Risk management: amendment of other acts

I beg to move Amendment 64, in schedule 2, page 40, line 10, leave out ‘Conditions 1 and 3 are satisfied’ and insert—

‘(a) Conditions 1 and 3 are satisfied, or

(b) Conditions 1 and 4 are satisfied.’.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 65 to 67.

The amendments would ensure that the Environment Agency has clear oversight of all flood and coastal erosion risk management works that relate to the sea. Part of our effort is to clarify the roles and responsibility.

The Amendment has the effect of requiring IDBs, district councils, and lead local flood authorities where there is no district council, to obtain the consent of the EA in order to carry out flood risk management works that relate to flood risk from the sea. That is done through the introduction of condition 4; as a result, consent will be required only in relation to major works. Those are: new works; improvements or alteration to works; maintaining or restoring natural processes; managing water levels, and demolition of works. Day-to-day works such as maintenance, operation of equipment, monitoring, and investigating and surveying a location do not require consent. That ensures that the condition is not unduly burdensome. This is consistent with and complements the EA’s role under the Coast Protection Act 1949 as amended by schedule 2(5) to the Bill, which gives the EA powers to approve coast protection works.

Just for the sake of clarity, are we speaking only about Amendment 64?

We are taking them all.

In terms of coastal erosion and risk management from the sea, will the measure cover coast protection in wider forms than those the Minister stated? It would be helpful if he expanded on Amendment 67: how will condition 4 on page 40 go further than what is in the Bill?

I am happy to respond to that. The Bill seeks to give clear responsibility for managing different sources of flood risk to particular bodies. The EA is to have overall responsibility for sea flooding and the Amendment has been moved to ensure that that happens. To avoid unnecessary administrative costs, not all works will be subject to this requirement; as I have said, only the more significant works will be. The amendment does not remove the power of IDBs or district councils—or unitary authorities, where there is no district council—to do works that manage flooding from the sea. It does require such bodies to have consent to undertake certain works in future, as I have already explained. That is to make sure that the EA can have oversight of the totality of sea flooding works and ensure that they are joined up. In terms of coastal erosion risk management and whether this is a wider form of coastal protection: yes, it is, and it does expand it in that way.

Amendment 64 agreed to.

Amendments made: 65, in schedule 2, page 40, line 23, leave out ‘carrying out’.

66, in schedule 2, page 40, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).

67, in schedule 2, page 40, line 29, at end insert—

‘(7A) Condition 4 is that the purpose of the work is to manage a flood risk in the authority’s area from the sea and either—

(a) the work is within subsection (8)(a), (b) or (f), or

(b) the Environment Agency has consented to the work.’.—(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

I beg to move Amendment 143, in schedule 2, page 40, line 33, after ‘structures’, insert

‘and natural or man-made features of the environment’.

To ensure that this Schedule does not slip back into treating flood risk management as the maintenance of hard defences, ignoring natural features. Other subsections refer to natural processes but not features.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 144, in schedule 2, page 45, line 38, after ‘structures’, insert

‘and natural or man-made features of the environment’.

To ensure that this Schedule does not slip back into treating flood risk management as the maintenance of hard defences, ignoring natural features. Other subsections refer to natural processes but not features.

Amendments 143 and 144 are essentially tidying-up amendments to bring schedule 2 into line with other parts of the Bill. Elsewhere in the Bill there is recognition of the importance to flood and water management of natural processes and natural features.

It has been a regular theme of mine that we need to re-emphasise that we are working with nature and not in competition with it. Proposed new section 14A(8)(e) of the Land Drainage Act 1991 mentions

“maintaining or restoring natural processes”.

In fact, subsection (8)(f) extends that to monitoring, investigating and surveying natural processes, but nowhere is the phrase used in schedule 1,

“a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

A watercourse, a field or a dyke is not a process, but a feature, yet their maintenance, restoration or reinstatement would certainly constitute an act of flood management. It seems to be an oversight that that is not included in the schedule.

I have sympathy with the spirit and the intention of the Amendment, although I could spend some time saying why it is not needed. As I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking clarity, rather than detain the Committee, I am happy to take this away and come back with something that will deliver the same objective.

In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed. That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

I would just like to make a brief comment if I may. The explanatory notes refer in particular to section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 as it currently stands. The Government’s proposed Amendment therefore requires any new culvert to have consent. In my capacity as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, I beg the Minister to reconsider the provision. The Government have expressed it as  proposed new subsection (1B) of section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. It should either be removed, or a de minimis scale of works should be set. The Bill states:

“An internal drainage board or lead local flood authority must consult the Environment Agency before carrying out work” under the relevant subsection

“if the board or authority is ‘the drainage board concerned’ for the purposes of this section.”

In the Government’s view, the measure would extend to internal drainage boards and lead local flood authorities the requirement to consult and, therefore, effectively seek consent from the EA. That relates, in particular, to wherever they wish to erect a dam, mill, weir or other construction that is likely to affect the flow of water in a watercourse or otherwise alter any such construction, erect a culvert in the ordinary watercourse or alter a culvert in a manner that is likely to affect the flow of an ordinary watercourse. That provision will apply to internal drainage boards working on ordinary watercourses within their internal drainage districts where they already have a general supervisory role, as defined under section 1(2A) of the Land Drainage Act.

The Government accept that the intention might be to avoid an internal drainage board’s effectively consenting to conduct works that may be appropriate on larger-scale works such as the construction of pumping stations. Will the Minister see fit to set a minimum scale of works below which that requirement will not apply so as to remove any considerable administrative burden for both the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency on minor works, such as access culverts?

We are all aware of the importance of keeping culverts dredged and properly maintained. I applaud the work of the IDBs in that regard. If the Minister can remove the reference to minor works and make sure that the provision covers major works, that will be tremendously helpful in applying the Bill.

I see where the hon. Lady is heading. It might be helpful if I just give some clarity. Any culverts or suchlike considered to have an impact on flood risk management would, indeed, be included. We would expect the Environment Agency to put in place simple procedures for that.

As for local authorities and consultation with the Environment Agency, we know that local authorities have a particularly wide range of interests way beyond what we are discussing now, including education, transport, social services and the whole gamut of commercial development. We are trying to ensure that flood risk management is given due accord when decisions driven by other interests are considered, to reduce the chance of a conflict of interest. There could be issues around, say, culverting watercourses when playing fields are sold on for development. The Environment Agency would be consulted and, as an independent authority, express a view as to whether the principle and detail of a proposal was suitable bearing in mind local and national flood risk strategies and guidance.

While such matters might be considered as impeding local authorities in some ways, at present the local authority has to apply to the EA for consent for the works, so the change will be a reduction in regulation. It will also reflect planning law and practice when the EA is consulted on proposals for works that affect watercourses and might indeed object to proposals on flood risk grounds.

To clarify matters further, in terms of minor works to which the hon. Lady referred, and de minimis levels of consultation, I repeat that we would expect the Environment Agency to apply the procedure sensibly and proportionately. It is not easy to make a distinction between major and minor in practice when talking about flood risk management. On setting a minimum scale in consultation, the Environment Agency could consider doing that and setting it out in guidance on the basis of a programme of works—for example, covering a year’s activity. That might be one way to look at it.

I hope I have given the hon. Lady some assurance on the issues she has rightly raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.