Membership

I beg to move Amendment 108, in Clause 24, page 14, line 29, after ‘selection’, insert ‘, election’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 109, in Clause 24, page 14, line 30, after ‘appoint’, insert ‘or elect’.

To enhance democracy.

Amendment 157, in clause 24, page 14, line 33, at end insert—

‘(2) In this section the Minister must ensure that—

(a) local authorities elect or appoint their own representatives, and

(b) representatives from local authorities form a majority on each committee.’.

Clause stand part.

We should note the historic moment we have just witnessed. My only regret on this rare occurrence of a non-Government Amendment being made is that the hon. Member for Stroud was not here to enjoy it, as he is a well-known rebel. We should also record our congratulations to him on becoming a grandfather, which I think is the excuse for his absence, and a very good one.

Amendments 108 and 109 also address the issue of local democratic input in the regional flood and coastal committees, as they seek to make explicit the possibility of either the direct or indirect election of members. As a liberal, I happen to believe that democracy is a healthy and positive thing and that the concentration of power in the hands of the few is dangerous and leads to bad decisions. The possibility that the committees could be either directly or indirectly elected is one that we should certainly incorporate in the Bill.

It is a shame that under the current wording of the Clause the only options for membership of the committees appear to be selection or appointment. Given that we are trying explicitly to have democratic input at that level in the process, that is regrettable. The amendments are not prescriptive. They do not say that there must be direct elections or even that local authority members must be elected from within their authority, but it makes it clear that it is at least possible that people can be elected and represent their communities on that basis. Otherwise, there is a risk that the regional flood and coastal committees will simply be creatures of central Government and will lose their distinct value and purpose. I am strongly supportive of amendment 156 for similar reasons.

I have a lot of sympathy for the points the hon. Gentleman is making, but is there not a risk that we could end up with local committees designed to address flood issues that, if their membership is composed on a purely elected basis, will pursue populist causes without perhaps the necessary depth of knowledge, understanding and research? I have the greatest sympathy for democratic elections and appointments, but are there not obvious risks? I am trying to reach common ground.

I think similar arguments were made against the Great Reform Bill. The point is that the Amendment would allow the possibility of appointment and selection and of indirect election whereby members of a local authority would elect from within their number. I think that enough safeguards against demagoguery would remain intact in the Clause even if the amendment were made. I would be happy to have at least the possibility of clearer accountability.

As flattered as I am to be compared to Robert Peel, that really was not the point I was trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that we want to get things done on the ground and we want to get them done quickly. We all know from our constituencies that certain people have certain issues regarding certain water features, and even with the work we are doing we may not resolve the issues that those communities are facing. I am sympathetic to the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, I am just trying to reach common ground on how we address that problem.

I take the serious point that the hon. Gentleman is making. There were strong arguments from my constituents for the flood defence work that was done in Cheltenham at a cost of £23 million and which probably saved hundreds if not thousands of  properties from flooding when the floods of 2007 happened. It was very welcome that those flood defences were already in place, even though they did not save everybody. Similar arguments were made that there was a pork barrel approach to flood defence, but we are talking only about the regional flood defence committees. As we have established, they are largely consultative bodies; they have the power to raise levies for specific projects but most of the strategic work would still be in the hands of the Environment Agency and the other flood risk management authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s fears are likely to be realised and I am happy to support this Amendment along with mine.

I offer two congratulations. First, in his absence, to the hon. Member for Stroud on his good news. Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby on achieving a pyrrhic victory with his Amendment. I am minded to support his amendment 157and I hope that the Committee will do so too. I would like him to clarify what the position of the membership of the internal drainage boards will be in relation to subsection (2)(b). I would also like him to clarify the role of farmers, landowners and parish councillors. It would be very helpful if he could do that when he sums up.

I can see where the hon. Member for Cheltenham is coming from, but we had a good debate on critical infrastructure earlier and we adequately held the Government to account. There will be opportunities later to vote on our new clauses concerning the failure to come up with the proposed register for critical infrastructure, which I understand is part of the Pitt recommendations that the Government admit is still outstanding. The same goes for amendment 107—I believe it has been amply covered by the new clauses that we will have the opportunity to vote on later.

The Minister has on previous occasions said that in setting up the membership of the committees he is minded to look at the local authority proposal for catchment area flood management boards. As this is a Clause stand part debate, could the Minister confirm that he is minded to look favourably on Select Committee recommendation 17 in paragraph 55 of the substantive report, which makes just such a proposal? The Committee clearly states that the Bill should require decision-making bodies to explain how they have taken into account advice from regional advisory boards. This might be the opportunity to illustrate that the Government are minded to do so in this regard.

Although I am mindful of the restrictions I mentioned earlier, I note that clause 24 allows the Minister to make decisions about the membership of a regional flood and coastal committee, including the number of members, the size of the area covered and the selection of appointment methods. Clause 25 also allows the Minister to direct the Environment Agency on payment. We feel that this is all-embracing. Who will the Minister consult when making those regulations? The clause talks about the proceedings of the committee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could expand on the provisions in that regard.

I am slightly puzzled. I realise that the hon. Lady has moved on from Amendment 108, but I am not quite clear whether she is now supporting the  explicit possibility of electing people to the regional flood and coastal committees. If she is not supporting amendment 108, I would take it that she is, in a sense, supporting the current wording of the Bill, which seems to rule out the election of members of those committees.

I think Amendment 157 covers that eventuality and leaves the option open. It should be for the local authorities to decide. The whole thrust of my remarks in this regard is about letting local communities decide what they want to do and about us not being so prescriptive as to write it into the Bill. Given the choice, my preference would be to support amendment 157.

I am not quite clear what election means in these circumstances—whether it is election from the whole world within the area or election from members of one of the committees.

My hon. Friend is at one with me. My preference would be to support Amendment 157 on the basis that we should let the locals decide what works best for them in their area. Obviously, democracy is best, but if committee members are to be appointed, it should be for fixed terms, possibly with the ability for them to be renewed for one further term. The Government are being slightly cack-handed, and perhaps a little too prescriptive in what they are trying to do. It is part of the centralising versus local idea, and we would prefer to see more local decision making and less centralisation in the Clause.

At the moment, local authority representatives have a Majority on the regional flood defence committee. What has made this an issue is that, at the moment, the Bill just gives powers to the Minister to appoint who he or she thinks fit to the regional flood and coastal committees. I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister said in the scrutiny session when he was asked about this by me and others. He said:

“I think that I am correct in stating that those local committees will have the majority of local authority members there.”——[Official Report, Flood and Water Management Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2010; c. 14.]

I hope the Minister will say explicitly that local authorities will continue to have a majority and the other members will be, as the hon. Lady mentioned, farmers and representatives of internal drainage boards, people who currently are appointed by the Minister to make up the rest of the committee. Of course, the chair of the committee is also appointed by the Minister. Therefore, I hope the Minister can confirm that will still be the case.

Regarding the business of electing or appointing, I am sure that the Minister does not mean to say that in Yorkshire, for example, he would be choosing the majority of local authority councillors. It would not be Whitehall’s favourite six or seven councillors. I presume that, as of now, the local councils themselves will be deciding. Not every local council is represented on a regional flood defence committee, so they have to choose between themselves and I think their practice varies on how they do this. Possibly, they have an election between themselves to decide who is going to put forward a representative; or if they are a unitary and there is only one council, it  would presumably be an appointment from an individual council. That was what I was trying to tease out through my Amendment, and I am hopeful that the Minister can reassure the Committee that it will be pretty well business as usual in terms of appointments to the new committee as it was to the old committees.

Amendments 108 and 109 in the names of the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire are intended to ensure that the members of the regional flood and coastal committees can be elected. The current provision in the Bill allows for them to be “selected.” Let me make it clear—that allows for both election or appointment by local authorities, Ministers, or the Environment Agency. The precise way of doing it is to be decided and will be set out in regulations. There will be further consultation with all relevant persons and authorities before a decision is arrived at. However, as I have said, the current drafting of the provisions will actually deliver what the amendments seek to achieve, which is the ability to have elections, within the phrasing “selection”. We have taken advice from parliamentary counsel that this is perfectly permitted within the measure, so the amendments are not actually necessary in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby has tabled Amendment 157 which, like amendments 108 and 109, relates to the composition of RFCCs but in a slightly different context. It seeks to ensure that there are local authority elected or appointed representatives to regional flood and coastal committees and that representatives from local authorities form a Majority on each committee. Current policy is in line with that. We intend to use the regulation-making power under Clause 24 to ensure that local authorities have a majority on the committees. We are clear that this needs to remain the case, at least as long as RFCCs retain the right to raise local levies. We do not disagree with the aim of that proposal.

However, the clause is drafted to allow flexibility on membership and on the selection of members, rules, majorities and quorums so that we have a framework that can be adapted to changing circumstances in the longer term. The precise numbers will not be set by me. The numbers, the composition and means of selection—which could be by election or appointment as I have said—are yet to be decided on. We will consider the matter further and will consult before coming to a conclusion on the guidance.

This is a new point that has not been raised. Is the Minister confirming that lead local flood authorities who pay the levy to the regional flood and coastal committee will have the right to be represented, on his reading of the Bill and if we were to adopt Amendment 157? It is not entirely clear. Will he ensure that a method for proper representation of the lead local flood authority will be guaranteed?

Well, indeed, and it can be part of the input in the consultation that will lead to the actual regulations. That is what that particular debate needs to have. I have re-emphasised where current policy is and the fact that we intend to use the regulation to make sure there is a Majority of local authority members on those committees.

However, I note that the hon. Lady also raised the issue of whether we would be minded to look favourably on local authority flood management boards. We do look favourably on such proposals. There is the flexibility to do so. We do not think legislative provision is needed. Why do we need to be so prescriptive right here, right now? What we need to do is make sure that it can be allowed, so local authorities will be able, under the Bill, to put in place their own arrangements for such joint working.

Although we agree with the aim of Amendment 157, we do not consider it appropriate. It would introduce rigid rules now when we need flexibility in future. On that basis, I hope Members will withdraw the amendments.

The Minister is obviously a man of his word. If he says that parliamentary counsel gives explicit legal opinion that election is still possible, I see no need for amendments 108 and 109 to be pressed. However, I cannot help thinking this is a triumph of law over the use of English, because “selection” to me means something very different, but that is not unknown in legal circles and I am not a lawyer so I cannot judge.

I would, however, still be content to vote for Amendment 157 to put the matter beyond doubt. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York that it achieves the same object as my amendments.

I will not push my luck too far. I will accept the Minister’s assurances on this occasion—[Interruption.] No, I accept his assurances. He has been far more convincing on this Amendment than on the previous one.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.