“Risk”

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

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

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

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 It seems to run the risk, if that is the appropriate word, of us moving to a slightly outdated approach to flooding—an approach that is not about water management and the management of natural processes, but an approach in which we seek to avoid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

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

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

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

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

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

I shall indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chope.

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

“infrastructure above and below ground”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It defines “flood risk” as

“a risk in respect of flood”, and “coastal erosion risk” as

“a risk in respect of coastal erosion.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.