Environment Agency: reports

I beg to move Amendment 17, in Clause 18, page 12, line 25, at end insert—

‘(5) The Agency must also publish on a quarterly basis its programme of regular maintenance work carried out on main water courses.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 10—Regular maintenance of water courses—

‘The Environment Agency must undertake a programme of regular maintenance work of major water courses on an annual basis with quarterly reports to both Houses of Parliament.’.

Good morning, Mr. Chope. May I welcome you back to the Chair? I would like to have a short debate on Clause 18 stand part, so I will speak only to the Amendment and new clause, which are not insignificant. The Committee will be aware that one of the key recommendations of the Pitt review was that maintenance should be not just done but seen to be done. I had one point of difference with the Pitt conclusions overall in relation to many of the flood visits that I made—those of 2000, 2005, 2007 especially, and last year’s floods in Cumbria. Although it is difficult to prove, anecdotally we were told that there is not now the level of maintenance that has been undertaken in the past. The amendment and new clause would rectify that.

My understanding is that the agency places annually on its website a maintenance programme. Obviously, that is a bit of a moveable feast, but if we are to address the issue and public concerns, the main thrust of the Bill should be to ensure that there is less opportunity to flood main watercourses in future. The Minister referred to the role of IDBs and how they are funded substantially by local farmers and landowners, many of whom hold positions of responsibility on them. We are told that it is very much the case that IDBs undertake a significant programme of maintenance that is public and there for all to see—as a vice-president of theAssociation of Drainage Authorities, I take that on good account. From the levies that they raise, they also make substantial funds available annually to the Environment Agency for the specific purpose of carrying out maintenance.

It is incontrovertible that the Government have increased capital spending on floods, although the insurance industry and flood victims would argue that the annual capital programme is simply not enough and does not go far enough. As a result of skilful parliamentary questioning, however, the Government have admitted that the maintenance programme has slipped in comparison with the capital programme. We want to rectify that. We want to hold the agency to account; it is a body that we hold in high regard and we believe that the amendment would help them and their reputation enormously. It will put to rest a fear, which has been expressed to us, so we are very much aware of it, that maintenance is not being undertaken at certain times of the year because of biodiversity, birds nesting and so on. That is also the case with the internal drainage board, but one can work around that.

Amendment 17 would insist that, instead of having an annual rolling programme, the agency publish on a quarterly basis its programme of regular maintenance work carried out on main watercourses. Obviously, since 2004-05 the number of enmained watercourses has increased. Another purpose of amendment 17 is to ascertain whether the agency’s maintenance programme is less vigorous than it was previously, and whether main watercourses are being dredged and maintained. I have seen physical evidence of that. For instance, self-planted willow trees that had not been removed contributed very much to the floods of 2007 in particular, and to other floods. If the main watercourses are not being dredged and maintained, water will back up into the minor watercourses, which are the responsibility of the internal drainage boards. That is what is making them so angry. They have a full programme, to which they adhere. Their work is being undermined by a lack of maintenance and dredging on the scale that we would like. If we are to implement Pitt, he was clear that maintenance should be not just done but seen to be done. New clause 10 is a helpful technical amendment to a different part of the Bill.

Clearly, our fervent wish is that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment and new clause and make them part of the Bill. I hope that he will address the issues that I have raised: not least, that the maintenance programme is not as vigorous as it was prior to 1997. As a Back Bencher, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made political history by securing, for the first time, an Adjournment Debate on that issue. He called for a better balance between spending on big capital projects in urban areas and spending on maintenance, from which rural areas benefit more. The issue touches the heart of all local communities, which are central to the internal drainage board. Given the Government’s catchment management systems and some other programmes, flooding of farmland will increase as existing rural flood defences on minor watercourses are allowed to fail, because the Government will argue that there is no money to maintain them. The amendment and new clause address serious issues, and I hope that the Minister will be minded to adopt them.

Briefly, I want to support the Amendment and new Clause. Although a number of Opposition Members have welcomed the Bill, we have said frequently that it needs strengthening if it is to have the desired effect and impact, which the amendment and new clause attempt to provide. My hon. Friend would probably also want to tie them in with new clause 11—on which I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Chope—which relates to schedule 3, on smaller watercourses, private drains and sewers.

Last night, I had a meeting with Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency. We discussed this very issue, among others. Prior to the new regime at the Environment Agency, it was universally the view that dredging of rivers was not necessarily beneficial. The new chairman said that that was not necessarily his view; each river had to be assessed differently, and although it might not be beneficial on some rivers, it might be on others. Will the Minister let the Committee know what his approach and attitude would be towards the maintenance and dredging of main watercourses? Each and every main watercourse needs assessing properly.

As I hope to address new clause 11 later this morning, let me say that repairs and trying to catch up when a flood has happened are essential, but are not the best method of flood prevention. It is too late then. Maintenance, which so often gets neglected, is important. As with servicing one’s car, it is easy to put it off for several months; nobody notices until things start to go wrong. In requiring reports to be given on maintenance, my hon. Friend’s proposals would prevent such delay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I am pleased to respond to the debate on Amendment and new Clause, which would require the Environment Agency to undertake an annual programme of maintenance work on major watercourses, with quarterly reports to the Houses of Parliament. With regard to devolved matters, the implication is that reports would also need to go to the National Assembly for Wales.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the Government concede that the maintenance programme has slipped—I assume that she refers to parliamentary questions. Although the maintenance programme has not slipped, what has changed is that there is a focus on risk management, and more assets are in target condition now than in 2007. The risk management approach reflected throughout the Bill and in our general approach is pivotal. Things have not slipped—they are more targeted.

The Government are committed to the risk-based approach to maintenance and that has been endorsed by the Pitt review in recommendation 25:

“The Environment Agency should maintain its existing risk-based approach to levels of maintenance and this should be supported by published schedules of works for each local authority area.”

I therefore agree with hon. Members that, in terms of both public confidence and accountability, it is crucial for the Environment Agency to be transparent and open in its planning of maintenance, and to consult on its plans with people who have an interest in how and how often it is done. The Environment Agency recognises that, and as a result is already going further than Sir Michael recommended. The Environment Agency consults with landowners and local groups on its main river maintenance programme each year. The regional flood defence committee approves the programme of works, which are now published on the regional pages of the Environment Agency’s website.

The EA’s progress on the maintenance programme is reported to regional flood defence committees. Such meetings are held quarterly and open to the public, and the minutes from each are available from each regional committee services team, details of which are on its website. That transparency allows anyone, including Parliament, to take an interest in maintenance schedules if there are concerns or a desire to do so. Information on any coast protection work undertaken by the EA will in future be made similarly available from the new regional flood and coastal committees.

It should be noted that the Environment Agency has a publication scheme in line with section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and much of the information that it holds is already published as a matter of routine. Where information is not published,  it may be available from the EA and other risk management authorities under existing freedom of information and environmental information legislation.

The Bill also provides improved tools for local authority scrutiny of flood and coastal erosion risk management activities. Those include the duty for all risk management authorities to co-operate, the power to request information, which we have dealt with, and the provision in schedule 2 for risk management authorities to comply with requests made by overview and scrutiny committees and to have regard to their reports and recommendations. That is consistent with the relevant recommendations in the Pitt review. It is right that authorities are held to account by local, democratic bodies.

Therefore, additional legislation on the matter is not necessary. To require the EA to maintain all major watercourses to a common or minimum standard would run counter to the risk-based approach and could divert resources from locations where they are most needed. As maintenance schedules do not change frequently, a requirement to publish quarterly, particularly to both Houses of Parliament, appears burdensome and unlikely to result in any improvement to the maintenance of major watercourses.

In the past, navigation authorities dredged some rivers to allow free passage for boats. That is still carried out on some critical occasions on navigable rivers, but the practice has ceased where navigation has declined. However, that type of dredging work was not carried out for flood management purposes. The EA’s risk management approach would take that into account where dredging needed to occur.

I think that I have covered all aspects, so on that basis and with the reassurances on publication and accountability —I think that we are aiming at the same thing—I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

I confess that I am disappointed by the Minister’s remarks and I would like to press Amendment 17 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

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

I have just a few comments to make. There has been some concern about the reporting process under subsection (1):

“The Environment Agency must report to the Minister about flood and coastal erosion risk management.”

The Local Government Information Unit believes that the lead local flood authorities will not be reporting floods, and I wonder whether there is an argument that they should be required to report as well. They will have responsibility to investigate and determine the risk management assessment and delivery of flood and coastal erosion risk management. In the event that an authority fails to exercise its function—that is, whether it is in accordance with national and local strategies—the Minister can direct that function to another authority, and yet recover the costs from the original authority. Obviously, that is a cause of some concern to local authorities. Has the Minister considered that possible scenario and what the outcome would be?

The lead local flood authorities must also establish and maintain a register of structures and features that are likely to affect flood risk in an area, including their ownership and state of repair. I will have more to say about that when we discuss Clause 30, under the definition of features in that regard. The Environment Agency must ensure that key third-party assets are registered and protected. Those are structures or features in private hands that provide an important public flood risk management function.

The Association of British Insurers welcomes the clear areas of accountability defined by the Bill. However, it believes that there needs to be further clarity around how various authorities will operate, and how transparent their performance in their areas of responsibility will be. It wishes to see a clear process, open to public scrutiny, that will involve monitoring and transparent reporting of how the Environment Agency, national Government, local authorities and other responsible bodies perform in their areas of accountability.

The Bill sets out in clause 18 how the Environment Agency will report to the Minister and, under clause 19, the local authorities have a duty to investigate and report on risk management, and to enable the Minister to direct, as under clause 30. However, the Bill seems to omit a very serious matter, in that it does not place an explicit duty on the Environment Agency to report publicly on its performance or monitor and publicly report on local authorities’ performance in reducing flood risk. Is that a deliberate omission on the part of the Minister? Will the Minister see fit to return to this at a later stage? Once again, transparency is key to the involvement of the Environment Agency.

A number of water companies have expressed their concern at the Environment Agency’s overall role. If the Environment Agency reports as set out under clause 18, will that be debateable either by the relevant Select Committee or on the Floor of the House?

The insurance industry goes further and asks whether the Minister would consider asking the Environment Agency that, not less than every three years, it reviews its overall performance and its relationships with local authorities. I await the Minister’s response.

As Members understand, this Clause requires the Environment Agency to report to the Secretary of State in England and to Welsh Ministers in Wales about flood and coastal erosion risk management. That report has to include information about the application of national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies under clauses 7 and 8. In order to provide these reports, the Environment Agency will have to monitor the application of the strategies, as required by  clauses 7 and 8, for England and Wales respectively. It is likely to need to request information from risk management authorities as well as collecting it directly.

I shall now respond to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York. It is worth clarifying that, in terms of lead local flood authorities gathering information, it is intended that existing reporting arrangements be relied upon wherever practicable—examples include the current local government performance framework of national indicators, floods directive products and reports prepared for and by local authority scrutiny committees and the Audit Commission. Additional information and clarity would be sought on a case-by-case basis, relying on clauses 13 and 14—duties to co-operate and powers to request information.

In respect of water companies, let me clarify that as well: water companies undertake an annual reporting cycle, the June returns, and the Environment Agency will be able to draw on those, for example, to seek to ensure a streamlined and joined-up approach to reporting progress of flood risk management.

I shall now discuss how the Environment Agency would pull together reviews of other operating authorities and other stakeholders to make sure that we have a balanced view. The Environment Agency has drawn on a variety of sources, as I have indicated, from the range of bodies involved to produce the report for Ministers. Those information sources, which also include Audit Commission reports, will already have undergone a consultation process.

In respect of the duties that the hon. Lady mentioned on the EA to report to a local authority, that is already covered by the EA’s performance monitoring, which is published on the website. Local authorities are also addressed through the national performance framework indicator NI 189 on flooding.

My understanding is that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can consider those reports under clause 18. It is also important that ministerial direction is given on the issue of whether lead local authorities are required to report. That information may be included in the EA report and the information may also be considered by the local scrutiny committee, as described within schedule 2. With this report we intend to monitor progress in the management of all sources of flood risk and coastal erosion. It is also expected to be used to inform policy development and to review priorities to make sure that effective and efficient flood and coastal erosion risk management is being delivered across England and Wales. I hope that the Committee are satisfied with these comments..

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.