Tuesday 8 February 2005
[Mr. Derek Conway in the Chair]
Southern Regional Flood Defence
Committee Order 2004
9.55 am
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Southern Regional Flood Defence Committee Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3165).
First, I assure the Minister that I shall not seek to divide the Committee, although I shall raise what I hope hon. Members will consider to be important points. If they wish to disappear into their casework, I shall not be offended.
As the Minister knows, there are significant concerns about flooding. There has been a history in recent years of serious incidents, not least the one in Lewes in my constituency. Many properties—2 million, which is approximately 10 per cent. of all properties—are at risk of coastal or inland flooding. Of those, 400,000 are at very high risk of flooding—greater than the 1.3 per cent. annual probability or one in 75 chance. Many are in the southern region, which has been particularly badly hit by flooding. The situation is likely to get much worse as a consequence of climate change, of which perhaps there will be more later today in another venue in the House of Commons.
The Minister will also know that the financial implications of flooding are significant. Proposed developments in the south-east could increase the financial costs of river and coastal flooding by an average of £54.6 million each year—£20.9 million from damage to residential properties and £33.7 million from commercial losses. Flooding is not simply an issue of shell shock and great inconvenience to people but an economic matter for the country. Therefore, what may appear to be a rather dry statutory instrument is of importance to many people in the south, who want to know how flood defences will be managed and what the structure will be for dealing with floods.
It is important that the Minister take action to streamline and restructure the flood defence arrangements. I have pressed for that for some time. In 1999, before the floods that hit Lewes, I had a debate in the House on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has consulted and come up with a formula that improves matters, but there are questions as to whether the formula that he has landed on is the best one possible or whether other options might be more satisfactory.
The Minister proposes to abolish local flood defence committees and to rely on regional flood defence committee arrangements for the same southern area boundaries. To some extent, that will mean the loss of immediate local involvement—elected council
Column Number: 4
politicians and others—and a feeling that decisions are being taken at a more remote level. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between local committees, which cannot consider matters strategically, and a system that is too remote from elected representatives, in which people feel that they have no input. It is that difficult balance that I want to discuss with the Minister.
By definition, the number of local authority members involved in flood defence committee work will decrease. It was 41 in the southern region, but will be down to 19 under the Minister’s proposals as a consequence of the abolition of the local flood defence committees in Sussex and elsewhere. The Environment Agency suggested 21 committee members, which would have resulted in 11 local authority members. The Minister seems to have settled on 19, which gives 10 local authority members. Perhaps he could clarify why the number has been reduced.
I wish to reiterate the key principles referred to by the Environment Agency for establishing single-tier committees. It stated that such committees should be
“small enough to provide accountable democratic input and meet the needs of stakeholders . . . but large enough to adopt a strategic approach and provide an effective service without undue overheads”.
I agree with that balance but query whether it has been achieved on this occasion.
The Minister will know that the length of sea and tidal defences for which the southern regional committee will be responsible—well over 1,000 km—is greater, by a long way, than that of any other regional flood defence committee, according to the Environment Agency’s figures. Most committees cover about one quarter or one fifth of that. So, the southern region has a large responsibility for sea and tidal defence lengths that is not shared by other committees. That suggests that separating the regional flood defence committee into two might have been more appropriate than what is proposed by the statutory instrument.
I refer to comments on the proposal that the Minister will, I think, have received from East Sussex county council. It said:
“Whilst the former regional flood defence committee comprised seventeen members, (only two less than the new arrangement), the three constituent areas above were represented by a total of forty-one members”—
that is the point that I made to the Minister a moment ago—
“sitting on the three local flood defence committees which are now to be abolished.
This is a significant reduction in the democratic input to strategic and local flood defence decision-making in the southern region. Consequently, East Sussex County Council . . . did not support the proposal for one single tier regional committee”.
Instead it recommends there being two for the southern region. That is what I think too. The council also said:
“The southern region has the longest length of coast and tidal defences and has the highest numbers of properties at risk per area of floodplain. It has a diverse coastline and catchments and many major ports.”
Column Number: 5
The Environment Agency, which is, it is fair to record, in favour of the proposal being adopted, referred to possible alternatives at its board meeting on 24 March 2004. It said:
“In Southern Region, the proposal differs from the view of the majority of consultees.”
That is an important point. The view of consultees in the exercise has not been respected. It continued:
“The responses supporting two committees out-number those supporting one, although there are several different ways suggested for splitting or extending the Region. The most popular two Committee option splits the region down ‘the Brighton line’”.
That refers to the railway line and the M23 corridor. In other words, the option is to have
“Kent and East Sussex as one Committee and West Sussex and Hampshire and Isle of Wight as the other. This is a half-way house”.
The agency means that that approach does not provide the opportunities of a strategic body and is not sufficiently local. I am not sure that I agree with that analysis.
The Environment Agency rules out the alternative proposal, which is
“to join South West Region’s Avon and Dorset LFDC and Southern Region’s Hampshire and Isle of Wight LFDC”,
because it is
“contrary to the criterion of the consultation document, which stated that existing Regional boundaries would remain”.
That seems a rather bureaucratic response to the suggestion. Is it a sensible suggestion? If it is, it should not be ruled out simply because a boundary happens to be crossed. There is considerable merit in that suggestion, which was ruled out without being analysed because it was outside criteria that were doubtless written before that possibility was envisaged. That is unfortunate.
It is also worth pointing out that, in its representations, the regional flood defence committee supported having two committees and said that both options I referred to were viable. So, the Minister needs to be clear in his response about why the Government have overwritten the response of those who were consulted, including county councils and the regional flood defence committee, in deciding to go for the option that they have adopted. I accept that it cannot always be the case that consultation results in the majority view being adopted. However, the Minister will know that people become cynical about consultation if they feel that the views that were expressed by the majority end up being rejected by the Minister when he makes his decision. It would be helpful if the Minister were to expand on that in his response.
There are, of course, specific issues for Lewes. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I take off my party hat as a Liberal Democrat and put on my local Member hat. He will know that it is vital for Lewes that a system that delivers flood defences is in place. He will also know that there is frustration in the town because, despite the pledges by the Government, the wake-up call from the Deputy Prime Minister and the endeavours of the Minister, which I readily acknowledge, put on the record and am thankful for, we have not made as much progress in the town as
Column Number: 6
people would like to see. There is one scheme in place, but no second scheme has been agreed yet. Only part of the town, which was flooded so badly in 2000, had been protected and no date has yet been set for any further action. Even in relation to dealing with the second part, there is no certainty that the rest of Lewes will be dealt with thereafter, which leaves people not quite high and dry, but perhaps low and wet, in their houses.
On the relevance to the statutory instrument, the question is whether the new arrangements that it proposes will make it more or less likely that towns such as Lewes will be able to get their flood defences advanced more quickly. I have already said that I welcome the Government’s attempts to tidy up the archaic arrangements for flood defence management. It is absolutely right that they should do that and that we should move to a more logical system. The moves that the Government have made in terms of the funding stream and the Environment Agency are welcome and sensible. They are in line with what I, and others, have been calling for for some time.
There is an issue, however, about whether the new funding arrangements, and the ratcheting effect that is implicit in them, will deliver the works that we need. For example, as I understand it, the Government’s priority score scheme will still rank projects according to national priority. Particularly in relation to the southern region—given the number of properties at risk and the effect on business, which affects the whole country and not simply the southern region, because much of our wealth is generated in my region—there is an argument for saying that there should be a minimum allocation of capital to each Environment Agency region so that we can at least be guaranteed that some schemes in each region will go ahead. Otherwise, there is the possibility that the priority score scheme could leave the southern region, and others, with little money to do anything. Other regions could have more money, because they have been ranked higher according to the priority score scheme, but they may not necessarily have the resources, in terms of manpower, infrastructure capability and so on, to deliver those schemes on time. There needs to be a marriage between the availability of funds and the need to introduce schemes in a particular area.
The local levy needs to be kick-started by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, otherwise there is a real danger that East and West Sussex county councils, which are under tremendous funding pressure, as every local authority is, will get used to spending nothing much on the levy and will not be likely to reverse the position in the future given the ratchet effect on their contributions, which will go from £400,000 to considerably more in years ahead.
Is the Minister content that the new flood defence arrangements that are proposed in the statutory instrument will accelerate the delivery of flood defence schemes for towns such as Lewes, or does he see a danger that the loss of the local flood defence committee element means that the opportunity for strong local lobbying within a flood defence
Column Number: 7
management format will be lost, and therefore it will be more difficult for towns such as Lewes to have their say and make their voice heard within the regional arrangements? He will also be aware that there is particular sensitivity to the reduction in the priority score for the Cliffe area in Lewes and a real fear that that represents a back-tracking by the authorities in terms of what can be delivered for Lewes in the foreseeable future.
My last point is on the regional flood defence committee administration. Is the Minister satisfied that the small membership, with a minimal secretariat, is capable of delivering the major schemes that the Government have in mind and which are so essential for flood defence work in tackling the consequences of climate change and the natural challenges that our areas face? I am disappointed that, as I understand it, the DEFRA interpretation of rules relating to the appointment of the chairman of the regional flood defence committee will prevent the current, experienced chairman, Bill Cutting, from continuing. I hope that that is not correct. He is widely respected, and I would like him to have the opportunity, if possible, to carry on. Will the Minister clarify how the chair of the new committee will be appointed?
10.10 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): First, Mr. Conway, I warmly and enthusiastically welcome you to the Chair. I believe it is the first time that I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving under your chairmanship, and I am sure that you will warm to the theme of flooding, and global warming generally.
I would like to make some general comments, and then one or two specific comments on the order. The Minister will be aware of my continuing interest in flooding, following the spate of flooding in the Vale of York in autumn 2000. I would like to place on record the excellent work that the Environment Agency does throughout the country, particularly through local flood defence committees. My general point is that the Minister and his Department could have gone so much further than broaching the mini reorganisation that is set out in the statutory instrument before the Committee.
In the two Adjournment debates on flooding and flood defences, which I was fortunate to secure about three or four years ago, I pressed the Minister on the need to streamline flood defence decision-making in the immediate aftermath of a flood. I am not convinced that the mini reorganisation that the Government seek to introduce will achieve that. I have some anecdotal evidence to support that theory. Local authorities and internal drainage units have a role to play, and the Environment Agency is still responsible only for the main water courses, yet much damage can be done through minor water courses. In the incidence of flooding in 2000, certain local authorities were quick off the mark—I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) had similar experiences. They had sandbags in place, instructions in households on
Column Number: 8
how to use them and households using them correctly. The most repellent damage done to some houses would have been prevented with the simple depositing of one sandbag down the lavatory and one on top to stop the nasty particles referred to coming up and flooding the home. The creation of a regional flood defence committee moves away from the streamlining that should take place.
I put it to the Minister that we must invest in the Environment Agency overall responsibility for all water courses, albeit working with the internal drainage boards. We know that those boards have limited finances and personnel, but we are asking them to do a great deal, often in the event of a flood disaster overnight, which they are simply incapable of doing.
My other general point is that neither local flood defence committees nor regional flood defence committees are proper planning authorities. Yet, we know, and the hon. Gentleman touched on this point, that the greatest cause of flooding is building in inappropriate places. The report of the Association of British Insurers released on 1 February, stated:
“There are more than 2 million homes at risk from coastal or inland flooding (10 per cent. of total homes in the UK.), and around 400,000 homes at very high risk of flooding (greater than 1.3 per cent. annual probability or 1-in-75 chance).
In the long term, this situation could worsen . . . Climate change will increase winter rainfall, the frequency of heavy rainfall, and sea levels and storm surge heights.”
In its view:
“Weather risks are already increasing by 2 - 4 per cent. on the household and property accounts due to changing weather.”
The report continues:
“With no change in Government policies or spending, climate change could increase the number of properties at risk of flooding to 3.5 million.”
What role does the Minister expect regional flood defence committees to play in preventing flooding of inappropriate houses?
A newspaper report said that many of the new houses would have to have no accommodation on the ground floor because of their liability to flooding. The report, in The Daily Telegraph on 26 January, said:
“Eighty-five thousand houses in the Thames Gateway need to be built with living spaces on the first floor because of the risk of flooding, the Association of British Insurers told . . . the Deputy Prime Minister”.
That compounds the situation.
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): If it is true.
Miss McIntosh: It is true. Although it was before my time, I know for a fact that the houses that were flooded in the Vale of York were built on a floodplain in the 1920s. I urge the Government to go down the path of having a presumption against building of any description—even on brownfield sites—on a functional floodplain. Until the onus in the law changes, the onus is on the householder to know whether their house or dwelling is liable to flooding. Until that onus is put on the developer, there is a strong argument for a presumption against building of any kind on a functioning floodplain. Until we get to
Column Number: 9
that point, will the Minister inform us what discussion he expects the regional flood defence committees to have with the relevant planning authority?
The hon. Member for Lewes touched on the inferior democratic element of the proposals before the Committee. I support him in that regard. We have received representations saying that what the Minister proposes makes the representation less democratic and more remote. For a heavily populated council such as Kent, representation will be reduced, even though the number of representatives is increased from 17 to 19. Kent will have three representatives. Berkshire will have none and Brighton and Hove and West Sussex will have one jointly. The county of East Sussex will have one and the large county of Hampshire will have only two. Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton will have only one jointly. The London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich and the Medway towns will have only one jointly. Surrey will have none. West Sussex will have one. Wiltshire will have none. If the Minister compares that to the present local flood defence committees, even he will agree that it cannot be claimed that there will be greater democratic accountability.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of committees for Bexley and the surrounding areas—one—is pitifully small? If she were inclined to speculate, which she might not be, would she not think that if you, Mr. Conway, were not chairing the Committee and were instead a member of it, you might be inclined to remonstrate in the strongest possible terms because your constituents were not going to be better represented?
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend leads me down a dangerous path, which I would be best advised not to go down. I am sure that you, Mr. Conway, will wish to have words with the Minister in the confines of the Tea Room at a subsequent date and that my hon. Friend has done you a great service by writing that into the record.
I draw the Minister’s attention to what my noble Friend the Baroness Byford said in the House of Lords in 2004 during the debate on the Water Bill. She expressed concern that the decision to merge the local flood defence committees into regional ones would lose vital expert experience and was more politically inspired than practical. The Minister may like to comment on that. She said:
“Is not the motive here part of the Government’s obsession”—
her words not mine, and very strong words, I agree—
“to set up unwanted regional assemblies?”
Prior to that, she said:
“The power to abolish such committees should be exercised with caution. It is important that local knowledge should not be lost and that it is adequately represented in the membership of any replacing regional committee.”—[Official Report, House of Lords,Thursday 6 March 2003; Vol. 645, c. 973.]
I put it to the Committee and to the Minister that that is clearly will not be the case. We do not seem to gain anything by the regional flood committees, but we seem to lose quite a lot. We lose a lot of democratic accountability and local expertise. We have heard
Column Number: 10
about one chairman. He may have reached the end of his term, so that argument may not wash, but I await the Minister’s comments.
The powers introduced in 1995 under the Conservative Government allowed for a two-tier system. A regional flood defence committee would provide a strategic overview, with the district committees responsible for local management. What was wrong with that system? If there was nothing wrong with it, why are we changing it? We are concerned about the funding stream for and from the regional flood defence committees. How will the Government ensure that funding reaches the right places locally? Will the funding stream be secure, whence will it come and what guarantee is there of any annual increases over and above inflation?
I have touched on the lack of representation and the fact that we believe that the committees are less democratic. How will local people gain sufficient local knowledge, and how will local views be heard and represented regionally? I echo what my noble Friend the Baroness Byford said. The Government appear taken up or obsessed with regionalisation, and the provision before us is another example of that. It is one where lives and property may be jeopardised, as local knowledge is taken away from the flood management system.
We have several questions. Does the Minister share the concern expressed by the Association of British Insurers that flood defence commitments are not cut? Could that be seen as a weakening of local representation? We know that the ABI has made no idle threat about withdrawing flood cover from thousands of homes if it felt that the Government were jeopardising the finances.
A report by the ABI on the future impact of climate change on flood defences and requirements was published in June 2004. It noted that claims arising from storm and flood damages in the UK doubled to £6 billion between 1998 and 2003 compared with the previous five years. Will the Minister confirm that? The ABI believes that damage claims from river and coastal damage could increase from £1 billion a year to £20 billion by 2080. The report stated that in order to prevent flood costs rising unsustainably, additional investment in flood defences of between £10 million and £30 million a year will be required over and above current expenditure.
Will the Minister accept my request that essential work carried out by the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and others to maintain and secure our flood defences could be better integrated? There is a strong case for streamlining flood procedures and rationalising the relationship of all bodies involved. Why is the two-tier system being replaced? As we heard from the hon. Member for Lewes, the local view is that they work very well. Why are the Government bringing their obsession with regionalisation into such a crucial field as flood defence, removing the democratic accountability of local representation in flood defence committees? How does the Minister expect such populous counties as Kent and Hampshire
Column Number: 11
and three large London boroughs to be represented by four and a half seats between them on a regional committee?
What will the relationship be between regional flood defence committees, local councils and the local office of the Environment Agency? What representations has the Minister received from local authorities on the proposals? The hon. Member for Lewes referred to representations that he had received. I would be surprised if the Minister had not received any himself.
How will the Minister ensure that funding is properly distributed to the most local levels, for example through parish councils? I commend the parish councils in my area, and in particular Rawcliffe parish council. In the floods in 2000, a soup kitchen was set up. People who had to be housed quickly were taken there. Their local MP took them to the local hostel for an intermediate stay, until more appropriate accommodation was found. If we are looking at a regional flood defence committee, how will parish councils and ordinary people ensure that their views are heard?
What powers will the new, slightly enlarged, regional flood defence committees have, and how will the local representatives and the chairman of the committee be chosen? How will the Government ensure that they have sufficient local knowledge to do their jobs? Where is it expected that the regional flood defence committee will sit? Will it sit in one place? Will it rotate? How often will it meet? How will the Minister avoid this becoming a monstrous bureaucratic nightmare? What provision will there be for public access to the regional flood defence committee?
There is something happening in Lincolnshire, close to the Minister’s own constituency, and it sounds so good that I think that we would all like a bit of it. He will recognise that I am referring to Alkborough flats, not to be confused with Aldborough in my constituency. In the details which were sent from the Environment Agency office that we share and that covers the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and in fact the whole of the north-east, I learned that funding is available for flood defences from a number of sources that I had never previously linked to flood protection facilities. Those sources are English Nature, Yorkshire Forward—that will not be much help to Lewes; I am sorry about that, but I am sure that it has an equivalent—the Heritage Lottery Fund, good old DEFRA and the European LIFE-Nature fund. If that is good enough for Lincolnshire, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how we can get our muddy little fingers on those sources.
I know that I speak in the privacy of a Committee Room and that no one else in Parliament is likely to hear about this, but in the Vale of York, we would be delighted if that happened. The Minister has been good enough to hear informal representations particularly in relation to coastal flooding, but also in relation to flooding in floodplains. About 65 or 70 per cent. of the Vale of York is made up of floodplains. We
Column Number: 12
need to look favourably on schemes such as the Alkborough flats. We hope that we might get some such schemes.
I shall not seek to divide the Committee, but the Minister has raised a number of issues on which we look forward to hearing his comments.
10.28 am
