| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, before dealing with that point, will the Minister comment on my suggestion that the Bellwin scheme should again be considered, which would give local authorities a greater possibility of obtaining payment for the replacement of capital assets? The recent report on Bellwin showed that inadequate money is available for the restoration of capital assets, as a result of which some local authorities will severely suffer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have significantly increased the formula in relation to Bellwin from the 85 per cent payment by central government to a 100 per cent payment in post severe-flood situations. I agree that there is some concern about balancing the way in which that money is spent and we shall certainly keep that matter under review. In particular, we need to ensure that the bulk of the money is paid in effective schemes—not all of which will be capital and some of which will be revenue management. However, we need to ensure that money given through the Bellwin formula is deployed effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, mentioned Lewes—an example of a particularly difficult area for which we need a long-term approach, especially having regard to the severe complications relating to heritage requirements as well as the straightforward defence of buildings. The noble Lord also referred to the role of county councils and the amount of precept that they had determined. County councils and flood management committees bear some responsibility to raise adequate resources, and there is a responsibility on central government to support those schemes. The situation in Sussex was particularly bad last year. Over the next few years we shall need to develop an overall strategy for protecting Lewes and other neighbouring areas in East Sussex.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also raised the question of the impact of soil erosion on effective intensive agriculture in Sussex, a problem which also occurs elsewhere. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It is certainly true that last autumn's exceptional rainfall led to a much more widespread and noticeable erosion and run-off from farmland in many parts of the country, particularly in the South- East. That was a demonstration of a localised, but nevertheless very severe, long-term problem. The Government have therefore taken a number of initiatives to improve soil quality, including issuing best practice guidance and information packs to farmers and managers to try to develop an approach that limits run-off from agricultural land. The problem of diffuse origin of soil erosion and its effect on the water system is significant, and we need to take it into account as we develop a new approach to the management of agricultural land as a whole.
Flood warning arrangements are also being improved—322,000 more people had flood warnings this year, compared with last year. That indicates an improvement in the prediction system at local level.
Many noble Lords have referred to the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which we in DEFRA commissioned. It gives some indication of the way in which we need to move forward, and we need to take its recommendations into account.
Several noble Lords referred to insurance and development controls. Clearly, there is a problem with the availability of flood insurance, which is of great concern to many in the flood plains and to the
covering local authorities. We maintain close links with insurance companies and are determined to ensure the continued availability of affordable flood cover. There is agreement among ABI companies that in all but exceptional circumstances they will continue to provide flood cover over the next two years. They have undertaken to investigate any alleged breaches of that agreement by members.However, there is clearly a long-term insurance problem. Insurance companies say that more resources from local authorities and central government should be used in flood defence. They are also concerned about development controls. However, they apply by and large to future property rather than property that is already there. In that regard, there is a difference in terms of what our approach can deal with. PPG25 deals with future developments more robustly than was the case with earlier planning guidance. We also have a responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of the flood defence arrangements in relation to those areas that have already been built on.
Future building on functional flood plains should be wholly exceptional in all circumstances. That is the responsibility of planning authorities. We have a responsibility for those who already live on flood plains—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am conscious that we are about to finish, but the Minister has not discussed planning permissions that have already been given in flood plains but where the property has not yet been built. We should deal with that serious matter, and I hope that he will comment on it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a general answer. Planning authorities and the call-in system have some responsibilities in that respect, in terms of the Secretary of State and the local authority. Where only outline planning permission exists, there is a responsibility on planning authorities to review the situation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I realise that we are nearly out of time. Will the Minister undertake to write to me on the question of council tax benefit subsidy limitations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that matter is not the direct responsibility of my department but I shall ensure that the noble Baroness gets a reply.
I believe that I have gone over my time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, will he clarify one matter? After September 11th, when insurance companies refused to cover airlines because of the greater risks, the Government
stepped in and contributed to premiums to keep people flying. If insurers will not insure people's homes—the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the figure of 1.7 million—should not the Government step in to ensure that people can continue to live in those homes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I had occasion to say to the House in an entirely different context that the Government are not the insurer of last resort. A temporary—and somewhat unique—exception to that was made in relation to airlines, but that is not
a sustained or sustainable position. It is not the Government's job to provide insurance for householders, but it is perhaps the Government's job, along with the insurance industry, to try to ensure that, so far as possible, such insurance is available and that local and national government observe their responsibilities in relation to flood management and flood defences, where that is sustainable. Where it is not sustainable, some degree of strategic retreat occasionally has to form part of the strategic plan.
- House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |