---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I disagree fundamentally. Without veering too far off the subject of the amendments before us, I want to say that the Bill has two aspects. One is the clarity of lead responsibility, both locally and nationally, and the other is a duty to co-ordinate and share information as well as to co-ordinate responsibilities on the ground. Those for whom the glass is half empty will say that that allows opportunity for fuzziness and legal challenge, whereas I would say that there is a duty in the Bill that will compel people to co-ordinate their activities on the ground. Curiously, that is what has been asked for, including by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues: for example, we have been asked to allow lower-tier authorities, internal drainage boards and local flood risk management groups to key into what the Bill does. What he would interpret as legal obfuscation, I would interpret as the necessary flexibility with clear accountability. However, I am going away from the amendments, so let me move on. New clause 2 was tabled by the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—in fact, five amendments in the group were tabled by the hon. Ladies. Most of these issues were thoroughly debated in Committee, as the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out. I shall try to convince her and others again, but I have a feeling I shall not. Let us see how we go. I have good intentions, and I hope for good outcomes. New clause 2 would require the Environment Agency to undertake a programme of annual maintenance work on major watercourses, with quarterly reports to both Houses of Parliament. As a devolved matter, reports would also need to go to the National Assembly for Wales. As I explained during Committee, the Government are committed to taking a risk-based approach to maintenance, and that approach has been endorsed in recommendation 25 of Sir Michael Pitt's review. The EA's progress on the maintenance programme is reported to regional flood defence committees in quarterly meetings that are public, not held behind closed doors. Minutes are available, and that transparency allows anyone, including Parliament and its Members, to take an interest in maintenance schedules where there are concerns or simply a desire to do so. The Bill also improves the arrangements for additional local authority influence and for the scrutiny of flood and coastal erosion risk management activities in each area. That approach is, again, consistent with the relevant recommendations of the Pitt review, and it is right that authorities should be held to account by local democratic bodies. I therefore do not believe there is a need for additional legislation on this matter. The hon. Member for the Vale of York has also tabled new clause 9, which 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"." Let me remind her that Government funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management has increased significantly in recent years and will reach £780 million in 2010-11. That compares with Government funding of £600 million in 2007-08, and—let us go back a little—funding of £310 million in 1997-98. All the costs and benefits of this legislation have been set out in the impact assessments that were published alongside the Bill, and more detailed assessments will accompany the regulations and orders that will come from it. Further assessments will be made at the next formal spending review and as part of the Environment Agency's business planning processes, in which wider pressures and capacity issues are assessed by the agency and the Government. The hon. Lady asked about capital expenditure and about the increase in the figures that I have used but not in EA spending on maintenance. As I have said, the focus on funding has been on capital improvements, but the funding of maintenance has not been neglected. Some capital projects will include work to improve and extend the effectiveness of existing assets, and we are working with authorities to ensure that they take a proper, whole-life approach to asset management. The hon. Lady, the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury all made the point that regular maintenance must be seen to be done. Let me refer again to the local flood risk management strategies that provide for the first time a proper, joined-up, co-ordinated, area-wide, and—that horrible word—holistic approach to the management of risk in an area. Those strategies can include the responsibilities of the Environment Agency as well as those of the local authority. They will ensure that the priorities that the hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady have articulated can be identified, and that available resources can be used to best effect. Local and national strategies will also clarify roles and responsibilities. The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Upminster tabled amendment 5, which refers to instigating, publishing and having regard to an independent review of the recruitment, training and equipment costs that will be incurred by local authorities. We discussed that issue in depth in Committee, but it is worth restating that the Government have carefully assessed the new burdens that we are placing on local authorities and that we are committed to providing the necessary funding in full. From commencement, we will provide an extra £36 million a year to lead flood authorities, in area-based grants, to fund their new role in England. That will allow local authority-led flood management activity to triple from around £18 million to £54 million a year. There were long discussions in Committee about similar amendments, and hon. Members will recall that I undertook to put on to a formal footing the discussions that we are already having with the Local Government Association about cost and resource implications. Since then, officials have had detailed discussions with the LGA about the terms of reference for a joint implementation review panel. Rather than consider this issue in one, two or three years' time, we are putting it on a solid basis. I have written formally to Councillor Gary Porter of the LGA to seek his agreement to co-sponsor the panel, and I hope that the first formal meeting will happen shortly. We hope to gain from those discussions a clearer understanding of the LGA's position, because we do not think that we have done anything unusual in our assessment. The purpose of the panel will be to investigate concerns and to flesh these matters out. The hon. Member for Vale of York has tabled amendment 28 on another matter that was thoroughly debated in Committee. It would require the EA, when doing environmental works, to have regard to the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy and to create no increase in harmful effects. Like the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I would not like to be the person who had to balance the relevant considerations on that issue. The amendment appears sensible on the face of it, but the Government think that it might render the provision useless. I support the need to have regard to the national strategy, but the Bill already goes further, in clause 38(5), by making the same requirement in respect of local strategies and local and national guidance. That part of the amendment is unnecessary. The wording in the draft Bill was altered in the final Bill in response to representations that simply prohibiting work that increases any of the harmful consequences that I have mentioned would render the powers unworkable. That is because any flooding or erosion caused for the purposes set out in clause 38 would almost inevitably impact on some aspect of the things listed in clause 2. That is why clause 38(3) requires that the benefits of the work must outweigh the potential harmful effects mentioned. The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Upminster have also tabled amendment 4, which would require reports that are made by the EA under clause 18 to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and to be approved by a resolution of each House. I share the hon. Ladies' ambition and interest in ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of flood and coastal erosion risk management, but I do not consider the amendment to be necessary or appropriate. The Government intend to ensure that the EA reports regularly on the management of flood risk from all sources. The publishing of those reports will mean that the public and wider stakeholders with an interest in flooding, as well as MPs, are informed about flood management. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will also be able to scrutinise reports and to invite evidence as appropriate. My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) have tabled new clause 20, which would require fire and rescue authorities to put in place provision for rescuing people in the event of major flooding, including from large, raised reservoirs. On this point, the hon. Member for Vale of York talked about not simply assuming that those services will turn up. Fire and rescue authorities undoubtedly have a critical role to play in flood response, including flood rescue, working alongside other response agencies such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and, as happened in Cumbria, the Ministry of Defence. That was shown to good effect in Cumbria, but I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about the feedback that he has received. Perhaps we should explore that issue further. In Cumbria, the response was effectively supported by the deployment of the national new dimension programme, which brings together assets on a regional and national basis from other fire and rescue services. It was also supported with flood rescue boats from the RNLI and help from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and mountain rescue services. That co-operation provided effective co-ordination of equipment across the region in what was an emergency situation. However, I am interested in discussing with my hon. Friend and others anything that they have picked up on the ground.