Clause 27 - Compensation for modification of licence on direction of Secretary of State
Water Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Ms Sue Doughty (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
Sadly, we return to the vexed question whether the time period should be four, six or seven years. There are various reasons, such as agricultural practices, to delete subsection (2), which changes the time period to four years. Clause 27 reduces the period of non-use of a licence from seven to four years, after which time revocation or variation does not entitle the licence holder to compensation.
In some situations, it would be good agricultural practice not to abstract water for at least seven years or maybe longer. Problems such as disease control might lead to water not being abstracted and they must be addressed. In the case of watercress growers, the specifications of supermarket contracts demand that the water must return to its previous quality before it can be abstracted. Again, the question of compensation arises. Farmers and growers should not risk losing a right to compensation after only four years of non-use. Despite the long and tortuous debate this morning and in previous sittings, we will pursue the amendment until we hear what the Minister is going to do about the matter.