§
It is the duty of—
in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of furthering the conservation of water."
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the Bill, with agreement from all sides of the House, we have laid a duty on the Environment Agency to ensure that all water abstracters and users of water do so efficiently. However, we have not yet made an amendment to ensure that all government departments, Ministers, persons holding office under the Crown and any other public bodies do so. The amendment seeks to ensure that they have proper regard for the purposes of furthering water conservation. I do not believe it is reasonable that we should expect everyone else to be efficient in their use of water and not to expect that the Government will be at the heart of such conservation.
§ The amendment was tabled in Committee particularly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the planning authorities in mind. I thought I had heard an encouraging response from the Government that they would consider bringing forward an amendment along these lines. I would have thought that such an amendment was in line with what Defra is supposed to do in promoting sustainability across all government departments. The inclusion of such an amendment would help it to do so.
§ I look forward to hearing whether the Government are regarding the amendment with favour. I beg to move.
§ Baroness ByfordMy Lords, although our names are not added to the amendment, we have debated water conservation from the day we started debating the Bill at Second Reading. It gives me great pleasure to support it. If for any reason the Government find the amendment unacceptable because it is not technically correct, I hope that they will confirm that they will take the issue on board and return with their own amendment. I, too, had expected to see a government amendment. Perhaps it is taking a long time to find the right wording or perhaps the Government were close to accepting the noble Baroness's wording.
I support the thrust behind the amendment. Water conservation for individuals, public bodies and businesses is most important and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, in Committee I indicated that I would give further, positive consideration to the substance of this amendment. I regret that this has wide implications for the public sector as a whole and will involve some internal discussions. Those considerations are still under way, so I am not this evening in a position to bring forward an amendment. However, if I can, and if the noble Baroness can give me a little more time, I will do so at Third Reading. If not, I have no doubt that we will return to it if the noble Baroness should wish to pursue it. I cannot now agree the amendment.
§ Baroness ByfordMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not answer my question. Is the wording unacceptable, or where do the wrinkles of the amendment lie? It would help us at Report stage—as there is only Third Reading to come—to be given some indication as to where the difficulties may lie.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. It is not an issue of precise wording, but of whether the Government as a whole can accept the wording. I cannot indicate the Government's position tonight.
§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, I am disappointed not to have some more positive news from the Minister at this stage.
It would be absolutely appalling if, in a Bill in which we have laid duties on the private sector and on individuals, the Government were not able to accept a similar duty. I can imagine where the wrinkles lie and where the difficulties are, but some departments may not want to accept this. I accept that in planning terms, it will be difficult. However, given that the Government have admitted that the pressure on water is extreme—in fact, that is one of the reasons for the legislation—they should be most keen to consider it.
The Minister is right; I shall return to the point at Third Reading with all force if the Government do not bring something forward then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 156:
§ After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
§
"RESTRICTION ON UNDERTAKERS' POWER TO REQUIRE FIXING OF CHARGES BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME
In section 144B of the WIA, in subsection ( 1)(c) after "prescribed" there shall be inserted "by the Secretary of State, on application by a water undertaker or the Environment Agency,".".
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with metering. We have heard the same old song many times in the course of the Bill.
§ The amendment would enable the Environment Agency as well as the water companies to apply to the Secretary of State for an area to be designated as an area of water scarcity. The Environment Agency 247 accepts that real water savings from metering will come only when there is sufficient metering penetration to introduce innovative tariffs that dissuade high domestic use. The agency also recognises that large areas of the South East have unsustainable abstraction regimes. Therefore, we propose to give the agency a formal status in the process of making scarcity designations.
§
The Government have identified the,
prudent use of water resources and keeping its use within the limits of its replenishment",
as a priority for water policy. They plan to achieve the sustainable management of water resources through a,
twin track approach of demand management and development of resources".
§ These sentences are taken directly from Defra's Directing the Flow—Priorities for future water policy, which was published in November 2002.
§ However, the Government will permit the growth of metering only on a voluntary basis. Under current legislation—the Water Industry Act 1999—those occupying their homes on an unmetered basis may choose whether to be metered, and water companies may install meters in new buildings. The current situation in which free-meter options are offered is ineffective as a demand-management tool. Further, compulsory metering is more economical than optional or selective metering. Optional metering is more costly as meters may be situated in only every third or tenth house. In other words, compulsory metering is the only economic way of applying demand management in a scarce water area.
§ Water companies can carry out compulsory metering only when the area concerned is designated as an area of water scarcity under the Water Industry (Prescribed Conditions) Regulations 1999. Only the Government—namely, the Secretary of State—can designate an area as an area of water scarcity following an application from a water company. But the areas of the South East that have unsustainable abstraction regimes are not recognised as water scarce.
§ On 10th April in Grand Committee we tabled an amendment to empower the Environment Agency, instead of water companies, to make an application to the Secretary of State. In reply the Minister argued that water companies should be kept as the applicants as they have the detailed knowledge about water resources in their area, and, secondly, there is nothing at the moment to prevent the agency from proposing changes to the prescribed conditions; indeed, the Secretary of State must consult it on each application.
§
The Minister also said:
Although the Environment Agency obviously has responsibilities for the totality of supply and can suggest to the Secretary of State that a scarcity designation be introduced, it is not sensible to limit the initiation of that to only the Environment Agency … If the amendment suggested that the Environment Agency should be put on the same footing as water companies, I would at least understand that".—[Official Report, 10/4/03; col. GC 112–113.]
248
The amendment seeks to address those points by giving the agency and the water companies equal status as applicants. I beg to move.
§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, I can see the sense in addressing the issue of metering, particularly in water-scarce areas. Perhaps in reply the Minister can address the fact that the water framework directive will encourage a change in water charging by moving from fixed charges to charges by volume. I believe that it points in that direction.
I believe that metering on a wider basis would be a more efficient way forward than just in water-scarce areas. However, those areas need to be addressed first, particularly in that regard. The noble Baroness referred to innovative powers. On moving from one system of charging to another, I regret that she did not support my amendment on water affordability because with such large shifts, which I believe will be necessary and which will come about, we need a safety net to protect the more vulnerable. That said, I see the need to consider this amendment.
§ Lord Livsey of TalgarthMy Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is right to draw attention to areas of water scarcity. A point I made in Committee is that in some parts of the country the infrastructure is very lengthy and difficult to maintain but there is plenty of water. In such areas it may not be appropriate to impose a metering regime. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is specifically addressing the problem of areas of water shortage.
§ Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I support the ideas behind this sensible amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right to say that there are areas in the country that have a water surplus. We have to ask whether metering is really necessary is such areas. But there are other parts of the country—East Anglia, Kent and the south—where there will also be increased building and increased demand. While the amendment does not require it all to be metered, it directs that metering should be considered seriously in those areas. I am sympathetic to that.
Whether we live in an area with plenty of water or an area that is short of water, it is still a precious commodity. We have talked about that throughout the Bill. While I accept that it is sensible to look in the first instance at areas where there are shortages of water, it may be that in the longer term we must think again.
In addition, we are going through some extraordinary cycles of climate change. We do not know where they will end. While it is suggested that new buildings should be metered, my noble friend will confirm that it is not compulsory. It is strongly 249 encouraged. As it is not compulsory, it seems sensible to highlight the difficulty in areas where there is a water shortage. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to the amendment.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I correct the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The water framework directive does not require metering; it requires policies to have regard to recovering costs, which our system can do. Water framework or not, there are already powers relating to compulsory metering in areas of water scarcity. We do not need new, prescribed powers in those areas.
The present powers allow a water company to apply for water scarcity area status. The Secretary of State decides on the basis of that application, after consulting the Environment Agency, Ofwat, and so on, including the people who would be affected. We already have those powers. Despite the concerns about water scarcity, no water company has applied for those powers to be exerted.
The amendment adds the Environment Agency and the water companies together but then prescribes the Secretary of State to act only on their representations. Clearly, the Environment Agency can make representations to the Secretary of State and the water companies have a formal ability so to do. However, it is for the Secretary of State to judge whether the designation of an area of water scarcity—and therefore an area of compulsory metering—should be imposed. The amendment, while in a sense giving a stronger status to the Environment Agency, precludes the Secretary of State making the decision herself that there is an area of water scarcity.
I said earlier that no water company has yet applied for water scarcity area status, presumably on the basis that it might alienate its customers. One could conceive of a situation where it would be necessary for the Government to take the initiative, which the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State to do. While I understand some of the arguments behind the amendment—although I do not completely go along with the line that the noble Baroness takes on metering in general—I understand that in such situations we need to be able to act. In such situations the amendment constrains the ability to act in certain circumstances. It is not therefore appropriate.
§ Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, how does it constrain the ability of the Secretary of State to act? The Secretary of State currently has the power to act. The problem is that we are trying to get the Environment Agency on side. After all, the responsibility of the Environment Agency is to look after the environment and to ensure that the water resources situation is good for sustainability. One of the reasons for metering is to limit the consumption of water in areas of great water shortage.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, the Environment Agency is perfectly able to approach the Secretary of State to suggest that she uses her powers. She must react to an 250 approach from the water company, but she can make a judgment on it, and she would also be able to act independently of that.
The amendment would prescribe that the Secretary of State may designate those conditions only after an application from either a water company or the Environment Agency. A crisis situation could be identified which neither wished to suggest. Therefore, it is a constraining amendment, whether or not it was intended to be. I accept the importance of the Environment Agency being given the right. But the amendment as drafted is restrictive.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as that is one aspect that I had not thought about. I shall go through the amendment with a fine-tooth comb to see whether we can improve the wording.
The Minister also made the point about customer reactions to compulsory metering, which I am sure is absolutely right. Nobody wants to be the first person to do the nasty thing; in other words, to make metering compulsory. However, if there is a serious shortage of water resources in an area, there is no alternative to longer-term metering; for example, in certain places in the South East the huge water resource problems will he compounded by an increase in house-building in the area. I shall take the matter away and return at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 157:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
§
"WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DROUGHT PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION
After section 39A of the WIA there is inserted—
§
"39D WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DROUGHT PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION
In carrying out their respective functions, the Environment Agency and the Authority shall—
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would require the Environment Agency and the water regulator to take into account the requirements of all water resource management plans and all drought plans prepared pursuant to the Bill. That can be seen as advancing the cause of joined-up regulation, particularly in respect of water resources management.
251
§
The Government see water resource management plans and drought management plans as major elements of their strategy to manage water supplies and therefore ensure,
the prudent management of water resources".
§ Again, I quote from Directing the Flow.
§ The plans fit into the regulatory regime in two important ways. First, water companies will prepare the plans. Ofwat expects them to take into account the long-running marginal costs. That information will be incorporated into the Environment Agency's updated water resource planning guidelines. Secondly, the Secretary of State will approve the plans.
§ The amendment ensures that the plans are carried forward into all aspects of the regulator's work. More generally, the Government are already working to achieve a closer integration between economic and environmental regulation; for example, they want the principles of sustainability to inform the work of the economic regulator. The Water Bill includes a specific duty on the regulator to take into account sustainable development. Also, the Government expect the regulators to work together on specific matters; for example, the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and tackling diffuse pollution.
§ The amendment is a practical step to ensure that environmental considerations, including the prudent management of water resources, inform the work of the new water services regulation authority and are of appropriate importance in that of the Environment Agency.
§ The amendment was not moved in Grand Committee. On 8th April, in reply to an amendment after Clause 39, the Minister said that he supported more co-ordination but would not favour doing it in such a way as to increase the Secretary of State's powers to override the regulator or undermine its independence.
§ This amendment enables more joined-up regulation without giving greater powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the regulator's decisions. I beg to move.
§ Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, which I hope the Government will be able to accept. Even if they cannot accept the current wording, I hope that they recognise the desire behind the amendment and what we hope to achieve. We all agree that we want prudent management. We have also talked about conservation and many other matters today. Joined-up government is essential.
If we are to have sustainable development in the future, we need to look at all aspects of water resource and water resource plans, particularly with regard to drought conditions that could occur. In the past, we have been quite lucky and there have been very few years when we have been so troubled. But that does not necessarily mean that in future years we will not be so troubled. I hope that the Minister will look at this 252 amendment sympathetically. My noble friend has brought an important amendment before us today. I have pleasure in supporting it.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, there are two issues with this amendment. Turning first to the issue of the drought and water resource management plans, it is important that water companies develop such plans but it is also important to recognise that those plans do not themselves have a statutory basis. As circumstances change, companies will undoubtedly adjust and modify their plans.
The problem with Amendment No. 157 is that it would have the effect of making Ofwat and the Environment Agency enforce plans which may be out of date and on which a company may have changed its mind. It is primarily for water companies to act on their plans and adjust them in the light of changing circumstances. The regulators must take a considered view based on the general management approach and the circumstances that prevail at the time of any change, taking into account their statutory duties.
The second effect of the amendment would be to ask Ofwat and the Environment Agency to co-ordinate their functions in respect of drought plans and water resource management plans. While joined-up government is highly desirable, the comments I made earlier on the rather blanket requirement on coordination also apply here. The two regulators have different functions and to co-ordinate every decision, particularly in this area, could lead to confusion as to their respective roles.
While the Government expect the regulators to work together, they have separate duties in this respect. Water regulators need to co-ordinate their activities, and in respect of the earlier more general amendment we said that we would look at ways of setting this out on a less issue-by-issue basis. But this is a matter where, because the respective roles can differ, prescribed co-ordination is difficult to write into this clause.
Clearly, there are other forms of co-ordination. The regulators are jointly committed to the code of practice, and so forth. As I indicated earlier, we recognise the need for greater co-operation between the various regulators, but I do not think that this form of words would be helpful in clarifying the legal duties of the regulators in this particular clause.
§ Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he wants to have joined-up government but on the other hand the regulators have different duties. But the Water Bill should bring all the regulators and all the agencies together. Is the Minister suggesting that there should be a water Bill for drinking water; a water Bill for sustainability of the environment; or a water Bill for anything else? It just does not make sense. I cannot understand the reaction to this amendment. The Minister could have said, "Look, it is flawed because it is written in the wrong way". Surely, the amendment makes plain common sense. I am very upset about it and I need to test the opinion of the House.
§ 9.54 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 157) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 34.
| Division No. 3 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addinglon, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Alderdice, L. | Masham of llton, B. |
| Alton of Liverpool, L. | Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Montrose, D. |
| Barker, B. | Northesk, E. |
| Blatch, B. | O'Cathain, B.[Teller] |
| Byford, B. | Palmer, L |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] | Razzall, L |
| Rennard, L. | |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Renton, L. |
| Geddes, L. | Rogan, L. |
| Harris of Richmond, B. | Shutt of Greetland, L. |
| Linklater of Butterstone, B. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Livsey ofTalgarth, L. | Taylor ofWarwick, L. |
| Mackie ofBenshie, L. | Wade ofChorlton, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Acton, L. | Goldsmith, L. |
| Andrews, B. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Blackstone, B. | Grocott, L. [Teller] |
| Borrie, L. | Hardy of Wath, L |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Harris of Haringey, L. |
| Campbell-Savours, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Clark of Windermere, L. | Howie of Troon, L. |
| Corbett of Castle Vale, L. | Jones, L. |
| Crawley, B.[Teller] | Parekh, L. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Elder, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Smith of Leigh, L. |
| Evans of Temple Guiting, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Thornton, B. |
| Faulkner of Worcester, L. | Warner, L. |
| Fyfe of Fairfield, L. | Whitaker, B. |
| Gale, B. | Whitty, L. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 10.4 p.m.
§
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 157A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
§
"MEMBERSHIP OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES IN WALES
After section 16 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) there is inserted—
§
"16A POWER TO ALTER COMPOSITION OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES IN WALES
16B Effect of order under section 16A
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments will provide the National Assembly for Wales with the power by order to reform the composition of regional flood defence committees in Wales. The present composition is established by primary legislation. In Wales committees comprise local authority, Environment Agency and Assembly appointees with the local authorities providing the majority.
§ Flood defence functions in Wales are devolved to the National Assembly, which is the democratically accountable body for Wales. The Bill separately provides powers which will enhance the Assembly's ability to make changes to the structure of flood defence committees and their funding arrangements. It is logical that in considering this the Assembly should be able to determine the membership of its committee(s) which have a key role in delivering flood defence for the people of Wales.
255§ Making the power available to the Assembly does not prejudge how that power will be exercised. If, however, the Assembly decided to exercise this power, any proposed change would be subject to the Assembly's scrutiny and approval procedures.
§ As current committee boundaries follow river catchment rather than political boundaries, there are parts of England which are served by Welsh committees and vice versa. To safeguard the interests of those living in England and being served by Welsh committees the amendment includes the requirement for the Secretary of State's agreement to changes proposed by the Assembly which impact on England.
§ Clause 92 is consequential on the introduction of Sections 16A and 16B. I beg to move.
§ Lord Livsey of TalgarthMy Lords, I am happy to make a short input into the amendment as a Welsh Member of this House. It is very welcome indeed to see that the Assembly will be able to exercise these powers. I wish to put one or two points on the record regarding membership of regional flood defence committees in Wales. I am pleased that the amendment refers to committees to be specified by the Assembly, and that the Assembly will have the power to alter the composition of the regional flood defence committees in Wales. That is a satisfactory state of affairs.
The method of selection of the committees is the purview of the National Assembly. I wish to make two points which are encapsulated in the present system. Obviously, there is the question of technical expertise and local input. At the present time some of the technical expertise is supplied by the Environment Agency and the local input by local authorities. I am sure that the Assembly will take note of what I have just said and will undoubtedly also take note of what the Minister said about cross-border influences and the solutions to that. I merely point out that we have in Wales at least two river systems, the Wye and the Severn, which cross the England/Wales border. It is obviously important that that aspect is addressed by the Assembly.
Should the Government accept what is contained in the next amendment—I do not want to pre-empt it in any way—that might have an impact on what the Assembly might wish to do on the question of river basin management. I hope that the Assembly will take note of this debate and the points made in it and in particular the merits of some of the aspects of the Bill to help it come to decisions on how to manage the system. I realise that I am on delicate ground as this is the purview of the Assembly and not of this House. Nevertheless I make these points as a Welsh Member of this House.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in responding to the amendment. In doing so, I hope that he will forgive a gentle reminder, prompted by his opening remarks, that he is a Member of this House. He may come from 256 a part of the country that is rather special, but we all come from parts of the country that are rather special, and we none of us represent them.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of explanation, if only because it gave me the opportunity to consult colleagues who knew rather more about the special area that the amendment affects than I do. We have members there, and the Minister will be glad to know that he is acting in complete compliance with their wishes. I am sure that that will give him great reassurance.
The amendments are easy to support, because they are directed at giving control of the local situation with regard to rivers and so on to those who know most about them—the people immediately affected. I have only one comment: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The amendment applies to Wales, but others might apply to England. If we are to apply a consistent principle throughout the Bill, proposing something for one area makes it entirely relevant for consideration elsewhere. I am happy to support the amendment.
§ Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, I want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I know exactly where I come from. I do not come from Wales; I come from Cambridge in England. However, I am here as spokesman in the House of Lords for matters relating to Wales. I am extraordinarily sensitive, as we all have to be, to the fact that we are talking about a devolved matter. It is absolutely appropriate for noble Lords to comment on matters, but we must remind ourselves that those matters have to be considered by the Welsh Assembly. For that reason, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for putting on record for consideration by Members of the Welsh Assembly a number of matters in which he was interested and wished to draw to their attention.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 64 [Regional flood defence committees]:
§
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domermoved Amendment No. 158:
Page 81, line 25, at end insert—
(5) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall have effect until December 2007.
(6) On 1st December 2007 section 14 (regional flood defence committees) of the Environment Act 1995 shall be repealed.
(7) From 1st December 2007 the Secretary of State shall, by order, establish a river basin management committee in place of each regional flood defence committee which will cease to exist under subsection (5).
(8) The timescale for the establishment of river basin management committees under subsection (7) shall be in accordance with Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive.
(9) Each river basin management committee shall include
257
(10) Each river basin management committee shall inherit all of the powers and duties of the regional flood defence committee it shall replace.
(11) Each river basin management committee shall develop policies and a river basin management plan in consultation with the Environment Agency.
(12) Each river basin management committee may, where the size of the river basin so necessitates, and after consulting the Secretary of State, establish such sub-basin management committees as it considers appropriate.
(13) From 1st December 2007 the amendments made in subsections (2) to (4) to Schedule 4 to the Environment Act 1995 shall have effect as if references to "regional flood defence committee" or any variant thereof were to "river basin management committee" or the appropriate variant.
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the clause aims to rearrange the flood defence committees. Before I go any further I had better declare an interest, in that my husband chairs one such committee. The rearrangement of the committees may well be an improvement, hut it ignores completely a whole range of issues that the Water Framework Directive—we have been reminded that it will move into national implementation at the end of the year—will require. It is a great loss that Clause 64, instead of grasping that opportunity and creating river basin management committees, simply rearranges flood defence committees.
§ My amendment does not propose adding another layer of committee. It proposes that we abolish flood defence committees, not immediately but in 2007; I recognise that it may well take that long for the Government to come up with the geographical areas, composition of the committees and exactly how they will operate. By 2007, we need committees that are able to take on the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
§ I am aware that there is government resistance to this proposal. The Government, having appointed the Environment Agency as the competent agency to oversee all of the river basin management issues, believe that the agency should be in charge of its own plans with its own discretion as to how and when to involve the public.
§ The directive makes it clear that public participation must happen. But I do not believe that it is adequate to leave the agency in charge of such an important area and then to say that the flood control element alone can be subject to some kind of democratic accountability.
§ I anticipate that the Minister may well say that local plans or regional spatial plans are the place for involvement. But at present those bodies have much else to deal with—housing, waste and transport—and they will never devote sufficient time to water and water issues, particularly at the point when the Water Framework Directive is new and needs an enormous amount of energy in terms of its successful implementation. Perhaps after 15 or 20 years the regional spatial plans might be considered the place to deal with water issues. But I do not believe that any of our democratic structures these days are likely to last for 20 years unchanged.
258§ The Environment Agency's role as the competent authority is crucial in terms of giving technical advice and producing the plan. But it is primarily an organisation that is geared to regulating. Its primary function is not as a facilitator of public debate and involvement—indeed, that is not where its expertise lies.
§ We need a statutory group of people, drawn from the communities of the river basin, to oversee a process which, if successfully implemented, as we have said time and again in this House, will bring great benefits. But if it is unsuccessfully implemented, with inadequate public participation, it could well be disastrous and expensive. To date, the Government's record is not terrific in this area. They have one pilot in the Ribble Valley which was implemented a year or so later than all the rest of the European pilots and after a great deal of debate over whether England would bother with a pilot at all. By contrast, the Scottish Executive already has a national stakeholder forum of representatives of industry, landowners, environmental organisations and the public.
§ My amendment allows in subsection (9) for a mix of people, but, crucially, it specifies that there must be representatives of the public, elected by the public themselves, as councillors. The Secretary of State can then supplement those from a range of people with the necessary skills and local knowledge.
§ As to timing, I have specified December 2007. I suggest that that would be enough time for the Government to organise this process. It is also driven by the fact that that is the latest date when the river basin management plans can be produced on time yet enable adequate public input. The preparation of the plans must happen at least three years before they are due to be implemented.
§ Anyone in this Chamber—I know that there are several—who has been involved in the preparation of a local plan will know that it takes several years to allow for enough public consultation. Given that the Water Framework Directive introduces a new process, I believe that that time-scale is probably just sufficient.
§ It has been said that the Water Framework Directive will have as big an impact on the management of water in Europe as Roman aqueducts did at the time. I remind the Government that in Roman times the introduction of aqueducts decided whether new towns could develop. They removed water from some and gave it to others. Perhaps the Labour Government should not be compared to a Roman emperor, but I hope that they will have learnt some lessons from that and will encourage genuine public participation, where the agency is not in charge of the process. I beg to move.
§ Lord Livsey of TalgarthMy Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I wish also to mention Amendment No. 159, which is linked to Amendment No. 158. First, I fully support my noble friend Lady Miller in her amendment and wish to be 259 recorded as doing so, particularly with regard to the aspects of the amendment relating to local input, which is absolutely vital in river basin management.
However, my concern is with Amendment No. 159, which relates to non-main rivers. The amendment states:
River basin management committees shall have the power to direct … the Environment Agency to carry out non-main river management schemes".That is not all. Paragraph (b) states,that adequate funds be provided to the Environment Agency to carry out non-main river management schemes to agreed standards".I am happy to say that I received letters from the Minister and the Environment Agency which are extremely helpful in that regard.As Members of this House will know, in Committee I pressed particularly hard for non-main rivers to be taken within the purview of the Environment Agency so far as concerns management, flooding and matters of that kind. The Environment Agency responded, saying that the Government are already proposing to transfer responsibility for critical ordinary water courses by reclassifying them as main rivers. I welcome that very much. My only problem is that that apparently does not include all non-main rivers but those classified as critical ordinary water courses.
To inject a lighter note into this matter, the letter from the Environment Agency says that this subject has the unfortunate acronym of "COWS". I suppose that that is the first instance of cows grazing water! Indeed, main rivers are already designated, and ordinary water courses and all other water courses are the responsibility of local authorities or, where they exist, internal drainage boards. I believe that the Government have gone a long way to ensuring that non-main rivers which cause considerable flooding and problems and which at present are not maintained or managed by the Environment Agency will be so maintained and managed in future.
I am a little concerned about what will happen to ordinary water courses which are not critical. As I understand it, this matter will still come within the control of local authorities. Global warming is important these days and is becoming increasingly so. Sometimes communities receive a surprise when smaller rivers which they have not seen flood for a long time suddenly do so because of incidents which are not, and in the past have not been, typical but, sadly, sometimes now are, and they cause much damage to property and to land. Therefore, in proposing this amendment, I am taking note of correspondence that I have received from the Minister.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, I believe that two issues relating to these amendments are worth mentioning. Having dealt with the previous amendment, which sets out particular conditions for Wales, it seems to me that, in a sense, the Government are conceding the principle behind the amendments so far as concerns England. The Minister may choose to deny that in due course, but that remains to be seen.
260 However, I believe it has been a consistent argument from our side that those who know most about the local conditions on local rivers and most about where the problems lie are those who have to deal with them. In the past, those organisations have always been the local river board or the local land drainage committee or whatever. In principle at any rate, we would be bound to support the sentiments behind the amendments even if we did not agree with every word in them.
A slightly different issue arose in correspondence that I saw a while ago from our local environment agency. It appeared to fall back on what I believe is still the technical English common law position; that is, ultimately, the responsibility for any particular water course lies with the riparian owner. A local authority may act—it has the power to act if it feels that that is necessary—but it does not have to. I believe that I am right in saying that the same legal position applies to the Environment Agency: it may act—it has powers to act—but the legal responsibility if things go wrong still lies with the riparian owner. I should be pleased to be reassured that the responsibility of local authorities, local drainage boards or the Environment Agency was more clearly drafted than was implied by that correspondence. Whatever answer I receive, I may have to have more interesting correspondence with my local environment agency.
I return to the amendment. In principle we believe that it is correct and I am pleased to support it and those grouped with it.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, Amendment No. 158 would abolish regional flood defence committees and replace them with "river basin management committees". The intention appears to be that these new committees would deal not only with flood defence but also the river basin management plans under the water framework directive. It is not mandatory under that directive to create river basin management plans and it does not touch other responsibilities of the flood defence committees.
The Government yield to no one in this regard; certainly not with regard to the expressions, with which I totally agree, about the importance of local engagements and local representation on the management boards. We have a query with the structure and timescale proposed in the amendment. The Government have recently announced their own conclusions on the review of flood and coastal defence funding and administrative arrangements. That followed pretty widespread consultation. One of the key conclusions is that a single tier of flood defence committees should be established to improve accountability and reduce administration. At present, some parts of the country have two tiers and others have one tier; it is a total hotchpotch. Clause 64 as currently drafted would allow us to create the new structure and I hope that it would do so within a timescale that allowed us to put the new structure in 261 place by 2005. The noble Baroness's amendment puts that back by two years and would require a further round of changes to the structure and loss of the benefits in the intervening years. More importantly, it leaves us with a structure that relates to river basin catchment areas, several of which are larger than the areas that are currently covered by some of the flood defence committees and might prove difficult to operate effectively.
Respondents to the review emphasised the need for flood defence provisions to be determined by dedicated bodies covering areas that were significantly smaller than the larger river basins.
Flood defence committees would have a very distinct role to play in delivering the flood defence service. The Environment Agency is required to carry out nearly all of its flood defence responsibilities through those committees. They are, in that sense, executive committees. That is most effectively served by the discharge of their powers and functions through regional flood defence committees that are specifically designed for that purpose and not the wider purposes envisaged by the amendment. If we submerged them in a new committee with a much broader remit we could lose the focus on flood defence issues, which is vital to our flood defences.
The role of the Environment Agency was also raised. We have already consulted on the proposition that the Environment Agency will be the "competent authority" for the directive rather than local authorities, and that the agency's functions will include co-ordinating the production of river basin management plans. The agency is developing a strategy for ensuring effective engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities and others, but it will be for the agency to decide whether this might include more formal committee-style arrangements to carry forward the development of river basin plans. That is a separate issue from how we structure our flood defences.
The whole point of any rationalisation of the current flood defence committee structure is to make it more effective, more focused, and less of a hotchpotch across the country. The effect of this amendment would be to broaden the scope and create some large structures that would be incapable of carrying out that focused activity.
Regarding Amendment No. 159, to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey spoke, it is true that some classification issues arise, but the distinction between "main rivers" and "non main rivers" needs to be maintained. The main rivers are those on which the Environment Agency's activity is focused, and which provide the highest risk from flood damage. The amendment would suggest that non-main rivers would come under the Environment Agency. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness was referring to the Secretary of State or to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone as a Roman emperor—she is not in her 262 place. The idea that all local authorities' functions in relation to non-main rivers should come under the Environment Agency would be met with resistance by the local authorities. In any case, it is not appropriate if the focus of the Environment Agency is on the areas of highest risk.
§ Lord Livsey of TalgarthMy Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Neither the funding nor the equipment is available to local authorities to manage the non-main rivers adequately. As I understand from correspondence, critical waters are now going to be managed by the Environment Agency. Am I correct?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, the Environment Agency allocates its priorities according to the highest risks, and those are on the main rivers. Therefore the funding priorities reflect that. I cannot comment on the exact funding situation of any group of local authorities that have been in correspondence with the noble Lord. But priority for flood defence relates to the main rivers—including one or two that may need to be reclassified.
The two amendments go against the outcome of the consultation, and the intention to set up flood defence committees that are capable of delivering the job of flood defence and relate to areas that can be truly reflective, both of local representation and of the flood defence threats presented. I therefore hope that the amendments are not pursued.
§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, I am almost speechless. Out of politeness, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am deeply disappointed by it. He continues to miss the point. I agree that the Government did consult on flood defence committees' restructuring, when they should have been consulting on how to involve the public in the Water Framework Directive. When the Minister said that the committees need simply to be flood defence committees, so that they can focus on floodwater issues, that entirely misses where the Water Framework Directive takes us. It takes us away from dealing with floodwater as simply that, and it encourages us to deal with water as a whole, as a cycle—so that while it could be floodwater, it could also be water helping wetlands to be successful or it could be irrigation water. That will involve the public in all sorts of ways, planning authorities and so on.
I am deeply disappointed that the Government still refuse to see that simply rearranging the flood defence committees will not change fundamentally the attitude to water of the public and public bodies as required for the measure to be successful.
I can see that I shall get no further in obtaining the Government's consent to the amendment. In order to make the point, I shall test the opinion of the House.
§ 10.35 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 158) shall be agreed to?
263§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 30.
| Division No. 4 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addington, L. | Harris of Richmond, B. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Livsey of Talgarth, L. [Teller] |
| Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B | |
| Barker, B. | Montrose, D |
| Blatch B | Northesk, E. |
| Byford, B. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. | Razzall, L. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] |
| Geddes, L. | Taylor of Warwick, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Acton, L. | Fyfe of Fairfield, L. |
| Andrews, B. | Gale, B. |
| Blackstone, B. | Goldsmith, L. |
| Borrie, L. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Grocott, L. [Teller] |
| Campbell-Savours, L. | Hardy of Wath,.L. |
| Clark of Windermere, L. | Jones, L. |
| Corbett of Castle Vale, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Crawley, B. [Teller] | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Smith of Leigh, L. |
| Elder, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Thornton, B. |
| Evans of Temple Guiting, L. | Warner, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Whitaker, B. |
| Faulkner of Worcester, L. | Whitty,.L. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 10.46 p.m.
§ [Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
§
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 160:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—