|
Column Number: 307
Standing Committee D
Tuesday 21 October 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
8.55 am
Clauses 75 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Flood plans: large raised reservoirs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): Good morning, Mr. O'Hara, and welcome to the Chair.
The Bill deals with the shortage of water, yet only when we get to this point do we start to deal with the problem of reservoirs. The clause puts in place proper plans so that if a raised reservoir should burst there is a procedure to ensure that the local community suffers no danger or loss of life. That is welcome. However, there are no powers that would enable more reservoirs to be built.
The problem with British water is that although it falls out of the sky regularly, we save no more than 3 per cent. of our rainfall. That is an extraordinarily low amount and it is why water is such a precious resource. It has not rained for some time this month and we have had one of the driest autumns; what better illustration can I draw as to why we should save more water in reservoirs? It is a great shame that the Bill contains nothing that would make it easier, particularly for areas such as Thames gateway where a lot of new housing will be built, to save rainfall.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara.
The clause deals with flood plans, which are basically contingency planning for reservoir management in the case of a major incident. I do not think that anyone would have any concerns about that. Procedures for the provision of new reservoirs are not in the Bill because they are dealt with in planning legislation. There are powers for companies to produce water resource plans for the next 25 years; that is an existing responsibility. Water companies may, as part of good resource planning, identify future needs for reservoirs. Proposals for reservoirs have to go through the normal planning procedures.
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the building of reservoirs can be very capital intensive. It is therefore likely that companies will have to make a bid to the regulator in the five-year financial planning process to get the necessary capital provision.
Before we start looking at reservoir building it is important to maximise water efficiency. That includes reducing leakage and advocating a more efficient use of water. That can mitigate or postpone the need for reservoir building for some years. Those provisions are
Column Number: 308
not spelled out in the Bill because they exist in both resource planning and standard planning procedures.
Mr. Wiggin: I still think it a pity that those provisions are not included. I accept that planning is not part of the Bill, but the Government have managed to include a medical aspect, so it would not have been beyond their wit or imagination to include a planning aspect, and it is a great shame that they have not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
National security
Amendment made: No. 261, in
clause 81, page 96, line 40, leave out 'in pursuance of' and insert 'pursuant to'.—[Mr. Morley.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
9 am
Norman Baker (Lewes): I want to speak briefly about flood plans and national security, because the clause gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State in the interests of national security. In principle, nobody would query the conclusion that there may be instances in which information should be withheld from classes of people. However, the clause allows for zero consultation on and zero publication of flood plans if that is the Secretary of State's decision. Will the Minister explain what
''person or class of persons'',
referred to in the paragraphs mentioned in new section 12B(1), might not be consulted?
It is standard practice, for example, for the Environment Agency to be given privileged information that may have national security implications, and for that to be treated securely with everyone's confidence, so I would not like such information to be excluded. We are discussing designated classes who are statutory consultees, yet the Secretary of State is giving himself or herself the power not to consult them or to produce information in public notices for those classes of people. Who are those classes, and in what circumstances would information not be provided?
Mr. Morley: There is no intention not to consult people, particularly those in the area who may be affected. However, situations may arise in which there is a need to restrict that consultation, although we would still consult with the undertaker, which would be the Environment Agency, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. There would also be consultation with the local authority, to which the flood plans would be important, as it is responsible for an emergency response.
The new sections are a consequence of clauses 80 and 83, which provide directions for undertakers to prepare the flood plans and extend the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975 to the Crown. Normally we want to consult, but, if at the time, there is considered to be a risk to national security, the clause will enable
Column Number: 309
the Secretary of State to limit consultation. The Secretary of State may also serve a notice on an undertaker requiring them not to publish a flood plan and to withhold access to it. That is because software predictions can, with some accuracy, show the course of flood water from a dam failure and the infrastructure that would be at risk from that.
Norman Baker: I understand the Minister's point and do not disagree with him in principle. I want to clarify that he is saying that a local authority would always be consulted, although matters would have to be treated confidentially. That is a useful guarantee for democratic accountability. Will he say which classes of persons might not be consulted?
Mr. Morley: I confirm that local authorities would be consulted. Normally, we would expect a flood plan to be published and open to public scrutiny by anybody who wanted to see it. If a particular dam, or the possible effects of a flooding event on downstream infrastructure, were thought to be sensitive, the restriction might apply to the general public and to anyone who wanted to wander in and look at the details and the software. I think that that is what is meant.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Norman Baker: My point is similar to the one that I just made. In new section 27A(4), the Secretary of State reserves the right to limit the power of entry exercisable in relation to what is specified in the certificate, and I entirely understand why that might be desirable. What procedure will be followed when entry for environmental reasons would normally be deemed to be desirable but is prohibited for security reasons? What about the problem that would have necessitated entry in the first place?
Mr. Morley: I am a little quizzical about that point because the clause deals with the exemption of Crown bodies. Its intention is to bring them into the scope of the Reservoirs Act 1975 and to render them formally subject to the Act's safety regime, so the powers of entry are extended to them. That is the simple explanation.
Norman Baker: I understand that, but it appears that an exclusion is given—[Interruption.] There is a lot of talking; I hope you can hear me, Mr. O'Hara. New subsection (4), which gives the general power to bring Crown premises into the scope of the Act, is welcome, but an exclusion is given for security reasons. That is how I understand the proposal, although I may have misread it.
Column Number: 310
In the minority of cases where it is deemed inappropriate for entry to be given, what will happen when the need for entry is otherwise identified? What procedure will be followed to deal with the problem that would have necessitated entry in the first place? I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. New subsection (4) deals with national security. A site may fall within the powers of the Act, but for reasons of national security the Secretary of State can declare that the powers of entry do not apply. Because these are Crown estates and Crown bodies, in circumstances where there is a matter of security the site is likely, though not certain, to be a Ministry of Defence property. If there were a need for access to carry out duties under the Bill, it would be a matter for negotiation between the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State at the Department concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Water conservation by public authorities
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in
clause 85, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) It is the duty of each public authority, in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of furthering the conservation of water.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 231, in
Amendment No. 166, in
clause 85, page 98, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'water' and insert 'further the conservation of'.
Amendment No. 289, in
| 
