| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
By any definition, last year’s floods were a major disaster for a great many people. A significant proportion of the blame has been attached to the Environment Agency. But how much blame should be apportioned to the Government for designing these muddled and conflicting structures that are responsible for looking after the UK’s inland rivers? One thing is certain: the impact on public confidence is predictable, and the situation is unsatisfactory.
7.36 pm
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for introducing the debate. The floods last year were very serious.
20 May 2008 : Column 1422
My own interest in this subject was stimulated when I was director of the Met Office and I visited some Chinese villages which are regularly flooded. They recover and are flooded again. We can learn some things from that. I am also a visiting professor at Delft. In the Netherlands they have some radical ideas. It is surprising that the House of Commons committee went to France but did not visit and hear about these quite radical ideas emerging from the Netherlands.
All these areas of Europe of course will be subject to the changing climate that we now expect. Not only will there be intense rain events, but it is likely that we may have the sort of blocking conditions such as they had in the United States in the 1990s when you have many days of persistent rain, which of course will lead to serious consequences.
The first point to make is that the Environment Agency—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am sure will explain this—is not widely understood in the UK. It changed its policy from flood defence to flood-risk management. I was interviewed by Canadian television and asked if this really was the policy. I went to a government department in Whitehall—Communities and Local Government—just a few months ago and many of its officials were unaware of this change, which was surprising because of course it has a very important implication: that there will be floods, and that we have to design our houses, roads and infrastructure for floods. Therefore, we need to have a completely different approach. Building regulations, the community warning systems and the telephone systems will have to be in that form. This is a major change to how communities and individuals need to think about their houses.
I attended a meeting last year of CABE, which is an organisation considering buildings and design. A distinguished engineer from a major consultancy was asking whether we are now really going to build buildings where we are to assume that the ground floor can be flooded, whereas in the past the ground floor of a high-rise was a desirable part for people to live in. Is this really the case? If so, it requires quite a different approach.
As discussed in the report, many of the utilities are only just facing up to running their systems to cope with floods in the streets of London. I have heard that they have had various exercises, which for some utilities did not succeed very well. Imperial College is doing an important study of how the infrastructure will withstand the kinds of extreme events that will happen more in the future, as discussed in the Climate Change Bill.
I refer your Lordships to the interesting Chinese experience. They have warnings, as we have warnings here. Then, in these concrete-type buildings, party workers—who are not trying to get people out for by-elections in China but are helping them in floods—knock on the doors and take people upstairs with their furniture. Of course, all the electrics are at a higher level. The flood comes through and, in some
20 May 2008 : Column 1423
The interesting point about the Dutch exploration of new building concepts is that they are looking for buildings that may be prone to flooding, such as buildings on stilts. Indeed, a suggestion of Dutch engineers, to avoid the high currents between buildings that we saw in Gloucester and in extreme conditions that may happen more in the future, is to have buildings the ground floor of which collapses inwards so that water can flow through them. This is a drastic look at the future but perhaps less drastic than having floating houses, which has also been suggested.
The other important point in the Pitt review was that we need good warning systems. These are developing. The Environment Agency and, originally, the BBC provide warning systems. Now, however, with the use of computers, radar and satellites we should be able to inform people of the kind of flooding that might be expected on a street-by-street level. Street-by-street level air pollution warnings are now provided in London, so we should be able to provide that for flooding by mobile phones to individuals at risk. In India, they provide warnings of flooding in 14 different languages through computer systems. We should be able to follow that approach.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, pointed out, the country faces a changed and drastic situation. The Government must be bold in saying that we are moving into new waters. They would do well to encourage individuals, communities and industry to prepare for the future very realistically.
7.43 pm
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on securing this short debate, which is just one of the ways in which awareness of flooding is being increased. That is partly because of the amount of flooding that has taken place and the threat of climate change.
However, flooding is not an absolute. There is a temptation to believe that flooding happens on flood plains and nowhere else. The excellent briefing from the Environment Agency, however, refers to “flood-risk areas” without qualification. Even the Environment Agency talks about three broad risk levels. I suggest that the whole thing must become much more sophisticated; it is much more complex than that. Any particular place is liable to flood at any time—it is just that the probability and type of flooding is different in different places. Indeed, the same briefing says that the risk of flooding is “ever present”. That is the case.
I live in a village on the edge of Colne that is built on a steep hillside. We were astonished one day to look out and see water pouring out of the front doors of the terrace of houses above us. After a lot of rain, springs had opened up in the steep field above and flowed down into their back yards, through their houses, out of the front doors and then fortunately
20 May 2008 : Column 1424
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to rural flooding and the position of farmers. More transparent decision-making is required on farms. The management of farmland and the countryside is crucial, as we know, to the management of catchment areas of river basins generally. That is the strategic level at which the Environment Agency must be particularly involved.
However, many of the problem watercourses which occur during flooding are not the big rivers but the ditches, the little streams and the becks. It is currently far from clear who is responsible for things like weed clearance, tree cutting and keeping the channels clear. The number of these channels is so huge that the Environment Agency would have to be a much bigger organisation if it were to take on those jobs. If farmers are to be involved, the obvious mechanism is through developing farm plans and integrating single-farm payments into what farmers are expected to do on their land. We must remember that in some cases we want the water to leave that farmland as quickly as possible, particularly high quality farmland with key crops. In other cases, we want the water to stay there because it is acting as a reservoir. Not long ago, when I was travelling on the train down the Aire Valley, I heard a conversation among some people who looked out of the window at the floods on the flood plain at the valley bottom, which normally take place in the winter anyway. They said, “Look at all that flooding. It’s terrible, isn’t it?”. Being me, I joined in the conversation and said, “No. That flooding is stopping Shipley and the middle of Leeds being flooded. It is holding the water there, as it has for countless generations past”. It is accepted that farmers understand that that will be the case on that pastureland. However, if far more farmers will be expected to manage their land in ways which hold the water in order to protect areas downstream, perhaps they need to be compensated for that. They certainly need to understand their role. If their job is to clear the watercourses and get the water moving, they need to know that too.
On urban flooding, the Environment Agency has said that it wants,
That is absolutely right. Equally, however, we cannot expect the Environment Agency, a large national organisation, to do all the work on the ground. There is a strategic role—particularly at river basin and aerial level, and in the case of integrated catchment area management—but local solutions that fit into that general strategic pattern are required in the local areas on the ground in many cases. The obvious
20 May 2008 : Column 1425
I am concerned that many of the streams now classified as main rivers are what in our part of the world would be called “nobbut a bit of a beck”; they are little streams. There is a real frustration in the local authority that it has not got the powers to go in and deal with those as it ought to. Like everybody else, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
7.49 pm
Lord Sheikh: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a former board member and regional chairman of the British Insurance Brokers Association and as the current chairman of an insurance organisation.
At the outset, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on securing this debate on issues concerning flooding and on his excellent presentation. As a practising insurance broker and underwriter, I see at first hand the misery caused to many of our policyholders by the awful effects of flooding. Flood damage is not something that can be reinstated quickly, as it takes many months for the drying-out process to be completed. It is important that the Government do everything that they can to prevent flooding in the first instance and to support local authorities and victims when flood defences fail.
It is essential that we respond to the problems of future flooding as we face the threat of increasing urbanisation and climate change, which means that the problems will unfortunately get worse. In my opinion, flooding is one of the biggest risks to the United Kingdom. The human suffering, financial loss and interruption to business are devastating, and it is estimated that last summer’s floods cost the country £5 billion, of which £3 billion was absorbed by the insurance industry.
My understanding of the current situation is that no single body is responsible for surface-water flooding, yet this was one of the main causes of the problem in the summer of 2007. I feel that the Government should appoint one single body with the authority to take responsibility for the risk of flooding and to co-ordinate with various stakeholders to ensure that action is taken to protect existing and future properties in the UK. I believe that the Environment Agency should be that body and that it should be empowered appropriately.
Providing the Environment Agency with the authority to exercise an advisory and regulatory role may prove to be the best way forward. As an adviser, the agency should prepare a national high-level, surface-water flood-risk map that local authorities can use as the basis for their own efforts and more detailed analysis. This should include the impact of underground water infrastructure on surface-water flooding.
Regarding the regulatory role, the Environment Agency should ensure that local authorities complete surface-water management plans and provide public feedback on them, including identifying areas for improvement. It is imperative that developers and housebuilders consult the Environment Agency and
20 May 2008 : Column 1426
On planning, the Department for Communities and Local Government’s planning guidance PPS 25 is most welcome. I congratulate Sir Michael Pitt on his excellent interim report, Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods, and I urge the Government to agree to 72 interim conclusions, many of which can be achieved at little or no cost. I also ask for information about flooding to be made available to members of the public on a wide scale and for the information to include details of flood defences. By doing that, we will provide the opportunity for members of the pubic to be assisted in making informed decisions about flood-prevention measures for their properties, and people will get more involved in the national discussions about flood management. I am, however, pleased that an automated flood-warning system is available free of charge.
In regard to construction, it is very disappointing that, against the advice of the Environment Agency, last year planning permission was granted for 13 major developments in areas of high flooding risk. I should make the point that in order for the insurance industry to continue to cover flood-prone properties, along with buildings in high-risk areas, it is important that the Government act now to provide adequate and continuing funding for flood defences and flood-risk schemes. Without adequate flood protection, the insurance industry will struggle to continue to offer competitive insurance for all. I therefore ask the Minister to inform your Lordships’ House of proposals for the current and future funding of flood defences.
Finally, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the lengths that the insurance industry has gone to in dealing with the large-scale floods of 2007 and the excellent efforts that it has made to get people back into their homes as quickly as possible.
7.55 pm
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I rise with a little trepidation because I think that I am probably quite close to the edge of the Addison rules. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for the opportunity to raise particular policy issues on flood-risk management. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to respond in detail to the points that he made about the Environment Agency; that is very much a matter for the Minister.
Before I raise my points, I want to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who is in his place. The Environment Agency is, indeed, very fortunate that he will be joining it as its new chairman in the middle of July. At this precise moment, he may be thinking that he has made a big mistake in his choice; nevertheless, I can assure him that he will be very welcome, and his environmental credentials are there for all to see.
In spite of the fact that I said that I would not respond to any of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, made, I want to riposte in an overall
20 May 2008 : Column 1427
I should like to use the very valuable opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has allowed us to talk about four big policy issues, several of which have been raised already. The first is the issue of prioritising resources according to risk. Inevitably, that means that the built environment, where the higher risk of loss of life and property occurs, will take precedence over agricultural land. That is how government policy currently produces prioritisation results. If that is to be adjusted because of the increasing importance of agricultural land, there will need to be a shift in policy. Therefore, I do not think that the Environment Agency can stand in the dock accused of having abandoned the rural environment; we have been prioritising in line with government wishes.
However, it does mean that in a rural setting the key role of riparian owners is crucial. I think that that needs clarification so that people understand their responsibilities. The same applies to the role of dredging and maintenance. When maintenance and dredging are urged on the Environment Agency, there is often a risk that it will simply speed water downstream and flood other communities, particularly built communities.
Several noble Lords talked about urban floods. Indeed, they are very complex and come from a variety of sources—rivers, ground and surface water, drains and roads—and are influenced by many players, such as local authorities, water companies, developers, redevelopers, highways authorities, and others, as well as the Environment Agency’s own responsibilities for flooding from rivers. There is a pressing need for clarity of responsibility in the urban setting for flooding from all sources, and we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to clarify that responsibility. I appreciate several noble Lords saying that the Environment Agency should have that national overview with local authorities taking a leadership role on a local basis with their ability to hold levers such as the planning, development and redevelopment systems, which makes them key players locally. The Environment Agency could provide a national overview with its tools, techniques and expertise.
The third issue I want to raise is that of critical infrastructure. Noble Lords may recall that we spoke at length in the Climate Change Bill about the importance of protecting our infrastructure from floods in the future. The water and energy companies have taken some lessons from last year and we now need them to be picked up by some of the other critical infrastructure providers, particularly healthcare premises, roads and
20 May 2008 : Column 1428
Fourthly, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Greaves, talked about warning systems. We are increasingly able to consider how such systems can be extended to warn of surface and ground water. We are working closely with the Meteorological Office but we must be careful not to promise more certainty than the technologies can currently provide. We must not overpromise the public on our reactions; we still have a long way to go before the public can have a clear plan for doing something effective when a flood is coming. That is a big ask that we must work on that to improve public response.
I shall finish on some statistics. Last year the Environment Agency exceeded by 20 per cent the number of properties it defended within its capital budget. Since the summer we have built 37 new defences and protected an additional 30,000 homes. We have signed up another 50,000 properties to our flood warning systems. Every flood has a silver lining. The public are now much more alert to the problems of flooding but the four areas of policy that I have outlined need to be addressed.
8.02 pm
Lord Teverson: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for this short debate. One thing is clear: we shall be discussing flooding many times in the future. It is a fact of life, I am afraid, and will be increasingly so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the issue is about water—precipitation. We shall have not only irregular meteorological events in the future due largely to global warming, but rising sea levels. I was at an industrial conference last week and reminded people that if, as is starting to look more possible, we lose the Greenland ice shelf, there will be a rise in sea levels of something like 6 metres, but that if a similar thing happens in Antarctica, sea levels will rise by 200 feet. That starts to change the whole issue, but we are talking about rivers this evening.
Although 50,000 households and 7,000 businesses were affected by flooding last year, Burma showed the devastation that a combination of flooding and high wind can do to populations. We have never suffered from that, but we can see how important the issue is. It is clear that we cannot just build our way out of this problem. We have miles of sea defences and all sorts of different facilities, but maintaining those is already a stretch for government budgets, which were, quite wrongly, cut recently.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |