---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment. We are doing some serious work in that regard. We have had some meaningful discussions with the authors of the two reports. We need to take a longer-term view, and that would be part and parcel of the White Paper, but it certainly could have a positive impact on bills. New clause 22(2) clearly states that subsection (1)""includes schemes which have the effect of subsidisation by other persons."" We know that that has the particular legal meaning of "person" and means companies as opposed to individuals and households. Why has the Minister excluded reference to households? He clearly set out that the Government intend a form of cross-subsidisation, but why open that only to companies? What level of advanced consultation has he had with companies about the fact that businesses might be seen to be subsidising individual households having difficulties paying? If the new clause had retained the reference to individuals as opposed to legal persons, the domestic households sector would have been restricted in that regard. Under new clause 22, as drafted, businesses will be caught by the proposals to subsidise individuals having difficulty paying their bills. As I mentioned, that might be viewed as a stealth tax on business—it could be so used—and, in the current economic climate, could lead to a financial burden on business. What were the Government's considerations in that regard? Is the Minister really considering doing what other European Union countries have done—imposing an eco-tax on hotels? What is their thinking on that? As I mentioned, we would have been more persuaded had the Minister gone down the route of the Energy Bill, which gives enabling powers to allow suppliers to provide social price support. Those proposals have been extensively researched and developed over time, and I understand that significant consultations with the parties involved have taken place and that the proposals in the Energy Bill have broad support across the sector. However, my concern is that, in introducing new clause 22 at this stage—perhaps pre-empting a subsequent White Paper and a broader water Bill—the necessary consultations have not taken place. I understand that we are positioned between two extremes, but would he be good enough to tell us the Government's thinking behind that. I want to press the Minister further. There are significant differences—more than innuendoes—between new clause 22 and the language in clause 43 on community groups. In new clause 22(3), Ofwat is given specific duties to allow concessionary schemes for domestic properties. Clause 43 does not do that, and instead leaves it to guidance for Ofwat to be given specific authority. There seems to be a difference there. Will he explain his thinking behind that? New clause 22(4) states that Ministers must issue guidance relative to subsections (1) and (2), whereas clause 43 states that only undertakers""shall have regard to any guidance issued by"" Ministers, which appears to remove any compulsion for guidance to be produced. Is that an intended difference? Will he explain the Government's intention in that regard? Finally, new clause 22(5) states that undertakers and the authority "shall have regard to" the guidance, whereas in clause 43, only undertakers, and not Ofwat, are told to have regard to the guidance. Having achieved what we have achieved in clause 43, we would like to be satisfied that new clause 22 will not result in any consequential differences. I hope that the Minister and the House will look favourably on new clause 18, because we believe that it is appropriate to set out what the primary duties on the Secretary of State and Ofwat should be. As I said, there are significant consequences for later amendments. We have sympathy with the Government's new clause 22, but obviously we would like some satisfaction regarding our concerns. In the current credit crunch and economic crisis, the issue of affordability needs to be addressed. However, we would be interested to know why the particular issue in new clause 22 has been lifted from the other significant issues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) identified them—that were taken out of the earlier draft Bill.