Clause 19 - Protected rights
Water Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)
What appeared initially to be a rather arcane amendment has teased out an interesting line of thought—or lack of it—from the Government. The hon. Member for Leominster advanced several cases as to why the period should be six years. I am not sure about the weather, but if he is, he should be in a different job and making money out of seven-year predictions.
In terms of planning for changes that might be required in advance of the introduction of GM crops and for different periods of crop rotation, there is an argument for six years. The Minister seems to be saying that six years is unreasonable, and that it should be four years, but we have heard no evidence as to why it should be four years. We have not even heard evidence that the seven-year period was an obstacle to water conservation. If the Minister can tell us why it has been a problem, perhaps we will be able to decide that six years is too close to seven, so four is right. Not having heard the arguments, I tend to think that there is nothing against six years, so we should try to protect the licence holders in the way that has been suggested.