---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I wish to make one or two general remarks at the outset before going through our amendments and those in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), after which I shall allow the Minister time to make the case for the Government amendments, of which several have come at such a late stage. We had the opportunity to rehearse our arguments about the resourcing of the Environment Agency and local authorities at some length in Committee, but we did not receive the satisfaction and reassurances that we wanted from the Minister. I know that in relation to our amendments in this group, and even more so for those in the next group, he is hoping to give some reassurances that go beyond the Government amendments. If so, it would be helpful if he took the opportunity to state whether the discussions will be on the basis of Pepper v. Hart, so that we can provide assurances to those outside. The Government amendments in this group may not rely on Pepper v. Hart so much as those in the next group. I have a general point to make on the fire and rescue authorities, if I may, before I address the specifics of the proposals. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made some logical points about the prominence of the fire and rescue authorities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which the Minister addressed. I have some sympathy with the proposals of the hon. Member for Stroud and his hon. Friends, but without putting words into the Minister's mouth, I am sure he will agree that they would raise funding requirements. Nevertheless, there seems to be a lacuna in the law, in that we generally assume that fire and rescue crews will turn up and swing into action, as they did most recently in the Cumbria floods in November and December 2009, but there are resource issues with that, and I am not convinced the Government have yet addressed them. New clause 2 would place a duty on the Environment Agency to""undertake a programme of regular maintenance work of major water courses on an annual basis with quarterly reports to both Houses of Parliament."" In its conclusions, the Pitt report clearly stated—the Government adopted this in their most recent response—that regular maintenance should be done, and more importantly that it must be seen to be done. That is one of only a very few points of dissention that I have with Sir Michael Pitt. At the moment, I am not convinced, anecdotally, that the public believe that regular maintenance is being done. A number of people said that had regular maintenance been done, even the Cumbria floods might not have been as bad. I am not sure about that, because events that happen once in 1,000 years would lead to substantial flooding in any circumstances, but if regular maintenance on major watercourses is not done, water backs up into small watercourses. Following the 2007, 2008 and 2009 floods, I saw with my own eyes areas where regular maintenance had not been undertaken, where a fairly basic strip of self-planting willow trees could have reduced flooding. As we know, the internal drainage boards have a regular programme, but it is acutely worrying for landowners and those who contribute to IDBs, and to the work of the Environment Agency from the IDB budget, if major watercourses are not regularly maintained and if minor watercourses are flooded as a consequence. We are asking for work to be undertaken on""an annual basis with quarterly reports to both Houses of Parliament"," which could be debated and published. That would send the message that substantial maintenance was being done regularly.