HL Deb 10 March 1997 vol 579 cc74-81

7.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to report to the House that this uncontroversial Bill received generally widespread support in another place as to its principle and its specific provisions. The Government have listened to representations received and have amended and improved the Bill. I hope that today's debate will confirm that sound principles lie behind it.

It may be helpful if I touch briefly on the background to the Government's proposals. There were a number of flood events in Scotland in recent years. Scottish Office Ministers visited a number of the affected areas and discussed with those whose homes and businesses had been flooded the problems they were facing. It was clear that something had to be done to help prevent such people suffering in the way they had.

Existing legislation—the 1961 Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act—provides permissive powers to councils to undertake certain repair and maintenance work to prevent or mitigate flooding of non-agricultural land. Councils are also able to promote flood prevention schemes.

But it was clear that not enough of these types of works were being carried out. The Government therefore decided that existing legislation and responsibilities for flood prevention measures would be reviewed.

The Scottish Office issued a consultation paper in February 1996 which evoked a wide range of responses from councils, other public bodies, businesses and individual members of the public. It was clear from these responses that the issues are complex and the solutions far from straightforward. But following very careful consideration of the options, the Government issued a draft Bill in September of last year for further consultation. None of the comments received on this draft impacted on the principle of the Bill now before the House; and that is also the case following the debate and scrutiny of it in another place.

I should like now to turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill. It would place limited duties on local authorities to undertake certain flood prevention activities. Those are: to assess watercourses in their area to find out if they are likely to cause flooding of non-agricultural land; to exercise their existing power to maintain watercourses which appear to be likely to cause flooding, and where exercising that power would substantially reduce the likelihood of such flooding; and to prepare and publish reports of the measures they have taken and the measures they think they should take to prevent or mitigate such flooding. Those reports should also specify all occurrences of such flooding.

We consider that those provisions, while relatively modest, would go a long way to help alleviate flooding events. By assessing the watercourses in their areas for the likelihood of flooding, and by taking prompt action to remove debris and to undertake general maintenance and repair work, councils would reduce flooding risk. This, in turn, would reduce the need to spend much larger sums in dealing with flood damage after the event.

I should also point out that this Bill should not be seen in isolation. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning process through the issue of National Planning Policy Guideline 7—NPPG7. This provides guidance to councils, developers and the public on a wide range of planning and other matters. The intention is that this will ensure that decisions on existing and future development take full account of flood risk.

NPPG7 quite correctly recognises that councils should take the lead role in co-ordinating measures and responses to flooding, because they are in the best position to address local concerns and priorities. Also, with local government reorganisation, the role of councils has been reinforced in that each unitary authority has combined responsibility for flood prevention, planning and building control. As a means of further strengthening councils' position as the focus for dealing with flooding issues, NPPG 7 also encourages the identification of a wider forum in each council's area for the handling of these issues.

In that context, the formation of flood appraisal groups is suggested as a basis for tackling flooding problems. These groups would be formed by councils and would involve developers, insurers, relevant agencies and local people. They would inform and advise on the full range of flooding issues, including the need for flood prevention schemes and for catchment drainage management.

Before leaving the issue of flooding and moving on to another part of the Bill, I should like briefly to advise the House that we do not propose to change the existing power councils have to promote flood prevention schemes, nor the funding arrangements to build them.

Noble Lords will, however, be aware of the Government's "Challenge Fund" competition, the outcome of which was announced last week. This fund enables councils to compete for additional allocations to undertake large capital projects—projects which would normally be outwith the scope of their capital budgets. The fund had a very successful launch this year, especially with regard to flood prevention schemes, and I hope that councils will now be able to accept its worth. I also hope that the many sceptics who questioned the Government's commitment to flood prevention will now accept how important we consider the issue. That said, many of your Lordships will probably be glad to hear that I do not propose to spend any further time on the issue of local government finance tonight.

I should like now to turn briefly to another provision in the Bill: that is, the repeal of the Secretary of State for Scotland's statutory responsibility to maintain 13 agricultural drainage schemes created under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts 1930 and 1941. Repeal of these statutory responsibilities has been a long-standing policy objective of Scottish Office Ministers. The Secretary of State's responsibilities for these schemes include maintenance of floodbanks, channel width and depth and the removal of scrub and obstacles.

We calculate that less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of Scotland's agricultural land benefits from the schemes, and by no means all of the land that benefits from the work is still in agricultural production. River lengths treated under the 13 schemes total less than 200 kilometres compared with over 50,000 kilometres of surveyed rivers in Scotland; in other words, around four-tenths of 1 per cent. In total, we spend around £120,000 per annum on maintenance works, but because of legal constraints we are able to recover only around £2,000 per annum in total from the 300 or so beneficiaries.

The individual scheme specifications are set in statutes from the 1930s and 1940s. The Secretary of State is, therefore, saddled with archaic and inflexible maintenance responsibilities which cannot take account of modern agricultural or conservation priorities, or of upstream developments such as roads or forestry projects. Over the years, these factors have brought us into conflict with conservation and fishery bodies whose statutory responsibilities are to protect wildlife and fish stocks. Conservation bodies have therefore welcomed our proposed repeal of the Secretary of State's obligation to maintain the 13 schemes, and this Bill provides us with an appropriate opportunity at last to remove those anomalous legal responsibilities. I should also say that the repeal of the Secretary Of State's responsibility for these schemes would do no more than place those whose land is covered by them on the same footing as their counterparts in the rest of Scotland.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, since it was published in draft in September of last year, the Government have made a number of amendments which clarify and strengthen the Bill. The main changes are: first, a new provision exempting councils from the duty to act when to do so would benefit only sole owners; secondly, a new clause which provides for increases in some of the fines for breaches of the provisions of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961; and, thirdly, to delay until April 1999 the commencement of Clause 6 of the Bill, which covers repeal of the Secretary of State's responsibility for statutory maintenance schemes under the 1930 and 1941 Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts.

The first of the amendments makes it clear that the Government do not intend all maintenance responsibilities to be transferred to councils. The second puts across the message that we take seriously any breaches of the provisions of the 1961 Act. The third amendment takes account of representations received on behalf of those landowners who will have to take over the maintenance of river channels and floodbanks on their land, which for over 50 years has been funded from the public purse.

In conclusion, I have outlined the Government's strategy to help prevent and mitigate the effects of flooding. The provisions in this Bill, alongside other measures we have already taken, offer a comprehensive and cohesive approach which tackles the problems that have been identified. We are, of course, discussing the principle of the Bill tonight. In the meantime, I hope that the House will agree with me that the principle that underpins the Bill is in no doubt. We have given a commitment to help those who suffered as a result of flooding: this Bill honours that commitment. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

7.15 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, perhaps the House will grant me the indulgence of allowing me to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can give me some guidance about Clause 3 of the Bill. That clause inserts a new section after Section 6 of the 1961 Act to which my noble friend referred. If my noble friend cannot reply to me in full tonight as to whether or not I have got this wrong, perhaps he could write to me on the matter.

In subsection (1) of the new Section 6A, a period of six months is mentioned. In subsection (2) it says that every two years a local authority would, so to speak, be obliged to publish a report thereby keeping everyone up to date. I do not necessarily declare an interest in the matter, except when I go home, and no doubt that is shared by my noble neighbour. Going across the M.90, one sees the Earn and the Tay, and indeed both those areas will be familiar to my noble friend.

However, can my noble friend the Minister clarify a query for me on the new section? I do not believe that it would impose a new duty upon local authorities—and I hope my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I am curious simply because it is to be inserted into the legislation. It clearly says that within "six months" local authorities should look at any possibility of flooding on non-agricultural land and that every "two years" they "shall" update the report. If during the course of the Bill's passage my noble friend the Minister could give me some indication as to whether I am right or wrong in that respect, I should be most grateful.

7.17 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, on the whole, it is a good Bill with good objectives. However, I find it a little curious that it talks about preventing flooding on "non-agricultural land", and then proceeds to abolish some measures for agricultural land which have been operating for 50 years or so. It would therefore appear that the Government do not mind flooding on agricultural land. However, I am sure that that is not the case.

The Government are obviously placing a responsibility on local authorities to assess the likely damage which may be caused. Then they are putting a duty on them to correct any faults that they may find which might result in flooding and which has caused great distress to householders in the past. It is of course a good and necessary thing to do. As I understand it, the Minister said there would be no more money for councils undertaking such work but that, for certain jobs, they may apply to a "challenge fund", if that is the right expression, for a 50 per cent. grant and, if they are lucky, they might get it. No doubt that would be useful to them. However, when we consider the present state of many councils which are cutting back on the number of staff, and so on, it seems to me that they are unlikely to spend a great deal of money—indeed, if they have any—on assessing such dangers.

I have of course considered the Commons' discussion. One or two good points have been made, one of which was made by my honourable friend the Member for Argyll. Is there sufficient co-operation along the whole catchment area of a river? The River Clyde runs through five different authorities. I think it important that a committee with powers should be set up to do this work. A considerable amount of co-operation is needed between the five authorities and unless a statutory body is established it is extremely difficult to achieve that co-operation. This is important work. One must consider the whole length of a river. If a storm occurs at the top of a river, its effects are felt by the people at the bottom end of the river. That must be taken into account. The point about money is important. The figure of 50 per cent. that has been referred to will not serve as a great encouragement in this matter. As I have said, the river must be treated as a whole.

Sir Hector Monro referred to people in the agricultural sector who have been lucky enough to receive certain support. They need a three year delay to the repeal of the provision. I understand that the Government are willing to grant them a two year period to put them on the same footing as other landlords throughout Scotland, but is that enough? It takes a long time to establish a proper body to handle these matters. I think this is a good Bill but I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply to the points I have made. It is extremely important that we assess the situation and protect people from having their homes flooded.

7.22 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having made such a clear statement of the impact and importance of the Bill. We all accept that flooding is a spasmodic phenomenon. However, it seems that the same areas get the worst of it year after year after year. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lye11 and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for the points they have raised.

The general feeling, both here and in the other place, is that this is a worthwhile Bill. The Minister should have made us aware of the fact that the Government will save £150,000 through this measure, unless I read the explanatory notes incorrectly. The money question worries me slightly. According to the explanations given in the Bill, local government will have new responsibilities and new burdens. That must cost more money. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, there will always be the problem—the Clyde is a good example—of area co-operation not being established unless a statutory body is set up. Will any extra money have to be made available to meet the provisions of the Bill? If local authorities have to pay for that, will the Government give them additional borrowing powers until they are reimbursed by the riparian owners, or whoever else is involved?

My next point concerns the nature of flooding. It is important. Will there be an emergency fund to deal with the effects of flash floods which can do enormous damage? Or is that quite a different matter? I am not sure. Flash floods disappear in a week or a fortnight whereas we are talking about long-term phenomena.

These are matters that seem to require some explanation. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide that explanation. If he cannot provide it now, perhaps matters can be tidied up at the Committee stage of the Bill. I welcome the effort the Government appear to be making to lessen the effects of flooding and to improve land drainage in Scotland.

7.25 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from my noble friend Lord Lyell and from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am especially grateful that all welcome the general principles of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Lyell asked about the new duty in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is a new duty placed on councils to prepare and publish reports of the measures they have taken and the measures they think they should take to prevent or mitigate such flooding. As I explained earlier to the House, the duty requires them to report on all occurrences of such flooding. If that answers my noble friend's question I am happy, but if not I can write to him.

The noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Carmichael, inquired about finance. I remind noble Lords that the Government have made available to local authorities an extra £3 million for revenue expenditure to meet the new duties arising from the Bill. Considerable thought has been given, in consultation with CoSLA, to how the £3 million should be distributed across the mainland authorities in Scotland. In addition I mentioned the challenge fund which is a considerable improvement on the previous arrangements as successful bidders will be guaranteed a specific level of capital allocation even when projects take several years to complete. There is also the grant of 50 per cent. of the eligible costs for approved flood prevention schemes which has existed and will continue to exist.

This year the local government settlement in Scotland has been set at a record level. The aggregate external finance at some £5.3 billion is about 42 per cent. higher than the equivalent settlement in England and Wales. The resources are available to local authorities to fund the priorities that they set for their areas. Given the other measures which can be co-ordinated with the Bill, such as NPPG7, we hope that the ability of local authorities to deal better with flood prevention and the promotion of flood defence measures than in the past will mitigate or remove the suffering that has been inflicted on many of the residents of a few specific areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised the important issue of co-ordination and co-operation along the course of a river or around the catchment of a river system. As I set out in my opening speech, NPPG7 encourages councils, where appropriate, to notify the position of any measures they are taking to deal with flooding on one part of the river where that might have an impact on another part of the river which is the responsibility of another council. There is also specific scope for closer co-operation through NPPG7 which anticipates the formation of flood appraisal groups as a means of focusing on cross-boundary issues. We are keen to encourage co-ordinated planning and co-ordinated working between councils which share the same catchment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does that mean that in the Clyde, for instance, there will be a committee comprising the five councils involved who will discuss the whole matter, or once one council has carried out an assessment it will inform the others of that?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord if I have not given him the complete story but, as I understand it, we are encouraging such co-ordinated working rather than prescribing that there must of necessity be such a formal group. We have certainly signalled clearly that where benefits accrue from the joint working, joint working should be adopted.

I am grateful to those who have expressed support for the Bill. I hope that the points raised have been dealt with. I believe that it is the wish of the whole House that through this legislation the local authorities and others will more easily be able to prevent or mitigate the suffering that has been inflicted on many through the misery that flooding has caused in the past. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.