Page 3396 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

If we look at it sensibly, both things are true. Of course, it is a conservation debate. I would agree with you in this debate that it is primarily about conservation and that the money raised is, in effect, a disincentive. So, I agree with you in that concept, but it is about both. The point I was trying to make is that we have to make sure that at no stage does the setting of the water level become a matter relying just on revenue raising. The emphasis must always be, as I accept that it is here, on conservation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

WATER RATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991

Consideration resumed from 12 September 1991, on motion by Mr Connolly:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

SEWERAGE RATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991