---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill and accept that it is a revised version of what was originally planned. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, and agree with him about the need to define roles and responsibilities. When we debated floods and flood management in this House before, the one question to which I kept coming back is: who is ultimately responsible? Responsibility fell into too many different camps and there seemed to be no direct co-ordination. I therefore thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I remind the House of our own family farming interests although, unlike those of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, they are set in an inland context and are not at the moment likely to be challenged in the same way. Flooding is caused by many different factors. The most recent floods, in 1998, arose mainly because the rain fell so steadily and heavily for 12 hours or more. It fell in the end on saturated ground and had nowhere else to run, leading to flooding. Another issue which I have raised in the House several times previously is fly-tipping and the failure to keep our ditches and waterways clear. Can the Minister say how many cases of fly-tipping have been taken to court, and how many led to fines? If my memory serves me correctly, a huge number of fly-tipping cases are reported but very few are taken to court. If material is put into ditches, as is often the case, it blocks the flow of water which would be of help in heavy flooding. I shall not go over the ground covered earlier by noble friend; rather, I shall pick up on just one or two specifics. Fly-tipping is one of them. I presume that it is the responsibility of the Environment Agency rather than of local government, though I could be wrong about that. I should be grateful for clarification. Another matter that we have often discussed in the House before is the granting of permission for new housing development, even within known flood-plain areas. Clarification on that would also be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and others mentioned insurance. In some of this country’s previous flooding experiences some householders were not properly insured and some were not insured at all. I wonder whether the Government have given thought to the responsibility of the householder to cover themselves in some way, or whether one should just wait until there is a big, unfortunate episode when the Government will provide money to help people. It seems very unfair that those who pay for some form of insurance should find that others who have no insurance at all are bailed out by the Government or the local authority. I have not picked up this issue in the Bill but wonder whether it is not something to be considered. Before I leave the question of how we can slightly lessen the risk of heavy flooding, I want to raise the issue of how so many more of our smaller roads are now used by larger vehicles. When two vehicles meet on some of those roads they have to pull heavily onto the side verges, and sometimes the verges are pushed into the ditches. It is a small point, but it is something that is occurring more frequently. I was interested recently to read Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in National Parks, which contained a case study concerning the handling of the increased rainfall. It said: ""The key to avoiding damage is regular clearing of drains so that they can help with the quantity of water"." The Lake District National Park now trains volunteers to do this. In the first nine months of 2009, it recorded 316 volunteer days spent on drainage clearance. Tragically, at the moment, so many people are unemployed. Perhaps some could assist with aspects of this sort of work. It might be an idea at least to consider. I pick up a point raised earlier by my noble friend about mapping and keeping maps up to date. I presume that that will be the responsibility of Environment Agency, but it will come at a cost. I should like to consider the cost issue. Presumably, the Environment Agency has estimated what it will cost to set up such a service and how many people would be employed in it. I would be grateful for some information on this from the Minister. This is a worry not only for the Environment Agency but for local government. Clearly there is a cost not only in cash but in providing the skills and training needed to ensure that it has the relevant people in the right place at the right time. Like other noble Lords, I am particularly keen that we should look again in Committee at Clause 43. I am unhappy about the proposals as they stand. We talk about unaffordable rises and the fact that Ofwat will have the overall say, but there is no description of what is considered accessible and fair. That is left to the discretion of Ofwat, over which no one has control. Two questions arise from that. Will there be a review after a certain period, and will there be an appeals mechanism—for instance, for voluntary groups, charities, churches or whoever else is affected by the clause—to enable them to come back and get further information? In welcoming the Bill, as I do, I come back to my concern with the Environment Agency—though certainly not with the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. Over the years, this agency has taken on more and more responsibilities. I would hate it to be in the position that has befallen the Rural Payments Agency, which I have often spoken about in this House. There is also the issue of sheer cost. For example, the process of paying a single farm payment for an English farmer costs £1,740, compared with £285 for a farmer in Scotland. That is crazy. It is absolutely ridiculous. Surely we should have a system in which that could not happen. As the National Farmers’ Union has explained only recently in an article in the Daily Telegraph, if we lowered the English cost to £500 per payment, it would save some £100 million. The Bill will involve large costs and I am very anxious that the work involved should be done in a professional manner, as I am sure it will be. That will involve reviewing the costings incurred in the initial stages and then the subsequent ongoing costs. Those are the clauses in which I am especially interested. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for raising the issues of churches and charities. I am unhappy that, at this stage—though we will discuss it later—the matter is left to the discretion of individual water companies. That should not be the case. Nor do I like the use of "may" in this context; it should be "must". If it is not, this will create a whole area where companies can shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, we’ll do it differently here", when I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention. With those few words, I say again that I certainly support and welcome the Bill. I hope that it will see the light of day.