Local flood risk management strategies: wales

I beg to move Amendment 98, in Clause 10, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

‘(8A) Two or more lead local authorities sharing a common landscape area or water catchment area may work together to produce a shared landscape-scale local flood management strategy in their area.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 99, in Clause 13, page 9, line 42, at end insert

‘group of risk management authorities working together, or’.

Allows landscape-scale working, or even just collaborative project management between neighbouring local authorities.

It is good to be serving under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Martlew. I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Vale of York for their kind remarks, which I will pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.

Amendment 98—amendment 99 is on a similar theme—is trying to start us on the road to what I think is needed: a radical step change in our approach to planning. Planning at its best, in the tradition of Ebenezer Howard and the Town and Country Planning Association, was a discipline that tried to take an holistic view of an area and look at the entire environment. Sadly, in the intervening century, the pressures of legislation, competing local priorities, local authority boundaries, and the sheer pressure of work and bureaucracy of planning, have reduced the discipline at times—or the exercise of the discipline in practice—to a rather stressful and bureaucratic balancing act between competing interests at the very local level. It is often terribly local. It is often about narrowing things down to the consideration of just one site at a time. At best, it deals with zones of a particular town. That matters a lot and can lead to unfortunate approaches for towns as a whole.

That approach can have a serious effect on the natural environment and the landscape. With our growing awareness of the importance of ecology and the natural environment—in the jargon of ecosystem services—to people’s health, well-being and quality of life, it becomes increasingly important to try to reverse the trend.

In 2008, the Liberal Democrats convened a working group, which I was pleased to be involved in, to look at a range of policies on the natural environment. Many organisations gave evidence to us on the kind of changes to policy and legislation that might be needed to reinforce the protection and good management of the natural environment. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that came through from many organisations, which coincidentally included those involved in the “Blueprint for Water” and the campaign for better management of water resources, was to shift the approach to planning the natural environment to the landscape scale wherever possible.

We have had planning at a larger than local authority level under this Government. For example, we have the notorious regional spatial strategies. Sadly, I think the Government have failed on a number of grounds. First, because the measures are top-down, they have been handed down by the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Government offices at regional level, such as the south-west, and enforced on local authorities with consultation, but no willingness to change. In that way, there is never any ownership and the local knowledge and expertise does not come through.

The allocation of spatial planning has been reduced almost to the allocation of new housing. The only maps in the draft regional spatial strategy for the south-west show where the new houses will go. There are no  comparable maps showing where the valuable green space is to local communities or where there is vital biodiversity that needs to be protected. There are certainly no maps showing the valuable watercourses and the location of areas that hold water in the landscape or could hold more water to protect against flooding.

The purpose of the amendment is to give firm direction to lead local authorities. It would not oblige them to work together on joint flood risk management strategies, but would give a strong incentive to do so. Two or more lead local authorities that share a common landscape area or water catchment area should be able to work together to produce a shared landscape-scale local flood management strategy. That would have important benefits for flood risk management. In addition, it might help to start the shift towards more landscape-scale planning for the natural environment in general, and so have ecological and environmental benefits. It might even save money if, instead of each lead local authority producing its own flood risk management plan, we enabled them to work together to produce joint ones.

This is a huge opportunity and this is an important amendment. I hope that the Conservatives will support it and I look forward to the Minister’s support or encouragement on the matter.

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and compelling point. Should we incentivise or compel local authorities to partake in such partnerships?

Partnership is important, but the Amendment is carefully phrased: it says, “may work together”. We should never be in the business of forcing local authorities to work together when they do not want to. I can imagine that some areas of the south-west might not want to work together. It is about providing incentives and trying to give a clear direction, saying that the best way to approach the natural environment is on an holistic basis, looking at a large landscape-scale approach, and that that would be good environmentally as well has having planning benefits.

This is an interesting Amendment, because it would, in effect, make the Bill state expressly that lead local authorities in adjoining areas can work together to produce a joint local flood risk strategy. I have made it clear in my previous remarks that I am quite keen on the idea of collaborative working where the expertise is located and on a larger area—catchment area—basis, which is curiously in line with what the hon. Member for Vale of York said earlier about the catchment-area approach. That makes sense for authorities that are willing to work together. I accept that it would be beneficial and I should like it to happen. Indeed, it is not only beneficial, but it could be desirable in some cases. All I would say is that we do not need new powers to enable that to happen: it is already possible under existing powers.

If lead local authorities wish to work together to produce a strategy covering a shared catchment, that is possible. It is also possible for them to put together a strategy covering the area of more than one authority. The important thing is that there is a strategy that covers an area, but it is possible to do that already in practice.

I have been following the debate closely. I think that the impulse behind the Amendment is credible and deserves consideration. The Minister has said that he recognises that water has no borders—all Committee members recognise that—and we all want there to be shared responsibility. Will the Minister give us some real detail about the ways in which local authorities might co-operate as a result of the Bill?

That is a helpful Intervention. On the ground, in reality, we will see authorities having a joint strategy—I am utterly confident that that can happen already—and working together to ensure that the content of their strategies are compatible with each other’s. Clause 13 requires authorities to co-operate in the exercise of their functions, so it will facilitate that. The measure will also be supported by Environment Agency guidance, specifically provided for in clause 7(6), which will seek to disseminate best practice on partnership working. This provision shoots through the whole Bill.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham tabled Amendment 99, which would insert after “another risk management authority” in clause 13(4) the words

“group of risk management authorities working together”, which, again, is in the theme that he is advancing. The intention behind the amendment is to allow collaborative working and delegations of functions across boundaries—this great idea of working together—which I agree should be permitted. I send some sympathy, because this is the way we should be heading. We do not want to compel or force, but we need to enable this to happen. However, the amendment is not needed because the words “risk management authority” will be read under section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as including the plural as well as the singular. One authority will be able to enter into arrangements with a few others because legally it defines itself as both singular and plural. Authorities could come together as a group.

I should be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman makes of those observations and what the hon. Member for Vale of York feels about the collaborative approach to working across borders.

I am minded to agree with the Minister. I believe that the catchment management area is where the natural scope would come. I have been briefed by the floods team of the EU Commission directorate on the implications, and I know that in the context of a future, broader Bill, there is definitely scope for that. My impression, on a strict reading of the existing Bill, and from the Minister’s explanation, is that we do not need the amendments.

I would be concerned if the Minister were saying that there would not be natural scope, because such things are often difficult for adjoining areas. I look at my own area, where trying to get district councils to work together and with the county council is exemplary, but if the Minister is saying that that is to be encouraged, I would be satisfied that we do not need a formal statutory reference to it.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. It was extremely positive, and seems to suggest that the amendments may not be necessary, and that exactly the kind of shift that we are looking for might be in his mind, too.

Perhaps the Minister might be able to clear up my one slight reservation. Collaboration and co-operation are not quite the same as shared working on a shared strategy—it is only collaboration. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight probably gave us one of the best possible examples: Hampshire as an authority entirely surrounds the City of Southampton unitary authority and would therefore be subject to flooding going across boundaries.

Let me put this absolutely clearly: would it be legal under the terms of the Bill if Southampton did not produce its own flood risk management strategy but collaborated on a Hampshire-wide flood risk management strategy that explicitly included it? Or would Southampton be taken to task for not having fulfilled its duty to produce its own flood risk management strategy? If the Minister would clarify that, I might be perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.

My understanding is that joint work on producing a joint strategy across border areas would indeed be legal within the interpretation of the Bill. The Bill will allow that to happen. That is my clear understanding, but, if it is not correct, I will happily write to Committee members to clarify the matter. That is how we fashioned the Bill; it is how I intended it to operate. It will allow authorities that want to come together to produce a strategy, either as a pair of authorities or as several authorities in a group, to do so. Shared working is allowed within the scope of the Bill.

The only proviso I would give is that, ultimately, the buck must stop somewhere. Authorities can work together and produce a shared strategy, but the lead authority in any particular area is ultimately responsible for what happens in that area. There is no sharing of responsibility. It lies with democratically accountable individuals in the lead authority, and I think that that is right. It is simple, and it is what I believe Pitt was seeking. He said that we should not construct another edifice that confuses people about where to go. Authorities can get on with bringing strategies together, and can work on them together to produce one strategy—that is legally allowed—but the buck has to stop with the lead local authority in each area, which will be accountable.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. It seems that he has entirely answered my questions, and that he has opened the door to a new way of working on planning policy, if only in this narrow area of flood risk management. We may have started a local revolution here. We may actually get to the stage where planning is no longer a narrowing down to ever smaller districts and small plots but finally starts to look at a more holistic level at landscapes. This could be a very important development, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.