Flood and Water Management Bill

Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2010.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Before we begin, I have a few announcements. It is customary at this stage to tell Members that they can take off their jackets if they wish. If you wish to put your overcoats on today, I do not mind. Please ensure that you turn off any electrical devices, or put them on silent.

Members are reminded that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room. I remind Members that they should give adequate notice of amendments. To be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. For a Thursday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the previous Monday. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I will not take starred amendments.

Not everyone is familiar with the procedures for taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees so it might be helpful if I explain briefly how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. That debate is limited to half an hour. We will proceed to a motion to report written evidence and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence, which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the three motions are agreed, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and the oral evidence session will commence at about 9.30 am.

If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and revert to more formal clause-by-clause scrutiny next week. We expect to hear from all or the majority of the witnesses today, weather permitting. If there are gaps in the programme, we will have to be flexible and may have to amend the programme motion to take account of them.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 am on Thursday 7 January) meet—

(a) at 1.00 pm on Thursday 7 January;

(b) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 12 January;

(c) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 14 January;

(d) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 19 January;

(e) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 21 January;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

The motion will be debated for the first half hour.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Now that the Minister has made an opening statement, I would like to say a few words, not on the programme motion, but on the inadequate time we have for debate. I regret that we lost two evidence sessions—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

That is the programme motion, so you are in order.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Thank you. I regret that the Minister withdrew two of the scrutiny sessions and think that in time it will emerge that we needed them. I hope that the Committee can co-operate to consider as many of the important aspects of the Bill as possible in the limited time available.

The Minister referred to bad debt. Why does he feel that separate legislation is needed? There is, I believe, scope for political agreement on that issue, so why can we not agree on the wording of an amendment in that regard? If he is willing, we are prepared to table an amendment along those lines. As he is aware, there is also an issue relating to two-tier local government, rather than the unitary level of government, about which tier is best placed to apply and adapt the risk management strategy. There is scope for an element of flexibility, and I hope that he will agree that we should leave it to the local councils to agree. The issue, in a nutshell, is that the district councils are responsible for planning permission, and therefore directly involved in setting up the SUDS, but in fact the county council, in a strict interpretation of the Bill, will lead.

On the whole question of SUDS, I think that the Minister now might have an opportunity to explain why there is nothing in the Bill on the history of SUDS, what the present legislation relating to them is and what regime covers them. I agree entirely with him that the issue of resources is absolutely fundamental if the Bill is to be a success. He needs to set out in the limited time available how he will be able to do that. What new resources will be made available to his strong environmental agency team that is supporting him on the Bill and to local government?

I challenge the Minister, formally, on his sums. As private drains are currently not maintained by local authorities, I do not see where the savings he has costed will come from. My understanding is that private drains are the responsibility of their owners, and the owners of the drains are not, for the most part, the local authorities. I think that he is on the back foot with regard to the financing and resources available. We wish to lend all the support we possibly can, but I think that he is weak on the funding.

Another omission in the Bill, which we have addressed and hope that the Minister will confirm that there will be time within the limited programme to cover, is the Pitt recommendation of regular maintenance being done and being seen to be done. With regard to the one-in-1,000-years flood that we saw recently in Cumbria—I know that one distinguished Member has been directly affected by it as has the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham)—I hope that the Committee will accommodate our request to have a direct reference in the Bill to the need for maintenance at every level, possibly by the highways authorities. In passing the overall strategy to the Environment Agency, with which we agree, I hope that the Minister will be open to discussing a dispute resolution mechanism and an appeals procedure to avoid the Environment Agency’s being seen to make arbitrary decisions.

One of the biggest omissions in the Bill is, I think, a drafting error that can be addressed, so we have tabled some amendments in that regard. It was the wish of the Government—it was certainly Pitt’s wish—to end the automatic right to connect. The way in which the Bill is currently drafted means that the Government do not achieve that, so I hope that the Minister will look favourably at that and allow time for debate and approval of amendments. He may even wish to improve on the amendments; we are open to discussions on that. There is scope for bringing a real end to the automatic right to connect that has led to so many of the surface water flooding incidents that we have seen in 2000, 2005 and most particularly in 2007. We welcome in-depth debates on a number of clauses, including clauses 9, 36 and 41.

One final omission for which we need to have scope in the programme is mapping. We must address once and for all the co-ordination and sharing of the mapping that we know is being done by many different bodies, including the insurance companies.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Thank you. Will Members be more specific about the programme motion? I appreciate that the Minister made a statement, and I am sure that is why Miss McIntosh dwelled a little on matters.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I welcome the Bill, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is long overdue, particularly those of us from Gloucestershire. It is no accident, I think, that there are three Gloucestershire Members on this Committee. We have been waiting more than two and half years for this legislation to be introduced in response to the floods that struck us in 2007. The Minister says that he has improved the Bill; he has certainly slimmed it. I know that slimming is good for you, but I am not sure whether that is true in legislation. A fuller and more comprehensive Bill might have avoided some of the criticism that the Select Committee and other commentators have made.

The civil service has produced a Bill that contains only what absolutely has to be done, rather than what could have been done with all-party support. That has led to some notable omissions, of which possibly the most important in current economic circumstances is the omission of any real provision for social tariffs among water customers. That is clearly a problem area for Ofwat at the moment. I sometimes think of Ofwat as an overhang of the high-water mark of Thatcherism, and it certainly seems to disagree with the redistribution of income through water bills, and that seems to be a basic block to social tariffs. If we are to tackle water poverty and look after the interests of our least well-off customers, we should have allowed time to discuss social tariffs within the Bill. I think that we would have had all-party support for discussing that issue.

Secondly, we need time to explore some of the minutiae of the new lead responsibilities at both national and local level that come from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendation. It is right to introduce them, but there seems to be growing doubt about how effective they will actually be in practice. We need to explore whether they will be resourced well enough, but also whether they will actually resolve the tangle of responsibilities that so many of us have had to deal with in the aftermath of flooding. The various forms of ownership and responsibility may be obvious to us, but everyone else was unclear as to who was responsible for what in sorting out flooding problems. We need time to discuss that.

Finally, on the environmental front, we need time to discuss whether there is a radical enough shift in the Bill from the rather outdated approach to flood risk and coastal erosion management of basically trying to build stuff to reduce risk, to a more holistic approach that works with nature, the environment and the landscape to try to reduce risk in a more rational and forward-looking way.

Having said that, the need to get this legislation through before the general election is so vital that we probably need to try to achieve those discussions within the programme set out before us, so I am content with the programme motion. It is vital to get the legislation through.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I welcome all the comments that have been made, and I am sure that we will move to the detail of some of those issues in the following evidence session, rather than deal with them now.

I sense some understandable disappointment that this is not a big, all-encompassing Bill. It is a specialist Bill—I used the phrase “Pitt and pithy”. It is scaled down to exactly what is required legislatively to deliver now on outstanding elements of Pitt. It does not take into account Cave and Walker. The Government have made it clear that Anna Walker’s excellent review, which has some real meat to it, and Cave’s review need to be considered as entities in themselves, discussed appropriately in Parliament and then taken forward having been given some really good consideration, rather than an attempt being made to bolt them on to the Bill.

I sense hon. Members’ disappointment. I also would have liked us to have an all-encompassing Bill to debate. However, we have a short Session, so the team of officials and I have tried hard, as was rightly suggested by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, to find those areas that we need to focus on and to deliver the legislation that is statutorily required as a result of Pitt. We have already done much with Pitt that did not have to wait for legislation. The Bill will deliver the remaining outcomes.

It will be necessary to introduce a consolidation Bill, and I have already made clear our commitment to doing so. It will be necessary to deliver on the recommendations in Anna Walker’s and Cave’s reviews, after proper consideration, but this is not the place to do that.

I recognise the disappointment of the hon. Member for Vale of York that we are not having a couple more sittings, although we do have the two evidence sessions. I do not recall having suggested that we have an additional two, four or any other number of sittings. We have always talked about eight sittings plus evidence sessions.

I welcome what the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. I believe that we have an adequate number of sittings, and as the Minister I am certainly more than happy, with the agreement of the Committee and you, Mr. Martlew, to go longer into the evenings and so on in order to get the business done, because we know that our constituents want the Bill on the statute book.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I remind Committee members that we finish at 10.25 am, and I will cut off in mid-sentence anyone who is speaking then.

Minister, perhaps you can introduce your officials?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I should like to ask you questions on a raft of issues, allowing you time, and allowing other colleagues to put their bids in.

I shall start out of sequence and ask about SUDS. I hope that you would look to put in the statute a clearer definition of SUDS. I have come up with the Scottish definition, which is widely accepted in Scots law. I know that the Department hesitates to refer to “urban” in the title, but I understand that most SUDS are in urban areas, primarily, relating to large urban developments, the exception being those SUDS along highways. I think it would be clearer if we had a single definition—that seems to work in one part of the country. There is a great lack of clarity at the moment as to where these SUDS are, how they have been set up, who owns them and who is responsible for maintaining them. I wonder whether the Minister will take an opportunity to say in more depth exactly where we are going on SUDS.

On the automatic right to connect, the Bill places a duty on water and sewerage companies to consult, but it does not give them the right to turn down an application where it is inappropriate and where the existing infrastructure cannot take the new foul water coming out of the new developments—I think it is under sections 105 and 106 of the relevant planning permissions. Would the Minister look favourably on granting water companies similar rights to the Environment Agency, basically granting it the status of a statutory consultee, so that if a water company says that a new development and the capacity coming out of it will not fit into the existing infrastructure, there will be no automatic connection? At the moment, having read the Bill, I believe we shall get into a mess, because we shall end up with an automatic right to connect, and consistently, over a period of time, additional floods will be caused by that.

At the moment, as I read the Bill, water companies are actually excluded—I forget which clause it is under; it might be clause 36—from bidding for some of the major infrastructure projects. I should like to understand why they have been excluded. If they come in with the most competitive bid and they are the best equipped to build that infrastructure, I do not understand the reasoning behind the Department’s exclusion of them at that time.

On the vexed issue of private drains, I am sure that all colleagues are receiving correspondence from family drainage companies that are currently doing the maintenance on lateral drains and sewers in private hands and are concerned. I think it is the wish of the Committee to allow private drains and sewers to pass into different ownership, but I do not believe we have thought this through entirely. I hope the Minister will consider what is the future for these small companies, and who will be adopting these private drains and sewers. It is probably the water companies who are best placed to do that—to go on and maintain them. That is also the case with SUDS. I know that this is quite controversial for the Minister and the Committee, but I believe that the future ownership of SUDS is best suited to the water companies—they should be owned by water companies. Has the Minister thought this through? Within all the responsibilities of water companies in the Bill there does not seem to be the regulatory authority for the water companies to go to the market and raise the extra funds between the price reviews. Will the Minister address that point in his summing-up?

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

You have five minutes to speak. You may start to wind up, and if I can get back to you, I will do so at the end.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful. I would just like to address the issue of bad debt, which is costing water companies, and all of us as their customers, £1.2 billion. Will the Minister extend that bad debt, which is 50 per cent. of some of the bills?

Those are the main points I wish to make. I shall wind up by saying that landowners will be given special responsibilities, but I do not think they have been properly consulted on this. So if not now, during the course of the Bill, will the Minister address what the specific responsibilities of the landowners should be? There is a vexed issue of mapping. The Environment Agency and others are not sharing—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

You are starting to take advantage of the Chair. I call Martin Horwood.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I have a succession of questions, but I shall try to be as concise as I can. My first question returns to the issue of social tariffs. There is an important provision in the Bill that addresses the rain tax issue and explicitly introduces provision for a concessionary scheme for community groups, which is very welcome in water Bills. Why could we have not made a similar provision for a concessionary scheme or social tariffs for our less well-off customers? That social tariff issue affects a far larger number of people and is a much more important social problem.

That is not to say that we should have put into the Bill all the detailed recommendations of the Walker review, which I appreciate had only just been published and on which I am sure we would all want to see a degree of consultation. However, we could at least have inserted an enabling power for a Secretary of State to try to resolve the issue. Apparently Ofwat has been prevented from allowing organisations, such as Thames Water—I know it is a particular issue for that organisation—to introduce a social tariff at all.

The second issue is that the lead responsibility for local authorities seems to be terribly narrowly drawn. In effect, the Bill gives a lead responsibility to local authorities not for flooding at a local level, but only for those specific types of flood that are not covered by the Environment Agency, for example, minor rivers and ground-water flooding. Why not give a lead responsibility at local level for all kinds of flooding, for example, for things such as surface water, in relation to which the actions of local authorities in maintaining or not maintaining watercourses clearly have a major impact on the design of roads and the giving of planning permission? Clearly, those things have an impact and surely local authorities need their responsibility to include an overview at local level of all kinds of flooding. It seems strange to have that demarcation.

Linked to that is the third issue: that of resources. On Second Reading, the Minister said clearly that he thought there would be no additional responsibilities for local authorities that would not be fully funded. The implication was that there would be no additional responsibilities for the Environment Agency either that would not be fully funded. I detect no obvious rush to give extra resources either to local authorities or the Environment Agency. That is a very important context to the Bill. Will local authorities and the Environment Agency get more money to fund those additional responsibilities? If not, how on earth are they supposed to find the money in the current environment?

Fourthly, the LGA argued that, in two-tier areas, the legislation is too narrowly drawn in relation to specifically giving responsibility to the local authority. Indeed, the Bill does not allow local authorities, for example, to collaborate on local flood risk strategies at a local level. In fact, as we know, flooding does not obey local authority boundaries. Is the legislation too narrowly drawn and specific in saying who should exercise that local lead responsibility? Should we not allow local authorities more flexibility?

Finally, the national oversight role of the Environment Agency is an important Pitt recommendation that many of us welcome, but is it clear that we are establishing a real “buck stops here” responsibility? If, in practice, we have the Environment Agency judging that a local authority, a water company or whoever else is not properly fulfilling their responsibilities and not doing what they should be doing—not managing flood risk or the risk of coastal erosion in the way that they should—what actually happens as a result of the Bill? What powers does the EA have and how would those work in practice? When talking to people at the EA, it becomes a little bit fuzzy about what they would be able to do: it seems suddenly to be more about guidance, and having regard to things, rather than about any national flood risk strategy having any teeth.

Given the time available, I will have to come back to you on the other issues that I have to raise in the main session of the Committee.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Minister, there’s much in the Bill that my constituents will welcome, not least the greater co-ordination of flood risk management. One thing that is not mentioned but which affects them is this: residents who live in high flood risk areas sometimes have difficulty getting insurance. I wonder whether your Department is considering or looking at that, even though it is not mentioned in the Bill.

As you know, clause 42 allows water companies to operate concessionary schemes for community groups for surface water drainage. A lot of my community groups have written to me about this, because they are concerned about water charges. Do you think the clause as it is currently formulated gives those groups adequate protection from high charges?

My last point is that the Local Government Association has expressed some concern about a possible shortage of skills in local authorities to deal with the new provisions that they will have to operate as a result of the Bill. Do you think that enough has been done to make sure that adequate skills are available?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Minister, clause 7 deals with consultation and the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. Can you give us a clear indication of how that consultation will take place, particularly the aspects of public consultation?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I have three quick questions. First, the balance of the Environment Agency and some local authorities has always been towards funding flood relief with regard to coastal and main river problems. Given the increasing problems with ground water and surface water, how does the Bill move things in the direction of changing the funding stream?

Secondly, in terms of retention of riparian ownership, which some of us are perhaps still worried about, what measures are there, as a result of the Bill, to allow greater enforcement where owners either neglect or refuse to take appropriate action to deal with flooding problems?

Thirdly, again on the draft Bill, which we looked at in the Select Committee, what real teeth will be exposed to deal with encouraging those in ownership of critical infrastructure to have a proper strategy where their current facilities clearly are potentially at risk?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

In welcoming the Bill, I am concerned about how far it will go towards improving the fight against flooding and towards flood prevention. I am concerned that it does not address a big issue, to me as a representative of Tewkesbury: house building in flood-risk areas.

I have raised the question about PPS25 many times. It does not outlaw building in flood-risk areas. In Tewkesbury, houses that were in the process of being built were flooded. But it is not only the new houses flooding that is a problem: the water displacement is also a problem. As I speak now, there are flooded fields in Tewkesbury. They flood several times every year. If they were to be built on, the flooding situation would be so much worse, and that issue is not addressed in the Bill.

When we were trying to get repairs done to all sorts of waterways, one of the great difficulties was finding out who was responsible for what. Is the Minister satisfied that this Bill identifies—or enables identification to be made—who is responsible for which waterways?

I am also concerned that we start to maintain waterways, and not just involve ourselves in crisis management. When there is a huge flood, we have to go out and make repairs. There was one area in my constituency where a culvert was broken and remained broken for a number of years. There are also two culverts that should have been joined up, but no one bothered to check them. When the floods came, many houses were flooded. So we must ensure that maintenance is carried out; is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will bring that about?

A number of people in Gloucestershire lost their mains water supply for up to three weeks. I want to ensure that that does not happen again and that if we have a problem, an alternative supply can be used. The situation I mentioned almost became much worse. It was not just that some people lost their electricity supplies, but the entire county came very close to losing its electricity supply during that time. I want to see the Bill address that particular issue.

Finally, I understand that there will be separate flood risk management schemes for Wales and England. Given Tewkesbury’s position and its rivers, it suffers from water that starts off in Wales and comes down to it. I am not in any way blaming the Welsh for that, but given that there are separate flood risk management strategies, who acts as the referee when there is a conflict, or when England suffers from something that is decided in Wales?

I welcome the Bill because it at least gives us a chance to discuss such issues, but there is a need to strengthen it if we are to achieve what Mr. Horwood says about the buck stopping here. Who is responsible not only for clearing up the mess when flooding happens but for doing everything that can be done to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

On the subject of cross-border issues, there has sometimes been criticism that legislation affecting England is passed but the necessary work is not then done in Wales for some considerable time. In this Bill, we are talking about requirements on Ministers, clauses that require Welsh counties to do things, and issues such SUDS which may cross the border. We also have a difficulty in that sometimes we refer to Welsh Water and Severn Trent areas rather than the geographical border between England and Wales. What detailed discussions have taken place with Welsh Assembly Ministers to ensure that we do not have a situation in which there are anomalies on either side of the border? I am referring in particular to areas like the River Severn and the Severn estuary.

The other area that seems to be in some doubt is the requirement to adopt the private sewers, and what this Bill requires to happen in Wales and what is up to the Welsh Assembly to require to happen in Wales.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

May I thank the Minister for the help that he gave to all of us in west Cumbria during the recent floods? In welcoming this Bill, I have to say that it is not necessarily for disastrous flooding, but—and quite rightly—for everyday flooding that blights so many lives and communities up and down the country. Information sharing is the key, and I welcome the intentions of the Bill to address that. Will the creation of the risk management authorities genuinely facilitate that? In any kind of organisation or series of organisations, when dealing with any kind of issue, a controlling mind is needed that understands all the risks that are posed. That is particularly true of flooding. Will risk management authorities provide that?

Secondly, the Bill asks a lot of local authorities. As with all Bills that do that, the principle is fine but the practice can be extraordinarily difficult. As I have said on a number of issues, too many local authorities up and down the country are frankly terrible in many ways and on many levels. It may even be that inadequate or incompetent planning, building inspection, building control and other local authority functions over many years have contributed to the regular flooding problems that we face. How can we be sure that every local authority has the necessary competence to fulfil their functions under the Bill? That is an important question.

We have discussed my final point in detail before and I mentioned it on Second Reading. What are the financial obligations with regard to flood prevention on water companies? There is a widespread view in my community and in many other communities that I have talked to that since the privatisation of the water utilities, the water infrastructure and drainage networks in this country have deteriorated rapidly. This is not an ideological point. We used to have water boards, water houses, water authorities and water engineers. The rooms of maps have gone and the knowledge has gone with them. What financial obligations are we seeking on water companies to help fund the rapidly deteriorating water infrastructure network? I think that there should be such financial obligations.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Three Members have indicated that they wish to ask questions. If we hear those questions and the Minister’s reply, we will hopefully have time for supplementaries. That will be to the advantage of the Committee.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

In flood emergencies, such as we have seen recently, a number of statutory bodies will be in attendance. It is important that it is acknowledged beforehand which of those statutory bodies has overall strategic control and co-ordination of everything that is going on. I know that the fire and rescue service feels it should have that role. Will the Minister assure me that the fire and rescue service will be fully consulted in the Environment Agency’s consultation on setting up the flood risk management strategy?

John Grogan (Labour, Selby)

I have just two questions. Clauses 22 to 25 reconstitute regional flood defence committees and add a coastal aspect. Are Ministers satisfied with the current operation of regional flood defence committees? I think that they are making a big contribution. Will Ministers use the powers of the Bill to maintain the current structures of regional flood defence committees, whereby local authorities have a majority and choose their own representatives, or will Ministers choose representatives for them? There is a fear that there could be a centralisation of power and that a system that works quite well will be replaced by one under which the man from Whitehall knows best.

Regional flood defence committees currently have to approve the regional programme of the Environment Agency. It is a good check on such a large organisation that it has to go to a committee, not unlike this one, and justify to local councillors its local priorities and programmes. I understand that under the Bill, the committees will have an advisory role rather than a role of approving the programmes. Is the situation not best left as it is? Is there any evidence that it does not work or that regional flood defence committees are a brake on prevention schemes? If the system does work, is it not a vital local input into the system? Is it not best left as it is, apart from adding the coastal element?

What is the precise logic of giving responsibility for the SUDS to the local authorities rather than the water companies, which would argue that they have the engineering expertise that local authorities have in many cases long since lost?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My question is similar. On the Isle of Wight, there is no influence from anywhere on the mainland. Will we have the control and independence to make decisions there without referring them to someone—whoever it might be—on the mainland?

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

That is helpful.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

You have done very well. You deserve a bit of a rest, so I am going to ask for short supplementary questions.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I congratulate the Minister. I have one final question. I was a little concerned that you almost breached the spirit of good will among colleagues on the Committee by publishing without a proper consultation the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. I know that you have a legal obligation to implement the EU floods directive, but as it is a core part of the Bill—most particularly clause 9—what scope will there be for us to examine those regulations in the context of that clause? Will the Chairman allow us to go into some detail on that because it goes to the heart of the local flood risk management strategies?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I want to come back on one issue, which is that the local flood risk management strategy is too narrowly drawn. Despite what the Minister says, there is still an issue here. In Tewkesbury and Gloucester they had scenic flood water rising gently from the rivers. In Cheltenham, Cockermouth, Sheffield and other places there was a much more violent experience, which I guess you might have had too. Torrents of water came down what are normally streets and roads. Water flooded everywhere across the town: some of it came out of watercourses, some out of drains, some from burst water mains and some from surface water. It is pretty difficult when you are in that situation to work out whose water it is. In practice, you want a local authority to be able to address the issue of where all that water goes and how a locality will manage in an extreme situation.

My worry about clause 10 is that it is so specific in defining local flood risk as only surface run-off, ground water and ordinary watercourses—in other words, small watercourses that do not count as main rivers for the Environment Agency’s purposes—that it almost prevents local authorities from addressing flooding in the round. That seems nonsense when it is impossible to demarcate the water itself in that way, especially in the kind of extreme event that we experienced in Cheltenham and which they have had more recently in places like Cockermouth.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

To take up that point, a lot of our flooding did not come from rivers. Some did, but a lot came from drains that were not working properly. It came from green fields being taken up by housing which should not have been built there. One point the Minister did not manage to touch on was the building of houses in the wrong places. He got through many issues, which I congratulate him on, but he did not reach that one. But Mr. Horwood makes a very good point. We had rivers running down roads and not just in one area and not only in July 2007. We have had it at other times as well. It is a very real problem.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Minister, you have one minute.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Order. We have run out of time. I am sure that you can have a discussion afterwards with Mr. Horwood on that point. Thank you, Minister.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Good afternoon everybody. Thank you very much for coming along to give evidence to the Committee. Can each witness introduce himself, starting with Dr. Johnston?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Thank you. As you realise, the evidence session cannot go on beyond 2 o’clock. To ensure that we get the maximum benefit, I hope that you will keep your responses succinct. I am sure that I do not need to urge hon. Members to keep their questions similarly succinct.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

First, I thank the witnesses for braving the elements and being with us today. I would like to address my question specifically to David Rooke, but the others may want to participate. The responsibilities that the Environment Agency is being given under the flood and coastal erosion risk management provisions are far-reaching, prescriptive and require a lot of what is probably an already very stretched resource. Will there be a right of appeal or a possibility of reviewing any decision? What comeback will the interested parties have? Can you give us an honest overview? In one Government response to the Pitt review there was a table that showed that most of the resources you will require to implement Pitt and the provisions of the Bill have to come from your existing resources. Will you be in the position of having to stop doing things to fund the provisions? Do you believe that you will have sufficient resources at your disposal?

Linking that, if I may, to how the new responsibilities under the Bill pan out, are you satisfied that the measure will lead to the end of the automatic right to connect? I am talking about major new developments. We saw a lot of flooding in 2007, particularly sewerage flooding, where the foul water overflow of new developments overspilt from the connection pipe. One way around that is to end properly the automatic right to connect. I do not know if the Environment Agency has a view on private sewers and their funding, and whether local authorities are going to make savings. The local authority representatives may want to chip in on that. My understanding is, and it may be an erroneous understanding, that private sewers are precisely that—private. It falls to the householder to pay the costs of maintaining and repairing those sewers, so I am hard pressed to see where the savings will come from.

Finally, would the Environment Agency be minded to support greater clarification on sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—in the Bill? It is leading to a great deal of confusion because they have hitherto been known as sustainable urban drainage systems and most of them, apart from highways ones, apply to urban areas. Would it be useful to have one definition for the whole country?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Do any of the others wish to comment?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Does Councillor Dare wish to comment on the resource issue?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

May I ask a straight question of David Rooke? Clearly, the Environment Agency’s prime responsibility is coastal and riverine flooding, yet we know we’re looking increasingly at ground and surface water flooding. To what extent do you have the skills and the resources, certainly working in local government, to be able to reorient yourself, if that is what you think you should be doing?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

May I bring in Barry and Councillor Porter on this question, which is linked to the one David has just asked? There are two dimensions to it. One is, do you think the Bill as it stands is sufficiently clear about who is responsible for what now? I think that when many of us imagined this national oversight role for the Environment Agency, we had not envisaged that it was only for main rivers and specific types of national flooding, and that there were other types of flooding that were not going to be the responsibility of the Environment Agency but would principally be for local authorities. We imagined, I guess, a kind of horizontal split, where you had a national oversight for all flooding, and local authorities had lead local responsibility for all types of flooding.

What we seem to have ended up with in this Bill is a vertical split, which is slightly strange, seems to run the risk again of having this confusion about who is responsible exactly for what, and is, I would suggest, pretty illogical, because, as we discussed in the evidence session this morning, when the water is flowing down the streets you cannot determine what kind of flooding it is, and you need somebody at local level to take the lead and somebody with national oversight to be advising on all types of flooding. That clarity was what we were aiming for, and what I thought Sir Michael Pitt was aiming for. Are you clear that that is what we have in the Bill?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

What I was trying to get at was whether the division of responsibility in the Bill is correct and logical.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I think Dr. Johnston wants to say something on this.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Councillor Dare touched on an issue I was about to raise. The county council will be the lead local flood authority with the responsibility for developing, maintaining, applying and monitoring the strategy. As you rightly say, how on earth do you know what that is going to cost until you have developed it? Given that uncertainty, is there not a danger that up and down the country, lead local flood authorities might water down their strategy in the fear that they would not get the funding for it?

Since two and a half years ago, the problem has been identifying who is responsible for what. This is not meant to be a criticism of the county; I am also referring to other agencies. When you finally get to the level of who is responsible, you have to persuade them to carry out the work that is needed. The reply has always come back, “We’ve not got the money to do that.” There is no point in having the strategy if you are not going to be able to implement it. You obviously have a fear about that. Could you expand on it a little?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

From your experience in other areas, how would this work? Would you prepare your strategy and go to the Government to say that it will cost x, and receive a reply such as, “We will give you x minus 20 per cent.”?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I want to follow up some of Mr. Horwood’s comments. I think it would be an enormous help to the Committee if we could move on beyond the issue of resources. We know the points that you are making and the political context in which you are making them, but what I and my constituents really want to know is whether the Bill has got it right—are we setting up the right local and national structures for dealing with flood risk management? It would be enormously helpful if you tried to answer that question directly, so that we are clear about whether the Bill is right in that regard.

I would also appreciate it if the LGIU made a specific comment. I know that you made comments about the draft Bill being too centralising, so it would be helpful if we heard from you about whether the Bill now has sufficient checks and balances to stop that over-centralising tendency. I make that plea to the panel. Could you please give us a straight answer to Mr. Horwood’s question?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

We have heard several speakers refer to overall responsibility and to who is responsible for what. Could I ask David Rooke initially how he sees the fire and rescue service fitting in, in practical terms, on the ground and in the chain of command in emergency flood situations, rather than in the initial planning?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Are you saying that in an emergency situation there is no confusion about who has overall strategic control over the various statutory bodies who assist in the emergency?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

May pick up on the point about responsibilities in the context of water catchment areas not respecting county council boundaries, nor the boundary between England and Wales? The Bill contains clauses that require councils in England to do certain things, councils in Wales to do certain things and Ministers in the Assembly Government to do certain things. Are you confident that it is clear what will happen in what could be called the interim phase, when something has been passed in this Bill, but the Assembly part is not done? How will you work with colleagues on both sides of the border to deal with complex areas, such as the Severn? Have you got that worked out?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On the Isle of Wight, which is my constituency, it is simple: we do not affect what happens on the mainland and what happens there does not affect us. That means we can get money direct from the Government. Will we get money from the Government?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

What happens to local authorities, including on the Isle of Wight?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Thank you for leading into that, Andrew. I am interested in the Bill’s impact on the cost-benefit analyses that different organisations will undertake with regard to particular capital funds. We know from the Gloucestershire case that we have heard from Barry that we have had quite a lot of mapping and a number of potential schemes have been worked through. The real crunch is who decides, between the EA and local authorities, whether those capital schemes go ahead and whether we also look wider afield at the impact on other areas if those schemes go ahead.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

I shall address my question first to David Rooke. I am afraid to burden you more—you are the popular one of this panel perhaps—but I am sure the others will have reflections. I shall start with a quick scare story from Norfolk, not from my constituency but the county more broadly. A couple of years ago, Mr. Rooke’s colleagues in Natural England rather sadly managed to leak a report that suggested that you let six villages go into the sea in north Norfolk. Of course, that created enormous anxiety and threw house prices into turmoil in the immediate term. I understand that the report was later not published.

One of the things we would like to be assured of in this process is the aspect of public consultation, and I would be interested to hear your vision in particular, under clause 7(3), of what you think that consultation might look like, whereby you would undertake a duty to consult the lead local authorities in England and the public. We heard from the Minister this morning that it would be the standard 12-week job. We would be interested to hear your vision of that, and then perhaps the other three, if you have a view, could say if you think that is correct or if there is anything that should be added or taken away.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Would that come on a regular basis? Perhaps others could enlighten me as to whether we are looking at a yearly strategy that then has a yearly consultation attached to it. Are we at that level of detail?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Do others want to comment on this, or not? I know Mr. Williams wants to ask a supplementary question—fire away.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

On that particular part of the Bill and the need to consult, it seems a bit strange that you do not have a duty to consult with Natural England in terms of England, and the Countryside Council for Wales in terms of Wales, because the duties that are given to Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales have an immediate impact on the purpose of drawing up the strategy.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

So there is no need to put it in the Bill.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

You have already indicated the public in general, although I am not sure how you would define that. As a member of the public, I could get up and say that you never consulted me on a particular strategy. Do you think that including the public, rather than people with a specific interest in the issue, is a hostage to fortune?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

May I press David Rooke further on my earlier question? In an emergency flood situation there might be in attendance the fire and rescue service, the local authority, the police, possibly St. John Ambulance and groups of volunteers, all trying to help in what are unavoidably chaotic circumstances. How is it established who is in overall charge of the situation in practical terms on the ground?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does that mean there would be a senior police officer on site who was physically in charge of what was going on?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We only have seven more minutes, and Martin Horwood is next.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I would like to echo what Barry has just said about the effectiveness of gold command working with the other authorities, although in saying that I should declare an interest, because my wife was on it.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That is an example of it going well. Clearly, there will be times when flood risk management is not done so well. I will shift the discussion briefly in the time we have left to the teeth behind the Bill and this strategy. Clauses 19 and 20 set out the power for local authorities, but interestingly not the Environment Agency, to launch investigations. It includes ministerial direction powers, but no real powers for local authorities to ask other local flood risk management authorities, such as water companies, to do what they think is necessary, and there are no particular powers anywhere, it seems to me, for the Environment Agency, despite the fact that it is given a national oversight role. Is there something not very coherent or missing in those teeth in the Bill? Is it a bit gap-toothed?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Would you expect to be advising him or her to do that?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

You do not have responsibility for investigation, so how would you be able to advise the Minister to direct a flood risk management authority to do something? How would you know?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a question on the earlier issue of ending automatic right to connect. How would the councillors and the Environment Agency feel about allowing water companies to have the right to refuse planning permission and to become genuinely statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency on major new developments? Also, how would they feel about allowing the Association of Drainage Authorities to be consulted on the same basis on what might be inappropriate developments in their area? Would that, in effect, end the automatic right to connect if we achieve that in the Bill? I ask Councillor Dare first.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

But you would have no objection to water companies being given the statutory right?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Councillor Porter?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Mr. Rooke, do you think that it would close the gap? You said that the Government’s intention was to end the automatic right to connect.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Again, on the automatic right to connect and sustainable urban drainage, is there sufficient strength in the Bill, given the situation of a county simply being a statutory consultee, for the district actually giving planning permission to face up to any kind of legal challenge? Is the necessary modelling available to you as counties to make sure that everything is watertight in terms of your representations to the planning authorities?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Mr. Rooke, how do you feel clause 2 enables you to identify what a flood risk area is? It strikes me as being very, very unclear. How would you assess what a flood risk area is?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Thank you very much. I am afraid that we have got to 2 o’clock. Thank you for your attendance. We now invite the next set of witnesses to take their places.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Thank you very much for coming. Will each of the witnesses, starting with Dr. Venables, introduce themselves? Laurence Waterhouse, the chairman of the National Flood Forum, was on our list of invitees and had intended to come, but unfortunately he cannot be with us this afternoon due to the weather conditions.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I think that is enough. We are not having introductory statements; I just want you to tell us who you are for the record, so that people who are listening know who is here.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Again, I welcome the witnesses and thank them for braving the elements. I would like to declare an interest: I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, a position of which I am extremely proud.

I would like to open by asking Dr. Venables a number of questions, which she might want to respond to all together. How do the IDBs currently raise their funds and how do you believe the Bill will affect their ability to raise them in the future? What is the current status of the regional flood and coastal committees in relation to IDBs? What is the interrelationship between IDBs and the present regional flood and coastal committees, and how will that change under the Bill? You currently have very specific levying powers for IDBs. How do you feel they might be compromised or changed by the Bill, particularly in relation to your current ability to find local solutions to local problems? Also, how does your composition reflect democratic accountability? Do you believe it will be just as easy to secure the role of councillors under the Bill?

The memorandum with which we were provided notes that the IDBs are concerned about the definition of drainage systems and in particular that a watercourse is one thing, but an engineered watercourse is another. Do you believe that there is scope to clarify that within the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

You raise an interesting point in your memorandum about resilience—I should like to question the ABI about this. We are all very vexed that the Vale of York is probably 65 per cent. flood plain and at any one time any household could be at potential risk of flooding. A number of houses are still at risk of flooding. Would it not make sense, to take up one of the points that ADA has raised, that when someone re-enters their home after being severely flooded, the home is made as resilient to future floods as possible? I know that there is resistance to that. I have seen it locally in north Yorkshire, particularly in Pickering—an area adjacent to me—where people feel they won’t be able to sell their houses if it looks as though the carpets have been pulled up and the electricity plugs have been put up the wall. If you are going to be able to reinsure that house at a rate that is affordable both in terms of premium and excess, you are in a very powerful position to insist on that when someone reoccupies their home after a major flood.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I should like to ask the NFU a question. The NFU obviously has a position on reservoir safety, and if you could share that with us, it would be really helpful.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have one last question. You also mentioned food security, which is something that we have tried to explore both in the context of the Select Committee report and through other mechanisms. If main rivers were recognised as suitable for being maintained, and if it was stated that that should be a priority for the Environment Agency, that would move us some way. Do you believe that there should be scope in the Bill to amend the outcomes and ensure that food security and the protection of farmland could proceed in that way?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Would you be keen to do that?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I understand the aspect of burdens put on farmers, particularly in building new reservoirs, but I presume that at least a new reservoir would be up to standard. I am also concerned about existing facilities. Are there burdens on people with existing facilities that might not be up to standard and would be required to take more work? Could that lead to some facilities being taken out of use?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I have a question for Nick of the ABI. Insurance is clearly a big issue relating to floods. It was raised by Mr. Robertson and many of us on Second Reading. The ABI has been quite positive in getting some of its slightly less co-operative members to do the right thing by local residents, but there is clearly still a problem with punitively high premiums and excess charges that go up so high that people might as well not bother, as it will not really count as insurance. There are people who are being rather unfairly excluded from having flooding insured as a risk at all, especially when they are transferring, which is outside the current voluntary agreement that you have with the Government. Would you support addressing that issue in the Bill? That would at least provide a level playing field for your members and prevent you from having to play referee among them.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

But there is a bit more of an issue than that, is there not? I say that because the natural tendency for any business will be, broadly speaking, to try to sell as much insurance as possible to those who are at as little risk as possible, and to try to exclude the people who are at more and more risk. Any logical business will try to go down that path, but obviously that is not really a very socially responsible outcome.

I have an example of somebody who, even in the great flood of 2007, was not flooded in Cheltenham. However, he is now being told that, because of his postcode, he cannot get flood insurance, and he is in a house that has never flooded, as far as he is aware, even in the great floods.

So, there are clearly problems with insurance companies. Would it not be simpler for you if we had a level playing field set out in legislation, so that at least your members knew where they were? That is accepting that there will be some extreme examples of places that flood every year, which we know about in Gloucestershire very well. Obviously, they could not be endlessly underwritten by everybody else.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I said explicitly that that would not be the case. However, the Bill could, for example, instruct the Secretary of State to draw up a scheme for a more equitable insurance regime. There are precedents for that. We used to have a situation where insurers would not underwrite anyone who had taken an HIV test against developing AIDS. That was stopped because it was seen as being not socially responsible.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

So would you be in favour of publishing the surface water inundation maps?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Even if that had the effect of destroying people’s house prices?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The ABI was extremely helpful during the floods, and indeed has been since, but there are one or two questions that I would like to put to Mr. Starling if I may. Even now, and I consider it will go on for quite a while, people come to me to complain about their insurance premiums and their excesses, to which Mr. Horwood referred. They cannot understand why both have gone up. If the excess goes up to as much as £20,000, which I have known, that effectively takes them out of insurance. If they flood, they will effectively pay for it themselves, so why has the premium gone up? They cannot understand why both have gone up. They can probably understand why one or the other goes up. Or is the increased premium paying off the £3 billion? What are your thoughts on that?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Are the increased premiums paying for the past, though?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

How would you assess risk? There is a concern, to which Mr. Horwood referred, particularly if you have a GL20 postcode, which means more or less around the town of Tewkesbury. Is the postcode put in a computer that flashes something back? Is it more scientific than that? In some ways more worryingly, if work is carried out in an area, theoretically it will reduce the flood risk in that area, but does it draw the attention of your members to that area and do they say, “Well, it’s flooded once; they need to spend this amount of money on it. It is bound to flood again.” How would they assess the risk to each householder?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

It can be difficult for individuals to assess that and to provide that information. It is not easy for them to do that.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is important that data are accurate, for your purposes and also for planning in terms of inundation. Some of your members come forward with maps that differ from those of other members and the Environment Agency. It causes huge amounts of confusion in the insurance industry and in planning. Is there a role set out in this legislation to get a set of data and maps that are universally agreed on, so that this confusion does not arise?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Mr. Starling, may I thank you for all the work you and your members have done in Cumbria—west Cumbria in particular—which has been noticeable and welcome? I have just a few questions.

Based on something else that you have given already to colleagues, do you envisage that it is credible that, in the not-too-distant future, entire regions will effectively be uninsurable for flood damage?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Do you think the Bill helps provide those measures that you and your members have called for?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Finally, what level of risk are your members carrying at the moment, with regard to flood insurance? Do you think that the burden of risk is being carried by your members?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I did say “finally”, Mr. Chope; but Mr. Starling, you’ve really put your finger on a point I wanted to ask about. You mentioned other countries and the role of the state with regard to this matter. Do you think the Government should underwrite flood insurance in this country, for either domestic or industrial purposes?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I think Nia wanted to ask something about coterminosity.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Not specifically. I think that there are still a couple of issues on insurance. Are you happy with what you have asked?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Very happy.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Obviously, you are in a lot of dialogue with Government about insurance. Do you feel that the statutory consultation that will be given to counties to feed into districts will be sufficient to help you insure future homes?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Yes. They can say, “Look, this drainage has got to be done like this; otherwise, it’s going to cause flooding.” Do you think that there is enough in the planning to help for future insurance requests?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

If we move now to considering areas such as the Severn estuary between England and Wales and the border areas, perhaps colleagues could comment on whether they think that the Bill’s wording—it requires the Welsh Assembly Government and the county councils on both sides of the border to do certain things—will work out well in practice, or whether they see ways that things need tightening up so that it works smoothly across all areas.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

This question is for Jenny Bashford from the NFU and relates to your comments that the Environment Agency is power-heavy and perhaps duty-light. In your view, how far does the Bill address those concerns, and what more would you like to be done?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

For clarity—there is a need for consultation with people, broadly, and with Parliament.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I want to ask a very simple question. I think it is probably for Jean Venables to answer, but others may want to chip in. I have always been a great fan of IDBs. I am interested in how the Bill will work on the ground, particularly how we can get local actions to deal with local problems, often to do with maintenance and simple repair work. Is this Bill right for purpose and will it help?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

My question is directed mainly at Robert and Fran, although others may want to comment. There is an argument for shifting the approach to water management much more on to a landscape scale—not having things that are, for instance, particularly restricted to one local authority, but addressing a whole catchment area, a whole landscape—for using the landscape as part of water management, looking at upland land use, natural woodland and things like that, and having an altogether more ecologically sustainable approach to water management. Do you think that that is a good thing? I can sort of guess your answer, but do you think that the Bill does it and do you think that the Bill takes us in that direction at all, or sufficiently?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I could cite local examples of where that simply is not happening at the moment, and I am not sure that I can see anything in the Bill that particularly shifts that. This morning, Mr. Robertson mentioned the issue of spatial planning and development. I have seen flood risk maps with large blue areas up hill of housing estates, and we are about to build flood defences on the housing estate and build on the green space above it. There is nothing in the Bill that seems to stop that process. That is the very reverse of the kind of approach you are describing, isn’t it?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

It shows that you’re hopeful.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I think Dr. Venables and Mr. Starling want to make short contributions on that.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I will move on to the part of the Bill on the designation of features. When listening to Robert and Fran talk about conserving important aspects of the landscape to promote flood mitigation, I was having difficulty wondering what a feature was. The Bill says it is

“a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

Although neither of your organisations could in any way designate it, presumably it would be up to any organisation to put forward a particular feature that they believed could have some effect. I leave that with you for a second.

I want to move on to the NFU. I should have declared an interest at the beginning by saying that I am a member of the NFU, so I hope we do not have to start again. The part on designation is in some ways probably overburdensome because it seems to be easy to designate something, but difficult to appeal against that or have it cancelled. Perhaps I can put that to the conservation organisations first and have a word from the NFU afterwards.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thought it could be an opportunity.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was very taken by what Jean Venables said about the definition of flooding. If she could elaborate a bit more, how would she like to see that further defined?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Am I correct in understanding that there used to be regional engineers attached to DEFRA to do some of the maintenance work? Where have they gone and what was their relationship to the Environment Agency?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

My question is for Jenny from the NFU. It continues from Roger’s points about flood alleviation. Although I know we have a problem with security of food supplies, I have long believed that farmland in some cases is sensibly usable for holding water. On the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we battled for a long time to formalise that single farm payment. It does happen, but it is not widespread. I wonder what your views are and whether you think that this Bill should be a vehicle for forcing that funding issue to the surface, so that we can legitimise what I think is an appropriate way in which we use land at least to stop property from flooding inexorably?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My question is for Miss Bashford. As I understand it, there is already legislation that requires riparian owners to maintain waterways. It quite often does not happen. Is there a need for this Bill to revisit that legislation, or do you think that the legislation is strong enough but is just not applied? How would you assess it?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

It is quite often individuals who are riparian owners. That includes farmers—it is not entirely farmers but it does include them. Again, I have seen evidence where that has not happened, where they have not done what they are supposed to have done in terms of maintenance and repair. Sometimes councils have an obligation to ensure that they do it, but in some cases, it is simply not working. Do you think we should revisit it?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am afraid that we have reached 3 o’clock, and we must end this evidence session. I thank you all for coming. I now invite the next set of witnesses to take the stand.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming along. Can each of you briefly introduce yourselves, please?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the experts for being with us and braving the elements this afternoon. I would like to start with Mr. Mills, but Tony Smith may want to comment on this matter. In the way that some of the roles and resources are allocated under the Bill, do you consider, especially in terms of sustainable drainage systems, that it is more appropriate for water companies ultimately to become responsible, particularly new ones? If the systems flood and cause a spillage from the sewerage system, water companies are more likely to have the expertise to prevent and deal with flooding.

Related to that point, with regard to the public sewerage system and linking infrastructure from major new developments, when such developments apply for planning permission, would it be beneficial for water companies to be statutory consultees, on a similar basis as the Environment Agency, so that they could either reject outright or withhold permission for such developments to go ahead, particularly if the existing infrastructure was considered incapable of taking the waste water from such developments to connect to the sewerage system? We are ultimately trying to find a way in the Bill to end once and for all the automatic right to connect, and I do not think that we are quite there yet on the systems. Obviously, Ofwat will have a view on this. Would the water companies, if they were agreeable to our suggestions, look to Ofwat to review the regulatory mechanism to allow them to raise funds for these responsibilities?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

In that regard, would you consider water companies to be better placed than local authorities to become the approving body? To me, the role of the local authorities should be to grant planning permission, and I do not see that they will have anything like the expertise needed, just in terms of engineering capability. They do not currently undertake on a massive scale these types of projects, and I know that at the moment we do not seem to know where many of these SUDS are. The exception to that, I believe, are the SUDS in relation to main roads, in that the county councils probably have the expertise. Would the water companies that form your membership be willing to step into the breach, and would you look to raise the funds to enable you to do so?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Mr. Mason, would Ofwat be agreeable to considering a review of the regulatory mechanism to allow water companies to take on these additional responsibilities? We clearly heard from the local authorities earlier this afternoon that they are going to be hard pressed to fulfil the new responsibilities. My concern is that, if we proceed with the powers in the Bill as they currently stand, we are not going to resolve the flooding that could arise from SUDS or from the fact that there will be no end to the automatic connection. Would you look favourably on that?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have one last point on water companies. I understand that the Bill as currently drafted would exclude water companies from tendering for major infrastructure projects. I am not quite clear how these projects are currently defined. Would it not be more acceptable if you were at least allowed to tender, as you in the water companies probably have more expertise on how deliverable these major infrastructure projects will be?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I just clarify that the role of the SUDS is to retain water to prevent future flooding? With the greatest of respect, what does a council understand about that, as opposed to a water company with its engineering expertise?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

But are they not best placed? I will put the counter-argument to you—presumably, if you take a major project like anything to do with the sewerage system and the ancient sewers in London, if the incumbent does not improve that system, they could be sued for not providing a system that was fit for purpose and you, as Ofwat, would be the first to say that they had failed in their duty to provide a proper sewerage service.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

May I move us on to the potentially thorny subject of social tariffs? I have a slightly different question for each of you.

To Phillip from Water UK, I know that several of your companies have tried to introduce social tariffs, or at least expressed a desire to do so, especially Thames Water in London, where that is a very big issue. How many of your member companies would like to introduce social tariffs, if they were given the opportunity, beyond the current WaterSure tariff?

May I ask all three of my questions? You could then perhaps answer me in turn. This one is to Ofwat: Keith, we have always had the reply back from Ofwat that it was not within your remit to allow what I think Regina described as the transfer of money from one group of customers to another. As I said, this sounds rather like the high-water mark of Thatcherism hanging over us, but other regulators have managed to do it. I accept that you believe that you need something to change before you can do that. To change that remit, would primary legislation be needed, as in the Bill—or, rather, as is not in the Bill—or is there another way of changing your remit to allow you to permit social tariffs? Finally, to Tony at the Consumer Council for Water, would you support that?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Let us get this clear, because I understood that beyond the limited WaterSure scheme you were not allowed to have a social tariff that effectively subsidised one group of customers but not another.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

It would not exactly be pre-empting, as Walker supported that.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

This is legislation; that is the point. This is probably the only bit of legislation on the subject that we will get for several years.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The debt issue is a slightly different thing.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

So let us be clear: if we take the dangerous position that we actually want to help poor people and that that is a good thing to do, even if it increases some other people’s water bills slightly, you think that at the moment you cannot do that without primary legislation.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

May I push you further on that before we move on? Are you saying that, at present, you can allow some pilot schemes, and can allow something if it does not involve cross-subsidy? I am not sure how you allow a social tariff without incurring some sort of cross-subsidy; the subsidy must come from somewhere. Are you saying that, at the moment, you can only do that, and that you cannot do anything that has a more overt form of cross-subsidy?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Are you saying that you actually cannot do it?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Are you saying that the fact that there is no existing legislation would cause you to have to make decisions that you feel are not yours to make? Therefore, are you actually saying that you need some form of detailed, prescriptive legislation to be able to progress on social tariffs?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

And you see legislation as the best way forward?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I have a question for all of you. It is a plea for advice as much as anything else and I hope that you can help me put something to bed one way or the other. I recently walked around my constituency during and immediately after the floods in west Cumbria and the neighbouring constituency in south Keswick, Cockermouth, Workington and so on, and there was an overriding public chuntering, which may or may not be founded—that is why I am seeking help—on the water drainage network in this country and the perception that it has got significantly worse since privatisation. I make no ideological point—private ownership can be very good in some circumstances, public in others. However, is there any evidence either way—for or against—to suggest that the water and drainage infrastructure in this country has got significantly worse since privatisation? That’s the first question.

Secondly, Mr. Mason, Ofwat has said, I think, that it sees this Bill as the first step in a wider review of legislation in the water and sewerage sectors. What might the other steps be? I would be very interested in that.

The final question is to Mr. Mills. From a layperson’s perspective, an awful lot of the flooding that we see in this country and I’ve seen over the past 10 or so years has occurred in semi-rural or rural areas. That gives rise to another suspicion. Again, it’s not an allegation on my part; it’s a suspicion that I’m hoping to be able to get to the bottom of. Do your member companies—I would have thought that this would be standard business practice—invest more heavily in the high-yield, urban areas where there are more customers, at the expense of the more rural, lower-yield areas such as Gloucester, west Cumbria and so on? We can name a lot of places.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I am really pleased to hear that. You’re the first person to give me a detailed answer of some kind to that question after months of asking. Mr. Mills?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I have a question for all of you. It is a plea for advice as much as anything else and I hope that you can help me put the matter to bed. I walked around my constituency during and immediately after the floods in west Cumbria and the neighbouring constituency in south Keswick, Cockermouth, Workington and so on. There was an overriding public chuntering, which may or may not be well founded—that is why I am seeking help—about the water drainage network in this country and the perception that it has got significantly worse since privatisation. I make no ideological point—private ownership can be very good in some circumstances, public in others. However, is there any evidence either way—for or against—to suggest that the water infrastructure, the drainage infrastructure, in this country has become significantly worse since privatisation? That is the first question.

Secondly, Mr. Mason, Ofwat has said that it sees this Bill as the first step in a wider review of legislation in the water and sewerage sectors. What might the other steps be? I would be very interested in that.

The final question is to Mr. Mills. From a layperson’s perspective, an awful lot of the flooding that we have seen in this country over the past 10 or so years has occurred in semi-rural or rural areas. That gives rise to another suspicion. Again, it is not an allegation on my part, but a suspicion that I hope to be able to get to the bottom of. Do your member companies—I would have thought that this would be standard business practice—invest more heavily in the high-yield, urban areas where there are more customers, at the expense of the more rural, lower-yield areas such as Gloucester, west Cumbria and so on? I could name a lot of places.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I am really pleased to hear that. You are the first person to give me a detailed answer of some kind after months of asking that question. Mr. Mills?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Those sums are generally impressive—there should be no doubt about that. Is Ofwat absolutely clear that water users and customers in rural areas are receiving the same service from water companies as those in urban areas?

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I would like to press you on that one more time. It may not be Ofwat’s problem—it may be that the regulatory framework is insufficient—but surely, given engineering efficacy and the economies of scale in the investments required in urban areas, urban customers get a better service from water companies when it comes to water drainage than rural customers get.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Have you examined the places with 100 per cent. charging rather than the alternative? What is your verdict on considering those compared with the ones that have rates for the cost of water?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In my constituency, everyone has a meter. I do not know if there is anywhere else where that applies. Have you compared the two types of area?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

So are you saying that mandatory introduction would be fair, but non-mandatory would not?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Would it surprise you if I said that very few people had complained over almost the past 10 years?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Do you know what happened when it was introduced? I do not know when that was.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Can we clarify the situation on critical infrastructure? I include reservoirs within that, although technically they are different. First, does the Bill clarify that there is now a clear steer away from new provision in flood risk areas? I know that that will link with planning, but how does the Bill interact with planning? Secondly, what additional encouragement does the Bill give water companies to re-site some of those facilities in due course? I know there is no immediate imposition upon them, but do you see the Bill as encouraging that?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Keith, do you want to give Ofwat’s perspective on this?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Would you want to see that in the Bill? Do you want greater clarity in the legal framework?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

This is another price review-related question, first to Mr. Mills, although others may wish to comment. A lot of your member companies spend a great deal of money on what could broadly be termed environmental measures, but include things such as reducing leakage, which we all agree is a good thing, even though we might grumble when our bills go up slightly as a result. With the experience of PR09 just behind you, do you think that the current regulatory regime is too tight? Has it unduly restricted environmental measures by your member companies? By implication, do we need to look Ofwat’s remit in the environmental respect as well?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

One point that I do not think has been discussed is Water UK’s concern about the hosepipe provisions in the draft Bill. Could you give us some guidance on how those could be clarified?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is helpful. Reverting to something that we discussed earlier, I have some sympathy with the Minister’s comment that we should wait, but we are committed to publishing a White Paper and a major Bill if there are any changes after the general election. As for social tariffs, it would probably be for the wider Bill to absorb the conclusions of Walker and Cave. I found some of the comments that have been made interesting, but I do not believe that it is necessarily the right time or place for that—similarly for metering.

As regards bad debt, I think that there was some urgency because of fuel poverty. However, I am taken by the fact that you, as water companies, are disadvantaged compared with other utility companies. If there was scope to include that in the Bill, where would it be best placed? I realise that it is not your Bill, but where do you believe it would be best?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is helpful. Thank you.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We are finishing three minutes early. I thank the witnesses.