| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The staff will be sufficient to handle matters effectively. An annual report will be published in due course.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leith will not press the amendment.
6 pm
Mr. Chisholm: I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with him that the word "relevant" is relevant. We hope that it will never be necessary for confidential documentation to be handed over.
I thank my hon. Friends for their valuable contributions. I support everything that was said by them, with the possible exception of the remarks about Edinburgh by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow(Dr. Godman). I have a certain Edinburgh solidarity with the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine and is poaching some of my constituency for the general election, although I do not think that he will get many votes from that area.
We shall keep a close watch on the way in which the Bill operates, and pay particular attention to problems with confidential documents.
Mr. Davidson:
I endorse the welcome given by my hon. Friend to the contributions made by our hon. Friends. I take it that he agrees with the criticisms of the Law Society. It can be said that professional self-regulation by lawyers has now received a yellow card. It will be closely monitored during the term of the next Labour Government, with a view to possible abolition.
Mr. Chisholm:
I am not sure how wide a topic was covered by my hon. Friend's remarks, so I shall be careful in replying. It was an interesting point.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
Amendment negatived.
Order for Third Reading read.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I could speak at immense length, but I think that we have given the subject a general airing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 deals with emergency powers of entry with reference to clause 2, which deals with cleansing, repairing and otherwise maintaining watercourses. We welcome the Bill in general and the fact that duties are to be imposed on local councils with reference to the maintenance of watercourses and flood prevention.
The Bill changes the "can" of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 into a "must". However, if councils are to fulfil their duties properly, they must have the necessary powers and resources. One issue that we raised in Committee with reference to powers related to fines for dumping. One of the main causes of flooding is dumping in rivers. We argued that the maximum fine should be increased from £1,000 to £2,500. Councils need that power to do their duty, but the proposal was rejected by the Government. That shows, once again, that the Labour party is prepared to be tough on anti-social behaviour.
To do their job properly, councils also need powers of access in an emergency--access to a building or land that causes a serious flood problem. Councils want that power, yet the Government deny it to them. I raised the issue on Second Reading, as did the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)--I seem to be quoting Liberal Democrat Members rather a lot this evening. The hon. Lady said:
Section 8 of the 1961 Act provides that admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right by councils, unless 14 days' notice of intended entry has been given
to the occupier of the land, but that, on application to a sheriff, the sheriff may warrant the council to enter that land if he is satisfied that there is a case of urgency. That has been extended slightly in the Bill through a Committee amendment, which allows a justice of the peace to grant the council the power to enter the land. That does not go far enough.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Might it not be the case that the justice of the peace who gives authorisation is a member of the council?
Mr. Chisholm:
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting point, which should be noted by the Minister.
The Bill places a new duty to act to clear watercourses if that would substantially reduce the likelihood of flooding. Blockages of culverts, in particular, can occur very quickly as a result of natural debris, such as broken branches, or irresponsible dumping in watercourses. I have referred to the problems that that can cause councils in pursuing their duties.
There can be no guarantee that a regular maintenance programme would necessarily detect such hazards before a storm or flash flood. On occasions, blocked culverts have rapidly caused significant flooding of property. If councils are to carry out their duty effectively, it is essential for them to be able to access blockages in an emergency, before the flood waters rise to dangerous levels.
For example, in Paisley, which was badly affected by floods in the winter of 1994, a light engineering company called Tercet, which makes high-quality products for the electronics industry, was badly flooded. The flooding arose from a blocked culvert on an adjoining vacant site, which was owned by a private development company, whose whereabouts were not known at the time. Ownership had changed and was initially denied. The flooding rose to a depth of 0.5 m within two hours. The company closed its operations for about six weeks and the damage cost £1.5 million to repair.
Although it is not usual to allow emergency access without a warrant, the speed of flooding and the gravity of the consequences make this an exceptional case. The new clause would allow emergency access without a warrant only if, in the view of the responsible officer, waiting for a warrant would result in significant flooding of property. In those circumstances, the measure is reasonable and necessary. It should be noted that, in paragraph 18 of the original consultation paper, the Government suggested:
The simple fact is that, without this emergency access power, there would be a risk of unnecessary flooding occurring in certain cases. I have said that we support and welcome the extra duties for councils conferred by the Bill--indeed, Labour Members pressed for those powers during debates on environment legislation two years ago. However, if councils are to exercise their duties properly, they must have the tools to do the job. One necessary tool is the emergency access power.
The other essential tools, which are not mentioned specifically in an amendment tonight, are the resources to do the job. Hon. Members may raise that issue on Third Reading. There are clearly serious problems, particularly in relation to clause 3, because the plans cannot be realised without funding. Perth has applied for challenge funding, but there are many more applicants than there is money available for the work required.
It is good that councils should have those duties, but they must also have the resources and the powers to perform them properly. Emergency access is an essential power. The councils want it, so why will the Government not grant it to them?
Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth):
Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, you have served in the House for a long time. You will remember a time when Tories were toffs. Unfortunately--with the exception of the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is undoubtedly a toff--they are not toffs any more. They used to know a thing or two about land. However, present Tory Members do not know very much about that issue--although they often sell it in small parcels as estate agents. When they knew about land, they would contribute to debates such as this, and they would have been able to tell us why the new clause is inappropriate.
6.2 pm
"Such powers could be needed in an emergency such as that which occurred recently in Dunoon. Then, equipment had to be diverted a considerable distance to gain access to a watercourse in flood because a private landowner would not allow access over his stretch of land."--[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 13 January 1997; c. 65.]
The matter was also raised by me in Committee, as part of a large group of amendments, and it did not merit a great deal of the Minister's time when he replied. He said:
"We, too, want to allow for quicker access to land but we do not consider that access without a warrant is necessary or appropriate."--[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 February 1997; c. 18.]
Today, the Minister has an opportunity to amplify that remark.
"Authorities would be able to carry out work at their own expense with similar access arrangements as obtained in the 1961 Act with the addition of a power to act in an emergency without service of notice."
The Government should explain why their original intentions as embodied in the consultation paper have not taken shape in the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |