Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker)Labour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 182C:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I thank the Minister for covering my own Amendment No. 183A as well. We clearly welcome the Government adding flesh to the bones of adaptation and commenting on the various public bodies and everyone else involved in a very complicated network. A mishmash of organisations, authorities, devolution and many other different dimensions make this task rather difficult in many ways. That is another area that we shall consider under a future amendment. I do not think that there is the clash that the Government and the Minister suggest. We feel very strongly that certain organisations need to have a duty laid on them. Adaptation is an increasingly vital issue, as we have seen in the United Kingdom in recent years. It is right that certain bodies should have duties and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 states very well those that should have such duties. I agree absolutely with the Minister that his amendment would cover a broader range of organisations where there need not be a duty as such but a more discretionary approach at the call of the Secretary of State. We very much believe that this part of the Bill must be strengthened. It is serious enough that certain key bodies should have a duty even though that it still quite wide. Beyond that, we also recognise that a whole population of other organisations covered by the government amendments need to be brought into the Bill. Amendment No. 183A is a core and essential part of the Bill.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Young of Old SconeNon-affiliated- Quote
- Amendment No. 183A also bears my name. I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward their adaptation and for recognising the importance of a range of bodies—both public and private—to prepare for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The summer floods, for example, showed how extreme some of the impacts increasingly will be. It would not be unfair to say that many bodies were not prepared during the summer floods for the simple impact of extreme weather that we are likely to see more of because of climate change. There have recently been even more floods and the lesson I have got from the past 10 days is how badly prepared our road and rail systems are. They are the first to go under as soon as there is any surplus water around. That must be taken into account by the operators of railways and providers of roads. There is a job to be done right now, which will become an increasingly large one. I am pleased that the Government tabled their amendments and I am grateful to the Minister for the letter he sent with the amendments explaining the intention behind them. I still think that there should be a duty on these very important providers of essential public services. The government amendments involve a two-part process. First, guidance will be given to all bodies described in the amendment on how to assess risks and make plans to adapt to them—a sort of exhortation process, giving guidance about what might be expected, but no requirement to comply. The Minister has already said that it includes a large range of bodies, so it is not as if you can have stout words with them one by one, explaining that it is a requirement. There will have to be something that is pretty explicit and clear. Secondly, if they do not do the right thing, there is a provision for the Government to require the ones that are not doing very well to produce a report. The big worry I have is that without a clear duty they will not know that they are supposed to be doing something. How will they realise that there is an obligation laid on them; and how will the Minister know which ones are not doing very well and which are doing okay? There is no requirement necessarily for them to report on their activities. Perhaps we can come on to deal with that. The helpful letter the Minister sent states: “We envisage that the Secretary of State will only require public authorities or statutory undertakers to report to him in areas that are critical to the UK’s ability to adapt and where information or evidence of progress is lacking”. Without a duty laid on them and without a requirement to report in some minimalist way, it is difficult to understand how the Minister would judge when progress was lacking across the huge range of bodies that he was talking about.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord CrickhowellConservative- Quote
- I, too, added my name to Amendment No. 183A. Right at the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of her fear of the leisurely process, which is exactly the point I was making in an earlier debate on the need for prompt action if we identify that something is wrong. The process takes quite a long time to unfold as you go through planning and all the rest of it; I cited the example of the Maidenhead flood defence scheme. Perhaps it is not surprising, as we have shared the same responsibility—the noble Baroness at the present time and I a few years ago as chairman of the National Rivers Authority—that we have come to identical conclusions. There was nothing that she said with which I did not agree wholeheartedly. It was very interesting; as, point by point, she ticked off certain matters, I observed that those were exactly the points that I had written in response to the Government’s speech. For example, she referred to the relationship with local authorities, which is particularly critical for the Environment Agency. For all its good work, it can find flow systems blocked by local authorities that take the wrong decisions on planning, or obstacles which the Environment Agency feels should be removed. The noble Baroness referred to electrical services. Certainly it was my experience that when one had floods, one was also often acutely nervous about the possibility of the total loss of power as electrical facilities were inadequately protected or inadequately raised above the flood. She spoke about rail services. Like many others, I was diverted by way of Bath on the way from Cardiff and Newport on Monday. As soon as you have a bit of rain, the main rail line from South Wales to Paddington floods. It is a regular event now and really some action has to be taken to see that that kind of thing does not happen. The noble Baroness made the point absolutely rightly that it is not enough just to have guidance; we need clearly stated requirements. I think that the word “duty” is absolutely correct. Having said that, it would be entirely wrong if I did not warmly welcome the amendments that the Minister has put down. They take us a great step forward and contain a great deal that is thoroughly worth while. I particularly welcomed what he said about hoping to have joint decision-making with the Welsh Assembly. It just happens that the main river systems of Wales flow into England. If you get it wrong in managing the upper reaches, you cause very severe flooding in England. It is absolutely vital that those who manage those river systems are acting jointly and not with separate aims and initiatives. It is quite hopeless if you simply shift flood problems from one area to another and I know from my own experience how easy it is for that to happen. I hope the Government will listen very carefully to the Environment Agency and to my experience which exactly parallels that of the noble Baroness. We have both had to deal with these problems. Our experience is identical and we have reached exactly the same conclusions. The views of the Environment Agency should bear great weight. There could not be an organisation with greater authority to speak on this topic. I welcome the Government’s amendments but I hope they will find, as the noble Baroness said, some way of incorporating, at least for the critical service providers, the duty that is so important.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour- Quote
- My view on this amendment is quite simple. Good law will have to be based on the experience of those who have had to deal with these issues as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had to deal with the problem in Maidenhead, which I know very well indeed. The decision to create the Jubilee River was momentous and it saved the whole town of Maidenhead. It has had huge implications for housing development and industrial development in the whole of the Thames basin in that area. I want to use another example, and in many ways this will be the test of whether this amendment really works. I live in Keswick in the Lake District. Keswick is at the head of the Derwent Valley, situated under Skiddaw and about three miles downstream from Thirlmere, which is the main water supply for Manchester. In 2005 there was a major flood which, in the view of most people in West Cumberland, arose because of climate change. The powers of the Environment Agency were tested. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is in the Chamber, is the chief executive of the Environment Agency. She saw all my correspondence and knows of the many meetings that I have had with it. During my dealings with the Environment Agency, I found that there was a dispute over what powers it had to instruct the water company—United Utilities, which owned and extracted water from Thirlmere—to control the amount of water that it holds there. The higher the water level, the greater the likelihood of flooding in Keswick at times of the year when there is heavy rainfall. There was heavy rainfall in 2005 and the town was flooded. I understand that the owners of many properties further down from where I live made insurance claims, and that many people in the town were moved. I understand that there was extensive flooding in Carlisle as well. I was worried about the limited powers of the Environment Agency. In fact, we found ourselves arguing with its lawyers about what powers it had. I thought that it had the powers and I was quoting from sections of legislation. We took someone on who was willing to work for us for free in order to examine the law to establish where the powers lay. We were convinced that the Environment Agency had the powers to instruct United Utilities to take action, whereas it said that it did not have such powers. The test of this provision in the Bill is simple. It is whether United Utilities could be instructed, in conditions of flooding arising out of the management of its reservoirs, to take action on water levels. It would have the effect of reducing the likelihood of flooding downstream, not just in Keswick but also in other communities in the United Kingdom where a water company might have a reservoir that could overflow and cause that level of flooding. I met with United Utilities on Monday to talk about the dangers in the current flooding. Of course, people in Keswick are very worried about flooding right now due to the weather. United Utilities appears to be moving and is being reasonable. But the fact is that it is a private company and water is its asset. Therefore, there is a conflict. The shareholders and the company will want to retain their assets. But the people will say, “Our communities are endangered” because of what they believe to be the effects of climate change. I really would like to know that we have reserve powers to intervene and say, “I am sorry, the shareholders are important, but in these circumstances, arising out of these changes in climate, we have the power to tell them to do it and to give them an instruction”. For me, that will be the test of how well the Bill works in this area.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Roberts of LlandudnoLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I should like the Minister to clarify one or two points. When he mentions Welsh Ministers, does he mean the office of the Secretary of State at Westminster or the Ministers of the Assembly Government in Cardiff? The Minister will remember—as will the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is a former Secretary of State for Wales and former chairman of the National Rivers Authority—our discussion on the then Government of Wales Bill. We talked about the possibility that the Welsh Assembly would before long have authority over water in Wales, just as the Scottish Parliament now has that authority. I am told that a referendum is likely to take place in the next three years, which means that there will be more devolved authority in Wales. How does the Minister see the future? Does he see another Bill to this effect? If water in Wales, as well as in Scotland, is a devolved matter, we will surely need to look at it in a different way. We do not have this legislative competence in Wales. However, I assure the Committee that, even though we do not have it now, we may one day quite soon be exercising that authority.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Clark of WindermereLabour- Quote
- I rise briefly to wholeheartedly support the Minister’s stance. He has listened to the Bill’s critics, who said that it was short on adaptation. The series of amendments which he has brought before us today has plugged the gap and enormously strengthened the Bill. More importantly, the amendments are a strategic and proportionate response to the issues. That will help to ensure a consistent and, critically, a joined-up approach right across the public sector. Bearing in mind that we are talking about some 25,000 public bodies, this legislation, like the Freedom of Information Act, has to be focused. The government proposals are balanced and proportionate in that respect. Not for the first time, I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is interesting that he sees Amendment No. 183A as a panacea. He actually said that he thought that the original Act gave protection to the people who had been his constituents in Keswick and who suffered from flooding but that they had no real recourse against the statutory undertaking on United Utilities. I suspect that the amendment will provide him with no extra cover at all. I would argue that if the Bill is to be effective in that respect there will have to be one person at the head directing and focusing it, and that that person is the Secretary of State. I fully support the Minister’s statement in that respect.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. If public bodies do not have a duty in this area they will be disabled in taking the sort of action they need to take. I know from my years of experience in local government that local government also should have such a duty. I have not previously advocated laying too many local duties on local government, as I would rather that it was given powers and choice. Here, however, we are talking about short-term action that needs to happen quickly. If the Bill does not place this duty on all public bodies then we will be saying that they have first to address their other duties. They will be assessed on those other duties, because that is how the assessment schemes work; they will be assessed as excellent or failing on the basis of whether they are performing those duties. By resisting such a duty in the Bill, the Government are saying that this is not such a priority. I mention local authorities because that is what I know, but I am sure that the point applies also to other public bodies. In light of how local authorities plan and how they will address adaptation, the absence of such a duty will undermine their ability to pick up this important issue and focus on it so that they can change how they work and plan over the next five years. I mean “planning” in its widest sense because that is what adaptation means. I do not think the Minister would suggest a more relaxed timeframe of 10, 15 or 20 years. The work needs to start now. Public bodies need to be given this duty to enable them to reprioritise some of their thinking and to re-address the issues of how they work. It will be power to their elbow.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord PuttnamLabour- Quote
- I, too, support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. Towards the end of the second day in Committee I rather grumpily complained about what I felt was a lack of urgency. I was talking not about the pace at which the Committee was operating but that in my experience—although my experience may be singular—Governments are not good at moving quickly to address problems that have not already been confronted by the public. Last week I mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was a marvellous exception to that in the way in which he grappled with and dealt with the impending crisis of AIDS. However, by and large that is the exception and far from being the rule. I am prepared to be convinced by the Minister’s amendments, if I could be absolutely certain that the Treasury understood the financial implications of what the amendments set out. We constantly have to listen to the fact that Defra is an underfunded department, or agency, which is actually taking on board cuts, not having its capacity increased to deal with many of the issues touched on here. It has a very small outward-looking communications department and a very small adaptation department. Yet implicitly what the Minister is saying is that Defra has the strength, capacity and confidence of the Government to take on this enormous task. Could he reassure me from the Dispatch Box that the Treasury is seized of this and that Defra will be turned into an agency that has the resources, capacity and staff to deal with what we generally in this Chamber believe will be an enormous series of problems and will not continue to be sparingly funded and constantly somehow one of the Cinderella departments of government?
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Taylor of HolbeachConservative- Quote
- This may be a suitable moment for the Opposition to contribute on these amendments. We are pleased to see the Government's eagerness to try to rectify what was previously a serious deficit in the Bill. Public authorities need to be encouraged to the maximum extent possible to take measures to adapt to climate change seriously. We welcome the duty on public authorities to develop programmes for adaptation and prepare reports. I looked in the amendments for the words “from time to time”, but they do not appear. How often will they prepare reports? From the text of the amendments, it appears that they will do so on demand. It occurs to me that one might compare and contrast—in the classic sense—the responsibilities on the Secretary of State under Clauses 48 and 49 with those being placed on public authorities. However, the authorities will be outlining their progress towards meeting the objectives that they have outlined, which is certainly welcome. While we welcome the Government trying to correct their omission, I wonder whether they have gone far enough. Although the amendments place a duty on reporting authorities to publish statements of proposals and assessments of their progress, there is not an actual duty to comply with their proposed measures. As it stands, it would be enough for a public authority to develop a plan and not do anything at all, as long as it published a report saying so. It seems that this provision could be tightened. Does the Minister agree that it is important for there to be an assurance that public authorities will implement their adaptation proposals? Incidentally, are there really 25,000 public authorities in the United Kingdom? I am astounded at the figure. At any rate, they must comply with the provisions regarding reports, but there still is no duty to implement any proposal. While we welcome the amendments, they could have been stronger—and an opportunity was missed to make them stronger. I turn to Amendment No. 183A, which carries the wide support of many Members of the Committee and in whose support many noble Lords have spoken eloquently. We certainly support the spirit of this amendment. Action to adapt to climate change is not going to happen unless there is a concerted effort from everyone involved. Our slight scepticism stems from the fact that it is unclear whether this duty is necessary in this part of the Bill. It is also unclear how far this amendment might be applied. The section has no explicit reference to any persons or bodies, so while I assume it targets government policy and agencies, it is unclear how far that targeting could be extended. It seems too prescriptive—and, at the same time, unclear and nebulous.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Young of Old SconeNon-affiliated
- Quote
- For the benefit of the noble Lord, may I direct him to subsection (3) of the amendment, which lists the persons or bodies to which it will apply. Primarily, that is local authorities, government bodies and other statutory undertakers known as category 1 and category 2 responders in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Apart from the let-out in subsection (3)(b), where a Minister of the Crown can specify others, it really is quite tightly focused—rather more so than the extent of the bodies referred to in the new government clauses, which are actually wider. This is quite a tight little amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Taylor of HolbeachConservative
- Quote
- I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out. I did not have reference to the other Act of Parliament that was involved; I have at least had a tutorial in it now, and I can safely withdraw those previous caveats on the amendment in that area. The Committee agrees that it is important to have some mechanism to ensure compliance to the programmes for adaptation. We are not sure that this proposal is the best way of achieving what is certainly a laudable goal, but we believe that the debate has brought out an important element of what we should seek to do.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- This has been a useful debate. I cannot really say that I will be taking away and thinking about these proposals that I have brought to the Committee. There is a disadvantage when the Government come forward with a tranche of amendments in Committee. While we have indeed done this with some spare space, it is not like having such provisions in the Bill so that amendments can be put down in more detailed fashion. I am not saying these amendments are the last word; I could not, after bringing them into the Bill at a stage where they have not been subject to the degree of scrutiny that we wish for the rest. We do, at least, still have time on our hands. I will try to do justice to the questions but I may not have the full detail on some, so I will deal with them in reverse order. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked whether the public authorities are obliged to implement their report. They are required by subsection (8) of Amendment No. 182E and subsection (7) of Amendment No. 182J to have regard to their own reports in the exercise of their functions. That will mean having to think about their programmes whenever they take action. With that kind of duty and requirement, their own lawyers will spell out the consequences. They simply cannot ignore that. The noble Lord also asked about the list of authorities. I, too, was a bit surprised by that 25,000. I will be getting further information on that. I can give examples shortly of some other authorities as opposed to those covered by the Civil Contingencies Act. I was asked, for example, about the water authorities acting in their role as public bodies although they are private companies, but I need more information on those 25,000. I am not saying, “List them”, but I may need categorisation or sub-categorisation as that is such a large figure to get our heads around. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other Members of the Committee raised local government as an issue. I understand that the Local Government Association’s own commission on climate change has recommended that local authorities should be given the flexibility to act and demonstrate what they can do before consideration of a duty. We are seeking to work in co-operation with local government, which made this request. I know that climate change is catching up on us but, in the scale of things, working in partnership and co-operation with local government is very important. Going back to the figure of 25,000, at one point I thought that perhaps all the schools are mentioned, but England has 24,000 schools, so it cannot be schools. There must be another match of figures. We will work with local government, which has requested a chance to do it its way.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the key area of money and cash, particularly in regard to Defra. What is core to the whole area—and what we do not talk about, although it might have been more appropriate for the Treasury Minister to have been here—is that it is great having duties, and I would want to add to the list, but none of them is any good if no one can act on our suggestions. I would appreciate an indication from the Minister not only about Defra’s position but about how the Government intend to meet the expenditure demands that arise from this provision. They may be as a result of his amendment or of ours.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- I apologise most sincerely to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who asked a specific question. Although I am not briefed on the matter, I can say that it is probably one of the most important activities in Defra. It is a small department but, as everyone knows and as will become more apparent as the weeks go by, we have severe budgetary difficulties for the forthcoming year. There is no denying that—and I am saying nothing that is new. However, it would be fatuous if I were to stand here and bring forward the flagship legislation for this Session which could not be funded. Both noble Lords have asked a fair question: will the Government be more explicit about the funding of the arrangements and duties they are bringing forward? I will seek a further briefing paper. Everything in the Bill and all the new amendments have been approved by the Treasury. That is the position. They would not be in front of us if the Treasury had said no. Indeed, some of the amendments that we are unable to accept deal with matters that we are discussing with our financial colleagues in Whitehall. Quite clearly, the Treasury is involved in every aspect of government, but these amendments were brought forward with its approval. It is incumbent on me to see whether I can produce another briefing note between now and Report—I cannot answer all the details because we would not have the information—on the financial implications for Defra and the Government. It will be a severe test for the Government in the other place if we do not have answers on the finance aspect. I am therefore grateful to noble Lords for raising the questions and apologise for not referring to them.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I stress that it is not just Defra but local authorities that are squeezed financially. Clearly, local government will have to deliver a great deal of adaptation.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- Yes, but as I said earlier today, as far as I know the new burdens rules still apply. Where specific new statutory burdens are put on local authorities, the resources must be made available.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord CrickhowellConservative
- Quote
- Perhaps I may make a brief observation from long and bitter experience in a related field. Of course the Minister cannot give undertakings about particular funding, and of course the Treasury has approved these amendments, but what happens on these occasions is not that someone says, “You can’t do it”, but that the Treasury says, “Well, it’s not as urgent as you say. You can do it next year or the year after and spread it over three years”, or gives another answer which delays the expenditure. Everyone who has dealt with programmes such as this has had that kind of experience. Sometimes you have to fight the battle extremely hard. That brings me back to the reporting point. If all these organisations report exactly what they have recommended and are then prepared to go public, they will be under great pressure not to do so. It is always the case that pressure is put on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will know that sometimes she would like to say things but it is whispered in her ear that it might be better if she did not do so. She will deny it now, but I, who no longer have responsibilities in the field, speak from my own experience and do not expect that hers is very different. That brings us back to this whole issue about organisations having clear programmes and having to say what they want to do. Then, if they cannot meet the programme, they will be able to say, “We would have done it, but the Treasury says that we have to do it over three years instead of over one year”. That is about the only discipline that we will ever have.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness ByfordConservative- Quote
- Clearly, we are grateful for the government amendments and the other proposals are welcome, but the whole crunch of this will surely come back to money, which is what we are talking about now. Will it come from Defra—we are all too aware of the pressures on the Defra budget—or will it come from local authorities, which has been mentioned before? I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to see whether the Environment Agency has the support that it needs to fulfil what it is already supposed to do. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer today, but could he give us some idea? There must have been a cost analysis on the government proposals. Could that be shared with us before we come back at Report? I am not asking for the exact figure; just the general terms. Has the department looked at this—not only the department dealing with this Bill, but the Treasury? Has the Treasury come forward and said, “Yes we support this”? If money is not made available we would just be paying lip service. It would also be helpful to know whether this will be over a two-year, five-year or 10-year period, because at the moment, as a layman, that is not clear. I would be grateful for clarification on that point.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Young of Old SconeNon-affiliated
- Quote
- I want to raise a different issue about money. The Minister said that this provision did not lay a duty on these organisations but gave them guidance and, on a selected basis, required the poorer performers to report. That was in order to avoid disproportionate costs and burdens on them. However, if we truly want each of these bodies to start now in earnest by risk assessing and putting in place measures to counteract the impacts of climate change, I am not clear that that is not implicitly requiring them to do something and expecting them to take action and spend money, whether it is a duty or not. The risk of not having a duty is that they do not do it, which would be unthinkable, so the requirement to lay a duty on them is unavoidable, either de facto or de jure.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Will the Minister clarify something for me? I understood that when a local authority was given a power, it had discretion within the budget to do something about that after it had dealt with all its other duties, but where it is given a duty, the Government fund that.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- Frankly, on the last two questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, I will rely on the point that I made about the Local Government Association, which will come back screaming and shouting if this provision is not funded.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness Young of Old SconeNon-affiliated
- Quote
- I know that this is not what the Minister wants at this time of night, but I met the Local Government Association last week and it endorsed fully what we are trying do through this amendment. Its commission said that it would like to see a duty laid on local government.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- Unless I have misread this, that is precisely contrary to the note that I received, which states that the Local Government Association’s Commission on Climate Change recommended that local authorities are given flexibility to act and demonstrate what they can do before consideration of a duty. That is the note that I received from the Box. Clearly, I will go back and check that because it is contradictory. If it is wrong, naturally I will apologise. It would not be the first time that outside bodies have said one thing to Members and another to the Government, but I am not casting aspersions about that. On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I will do exactly what I said when I spoke earlier, although probably not to the extent that she desires. I will get the best available finance figures or another briefing sheet before Report so that we have something to work on. On Question, amendment agreed to.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 182D to 182L:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 183:
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Taylor of HolbeachConservative
- Quote
- These amendments have our broad support. There is, indeed, a serious problem with this country’s approach to dealing with floods. As the floods last summer revealed, there needs to be a better strategy. Indeed, more recently, floods have kept some noble Lords from the Chamber. We are all delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his place today after his enforced absence yesterday. There were rumours that government business managers had ensured that he would not be present. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, there are too many agencies and organisations with competing priorities to be able to co-ordinate the fight against flooding in a manner that will achieve results. Floods, and the various things that are required to assess their risk and prevent them, do not seem to fall to any single authority’s jurisdiction. Local authorities at different levels, the Highways Agency, water companies, government departments, agencies, including the Environment Agency, and others all have responsibility. I am not against having a diversity of providers, as long as they are co-ordinated strategically. As has been mentioned in earlier debates, river systems are enormously complex and spread far across many local boundaries. There is also still a considerable responsibility, which is often overlooked, on local landowners. Where these are exercised through internal drainage boards, they are generally well managed. However, too often elsewhere no one seems to take charge of the neglected drain or abandoned field ditch that should be part of a surface water drainage system of a recently constructed housing estate or business park. The poor maintenance of drains, ditches and sometimes sewers contributes to the risk of flooding. Furthermore, there is a failure to appreciate and respond to the strategic nature of flood risk. At the moment, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the potential risk of future flooding, and more work certainly needs to be done. Does the Minister have flooding in mind when he talks about adaptation to climate change? Where does the Minister think the responsibility for co-ordinating the response to flooding should lie in the future?
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I am grateful for the remarks that have just been made from the Conservative Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I will speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my noble friend and I will call in evidence the flooding that took place in Hull in east Yorkshire last summer and the independent review body’s interim and final reports on that flooding, which have now been published. When the flooding in Hull was taking place, I was, fortunately, a long way away in the Pyrenees, but some of the people whom we were with there were from the Hull area and we got a fairly first-hand account of the horrific circumstances there. We now know that some 8,600 homes and 1,300 businesses were affected by the flooding. Some 6,300 people were forced to live in temporary accommodation and many other people camped out upstairs or lived in caravans and so on. I was fortunate to be able to go to Hull later that summer—I think that it was in September—to meet the leader of the city council, Councillor Carl Minns. He gave a presentation on exactly what had happened and what the council and other bodies in Hull were doing about it. I came away extremely impressed by the way in which everyone in the city had mucked in and worked together, including local community groups, the council and its employees, the other statutory bodies, the police and everyone else. It really was very impressive. The residents whom I met had done the cleaning up and were in the process of seeing the repairs to their homes taking place, waiting for the repairs to start, or otherwise coping with the horrific situation that they had been put in. To meet some of them in their homes was a very encouraging experience, because of the resilience of the community in the face of what was absolutely horrific—when the water just rose and there was nothing that anyone could do about it because there was nowhere for it to go. Hull is built on a classic flood plain; the whole of Hull is just above sea level, just below sea level or at sea level. One of the things that the city council did was to set up the independent review body quickly, under the chairmanship of Professor Tom Coulthard, the professor of physical geography at the University of Hull. I had the opportunity to read both the interim report, which was ready when I went to Hull, and the more recent final report. The reports are an absolute model of readability and clarity in their presentation; that has to be commended.
- Time
- 21:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Clark of WindermereLabour
- Quote
- I wish to intervene briefly, not about Amendment No. 183 but about Amendment No. 183BA. It is clear that the mood of the Committee is that the amendment proposed by the Liberals ought to be supported. I have expressed my concern about its lack of focus. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the need for a unified approach. In a sense, we also ought to have a unified approach in discussing these amendments. Two agencies in particular are mentioned, the Environment Agency and Natural England. I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that, where amendments have been accepted that affect the statutory responsibility of other departments, the Minister will give those other departments the same attention and bring forward the same or similar amendments as he did with regard to Natural England and the Environment Agency. The Forestry Commission is a government department, not an NDPB. We have statutory responsibilities, laid down by Parliament, and we are very much connected with fighting climate change. Indeed, we are international leaders in many aspects of tackling climate change and recognised as such by the United Nations. There are very few people in the Committee who would not accept that forestry has a major role to play in combating climate change. Our key approach is based on sound science. I argue that sound science is critical if we are to be effective in tackling this problem. We have a next-steps agency, Forestry Research, which, again, is an international leader in forestry. We have statutory responsibilities regarding diseases of plants and trees. My advice relates to the fact that, if Amendment No. 183BA is agreed to, there will be another body undertaking some of our statutory responsibilities. In other words, there will be two public bodies trying to achieve the same ends. That coloured my earlier thinking, when I felt that it was necessary to be focused and clear on this. I have no real problem over who does what, but it must be made clear in the Bill or we will have more confusion. The result will be that we do not get the action that we all desperately want this Bill to deliver. I ask the Minister for an assurance that he will go back and check all these amendments. There may be many other bodies in a queue. Any one of the 25,000 other public bodies could be affected by these two amendments, which have, perhaps, been suggested to the Minister without the full implications having been completely thought through.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- I hope I misunderstood my noble friend Lord Clark. These are not government amendments; they are opposition amendments, so we do not accept them, and I am going to explain why. The noble Lord’s worry about going back to the department does not stand up. Because of the concentration on flooding and the lateness of the hour, I will not use a good part of the general speaking notes; I will concentrate on those aspects about flooding. We accept that there may be a case for revising arrangements for the co-ordination of flood risks. We need to think this through in detail, especially in light of the recommendations from the review by Sir Michael Pitt on the flood-related emergencies which occurred last summer. In his interim report, launched on 17 December, Pitt states that flood-risk management is a complex area, and that the lack of clarity and responsibility is equally challenging. He goes on to say that the current patchwork of legislation and responsibilities is not helpful and needs addressing. One of the interim conclusions is that flooding legislation should be updated and streamlined under a single unifying Act addressing all sources of flooding, clarifying responsibilities and focusing on a risk-based approach to managing flooding. Defra is currently developing a more integrated, holistic approach to all forms of inland flood risk, across a range of government policies. A key element of this is the Making Space for Water project, which is developing a new strategic overview for the Environment Agency. In defining the new role, the projects considering the existing relationship between flood-risk management organisations include local authorities, the Highways Agency, Ofwat and water companies, who are determining how it will work in practice. A core component of the strategic overview is the better management of surface water flood-risk, including resolving the current complex institutional arrangements and the use of sustainable drainage systems, both of which we will be considering early this year as part of the new water strategy. The project is drawing evidence from the integrated urban drainage pilots and the lessons learnt from the summer 2007 floods. That would include the report specifically from Hull and other local areas. It is essential that the Government do not make hasty decisions on an issue of such importance as overall responsibility and, first, we must properly assess the evidence. That evidence is being collected in the Pitt review which does not report finally until summer 2008. Consultation is under way on the very substantial interim conclusions. Introducing an amendment in the Climate Change Bill would pre-empt the water strategy, any associated consultations and Sir Michael Pitt's final report which, as I said, is due to be delivered by summer 2008. The amendment is also at odds with one of Pitt's interim conclusions, which is to deliver updated and streamlined legislation under a single unifying Act. The Government are committed to early action on the urgent Pitt recommendations, including better identification of areas at risk from surface water and groundwater flooding; and they are committed to bringing forward a complete package of measures that will ensure that flood risk is managed in a sustainable and holistic manner, avoiding a piecemeal approach to managing risk. The Government plan to co-ordinate the assessment of the risks to the natural environment and the strategy needed to address these risks as part of their commitments in the Bill under Clauses 48 and 49, which we have already debated. In this regard we expect Natural England to play an important role in advising the Government of the risks to the natural environment and making suggestions on how a strategy should be developed. But Natural England is only one of a number of organisations with responsibilities for the natural environment. We expect other organisations to share their thoughts about how climate change is impacting the natural environment. We plan to make use of a range of expert advice, including, but not limited to, public authorities, in the assessment of risks to the UK from climate change and we will co-ordinate the assessment as whole so that it is possible to look across the range of issues—economic, social and environmental—and understand adaptation in the context of sustainable development. We also need to play a co-ordinating role so that adaptation actions by one organisation do not undermine those of another, particularly with regard to the natural environment. It is a petty point to make, but one has to look at it. Natural England has no responsibility for the natural environment in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We need to work with the devolved Administrations in the assessment of the risks to the natural environment in the UK. From the marine perspective this amendment would cut across existing arrangements that we have in place on this issue. The Government have a comprehensive and integrated monitoring programme on the marine environment, including climate change aspects. We are on the way to comprehensive and integrated strategies regarding adaptation under our marine objectives work, shortly to be issued under the marine strategy directive, and in due course after the Marine Bill, with the marine policy statement. It is worth pointing out—it is not a petty point but it may be useful for later as it is a technical point on the amendment—that it would be unusual to try to confer formal functions on the Environment Agency and Natural England simply by amending their general purposes. It would be better to give informal duties and/or powers to do the job. I say that for the betterment of those who draft the amendments—there is a place to put them and a place not to put them. I want to make it absolutely clear that so far as the Government are concerned, both Natural England and the Environment Agency are already providing incredibly valuable advice to government on flooding and climate change, including adaptation. Work is ongoing in those areas with both those very important agencies.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for his response. He is saying that there will be primary legislation following the report of Sir Michael Pitt. I read the interim report a couple of weeks ago again, and the issue of co-ordination came out to me from it. We all saw it on our televisions at the time. Can the Minister give an indication of when the legislation is likely to be introduced? I am aware of only the external water issues of the UK. The Marine Bill has taken years longer than we expected. Given Defra’s responsibilities at the minute and its receding budget and resources, can the Minister give me confidence that it will be delivered within a reasonable timescale?
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord RookerLabour
- Quote
- No. I would hope that it would be delivered in a reasonable timescale, but I can give no commitments whatever about when a Bill might appear. The Government are committed to doing it, but we need the report and the consultations on it. As the noble Lord said, the Marine Bill has been a long time coming, and there are all kinds of barriers, difficulties and technical problems, notwithstanding, as business managers would say, parliamentary time. The commitment is there but I can give no assurances tonight. I may be asked the same question on Report because we may come back to this again, but never the less, we cannot move on this. We accept the urgent recommendations of the Pitt review—I think there are 17. There were 50-odd non-urgent ones. There was a substantial number of recommendations, so we are urgently considering them. We are awaiting his final report with interest.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TeversonLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for that. I understand that no one would want to move before the final version of that report comes out. The complexities of all these agencies in fashioning that future Bill will be worse than for the Marine Bill, which does not leave me with a great deal of hope. I agree that our amendment is not perfect but I want to look at it again to see whether we can find an interim solution for this next wave of legislation. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 183A to 183BA not moved.]
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour- Quote
- I beg to move that the House do now resume. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed. House adjourned at 10.18 pm.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗