| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned this. Sir Michael Pitt’s report recommended adaptation not just generally in the economy but in the way in which we build residences, houses and buildings in this country. One of the recommendations that struck me was that building regulations should say that lower floors should allow flooding and recovery at minimum cost. We have to move towards that sort of thinking.
We hear a lot of loose talk about building on flood plains. In the Netherlands, 95 per cent of all houses are built on flood plains because the country is a
20 May 2008 : Column 1429
Sir Michael Pitt’s report on strategic management is logical and right. At a strategic level, there needs to be a body such as the Environment Agency to ensure that the system works from a national point of view, but clearly the best people in this respect are principal local authorities. They know the local patch; they have the resources and the authority. I was particularly persuaded by my noble friend’s idea of using the single farm payment in rural areas, perhaps through cross-compliance procedures for farmers, as they are the best people to look after their areas and should be remunerated for it. The Government should think about that further, which is rather different from the French view on CAP expenditure.
I ask the Government to consider the recommendations of Sir Michael Pitt on building regulations. Will we start to change those, albeit perhaps not so drastically as towards the idea of collapsing lower walls and floors in flood areas? However, it is important to have something like that. What lessons have the Government learnt from the Netherlands and other parts of Europe? What are they doing about rationalising strategic and local powers? Are they confident that Defra funding on maintenance will not be cut again? I know that the capital expenditure programme was not cut; it is great to build things but, if we do not maintain them, they will be of little use in the future. I should also be interested to know whether local authorities are using Section 106 agreements to make sure that we have better investment in individual projects on flood plains.
8.09 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on securing this debate. The terms in which noble Lords have contributed make it clear that the House has much to offer in providing constructive advice on this subject, as each of your Lordships, not least my noble friend, has had a lot to say. I find myself in the same position. There is a need for action, as Sir Michael Pitt’s interim report makes clear, and a need—in many urban areas, above all—to deal with the neglect and lack of maintenance of storm water drainage, which lay at the bottom of many immediate problems in the flooding last year.
I begin by declaring my interests. I am a member of a family with a high-value, intensive farming and horticultural business in the Lincolnshire fenland silts. None of it lies more than 3 metres above sea level and it is as flat as the sea itself. It has not, however, been
20 May 2008 : Column 1430
At home, we are entirely dependent on managed water through the internal drainage board, formed itself some time ago from many smaller bodies. While not active in drainage management, I am reasonably informed and feel that I can contribute to this debate from a practical point of view as well as a political one. I am grateful for the help that I have received from many sources, particularly from John Honnor, a retired drainage board engineer of considerable standing. As noble Lords would expect, land drainage plays an important part in fenland communities, where the skills, experience, knowledge and expertise of the engineering profession are highly regarded. As those communities live more or less at sea level, that might not be surprising, but I hold the view that the key to flood prevention everywhere lies in good management, clear lines of responsibility and engineering skill.
Currently, responsibility is complex and divided. The Environment Agency does the main river and sea defences, having taken over from the NRA, which, in turn, took over from the river catchment-based authorities. At local level in many parts of the country, as I have mentioned, and particularly in low-lying rural areas with a flood risk, responsibilities lie with IDBs. Those have a strong engineering base and, in the main, work well. Currently, they are being encouraged to merge. Although that may be a good way of reducing overheads, it will be disastrous if it is at the expense of local knowledge. In the recent floods, I know for certain of a situation that was averted by local action being taken despite indecision at a higher level.
There is a division of responsibility. We have mentioned the Environment Agency and the internal drainage boards, but much flood control is still in the hands of local authorities—the drainage authorities where there is no internal drainage board. Water companies are responsible for urban storm water systems. Within the complexity of planning systems for sewerage and water there are considerable responsibilities in urban areas. Highway authorities do the storm water systems and dykes adjoining highways, while Network Rail is responsible for culverts under railway lines. Above all, riparian owners are responsible for much of the drainage responsibility at a higher level, although many have no idea that they are. I will praise the Environment Agency for its publication, Living on the Edge. It tries to make clear to riparian owners how they fit into this drainage pattern. Many a situation arises where planning permission is given and a house is allowed to be developed; what then happens, perhaps, is that the dyke gets culverted at the back with nobody realising that riparian owners have joint responsibility for maintaining it.
In my view, the greatest flood risk is not from climate change but from catchment change. Every new building, new road and change in land use produces additional run-off, which is cumulative and not noted until the flood event. Skilled hydrologists
20 May 2008 : Column 1431
8.15 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on securing this debate and on how he introduced this important topic. I did not agree with every statement that he made, but he did the House a great service by drawing attention to the challenges that we face. I think that your Lordships would also want to express sympathy with all those who suffered so grievously last summer in the devastating flood events. We all know that flooding is one of the most devastating events that can occur in people’s homes and that many suffered then.
The weather conditions last year were exceptional. We had the clearest indications from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton of what the rainfall was in a limited period and we respect not just his weather forecasting abilities but his predictive abilities with regard to aspects of climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was right to reiterate what several other noble Lords had said. This is about not just climate change but catchment areas, planning and the whole question of how we construct our dwellings with regard to the water drainage problem. Nevertheless, climate change has its part to play in that. We must anticipate, as my noble friend said, the incidence of heavy water flows in regular rainfalls of a continuous kind, which present us with real challenges in managing our environment. It is obvious that the Government need to respond to those challenges.
The part of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that I was not so sure about was his criticism of the Environment Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was reserved in her response, as she is well aware of her responsibilities as far as the Environment Agency is concerned, but I shall take up the cudgels on her behalf. The Environment Agency is not held responsible by the Pitt review or any other body for the problems of last summer, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. We look to the Environment Agency to deal with coastal erosion problems, which are not part of this evening’s debate. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated that my noble friend Lord Smith might be taking on a poisoned chalice, although a chalice is a rather small vessel for the amount of water that we are suggesting he might have to cope with in his role with the Environment Agency, in which we wish him well. The agency clearly has a significant part to play, but there are important wider government policy initiatives.
I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, who was very fair and right to congratulate the insurance industry on the extent to which it responded to the
20 May 2008 : Column 1432
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is right that this is a question not about hilly ground or level ground but about management. He farms in Lincolnshire, an outstanding example of water management on flat land. I live next to the River Lee, which represents another form of water management. It supplies water to London. It is carefully managed, as it has been over many years. The issues are not the contours of the land, although they are conducive to the creation of problems, but the way in which we manage that land.
I like the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that perhaps we ought to look at agricultural funding so that landowners are more aware of the necessity for water management in the development of their land. He will recognise that payments to farmers and the structure of the way in which landowners and farmers are remunerated are massive problems. This dimension is yet another complicating factor that causes all Governments to scratch their head. This Government are scratching their head over those issues as much as any other. However, it is an interesting proposal and I assure him that it will be looked at carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right that, if we look at a country such as the Netherlands, we can see buildings and structures that reflect water management over centuries. They show how to cope with water and still provide civilised living in extensive and often congested circumstances. I hear what he said about the role of local authorities. That is important, not least with regard to water management but also with regard to building policies. I am not going to shy away from building on flood plains. There is no way in which we can house our people and pretend that we will not build on flood plains. The issue is how we manage water matters in areas that we create. Due regard must be paid to this dimension of the problem when building new housing.
I emphasise that the Government are extremely active in efforts to improve the way in which flood risk is managed. We have been for some years, but we need to increase those efforts. I emphasise that we intend to devote the resources. Several noble Lords referred to the resources devoted to this. Defra’s resources are no more unlimited than the Government’s, on which there are many demands. Nevertheless, we intend to increase expenditure in this area, mindful of the fact that the problems require us to address the issues creatively.
20 May 2008 : Column 1433
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, raised the issue first, but he was not the only noble Lord to mention the Pitt review and to talk about its recommendations in assertive terms. The Government accept those recommendations. Implementing them is a longer-term objective and strategy. We have begun work on 15 pilot projects to identify improvements in surface water drainage, which was, after all, the biggest problem during last year’s floods. I do not underestimate the challenge that that represents. We have a £500,000 pilot project, in partnership with local authorities in six areas, to explore the feasibility of some form of financial assistance for those households where the community defence cannot be justified, but we need to make their homes more flood-resistant.
The Chamber will recognise that, in response to an intense debate on a subject of such significance, the 12 minutes allotted to me, which are already close to being exhausted, are not adequate to cover all the issues. I apologise for that. I emphasise that we intend to spend £650 million this year, £700 million in 2009-10 and £800 million in 2010-11 on resources relating to the problems of flooding and coastal erosion, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was particularly concerned about. That is some indication of the seriousness with which the Government address these issues.
Will we be able to guarantee that all our homes have adequate protection against floods in the future? Of course we cannot. We cannot even predict weather and surface flooding, such as occurred last year. All we know is that such flooding is likely to increase. That is why greater defences have to be erected. We have the agencies in place. I resist the criticism of the Environment Agency; it will continue to do a very good job. We are also spending more money on flood warning, which is a key issue in minimising damage. Householders need to be prepared for the challenges that are presented. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for this debate, which has thrown light on some important issues.
European Union (Amendment) Bill
8.26 pm
House again in Committee on Clause 8, Amendment No. 167A.
Lord Radice: I think the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, had finished speaking. I am not trying to interrupt him; I am going to say a few words on my own behalf.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord is very welcome.
Lord Radice: I thank the noble Lord. I call this the “cat out of the bag” amendment. This is what the two noble Lords opposite and a third noble Lord behind me—which is always dangerous—have been waiting for. This is their big moment. All the other amendments that they have moved are, basically, beside the point.
20 May 2008 : Column 1434
I am strongly in favour of British membership. The European Union is one of the great achievements of the post-war world and has certainly been a force for good on the continent of Europe. It has led to prosperity for the peoples of Europe. It has led to greater security, particularly because the old quarrel between France and Germany has, I hope, been healed for ever. Of course, it has also led to the strengthening of democracy on the continent of Europe. To qualify to be a member of the European Union, states have to be a democracy, which is why the former dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Greece are now democracies and the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were brought in in 2004, are now flourishing democracies. The whole of the continent of Europe has basically been transformed by the European Union.
I also strongly believe that British membership is good for Britain. I would not expect Members of the Committee opposite to agree: I shall not ask them to intervene because they have intervened quite enough on my speeches already. In material terms, the European Union has been very good for British exporters, British consumers, and certainly for British travellers and British workers.
8.30 pm
Of course, the much broader argument is that UK interests are served by us working together with our neighbours on trade, on the environment, and on foreign policy, defence and security. Those underlying, really strong reasons are why it would be a total disaster if Britain left the European Union. If it came to a referendum, I do not believe that the British people would vote for leaving the EU. But it is wrong to propose, as this amendment does, that we should have a referendum on British membership. I am very glad that, as I understand it, the Liberal Democrats will not support this amendment. It would be a retrograde step.
To sum up, I am strongly in favour of the European Union, which has been good for Britain, for Europe and for the citizens of Britain and of Europe. I hope very much that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Radice, who I greatly like and admire. This is symptomatic of the debate on the European Union: we are at cross-purposes and we will never meet. It seems sensible therefore to put the issue
20 May 2008 : Column 1435
The noble Lord, Lord Radice, is right. The European Union has been very good for Europe in many ways. I have no quarrel with that. There is a mistaken view, which I hope is not shared by the Liberal Democrats, that UKIP wants to destroy it. That simply is not the case. Our case is that it is not good for Britain or necessary for Britain to be a member. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Radice, that it has been good for democracy in Europe and has made other countries in Europe richer, partly—I hope he would admit—with some of our taxpayers’ money; for instance, French agriculture and Spain. None the less, it has had very good effects for certain countries in Europe, if not all, but not necessarily for Britain. That is where we part company.
In 1975, we had the referendum, which we talked about on earlier amendments, on the Common Market. There was no question of having a European army, qualified majority voting or even a European Parliament. It was on purely whether we wished to remain in—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The noble Lord has obviously not read the treaty of Rome very carefully. If he had, he would have seen that qualified majority voting was provided for in that treaty, which was negotiated in 1957 and entered into force in 1958, for all budgetary, agricultural and trade matters. It is no good his saying that. The speeches from himself and his noble friend are sometimes fantasies that leave all of us gasping at their extraordinary nature. It is important that you get the facts right. Qualified majority voting was part of the treaty of Rome when it was founded and ratified. It was part of the treaty that we acceded to in 1972. It was not invented later.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that but hope he will agree that that is not what was put to the British people in the referendum. We were told by our leaders then that there would be no loss of central sovereignty. That does not sit happily with what has happened since. The noble Lord takes a different view from me and that is right, but it is time we lanced the boil and set this matter to rest by having a referendum. I believe that is the Liberal Democrat position. I hope they will support this amendment on whether we should be in the European Union. It would be healthy to have that debate. We do not want to have it just across the Chamber here with people who cannot agree even about what we are talking about.
Lord Radice: I promise not to intervene on the noble Lord’s speech again. If there was a referendum, would he accept the result? The record on that point in the past has not been too encouraging. I remember that Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn was a strong supporter of a referendum. Within six years of losing the first referendum, he was calling for another one.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |