---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I am most grateful for that support from my right hon. Friend. There is an argument that the Government have reduced the maintenance programme while increasing along with inflation the budget for substantial infrastructure projects. Capital expenditure has been maintained and even modestly increased, but the same has not happened on the same scale with maintenance. New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to""make an assessment of the staff, equipment and resources required by the Environment Agency to implement the provisions of the Act in accordance with lessons learnt from the floods of 2007"." We want a clear undertaking that the Pitt requirements will be met, and it is not clear that the Environment Agency will have any new resources. The report that was published last year on the Pitt conclusions included a table that did not show any significant resources for those purposes. I wish to press the Minister on where those resources will be found. Amendments 5 and 4 similarly seek resources for local authorities. Amendment 5 would amend clause 9 to require the Minister to set up an independent panel to review the recruitment costs of the new staff required by local authorities to implement these new provisions—and the training and equipment costs. Amendment 4 would require a report to be presented to Parliament and approved by both Houses. The Minister has failed to reassure us that adequate resources will be provided. We have been told that savings will be made, especially on lateral drains, but we have had a strong steer from the Local Government Association that these sums are wrong. The Minister had agreed, through his Department, a new burdens doctrine, but the resource implications of the Bill breach the spirit of that doctrine. Therefore, the Minister should use this opportunity to identify the new additional costs, how he proposes to meet them, and to confirm that they will not be met entirely from existing budgets so that local authorities will not lose funding for activities that they would otherwise wish to undertake. Water companies were also concerned by the suggestion from local authorities that the water companies should fund certain aspects from their receipts from consumers. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give an undertaking that that will not be the case. It would be totally inappropriate and unacceptable, and not the best way to proceed. Amendment 28 sets out how the work of the Environment Agency should be carried out, with""regard to the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy"." It would also ensure that there were no unintended consequences from part 2 of the Bill. Through new clause 2, we are raising concerns about the extensive and prescriptive role of the Environment Agency; its ability to carry out work that could increase flooding; the erosion of the responsibility to take a balanced approach; and whether the work that the agency undertakes might unwittingly cause damage to human health, the economy, infrastructure or the environment. Is it right to give those powers to the agency, or would that role be better played by local authorities? That is part and parcel of our hope that such powers will remain with, or be passed to, local communities through local authorities and internal drainage boards as appropriate. Echoed within the group of new clauses and amendments is our concern about which should be the respective and potential local authorities. Without straying beyond the group, will the Minister confirm whether he is minded to provide the flexibility needed to allow district councils to be the proper planning authorities, if it comes to the approving authority for sustainable drainage systems? However, that debate might best be handled when we discuss the next group of amendments. With those words, I would like to move this little group of new clauses and amendments.