Local flood risk management strategies: England

Amendment proposed (this day): 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

‘(10) The Minister shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons pertaining to the costs which will be incurred by local authorities in implementing the provisions of this Clause before the Clause is commenced.’.—(Miss McIntosh.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking Amendment 113, in Clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end add—

‘(10) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons, including representatives from local authorities, universities, professional institutions and other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate, pertaining to the training that will be required for the lead local flood authorities to undertake the functions conferred under this section before this section is commenced.’.

I hope that we will be able to make some progress this afternoon. It is a long Bill, and we are time-limited, of course.

It is great to serve under your stewardship again this afternoon, Mr. Martlew. I was in the middle of responding to the amendments, and I was making it clear that we would fully fund the local authority’s role in respect not only of the diversity of training needs and so on, but of any new duties, powers and responsibilities that emanate from the Bill.

We have carefully assessed the new burdens that we are placing on local authorities, and we have committed to providing the necessary funding in full. We have said that, from commencement, we will provide an extra £36 million a year to lead flood authorities as area-based grants to fund the new role in England. That will allow local authority-led flood management activity to triple from around £18 million to £54 million a year. In addition, a contingency sum of £8 million has been set aside for year 1.

The evidence that we have does not support increasing the funding provision. Just to make it clear, it will ultimately be taxpayers—our constituents—across the  country, the vast Majority of whom are not at direct risk of being flooded, who will foot the bill. They will not thank us for straying from a good evidence base or for providing more than we think is necessary. In simple opportunity-cost terms, every £1 that we give to local authorities for flood management is £1 that we cannot spend on hospitals, schools or even on flood defences, such as those on main rivers and around the coast, yet flooding from those major sources represents a far greater risk than flooding from surface water, and the benefits of investment in those defences exceed the costs by around 8:1. We have made a commitment, but we need carefully to examine any call for additional resources and, on behalf of our constituents, to make rational decisions that are based on the evidence available.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew. The Minister’s clarification was helpful, but I am a little concerned that the Government are relying on raising local levies. He seems to miss the point that that money will come from exactly the same people whom he was talking about, and district councils, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, not the Government, will get the blame. Does he take that point?

Indeed, I do; the point is well made. That is why we need to keep the matter under review. We cannot base our decisions on a snapshot taken now, on the independent review that was carried out last summer, on evidence from 2002 or whatever. We need to keep working with local government, to make this work over time.

It is worth pointing out, by the way, that some of the functions in the Bill will not kick in straight away. There is a time scale in respect of the implications for the transfer of local sewers and the roll-out of sustainable drainage systems development. That will be done development by development, not all on day one. Indeed, there may be cost savings at the front end, rather than increased costs. That is why we need to keep the matter under review.

I do not think that at this point we can set figures for how much money will be available. We do not have national strategies, or strategies for England or Wales. Can the Minister explain literally how this will work? Will a lead local flood authority prepare a strategy and then go to the Government and say, “This is likely to cost £8 million. Can we have £8 million, please?” I am not quite sure how it will physically work.

There will be no need for that. The funding that I have described will be provided on the current area-based grant system. If there were a call for more funding and the evidence supported such a call, funding would be made available through the normal support mechanisms to local authorities in those areas identified as being at the greatest risk of flooding and so on; but of course, our investment, which has doubled in recent years, would continue.

To clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, local levies will not be used to fund the core elements of the Bill. We are providing additional Government money to recognise the net burdens, and we will keep it under review.

The assessment of burdens is based on independent research carried out last summer, when the draft Bill was published and consulted on. Just to make it clear, the assessment takes the upper end of the likely costs, because we are cognisant of the concerns that were raised by local government. We went not for the lower end but for the upper end, to provide added confidence.

We have shown a commitment by providing funding this year and next to more than half of all the county and unitary authorities in England, where the need is greatest, to implement Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations and take action straight away. As this is a devolved matter, the responsibility for commissioning such a review in Wales—were it to come—would rest with the Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Ministers are already discussing the impact with the local authorities and with the Welsh Local Government Association.

The funding will be provided up front. This will not be a drag-down of funding; the area-based grants that I mentioned—£36 million—will be provided up front to fund the roles. If local authorities require more, we will consider it, but we will need good evidence to back up such a request. That is the dialogue that we are currently having with the LGA.

We all want to see the Bill in place, so we must not put hurdles in the way of the commencement of this legislation; that, however, is what these amendments would do. The best way of determining whether authorities are sufficiently funded is to provide money now—as we are already doing and as we promised to do—and allow them to get on with the job. We have already committed to monitoring the actual costs, not the estimates, and we will make good any shortfalls that arise.

The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire—please pass on my best wishes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who is ill today—have tabled a further Amendment that requires the Secretary of State to instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons about the training that will be required.

To pick up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I met with Unison and the Sector Skills Body Forum only last week to discuss the ways forward and work force planning within not only local authorities but the water sector generally. We will be in a position to introduce some plans and suggestions, but they are not all pertinent to this Clause or this Bill.

Some facts and figures on the matter would be quite useful. Although it is not necessarily the responsibility of this Bill, knowing how many water engineers work in local authorities would form a good backcloth to this legislation. What is the potential shortfall and what is the age profile of those people? As I said in my speech, we need to have a clear background to whatever we pass in legislation. So, if the Minister would bring forward such facts and figures, it would be very useful.

I might be able to be of some help to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I have just realised that I am dropping my “h”s; I am suddenly talking a form of estuary Welsh—“I might be of some ’elp to my hon. Friend.” My parents did not bring me up to drop my “h”s in Parliament.

Our assessment is based on independent work by consultants. On average, it suggests that 0.5 to 1.5 extra staff per authority will be needed for the lead flood authority role, plus a similar number more to look after the SUDS element—as I mentioned, the SUDS element will not happen overnight. The costs of those involved in SUDS can be recovered through planning fees, which we have not discussed, so they do not need to be funded.

To allow some contingency, however, the assessment of burdens assumes an average of 2.25 extra full-time employees per lead flood authority. Let me drill under that average. As we know, some large county authorities with significant risks may need to recruit four or five staff, while some unitaries, which already have strong, ongoing drainage and watercourse roles, might be able to perform the role with very few extra resources. We need to keep the issue under review, but we are funding it. We are also funding training and investment in it, by helping with graduate schemes and skills schemes in local authorities. I am sure that I can expand more on that as well.

I do not want to labour this point, but in my experience of talking to local government officers, particularly those who have a water engineering background, they do not totally understand what SUDS are.

I have no technical expertise, and this is an evolving area. The Minister talks about using the planning system, but developers will realise that this will be an expensive part of a future planning proposal and do their utmost not to spend that money. I want to know whether we are talking to the building industry, particularly developers, about its understanding of the changes.

I am pleased to say that such a discussion is already under way; we are not waiting for the commencement of the Bill to start on that. We are talking to the building industry, the local authorities and others, because the change will involve, for many, a new skill set. Alongside other Government Departments, we are developing the technical details of the SUDS development and the hierarchy that it will mean. There will be different types of SUDS development. On the back of that, we have identified the skill sets that are required. There is a job of work to be done, but we have not waited to start it; it is already under way.

The amendments suggest that a training review by an independent panel will have to take place before the training of the lead local authorities can commence. That cannot happen; we need to get on with the Bill. The work is under way already. Although I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need to ensure that the lead local flood authorities have the capacity to undertake their role, requiring any sort of review before commencement would be unduly bureaucratic and could have the unfortunate effect of delaying the management of flood risk. That would affect people who could otherwise be helped.

As I have said, we are working closely with a range of organisations including the LGA, the Environment Agency, local authorities and the Sector Skills Council to identify and provide the training required. We recognise that that will take some time, and we have reflected that in  the assumptions that we have made around the programme of work. I have mentioned Wales, but when it comes to training it will be for Welsh Ministers to instigate, publish and have regard to a review in Wales, should the Amendment go forward, because the matter is devolved. The Welsh Assembly Government are currently discussing with the WLGA the implications of the training requirement in the Bill, and are actively considering the skills and capacity issue.

Let me return to the matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and for City of Durham. The suggestion was challenging because it is to do with net burdens, finance, costs and so on. They suggested putting on a formal footing the discussions that we are currently having with the LGA as a prime partner. I am quite taken with the idea, because we are currently having intense dialogues with the LGA, as we have done through the development of this Bill, the draft Bill and so on. Formalising such talks would be a good way to take the whole matter forward. Rather than have an independent panel, it would be better to send Ministers away to put the talks on a proper footing and say, “You will now have to plan your way through this with the LGA.”

This process will not be over in 12 months, or even two years. The development of SUDS and the transfer of private sewers will mean that we will still be here in a few years. We therefore need to put our discussions on a formal footing. I have no problem with doing that in some kind of partnership with the LGA, and possibly others such as the Environment Agency and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

However, we do not need to legislate to do that, and we do not want to delay the commencement of the Bill. This afternoon, my officials are meeting the LGA. They have a range of issues on their agenda, and I am quite happy for them to raise the idea of formalising the arrangements there, so that we take forward an ongoing assessment of the costs and burdens as they arise. On the back of that, depending on what discussions arise, I am happy to write to members of the Committee and the LGA to put things on a formal footing. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the Committee.

That is a helpful response and I thank the Minister. Will he confirm that if this partnership is put on a more formal basis, it will consider matters of training and skills, as well as financial burdens?

Absolutely. Regardless of the aspect of skills I mentioned, which could be funded through local planning application funding, we have the skills and training, SUDS and the transfer of private sewers. A very good eye must be kept on all those things. We are confident in the assessment that we have done. We have gone for the lower, more conservative estimates. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about formalising the way forward, and I am happy to give the Committee that undertaking. I will write to Committee members if we have progress this afternoon.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and thank all hon. Members for their contributions to what has been a good debate. I am mindful that the  Local Government Association is meeting at this time. I may revisit the proposals at a later stage if insufficient progress is made, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

We now come to the stand part debate. I am conscious that we had a full debate on this matter this morning, and I hope that this debate will not go over things that have already been said.

There are points not relating to any of the amendments or to our discussions this morning that I would like to address.

While I remember it, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to pass on our best wishes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for a speedy recovery. I hope it is not to do with anything that was said on Tuesday.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and I are both privileged to sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. A conclusion of its report on the draft Bill on this matter was:

“We consider that the local authority proposal for catchment area flood management boards, similar to Regional Flood Defence Committees, has much to recommend it.”

I do not see that that recommendation, which I endorse wholeheartedly, was raised elsewhere in the Bill.

In a debate on another Clause, the Minister gave the definition for ground water. The explanatory notes inform us that the definition of ground water in the Bill is different from that in directive 2000/60/EC, on establishing a framework for Community action. In the Bill, it is defined in a way that is relevant to flood risk management. We are told that it includes

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

On reflection, I wonder whether the difference in the definition might have covered the points that I wished to include. To a lay person it is confusing to have two different definitions—one in the Bill and one in the directive. It would be helpful to know the reasons for having them.

It was pointed out in the evidence session last week that the difficulty with the national flood management strategy is that there should be regional variations. Will the Minister confirm that clause 9 allows for such regional and local variations? For example, some rivers are deep whereas others are shallow; some need to be dredged and some do not. We cannot simply have a no-dredging policy. That might be changed if there is a change at the General Election. We will see about that in the fullness of time. Certainly, we firmly believe that flood risk management should be maintained at a local level, using the local expertise of those who know the area, with a strategic overview by the Environment Agency.

Farmers and landowners are concerned that there should be a greater input from local people in shaping local flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies. How does the Minister envisage that such an input will happen? Obviously, we will keep a close eye on the resourcing element, and we will revert to that in future, even if not during the course of this Committee.

It would be helpful if the Minister explained the relationship between clauses 9 and 8. I am aware that the Bill covers an appeals procedure, which will be most welcome. We accept that the Bill offers a more joined-up and effective approach to managing flood risks, but we would like to know how such large-scale preparations and recovery are to be funded. The Minister has given us some indication of that, but perhaps he could give me a specific reference so that I can read more about it myself.

As for the insurance concerns, it will be difficult to see what the relationship between the two strategies will be. One of my concerns, which we will return to elsewhere, is that we should be able to write into the Bill—in clause 9 and elsewhere where relevant—an element of flexibility between the tiers, rather than having a constant fixation with the county. The hon. Member for Stroud admitted to not knowing a great deal about SUDS. The more I read about SUDS the less I feel I understand them.

As for SUDS relating to highways, counties are definitely the right level of authority, but for development, to which the Minister referred in respect of recovering some of the costs through planning charges, the district council is the relevant authority. We should either write into the Bill a level of flexibility or state that to be the case. There is no point in having that lack of clarity in the Bill.

It is fair to note that the LGA and the local authorities accept their responsibilities and look forward to the clarity that they hope the Bill will give them. The Minister says that the funds are sufficient, but the LGA is firmly of the view that the figures being used are invalid and seven years old, which is a concern. It is the councils that are the experts. Only a small percentage of authorities spend any money on private sewers, so we beg to differ with the Minister. Does he know how many councils spend heavily on repairing and maintaining private sewers? Can he give us a ballpark figure for an annual maintenance cost to those councils?

I would like clarification of one or two points that were not covered in the previous debate. The success of a flood risk strategy is tested by the outcome in an emergency situation. How does risk management relate to an emergency response, who are the consultees in the preparation of the strategy, and at what stage are they consulted?

Clause 9(4) lists a number of elements of the strategy: functions, objectives, measures, how and when the measures are expected to be implemented, and an assessment function. The issue might be dealt with in subsection (6), which refers to risk management authorities, but will the Minister clarify who has consulted fire and rescue services, police, statutory undertakers, St. John Ambulance, social services and any other organisation that might be called to be part of a response to an emergency flood? Perhaps we can return to this under clause 13, which refers to co-operation and arrangements.

I am pleased to respond and I will try to take your proviso on board, Mr. Martlew, and respond directly and snappily. On the clarification of Clause 19 and the ability to have regional variations—yes, absolutely. We see the potential for catchment area flood boards, but we do not have to legislate for them. They can be created already; they do not have to be  statutory. That follows the theme we have been talking about: the need to engage properly with local partnerships and local expertise on the ground. If there is a mood in an area to do that, it can be done; doing so is not precluded.

The question of the difference in the level of ground water is an immensely technical one—it sometimes confuses me as well—but I am happy to answer it in writing. In the Bill, the definition includes all water below ground level, but the directive covers water below ground level that has reached the level of the water table. I said that issue was technical, and those are only the introductory comments. I will happily write to the hon. Member for Vale of York and other members of the Committee to explain it in some detail.

On the local input of farmers and individual landowners, which I know has been a theme of the Committee so far, the lead local authorities have a duty to consult the public on their strategies, and that should include farmers and their representatives. I am sure we will return to that subject, and we will consider what we can do in guidance to make matters explicit.

On the seven-year-old figures used in the assessment of some of the costs that we are working on, there is a counter-argument that if we used up-to-date figures from the past couple of years—since, for example, we made clear our intention to transfer private sewers—the fact that some local authorities might have amended their practice in anticipation of that could give us a completely different set of figures. The point the hon. Lady made is right: it is clear from our previous discussions that it is necessary to keep those figures under review, to assess the actual costs coming forward and to use those to guide our future discussions. We need to have robust evidence.

The hon. Lady asked me to point out where exactly in the Bill local flexibility is provided for. It is in the agreements within clause 13(4) and clause 29, which deals with restructuring. To return to the issue of private sewers for a moment, the LGA has not as yet come up with anything better than our current analysis based on its figures. However, we are interested to see whether we can do that altogether.

Evidence suggests that some local authorities are indeed winding down their activities in anticipation of the transfer. However, as I said, we will formalise our arrangement with the LGA. In response to the query of the hon. Member for Upminster about the relationship with an emergency response, all relevant organisations would be involved in the local resilience forum, which will consider flooding and other risks, so there is a synchronicity with those organisations. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.