Clause 89 - Transfer of discharge consents
Water Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mr Elliot Morley (Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Scunthorpe, Labour)
The clause deals with the transfer of discharge consents. That is an integral part of the consenting regime, and clause 89 will put in place some minor changes that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transferring a discharge consent from one consent holder to another.
The Environment Agency issues discharge consents. It may also, without prior application, issue a consent to someone who is discharging without a consent and where it is likely that the discharge will continue. Such a consent is subject to the same terms and conditions as other consents. There is no difference in the way that it is dealt with.
The purpose of clause 89 is to improve the procedure for transferring consents made under either circumstance, but the amendment would mean that consent holders who obtained their consents via applications to the agency would be able to transfer their consents, but those who had an equally valid consent, obtained by a different route, would not. That is not justifiable, because the consents are treated in exactly the same way and are granted for the same reasons. If the agency is content to issue a consent in those circumstances, there is no reason why consent holders should not be able to transfer their consent if the need arose. One example of that need might be if the company were sold, or put in the hands of a liquidator, because the consent is in the name of the particular company. There is no difference in relation to the company or the terms of the consent. The clause therefore tidies that up.
I understand the concern behind new clause 24, and that proper implementation of the water framework directive is of paramount importance, but the proposed provisions would not add a substantive benefit to the powers already available, so they are not necessary.
Consents are granted for a period of four years or more, but the agency already has the power to review a consent at any time. The Secretary of State has the power to direct the agency to modify or revoke a consent if that appears to be appropriate to give effect to European Community obligations, or to protect public health or relevant flora and fauna. That is not restricted by the four-year non-intervention period.
The new clause proposes that following a review the Environment Agency, if it is prevented from modifying a consent by the restrictions already in force, should notify the Secretary of State and request her to exercise her powers of direction to determine whether the consent should be modified. However, that is already taken care of under the existing powers. The provisions take account of the intention of the new clause, as I hope that I have explained.