Land Drainage Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 15 June 1994)

HL Deb 15 June 1994 vol 555 cc1776-88 1776

§ 8.20 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly. [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the environment]:

§ Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 13, at end insert: ("(aa) to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas;").

§ The noble Viscount said: I have been involved in matters on water all afternoon. Members of the Committee may be pleased to hear that we again beat the Commons in the annual yacht race!

Noble Lords
Hear, hear!

Viscount Addison
This amendment would require an internal drainage board, each of the Ministers and the NRA, to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas", in formulating or considering any proposals relating to any functions of an internal drainage board.
The duties placed on internal drainage boards, each of the Ministers and the NRA in relation to the land drainage activities of internal drainage boards can be summarised as: to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty; to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings; and to take into account any effects on the beauty or amenity of any area. These environmental duties are explicit. In contrast, the extent to which all those involved should take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry, and of the economic and social interests of rural areas, is far less clear.
1777 On page 1 of the Bill lines 14 to 25 state that the duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is to be exercised so far as may be consistent … with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of … [an internal drainage] board". It is not clear what that requirement means in relation to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. Moreover, that requirement appears to apply only to the duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, not to the additional duties to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings and to take into account any affects on the beauty or amenity of any area. It may be helpful to note that this amendment parallels a provision that already exists in other legislation.
Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 places a duty on every Minister, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and local authorities, in exercising their functions under that Act, to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas". A parallel provision is needed in the current Bill in relation to the duties that it would confer on the Minister, the National Rivers Authority and internal drainage boards. Otherwise, there may be a risk that, in seeking to honour their environmental duties, internal drainage boards may neglect the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. Providing such a duty towards agriculture, forestry and economic and social interests would be entirely consistent with the tenets of sustainable development. It would emphasise the need for an integrated approach to be taken in this area, as elsewhere.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, may in part have dealt with that concern in his response to the debate at Second Reading, when he said that, the legislation under which … [internal drainage boards] act, rightly gives precedence to flood defence considerations, and that will not change".—[Official Report, 26/5/94; col. 891] It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that all the environmental duties established by Clause 61A of this Bill will indeed be exercised only in so far as they are consistent with, and have due regard to, the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Nicol
These amendments are rather similar to amendments that were moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the National Parks Bill. But there is a difference in this case: the internal drainage boards already act in the interests of agriculture and forestry, and indeed the economy. The reason for the provision in this Bill to further conservation is to provide a check on just those activities. Therefore I feel that this particular amendment and the following one are probably unnecessary. I hope that whoever is to wind up can confirm that. The constitution of the internal drainage boards ensures that local agricultural interests are well represented.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say to the Minister and to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that I am very anxious that the arrival of 1778 these amendments should not delay the progress of the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister this question: if the Bill should collapse as a result of delays in this Chamber now, will he assure us that its provisions will be included in the next possible vehicle which is available to the Government; and that if that happens the wording of this Bill as it stands will be unchanged?

§ Lord Beaumont of Whitley
Perhaps I may say a general word on the amendments as a whole. This Party is very much in favour of the Bill going through, and we very much hope that it will. We hope therefore that, as a result of the replies that will be given by the noble Earl and by the spokesman for the Government, the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be satisfied and will not cany these amendments on. It would be a very great pity if a Bill which is already in danger of running out of time were to run into the ground. I have to say yet again that it is a great pity that so many good Bills which should be government Bills have to come to us under private patronage —although we admire the masochism of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and others who undertake them. It is important that good Bills which basically have no opposition should go through. It is my advice, as it is the advice of the noble Baroness, that these amendments as a whole are unnecessary. I have a whole sheaf of arguments which I could produce to try to reinforce that point. But I have placed my trust in the noble Earl and in the Government Front Bench, and in the good sense of the proposers of these amendments that they will in due course withdraw them.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of -Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
I believe that I can help my noble friend Lord Addison by confirming that the conservation duties in Sections 61A and 61B apply only so far as they are consistent with the flood defence functions of internal drainage boards and local authorities. That simply carries forward the present position under Section 12 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 so far as IDBs are concerned; and new Section 61B, although we have not yet come to that, would apply that also to local authorities.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, under the 1991 Act, the prime function of boards and local authorities is to provide for land drainage and flood defence. There should be no doubt about that. Conservation duties are subject to that, and my noble friend's Bill would not alter that emphasis. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary, particularly when one considers—to take up a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol,—that internal drainage boards are governed by a combination of agricultural drainage ratepayers and local authority nominees who will be well versed in agriculture, forestry and rural matters generally. I hope that what I have said provides the reassurance that my noble friend needs.
The noble Baroness asked whether, if this Bill were to fail in this Chamber, the Government would reintroduce these measures as now drafted. I naturally very much hope that this Bill will not fail. It carries the full support of the Government. For that reason it would 1779 not perhaps be helpful to speculate about unfortunate eventualities of that kind. I would reiterate that the Bill carries the full support of the Government.

§ 8.30 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay
The effect of my noble friend's amendment, as he has explained, would require internal drainage boards specifically to take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry and economic and social interests of rural areas in carrying out their functions. I should make clear, however, that the new Section 61A does not tilt the duties of internal drainage boards towards conservation; in fact it does not do anything new at all. It simply carries forward the existing provisions of Section 12 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 to the new Part IVA of the Act, which my noble friend the Minister has explained. This brings together all the environmental provisions that affect boards and local authorities.
The main function of an IDB under Section 1 of the 1991 Act is to carry out land drainage and flood defences within its district. My Bill does not change that. Internal drainage boards already have to balance the needs of flood defence and conservation—and that is quite clear despite my noble friend feeling that it was not. The present legislation carried forward in this Bill makes clear that action for further conservation must always be consistent with action that is necessary on flood defence grounds. The economic considerations and the needs of agriculture and forestry are taken into account, one would almost say, automatically, in the way that the boards are constituted and in the way that they actually function. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, described, boards are governed by a combination of agricultural drainage ratepayers' representatives and local authority nominees. Socio-economic factors are an integral part of the boards' flood defence considerations, and I do not think that it is necessary or appropriate to use this Bill to seek to change the existing general provisions on flood defence.
I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the assurances that he has given on the points raised so far, but in the light of what has been said, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Addison
I too thank the Minister for his assurances, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 24, at end insert: ("(aa) to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas;").

§ The noble Viscount said: Again this amendment would require a local authority, each of the Ministers and the NRA to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas in formulating or considering any proposals relating to any functions of a local authority under this Bill. Clause 61B places new duties on local authorities, each of the Ministers and the NRA in relation to the land drainage functions of local 1780 authorities. These can be summarised as to understand further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings and to take into account any effect on the beauty or amenity of any area.

§ In contrast to the duties that are imposed on internal drainage boards, each of the Ministers and the NRA under new Section 61A in the Bill, these are entirely new duties; they do not already exist in the Land Drainage Act 1991. It is therefore particularly important to ensure that these new duties are properly balanced as regards all the interests that are affected by them. The amendment would have the same effect as that proposed in relation to new Section 61A but in relation to local authorities rather than to internal drainage boards. The same arguments apply and there is no need to repeat them in this context.

§ This particular concern in relation to local authorities was not addressed by either the Minister or the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in replying to the debate. I note, however, that in lines 25 to 35 on page 3 of the Bill it is stated that the duty to further the conservation enhancement of natural beauty applies only so far as may be consistent with the purposes of this Bill. It would appear to mean the land drainage purposes of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure me that, in exercising all their new environmental duties under this Bill, local authorities will have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Nicol
The arguments that we made on the earlier amendment also apply to this one. The local authorities are there to represent the views of their electorates, and the electorate in this case have strong representations from forestry, agriculture and other interests. The sole purpose of placing this duty on the boards is so that the economic, forestry and agricultural interests will not be solely considered; they will also have to consider the needs of conservation. I am sure that the arguments still apply, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his amendment.

Earl Howe
I hope my noble friend Lord Addison will not wish to press Amendment No. 2 having now withdrawn Amendment No. 1. The duties applying to IDBs and local authorities do, as I am sure he will acknowledge, need to be kept in line. In any event, local authorities will have—and indeed do have—a wide range of duties and functions, and they will be well aware of the social and economic interests of rural areas. For these reasons I do see this amendment as unhelpful. I hope that the reassurances I gave on the last amendment as to the prime functions of IDBs under the Land Drainage Act 1991, which carry forward into this Bill and apply also to local authorities, will assist my noble friend once again as he considers what to do with this amendment.

The Earl of Lindsay
The new Section 61B applies the same conservation duties to local authorities when carrying out their flood defence functions under the Land Drainage Act 1991 as already applied to IDBs. Like IDBs, the conservation duties apply only in so far 1781 as they are consistent with local authorities' flood defence functions. As my noble friend the Minister has outlined, local authorities are very experienced in balancing various needs, including those of a socio-economic nature. I also think that it is sensible for corresponding provisions relating to different drainage bodies to keep in step. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Addison
I thank the Minister for his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 3: Page 4, line 17, after ("features") insert: ("and that Council has notified that fact, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 —

(i) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated;
(ii) to every owner and occupier of any of that land; and
(iii) to the Secretary of State for the Environment or for Wales, as the case may be").

§ The noble Viscount said: The amendment would make it clear that the reference in new Section 61C(1) to, any area of land … [which] is of special interest", excludes any such areas which have not already been notified as sites of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If the nature or conservation agencies wished to notify any internal drainage board or local authority whose work might affect any other area of land, the agencies would first have to notify that land as a site of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the 1981 Act.

§ Subsection (l).of new Section 61C requires the conservation agencies to notify internal drainage boards and local authorities where the agencies consider that any area of land is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features and that it may be affected by works, operations or activities of an internal drainage board or local authority. The reference to, any area of land … of special interest", is not qualified in any way, although the note against new Section 61C in the margin of the Bill refers to the duties with respect to sites of special scientific interest. The explanatory memorandum makes a similar reference. It can be presumed that the sites of special scientific interest involved are those identified by the agencies under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this presumption is correct.

§ The situation needs to be clarified because of the potential for confusion between sites of special scientific interest identified under the 1981 Act and other sites given credibility by county wildlife trusts and local authorities but not formally recognised as sites of special scientific interest under the 1981 Act.

§ Many county wildlife trusts are currently drawing up scheduled sites of local nature conservation importance. They may also be known under a range of other names. Often the owners of such sites are not told that they have been identified in that way. Those schedules have been presented to local authorities and local authorities are 1782 being requested to protect the sites listed on them; for example, through the town and country planning system.

§ The lists may also be made available to statutory conservation agencies and also be sent to internal drainage boards. Unless the Bill specifically refers to formal sites of special scientific interest, the statutory conservation agencies may notify internal drainage boards of other sites of less value. Works affecting those sites will then be subject to consultation procedures which would not necessarily have applied otherwise. That would be of particular concern where, as is often the case, the owners of such sites were not aware that their land had been identified in that way. The problem does not arise in relation to SSSIs because land owners and occupiers are notified directly that the site has been formally notified by the statutory conservation agency.

§ In the debate on Second Reading, the Minister, responding to the anxieties raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, maintained that the relevant provision of the Bill had been on the statute book in that form since 1989 and that it had not created problems. He added that there was no reason to believe that it would do so in the future. At that stage therefore, the Government had no plans to amend the clause in the way suggested by the noble Earl—I refer to the Official Report, 26th May 1994; cols. 888–889.

§ The fact that the provision is merely being re-enacted and problems have not so far arisen in respect of it is no defence for imprecise drafting. Perhaps in 1989 little concern was expressed about sites of local conservation importance. The situation today is quite different. County wildlife trusts take every opportunity to seek protection for such sites, notably through local authority development plans. Sites of local nature conservation importance are therefore gaining a credibility which they did not have five years ago. The potential for confusion between such sites and sites of special scientific interest is that much greater and, accordingly, so is the need for clarification.

§ It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the provision has not created problems and why it is not expected to do so in the future. For example, it would be helpful to know what consultation arrangements generally exist between IDBs and local authorities, and the statutory agencies and local authorities. I beg to move.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
In the absence of my noble friends Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher—who have been down more drains than I have had hot dinners and therefore understand these issues far better than I do —I have been asked to say that this is a Private Bill and they take no powerful or direct interest in it. It is up to the supporters of the Bill to persuade the Committee and obtain the support of the Government. We know from the history of this Bill that the Government were not only in at its conception and birth, but are very well versed in every stage of the passage of the Bill. The two Members on the other side of the Committee are acting as eloquent midwives, trying to get the Bill from this Chamber to the other place.
1783 Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 lay duties upon other bodies. Of itself that carries implications not only so far as acceptance in this Chamber. Between this Chamber and the other place other bodies may be persuaded to take a greater interest in the matter than they might otherwise have done. My kindest advice to the two Members of the Committee who very eloquently—I am in no way being patronising—explained their purpose to me (which makes good sense) is that the progress of the Bill will not be aided by making it better at this stage. It will be aided by enabling it to reach the other place with the support of the Government.
Even then, with a private measure, with the best will and the best ministerial support in the world, it is still possible for someone—perhaps someone unknown to me or perhaps someone who, it is suspected, might have an interest —simply to shout the one word "object" and the Bill is finished. Unless the Minister can say that not only does he support the amendments but that he will use his best endeavours to ensure the Bill's passage through the other place, the Members opposite would be well advised to listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. If it means that the Bill, with the full support of the Government but devoid of the amendments that they are moving, is the best that can be done, I feel that it is the best offer that they will get tonight.

§ 8.45 p.m.

§ Baroness Nicol
This amendment and the subse-quent amendment would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to put a general duty to further conservation. The effect of these amendments would exclude areas of importance, as the noble Viscount said, outside those already notified. That could lead to the destruction of animals and plants ahead of designation, which would be unfortunate.
The noble Viscount suggested that there might be a rush by the statutory bodies to notify sites under the provisions of the Bill. I cannot see them doing that because they are too short of resources and money to want to act unnecessarily. What we are seeking to do is to establish a general duty.
I suggest that if land owners and farmers are anxious about the possible operations of new Sections 61C and 61D, there might perhaps be drawn up a code of practice which would relieve their anxieties. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Bill that extra anxieties should be caused.

Earl Howe
I can understand the concern expressed by my noble friend that there should not be a proliferation of sites notified to IDBs and local authorities, perhaps without landowners being aware of this. However, I would remind him that under the present legislation, which my noble friend's Bill carries forward unchanged, it is only the statutory conservation bodies who may notify sites to IDBs and not voluntary bodies. There is a corresponding provision in the Water Resources Act 1991 relating to notification to the NRA. My officials have been advised by English Nature that under the current legislation IDBs and the NRA are in 1784 fact only notified of SSSIs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and that English Nature intend this practice to continue in the future.
In addition, I should point out that the consequence of a statutory conservation agency notifying a site to an IDB or local authority is simply that the board or authority then has to consult with the statutory agency before undertaking work in that area, except in an emergency, when prior consultation is not required. I suggest that such consultation is no more than good practice, and that nowadays no IDB would consider carrying out works in an area of environmental interest without consulting the main conservation bodies. My noble friend Lord Addison asked what consultations there were between IDBs and local authorities. Local authorities are represented on IDBs, and in the normal course of events there is a great deal of regular consultation between the statutory and voluntary conservation groups as well as IDBs and local authorities. In fact, before flood defence capital works are approved for grant aid by the Ministry or Welsh Office, the drainage body concerned—be it internal drainage board, local authority or the National Rivers Authority—already notifies the relevant statutory conservation body, normally English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales. Moreover, neither the notification of the site to IDBs nor the consultation by IDBs with statutory conservation bodies affect the legal rights of landowners. The existing legislation, which the Bill will not change, reflects all that and poses no problems for internal drainage boards in practice. It does not affect the activities of landowners directly at all. In view of that, I hope that my noble friend will not wish to press his amendment.

The Earl of Lindsay
In case there should be any confusion, I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I am the promoter of the Bill rather than the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who tabled some of the amendments. The noble Earl may be disappointed to think that we have been confused, though I certainly would not be.
The new Section 61C, to which the amendment relates, carries forward the present duties of IDBs with respect to sites of special scientific interest as contained in Section 13 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 and extends those duties to local authorities. It would require IDBs and local authorities to consult the statutory conservation bodies on proposed works in areas that had been notified to them as being of special interest. The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to limit the sites which statutory conservation bodies could notify to IDBs and local authorities as being of special interest to those formally notified to landowners or others as SSSIs under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
I do not believe that that is either necessary or desirable. I say that as a farmer who farms around an area of wetlands which includes almost every variation. We have designated ground; we have ground which is not nationally designated but is in the care of the local wildlife trust and there is a further area which has no 1785 designation and is of no interest to anyone locally. I stress therefore that I do not believe the amendment to be desirable or necessary in that context.
First, I understand that MAFF has been advised by English Nature that in practice only formally designated sites of special scientific interest have been or will be notified to IDBs. Secondly, the effect of the present legislation—which my Bill would not change—is simply to require IDBs and in future local authorities to consult with the statutory conservation bodies about proposed works in areas of special interest. Nowadays all IDBs do that anyway as a matter of good practice. It is not an onerous imposition. Thirdly, nothing in this section of Clause 1 directly touches on the activities of landowners, only of IDBs. There is nothing to suggest that the provisions in Section 13 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, which have existed in the current form since 1989 and are simply carried forward unchanged in my Bill, have adversely affected landowners' interests. I hope that in the light of the helpful explanation from my noble friend the Minister, my noble friend Lord Addison will withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Addison
I thank the Minister for assuring us of the good practices that take place between the various bodies in question. I am glad of the clarification. I can assure the noble Baroness opposite that I am not here to try and do damage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 4: Page 5, line 27, after ("interest") insert: ("existing on land which-—

(i) has been notified as a site of special scientific interest' under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and
(ii) has been declared under section 19 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or under section 35 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be a national nature reserve; or
(iii) is subject to an order made under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; or
(iv) has been designated as a Special Protection Area for birds under European Community Directive 79/409; or
(v) has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation under European Community Directive 92/43; or
(vi) has been designated as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention").

§ The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 4 clarifies a situation in which the relevant Minister may give directions to drainage boards in relation to flora or fauna or geological or physiological features of special interest which are likely to be destroyed or seriously damaged by any works, operations or activities which are being or about to be carried out by an internal drainage board. The amendment would allow such directions to be given only where such flora or fauna or features exist on land which has been notified as being a site of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and which is, in addition, a national nature reserve or subject to a nature conservation order, or a special protection area, or a special area of conservation, or a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention.

1786

§ As currently drafted, subsection (1) of Clause 61D places reliance simply on the opinion of the Minister in assessing whether any flora or fauna is of national or international importance. There is no reference to sites of special scientific interest which are selected on the basis of strict criteria as sites having acknowledged importance for flora and fauna. Nor is there any reference to the procedures which already exist for determining whether flora or fauna exists on land of national importance. Those include the provision of making a nature conservation order under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the positions for declaring national natures under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1981.

§ Equally there is no reference to the procedures which already exist for determining whether flora or fauna exists on land of international importance. Those include the provisions for designating special protection areas under EU Birds Directive 79/409; special areas of conservation under EU Habitats Directive 92/43 and RAMSAR Sites under the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. It seems strange to rely solely upon the opinion of the relevant Minister when procedures exist or, in the case of the Habitats Directive are shortly to be introduced, for the careful assessment of whether specific sites of special scientific interest are also of national or international importance and for officially recognising that importance through a formal order-making or designation procedure. To do so could suggest that sites of special scientific interest and the additional national and international designations are meaningless.

§ In responding to concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, during the debate on Second Reading, the Minister stressed that the power of direction is to be used as a last resort. Three conditions would have to be met before Ministers could intervene. First, the environmental asset at risk must be of national or international importance, and there should be no intervention in matters of purely local importance. Ministers would give weight to the views of their statutory conservation advisers in determining what is of national and international importance. Secondly, the environmental asset in question would need to be at risk of destruction or serious damage. Weight would again be given to the advice of the statutory bodies and judgments would be made on the basis of expert advice and sound science. Thirdly, the Minister should consult the IDB in question before issuing a direction. Full and frank discussion should be sought, were such circumstances to arise. It is hoped that such discussions would result in changes being made voluntarily without the need for recourse to a formal direction. Again I refer to what was said in Hansard on 26th May at cols. 887 to 889.

§ Those assurances are helpful but still leave considerable uncertainty for all interests about the circumstances in which flora or fauna will be deemed to have national or international importance. The proposed amendment would reduce the uncertainty considerably. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the power of direction in relation to flora and fauna is to be exercised only in relation to SSSIs which have also been 1787 formally acknowledged through one of the procedures outlined in the amendment as having national or international importance. I beg to move.

Earl Howe
As I explained to the House during the Second Reading debate, the Government's intention with regard to the proposed ministerial power of direction is that it would be used only very sparingly, in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort; that its use would be considered only on the basis of sound scientific advice, from both within and outside the department—both as to the importance of the environmental feature and the nature of the threat to it; and—as stated in the Bill—that there will be prior consultation with the internal drainage board in question with a view to resolving the matter through discussion.
That consultation process should help to bring out the range of factors to be considered. In the end it is the Minister's responsibility to make a decision based on the best available information.
In response to my noble friend Lord Addison, let me say that the environmental features of national or international importance referred to in new Section 61D of the Bill are indeed very likely to be found in formally designated sites such as those listed in the amendment he proposed. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to attempt to list those designations on the face of the Bill as he suggests and thus circumscribe the way in which the powers of direction may be applied. I should like to explain to the Committee why I take this view.
First, from a purely practical viewpoint I think it is unwieldy and undesirable to try to list the designations in primary legislation. An exhaustive list would be extremely long, and a partial list could throw up anomalies. Subsequent changes to the list resulting from new international agreements, EC directives or UK legislation, for example, could then require amended primary legislation on land drainage.
Secondly, while I am happy to assure the Committee that in normal circumstances directions are only likely to be issued in respect of IDB works, operations or activities within sites formerly designated as SSSIs or the equivalent, it remains the case that flora, fauna and archaeological features are no respecters of administrative boundaries.
Let us suppose, for example, that an historical or biological find of major international importance was made, located in an IDB area, but just outside an SSSI boundary. If the Bill were to define the scope of the ministerial direction too narrowly by reference to geography rather than to the intrinsic importance of the environmental asset in question, we would risk being unable to avert damage to that environmental feature. But I stress that this situation will be extremely rare, and in the unlikely event that a ministerial direction is considered, that will almost certainly involve an SSSI or an equivalent designation.
To sum up, the Government consider that the power of direction proposed would be a useful longstop to be used only with care and very sparingly. The words "national or international importance" appear in the Bill 1788 to avoid the possibility of ministerial intervention in matters which are rightly for local decision. My noble friend asked why there was no reference to the criteria for importance in existing directives, and so forth. It would not be appropriate to duplicate the provisions in other legislation. The intention in this Bill—if I read my noble friend's intention correctly—is to complement other provisions by providing a mechanism of last resort over IDBs, as already exists for the NRA.
The procedure will provide a quick and precise remedy to what we expect will be very isolated but potentially serious environmental problems. I hope that this explanation will assist my noble friend.

§ 9 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay
While I can understand the thinking behind this amendment, I do not believe that it is practical or desirable to list all the types of sites that might be the subject of a ministerial direction in the new section, Section 61D. For one thing these designations can change from time to time, as my noble friend the Minister has suggested.
The list in my noble friend's amendment, long though it is, is by no means exhaustive. Moreover, some are of greater importance in relation to flood defence activities than others. The Bill therefore states in simple but express terms, that the ministerial direction can only be used in cases of national or international importance. That wording is intended to ensure that directions are used sparingly and cannot be used in matters of purely local importance. In arriving at a judgment Ministers will need to weigh up scientific and other evidence as to the relative importance of the feature at risk as well as consult with the internal drainage board in question beforehand except in an emergency.
In view of the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister on a number of points and in view of the impracticality of listing all the possibly relevant environmental designations, I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment to the Bill.

Viscount Addison
I thank the Minister for his most helpful and welcome assurances and clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.