draft Reservoirs Act 1975 (exemptions, appeals and inspections) (england) regulations 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Benyon, Richard (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)
† Burrowes, Mr David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
† Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con)
† Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con)
† Godsiff, Mr Roger (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
† Milton, Anne (L ord Commissioner of Her Majesty’ s Treasury)
† Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) (Lab)
† Newton, Sarah (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
Sharma, Mr Virendra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
† Shuker, Gavin (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
† Smith, Mr Andrew (Oxford East) (Lab)
† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† White, Chris (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
† Williams, Mr Mark (Ceredigion) (LD)
Williams, Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Anna Dickson, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 4 June 2013
[Katy Clark in the Chair]
Draft Reservoirs Act 1975 (Exemptions, Appeals and Inspections) (England) Regulations 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Reservoirs Act 1975 (Exemptions, Appeals and Inspections) (England) Regulations 2013.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark.
The amendments to the Reservoirs Act 1975, made under schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, introduced a more risk-based approach to the management of large raised reservoirs, and the draft reservoir regulations are a key component of that process. The regulations are required to be brought into force as soon as the substantive provisions amending the 1975 Act are commenced.
By way of background to the 1975 Act, although it is rare for a large raised reservoir to fail, the impact of such failure on life and property would of course be considerable. During the 2007 summer floods, there was a near-miss incident at Ulley reservoir, where a complete reservoir failure was averted only by emergency action. Sir Michael Pitt’s review of the 2007 floods recommended improvements in reservoir safety. The recommendations were addressed through amendments to the 1975 Act made by schedule 4 to the 2010 Act.
Regulation-making powers inserted into the 1975 Act by the 2010 Act include the allowance of specific exemptions from the 1975 Act, the introduction of appeal rights and clarity on the timing of inspections. The regulations relating to exemptions specify things that are not to be treated as large raised reservoirs for the purposes of the 1975 Act. Exemptions from the 1975 Act include tips that are covered by mines and quarries legislation and canals and inland navigations. Those exemptions are maintained.
Due to the new definition of a large raised reservoir, as a result of the 2010 Act, other bodies of water potentially fall within the scope of the 1975 Act. That has led to a new exemption for road and rail embankments with drains that have not been artificially blocked—with gates, for example. Where a road or rail embankment acts as a flood storage reservoir, it should be recognised as such and managed accordingly.
Regulations also provide undertakers of large raised reservoirs with the right to an appeal. An undertaker may appeal against the designation of a large raised reservoir as high risk and against notices given by the Environment Agency either to appoint an engineer or to carry out an engineer’s recommendation in the interests
of safety. The regulations provide that a first-tier tribunal will hear all appeals under the amended 1975 Act. To maintain the credibility of the Act and the efficacy of the designation regime, it is important that the appeals mechanism is independent, efficient, comprehensive and a fair and cost-effective way of adjudicating any disputes. The process for bringing an appeal is governed by the draft regulations and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.The draft regulations also set out the timings of inspections. Previously under the 1975 Act, all large raised reservoirs had to be supervised and inspected, whereas the 2010 Act amends the provision to include only those large raised reservoirs designated as high risk. Transitional arrangements and savings will be in place to ensure the smooth introduction of the requirements.
The draft regulations also require the Secretary of State to review their operation and effect, and to publish a report within five years of the regulations coming into force. The powers to make the regulations are contained in the amendments made by schedule 4 to the 2010 Act, which took effect in October 2011. The substantive provisions, including a more risk-based approach to reservoir management, cannot be implemented without the draft regulations, which are a key component of the process under the amendments to the 1975 Act. The draft regulations are a necessary and appropriate statutory obligation. I commend them to the Committee.
2.34 pm
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, to consider such an important piece of secondary legislation. We all remember the widespread major flooding event in the summer of 2007, which endangered lives. In the aftermath, the Labour Government asked Sir Michael Pitt to review what changes might be made to help us adjust to the increased prevalence of flooding. Emergency action alone prevented the potentially catastrophic failure of Ulley reservoir. Emergency action is taken at large raised reservoirs, on average, four times a year, which is why it is right to introduce the regulations and why the Opposition will support them today.
As the Minister has said, the regulations, which will be enacted under the 2010 Act—a major and increasingly well respected piece of legislation—are vital to ensuring that our safety measures match the risk to our large reservoirs, but I gently remind him that, three years on, some provisions of the Act have not yet been introduced. Will he give an assurance that by the end of this Parliament all those provisions will have been enacted, and if not, why not?
Turning to the substance of the regulations, we welcome the extension of the appeal process from 28 days to three months, and we acknowledge that it is right to lean on the expertise of the Institution of Civil Engineers in designating a qualifying engineer and setting the non-statutory guidance for operators. Naturally, a risk-based approach involves the designation of high-risk reservoirs as a separate category with their own inspection requirements. Of the 2,000 or so large reservoirs, how many will be designated as high risk? What will the mechanism for designation be? What assessment has been carried out of the resource required to cover the right of appeal against designation and against a notice?
It strikes me, as a matter of common sense, that the largest number of appeals are likely to be made in the regulations’ first year of operation. What assumptions are being made, and what mitigating work is being undertaken to ensure that reservoir operators understand the new regulations?2.37 pm
Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the regulations. He is right to praise the 2010 Act, which was achieved in the wash-up of the previous Parliament through co-operation across the House, and he is also right that it is widely applauded as landmark legislation. It implements many provisions of Sir Michael Pitt’s report, which was well received after the dreadful floods of 2007.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the remaining provisions of the 2010 Act. We have a commitment to introduce those measures before the end of 2014, which we are on target to do. I do not resile from the fact that that is making strong demands on resources in my Department, which is smaller than it was, but I am confident that we will achieve it. There are some important measures that I want to introduce, not least on SUDS—
sustainable drainage systems. The date for achieving that is 11 months away, and I want to ensure that we are on target.The hon. Gentleman is right to ask how many reservoirs fall within the proposals. We reckon that approximately 1,800 remain in the high-risk category, based on the Environment Agency’s new risk-based methodology. A right of appeal is important, which is why we have implemented the first-tier tribunal rules, and we think that will be an important provision. I am seeking inspiration for the exact cost, which has just come into my mind. We have estimated that there might be approximately 40 appeals a year under phase 1, and those appeals have a recognised average cost. We believe that it will not be burdensome on the industry and that the provisions under the tribunals legislation will minimise cost and speed up the process. They are good for those who are worried about the impact of flooding if a reservoir fails and, importantly, are not burdensome on the companies themselves.