Flood and Water Management Bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 January 2010.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Good morning. In the room there are hard copies of some background papers, which were initially only circulated by e-mail.

Clause 1

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—

‘(1) “Flood” includes—

(a) any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, or

(b) any case where water has rested just below the surface.’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 82, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘waters,’, insert—

‘(da) groundwater.’

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome everyone to the formal sittings. I am delighted that we are under way and I am sure we shall be able to make brisk progress.

The Minister and the Committee will be aware that there are already several definitions of “flood”—pluvial, fluvial, surface water flooding and below-surface water flooding.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

On a point of order, Mr. Chope. It is difficult to hear and I assume the people at the far end of the room will not be able to hear a thing. We could all move down.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We shall have the fan eliminated, so that people can hear. Miss McIntosh, please speak up in the meantime.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall speak more slowly, to make the time pass.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

We are getting very old.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I could not possibly comment on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

I am delighted to be moving amendment 131. The Minister and the Committee are aware of several definitions of “flooding”. The purpose behind the amendment is simply to convince them that the definition in the Bill is defective. The definition of “flood” in subsection (1) only relates to

“any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.”

I would love to know the background to that definition, which the Minister might like to share. It is completely innocuous as it stands, but it does not go far enough. I hope the Minister and the Committee will look favourably on what we would like to do, which is to expand the definition to cover, in addition,

“any case where water has rested just below the surface”.

The reason for that emerged from the evidence session last Thursday, when we heard that damage to property begins at 300 mm below ground level—that was established in 1977—and that soil structure is affected by waterlogging, which can have adverse impacts on foundations of infrastructure, most notably road and rail infrastructure but also property infrastructure. I would like to return to property infrastructure separately. Vegetation and crops cannot survive in conditions in which high ground water levels persist——which is 500 mm below the surface, as established in 1992. By omitting to include the below-surface level and failing to acknowledge that flooding begins before water reaches ground level, a considerable risk could be placed on infrastructure across England and Wales as well as the damage to property, whether homes or land.

One of the Government’s own top scientists has said that the biggest challenge we face is climate change, while another said that the biggest challenge is food security—I forget which was the Department’s and which the general Government chief scientist. On both issues, clause 1 serves a useful purpose by improving climate change and increasing food security. The omission of our amendments would prevent the relevant authorities from even considering sub-surface flooding when weighing up the costs and benefits of flood-alleviation schemes, projects and action. In many instances, that may make the difference between a favourable cost-benefit assessment and failure, resulting in many potentially essentially schemes being sidelined. Are the Committee and the Minister agreeable to considering our definition as presented in amendment 131:

“any case where water has rested just below the surface”?

In any event, will the Minister concede that floods should be redefined to include waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level?

I have related most of my remarks to infrastructure such as roads and railways, but I hope that the Minister will concede that secondary flooding is a serious issue. That is particularly the case in Hull. I visited Hull and saw that for myself. I gather that in other cases—I cannot remember whether in Plymouth or Portsmouth—secondary flooding is horrendous and poses all sorts of problems for the houses affected, and for clean-up and insurers. It can come back months after the initial flood. Our purpose in drafting the amendment to broaden the definition is to recognise flood scenarios that can create real damage to property, infrastructure, vegetation—farmers cannot recover the costs of damaged crops—and, most importantly, to the numerous poor households that are subject to secondary flooding. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider our amendment favourably.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We have had a request to have the air-conditioning turned down or switched off. That request has now been referred to something rather Orwellian called central control, and we hope that central control will respond quickly.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. I wish you well in your battle with central control throughout the proceedings.

We have waited a long time to get to this stage and I am pleased that we are finally here. There is much to welcome in the Bill, and it is very welcome that we have the Bill at all. There is still much to debate, but I put on record my appreciation of the open way in which the Minister and his team have approached discussions.

In clause 1, we perhaps confirm some people’s worst fears about politicians, because we have the opportunity to debate what a flood is for some time. Someone who cannot recognise one has certainly not lived in Cheltenham. Subsection (2) is comprehensive, but there are a couple of issues in the clause that I think we are going to address in the amendments. One, an almost philosophical issue, is the definition in subsection (1):

“land not normally covered by water”.

That perhaps implies that floods are unnatural events, that flooding is bizarre and strange, whereas flooding is part of the natural process of rainfall and tides, and part of the natural scheme of things. Underlying some of the difficulties in the Bill is an attempt to get towards processes that work with nature rather than against it, and that work with natural landscapes and natural landscape features. Perhaps that definition reveals an underlying philosophy that a flood is not natural but something against which artificial defences need to be erected. It will perhaps be more helpful as we go through the Bill to look for opportunities to work with nature and the landscape wherever possible. Ah, peace and quiet at last; the air-conditioning has been turned off.

We then have the different forms of flooding and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, when the water is flowing down your high street it is rather difficult to tell which type of water it is and to whom it belongs. I shall illustrate one problem with the definitions of water by quoting a couple of examples given to me by the National Flood Forum:

“A disabled women of 89 rang the office to say her neighbour had changed the contour of his drive and as a consequence every time it rained the run-off from his drive flooded her home. She went round to complain, he was very abusive and refused to do anything about the situation. The lady rang both the”

Environment Agency and the local authority,

“only to be told it was”

not their kind of flooding

“and there was nothing they could do to help her. Her only form of redress would be to take the very costly legal route.”

In another example,

“A mill owner in south Yorkshire tarmaced a staff car park and after that every time it rained the water ran down the hill side flooding a line of terraced houses. They too complained to the mill owner and got the same reaction as above from him and the”

Environment Agency and the local authority. That tangle of responsibilities and the inability to work out who is responsible for what led Sir Michael Pitt to ask for the clear oversight role—the buck-stops-here role—for the Environment Agency that all of us support. I am slightly worried because we are not sure that, in all cases, the Bill delivers that. It is important that we address not only amendment 131, but amendments 82 to 84.

Amendment 131 deals with the specific concern of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has rightly said that damage starts below ground level. I am not sure that we need the specific amendment that we are discussing, because there is a definition of ground water at clause 6(4), which says:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.”

I should think that that definition—if we can make it explicit in the definition of a flood—covers the concerns of the hon. Member for Vale of York. However, I am sympathetic to her amendment and would happily support it, for the avoidance of all doubt.

Our amendments 82 to 84 would put a few specific definitions of flooding beyond doubt and within the scope of the Bill. The first definition that we are concerned with is groundwater, in a sense making our objective the same as the one behind amendment 131. The specifics that we deal with reflect the reality that many of my constituents in Cheltenham faced when they were flooded. For example, an area called Little Bayshill terrace in Cheltenham is virtually surrounded by the River Chelt, which goes round two sides of that road. That little cul-de-sac ends in a fairly comprehensive wall that is designed to stop the water coming in and flood defences were installed at the entrances to that area, with sandbags also put in place in the event of June and July floods. But it was all as nought, because in many cases the flood water simply came up through their floorboards. That kind of ground water flooding was just as distressing and, in a sense, more frustrating because the people there had put so much effort into stopping water coming in by other means.

We need to be specific. In respect of the overall definition of flooding and the responsibilities for flooding that we are passing to the Environment Agency—

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

The hon. Gentleman will know that the problems with both Mythe and Castle Mead pumping stations were from water coming from below. All the erroneous media reports about the water being about to overwash the barriers were unhelpful, because it was about trying to stop the water coming through from the ground. I sure that he knows about that.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

My neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud makes an important point. He is right about the Mythe water pumping station. For all the media attention on the flood defences that were being put round the outside, when people spoke about Mythe—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I am confusing that with Walham electricity substation, which people talked about being a few inches from being flooded, although it was water inside the perimeter rising up at ground level and threatening to damage the machinery that was the problem.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for amending the definition. In support of his contention, may I reflect upon my constituency office? It is called Watergate, which should have given us some indication that we might have problems before we took the lease. Flood defence has done much to counteract the fluvial flooding, but we still have flooding from ground water that comes up in the basement. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Yes. Watergate is not necessarily a politically suitable title for an office; I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not changed it.

Amendment 83 would deal with a similar issue in respect of surface water flooding and reflects an underlying concern identified by the National Flood Forum. It says:

“We feel that the Draft...Bill does not go far enough in meeting the needs of the vulnerable and those in the flood prone communities. We are concerned that the vital area of surface water flooding is to be left to Local Authorities to deal with, under the auspices of the EA”—

the Environment Agency. It goes on to point out the possible practical difficulties. We will come back to that theme in later clauses and amendments, and the question whether there should be a horizontal or vertical division of responsibilities between the Environment Agency and local authorities.

This seems to be a good opportunity to point out that surface water is a key element of flood responsibility and that we should get the definition right at the start. For the avoidance of doubt, we should also add ground water, surface water and, if necessary, the Association of Drainage Authorities’ definition of water below the surface.

Amendment 84 addresses a slightly different matter—the two exemptions in the clause. First, it exempts

“a flood from any part of a sewerage system, unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater”—

luckily including snow—

“entering or otherwise affecting the system”.

Secondly, it exempts

“a flood caused by a burst water main”.

It is obviously most distressing if floodwater enters the sewerage system, because foul water contaminates people’s houses even more than normal floodwater. It seems a slightly clumsy approach. Will the Minister explain why the Government introduced the exemption only to qualify it? What breaches from sewerage systems does he imagine are not caused by rainwater? Rather strangely, subsection (3)(b), which is about burst water mains, includes no such qualification. A burst water main that is

“caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater...entering or otherwise affecting the system”

seems to be exempted. That, surely, must be wrong.

The flooding that one sees on the A46 on the Shurdington road in Cheltenham, where the water main seems to burst every time there is the least amount of flooding, let alone the one in a century floods that we suffered in 2007, will all be part and parcel of the same flood events. It seems strange that the floods mentioned in paragraph (b) have no qualification comparable to that in paragraph (a). Why is that?

In practice, we are talking about flooding in total. We are talking about flooding that is sometimes exacerbated by the failure of structures and physical systems such as sewers and water mains. It should all be included in the definition of flooding and come under the overarching responsibility of the Environment Agency. I see no good reason for such exemptions. If there is a reason, I am sure that the Minister will explain it.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who made some good points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York in moving amendment 131.

I wish to pick up on something the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. He asked whether it was absolutely necessary to make such an amendment, given that clause 6 defines ground water as

“all water which is below the surface of the ground”.

I believe that the amendment is necessary because, although the Government seek in clause 1 to define the meaning of flood, no mention is made of water under the surface. Clause 1(1) attempts to define a flood, and we need to amend it in order to avoid doubt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York made a good point about water resting below the surface. Recently, a contentious planning application of quite large scale was made in my constituency in Longford, an area with which the hon. Members for Cheltenham and indeed for Stroud will be familiar. The area floods—there is no doubt about that, as anyone who lives or travels near there knows—but the contention was about whether it flooded. In part of the area water rests on the surface although, even so, some people—usually supporters of the developers—contended about whether it flooded; in another area the water rests below the surface.

The Environment Agency, when assessing that particular planning application, said at a public meeting that, if the water was resting below the surface, an area was not considered to be a flood-risk area. That troubled me. Anyone who lives near that area and anyone who was flooded in 2007, without any development on the land, would view that opinion with worry. They would be extremely concerned about houses being built on that land. Yet, because the water was slightly below the surface, it seemingly did not constitute a flood risk in the eyes of the Environment Agency and the appeal to build on the land was granted. People who live close by will be very worried indeed—some were flooded and could not get back into their houses for more than a year because of the floods. They were living adjacent to the land; the flooding for them is going to be far worse. It is very important that we add the amendment to clause 1 because if water is resting slightly below the surface, it is only a few millimetres different from resting on the surface, which surely constitutes flooding or flood risk.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also made a good point about land that normally floods. Separately, the hon. Member for Stroud introduced the problem that we had at the Mythe water treatment works in 2007—Mythe is in my constituency, close to where I live in Tewkesbury. The fields around the Mythe flood several times a year. They do not necessarily flood at the Mythe water treatment works—that has only happened on the one occasion so far—but the fields do flood regularly. They are flooded now, and three, four or five times a year, because they are very close to the river and the water table is high in that area. Without wishing to be pedantic, does the Minister consider that to be “flood”? The area floods so often, but how often is normal in that respect? I do not mean to be awkward, but would that land be deemed flooded if it floods so many times a year? Water is obviously not intended to rest on the land, but because it does so often, would that be considered a flood?

It is particularly important that we define flooding in rather more detail than clause 1 does at present, so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on including water resting below the surface. She went into agricultural purposes, but I am afraid that I have not researched the matter in that detail and do not profess to understand too much about agriculture. However, the amendment is important to the clause for the purpose of house building. I hope to return to the theme later this morning, but we are going to have a regional spatial strategy—it is not quite finalised yet—that proposes to build something like 14,500 houses in my constituency, in what is obviously a flood-risk area. The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether we really need to define what flooding is—if we see a flood, we know it is a flood—but apparently we do for the purposes of legislation. The threat hanging over us is the building of so many houses in a flood-risk area. The increase in the number of houses is massive, something like a 40 per cent. increase on what we already have in the constituency over the next 16 years.

When we have such a threat hanging over us, it is important that we define in legislation exactly what a “flood” is. My hon. Friend’s amendment will help us to do that somewhat more accurately.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I welcome the spirit in which everyone has entered the debate in Committee and on Second Reading. I was not at Second Reading, because I was away in Brussels unfortunately, fighting the good fight at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, but I am glad to be here now.

Looking at the definitions in clause 1 is a good starting point because, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly said, most people recognise a flood when it is heading towards them, whether it is coming up through the basement or down the street. It is important, however, that we have clarity here, and I think that I can give that. I very much welcome the nature of the discussion so far, because it is important to try to bolt down what is and is not covered, and why it is defined as it is. I hope that I will be able to give the assurances that Members want about why we have addressed the issue in this way.

Amendment 131 would expand the definition of flooding to include areas with water just below the surface. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Vale of York. The amendment could extend the scope of the Bill considerably, so that areas with a high water table, as opposed to areas that are being flooded, would be considered to be flooded, even though that might be the normal state of affairs. That is an important area for definition. We do not want to automatically say that every area that has a high water table is flooded.

Let me expand a little. It is important to distinguish between high ground water levels, which occur in many areas, and floods. Many Members here represent constituents who have high ground water levels as a matter of course, but they are not floods as we would normally know them. We recognise that flooding may also occur as a result of high ground water levels, or have been contributed to by them. The definition of flood in clause 1 is deliberately inclusive rather than exhaustive in that regard. Subsection (1) states:

“‘Flood’ includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.”

Subsection (2) continues:

“It does not matter for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a flood is caused by—

(a) heavy rainfall,

(b) a river overflowing or its banks being breached,

(c) a dam overflowing or being breached,

(d) tidal waters, or

(e) any other event”—

and importantly—

“(or combination of events).”

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On that point, does the Minister recognise that land being covered for a period each day would probably be too frequent an occurrence for the definition? I am thinking of tidal water. However, if that happened once a month or so, it would be a less than normal, but regular occurrence. In some cases it would happen less frequently than a regular tide, but sufficiently frequently for it to be noticeable.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I want to studiously avoid the necessity to define regularity or infrequency of flooding in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why. We have water-meadows that flood frequently as part of natural processes, and within local areas it is recognised that they do that. In other areas, there might be seasonal flooding. Twice a year the Burry estuary in south Wales—my own area—has high river tides, and if they correspond with high spring and neap tides we have flooding. The Welsh salt-marsh lamb that is produced on the marshes there is a benefit of that wonderful pastureland, which floods not only fairly regularly, but twice a year at a high level.

Let me explain where the definition comes from. It is important to say that it is inclusive rather than exhaustive. We do not want to get into the business of trying to define exactly what we mean by normal or regular and so on, because this is where the work on the ground goes on and where the national strategy link to the local implementation of plans matters. The definition is consistent with EU directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, and with existing practice. I remind Members what the definition in that directive is:

“‘flood’ means the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water. This shall include floods from rivers, mountain torrents, Mediterranean ephemeral water courses,”—

I appreciate that we do not have many of those in this country—

“and floods from the sea in coastal areas, and may exclude floods from sewerage systems”.

Let me go on, because it is helpful to explain this in the round. It is recognised that relevant authorities may also need to manage water below ground for agricultural or environmental purposes, as Committee members have said. Drainage for agricultural and other reasons is covered already by the Land Drainage Act 1991 and will be permitted for environmental reasons by the environmental clauses 38 and 39.

I have mentioned that the definition we are talking about is inclusive. Putting it in straight terms, it does not exclude water below ground level. Anything within that definition that contributes to a flood event is included in it, including ground water. Damage to property, which we will discuss in respect of infrastructure and so on, begins at 300 mm below floor level, not at ground water level. Just to reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, secondary flooding is covered in the definition, as are any other aspects of flooding in that definition.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

If it is included, it seems sensible to put it in the Bill.

A few moments ago, the Minister mentioned, or questioned, our having a high water table in Tewkesbury, for example, where the Severn and the Avon meet, although I do not think he was suggesting that because it floods regularly it should not be considered a flood.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Would he accept that that is flooding?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the context of the explanation that I have just given and the definitions that I have mentioned, and my remarks at this point, it is clear that what we mean by “flooding” is anything that contributes to a flooding event, whether that is ground water or another eventuality. I will come to the sewerage issue in a moment, because that is important in respect of the hon. Member for Cheltenham’s asking why we have excluded that and brought it back in as part of the Bill—because it ties into the definition.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think that there is confusion in respect of land not normally covered by water, and the Minister is persisting with that in his response. I am not talking about ground water, although I take the point made about it. There is a discrepancy between the 300 mm that will result in damage to property and the 500 mm, which will result in damage to vegetation. That is why we have come up with the formula to recognise the fact that it is not just about what is covering the land—that is where the definition is defective—but about what is below land as well. The Minister is not addressing that point in his remarks.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I think I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. I will return to the point about the detail in respect of the 300 mm and the 500 mm, but it is important to put that in context of the definition of “flooding” being inclusive, so any aspect in terms of this definition would be covered.

Martin Horwoodrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I turn now to the hon. Gentleman’s points, because doing so might address some of the issues that he mentioned. Then I will be happy to take an intervention.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned what a flood is and how we would recognise it if it was coming towards us, and the aspect of what is not normally covered by water. Just to clarify that, it does not have to be rare or a freak event. We are certainly seeing such events more frequently now and we recognise that they are naturally occurring events that are happening more often. We will return to the matter of working with nature, as the hon. Gentleman commented earlier, on discussions of subsequent amendments, because we want that to happen in all aspects of the Bill.

The question of whose flood water it is—as asked by somebody who faces a flood incident—is the focus of the Bill. Let me turn to the detail of amendments 82 to 84, tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, which would amend the definition of “flooding” to include ground water and surface water from any source, as well as removing the exclusions for flooding from sewers not caused by rainwater and burst water mains.

The exclusions included for sewer flooding not caused by rainfall and burst water mains are there because those things are covered by existing legislation, principally sections 37 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and are best managed independently of other flood risks, since they relate only to the water and sewerage networks. That needs to be put in the context of what I said previously—I will return to it in a moment—which is that any flooding event with a contributing factor comes into it. I will explain why the exemptions issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is important.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me finish the point. To include those sources of flooding within the definition of flooding in the Bill would involve unnecessarily a much wider range of authorities in these matters and could impose significant burdens.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have some sympathy with the concern that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has about flooding from sewerage being excluded. Pitt made it clear that this was to be a unifying Act, bringing together all the legislation. The Committee is united in that ambition. If we are amending other aspects of the Acts that have been referred to, why cannot we bring those Acts into this legislation? I think all Committee members would agree on that. It would then be much simpler for anybody inside or outside this House to understand what “flood” means. If a house is inundated with sewage, it causes a lot more damage, there are public health consequences and it takes longer before people can return to their home.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I think it might be logical for me to speak at this point. There seem to be two logical problems with what the Minister is saying. It is not clear what he is saying about ground water. He may be saying that ground water becomes a flood only when it reaches the surface and covers land, even if it has originated from underneath, but that seems to contradict definitions later in the Bill. The definition in clause 6(4) is:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.”

In clause 10(2), ground water—that is water below the surface, as defined in clause 6—

is one of the flood risks that must be included in local flood risk management strategies. By a process of elimination, that means that we must have ground water causing flood risk from below the surface. There is clearly enough confusion about this for us to want to clarify it with amendment 131 or amendment 82. It already appears to be an area that lawyers will try to decide on subsequently. They will pore through the Minister’s remarks in this Committee as evidence of what the Bill means. It would be much simpler to accept one of the amendments.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is an extremely long intervention already.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

On the back of those two interventions, I will reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York first. The Pitt recommendations were clear. He requested a unified law on floods, not on all water matters. The Bill therefore does not deliver unified legislation on all water matters, but it does on floods. We have made it clear that we want to see consolidation following from the Bill. This is a short-Session Bill and it is not possible to deal with all matters now. We have the capacity to manage the water and sewer works separately, but within the Bill, water companies are one of the risk management authorities. They therefore have to have regard to the planning of risk management for flooding in their area and to do with their assets.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Will the Minister briefly give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have not yet responded to the hon. Gentleman’s original points. Perhaps he would like to intervene when I have done so.

On exemptions, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause floods by collapsing or being blocked because such eventualities are catered for in other legislation. We add sewers back because we want the legislation to include them if the flood is not because of a failure of infrastructure, but because rainwater has overwhelmed a sewer. That is the rationale behind the definitions for sewer and ground water. Pitt was clear that anything within the definition of flooding should be included; that includes ground water. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about ground water, but I have made it clear that ground water is a source of flooding when it rises above the ground and causes and contributes to a flooding incident. It needs managing, and that is catered for in clause 10.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That is absolutely not the definition in clause 6(4), which states:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground”.

We are talking not about ground water that has risen above surface level, but about ground water still below the surface of the ground. Surely that must be included, and that is the very reason for us tabling the amendments.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We may be dancing on the head of a pin, in the sense that that definition is, as I said in my opening remarks, inclusive. Where ground water contributes to flooding, or where a sewerage incident contributes to flooding, with the horrendous situation of sewage coming into someone’s house after a flooding incident, those aspects are covered. The hon. Gentleman wants to specify ground water within that. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but it is not actually necessary. Even though I am tempted, as a legislator, always to bolt everything we can into Bills, it is not actually necessary in this case.

I want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York about the difference between the 300 mm and 500 mm and how that relates to damage to property and crops. The 300 mm, as she knows, relates to ground level for damage to property, and the 500 mm relates to below ground for damage to crops. Different assets, by their very nature, will be affected by water at different depths. It is not possible to set a specific, universal threshold for all damage, which could be considered as part of the current definition. There are, as she has said, different levels for different assets.

On a technical point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, the definition of flood clarifies that the various causes of flood listed are covered. I heard what he said about the ground water in clause 6, but I think my remarks make it clear that, in clause 1, anything that contributes to that flooding event is covered. The amendment that would add to the list “source of flood” is unnecessary, as flood retains its natural meaning in the definition as drafted. A flood is a flood, whatever its source may be. I could not be clearer on that. I mentioned which floods are not caused by rainfall, and that could be the collapse of a sewer, for example. If that contributes to an overall flooding event, however, it is within the definition of the Bill.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

In that case, I press the Minister for an absolutely definitive reply—yes or no—to the following question: is ground water below the surface of the ground, as in clause 6 and amendment 131, included in the definition of a flood or not?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes; I can absolutely give the clarity that ground water, when it is in situation, is by necessity as defined in clause 6. Where that contributes to a flooding incident, as defined in clause 1, it is clearly a factor to be taken into account, so it is quite clear that ground water is indeed part of the definition where it contributes to a flood event that includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, as set out in the subsequent subsections in clause 1.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am trying to help the Minister, because I am not talking about ground water. I am talking about the Bill encompassing within the definition waterlogging or saturation of soils. Around 65 per cent. of the Vale of York probably falls within the definition that he so eloquently put in his initial response, but with respect to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, that is not the point I am raising. I am raising the fact that the present definition is defective because I would wish it to cover waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level. So, I am trying to help him.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In my introductory remarks, I made it clear that amendment 131 would have the result of expanding the definition of flooding to include areas with water below the surface, as the hon. Lady has just remarked. However, the amendment could actually have the result of extending the Bill quite considerably, so that areas with a high water table would be considered to be flooded. It cannot simply relate to a high water table as opposed to where a high water table contributes to an event of flooding, which is where this definition is focused. Those are two quite different approaches. Pitt’s recommendations were clear in focusing on flooding as opposed to all water management, which is what this definition tries to deal with.

I now turn to the amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I hear what he is saying, but I would be reluctant to add something to the Bill that I do not think needs to be in there, because the definition does, indeed, encompass the matter. Let me take the proposal away, have a look at it and see whether it would do any harm to the Bill—to be honest, I do not think it would do harm, but I do not think it needs to be in the legislation. Let me take the matter away, consider it and see what I can bring back subsequently, because I think we are arguing for exactly the same thing: that where ground water contributes to a flooding eventuality it should be in the Bill. I am arguing that that is clearly in the legislation, but for the purposes of putting it beyond any doubt whatsoever, let me go away and have a look at the matter and see if we can do what he asks. I am not averse to that.

As regards the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, if waterlogging is part of flooding, it is included in the Bill and there is no need to have any amendment on it. If the waterlogging is not linked to water on the surface, it is not flooding—in other words, it is not included. Just to make it clear: if someone has secondary flooding or basements are being flooded that is part of this definition. However, the simple waterlogging of soil is not part of this definition; it is where it contributes to a flooding event.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving that explanation, which is now clear. Does he not accept that if the water is resting just below the surface it might, for example, be unsuitable to build on that land? The matter is important because there may be a number of planning applications or, indeed, appeals that revert back to this legislation to determine what a flood area is. It is very important that we get this right. Does he accept—I do not think he does—that water resting just below the surface could constitute flooding? I do not think he accepts that, and that worries me.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No. Water below the surface of itself does not constitute flooding as it is described in the European definitions or the definitions in the Bill. I think I have made it clear that a high water table can itself contribute to a flooding event. That falls within the definition in relation to, for example, flooding of a basement, secondary flooding and things such as that. We will return to the issues surrounding planning later within subsequent amendments and that will be a good debate to have. I have made it clear that I am quite sympathetic to both points that have been raised, but let me take the matter away to consider and see whether we can bring something forward subsequently, because we are aiming to do exactly the same thing.

There is not a necessity to go further in the way that the hon. Lady is suggesting because it would extend the scope of the Bill considerably. However, just to make it clear, in asking the hon. Members for Vale of York, for Upminster, for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press their amendments, I am sympathetic to what they are saying. I think we have dealt with the matter already, but I am particularly happy to take away the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and have a look at it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I would just push something a little further to see whether we get an agreement. The water below the surface does not emerge—obviously—as long as it remains below the surface. The problem is, once we build on the land, the water does emerge and the area floods. Am I correct in saying that it is not a flood today but it may be a flood tomorrow?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is a speech. The Minister has already sat down.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am pleased by what the Minister said and am grateful that he will go away and look at the issue seriously. The fact that we have ended up debating it in such detail suggests that there is a bit of a problem with the definition. Both amendments, although not addressing identical issues, are on similar territory.

In closing, I would like to press the Minister for a reply on one of the other issues that I raised, relating to amendment 84. Why, in subsection (3), is there a qualification to flooding from a sewerage system—

“unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater”—

that does not then apply to a burst water main? I take the Minister’s point that he thinks the Water Industry Act and other legislation covers the issue but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said, the whole point of the legislation was that it was supposed to be comprehensive. Water companies are flood risk management authorities, according to the later definition in the Bill, so burst water mains should surely come well within the competence of the Bill. We should be able to have either the exemptions recommended in amendment 84 or the same qualification as in paragraph (b).

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

As I mentioned before, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause the flood because they may collapse or be blocked and discharge surface foul water as a result of such an eventuality. We add them back—this is pertinent to the discussion we have just had—because if the flood from the sewer is not caused by the failure of infrastructure but by the volume of rainwater overwhelming the sewer and contributing to the flood event, we want to include such an eventuality. That is why we do that. However, amendment 84 refers to a burst water main not caused by the flood events and we are trying to exclude that aspect. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and clarify exactly why we have included the one and not the other.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am not quite satisfied with that answer. If the same qualification applies, why is that not in the Bill? Why is the same wording as in paragraph (a) not in paragraph (b)? Why have we done it that way round and not put in the words that the Minister has just used, about the exclusions being from flooding caused by structural failures? A burst water main is, by definition, a structural failure, but the question is what has caused it—is it dilapidation or is it, as in the regular case I referred to in my constituency, the usual cause of heavy rainfall, which seems to be excluded from the Bill? At the moment, I am afraid I wish to press amendment 84 to a vote, although I am happy not to press the other amendments.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply. However, although I do not intend to press many amendments to a vote, I would like to persist with my amendment. The reasons are simple. Recommendation 28 of Pitt clearly stated:

“The forthcoming flooding legislation should be a single unifying Act that addresses all sources of flooding, clarifies responsibilities and facilitates flood risk management.”

In the December progress report on the Government’s response to the Pitt review, the Government stated that the definition lies within that part of the progress they wish to fall within the Bill.

My reason for pressing the amendment to a vote, in spite of what the Minister said, is that although I take his point on secondary flooding and the high water table, I think he failed to grasp the point of excluding such damage, particularly to crops. He failed to recognise that any definition of flooding has consequences. Leaving that out of the definition and not supporting the amendment will have serious consequences for farming and the farming community. On that basis, I press the amendment to a vote.

Clause 2

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after ‘infrastructure’ insert ‘(above and below ground)’.

I wish to make some brief remarks on the amendment and to have a short clause stand part debate. The amendment is meant to help the Minister and the Committee by providing clarity. Notwithstanding the definition of ground water, I believe that the Bill is defective in not referring to infrastructure above and below ground.

The Minister heard the arguments that were put in relation to amendment 131, and the arguments for amendment 132 are similar. I think that the arguments relating to property—dwellings and road or rail infrastructure—are well understood. I have a particular concern, as do other hon. Members, regarding saturation of the ground and the effects of waterlogging on crops and farmland.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

In relation to clause 2 in general, I have two questions about the risk-based approach. It seems to run the risk, if that is the appropriate word, of us moving to a slightly outdated approach to flooding—an approach that is not about water management and the management of natural processes, but an approach in which we seek to avoid supposedly strange and extreme events. We are talking about moving to an approach that is not just about erecting defences, but about preventing harm in a more holistic and sustainable way, not least because the whole idea of using probability seems to be getting a little doubtful these days.

My hon. neighbours from Gloucestershire will remember that we were told in June 2007 that we had experienced a once-in-80-years flood event—one with a low chance of recurring. We all looked forward to 79 years of flood-free existence. I know that that is not quite how probability theory works, but it certainly did not work that way for us, because four weeks later we were flooded again with a once-in-100-years flood.

Floods are increasing in frequency and—I hope this is not completely bizarre—we are expecting climate change to result in once-in-100-year flood events, of the sort that we experienced recently, happening perhaps once every three years by the end of the century. The definition of probability is clearly becoming rather difficult to manage. Perhaps we should take a fundamentally different approach. Will the Minister comment on the use of probability and risk as the basis for planning?

Amendment 132 seems to be an echo of amendment 131. Although I am sympathetic to it, if the hon. Lady is right that it does not deal with the kind of flooding that I am talking about, I would share the Minister’s concern that it may unduly expand the scope of the Bill in an impracticable way, so we probably will not support it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

May I answer in reverse order? It might help if I explained the overall contents of the clause before I turned to the hon. Lady’s amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. I think that the hon. Lady has it in mind to speak separately on clause stand part. It would help if the Minister replied on the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chope.

I turn directly to the amendment. It would extend the definition of “infrastructure” in clause 2 so that it would state

“infrastructure above and below ground”.

The clause defines risk, and it lists infrastructure as one of the things that must be considered when assessing risk and the consequences of risk. The definition does not exclude consideration of risk to infrastructure that is underground or partly underground. I wish to avoid introducing anything into the Bill that could increase confusion; for example, we would wish to avoid seeking to quantify the depth that is applicable, as that could vary considerably from case to case.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government acknowledge that sustained saturation of the ground can cause damage even if water does not rise above the surface. It is recognised that the management of ground water levels can contribute to the management of water on the surface. Indeed, the Land Drainage Act 1991 already deals with drainage.

The matter was raised in evidence by Dr. Jean Venables of the Association of Drainage Authorities, someone whom I meet regularly. That body represents internal drainage boards, and Jean is a pre-eminent expert in water level management. Dr. Venables explained that flood damage occurs not only because of water on the surface, but because water within a certain depth of the ground can damage infrastructure, such as roads, railways, properties and foundations. The ADA, the association that Dr. Venables represents, sought assurances that the terminology in the Bill would not affect existing practice. I absolutely and categorically give that assurance, to Members and to all who read of our debate.

I reassure the House that I do not expect existing good practice to be hampered by the Bill. For example, nothing in the Bill should hamper the excellent work done by the internal drainage boards. The Bill is designed to ensure that all forms of flood risk are considered in as joined-up a fashion as possible. The issue is pertinent, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Vale of York that it could be picked up in guidance, alongside consideration of the definition of flooding, as such guidance could cover the matter in more detail. That will ensure that the intended effect is not lost, and that clear advice that it would not be appropriate to include in the legislation is offered to authorities.

Mr. Chope, do you want me to address the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham raised about risk?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is kind of the Minister to ask. The hon. Member for Cheltenham put that issue forward in what he thought was a stand part debate, so it would be better if the Minister could reserve his response until we have that debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In that case, with those clear reassurances, including on the necessity of looking at the matter in guidance, on which we would consult all people—Committee members, the ADA and others—I ask that the hon. Member for Vale of York, who has rightly explored the matter, withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister, especially as I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, as I am sure that he is aware. I invite all members of the Committee to come and visit the internal drainage boards in either Yorkshire or East Anglia—although perhaps not this week or next week—to see the excellent work that they do.

I have one remaining question. The Government—not necessarily this Minister—have a terrible habit of promising to introduce guidance and then doing nothing. Does the Minister care to give us a time frame in which he imagines that the guidance might reach members of the Committee? It would be marvellous if I were allowed to take it home to read tonight.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We anticipate introducing the guidance in the autumn. I know that “the autumn” is a nebulous term, but it will be in the autumn, and there will be a proper period of consultation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Whether this Minister or another introduces the guidance, that assurance is very welcome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to have the opportunity to consider clause 2 in more depth. Most Bills have, I think, one regulatory impact assessment, but rather confusingly, this Bill seems to have attracted at least six—I have lost count. One in particular relates to clause 2. In clause 2(2) there is the definition:

“‘Flood risk’ means a risk in respect of flood.”

At the moment, I am sure that we would all accept that the strongest risk of flood is the likelihood of flooding as the snow and ice melt. I would like to question the Minister on aspects of costs, and on who might be expected to pick up the costs that flow from the aspect of risk. We are talking in terms of a combination of the probability of the occurrence and its potential consequences. I assume that for insurance and scientific purposes, the Minister is looking particularly at climate change and at what we can learn in that regard.

On page 7 of the regulatory impact assessment relating to the new definition of flood and coastal erosion risk management, we are told that coastal erosion risk and coastal flood risk are closely interrelated, and that there is a strong rationale for considering the two issues together when decisions are taken about the management of flooding and erosion. The information on page 8 of that assessment says that using a valuation methodology promoted by DEFRA’s ecosystem approach, which is based on the value of goods and services provided by habitats to human welfare, values for the types of coastal and wetland habitats that might be typically created through flood and erosion management range from £200 to £6,350 per hectare per year, with typical mid-range indicative values of £800 to £2,750.

Those values include carbon storage, pollution control functions, contributions to fisheries and recreational benefits. We are further told that the typical whole-life costs of creating such wetland habitats range from £15,000 to £124,000 per hectare per 1,000 years, but we are told that those benefits might include or be additional to any functional benefit that the habitat provides in reducing flood risk.

I am very taken by the idea of reducing risk, particularly as I believe that we will have only a limited budget for the physical defence structures, and there are currently some funds available for limiting risk from various heads of EU funds. If the risk is to be reduced and wetlands are to be created in that way, will the Minister explain how the costs are to be met? I assume that the costs that I have just read out—the minimum is £200, but they may be more than £6,000—will fall to individual farmers and landowners. Those are obviously mind-boggling figures. They are very large sums of money indeed. Where are people meant to find that kind of money?

Clause 2(4) refers to the consequences of flooding for

“human health...the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities...infrastructure, and...the environment (including cultural heritage).”

Would the Minister expand a little on those, as the explanatory notes do not say a great deal about them? I know that the list is not meant to be exhaustive, but with regard to cultural heritage in particular, what other potential harmful consequences is the Department likely to bear in mind when assessing risk?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will first deal with the overall approach to risk, which ties together the contributions that have just been made. The clause defines risk as

“the combination of the probability of an occurrence with its potential consequences.”

It defines “flood risk” as

“a risk in respect of flood”,

and “coastal erosion risk” as

“a risk in respect of coastal erosion.”

It sets out the harmful consequences to be considered in assessing those risks, but that list, to be clear, is not exhaustive.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly raised the issue of figures such as one in 75 or 80 years, or one in 100 or 200 years, being bandied about; we are seeing that happen again, even post-Cumbria. It is interesting to discuss whether that is the right formula to present to the public. If we say to a member of the public, “This is a one-in-100-year eventuality”—those are terms that we use—they would rightly say, “Well, we now have a few years until it happens again,” yet probability, of course, means that such events could happen in a series of years. If we said to someone that the risk that they will be rained on when they go out their door is one in 50, they would take a rain coat with them just in case. We need to find a better way of explaining the risk to the pubic.

I turn now to why we use the risk-based approach, the probability approach and the “one in x years” terminology. In recent years, most professionals involved in flood and coastal erosion risk management have stopped using the return period terminology that we are talking about. They refer instead to the annual probability—the chance of an event happening. Climate change will undoubtedly affect the standard of protection provided by a scheme, and where a probability is quoted, it is generally for the end of the expected lifetime of any scheme, taking account of climate change.

It is worth pointing out that both DEFRA and the Environment Agency—the hon. Member for Vale of York might want to comment on this point—are currently working on updated guidance. They constantly keep that under review to take account of the projections published in the summer. Initial findings show that the existing guidance is broadly accurate, as a representation of likely future change, but we have to keep that under review.

We must consider how we publicly present what the probabilities mean. The list in subsection (4) is not exhaustive or limiting, but it is intended to illustrate the broad range of impacts of flooding that might typically be considered. Further guidance on assessment of risk and appraisal projects will be provided to accompany the national strategies for England and Wales. There will be an opportunity to feed into that revision as we introduce the national strategies.

I want to refer to aspects of cultural heritage. I do not want to be exhaustive because I am not a Minister from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but broadly speaking, we see it as referring to examples such as historic sites, which would benefit from improved defences whatever form those defences might take. There might also be recreational benefits.

The impact assessments we carry out on the defences we need and on our responses to flooding and coastal inundation put prices on economic impact and identify the costs to be funded. I am happy to explain the technical detail of how we reach our conclusions.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked who would meet the costs of flooding. Let me make it clear that the costs will always be met by Government when they are delivered as part of a flood management programme. We have made it clear that we want to see local innovation and input as well. In some of the pilots we have launched over the past six months, we said that we want to see local initiatives and ideas because they can add value to the national approach.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The point about the one in x years terminology is that it is not only rather misleading—we saw an extreme example in Gloucestershire when there was a return not in a year or two but in weeks—but increasingly unreliable, not least because it is based on historical data. When the baseline on which the historical data are calculated is shifting and changing because of climate change, surely there is a need for a different kind of approach.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that point, so perhaps he could write to me with any ideas he has. We constantly keep the matter under review, and we also consider what is happening with climate change and what it means for the probability and likelihood of flooding events as well. The current review shows that the broad analysis is correct at the moment, but we must keep the matter constantly under review. There is an opportunity for Committee members and others to have an input in the process as we take it forward to sit alongside the national strategy.

Clause 3

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, before ‘maintaining’ insert ‘re-instating’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 39, line 35, after ‘of’, insert ‘re-instating’.

Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 40, line 44, after ‘of’, insert ‘re-instating’.

Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 46, line 3, after ‘of’, insert ‘re-instating’.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6 all serve the same purpose and underline an opportunity to improve land and water management at the same time as reducing the risk of flooding. The importance of the word “re-instating” as opposed to “restoring” was explained to me by the Woodland Trust. It said that if someone is to restore an historic oil painting, they work on the original, repairing damage. If they are to reinstate an historic oil painting, it implies that the original is lost or destroyed and they need to create a new version that is the equivalent of the lost one. The concepts, therefore, are different.

It would be nice to see the possibility of reinstatement included in the Bill. The best example is woodland recreation, which comes from the Woodland Trust. It points out that woodland is more effective at retaining water than other kinds of landscape, such as grassland, and that it can lead to a 10 to 20 per cent. reduction in flooding. Woodland delays the flow of flood waters downhill to the flood plain and so reduces flooding and harm to properties and structures on the flood plain.

Woodland obviously has other benefits; it prevents soil erosion and can be a source of sustainable biomass. It is therefore a genuinely sustainable energy source. That is an example of how good water management can tie in with good management of the landscape, a positive approach to biodiversity and so on.

Woodland is only one example of things that could be reinstated. I imagine that it would take a long time to reinstate peat bog, but there are other opportunities, such as natural wetlands and river banks. Whole water channels could be reinstated. This is a good opportunity to reinforce the possible ecological credentials of the Bill and to set out the Government’s firm intention—I think it was set out in their water strategy, “Making Space for Water,” and reinforced by the organisation Blueprint for Water—to work with nature and the landscape to seek opportunities to meet other environmental objectives alongside the simple one of reducing flood risk.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

It is always a delight to serve under your astute chairmanship, Mr. Chope—I hope that in the future we can at least warm up a bit. I want to raise one simple point and I use this group of amendments to take that opportunity. The matter is something about which other colleagues and I have been asking for some time. We are fortunate to have a DEFRA Minister leading on the Bill, as I wish to ask whether we can use the single farm payment more effectively to do the sort of things the hon. Member for Cheltenham has mentioned about landowners having a reasoned approach and being willing to allow their land to flood deliberately or being encouraged to use their land in such a way that we can restore wetlands or develop natural balancing tanks. I am concerned that we are spending all this time on legislation when the real changes we want to see relate to the implications of using existing policies more effectively.

I would like to hear from the Minister on that because, certainly in terms of coastal flooding, there are good examples of single farm payments supporting landowners who face the reality that their land will sometimes be unusable because it will flood. Such an approach protects property or other land that seems to be more valuable. I hope the Minister will say something about that when he sums up and that he will say how the legislation will encourage and catalyse the sort of things that the EFRA Committee has long been arguing for, as he knows. Although it has not just been me who has argued for such things, I was one of the instigators, as he will no doubt remember.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I welcome this debate, because it is important and it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the fact that we consider the cause of reinstatement a valuable contribution of the Bill, and to explain why it can be delivered within the clauses we have at present. We too want the matter to be dealt with—let me be categorical about that.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and his colleague have tabled a series of amendments that affect provisions where the Bill lists things that might be done in the course of flood or coastal erosion risk management. The amendments would affect subsection (3)(b) in clause 3 and paragraphs 24, 29 and 47 of schedule 2. The schedule amends other Acts, which means that the amendments would affect the definition of risk management not only in this Bill, but in the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991.

The phrase

“maintaining or restoring natural processes”

is in the Bill and each of the Acts as an example of a thing that may be done as part of risk management. The amendment would add the word “re-instating” in each instance, so that the phrase is changed to read, “re-instating, maintaining or restoring natural processes”. In each instance, the list is intended to provide illustrative examples of things that may be done; it is not an exhaustive catalogue of things that are permitted.

I am happy to agree that re-instating natural processes might usefully be done in the course of managing flood and erosion risk. Let me give one example, because we are not waiting for the Bill to get on with it. Following the Pitt review, a working group was formed, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England, our principal adviser, to look at shoreline management plans and to ensure that, wherever possible, natural processes were given careful consideration as the way forward. We are already going along these lines, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham knows.

The amendment is not necessary because the Bill, as currently drafted, already allows natural processes to be reinstated, and we would want that to happen where appropriate. Inserting the word “re-instating” would have no useful direct effect. For all intents and purposes, I can confirm that “re-instating” is synonymous with “restoring”. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press the amendment, because the Bill already enables the function that the amendment seeks to be carried out.

Let me turn to a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has raised previously in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House. What we do with a combination of payments to farmers, whether through single farm payments, the uplands changing landscape scheme, or other stewardship schemes, is important because of the contribution that such things can make to wider land management issues, including flood risk management. When walking on top of the Plynlimon hills in Wales, the source of the Wye and the Severn, it is possible to see what can be done up there in terms of allowing the land to be rewetted—not with the Woodland Trust in this instance, but with the Wildlife Trust, with which I have been up on those hills—thereby contributing significantly to the management of flood risk further down. Our incentives in respect of uplands stewardship schemes can recognise that, which is important. We seek to do more in that regard, working with farmers and landowners.

We regard reinstating as important and we are moving ahead with it in practice. The word “restoring”, as used in the Bill, gives the opportunity for reinstating as well. I hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham will ask leave to withdraw the amendment, which has been useful in allowing us to probe the Government’s intention and that of our agencies in interpreting the clause. Reinstatement is important for the way forward.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks and accept them in the spirit in which they are intended. There is slight frustration in Bill Committees because, occasionally, we come across amendments that seem to be well enough drafted and are accepted by all parties but the Government seem incapable of going through the mental process of accepting them, even though it might help and put things beyond doubt if they accepted an Opposition amendment as drafted just once in a while. Doing so would be good for their soul.

Anyway, on this occasion the Minister has been explicit and said that he accepts that reinstatement is within the remit of flood risk management work, as set out in the Bill. I hope that explicit statement is enough and that in future someone making a grant application for a reinstatement scheme is not told by a grant-making body that their scheme does not fall within the scope of the Bill. That would be the practical result of not making such things clear enough. I optimistically hope that will not be so, but look forward to quoting the Minister’s remarks in Committee, should that eventuality ever arise.

I am happy not to press the amendment to a vote and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

‘(da) managing the use of land, natural habitats, woodland and other natural landscape features with the result of reducing flood risk or reducing erosion,’

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 1, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out ‘objectives’ and insert

‘landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation.’.

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, leave out ‘objectives’ and insert

‘landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation.’.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Amendment 85 would insert into the list of things that can be done in the cause of flood or coastal erosion risk management a more specific approach to managing the natural landscape on a landscape scale. That is on a similar theme to other amendments we have discussed. It would include

“managing the use of land, natural habitats, woodland and other natural landscape features with the result of reducing flood risk or reducing erosion”.

It is interesting to note the use of the word “result” rather than “aim”. The aim in most cases of good land use and the management of natural habitats is not reducing flood risk, but a wider environmental objective such as the increase of biodiversity or the provision of a pleasant landscape in which people can enjoy recreation.

This is another opportunity to reinforce the use of the natural landscape as a means of reducing risk in an holistic and sustainable way. It is not just waterways in the landscape that are seen to have an impact; water passes through the whole landscape. Therefore, land use in general can have an impact. Woodlands are one example and agricultural land is another. Such uses should all be recognised explicitly as contributing to the management of flood risk.

Amendment 1 would do a similar job, but it leaves out the vague terminology of clause 7 and includes

“landscape scale objectives, including how the strategy will protect biodiversity, semi-natural habitats and encourage native woodland creation.”

There is a slight risk that other environmental objectives of the kind referred to in passing in clause 7(2)(j) are often these days reduced to CO2 emissions and that we think only of climate change. However, it is important to set out other possible environmental objectives. We have tried to expand on that provision to define what such landscape scale objectives might be. They could be to protect biodiversity and semi-natural habitats such as hedgerows and native woodlands, or to encourage native woodland creation.

I am grateful to the Woodland Trust for advising us on the amendment. It pointed out:

“Individual tree planting and woodland creation is a crucial component of landscape scale action. In relation to water management these new woods could mitigate flooding whilst contributing to wider environmental objectives. Indeed, the evidence shows that woodland creation alleviates flooding and reduces flood risk whilst conferring a range of other benefits to the environment and landowner. For small floods, woodland has a greater flooding reduction effect than other habitats such as grassland. Modelling also suggests that woodland can mitigate large flood events on floodplains by absorbing and delaying flood flows...

Certain simple amendments to the Flood and Water Management Bill could help ensure that landscape scale opportunities are scoped and implemented in the future. The Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management strategies could encourage government—national, regional and local—and its agencies to investigate the opportunities for landscape scale actions such as native woodland creation and the protection of semi-natural habitats.”

The use of the phrase “landscape scale” is significant because much of what comes under the Bill, particularly the provisions on local flood risk management strategies, is reduced to local authority areas. Some existing planning law, such as PPS25 with which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and others will be familiar, narrows down the consideration even further to individual sites. That makes it difficult to look at the landscape as a whole and at the opportunities for managing water in it. One of our objectives in discussing the Bill is to try to broaden its scope at planning level to look at the whole landscape and the way in which it treats water. This is an important amendment and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to it. Amendment 2 was tabled on exactly the same basis and does the same thing to clause 8, which refers to Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I do not automatically resist all amendments; I hope that I will show that as the Committee progresses. I will listen to all hon. Members, and we will explore where I think there is a good legislative opportunity. Let me also turn that on its head and say that, sometimes, I will try to explain why legislation may not be necessary. I am a pragmatic and sometimes reluctant legislator. If we can clearly address issues within the legislation available, maybe the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.

May I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire and to the Woodland Trust for inspiring debate on this important issue? The amendments are interesting and would strongly direct the national strategy towards emphasising the protection of biodiversity, the saving of natural habitats and the creation of native woodland. I acknowledge that there are strong links and, in some cases, critical dependencies between the way in which we manage flood and erosion risk and the state of some aspects of the natural environment. That is absolutely clear. Indeed, flood and coastal erosion risk management has had, and continues to have, a profound impact on the biological and geological diversity of coastal, river and wetland environments. I also acknowledge that the creation and protection of semi-natural habitats and woodlands can have clear flood management benefits. In that respect, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham seeks to achieve with the amendments. I will, however, explain why it is not necessary to accept them.

The aspects of the natural environment that the amendments focus on are not the whole picture. In fact, there could be more. Clause 3(3) lists

“examples of things that might be done in the course of flood...management”.

It is therefore an illustrative list of examples. It is not meant to be an exhaustive catalogue of things that are permitted. Furthermore, if I accepted the amendments, there could be unnecessary duplication with maintaining or restoring natural processes, which is already on the list in clause 3(3)(b).

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The distinction is between a process and a feature. Land use and the management of natural landscape features are not necessarily the same as managing a process.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed, I understand the distinction, but let me explain further. The hon. Gentleman touched on the desirability of working at landscape scales as well as simply building defences, and on the need to contribute to sustainability and environmental objectives; we fully agree. However, the need to contribute to sustainability through flood and erosion risk management functions is already covered by clause 27, which centres on sustainable development. For the record, clause 27(1) notes that

“an authority listed in subsection (3) must aim to make a contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development.”

Moreover, section 4 of the Environment Act 1995, centring on the aims and objectives of the Environment Agency, also covers the issue.

Such matters, and the desirability of using natural habitats and landscape features, will be better reinforced by the guidance that will result from the Bill rather than by their inclusion in the Bill itself. It already has them bolted down, but we also need to introduce the guidance, which will provide an opportunity to flesh out, much more than the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would, the sort of possibilities that we envisage. For example, I would expect objectives for water quality and the historic environment, including creation of woodland. One of the best days that I had last summer, going into the autumn, was with the Woodland Trust, looking at and searching for ancient trees with its volunteers—that is part of our cultural and historic environment as well. I would expect such things to be given due consideration in the national strategy.

Furthermore, while I would expect the strategy to address what contribution flood and erosion risk management might make to creating and restoring natural habitats where appropriate, I would not want to single out native woodland over and above, say, wetlands or coastal habitats, which might even have a more direct connection in certain areas with how flooding and erosion is managed. We need to think wider, which is where the guidance gives us the opportunity. Through the guidance we—the loyal rather than the royal “we”, including the Committee—can be more specific in steering the types of contributions that the flood and erosion risk management strategy might make to achieving wider environmental objectives. I suspect that is what hon. Members are trying to tease out and what the Woodland Trust is trying to get at.

There are bound to be strong links between the management of flood and erosion risk and environmental objectives for the foreseeable future. However, we cannot foresee all details or all priorities, so it is better to keep the requirement on the face of the Bill to specify how the strategy should contribute to the achievement of the wider environmental objectives without specifying here and now what could be a narrower set of objectives. I have expressed my great sympathy with the objectives of the proposers of the amendment and illustrated how we can deal with such objectives. For all those reasons I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I must admit that I am not entirely sure I follow the ministerial logic. If the list is explicitly not exhaustive, as he stressed, I do not see how adding to it can limit it—that may be a logical discussion to be had elsewhere.

I accept from the Minister’s remarks, which were positive about landscape scale objectives and the management of natural features as well as processes, that the Government’s heart seems to be in the right place. I slightly regret that they do not feel able to make that explicit in the Bill, but perhaps we shall have to return to the specific definition of “sustainable development” to which he referred. The Sustainable Development Commission has at times been rather frustrated with the way in which the objectives of sustainable development have been mangled by various Departments—I am sure his is not one of them. Given the good intentions expressed, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, after ‘information’, insert ‘to all interested parties’.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 91, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

‘(ea) how the strategy and risk management functions are to be communicated with a view to providing a single communication route for all members of the public concerned about flooding,’.

New clause 14—No automatic connection to waste water pipes for major new developments—

‘(1) There shall be no connection to waste water pipes or drains granted until—

(a) water companies have been consulted on the capacity of the existing system to manage the extra demands from new properties;

(b) water companies have conducted a detailed assessment of the likely extra demand and the capacity of the existing system to handle it;

(c) financial responsibility for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned, and

(d) formal planning permission has been given.’.

New clause 15—Water companies to be statutory consultees—

‘(1) The relevant planning authority for all major new developments must consult equally—

(a) water companies and

(b) the Environment Agency.

(2) The consultations must—

(a) be in accordance with PPS 25;

(b) establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and

(c) inform the planning application process.’.

New clause 22—Planning permission and connection to the sewerage system—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—

“70C Prior to granting planning permission under section 70(1), a local planning authority must consult the relevant sewerage undertaker in relation to the proposed location of any connection to the sewerage system.”.

(3) “sewerage system” shall have the same meaning as in section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991.’.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would like to make some general points about the clause in a small stand part debate, so I shall limit my remarks to amendment 7.

The Pitt recommendations were clear. In recommendation 16 he called on local authorities to

“collate and map the main flood risk management and drainage assets (over and underground), including a record of their ownership and condition”,

while recommendation 17 was:

“All relevant organisations should have a duty to share information and cooperate with local authorities and the Environment Agency to facilitate the management of flood risk.”

Recommendation 90 specified:

“All upper tier local authorities should establish Oversight and Scrutiny Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential service providers in order to manage flood risk, underpinned by a legal requirement to cooperate and share information.”

The purpose of amendment 7 is to specify especially when items of information, in particular the mapping, have been prepared, that under the duty set out in terms of examples in clause 3(3)(i) to prepare, gather and disseminate

“maps, plans, surveys and other information”,

that information is indeed shared.

Some points about this have been made on the Floor of the House, but they might have escaped the Minister’s attention, because it is always said that if someone wants to keep a secret, it should be said on the Floor of the House as it will not go any further. However, I want to explore to what intent and purposes the mapping by Ordnance Survey will be made widely available and how the information will be posted. The most advanced mapping is undertaken by the Environment Agency and the Met Office. A certain amount of mapping of properties is done by districts. The mapping of highways is done by county councils. Unitaries undertake both, while a certain amount of modelling and mapping is done by insurance companies. The idea of inserting in the clause the phrase “to all interested parties” is to emphasise the point that, for example, when the National Flood Forum holds meetings after flood events, it does not always invite insurance companies along. That just seems plain daft. If all the interested parties are to be brought together, all the relevant ones should be there and obviously insurance companies have a role to play.

We have raised the issue of confidentiality elsewhere, and it goes without saying that the information that we believe should be shared must respect that confidentiality. However, when the information and mapping has been gleaned by public funded bodies such as the Environment Agency, the Met Office, Ordnance Survey and, to a certain extent, districts and counties, we want to know why it is currently not being shared and what measures under clause 3(3)(i) the Minister is proposing to take to ensure that it will indeed be shared.

As for recommendation 90, we were told in the December progress report that it is covered by the Bill. The Minister would help me enormously if he told me where such information was located.

To sum up, the purpose of the modest amendment is to press the Minister on what measures he intends to take to make sure that all the maps, plans, surveys and other information are reaching the right people.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for explaining her amendment, because until she did so just now, my main criticism was that it seemed a wee bit vague. I was not quite clear who the interested parties were or how information was to be disseminated to them. I imagined lawyers or all sorts of people who claimed to be interested parties having a field day with the amendment, if it were accepted, by saying that they had not been consulted.

However, the hon. Lady has raised an important issue that gets to the heart of some of the measures that relate to insurance and information that we might be discussing later in our proceedings. I understand that already in existence are inundation maps that reveal the risk of surface water flooding as well as the more common river flooding maps. They are not at the moment shared with the general public or insurance companies, but with more professional consultees such as local authority finance departments.

A potential threat is posed by revealing some information. Not everyone wants to hear the information that their house faces a flood risk, as that would pose a threat to their house price, their insurance premiums and the excesses they are charged. It would create other issues relating to insurance and might even threaten the resale of the house. However, it would be wrong for that information to be disseminated to insurance companies, for instance, while their policyholders could not get hold of it. The hon. Lady’s amendment raises a critical issue, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply before passing judgment on it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The amendment is useful as it teases out such issues, and I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York for tabling it. The amendment would add “to all interested parties” after

“preparing, gathering and disseminating maps, plans, surveys and other information”

in the list of examples of things that might be done under clause 3. Amendment 91 would require the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy in England to specify a single communication about flooding for all members of the public.

Although amendment 7 emphasises the need to disseminate information to interested parties, it is not critical to ensuring that that happens. The list to which the amendment applies is an example of what might be done in the course of flood and coastal erosion risk management. The clause does not need refining in that way to ensure that interested parties receive information. Best practice on engagement with stakeholders and consultation will be addressed better through the national strategy or the accompanying guidance, which will contain great scope to explore and explain fully what is required in respect of disseminated information.

Furthermore, a body that prepares and gathers maps, plans, surveys or other information and does not at least disseminate it to interested parties—who vary from situation to situation, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said—will be at risk of challenge for failing to act reasonably in discharging its functions. That will also encourage bodies to do the right thing in terms of disseminating information. There are drivers for ensuring that the information is properly disseminated.

The provision as drafted does not suggest any limitation to the dissemination of information; a body may go further. If appropriate, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman said, it could make that information available generally and not just to the interested parties specified. Amendment 7 could cast doubt on that by suggesting some limitation. There is no limitation in the Bill as drafted. If it is felt that maps or information are useful and could be distributed more widely, there is no reason why they should not be. The Bill will allow that to happen.

Amendment 91 would require the national flood and coastal erosion management strategy in England to specify a single communication route for all members of the public concerned about flooding. To deal with one aspect of that suggestion, the Government and the Environment Agency are working to ensure that the national Floodline, of which hon. Members will be aware, becomes the single point of contact for members of the public concerned about flooding. Another aspect is that the Environment Agency now routinely provides information, including flood maps, on its website. We are starting to do that work already, so there is no need to legislate for it. It is already in train as a result of the Pitt review, which can be fleshed out in both national strategy and guidance.

To answer the question understandably asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York, our recent Pitt update showed the progress being made on aspects 90 and 91. Aspect 90 says:

“All upper tier local authorities should establish Overview and Scrutiny Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential service providers in order to manage flood risk”.

It was highlighted that that would be covered in the Bill. I refer the hon. Lady and Committee members to paragraph 54 of schedule 2, which gives provision to do so. It is within the Bill, and we are taking it forward.

Another aspect, in terms of data, is that we have a pan-Government agreement—a PGA. It provides Government bodies such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Natural England and so on with access to core mapping data from a number of suppliers, including Ordnance Survey. The PGA is managed on behalf of the Government by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The hon. Lady has tabled a good, intelligent amendment to allow her to probe for such information. We can do a lot more in guidance and in the strategy, and work is already under way, but we do not want to limit what can be done. A future Minister might say to the Environment Agency or others, “Why not make that great information available to everyone?” As the Bill is currently drafted, we can do so.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister elaborate on why information from Ordnance Survey is so freely in the public domain, but not that from the Environment Agency or the Met Office?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I think that we can do more. Certainly the Secretary of State and I have had discussions on increasing the intelligence and quality of the data.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham made the observation that—although not due to reluctance on the part of the Government—it is not always appropriate to swamp everyone with every piece of information. The right piece of information needs to be put in the right place so that it is understandable and usable. There is further scope for that, and the Bill as drafted will allow us to do more. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I neglected to refer to amendment 91 earlier, so I shall speak to it briefly. It underlines a point made by the National Flood Forum. It is important that the public should have a single point of contact for flooding. I detect from the Minister’s remarks that he expects the national Floodline to be that contact point. That would be reassuring.

Will the Minister assure us that the sort of examples that I gave in my opening remarks will not occur when phoning the national Floodline—that there will be no categories of flooding for which people will be told that it is the wrong kind of water or the wrong sort of flood, or that it is ground water more than a certain number of millimetres below ground level? Will he confirm that the national Floodline is intended to be a comprehensive service designed to provide a single point of contact that can be important for those who find themselves in a situation of real distress and confusion? It is important that they are given clear, straightforward, simple answers to their questions.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. The important point is to whom the hon. Gentleman’s constituents should speak if their house is flooded, no matter what causes it. The Environment Agency provides a national Floodline, but we are planning to enhance the service in order to provide a one-stop shop. Through it, home owners and businesses will be provided with information on all forms of flooding that are relevant to their location.

We will also be providing for local authorities to investigate flooding incidents—in the past it has not always been clear who is responsible—for the publication of information and for the compilation of a register of flood and coastal erosion risk management assets to ensure that there is clarity of responsibility. That should mean that local authorities can also deal with queries from local residents. We see the national Floodline as a one-stop shop.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Ordnance Survey, like the Met Office, might fall under a different Department. However, in a spirit of co-operation, and because we can return to some of these matters later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 7—Definition of high flood risk—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must ensure by regulations that local development frameworks must develop a definition of an area as being “high flood risk”.

(2) The Secretary of State must consult all interested bodies as the Secretary of State may determine.’.

New clause 8—Definition of high flood risk (No. 2)—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70, after (b) insert—

“(c) For all applications within high flood risk areas, the local planning authority may cite high flood risk as grounds for refusal.”’.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

New clause 25 basically requires the Environment Agency to submit a formal objection to any large or medium scale planning application that is proposed for land designated as being a flood risk. I also want to define medium and large scale, which could mean the building of more than 10 houses or the building of a public commercial industrial unit covering an area larger than half an acre. Just as importantly, I should like to discuss what flood risk means.

We have had considerable debate on that already this morning, when we tried to define what “flood” meant, although I do not think that we reached any satisfactory conclusion, and we discussed what risk means and what risk management means. I shall try to go a little bit further in my amendment. An area should be designated as being a flood risk if there is evidence of its having flooded in the past, meaning that water has rested on the surface of the land or just below its surface—I do not intend to go over the arguments that were made before—or if the Environment Agency, in consultation with the local planning authority, has reason to believe that the area might be subjected to flooding in future, or if the local planning authority or the Environment Agency are of the opinion that building on a section of land would be likely to increase the risk of other pieces of land flooding as a result of water displacement. That is an important point.

The new clause goes to the heart of what we are doing here today—and this week and next week—which is to protect houses, businesses and public services from flooding. Some of my remarks may stray into what might be considered to be responsibilities of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is inevitable when we discuss such a Bill.

I am particularly concerned because we often hear that flood-risk areas are protected by PPS25. I do not accept that argument, having looked at it, studied it and seen how it works. Yes, it says that building should not take place in flood-risk areas, but it qualifies that considerably and allows building to take place in flood-risk areas using the exceptional tests. It is a matter of opinion what amounts to an exceptional test or, indeed, an exception.

Against that background, I want to talk a little bit about what I am really concerned about, which I mentioned briefly earlier: the regional spatial strategy for the south-west, which is not finalised yet. We have had 35,000 representations on that strategy: I think that you will be familiar with some of those, Mr. Chope. In my constituency alone, that strategy proposes to increase housing by about 40 per cent., as I mentioned earlier, adding another 14,500 or so houses to the stock of roughly 40,000 houses in my area. I could talk about why I feel that those projections are flawed, but you may pull me up if I go too far down that road, Mr. Chope. For example, the projections are based on growth forecasts, although it is difficult to predict what the growth in the economy will be this year, never mind over the next 16 years, and it assumes that building should take place in principal urban areas rather than scattering it around to villages that might want some housing. Any projections of that nature are flawed. I also object to its being drawn up regionally, rather than democratically and locally. There are many objections to the RSS system and the way in which it is put together. In essence, I am concerned because where on earth are we going to find the space for those houses in an area that is obviously and clearly a flood-risk area? Should we have to find that many houses? Surely, we should be sensitive about what happened in 2007.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham is correct to mention not only July 2007, but June 2007, which leads me to a good example of flooding that he will be familiar with. In June 2007, which was, just to remind Committee members, a month before the big flood, I visited some houses in Prestbury, close to Prestbury Park race course, which is often referred to as Cheltenham race course although it is in my constituency not the hon. Gentleman’s—and long may that be so. The residents told me that they had lived there for 40 years and had never known there to be a flood. I found that curious, but then I started to think about it and analyse it and realised that two things had happened that could—I do not know for sure—have contributed to the flood. One was that something like 150 houses had been built further up the hill just above Prestbury, at a place called Noverton lane. That was a controversial development, on what were previously green fields that could soak up the water. There was some concern about whether the run-off from the houses would send the water down the hill into Prestbury, and that it would be called a flood. I shall perhaps not go too far into this here because I am sure that we will come back to it: two culverts were placed in Prestbury some years ago but not joined up. Why on earth not, I do not know, but that obviously worsened the flooding, and one of the culverts had been damaged and not repaired, which made it even worse. That relates slightly to a separate amendment, but the fact that the houses were built on the top of that hill must have contributed to Prestbury’s flooding, even though the new development supposedly had new drainage systems that would take care of the run-off. In that case they did not.

That was in June 2007; those very same people were flooded again in July 2007. The hon. Gentleman talked about the perhaps inappropriate use these days of the concept of probability of flood risk. Those people might have been told, “This is a one-in-250-years flood”; it was two in one month. I do not think that we can continue to use that concept, that we can say that July 2007 was a one-in-250-years or a one-in-1,000-years event. We have not been measuring flooding for that long. Also, every single day of our lives we are rightly told about the dangers from climate change and about how global warming will cause the weather to be very different, unpredictable and more extreme. I understand that, and the evidence is that that will be the case. However, we cannot use that argument one minute and the next say that this is a one-in-100-years or a one-in-5,000-years flood. We cannot put both those arguments forward at the same time. My point is that we have to take the weather conditions over the past few years very seriously, and not simply write them off and say that it is very unlikely that they will happen again. It happened again this year, not in my area but up in the north-west, where we saw some terrible flood damage. Again, I read on the front of The Times that that was a one-in-1,000-years rainfall. Has rainfall been studied for the past 1,000 years? I doubt it. Can the next 1,000 years be predicted? I doubt it. That simply is not the way to address the problem. We have to be very careful about where we build houses.

During the 2007 flooding, there was a development up Bredon road, which is just going out of Tewkesbury. Houses that were being built at that time flooded. Shortly afterwards there was another application from a developer to build even more houses up that road. It is absolutely unbelievable that anyone should want to do that, with total disregard for the people living there, and for anybody who was likely to be flooded as a result of taking up green fields. I want to stress how important the theory of water displacement is. My concern is not only about whether the new houses will flood, although that is an important consideration, partly because of the difficulty there would be in getting insurance—on Second Reading and in the evidence session last week, we heard some examples of how that has become very difficult—it is about the damage that they will cause to nearby houses. I spoke earlier about how building in a place called Longford in my constituency will make the flood problem worse for other people as well. That is the case in many different areas in my constituency. Only yesterday I had a call from a developer who wants to build on green fields that were identified by the regional spatial strategy. They got terribly upset because I was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that the land floods, and that building on the land would cause other houses to flood. Let them be upset; it is a fact. People have seen water on the land and nearby houses flood, and for that reason it would be very inappropriate to build in those areas.

In many cases, the Environment Agency does not object sufficiently strongly or as often as it should. When we were discussing floodwater on or just below the surface, I gave an example of when the agency said to me that it had not objected to a particular planning application because the water was below the surface. However, it should have objected to that application because if it goes ahead it will cause more problems.

Sometimes—it is only a fairly small number of cases percentage wise but the impact is important—the advice of the EA is ignored. The new clause cannot go as far as to correct that because it would be beyond the scope of the Bill, but the EA should carry out an assessment throughout England and Wales to determine which areas of land will flood. Although it can be assisted by local authorities, the job is not as big as it might appear. The EA should designate certain areas as flood risks if they qualify under the items that I have listed. Then it should submit a formal objection through planning applications. I understand that that may not prevent some applications from going ahead, but it will give a very serious message to developers. Quite often, such matters are determined on appeal. If the Environment Agency is objecting and sending in an objection to the planning inspectors it should carry some weight.

I accept that my new clause will not necessarily stop all inappropriate development and that it is difficult to define flood risk, as we saw in an earlier debate. It is difficult to frame in legislation what should really be common sense. People who live in such areas, who are flooded and who have visited those who are flooded know whether building should take place in those areas. It is difficult to write it down. I have spent far longer framing this new clause than I have spent speaking on it, but that is probably the nature of this kind of thing.

Will the Minister treat this new clause seriously and sympathetically because it is a very important matter for the people in my constituency? The Secretary of State was extremely helpful at the time of the floods. I have heard him say of London, “We are in a flood-risk area here, and yet we still have to have building.” I do not think that the analogy is accurate or useful. It is very different in the area in which I live.

The Minister earlier touched on the water table. He said that it was very high and that it did not take a huge amount of rainfall to cause further flooding. Much of my constituency is underwater several times a year to the extent that sometimes we do not even notice it. Such is the danger that one can drive past flooded fields without even noticing. My concern is that if we continue to build on green fields that would otherwise soak up water it will cause a great many more problems for the people who not only buy those houses but already live there.

We suffered terribly in the floods of 2007. It was an absolute nightmare. People were out of their houses for more than a year. Men, women, children, the ill and the elderly had to live in caravans over Christmas and through the winter. It was a terrible situation.

We understand in Tewkesbury—we live where two rivers, the Avon and the Severn, come together—that things will be difficult and that we will have floods now and again, but we are saying, “Let’s not make it worse unnecessarily.” That is the spirit behind the new clause. Thank you.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am pleased to be following my neighbour the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on this subject. I do not have designs on many parts of his constituency, but the gentle slopes of Prestbury Park is one part that I might covet. I point out to him that the race course is officially known as Cheltenham race course.

With new clause 25, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue that we have addressed in new clauses 7 and 8. I regard the matter as so important that should new clauses 7 and 8 fall—and I will press them to a vote—I will happily support new clause 25 as an alternative, although it addresses the issue in a slightly different way. It tries to define high flood risk, whereas new clause 7 commands the Secretary of State to produce the definition. Either way, we need that definition, because Sir Michael Pitt rightly concluded in his report:

“Development control is a central part of the process of managing flood risk, by avoiding development in risk areas where possible and, where such building does take place, by ensuring that risk is reduced both to the development itself and for those living nearby. Planners and developers must pay proper regard to the risks, as should those purchasing properties. We believe that the latest Government guidance—PPS25—should deliver this, and that it should be strengthened if it does not.”

The practical experience, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred, and which is also my experience, is that PPS25 is simply not up to the job. Recommendation 7 of the Pitt report is:

“There should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas, in accordance with PPS25, including giving consideration to all sources of flood risk, and ensuring that developers make a full contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any necessary defences.”

That is simply not happening. Given that PPS25 is failing, we need to introduce the presumption against building in high flood risk areas into the Bill by other means. New clauses 7 and 8 are designed to do that.

New clause 7 is designed to provide for the way in which high flood risk areas are defined, to include not simply areas at risk from river flooding, as currently defined by the Environment Agency and its maps, but those at risk from the various forms of flooding that we have already discussed, including ground water and, most importantly, surface water flooding, which was responsible for a great deal of the property flooding in my constituency in 2007.

I shall give a precise example, which neatly illustrates why PPS25 fails so completely. First, PPS25 is far too site-specific, in that it narrows the consideration down to whether net surface run-off and other considerations are being addressed on the specific site of a particular planning application. It does not look at the landscape as a whole or allow for the consideration of flooding being exacerbated elsewhere, especially in an extreme flood event, and it certainly does not do what Sir Michael Pitt asked, which is ensure

“that developers make a full contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any necessary defences.”

I gave an example on Second Reading of a neighbourhood—which is partly in my constituency but, at the moment, most of it is in the hon. Member for Tewkesbury’s constituency—called Warden Hill. It is downhill of another neighbourhood called Leckhampton, which, again, straddles the constituency boundary between our two seats. There was recently an exercise to examine flood risk in that area and to look at how the 40 or 50 properties that flooded in Warden Hill in 2007 could be protected. Consultants for Cheltenham borough council did a detailed analysis of the whole landscape. They went beyond Warden Hill and looked at Leckhamption, and produced some interesting maps designed to inform possible flood defence options.

Those maps showed an area of Leckhampton that currently consists of green fields and was flooded in 2007. A map was produced with a large area of blue blocked out to show all the places that were inundated. That is exactly the area on which the RSS, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred, is planning to put 1,300 houses. That is an area, which planning inspectors, who informed what are technically the Secretary of State’s proposed modifications to the RSS, spent roughly five to 10 minutes examining, before concluding that it was an appropriate area for development.

As a result, we have had a succession of planning applications to build on that space, and they were live when the consultants were looking at flood risks. Consequently, the consultants took those applications into consideration and, fearing that that development might actually go ahead, chose a flood defence option that did not use the landscape, the natural features or the natural holding ability of the green fields at Leckhampton, but focused entirely on hard defences in Warden Hill.

So we will now have some £700,000 worth of flood defence work in Warden Hill. In itself, that work is very welcome, but it will be more expensive than the option that should have been pursued, which would have used landscape features. In fact, the overall cost of the work over time will be hundreds of thousands of pounds more than the option that was explored but not chosen, because it was thought that it would prompt opposition from developers in the area uphill.

The problem is that PPS25 is completely useless in this situation. First, regarding the planning applications that have already been submitted for this green field area, there have been debates about PPS25 and about Environment Agency objections to the development taking place. Those objections have almost always been withdrawn. When I recently asked Environment Agency staff why they were withdrawn, one explanation that they gave was that, once again, it was the wrong kind of water and that actually this was not main river flooding, but generally surface water and inundation of the fields. Therefore, this area was not one of those about which, under PPS25, the Environment Agency was supposed to be giving advice. I must say that, from my reading of PPS25, I was a little surprised by that and there is certainly some confusion here. That led to the Environment Agency’s withdrawing its objection to developments and once it has withdrawn its objection, it is virtually impossible for local campaigners or local authority planners to maintain that there is a flooding risk to the satisfaction of planning inspectors, even though, as we have seen, there is now documentary evidence that there is a flood risk in this area.

So the chances are that, one day, one of those planning applications might succeed. We hope that we will defeat the RSS before that happens and that we can consign the whole glorious thing to the dustbin. Clearly, however, in terms of flood policy, the system is not working at the moment.

Of course, when that extra cost was placed on general taxpayers, because the money will ultimately come from the Environment Agency, there was no suggestion that the developers whose planning applications had caused the increase in price—by moving the defence work to hard defences in Warden Hill—would bear any of that extra cost. Therefore, Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendation that we should ensure that developers make a full contribution to the costs of any necessary defence has failed in this example, too.

PPS25 is not working, and we need to be quite explicit that areas with a high flood risk can be identified and that, as set out in new clause 8, local authorities have an explicit power of citing high flood risk as a reason for refusing planning permission.

Sir Michael Pitt decided, probably quite rightly, against a blanket ban on building on the flood plain. In any case, such a ban would not address surface water flooding and would probably be too draconian. Nevertheless, we need to give local authorities a clear and unambiguous power to refuse development and stop processes such as the RSS, should they ever appear again, from imposing development, which would make the flood risk worse, on areas that they have identified as high flood risk areas, according to whatever system or definition we agree.

We have known about this problem for years. The Foresight study, which I think was as far back as 2004, certainly identified creeping urbanisation as a major contributor to flood risk and it is time that we tackled that issue and sorted it out. I am afraid that Sir Michael Pitt was too optimistic, perhaps too naive, in hoping that PPS25 was up to the job. It certainly is not.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Michael Pitt’s report. I think that he was at the meeting that I attended when Sir Michael Pitt admitted, and I paraphrase, that the Government’s 3 million house target had compromised his ability to rule out building in flood risk areas. I paraphrase, but that is very much what Sir Michael Pitt said at quite a large meeting, which I think the hon. Gentleman attended.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The hon. Gentleman may well be right. Certainly, that is an area of policy on which, for all the fine words that emanate from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on wider environmental objectives, we find that other Departments, specifically the Department for Communities and Local Government, seem to go in precisely the opposite direction and pursue their plans pretty well regardless of the environmental consequences locally in many cases.

Giving local authorities the power to say no to inappropriate development which they know, which they can prove, and which consultants have told them, will increase flood risk is crucial. It is crucial for our constituents and people throughout the country. If we do not address the issue, we could end up in a situation whereby new housing estates are built in such areas. The Association of British Insurers, whose tolerance is enormous but not infinite, will eventually say, “Frankly, if the Government had the opportunity to stop those kinds of developments but refused to take action or to address inappropriate development in flood risk areas, why should our members insure those kinds of houses?”

We will be in a situation whereby we have built whole housing estates that are absolutely uninsurable, which will, therefore, become very low quality housing in the end. The price will fall and they will potentially become neglected. We will be in a terrible situation of urban blight in those areas, not to mention the fact that they will, of course, almost inevitably flood at some stage. They, too, will suffer along with the people downhill of places where flooding has been exacerbated.

We have to tackle the issue. I hope that new clauses 7 and 8 will do that. As I said, I will press them to a vote. Should they fall, however, I would happily support new clause 25 as a very constructive alternative.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Given that my two colleagues have spoken, I do not see why I cannot have a go. Such is the wide wording of new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, that I feel I can make a couple of points in response to what both hon. Members said, but I would also like to address a particular problem.

The reality in Gloucestershire is that those of us who live in the vale have come to expect to be the major providers of land for new housing, and, indeed, new employment. Historically, that has always happened. Looking at the balance in the county’s provision, it is increasingly the case. It may be seen as inevitable, given the nature of the evolution of the geography, geology and riverine system of the Severn vale, but it leads to several specific problems.

First, the River Severn is mercurial. We live in the Severn vale because at various times the river has moved its course quite dramatically. It will continue to do so. That causes me some difficulty, because my main point is about not just where we decide to build, but the consequences for other parts of the Severn vale. That is often ignored, which is why new clause 25 is quite cleverly worded: it looks at the consequences of that new development. One of our problems is that, even if we chose—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I remind the Committee that with this we may discuss new clause 7—Definition of high flood risk—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must ensure by regulations that local development frameworks must develop a definition of an area as being “high flood risk”.

(2) The Secretary of State must consult all interested bodies as the Secretary of State may determine.’.

New clause 8—Definition of high flood risk (No. 2)—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70, after (b) insert—

“(c) For all applications within high flood risk areas, the local planning authority may cite high flood risk as grounds for refusal.”’.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

What a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew, with your knowledge of flooding. You will not be calling me to speak too many times, for sure.

I said in the previous sitting that although I am sympathetic to new clause 25, it is widely drawn, as I think that my hon. neighbour from Tewkesbury would accept. I was making the point that the difficulty with development in the Severn vale is that the River Severn, being such a mercurial river, will inevitably change its course, causing all manner of problems over where to locate housing and employment development. The difficulty is that historically, as my hon. neighbour from Cheltenham will know, the answer always seems to be development in the Severn vale. That might be highly questionable, because we know that it is an increasingly risky place for development, as we have seen from what happened in 2007.

Even if we were to encourage development outside the Severn vale—in the Cotswolds, where I would like to see more development, or the Forest of Dean, both of which are the slowest growing parts of Gloucestershire—the difficulty is that the water will run off the hills and come down into the Severn vale. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. We have a real problem over how we develop parts of our countryside, and that is why this is a worthwhile debate.

I will offer some definitive explanation from my constituency, as both colleagues from Gloucestershire who preceded me in the debate used examples from their constituencies. A number of us in the constituency opposed development in a place called Ebley, which is not far from where I live in the Stroud constituency, on the basis that there was likely to be consequential flooding down the River Frome, which is a tributary of the River Severn. We were pooh-poohed and told that the measures that would be put in place would be such that the loss of greenfield land and of meadow land, which has traditionally acted as a water reservoir by sucking up water in times of surplus, would not be a problem. Modern technology is such, we were told, that we would be able to come up with solutions on development, and so it proved.

The problem is that since that time, downstream in Bridgend and Stonehouse, where I happen to live—no one would pretend that the area has not been flooded in the past, and the mills dotted all around the area show that water has been a crucial requirement of everyday life since the 18th century and even before—the poor people living there have sadly been flooded badly, first in 2007 and then every year since. I cannot prove that that is the result of development, because I am not a water engineer and have no specialist insight into cause and effect, but I refer to consequential flooding, which is what the new clause is all about, as something that really should matter.

I will conclude with two points. First, if there is evidence that a development has caused problems elsewhere, that should be taken as seriously as the development itself being regarded as a causation factor in flooding. Secondly, we must not time-limit this, because often the problems are of incremental duration in the sense that one will not necessarily get an immediate impact from a development—it takes some time. The problem is we have used so many of our important water storage facilities—one could argue that that has been happening through time—that the matter has become critical. I would always argue that it is not the development itself that matters; it is where the impact of the development will be felt. That is something we should examine.

I welcome what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said. He has apologised to me for not being in the room—it is not because I am speaking, but because he is elsewhere dealing with the problems of Ethiopia, which are somewhat different from those that we face in Gloucestershire. His new clause is useful.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how we can get fairness for people who have not flooded historically, or who have flooded periodically but now face regular flooding? How can they get greater protection and some justice from the system? It might well be that we have to learn some lessons and be much more careful about where we develop. That will cause huge problems, not just in Gloucestershire, in terms of the Severn vale, but perhaps all the way up the country.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am warming to the hon. Gentleman’s theme. Does he agree with the thrust of new clause 8, which is that one of the crucial powers that can help to tackle the issue is the clear power for local authorities to refuse planning permission on the grounds of high flood risk so that they can deal with some of the things he is worried about?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I like giving powers to local authorities as long as they use those powers purposely. I would blame my own local authority—Stroud district council—for causing problems because it chose to develop somewhere despite warnings. I am afraid that local authorities cannot have it both ways. If they want that responsibility, they will also have to take the blame when they have chosen a particular site against expert advice. It might well be—the Minister might want to dwell on this—that the powers of the Bill will enable the Environment Agency to ensure that it is listened to and its advice is acted upon. Too often what has happened in that past is that either the Environment Agency has been ignored or it has not been brought into the decision-making process at all.

This is an important debate. I have concentrated on new clause 25, because that is the most widely drawn of the new clauses, but this is a problem from which we cannot escape, and I hope the Minister will give us some elucidation on how we can take forward sensible development. None of us are against that, but we must ensure that if mistakes are made, people are able to get some protection from the consequences of those mistakes. More particularly, we need to learn from what we have done wrong in the past and prevent undesirable development from occurring in the wrong place.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Martlew—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Despite the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I congratulate him on new clause 25 and his drafting ability. I will later consider its contents.

I was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham about new clauses 7 and 8. My concern with the drafting is that anyone who was deemed to be living in a high flood risk would probably be incapable of finding any insurance cover or of selling their home. I am very concerned about the purpose of his new clauses in that regard.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am extremely puzzled by the hon. Lady’s objection to the use of the wording “high flood risk” because it is taken directly from Sir Michael Pitt and is used in the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, which talks about determining such areas as “flood risk areas”. In fact, our proposal is less prescriptive than his.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall move on to the context in which that phrase is contained in new clause 25, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with what I say.

I believe that PPS25 should be revisited on the basis of whether it was the intention to have a proscription or moratorium on building on areas at risk of flooding, although not necessarily floodplains. Recommendation 18 of Sir Michael Pitt’s review states:

“Local Surface Water Management Plans, as set out under PPS25 and coordinated by local authorities, should provide the basis for managing all local flood risk.”

The progress report published by the Government last December sets out where we are with the most recent editions of those plans. The progress report states that £9.7 million has been allocated to 77 local authorities at risk from surface water flooding. I am sure the Minister will accept that that is a small amount to be divided among 77 local authorities—[Interruption.] He will not escape any earlier even though he is feeling the cold.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is not an insignificant amount of money and it has been focused, through an open application system, on places at the highest risk. I know the hon. Lady will recognise that it is not the only money that we have put into flooding.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for the Minister’s intervention.

A lot of the debate over the general aspect of risk management in the clause comes back to the element of risk and how risk is quantified. The risk of one in 1,000 years in the constituencies of Copeland and Workington is on the scale of an act of God. It would be difficult to prescribe the way in which to cope with that in any legislation.

It is my firm belief, however, that we can do a lot more with regard to new developments putting existing developments at risk. For example, it is inappropriate to build 300 houses in Filey on a field that floods, and is at times of flood permanently waterlogged and saturated, especially as the water flooding off the field has already flooded Filey school and earlier developments. I am surprised that the Planning Inspectorate can agree for that to go ahead.

A number of issues that relate to this matter are not appropriate for consideration here. However, PPS25 could be strengthened. For example, we have established that the Environment Agency should have the status of statutory consultee for major new developments. I believe that PPS25 would be further strengthened if we extended the status of statutory consultee to water companies. We can elaborate on those arguments elsewhere.

In the context of new clause 25, the Environment Agency should carry out the assessment to determine the level of flood risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury goes on to establish in his new clause. I wonder if the Minister will be minded to accept some of our arguments. He might want the provisions to be worded slightly differently, but I think that the new clause is well drafted and fits in with the context of clause 3.

I wish to ask the Minister about the impact assessment in the context of the risk management aspects of the clause. We are told that the one-off costs will be negligible although, under existing provisions, local authorities are already investing £27 million a year by means of local levy. The point I put to the Minister is that page 10 of the impact assessment states:

“Any administrative burdens would be borne by RFCCs”—

regional flood defence committees—

“which include local authorities and the Environment Agency.”

In terms of funding risk management, I put it to the Minister is that it seems that the same people are being asked to pay every single time. The Minister is on record as welcoming the levy provisions and, indeed, they are extremely important if clause 3 is to work effectively. However, will he share with us some of the concerns that were probably raised at the time of consultation, particularly about what the cost of the administrative burden will be?

I understand that the benefits of individual risk management projects are reviewed constantly by the Treasury through the Green Book, and that the risk can be reduced in certain situations, which are set out on page 14. However, will the Minister respond to my concerns that their preferred option of 2(a) in the impact assessment—

“Extend the scope of the RFDC ‘local levy’ to allow funding to be raised from local authorities for coastal erosion projects”—

will put real hardship on those bodies? How does the Minister imagine that clause 3 will be given effect in these circumstances, because I do not believe that the administrative burden is neutral? There is a very real cost to be looked at and, as I say, the same people have to pay it each time. I will be most interested to hear the Minister’s comments about new clause 25 and his response to my concerns about the cost-benefit analysis and the administrative burdens that are placed on those bodies that are already finding it hard to raise the funds required in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

May I begin by thanking hon. Members for what has been a very good debate on the amendments and clause? I will deal with the issues roughly in the order they were raised, although some of them overlap.

I shall begin by mentioning the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and will then come on to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who started off the debate. My hon. Friend rightly signalled the difficulty of getting the balance right between the needs of business, the need for affordable housing, the need to find the right place for development and the risk of flood. I noted his comments about the responsibilities of local authorities. In a moment, my comments will echo that and I will also talk about the responsibility for implementing PPS25 robustly and effectively right down the whole chain, what progress has been made and what more needs to be done.

It is undoubtedly the case that development plans need to take real account of PPS25. We need to get the strategic flood risk assessments right and ensure they are robust. Across the whole line of spatial strategies, we need to ensure that flood risk management proves to be part and parcel of development planning in any local area or region. I will come on to how we can do that. If hon. Members will bear with me, in a moment, I want to go into some detail on that.

Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I have great sympathy with him—indeed, during the floods of 2007, I was in a friend’s house where the water rose through the cellars. He was not affected as badly as most people, but the whole of his cellar was completely flooded and the water came up into the ground floor. At that point, thank goodness, the water stopped. However, I have seen the devastation that happens—one sees it in Cumbria and in Hull—and how people are affected by such a situation. So, getting the balance right is very important.

The clause that the hon. Gentleman has tabled would require the Environment Agency to determine flood risk areas across England and Wales and would oblige it formally to object to any planning application in one of those flood risk areas, where it represents 10 or more houses or covers an area of land greater than half an acre.

Areas at risk from river and sea flooding in England are already found in existing national policy in PPS25, which is based on the annual probability of flooding, and mapped by the Environment Agency. Local authorities undertake local strategic flood risk assessments, which build on and refine information in the Environment Agency’s flood map and identify areas at risk from all sources of flooding, including surface water flooding, and take into account the impacts of climate change.

The effect of the proposed clause would be to compel the Environment Agency to object to all proposed developments above a specified size in a designated flood-risk area regardless of whether the agency was content that the individual proposal took account of the flood risk, that it would be safe and not increase flood risk overall. It is a categoric proposal that we have here that has no flexibility for the Environment Agency to look at the plans, work with them and put forward suggestions.

In determining the planning application, the local planning authority would still be required to take account of all material considerations—social, economic and environmental—including the issue of flood risk, the flood risk assessment prepared by the applicant and proposals for reducing or managing that flood risk as well as representations and objections received from statutory consultees and other interested parties.

I know that hon. Members will be aware of this, but let us refresh memories of how this is set up to work. I will come to how well it is working and what more needs to be done. Planning policy makes it very clear that flood risk must be assessed at all stages of the planning process—regional, local plan and individual planning applications—to avoid this worry about inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding and to direct development away from areas at the highest risk. The next stage, regional spatial strategies, should establish locational criteria for regionally significant land uses, including the identification of broad locations, and that should be informed by the regional flood risk appraisal.

The local planning authorities establish specific land use or housing allocations through the development plan documents. They are informed by their own strategic flood risk assessment, and target development to lower flood risk areas wherever possible. The local strategic flood risk assessments—as required to be carried out by local planning authorities in PPS25—in Calder Valley and Isle of Wight are examples that show how our policy approach has played a key role in influencing the core strategies for those local authority areas, so that the most appropriate types of development are at the most suitable locations. In a moment, I will come to an example of where it has gone wrong and what happens in that situation. The core of my argument is not that PPS25 is wrong—we have been reviewing it and improving and will continue to do so—but that we must ensure that the guidance is followed through at all levels. We all have a role to play to push our own local authorities to do that.

People often ask why the Government or Environment Agency allow development to take place in areas of flooding. Why not stop building in those areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned some of the difficulties with that. If we do it in one area, it impacts on another area and so on. It must be done in a well-considered way. We have very strong planning policy in place that ensures that flood risk is properly assessed and taken into account by local planning authorities. The aim should always be—Committee members can hear me say it now, people can read it in this transcript and it is in our PPS25 as well—to locate new development away from flood risk wherever possible. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who cannot be with us for the moment, made the point that Tewkesbury is not the same as London. I know that it is not, but we must accept that significant parts of the country are at risk of flooding. We cannot categorically ban all new development.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con) rose—

Martin Horwoodrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me just finish my point.

We cannot afford to put that blight on whole communities. MPs come to me and ask, “Minister, why has the Environment Agency objected to this development, as it has just killed the centre of my town?” So there is a counter-argument.

Pretty much the whole of Hull would be included. We do not have any Hull MPs here today, but I do not think that they would want me to say that there should be no development in Hull whatsoever, because the whole city is affected. Two thirds of Portsmouth is affected. We have no Portsmouth MPs here today, but I am pretty sure that they would be telling me the same. They would want to see the rigorous implementation of PPS25 and it being put into the spatial strategies. Most of London would be affected, including my own flat, as would the east of England. Those are all in areas of high flood risk.

The issue is this: how do we provide the homes and development we need and at the same time reduce flood risk? We need to ensure that, wherever possible, we build where it does not flood, and that when we do have to build in high flood-risk areas, we ensure it is as safe and flood-proof as possible.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the Minister understand that we are not asking for the Government to force people not to build, but to force them to consider properly the building, which is a completely different issue? Also, there is not necessarily the desire for the level of building that the Government would like to happen. Some people might feel that less would be proper.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, the implications of some of the amendments are to make the Environment Agency have to object, not to work with, not to say, “Actually, we can see a way forward here if you will do X, Y and Z”, as it has done in other instances. I will come to an example in a moment of where that did not work and explain the action it took.

The hon. Gentleman and I are aiming at the same thing, but I am explaining how we should do that. We carried out a review last year of PPS25, which I’ll come to in a moment, and it showed what progress has been made and what more needs to be done. We should be focusing our attention on ensuring that, from the regional level to the local level, PPS25 is adhered to. If there is a case for building in a flood-risk area, everything has to be put in place to ensure that the risk of flooding is mitigated, because we simply cannot ban all development in those areas.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The Minister is wrong to say that the amendments are about banning all development on flood plains or in flood-risk areas. Certainly, new clause 8 would simply give a clear power to local authorities, but it does not say that they absolutely have to ban it. There is clear evidence from the Association of British Insurers and others that many of the houses the Government are planning to build are likely to be built in flood-risk areas. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury and I both mentioned spatial strategies because planning inspectors on the ground amending regional spatial strategies or putting in amendments proposed by the Secretary of State are in practice choosing areas that are quite explicitly flood-risk areas. Once they are in the regional spatial strategy there is a huge impetus towards developing those areas, and the Environment Agency cannot object on the basis of anything outside its own competence for main rivers and sea flooding.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. We need to get this right. In the wide objectives we have at a local and national level, he, like me, wants to see development and affordable homes, but they need to fit within the strategies. We need to ensure that they do, and ask questions when they do not, both of local authorities and also more widely along the food chain.

I will explain what happens when that does not work, because I acknowledge the examples that have been given. In some cases, because it is a localised issue, people will say, “Why on earth was this allowed to happen?” I have an example from my constituency of an area left over from a coal washeries, which has never been flooded and which people are desperate to develop, but the Environment Agency says that it is on a flood plain. It has never, ever flooded, and a few years ago a big hotelier put in an offer to develop it, in a coal-mining constituency. The argument is that that has to fit with the advice, and the Environment Agency’s advice must be heeded, or good reasons and measures must be put in place. That is my argument.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That is not true.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have not even addressed the remaining issue. Let me come to it because it might help. My point of reference was the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, rather than that tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, which is slightly different.

I refer the Committee to Restormel borough council, which is part of Cornwall council. It is an example of a local authority whose core strategy development plan documents in 2007 were found to be unsound. One of the grounds for that lack of soundness was that a strategic flood risk assessment was not carried out before the core strategy was submitted. Results from the assessment later demonstrated that there were flood risks in the St. Blazey, Par and Mevagissey areas. It was unclear how the identified rural service centres would function and develop in the future. There are opportunities to say that local authorities and development plans are wanting and to object to them.

There is a final buck-stop, which I can see happening. If there is disagreement with the decision of a local authority or Environment Agency advice is completely overridden, I would want to know about it. Also, people can have a judicial review of the decision to see whether it was sound and whether the full process was gone through. I have seen that happen.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me turn to the new clauses and I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether I will be able to persuade hon. Members. The hon. Member for Cheltenham has already indicated that he will press for a vote. However, I will do my best.

New clauses 7 and 8 would require that an area of high flood risk is defined in local development frameworks and provide for a local planning authority to cite high flood risk as grounds for refusing planning permission in a high flood-risk area. That is the gist of the new clauses. It is of course important that flood risk is recognised and properly taken into account in planning decisions. I have tried to explain that that approach is already a central component of existing national planning policy.

The Environment Agency’s flood map shows areas at risk of river and sea flooding based on the annual probability of flooding as defined in PPS25, “Development and Flood Risk”. It requires local strategic flood risk assessments to be done by local authorities to build on and refine the information in the Environment Agency’s flood map, taking into account other sources of flooding. Similar arrangements are in place in Wales under the Welsh Assembly Government’s technical advice note 15.

PPS25 emphasises the strategic approach to flood risk management. It stresses the need to consider flood risk as early as possible in the planning process in an integrated way. The policy makes it clear that flood risk must be assessed at all stages of the process—regional, local and individual planning applications—to avoid inappropriate development.

The SFRA provides the evidence base for preparing local policies in local development frameworks that avoid and manage all types of flood risk to and from development. Those policies should refer to areas of flood risk identified in the SFRA, where relevant. Regulations to implement the European floods directive further strengthen the requirement to produce the SFRA.

If the local authority does not think that it can deliver the housing targets safely, it can take its evidence to the Government office and the regional planning body. The Lincolnshire coast study is a good example of local authorities taking just such a constructive approach.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I have to say that the Minister is simply wrong about how that is working on the ground. I have been in planning inquiries where the local authority has argued against a development, but has constantly had the regional spatial strategy quoted back at it and where planning inspectors have spent a matter of minutes in a local area before allocating an area to housing. The Environment Agency has confirmed to me that it does not have powers to refuse or object to planning applications when the flooding is as a result of surface water flooding. The FRA and PPS25 must include all forms of flooding, but the EA advice does not.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

To deal with that point directly, if the hon. Gentleman has been informed that surface water flooding cannot be taken into account, that is incorrect.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

By the EA.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is simply incorrect; it can be. I would be happy to take up that issue. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that he has been in meetings and has seen that it has not been followed through.

Let me come to where we are and to what more we need to do. The situation is not absolutely perfect, but there has been significant progress. It is not just me saying that. I will come to that in a moment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Pitt’s recommendation 5 made it clear that there should be a presumption against building in high flood risk areas. I take entirely the Minister’s point that the practice guide has been updated, but I think that in the view of many members of the Committee it simply does not go far enough. That is a point of difference between the two main parties. Where the Government persist in wishing to build on areas at risk of, or prone to, flooding, how do they answer recommendation 11 of Pitt:

“Building regulations should be revised to ensure that all new or refurbished buildings in high flood-risk areas are flood resistant or resilient”?

On a point of information, I am alarmed that the consultation on the building controls has been pushed back from summer 2009 to summer 2011-12. That sets alarm bells ringing. If Pitt is to be followed through, there should be a presumption that—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Order. Interventions should be relatively short. Thank you. Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I think, Mr. Martlew, that we will turn to resilience in subsequent amendments, and I am happy to debate the matter then. The Pitt review shows good progress across a range of issues, but there are areas in which we need to go faster. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the Pitt update recognises that we have not waited around; we have got on with this work at a rate of knots—

Mr. Williamsrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me make some progress. I want to speak to some of the points being raised, and I will then take the intervention.

A point was made about the updated planning policy statement. Let me read for the record exactly what the updated guidance, which we constantly keep under review, states in section 5 on key planning objectives:

“The aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.”

The matter is in there; the guidance has been strengthened. I understand what the hon. Lady says, that it might not go as far as she or others want, but it has been strengthened. In his review, Pitt agreed that the policy within PPS25 is right and sound and that it is the right approach. He said, however, and I also say, that it needs to be rigorously applied. The point of difference here seems to be whether we take what we have got—what has been reviewed and strengthened—and show how it can be taken from the regional level all the way down to the local, and make it work. We all have a responsibility to do that, and to demand of our local authorities and others that they do it.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister is in a difficult position, and he is trying to have it both ways. I think that understands that we all agree that development should not take place in high-risk areas, but we also know that planning law says that it is difficult for a development plan to say that such and such a development will not take place. The planning phraseology is “there will be a presumption against”. The Minister is trying to defend that when he knows that we all, and the Bill, should be trenchant on the point that there should be no development in high flood-risk areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No, I could not disagree more. The approach that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined would rule out economic regeneration in Hull, in much of the east of England, and in Portsmouth and London. I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I think that what we are trying to push at is to get the process right. We know that it has not been perfect—far from it. Let me expand, to say where we have got to.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Minister, we are in danger of repeating ourselves a little.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. I just want to give an update on where we are. Flood risk has to be a key factor in planning decisions, but it is not the only one. That is the important thing. Economic development and local circumstances are important, and the EA acknowledges that it is not in a position to take a view on those things. It is to do with democratic accountability and local accountability. It is for the local authorities, which are democratically elected accountable bodies, to do it. From what has been put to me, it sounds as though people are saying, “We cannot get development happening because the EA has objected.” I hear that and I also hear the opposite, as I have said. Where that is happening I would like to hear more about it, and we need to push on that as Members of Parliament.

Our evidence is that the process is working in the vast majority of cases and is now working better than when it was introduced. I am not the only one saying that. In more than 96 per cent. of cases where the EA has objected to planning applications on flood-risk grounds, the final decision outcome is in line with the EA advice. Most local authorities—85 per cent. of them in England—have completed the strategic flood risk assessment as required under PPS25, with most others expected to complete soon. Having said that it is not just my saying this, may I mention what Nick Starling from the ABI said last week in the afternoon evidence session? The challenge was put down early on that insurers will walk away from this issue. I throw that challenge back: that is not what the ABI and its members are saying. Nick Starling said:

“Huge steps have been made in terms of planning...we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of planning permission consents given in high-risk areas, so we want to see that continue.”——[Official Report, Flood and Water Management Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2010; c. 45, Q66.]

I recognise that the process is not perfect and that wrong decisions will be made, or it will not be applied robustly enough. Our job—mine as a Minister and ours as MPs—is to ensure that that happens. But we are going in the right direction when the ABI is saying that it has seen the improvement, when I can quote figures that show an independent assessment, and when I can mention the Department for Communities and Local Government’s review in June last year showing the progress that has been made, which shows what more needs to be done in applying the measure properly and which I will happily send to Committee members.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the issue of the wrong type of water. PPS25 covers all types of flood risk and is not just selective. I have also mentioned the updated guidance. I think that I have covered every aspect.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I am fascinated by this debate, but if we are going to make progress, we should have shorter interventions and shorter responses.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I will endeavour to be brief, because we have gone round most of the issues.

I should like to return to the matter of which types of flood risk are included in what. It is clear that PPS25, which I have in my sweaty palm, covers all forms of flooding and it is clear that strategic flood risk assessments and even developers’ own flood risk assessments should address all forms of flood risk. However, it is not clear—certainly not to the Environment Agency, from staff that I have talked to—whether its advice and input into this process has addressed all forms of flood risk. Although it is the expert agency, despite what the Minister has assured me, my strong impression, and its impression at local level, and certainly at regional level, is that it cannot give advice on anything other than main river flooding. For instance, its flood maps are river flooding maps. We do not yet have all the localised data for inundation by surface water.

The area that I mentioned in my opening remarks on the clause—the green area of Leckhampton uphill from the area of Warden Hill, which flooded in the 2007 floods—was affected by surface water flooding and causing a lot of problems. The EA apparently does not feel that it can object to that in planning appeals. So we end up arguing in planning appeals, with the local authority, despite or because of whatever flood risk assessment that it has done, objecting to a proposal, but with the EA having withdrawn its objections as the definitive expert body on flooding, and with the developers quoting another Government policy—the regional spatial strategy—which absolutely, clearly allocates an area to housing, despite our having maps from consultants showing large parts of it at flood risk from surface water flooding. Clearly, things are not matching up. I accept that the Minister wishes it was not so and wishes that this should not be the way it works and that strategic regional flood risk assessments should stop such things happening, but the bottom line is that it is not being stopped at the moment. We need something that is clearer and stronger in law to make it clear that at the planning appeal stage, a local authority can produce the kind of maps that we have for Leckhampton, which is near my constituency, and say, “Look at this map. It is clearly a high flood-risk area, which is grounds for us to refuse the appeal. The development will not go ahead because the chances are that those houses will flood when they are built and they will make flooding worse downhill.”

That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. They are not to rule out all development in flood plains. They are not even designed to rule out all development in flood-risk areas. In cases in which it is proven that a development is inappropriate, the amendments will give local authorities a clear power to trump other ill-informed Government policies such as regional spatial strategies coming down from on high and saying, “Regardless of the environmental consequences, this area shall be developed.” On those grounds, when the time comes—I think next week—I will still be pressing the new clauses to a vote.

Clause 4

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 9—Flood risk management function—

“The flood risk management function will be scrutinised in accordance with the provisions of the bill by both Houses of Parliament under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.”

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

At the same time as the Bill was published, the Government laid before the House and the Committee the EU regulations entitled the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 No. 3042. As I understand it, the procedure is that the regulations are subject to negative resolution, so I have a series of questions to put to the Minister. It is our preference to consider them as part of the legislation. Obviously, we are able to amend the main part of the legislation, but I presume that we are not entitled to amend the text of the statutory instrument.

I must declare an interest here. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. An exchange between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Select Committee made it clear that if the Government had not been able to pass the primary legislation, section 2(2) of the European Communities Act would apply.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

May I clarify something? If you wish to table a new clause to amend the regulations at this stage, it is possible to do that. Obviously, when it goes to a Delegated Legislation Committee, you cannot make such an amendment. I hope that clarifies the position.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful. Perhaps I can find out what time such amendments might be taken.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I am sure we can find that out for you.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister confirm whether that procedure has been approved by the European Commission, so we that we know that we are on the side of the angels in that regard?

As I understand it, the regulations were published on 19 November and are in two parts: the explanatory memorandum and the general provision. Will the Minister tell us what the relationship is between the contents of the parts relating to preliminary assessment maps, the duty to identify flood-risk areas through the Environment Agency, the duty to identify flood-risk areas through the lead local authorities, the review of the Environment Agency and all the parts relating to maps? I want to be clear in my own mind as to the relationship between those parts of the regulations and the content of the Bill.

Proceeding to the explanatory memorandum, obviously it is the intention to incorporate the flood-risk parts of the flood directive into UK law. I understand from the public consultation that only 5 per cent. were specifically against the policy proposals. My specific concern relates to page 11 of the explanatory memorandum to the flood regulations, where it talks about the annual costs being within the range of £6.26 million to £6.66 million. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that that is the total, and how will that amount be split between the work of the Environment Agency and the upper-tier authorities?

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

We are debating stand part, not the regulations themselves.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Yes. I think you will find, Mr. Martlew, that the regulations relate to the flood-risk management functions. You will see—it is my understanding—that the regulations are part and parcel of that. Will the Minister clarify those points and explain how that will be the case?

If it is appropriate to do so here, I would like to raise the following issue, which may also be raised later in consideration of the Bill. There is some concern that although it is right that upper-tier county councils should be the flood risk management authority for highways, particularly for SUDS in relation to highways, the planning aspect for new developments, particularly in relation to the discussion we have just had, is the lower tier—the district authority. Is the Minister happy in himself that, in fact, those responsibilities are properly recognised in the Bill?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady as she spoke to the clause and, to some extent, to the new clause she has put forward. I say to the Minister that the Bill in general has been very good at ensuring that those powers that have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly are recognised and that powers will be given to the relevant Welsh Assembly Minister or to the Assembly itself. If the Minister replies to the clause and the new clause, he can spell out how the proposal could be made compliant in terms of the devolution Act and the Government of Wales Act to ensure that any flood-risk management function is scrutinised by not only both Houses in this place, but the Welsh Assembly.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In line with your dictum, Mr. Martlew, I will try to keep my contribution short and to the point. I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York for introducing the topic. The directive itself will go through the normal scrutiny. As she rightly acknowledged, we consulted on draft provisions to implement the directive as part of the draft Bill—clauses 50 to 63—published on 21 April.

We were grateful for the many consultation responses received and for the scrutiny of the draft Bill by the EFRA Committee, of which the hon. Lady is a member. We took account of both in bringing forward the measures, which the House has had before it since the Queen’s Speech, that relate to both the implementing regulations for the directive and the Bill we are debating today. The implementing regulations for the directive benefited greatly from those inputs.

Specific reference was made to the regulations in the written ministerial statement of 19 November when the Bill was introduced, in the Government response to the EFRA Committee report and the response to the consultation that was published. All interested parties, including Parliament, have had an opportunity to scrutinise our plans for transposing the directive. The regulations were scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments in the normal way.

Laying the regulations on the day the Flood and Water Management Bill was introduced provided an opportunity for each of them to be considered by the House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, and officials provided clarification to that Committee. It also enabled Members of Parliament more generally to consider both the Bill and the regulations together. If further consideration of the Bill should result in any discrepancy, however unlikely, between it and the regulations, it would be entirely possible for us to amend the regulations accordingly, by statutory instrument with the negative procedure.

Why did we go ahead with that measure? The hon. Lady asked whether the procedure had been approved by the European Commission. As Ministers, we always seek to minimise the risk of infraction, and we know that it would be good to get the regulations in place in a timely fashion so that local authorities and others can get on with the business that the regulations allow them to do, but on a parallel time scale to the Bill. The European Commission will ultimately review whether the directive has been properly implemented, and will take infraction proceedings if it thinks that it has not. Using this way forward has minimised the risk of that, and things are well under way.

On the tiers of authorities, the allocation of responsibility in the regulations is consistent with that in the Bill. On the estimate of annual cost, I do not have that to hand, but if the hon. Lady is happy, I will gladly write to her and other members of the Committee with a breakdown of the cost estimates.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to WAG’s role in this, and he is right that we have gone to the nth degree in working with our compatriots in Wales to ensure that this fits. The clause 2(2) regulations on the directive apply to England and Wales, and WAG have consulted on them. If hon. Members do not feel that the procedure is right, there is an opportunity to pray against the regulations. I cannot answer for the powers of WAG Members to do that. If Members prayed against the regulations, we would need to bring the legislation back. I am keen to ensure that the legislation moves ahead in the time scale that we have set for it.

Clause 5

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a simple question. If there is scope, what role, if any, does the Crown Estate have under the clause? Is it referred to in any shape or form?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am seeking some divine inspiration on the Crown Estate. I had not anticipated a question about that under the clause, but I am sure that the answer will come to me any moment now.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Perhaps Miss McIntosh would be happy with a written reply.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Inspiration has arrived. I am pleased to say that the Crown Estate is not a risk management authority as defined by the Bill, but it can be added. We have the power and ability in the Bill to add bodies subsequently that we clearly identify as risk management authorities. We have the most significant players here—those that can easily be defined as risk management authorities—but if, over time, things changed, we could add others. The Crown Estate is not currently specified in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for that reply. Will the Minister take the opportunity to write to members of the Committee if there are any other bodies that may fall into that category? That would be helpful.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Thinking of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, presumably the Marine Management Organisation might be one such body. Surely it ought to have some responsibility for managing coastal erosion. The hon. Lady might want to add that to her list.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Perhaps the Minister could write to the Committee on this matter.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would be most grateful if the Minister was minded to do that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I think the issue might come up when considering subsequent amendments. May I suggest that we deal with who should be identified as appropriate under subsequent amendments? It might then not be necessary to write to the Committee with a list of those organisations, although I am happy to do so. The nature of the matter is that we need the flexibility to change over time. I therefore do not have a definitive list. We have included the flexibility to change the list in subsequent guidance and regulations. We will deal with the issue under subsequent amendments.

Clause 6

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end insert—

‘(g) any land owners with a relevant interest.’.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end insert—

‘(g) Natural England.’.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Committee will be aware that landowners have a number of roles to play under the Bill. I am sure that they will be called upon with the increased levy and that many are members of the current flood defence committee. In terms of flood risk management, landowners are first and foremost risk managers in their own right. The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that.

A number of years ago, successive Governments made capital grants available to enable landowners to lay drains and irrigation channels, which they are now maintaining at their own expense. They pay their council taxes and so pay towards the role of district councils. Many in Yorkshire, East Anglia and other parts of the country where internal drainage boards exist pay substantial fees towards their work, which in turn fund in large part the work of the Environment Agency. At every level, landowners have a great role to play in the funding of flood risk management. In earlier debates, we spoke about crop protection where land is waterlogged or saturated and the crops are lost. Landowners can suffer substantial losses in that regard.

The purpose of the amendment is to recognise that landowners are interested parties. We would like to include them in the definition so that they are consulted. I hope that we have identified the right place for that recognition to appear. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will look favourably on the amendment because we are asking a lot from landowners. It would bring them in and recognise them as risk managers in their own right if we added them to the list of risk management authorities alongside the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authorities, the district councils, the internal drainage boards—I am delighted they are in the list—water companies and highway authorities. It is a great omission that landowners are not in the list. Adding them would make it complete.

Similarly, the addition of Natural England would be appropriate and, as can be seen, a lot of names support that. I understand that Natural England is the primary channel of funds for many flood alleviation schemes, in particular for EU-funded money. It seems natural to add Natural England. Obviously, for the sake of drafting, I would like landowners to be included as (g) and Natural England as (h). If we could agree on that, that would be great progress.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall speak to amendment 114, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and others. It would include Natural England among the list of risk management authorities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York has covered several of the issues that have led me to that conclusion. My hon. Friend has raised the issue of water management and flood mitigation being not only about construction and man-made features, but about the land and using the landscape to ensure that the water that falls on it is not discharged rapidly, but at a controlled rate.

Natural England has among its statutory powers the ability to conserve and enhance existing landscape features and even to create new landscape features. As such, Natural England is an integral part of risk management and should be included as an authority. Indeed, the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association have already developed a protocol with Natural England on coastal protection, allowing some of the coastal defences to break down so that land can be taken back by the sea. That is obviously a delicate issue, but one that has been advanced by the protocol and the close involvement of Natural England. I think that it would be a good idea to include Natural England in the list of risk management authorities.

With regard to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, I can understand why she would include landowners in the list, because they do manage the risk of flooding. My only reservation is that that would increase the number of risk management authorities by an enormous amount. Indeed, within the Bill there are duties on those authorities that some landowners might not think appropriate for individuals and private businesses. Therefore, I would have a little caution on that. I am not trying to do the Minister’s business, but I will say that there are amendments to be considered later that will make it a duty for various organisations to consult more closely with landowners and involve them in that way. I therefore press the Minister to include Natural England, but I would treat the issue of landowners with a little more concern.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Members for Vale of York and for Upminster have tabled amendment 8, which would add any landowners with a relevant interest to the list of risk management authorities, but there appears to be no clear definition of relevant interest. That is an interesting aspect of the matter, and I know that we could dance around that with regard to drafting and clarification, but there is something more fundamental to consider.

To pick up on the points made by the hon. Gentleman, this is not the part of the Bill in which to tackle concerns about the contribution of private property and individual landowners to flood risk. The bodies defined in the Bill are public bodies, including the water companies in their capacity as public undertakers. They have statutory functions and are given powers and public duties. They administer and receive public funding. They are held to account by regulators and pubic law. Therefore, the list is a clear category of organisations. Adding landowners as a class to that group simply would not work in that context, as they are not public authorities. In fact, heaven forfend the burden we would put upon them if we suddenly recognised them as such.

We recognise that there are issues with the contribution of private property to flood risk and flood risk management. We consulted on that in depth under the draft Bill and it was one of the most complex areas. Policy in this area needs further careful consideration, which we are actively undertaking on the back of the draft Bill. It might be best taken forward alongside linked areas, such as changes to IDBs, at a future legislative opportunity. I have signalled previously that we see the need to return and bring forward some of those additional aspects.

On Natural England and the flood alleviation responsibilities, I am informed that what has been said is not correct. However, clause 29 provides a power to add new authorities to the list of risk management authorities. There is good flexibility under the Bill where necessary. Over time, we need to consider whether there are additional bodies that have flood risk management functions. As appropriate, those will be brought forward.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire tabled amendment 114, which would include Natural England in the list of risk management authorities. I understand his point that Natural England is our principal environmental adviser and a source of great wisdom and expertise. I accept the point made by him and the hon. Member for Cheltenham about the need to think about what can be done for landscape biodiversity and so forth and I am sure we will return to that point. However, Natural England currently has no statutory flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. As such, it has not been included as a risk management authority.

As I just mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Vale of York, clause 29 provides for Ministers to make an order that allows responsibilities to be reassigned between authorities or for additional authorities to be listed as risk management authorities. Therefore, if Natural England or another body assumed flood or coastal risk management functions, which is not outside the realms of possibility, it would be possible to list it as a flood risk management authority.

There are two other matters that I would like to bring to the attention of hon. Members in respect of clause 29. First, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to amend clause 29(1) to clarify that new bodies can be added to the list of risk management authorities.

Secondly, we are considering whether clause 29(6) accurately implements the devolution settlement. If an intended reassignment of responsibility was from or to a cross-border risk management authority or another body, it is not clear where the ministerial responsibility would lie for making such an order. Is it with me, the Secretary of State or down the M4? That provision may have to be more precise about when an order under the section should be made by Welsh Ministers and when by the Secretary of State. If further provision is required to clarify that important but technical issue, we will table an amendment on Report.

With those assurances, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister’s fulsome remarks. In view of what he said and the possibility that we can revisit the matter under a more appropriate clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, at end add—

‘(14) “English risk management authority” means—

(a) the Environment Agency,

(b) a risk management authority within subsection (13)(b), (c) or (f) for an area that is wholly in England,

(c) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in England, and

(d) a water company that exercises functions in relation to an area in England.

(15) “Welsh risk management authority” means—

(a) the Environment Agency,

(b) a risk management authority within subsection (13)(b), (c) or (f) for an area that is wholly in Wales,

(c) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in Wales, and

(d) a water company that exercises functions in relation to an area in Wales.

(16) “Cross-border internal drainage board” means an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is partly in England and partly in Wales.’.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 44 to 52, 54 to 57, 59 to 61 and 79 to 81.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Due to my obstreperous nature, I hope that the Committee will agree to these essentially technical and administrative amendments, which clarify the position of risk management authorities in relation to the national strategies and guidance for England and Wales. In particular, they relate to cross-border internal drainage boards.

Amendment 43 introduces the terms “English risk management authority,” “Welsh risk management authority” and “cross-border internal drainage board.” English risk management authorities are defined as the Environment Agency risk management authorities that exercise their functions wholly in England, IDBs for a district that is wholly or mainly in England and water companies that exercise functions in relation to an area in England.

Welsh risk management authorities are defined as risk management authorities that exercise their functions wholly in Wales, IDBs for a district that is wholly or mainly in Wales, and water companies that exercise functions in relation to an area in Wales. Amendments 44 to 46 make associated amendments to clause 7. Their effect is that the national strategy will have to specify these English risk management authorities and their functions. The Environment Agency must consult those authorities and issue guidance about how they should exercise their duties under clauses 13 and 14. Although they are technical, the amendments are crucial to the effective operation of the arrangements set out in the Bill. Amendments 47 and 48 have the equivalent effect for Wales.

Amendments 49 to 52 make technical amendments to clause 11 that simplify the drafting of paragraphs (1) and (3), and introduce the concept of English risk management authorities into clause 11(1) and 11(4). Those amendments do not change the meaning of clauses 11(1) and 11(3) in respect of water companies. The concept of English risk management authorities is introduced into clauses 11(1) and 11(4), so that it is clear that these authorities, as defined under clause 6(13) with Government amendments, are bound by the obligations in clause 11. That means they have a duty to act consistently with the England national strategy and guidance and local strategies and guidance in the exercise of their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. They also have a duty to have regard to national and local strategies and guidance in the exercise of other functions that may affect a flood or coastal erosion risk. However, water companies are still treated differently.

Amendments 54 to 57 have an equivalent effect for Wales. Amendments 59 to 61 are further technical amendments in respect of cross-border internal drainage boards, which relate to clause 27 on sustainable development. The amended provision clarifies for cross-border internal drainage boards whether it is the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to whom the duty to issue guidance on sustainable development will fall.

Amendments 79 and 80 make minor technical changes to clause 15 to address cross-border issues. The first two amendments make changes to address the fact that the Environment Agency operates across both England and Wales. Those amendments are needed to ensure clarity as to when penalties will be subject to regulations by the Secretary of State and when subject to regulations by Welsh Ministers. As a result of the amendments, that will be dependent on whether the failure to comply with an information request relates to the exercise of an Environment Agency function in relation to England or in relation to Wales.

Finally, amendment 81 addresses a drafting error—my apologies—relating to the use of the term “authority” in the clause, which had not been defined as including the Welsh Ministers. Picking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, we are striving to ensure that this is absolutely Wales-and-England foolproof.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If we are minded to approve these amendments, I am tempted to ask the Minister, if we table some technical amendments, whether he would be equally minded to agree to them in the spirit of co-operation. Obviously, we do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time with these. I presume that they are all being moved together because they relate to the clauses that we are currently considering.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Only one is being moved; the rest are grouped for debate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for that. Obviously the Minister is perhaps closer to Wales than Scotland, but I understand that Scotland has gone down a slightly different path in that regard, and in relation to many other aspects of the Bill. We will put our minds at rest that this is a matter about which he does not intend to introduce any technical amendments at a later date.

I presume that the Environment Agency will play the same role in relation to both countries. To avoid any risk of judicial review further down the line, is the Minister convinced that the amendments lay to rest the issue of which is the relevant body and who is empowered to make the regulations?

Is the Minister saying that the regulations will either be laid before the Welsh Assembly for them to scrutinise or, if they are the responsibility of his Department, before both Houses of Parliament so that we can properly scrutinise them in this place?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

To the best of my knowledge, I will not table any amendments, and I hope that I will not do so in respect of Scotland, either. As for regulations, we will follow normal procedures in the House. In Wales, the standard practice is to put the regulations before the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments define quite clearly the bodies that we need for cross-border work, which is of interest to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and many others. They give powers to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards to apply the regulations. The regulations have been run around the House and the Welsh Assembly Government, so I can confirm that they are acceptable to both. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, it is important that we have working relationships bolted down properly in legislation.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

To clarify, the Minister is moving amendment 43 and will formally move the other amendments when we come to them.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Just to elaborate on earlier remarks on clause 6(7), I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is some concern over paragraph (b), which states that where there is no unitary authority, the county council should be the lead authority for the area. I do not know how much detail I am allowed to go into—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

As much as is in order.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed, I am sure that you will keep a close ear on that, Mr. Martlew. My concern is that if one is looking for examples of sustainable drainage alongside the highway, I have no doubt that the county council is the lead authority in that area. However, if one is considering a planning application for what I would call a SUDS—a sustainable urban drainage system—for a major new development, I have no doubt that the lead authority would be the district council. The district council is clearly the planning authority. As we will be coming on to that debate later, I do not want to have that argument now because we will have plenty of time to debate it when the moment is right.

Is the Minister minded to consider an element of flexibility, so that where there is no unitary authority—in York we have a unitary authority and in North Yorkshire we have the relationship between the counties and the districts—we can write into the Bill that the county council or district council for the area is responsible as is appropriate? That would help the Minister enormously. It is not in the Committee’s interest to get the backs up of any risk managers or the interested parties in that regard. Self-evidently, the Committee will see of its own accord which is the relevant council.

As drafted, clause 6(7) gives a hostage to fortune in the possible interpretation of lead authority, perhaps leading to a lot of unhappiness where there could be—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Joy.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Joy, even.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am always happy to bring joy into people’s lives. I do not want to pre-rehearse any discussions that we might have subsequently, but I applaud the hon. Lady for flagging up the issue under this clause. In the course of the draft Bill and also in recent weeks and months, we have had much good dialogue with the Local Government Association to try to resolve the issue and give some clarity and some reassurance that the Bill is not designed to trample over good working relationships and mechanisms on the ground. I think that we can return to that matter subsequently.

I do not want to walk away from Pitt’s clear recommendations to give clarity— and, in some ways simplicity—to where we put the responsibility, but that is not the same as how the measures will work on the ground with partnerships and collaboration. I want to give the hon. Lady that assurance at this point, before we get to more detailed discussions. We want to see the most effective use being made of those organisations at either tier, and also of IDBs and others on the ground. Not only in terms of the Bill, but in the current economic climate, I can see no other way of doing that, because we need to make the most efficient use of taxpayers’ money in the delivery.

Clause 7

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out ‘risk’.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 88, in clause 7, page 4, line 38, leave out ‘risk’.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I guess that we will have a stand part debate when we have discussed the amendments. Is that correct, Mr. Martlew?

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Yes.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Okay, but I would like to say that clause 7, on the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, is at the absolute heart of the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for having expedited the production at least of the headings of the strategy as it might appear in practice. We were hoping that that might somewhat reassure those of us who are a little worried about the division of responsibilities in the Bill. The original vision that some of us had imagined from the Pitt report, which said that there would be national oversight of all kinds of flooding for the Environment Agency and an equal lead local responsibility for all kinds of flooding for local authorities, and that they would be two clear general and comprehensive responsibilities—one local and one national—got a bit confused when the Bill came out. It seemed to preserve the more vertical split, in which some kinds of flooding were the responsibility of the national body—the Environment Agency—and some were the responsibility of local authorities, raising the possibility that some kinds might fall between the two and not be picked up by either.

Looking at the draft outline of the national strategy, it is not absolutely clear that those fears have been allayed. There are some questions about whether the outline strategy might simply allocate responsibilities rather than provide national leadership, support and advice—I think those were Pitt’s words—from the Environment Agency, as the national body. Perhaps we can return to that in the stand part debate.

With your permission, Mr. Martlew, I shall talk about amendments 88 and 89 along with amendment 87, because they would implement exactly the same idea. I referred earlier to a more holistic approach to flood and water management in the landscape, and to trying to accept that flooding is a natural process with which we have to cope, albeit in a largely man-made landscape that now requires active management in a way that the original natural landscape of the country did not. That vision is shared by many organisations, including those involved in the Blueprint for Water campaign, which has set out an inspiring vision. It

“advocates a move away from flood defence, coastal erosion control and land drainage that is aimed solely at achieving the greatest cost/benefit in terms of risk reduction even where adverse environmental impacts are mitigated. We believe the focus should be on flood and coastal management that delivers clear environmental solutions. Government policy has taken considerable steps towards this in the Vision and Aims set out in ‘Making Space for Water’, the setting of environmental, social and economic targets in the current set of ‘Outcome Measures’ and reinforced by the Vision set out in ‘Future Water’. Nevertheless most FCERM”—

flood and coastal erosion management—

“schemes can still be characterised as business-as-usual with environmental targets being met off-site from the ‘real business’ of building flood defences.”

Indeed, earlier I gave the local example of a clear option for working with the landscape and using natural features to control and retain water, rather than the alternative of concentrating entirely on building hard defences in a built-up area and allowing development to go ahead in a natural landscape. That example underlines the fact that we tend to have an entirely risk-based approach and take a hard defence route as the default option, rather that one that is more holistic and ecologically inspired. That is the purpose behind amendments 87, 88 and 89, which seek to talk not about risk management, but in simple terms about flood and water management.

Amendment 90 is slightly different. It is surely the most innocuous and inoffensive of all amendments proposed for the Bill, as it would simply insert the word “all”. That is simply to clarify—we have the heads of an outline national strategy in front of us, but it still needs clarifying—that the Environment Agency will have an all-encompassing responsibility for all flood risk. If that is the case, as the Minister’s earlier remarks suggested, surely there can be no possible objection to inserting the word “all” in the clause. That is a really serious issue, because it relates to ground water and watercourses that are not main rivers, which might be deemed to be the responsibility of the Environment Agency, but which, instead, are the responsibility of local authorities.

There was an example in Cheltenham in the appropriately named Brook vale and the neighbouring Oak avenue—it was possible in the aftermath of the floods to tell from the addresses what kind of case work was coming in. The people of Brook vale wanted me to see the very small brook in question, which was undoubtedly not a main river—it barely got the top of my shoes wet when I stood in it, as it was only an inch or so deep. It rose 15 feet at the height of the floods because the nature of the watercourse and the blockage in the culvert below it meant that there was nowhere for the water to go, so it rose straight up to fill the available natural valley near Brook vale and went straight into people’s houses, many of which were not even on the Environment Agency’s flood risk map. One resident had been told that their house had a one-in-1,000 chance of flooding, when the water went up over the top of the natural landscape features and followed its natural course down the hill, straight through what were then people’s houses in Oak avenue.

Although the brook was only a minor water course, and not the kind of thing that would have been the responsibility of the Environment Agency under the old arrangements for the oversight of flooding, the incident was a serious example of flooding. The water was extremely deep, and lives could easily have been lost. A disabled lady who lived in one of the houses could easily have lost her life if she had been caught on the wrong floor when the huge flood came through. Cars were completely buried in flood water and a huge amount of damage was done. That was a really serious incidence of flooding in my constituency, yet it was not within the current Environment Agency’s responsibility.

The Environment Agency is the body that has the expertise, not only in hydrology, but in mapping techniques—resources that local authorities can only dream of in exercising their responsibilities. It also has a vital connection with the Met Office so that in such circumstances, it can combine its knowledge of the landscape and hydrology with predicted weather patterns and map the likelihood of a certain event happening on a certain day.

Pitt made a clear statement on page 35 of his report:

“The Environment Agency should progressively take on a national overview of all flood risk, including surface water and groundwater flood risk, with immediate effect.”

There is a strong suggestion that we need to get away from the tangle of responsibilities and have one body with a clear oversight role. The risk of the phraseology that is creeping into the Bill and the heads of a strategy we have seen from the Department in the past few days is of a vertical split developing. It is there at the moment.

The Minister responded positively to my questions and comments this morning about the national flood line being a single point of contact. However, I rang the national flood line over lunch and it confirmed that, for the moment, it can give advice about only main rivers and sea flooding. With the planning issues we have discussed, there seems to be confusion over what the Environment Agency can give advice on locally and in planning appeals, not least in the Environment Agency and DEFRA.

After the floods of 2007, many of us found in our constituencies a terrible tangle of responsibilities, with people repeatedly trying to phone organisations. In the example of Brook vale that I have given, it was unclear who was responsible for the culvert and for looking after the watercourse. In some cases, when we pressed to find out who had the legal responsibility for a particular watercourse, the great ghost of riparian ownership raised its head and it turned out that the poor, beleaguered householders had the only clearly defined legal responsibility for maintenance. In an estate called Whaddon in my constituency, the culvert passed hidden from view underneath people’s houses and I suspect that most of them were unaware that it existed. It was only through the good inclinations of the local authority or the Environment Agency that any maintenance was done on some watercourses.

Pitt was right that it is vital that we resolve this issue and address once and for all the creation of a buck-stops-here agency, where the expertise resides on all forms of flooding. That is all that is behind the incredibly simple insertion of the word “all” into clause 7 under amendment 90. That amendment is incredibly important and I would welcome the Minister’s response.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Amendments 87, 88 and 89, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, seek to broaden the national strategy to address wider flood and coastal erosion management, rather than just risk management. That would enable the strategy to address the beneficial effects of flooding on the environment, as well as the negative impacts. However, there is already provision for the strategy to set out how it contributes to the achievement of such wider environmental objectives in clause 7(2)(j).

The Bill includes a duty for local authorities and internal drainage boards to contribute to sustainable development through the management of flood and coastal erosion risks. The Environment Agency already has that duty. It supports new approaches to flood and coastal erosion risk management, including working with natural processes—something we have discussed already—and will aim to reduce the threat to people in the property and, at the same time, deliver those greater environmental, social and economic benefits that are consistent with the Government’s sustainable development principles.

The Bill also provides powers for authorities to manage flooding and coastal erosion to gain beneficial effects for people and the environment as well as to reduce the harmful impacts of those processes. The national and local strategies will include a statement on how flooding and coastal erosion will be managed to contribute to relevant environmental objectives. They will provide an opportunity for authorities to consider and explain how risk reduction and environmental objectives will be integrated in their area.

The kinds of environmental benefits that we would expect to see and the hon. Gentleman would want to see as a result of this joined-up and integrated approach include—this is not exclusive—better water quality, better carbon management, and more attractive, ecologically rich and accessible coastal and river landscapes. In saying that, may I just draw his attention to something? I do not know whether he has seen this, but I have a copy—please do not hold me to this precisely—of the first draft outline of the national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. I just briefly want to read into the record from that. Within the context of managing the risks, there are two overall objectives: first, to reduce the threat to people and their property, which is primarily what the risk management focus is about, and rightly so within the Bill; secondly, to deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefit consistent with the Government’s sustainable development principles.

Having said all that, it is important to recognise that the primary purpose of the strategy will be to manage risk. I will come back to that strategy in a moment. It is also important to note that many of the environmental benefits are associated with water level management, rather than flooding. The constraints of time in this sitting mean that those policy areas will be dealt with in subsequent legislation.

The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire have also tabled amendment 90, which would require the national strategy to set out objectives for managing all flood and coastal erosion risk. At this point, although I recognise how innocuous he says it is, unfortunately we have a problem of a technical nature. The amendment could be interpreted in a number of ways—let me just cite two. It could mean that objectives need to be set out for all different sources of flooding or it could be that objectives need to be stated for each geographical area. I am therefore reluctant to accept the amendment as it could cause unintended confusion in its interpretation. However, I am happy to make it clear that the strategy is, indeed, intended to cover the management of risk from all sources of flooding, except those identified in clause 1(3).

Let me just refer to one other part of the draft outline. The national strategy will set out an overview of all forms of flood and coastal erosion risk management, bringing together the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act and the floods directive with ongoing activities. It will be a high-level publicly accessible document setting out the scale of risk for different sources, explaining the way that risk is managed and providing a framework linked to local strategies and other plans and documents. The national strategy will set out an overview of all forms of flood and coastal erosion risk management and will bring together other pieces of legislation and other aspects that are already in place.

With that clarification, I invite the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, who have raised important points that we have already covered, to withdraw the amendments.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

On amendments 87, 88 and 89, yet again we have to make a judgment call on whether we think the Minister’s good intentions and the strongly sustainability-oriented wording that he uses in his replies should or should not be reflected in the Bill. Such wording is in some places and this was another opportunity to make it more obvious in the Bill, but I am happy to take his remarks in good faith and withdraw amendment 87 and not press amendments 88 and 89.

I am much less convinced about amendment 90. I am afraid that there is a risk here. Pitt said that there should be a national leadership co-ordination and advice role for the Environment Agency on all forms of flooding. The Minister’s excuses for not putting the word “all” into the subsection, which sounded—I hope his colleagues will forgive me for this—a little like civil service speak, are really a bit pernickety. To say that it might raise the possibility that we have to include each geographical area seems to ignore the word “national”, which is at the top of both the document and the clause. Clearly, a national document does not have to address each geographical area in turn. The Minister is now nodding vigorously. Perhaps he wants to intervene on me and reassure me that the word might be included.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Even though we have a technical issue with this, we are trying to achieve the same thing. Let me assure him that I will take this away and have a look at it. If we can get it right, we will try to bring something back. At the moment, there is an ambiguity. Legally, the measure could be interpreted in different ways. If the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance on that, I will reconsider the matter. We are trying to do the same thing.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

We are both in the game of trying to remove ambiguities, so I am very happy to accept the Minister’s good offices in that respect, so I will not press amendment 90.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

On a point of order. I am not aware that we have debated the amendments.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

We have debated them, but they had to be moved formally on the Order Paper. I informed Members at the time.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert—

‘(b) bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely, in the opinion of the Agency, to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion.’.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 92, in clause 7, page 5, line 16, at end insert—

‘(ba) national registered charities whose aims under section 2 (2)(i) of the Charities Act 2006 include the advancement of environmental protection or improvement,

(bb) Natural England,

(bc) Regional Flood and Coastal Erosion Committees as established under section 22,’.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

This is an attempt to be helpful to the Minister and to save disappointment and angst later on. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, landowners and managers are instrumental in protecting other land from flooding because it is in their own interests. They do not want their land to flood, so they are keen to see that flooding does not take place at all.

We believe that the agency should consult landowners and managers about the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. When it was first suggested that such an amendment should be tabled, it was said that there should be a requirement to consult with every landowner or manager. I can understand why there could be a problem in identifying every landowner and manager to ensure that they complied with the legislation; I am sure that the Minister will agree. I thought that it was a better idea to have bodies representing owners and managers rather than having the owners and managers themselves. We must do everything that we can to ensure that we get co-operation and compliance with all the interested parties. Those parties will play a large role in achieving the objectives that we set out in the section about consultation. There is a requirement to consult in public, but that is a rather vague and nebulous term. I suppose that the Environment Agency could say that it could consult the public by putting a rather small advert in the corner of a local or indeed national newspaper. However, that is not the point; the point is to encourage engagement and co-operation. Therefore, an obligation on behalf of the Environment Agency to consult landowners and land managers would be a good thing to achieve the objectives that are set out in the Bill.

In the corresponding clause 8—

“National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy: Wales”—

there is no obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult. I presume that that obligation would be achieved by regulation in the Welsh Assembly Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that issue when he comments on the advisability of consulting representatives of landowners and land managers.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Amendment 115 relates to the discussion and what I thought was the sympathetic hearing that we received from the Minister in relation to our earlier amendment. Perhaps the Minister is right that this is the more appropriate place to make this change.

On any reading of the clause, it is very bland to say that the agency “must consult...the public” without being more specific. Because of the implications for landowners of many aspects of the Bill, it would be nice to have agreement that it is spelled out that it is owners and occupiers of land—so it is landowners and farmers who farm that particular land—who could be referred to specifically.

I would also like to move amendment 9 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, along the lines that we believe it is absolutely vital that both Houses of Parliament should have the right to scrutinise the strategy. Therefore, we call for the approved strategy or guidance under clause 7—

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Order. At this point, you are not moving the amendment; you are speaking to the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Of course. I am sorry to use language so loosely. I would like informally to introduce the little, humble, modest amendment that I am sure will charm the Minister so much that—[Laughter.] Otherwise, I really will get formal.

We believe that the strategy or guidance should only be made if it is laid before and approved by resolution—I think that it is the affirmative resolution and that is why we put it in those terms. So I hope that the Committee and the Minister will look favourably on amendments 115 and 9.

I should also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the conclusions of the Select Committee. I would not say that the Government were chastised by the Select Committee, because the Minister is such a nice man that we could not possibly chastise him, but the Select Committee concluded that clarity on the form of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy should be provided in the Bill or through an order-making power subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. The Select Committee further recommended that the Bill provide for the strategy to be reported to Parliament.

In amendment 9, therefore, we are really just following through on that desire of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, will support the conclusions of the Select Committee, on which he also serves, in that regard.

The Select Committee also recommended that the Department publish details of how the strategy will be prepared and scrutinised, and over what period it will be reviewed. I am not entirely convinced that that issue has been addressed in the clause, so I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister in that regard.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I shall speak about amendments 92 and 93, which are being considered in this group. I am attempting to be even more helpful to the Government by sharing with them a source of invaluable expertise and wise counsel. My background is in the voluntary sector, so I am naturally inclined to look to the third sector as a source of expert advice and well informed and well judged opinions. Voluntary organisations, of which there are a huge number relating to environmental, water and flooding issues, are an obvious group of bodies to consult. They should be consulted properly and formally when a national flood and coastal erosion strategy is being drawn up.

We have the National Flood Forum, all the bodies involved in the “Blueprint for Water”, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust, the wildlife trusts, Froglife, the World Wildlife Fund UK—the list goes on. It is potentially invidious to name in a Bill specific organisations that we should consult. I know from my background in branding charities that their names change from time to time and that it is occasionally difficult to keep track of them.

Luckily, the Charities Act 2006 provides a neat way of identifying precisely which organisations the Environment Agency might care to consult on drafting its strategy. It provides the new heads of charity—the new definitions of charitable activity. It specifies

“the advancement of environmental protection or improvement”,

which neatly encompasses almost everything in the Bill and a bit more besides.

That was the first piece of legislation I ever dealt with in this place and I assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North that even though it was only a couple of years ago, it seems like an eternity. One gets a number of these things under one’s belt in time. It is a useful piece of legislation, which carries a precise definition of environmental organisations. Those charities could easily be a category of statutory consultee for the national strategy. Indeed, the Charity Commission no doubt has those data in easily accessible form and could provide a list to the Environment Agency within a matter of hours. On the geography, postcodes are stored by the Charity Commission, so Welsh environmental organisations would be equally easy to identify definitively.

The amendments would add two other organisations in England and Wales that seem to be obvious and natural consultees. One is Natural England, which has overarching responsibility within Government for looking at the natural environment and advising the Government on it; it seems to be the most obvious consultee imaginable for a truly environmentally sustainable flood risk and coastal erosion strategy. Its equivalent in Wales is the Countryside Council for Wales. I am sure that at some point my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will give me the proper Welsh version of that.

Later, the Bill goes to great lengths to establish regional English and Welsh flood defence committees from the old flood defence committees. However, those are not statutory consultees in the process. Presumably, they are expected to be the principal reservoir—pardon the pun—of informal and voluntary expertise on flooding in particular parts of the UK. It is bizarre that they will not be part of the statutory consultation process.

What we are asking does not open great floodgates, add thousands of organisations or bring in a very complex way of consulting, but it would get away from the vagueness in the term “the public”, which has been referred to. That term could be used to cover up a lacklustre and half-hearted consultation. If we specifically include Natural England, regional committees and the voluntary sector, we can be sure that the public will hear of any issues arising from future versions—or even the first version—of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. I heartily commend the amendments to the Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Hon. Members have tabled amendments concerning approval and consultation of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. Amendment 9 would require both Houses to approve the draft national strategy. The Bill already requires public consultation on the national strategy, as well as consultation with the risk management authorities and Welsh and Scottish Ministers, in so far as the strategy affects Wales and Scotland.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State noted that it would be for the Select Committee to decide what it wished to do. The EFRA Committee will, of course, be able to scrutinise the strategy at the same time as it goes out for public consultation. The code of practice on consultation, to which both DEFRA and the Environment Agency have signed up, states:

“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.”

That period of time should be sufficient for the EFRA Committee to consider the strategy, it is consistent with the time provided for pre-legislative scrutiny for example, and we would expect such a consultation to be arranged to avoid long overlaps with parliamentary recesses. Similarly, I can assure the Committee that the Welsh Assembly Government are committed, as they always are, to ensuring wide consultation on their draft national strategy.

Providing for formal parliamentary approval of the draft strategy would be disproportionate. In fact, we are confident that the EFRA Committee, which has been rightly lauded today for the work that it has done on this Bill and other legislation, will provide very effective scrutiny indeed. The approved strategy and guidance will in any case be laid before Parliament, providing an opportunity for them to be considered and debated if required.

Amendments 92 and 115 would require third sector environmental and conservation organisations, Natural England, regional flood and coastal erosion committees, and bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely in the opinion of the Environment Agency to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion, to be specified as statutory consultees on the national strategy. The bodies listed in the amendments are already covered by the duty of the Environment Agency to consult the public about the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. The Environment Agency already engages with such bodies as a matter of course during national consultations, and is already duty bound to consult with regional flood and coastal erosion committees in the execution of its flood risk management functions. It is also subject to a duty to secure public involvement through section 23 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

I can go further and give assurances, because I recognise the concern to ensure that the right people are consulted. The question is, how much do we put in the Bill and how much do we put elsewhere? There is an opportunity here because the Secretary of State is allowed to issue guidance directly to the Environment Agency. I think that that is how we can stipulate to the Environment Agency who should be consulted, not simply through normal public consultation, but to say in writing who we think it should be. I do not want to prescribe it here because of the classic risk of saying, “These ones are in and these ones are out”. The hon. Member for Cheltenham proposed a very interesting idea about the third sector, I have to say. That may be exactly the approach that brings it all together in the Secretary of State’s guidance and talks about landowners and landowner organisations. There is an opportunity to do it, but it should not be in the Bill, because of the problem of fixing things in stone.

Amendment 93 concerns the Welsh consultation process, and would require Welsh Ministers to consult risk management authorities in Wales, the public, Welsh environmental and conservation organisations, the CCW and the Welsh regional flood and coastal erosion committees on the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. My colleague Jane Davidson, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, has already made clear her commitment to conducting a full public consultation on the Welsh national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, so that will happen. We are happy to give the undertaking that she can signal guidance to us on matters such as who should be part of that, in the same way as the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the Environment Agency.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire suggested that the Environment Agency might consult by placing small ads in papers and so on. That has not been ruled out, but it needs to go a hell of a lot further than that given the agency’s obligations and duties under this and other Bills. Just taking the action to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be being compliant with the code on consultation. We want it to go a lot further. Good points have been made, but we need to find a way to get such things done. Indeed, we have ways that would not bolt down such matters for ever. We need to give the flexibility whereby a future Minister can turn round and say, “Well, actually we now have another organisation that we need to bring forward.” For all those reasons, such as detailing the degree of quality consultation in England and Wales that the national strategy will receive, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

We have listened to the Minister and, as always, he has sought to reassure us on such matters. He has done that. It would be good if the guidance that he or a subsequent Minister issues to the Environment Agency could be shared with members of the Committee or, indeed, Members of Parliament in general.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I simply intervene to give the assurance that I will certainly share such guidance, and I commit my Secretary of State to doing so. Any future Minister, whether it is me or someone else, will have to read the transcript of my commitment, and heaven help them if they do not honour it.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank the Minister for so generously reassuring us about such matters.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank the Minister for his comments. We have twice put down a marker that landowners should be formally written into the Bill, so he might like to come back to us on that point.

As for amendment 9, perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not correct by saying that what we are seeking to do is disproportionate. Not all hon. Members who wish to be members of a Select Committee can do so. We believe that it is appropriate that regulations or strategies that are adopted in the spirit of openness, transparency and the desire for scrutiny should be considered by a motion tabled by each House of Parliament. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

We now come to clause 7, page 5—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clause stand part?

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

No. It is hard enough with only one Chairman, not two.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to make a small but significant point. The Department was invited by the Select Committee at the drafting stage of the Bill to consider writing a definition of strategy in the Bill. For what reason has the Department chosen not to introduce such a definition? There are definitions on strategy in other legislation. There are precedents for defining strategies and policy statements. The marine policy statement in part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and part 2 of the Planning Act 2008 contain provisions for the Government to produce national policy statements. The Department’s attention was drawn to that in two respects so that it could consider giving such a definition. Is the Minister minded to bring forward such a definition at a later date, perhaps on Report, and why was a conscious decision taken not to implement a definition of strategy at that stage?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I refer the hon. Lady to clause 7(2), which contains the steps we have taken to clarify the meaning by setting out what we understand by a strategy:

“The strategy must specify...the risk management authorities in England...the flood and coastal erosion risk management functions”

and so on. We have tried to set out an indication of what we understand will be in the strategy, although perhaps in a different way to that which the hon. Lady would have wanted. We have tried to go some way in complying with the Committee’s request.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I should like to return briefly to some of my opening comments about the division of responsibilities in the Bill. That is reflected in both the Bill’s wording and the draft outline flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. The National Flood Forum, ourselves and others are concerned that there is too much vertical division of responsibility. The Minister has an opportunity now to make clear those points that might have been somewhat buried in the draft outline. The third bullet point for the objectives in the draft sets out what it describes as principles—a risk-based approach, working in partnership and a co-ordinated approach to the management of different sources of flood risk. That one tiny phrase really goes to the absolute heart of this.

If national co-ordination and leadership, which Sir Michael Pitt’s has called for, is to be shown by the Environment Agency, that is where it will be shown and where the Environment Agency, on all forms of flood risk, can start to give real guidance and direction. That could include a more sustainable or sensitive approach to risk. It could be a more customer-focused approach, and one that was more sensitive to the victims of flooding. That is where that can start to be laid out and leadership can start to be given to local authorities. Perhaps the Minister would like to expand on what he expects to see in that tiny section. Will there just be a couple of paragraphs that will not really provide the kind of national leadership, co-ordination and advice that Sir Michael Pitt was looking for?

I should also like to ask the Minister about two other sections in the draft outline that are relevant to the clause. What are the different roles and responsibilities, and how exactly will they be enforced and monitored? It is not clear that the Environment Agency itself has much of a role beyond setting out that strategy, as there is no clear description of what it will do after being given those responsibilities. What if it comes to the Environment Agency’s attention that a particular local authority or flood risk management authority is not performing its task? Is there, hidden somewhere in the Bill that I have not spotted, a clear role for the Environment Agency in launching investigations or trying to enforce the various strategies and national leadership that it sets out in the national strategy? Will that kind of process be set out in the national strategy itself, and how will that work in practice?

Finally, we have been given section 6 of the outline national strategy, which deals with the process for review in time scales, setting out how and when delivery of the strategy will be monitored and revised, but that raises a few questions as well. Who will do the monitoring? If the Environment Agency has national oversight, who will monitor its delivery of the strategy? Perhaps the Minister would like to expand a little on how he sees that working in practice. This might seem like picking out small details of the document that he has given us, but it gets to the heart of some of the concerns many local authorities and observers have that the Bill still does not resolve that tangle of responsibilities or create the single, buck-stops-here responsibility for the Environment Agency that we were all looking for and that Sir Michael Pitt so strongly recommended.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points, so perhaps I can expand a little on those and clarify them. We anticipate that the national strategy will go into quite some depth on the principles of the risk-based approach, on work and on partnerships as well. I will just expand on that a little bit in a moment, because the essence of the Bill is getting the balance of people working together right, with agents working together, a co-ordinated approach to the management of different sources of flood risk and sustainability as well. It will go into some depth on that.

The national strategy will not prescribe local flood and coastal erosion risk management decisions. It will provide the framework in which they can be made in a consistent manner between areas. We know that if we make the wrong decision in one area, it will impact negatively on another area, as has been mentioned before. It will also ensure that the investment of public funds—they are significant funds now, and they will have to grow as well—in flood and coastal risk management is carried out equitably. That is an important principle of how we carry out the work, seeking maximum benefits, so that the national strategy will ensure that that is done. Local strategies will need to reflect that element of the national strategy, and decisions will need to be made in the context of wider risk to ensure that decisions made in one area do not impact negatively on another and are not compromised by a lack of investment in one area compared with another.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the national strategy will provide the co-ordination required for the effective management and partnership management of flood and coastal erosion risks, while enabling the development of solutions that genuinely meet local needs. Who will monitor that strategy? That is a fair point. Ministers hold—the Secretary of State and I hold—regular performance reviews with the Environment Agency and this will form part of that; it will include the delivery of the national strategy as well. That is where people are currently held to account. We have still got to see more of this fleshed out, but that is our direction of travel. The strategy will be held to account, and it will get away from the very rigid vertical approach and allow joined-up working and flexibility as well. However, it will be set in that national parameter, so that we have equity and do not have unintended consequences in other areas. It will also allow that element of local partnership work as well.

Clause 8

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I am keen to speak on the clause because my constituency is surrounded on three sides by the sea and has some very significant coastal erosion. It is an extremely important area that we need to consider. What I am going to say has some relevance to clauses 9 and 10, which other hon. Members may wish to pick up later on.

First, I should like to ask about the difference between clauses 7 and 8. In clause 7, there is a monitoring role for the Environment Agency, while that appears to be missing from clause 8. Welsh Ministers do not seem to have a monitoring role for that strategy. How it is envisaged that the strategy will be monitored?

Clause 8(2) contains the detail of exactly what the flood and coastal risk management strategy should consist of and what should be done. Under subsection (2)(e), the strategy must specify how and when the measures are to be implemented.

I should like to place my comments in the context of a plain-speaking report produced by the Welsh Audit Office in October 2009. It found that progress had been slow in respect of the Welsh Assembly Government’s new approaches programme, which brings together stakeholders with interests and responsibilities for the coastline. The report is critical, citing insufficient capacity for the programme, which, it says, was evident from the Welsh Assembly Government’s response to the Pitt review. It cites leadership issues and lack of clarity about the aims of the programme and fragmented and poorly co-ordinated management processing systems. That is extremely worrying, because although those comments are being made about the Welsh Assembly Government, they may apply to some of the lead local flood authorities. Although some of them might perform outstandingly, others might not be so well equipped to perform their tasks.

Our constituents want to see progress on the issue but they are extremely worried about flooding and coastal erosion. How can the provisions of clause 8—and those under clauses 9 and 10, about which Member might want to speak later—be strengthened? I appreciate the difficulties involved in dealing with a range of strategies across the country—for example, it might be difficult to define dates by which something must be done—but the current situation is open-ended, so we need some assurances that things will happen: people are impatient to make progress.

The position with catchment areas has been explained, but the same can be said of the coast: one area can easily impact on another. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the issue of dredging in our part of the world, where activity on one part of the coast can have serious consequences for another part, with different lead flood authorities being involved. Moreover, given that some authorities might be in England and others Wales, with different time lines, different strategies and different implementation times, there seems to be worrying scope for drift.

We want the most effective action to be taken, so will the Minister clarify how that will be achieved without the relevant wording being in the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady identified issues that go to the heart of clause 8. My concern is that different guidance and strategies could be issued by this place and the Welsh Assembly. What are the implications for cross-border areas, and who will arbitrate disputes that might arise from the differing guidance?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli reminds me that she and I discussed flooding issues affecting her constituents when I was a Wales Office Minister.

My hon. Friend asked why the Environment Agency has no monitoring role under the Welsh strategy. That is to do with slight differences due to devolution. The strategy will be developed in Wales by Welsh Ministers, who will also be responsible for monitoring and implementation. However, the Environment Agency will need to report, and under clause 18(2), that report will include a strategy. It will report both to Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Secretary of State in England, so they will monitor progress effectively.

I hear what my hon. Friend says about the worry about drift and the consultation spreading. I am sure that our colleague, Jane Davidson, will have heard what has been said in Committee today, and will want to guard against that. In fact, I can probably assist a little as well. The Welsh Assembly Government consulted, as we did, on the draft Flood and Water Management Bill. There was strong support in Wales for the production of a national strategy and for the retention of a strong strategic role for Welsh Ministers. That ties in with the way that Welsh devolution has evolved.

In taking forward the comments arising from their consultation, Welsh Ministers felt that the best way to meet the needs of the people of Wales was for them to prepare a national strategy for Wales. A summary of the consultation responses, as considered by the Welsh Assembly Government, is available on the website, and details of the outcome of the consultation in Wales are contained in the joint Government response to the consultation on the draft Bill, which is available on the DEFRA website.

In terms of timing, the Welsh Assembly Government have already begun early planning work for the national strategy, and they intend to publish a draft for consultation this spring. Publication of the final strategy will take place later this year, dependent on a number of factors, including the length of the consultation, the nature of the response, and what, if any, changes are required as a result of that consultation. However, I know that my hon. Friend will make representations, not only about the consultation, but about ensuring that it takes place in a timely manner.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked, quite rightly, who would be the arbiter of the disputes. That is classic territory for me, as a former Welsh Office Minister and as a DEFRA Minister. How do we deal with such cross-border issues? The crux of the matter—we went through this in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill—is that the two Governments will have to work together. They will have to co-operate fully on the matter and consult. There is no arbiter. There are Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, the Secretary of State and me. The nature of that match is established in the work, relationships and, when necessary, underpinning protocols. However, I do not think that protocols are needed. We have put the strategies and the cross-border arrangements in place and we need to ensure that they work effectively.

I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Vale of York the assurance that they need. I think that the clause will be a good one, and the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers will deliver a good strategy to meet the needs of the Welsh people.