

The Government, however, appear to be stuck in the middle of a feud over the issue. No. 10 and Mr Blair, with an eye on the ballot box, have the short-term view that there must be a minimum rise in water bills, no matter what the long-term costs are. I am sure that the Minister, like me, read the article in the Observer on January 25 that stated: Tony Blair is planning large cuts in Britain's pollution clean-up programme in a move that will invite a series of prosecutions of the Government in the European courts. The cuts will spare families a rise of only £2 over the next five years on the average £234 water bill". I shall not read more from the article in the interests of time, but it goes on to make the point strongly that without some kind of recognition of the scale of work to be done in the current pricing round and of the scale of the environmental clean-up, the Water Framework Directive cannot even begin to be implemented. By 2015, the environmental investment will have a positive benefit for the country. During the passage of the Water Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made it plain that industry could benefit from innovation; that the consumer could benefit from there being no need to clean up water and from it being clean at the point of arrival. Those millions of pounds needed to clean up water will not be required.

I have another series of questions for the Minister. I realise that time is moving on. How are the river basin management plans to be integrated with other water conservation and management commitments? English Nature, the Government's own adviser, wonders how those plans will be integrated with the biodiversity action plans.

What is a significant water body? I believe that the regulations do not recognise it as being a stream. How then would the regulations work? Streams are a major source of diffuse pollution as they receive the run-off from agricultural land and they feed into rivers. Without addressing streams, we will have a problem.

I shall go through the regulations. Wales is perhaps lucky that its Assembly oversees Regulation 3. Like Scotland, it has a more holistic approach, whereas in England the Secretary of State has to bring all the other departments on board.

Who was consulted on what constitutes a river basin district? When did the consultation take place and was everybody happy? The drawing up of the districts was somewhat arbitrary.

If the Environment Agency must carry out a characterisation of each river basin district by December 2004, as specified by Regulation 5, how many of the optional characteristics from the Water Framework Directive list will be included? Will it be a minimal characterisation of only central features, leaving the amount of work to be allowed for as an unknown? I remind your Lordships that, also by December 2004, the Environment Agency must have assessed the impact of human activity on the area of water in every river basin district. That will be a tall order to meet by then. I again raise the question of the capacity of the Environment Agency to do so.

Regulation 8 refers to the register of protected areas. Does that include wetlands; and if not, why not? Environmental organisations are concerned that our regulations make no reference to wetlands, yet they are a vital part of our water system, not only because they mitigate droughts and floods, but also because they recharge groundwater. In the importance of their wildlife, they are unsurpassed. Wetlands are Britain's most significant wildlife habitats.

The water industry would like to know what constitutes good water status. It is hard for it to move ahead with its plans without a clear definition. Who decides what it is? Is it the Secretary of State or the Environment Agency? If it is the latter, and it is unable to deliver the standard required, will it simply water down the definition of good status?

Finally, I come back to the list of powers needed to implement the Water Framework Directive Regulations in the UK. I believe that they are lacking and that the Government will have to bring forward another set of regulations, which will make life very difficult for everybody. At this critical point we have a water pricing round that looks set to ignore a lot of the requirements of the directive. The Government have come very late to the importance of the Water Framework Directive. There are a lot of questions to be answered.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 11 December 2003, be annulled (S.I. 2003/3242).—(Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I have some concerns about these regulations. However, I do not think that they are quite as deeply flawed as in the picture that she portrayed, although I agree that there are very significant questions about the adequacy of resourcing and the definition of what has to be done. I hope that if I ask some of these questions, the Minister will be able to respond to them. On balance, my preference is to see these regulations in place, rather than to have them held up on a technical disagreement, because we did not include them in a Bill, which we all argued should be done. I readily acknowledge that.

One must consider the regulations. I start at Regulation 5. This requires the Environment Agency, in accordance with Annex II … by 22nd December 2004 … [to] carry out an analysis of the characteristics of each river basin district and … conduct a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface water and ground water in each river basin district". The first, and obvious, question is whether the Environment Agency is equipped and funded to do that at the present time. I assume that it has not been doing this work in the past, but that may be incorrect. It may well be that this is subsumed into work that it already does. If that is so, then the additional employment burden would be commensurately less. If this is an additional burden, then it is one for a short period of time. Are the arrangements in place to enable qualified people to be taken on on a temporary basis to do this work? If so, for how long? That is an important issue and it goes to the heart of the noble Baroness's concerns.

It is the agency that has to do this, not the water companies, which actually make use of the water. The agency must also carry out an economic analysis of water use in each river basin district by 22 December. I have an awful feeling that a piece of elastic ought to be attached to that date. It will be very difficult for the agency to attain it.

In Regulation 7: The agency must identify any bodies of water within each river basin district which … are used for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption and either … provide", here we get into difficulties, more than 10 cubic metres of such water per day as an average". When we were dealing with the Bill, the licensing quantity went down to a limit, I think, of 20 cubic metres per day, if my memory is correct.

Of course, the agency and everybody else will have a record of all water abstraction at over 20 cubic metres per day. However, it will be another scale of development altogether if they have to take that figure down to those who might be abstracting 10 cubic metres per day and have to start recording all of those as well. The second qualification, all water that might, serve more than 50 persons", could happen at less than 10 cubic metres per day. This will add yet another administrative burden to the Environment Agency and I wonder how it will do it. This increases the load over and above what was proposed in the Bill.

Over the page, in Regulation 9, I found I was getting into considerable difficulty and in the end I became completely lost. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to me exactly what it means. It deals with what the agency must do. In the future: The Agency must … establish programmes for monitoring water status in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district". I wonder what that means, precisely. It goes on to say that, programmes must cover … in relation to surface water … the volume and level or rate of flow to the extent relevant to ecological and chemical status and ecological potential". What does that mean? It sounds wonderful but, as far as I can see, it is jargon. It goes on about, the ecological and chemical status and ecological potential … in relation to groundwater, chemical and quantitative status". Again, these are gloriously imprecise terms. The monitoring programmes must be operational by 22 December, but 2006 this time. There is a little bit more time on that one.

It goes on—and this is where I became completely lost: the relevant monitoring provisions of the Directive referred to … are set out in the following provisions of Annex V to the Directive". So I turned to the directive to see what it says. What it says is: Quality elements for the classification of ecological status … rivers … lakes … transitional waters … coastal waters", and so on. That is all right, just about. But: Normative definitions of ecological status classifications". This is where we are getting into things. A little bit later, we get: Definitions for high, good and moderate ecological status in rivers". We all know what a well-poisoned river is. We probably know what a good quality river is, but it starts to split them into high, good and moderate ecological status and does not even consider poor ecological status. Fortunately the number of poor rivers in the country has diminished, but there are still one or two. I have concerns about that. I am trying to relate this order to the requirements of the directive. It goes on: The relevant monitoring provisions of the Directive … are set out in the following provisions of Annex V to the Directive … points 1.3 to 1.3/". Points 1.3 to 1.3.6 say this: Monitoring of ecological status and chemical status for surface waters … design of surveillance monitoring … design of operational monitoring … design of investigative monitoring … frequency of monitoring … additional monitoring requirements for protected areas … standards for monitoring of quality elements". There are no standards there at all. Nobody knows, as a result of reading the directive, what anybody has to work to. We can set our national standards deeply differently from national standards set in every other country in Europe. The whole exercise is in danger of becoming completely meaningless, if that is the case. It goes on with all the other points; the directive continues in this gloriously open way, defining nothing.

The job is left to the Government. Maybe that was what was intended. But the problem is that the Government in the order refer back to the directive, which tells us nothing. There is a dilemma and I would like the Minister to tell me how it is to be resolved.

I turn to the other matter to which I wish to refer. When I looked at the list of persons and organisations to be consulted, I was amazed in a completely different way from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I have never seen such a long list of consultees in legislation or an order. I was not quite so concerned as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, as the list of consultees on the river basin plans includes all the planning authorities, all the local authorities and so on and so forth. The opportunity exists for everyone to be aware of what is going on. However, I am not sure what is going on. That is my concern. If the Minister can put my mind at rest by his response I shall be immensely grateful to him. At the moment the co-ordination between the order and the regulations seems to me to be inadequate, but the reason for that, of course, is that the directive is inadequate in its definitions.

8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, I suppose that I am grateful for the interventions of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. They asked rather a lot of questions that I hope to be able to answer in part. I had better deal with the nature of the regulations that are before the House. As the noble Baroness explained, we had lengthy debates during the course of the Water Bill on whether the whole of the Water Framework Directive, which was widely welcomed during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, should be included on the face of a piece of primary legislation. We had some considerable arguments on whether the normal method of transposing European regulations under the European Communities Act was appropriate in this instance or whether the measure should be included in primary legislation.

The noble Baroness takes a different view from me on the matter. She now seems to take a slightly different view from me on the value of the Water Framework Directive itself. Although the noble Lord started out by saying that the Water Framework Directive was welcomed all round, he ended up by saying that it was deeply deficient in many respects. One of the problems is that although the regulations

implement those parts of the Water Framework Directive that we are obliged to implement, other parts of it, on which further regulations and guidelines will be issued, come into effect at much later stages. That was one of the reasons—apart from the basic general approach to European legislation—why it would not have been appropriate to provide those measures in a Water Bill which dealt primarily with the economic regulation of water.

The question of environmental and quality regulation is getting mixed up to a degree with that of economic regulation. Clearly, there are areas of overlap in relation to the pricing round which I shall discuss later, but the discussion this evening indicates the wisdom of the Government's original determination that this issue should not be dealt with in primary legislation but should be approached through the more flexible method of transposition under the European Communities Act. That in no way diminishes the effect of the Water Framework Directive. It certainly in no way diminishes the degree of involvement and public participation in that process. Indeed, it probably enhances it. The degree of public involvement in the consultation prior to the publication of the regulations was substantial. That will be the case regarding further regulations and guidelines that will be needed later.

For the first time we have a directive that integrates a large number of aspects of water regulation and the whole spectrum of inland and coastal waters, the management of river basins, the linkages between surface and ground water regulation and water quantity and water quality objectives. Those matters were all taken into account. I believe this is the first time that all of that is pooled together, as the directive achieves. Many different complicated aspects are involved. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were right to question whether the Environment Agency and government as a whole have the ability and the resources to manage the issues. Every government agency always wants more money at any given time but the Environment Agency has increased its funding from £620 million in the year ending in 2000 to over £800 million in the financial year which is coming to an end. Much of that is for water management purposes of various kinds. The direct grant from the Government—

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he be a little more explicit on the matter of funding? He said that the funding had increased from some £600 million in 2000 to £800 million at the end of this financial year and that much of the money is allocated for water management purposes. The problem is that the end of this financial year is 31 March. We do not know what the provision is for next year. The question I want to ask, which it may not be entirely possible for the Minister to answer, is whether the provision that ends in the current financial year is sufficient for, or, indeed, could have taken account of, the potential additional costs that arise from the order.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the increase in the Government's allocation to the Environment Agency, as distinct from its other forms of income, indeed takes account of the increased duties as there is an agreed process between the Government and the agency whereby that happens. The resources for 2004–05 to which the noble Lord referred are partly covered by the previous settlement. The agency will be adequately resourced; the agency's corporate plan makes that clear. I think that we are reasonably clear about what will happen in 2004–05, but the allocation in 2005–06 onwards will necessarily form part of the coming spending round. However, that spending round will obviously have to take into account the very substantial additional pressures on the Environment Agency in this and other fields.

As regards whether new work is implied in the regulations, about 40 people are already working full time in the Environment Agency on these areas. They come within the resources allocated for the past financial year. Additional staff do not need to be taken on board to deal with those matters. Resources clearly do not present a serious problem; but the next spending round will have to take that forward into the coming years.

As far as public involvement is concerned, there was a pretty widespread double consultation in relation to the Water Framework Directive, and the directive itself is very insistent on stakeholder involvement. We have established a Water Framework Directive stakeholder group for England specifically. There are a number of other bodies which feed into that. We have been through the whole of this consultation on the Water Framework Directive and involved as wide a range of stakeholders as we can. As far as the consultation in the regulations is concerned—based on Article 12—various regulations are not exclusive. They do not exclude other bodies; they lay down which bodies must be consulted, and there will be other regulations that also specify that other bodies, as the agency sees fit, must also be consulted. Likewise as far as the role of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly is concerned, there are other bodies which need to be consulted. Both in terms of resources and involvement, these regulations are quite robust.

A number of quite specific questions arose during the discussion; some of which I may not be able to answer to the full satisfaction of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked what good status is, who decides it and how we know. The directive sets a process by which good status is established; river basin areas and others are assessed against that. The work is taken through the common implementation strategy and carried through by the Environment Agency. The statement that we made on these regulations in December indicates that the classification regulations will be brought forward by the end of 2006. There is therefore some clear timescale to build that up in more detail.

As far as monitoring of those standards is concerned, the technical details are set out in Annex 5.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, before the Minister goes on to the point of good status, perhaps I may ask him again—perhaps I did not hear him clearly—who sets the good status. If it is the Environment Agency and the whole thing does not seem to be working, and status is not becoming good as quickly as possible, are they not going to be tempted to lower the standard at which good status can be said to exist?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I thought I had understood the noble Baroness on that. I do not think that is an imputation as to how the Environment Agency operates. If the Environment Agency sets standards in this and a whole range of other fields, it expects those standards to be followed. It does not then adjust the standards because the industry has failed to meet them; rather the opposite. I am sure that will be the case in relation to the Environment Agency itself; but it requires the Environment Agency continuously to monitor them. That is why, before the noble Baroness stood up, I was about to refer to the details in Annex 5 to the directive, which requires the technical details and monitoring to be carried out. There is already guidance on the way in which that monitoring will be carried out. Therefore the Environment Agency will be well aware if there is some serious shortfall in those standards. Noble Lords can be satisfied that the Environment Agency will operate in its normal way.

Other issues were raised that will also take slightly longer to answer in detail than is available to me tonight. The noble Baroness asked about diffuse controls. The directive requires programmes and measures targeted at the needs of each district, which include diffuse controls, by 2009. Clearly we need another very substantial round of consultations in the development of those powers.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the Water Framework Directive is linked sufficiently to other provisions, especially the Town and Country Planning Acts. Local authorities must be fully engaged in river basin management plans, and, as with land-use plans, these regulations require such plans to be taken into account. The Water Framework Directive will need to be adjusted in the light of some of these other plans, and if it shows that the river basin development planning process has a requirement for new land-use plans or other planning measures, then Regulation 3 requires those new controls to be developed.

The noble Baroness also asked how river basin management plans will be integrated with other nature conservation plans. In this area the Environment Agency has discretion to produce supplementary plans—that is under Regulation 17—and therefore has the opportunity to make links between the WFD-generated plans and other policy areas on conservation, biodiversity, flood defence and so on. There is a linkage there as well.

There is also the question of who will be consulted on the river basin districts. The noble Baroness asked whether they were all happy. We are not clear that everyone is happy, but both our predecessor department and our current department carried out three different rounds of consultation on the designation of districts. The end of the first consultation set out the initial proposals that were consulted on, and the final proposals will reflect the feedback that we received on those. Therefore, it is not as though we are suddenly springing a list of districts and river basins on all those who will be involved in managing them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also asked whether the river basin planning process engaged other authorities in delivering the plans set out by the Environment Agency. The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for ensuring that the objectives are met and, under Regulations 19 and 20, the Secretary of State has significant new powers to ensure that the other authorities participate in the delivery of the plans' objectives.

Concern was also expressed about wetlands. The noble Baroness mentioned this point as, I believe, did the noble Lord. I was asked whether wetlands are covered by the references to protected areas and so forth. Some wetlands will be protected areas if they are designated as such under other Community legislation. Generally, the Water Framework Directive will benefit the environment in wetlands because it contains sufficient provision relating to the quality and quantity of groundwater and the risk of significant damage. The regulations include obligations to take action if there is such a risk. Therefore, wetlands are protected under both the directive and the regulations.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on that point. Why do the UK regulations make no specific reference whatever to wetlands? They seem to be specifically excluded.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, they benefit from the regulations which cover all protected areas and they benefit from the controls which are introduced more generally. Therefore, I do not believe that wetlands are in any sense excluded from the effects of the regulations. The directive specifically contains wetlands-related powers and responsibilities, and we use the general powers in order to protect the wetlands.

I was also asked whether the definition of a "significant water body" excluded streams and, thus, significant quantities of water going to rivers. The regulations precisely replicate the directive in this respect and there is no exclusion of streams. Where the directive requires the inclusion of streams, so do the regulations. Therefore, we have not diluted—if that is the word to use in this context; I was trying to avoid water puns—the intention of the directive here.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about the register of protected areas—that is, wetlands and others. That register is separate from the register of abstractors, and therefore the threshold is not related to the threshold for abstraction because we are dealing with protected areas in this respect.

I believe that I have touched on many of the specific issues raised in connection with areas of protection and environmental controls. No doubt the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will find ones that I have not completely answered. However, both also raised the issue of water pricing in the current price round. The noble Baroness asked when the final guidance will be produced. It should be available within the next few weeks, and it will indicate which policies are to be costed by water companies and included in water prices and which are not.

Clearly, in the whole approach to water pricing in the long term, the Government are very concerned about the quality and availability of water. They are striving to continue the improvements that we have seen to date both through regulation—that is, tackling the issue at source in terms of threats to water quality and availability—and through the way in which we approach the water pricing system. Reports in the newspapers that we shall not take that into account and shall relent to pressure for improvements in the water system are erroneous. Timescale issues are involved here. Clearly one must recognise that both the underlying improvements in relation to water and the effects of the directive will have some effect on prices for consumers both in the short and the long term. We will take account of the current pricing round. In the longer term it is important that we recognise the importance of, and work with, Ofwat and with the Environment Agency to ensure that the total package reflects the need for investment in improvements in the water system.

I believe that the complexity of some of the issues raised and the fact that different parts of the directive come into play at different periods, and have their impact both on water quality, and by whom and how things are regulated and on the pricing system, make this a particularly complicated form of regulation. But the beauty and benefit of the Water Framework Directive is that it brought together a large number of different aspects of water policy and gave a strategic approach to the way in which the national member states and their regulators are to operate to 2015. Some of the implications are not immediately reflected in the regulations before us. However, those which are before us reflect the requirements of the directive, fit in with the Government's policy as enunciated during the passage of the Water Bill and the agreement on the Water Framework Directive. They have been consulted on very widely. There is provision for adequate resources for the Environment Agency to enforce those regulations. There is very substantial further consultation with all parties envisaged in the process for further regulation and for the guidelines required under the directive.

I therefore hope that the noble Baroness does not oppose the adoption of these regulations because I believe that they provide a very sound basis for our future strategy on water policy and regulation both to the benefit of consumers and the industry itself.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his contribution and the Minister for his detailed reply. I feel a little more optimistic than I perhaps sounded at the beginning of the debate. I would like to clarify one point. I was not in any way impugning the Environment Agency in suggesting that it might choose to lower standards. I recognise that it has a herculean task. Given the fact that it may have a lack of power, resources and a lack of help from the pricing round, I wondered whether lower standards would be forced on the agency as a matter of necessity.

I look forward to seeing the regulations come into operation with some anxiety and to the result of the pricing round. I hope over the next year or two that the Government, as they consider the impact of the pricing round and the Water Framework Directive, decide to grasp the nettle of water affordability so that pricing rounds in future will not be such an issue and those who cannot pay will be properly recognised through the appropriate mechanism.

In the meantime I wish the regulations the best passage given their various shortcomings. I thank the Minister and his department for the work they have done on this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 8.23 to 8.35 p.m.]