| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I must say that we have read that United States diplomats are pressing the Iraqis to adopt the new constitution. I think that today is the deadline for agreeing to it. Can the Minister assure us that UK diplomats are also playing a full part in helping the Iraqi people with their advice? Would he not agree that our advice from the United Kingdom might be that the federal element in the new constitution needs to be very light and careful, otherwise it will lead straightaway to the division of the Sunni, Shia and
30 Mar 2006 : Column 861
Kurd parts of Iraq into separate areas, with the prospect of endless instability and civil war? We learnt that from bitter experience, and perhaps our experience might be more closely listened to by our American allies.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we play a full part in trying to tender advice, respecting the emerging sovereignty of the Iraqi people. However, I totally take the point that we must deal with the issue of federalism in a way that does not lead to greater conflict. The emerging conflicts between the different peoples that formed Iraq even before the war were already a serious issue. How to resolve those issues through a constitution that will blend together the elements without being over-prescriptive is a decision for the Iraqi people. But our advice to ensure that we do not stimulate conflict, rather than trying to find the mechanisms that will avoid it, is essential advice.
Royal Assent
11.37 am
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Act 2006,
Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006,
Criminal Defence Service Act 2006,
National Insurance Contributions Act 2006,
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006,
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
Business of the House: Debates Today
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Amos on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Trefgarne set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Lord King of Bridgwater to two and a half hours.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
30 Mar 2006 : Column 862
Planning Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
Fire and Rescue Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
Terrorism Act 2000 (Revised Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
Local Government (Boundaries) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the four Motions standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Amos on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
National Lottery Bill
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order— Clauses 1 to 6 Schedule 1 Clauses 7 to 13 Schedule 2 Clauses 14 to 20 Schedule 3 Clauses 21 to 23.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Water Supplies
11.39 am
Baroness Byford rose to call attention to water supplies in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
The rain figures over the past 18 months have been alarming. In the past two winters, rainfall across England and Wales has been below 90 per cent of the long-term average. The areas served by Yorkshire, Southern Anglia and Severn Trent received only 51 per cent of their normal deposits over December and January.
Also alarming, however, are the figures for leakages. Here in London over 30 per cent of the water mains are more than 150 years old. They were installed over a
30 Mar 2006 : Column 863
fairly short period, and built to last. It is time they were renewed, and in my opinion it is not reasonable to expect the current generation of water recipients to pay the full cost. I wonder what discussions the Government have had with the water companies over this matter, or whether, as has been the practice in the past, the water companies themselves are due to bear the full cost, which is then passed on to recipients of water.
Were the Government to give up their proposed spending on identity cards and various other national databases, which they seem to hold so dear, there would clearly be funds to replace our current system of elderly water pipes. Burst water mains in London are possibly more frequent and inconvenient than in most other places. As we have all experienced on many occasions when we are driving to and fro, there are invariably roads that are taken up and repairs being made. A proper replacement programme should start in London and then perhaps move, water region by water region, according to the leakage priority. I would be grateful if the Minister would give us his thoughts on that important issue.
I have read various speeches and looked at announcements and analysis concerning the water problem. They have one thing in common: a sticking-plaster approach. The gradual reduction of water pressure may reduce leakage rates, but it will affect water flows within buildings. How many of us have been slightly scalded by our showers, only to find that the water pressure has been reduced by perhaps a burst water main nearby? How much will be spent on installing pumps to boost water flow rates in office blocks, high-rise buildings, schools and hospitals? Has anyone calculated the extra cost of maintaining those pumps?
Several water companies are bringing in a ban on car cleaning. I wonder whether the Government fear that might cut across the legal requirement to keep one's vehicle sufficiently clean and that the visibility, particularly of the number plates, is not impaired. Will the Minister reflect on that?
Water companies have obviously tried to address this issue themselves. The whole question of water metering was debated fully when we took the Water Act through this House a couple of years ago. I know there are some households that fear it, and it is important that we ensure that families, particularly those on low incomes, will not be jeopardised. What consideration has been given to those who will be forced to have water meters? What arrangements will be made for some help regarding the amount of water they use? If you have large families—and often those on low incomes have one or two more children than some others might—there is obviously greater pressure on the amount of water you use.
Drought orders and drought permits restrict access towards supplies. During our discussions of the then Water Bill it was made clear that many rivers were even affected by unsustainable levels of extraction. We were lobbied by users, particularly by the horticultural sector—especially the watercress growers—who were
30 Mar 2006 : Column 864
very threatened by the new legislation. Hitherto they had not needed a licence, but they are now likely to be refused one because the businesses that had to be licensed under the previous law were taking all that rivers could bear. The Minister will know only too well that vast areas of England are totally reliant for the production of their crops and for food supply on a steady supply of water. That is particularly true of potatoes, carrots and other horticultural products. I could name several, but I need not because the Minister is nodding and appreciates the difficulties they face.
Who will decide which current licence holders have their business restricted—or even ruined—by a drought order? Will this be a matter for the courts, or is there a mechanism enshrined in direction or guidance that will arbitrate? How much better it would be for the Government to accept that it is unfair to place the whole burden of pipe renewal on current water rate payers, and that funds should be reallocated to help them. Does such a decision lie with the Environment Agency alone, or do the Government have overall responsibility? Who, at the end of the day, will take responsibility for the whole water supply?
I know that when we debated the then Water Bill in Committee there was unease about the Minister taking responsibility. Under the pressures we face now, it needs to be clarified whether the Environment Agency or the Minister himself is responsible. We have been assured by the Minister that sufficient water is available to serve all the new housing projects planned for the south-east. We need to seek that reassurance today. Given the likely continuing climate change effect, the problem will only worsen in the coming years. This is where Defra and the ODPM find themselves in different camps. The house-building plans of the ODPM give most people a feeling akin to the old saying, "Somebody has just walked over my grave". We do not need to stop and think hard about it: we know that it is a ridiculous plan to increase water consumption in an area of acute water shortage without adequate plans to ensure that the water supply will be maintained.
The Environment Agency stated that the drought is most severe in Kent and Sussex. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee judged that,
"areas of the South East are already being supplied water by an unacceptable and unsustainable abstraction regime in both winter and summer months".
It did not qualify that statement with any reference to drought; it considered the situation to be unacceptable in all circumstances. Defra, on the other hand, continually claims observance of scientific advice on all matters for which it is responsible. Does the continuation of house plans in the south-east indicate that Defra and scientific observance counts for much less than the obsessions of the ODPM? Or is responsibility for the environment a moveable feast? Others have said before—and I repeat—that it is a question not just of the amount of rain that we are not having, but of the pressure on the very water table itself, as well as on the river flows, and of the ecological impact. The forthcoming water framework directive,
30 Mar 2006 : Column 865
which we have to enforce, puts extra responsibility on us, as a country, to manage our river flows and ecological impact, and to have regard for our wildlife.
The February 2006 Postnote, Balancing Water Supply and the Environment, issued by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology as its 259th release, makes this particular point:
Postnote goes on to say that the security of the public water supply is measured as the difference between water availability for the water supply and the water demand. It says that proposals for increasing water supply security and meeting projections of increased demand already include reservoirs, desalination plants and compulsory water metering in specific areas. The reductions in current supply levels to protect the environment could result in greater justification for these options.
About meeting the environment's water needs, the document goes on to say:
"The only justification for not meeting protection requirements is an imperative reason of overriding public interest. For sites hosting a priority habitat or species, the only public interest considerations",
that can overtake that are obviously,
Again, in referring to the impacts, Postnote states: "In applying these reductions", the Environment Agency,
"is duty-bound to ensure that PWS is not destabilised. However, there is no definition of what constitutes a 'stable supply'"—
perhaps the Minister can tell us in his winding up—and what is,
"is initially proposing to collect £85 million through the abstraction charging system to fund licence revocations at Natura 2000 sites where a real and current environmental risk can be identified".
Will the Minister also enlarge on that in his reply?
The whole question of water supply is key to all of us. We cannot live without a steady water supply. I have tried to refer to the effect that it has on us as individual consumers and householders, on those who grow our crops and our land, and on future food security supply. I have also tried to reflect on our new and ever increasing responsibility to the environment and wildlife. I am sorry that my noble friend was not able to be here to move this Motion, but it gives me great pleasure so to do. I beg to move for Papers.
11.51 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |