| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Section 10(6) of the Reservoirs Act 1975 laid a duty on the inspecting engineer to report to the authority any recommendation that he might make to the undertaker of the reservoir of the action required in the interests of safety. In response to that, the Institution of Civil Engineers brought out its own guidelines, which were published in 1978 as Floods and Reservoirs Safety: An Engineering Guide. I am grateful to the institute for confirming all of this. At that date, it already took into consideration the risks to lives and properties downstream and came up with four categories of dams, which it labelled A, B, C and D, and the measures that should be applied to remedy each case.
As your Lordships will see later, this Bill undertakes to redefine a "large raised reservoir" and allows that only those defined as "high-risk" reservoirs will be subject to inspection under the Bill. Does the Minister intend that a function of the risk management authority should be to define dams further, in categories similar to those presently employed by the Institution of Civil Engineers under the Reservoirs Act? If so, perhaps we could go into what implications there might be as we go further into the Bill.
Returning to the amendments in this group, the Minister explained in his introduction that the Government have listened to the recommendations of your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that he has introduced his
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC237
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for that explanation of the opposition amendments. I hope to persuade him that the Government now have it right.
On the Government's amendments, while I accept entirely what the noble Duke says about the excellent work that the committee does on government legislation, one reason that I sought to explain them is that, often, the committee is particularly constructive when it sets out how the Government can make their intention more clear while the Government had exactly the intention that the committee is describing. That is one of these cases. We are grateful for the work that the committee has done because it has proposed how we should amend the Bill to achieve our intention more accurately. The government amendment confines the powers to statutory functions, and this makes the powers exactly consistent with our intentions. In the memorandum that we submitted to the committee, we expressed our intention and the committee translated it rather more successfully than perhaps we did originally in the Bill.
However, the power that we propose cannot be used to create a new function. I shall go into the debate about the new function that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, suggested when we reach the relevant part of the Bill. We will be having quite a considerable debate about functions, so he will forgive me if I am not drawn too far down that road yet, for the same reason that I indicated on Amendment 1-that is, we ought not to run before we have begun to walk with regard to these early clauses. I have sought to emphasise that because the risk management authority cannot produce a new function but can only add statutory functions. The statutory functions have already been considered by Parliament, otherwise they would not be statutory. That is why we conceive that this order-making power should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We agree entirely with noble Lords opposite that if we had not constrained the power within this statutory framework, then the case for affirmative orders would have been unassailable and would have been entirely right. In fact, I flatter Ministers and the officers who serve them so well that that is how we would have conceived of things. We
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC238
The Duke of Montrose: Do I take it from that that in the Minister's view the power can be extended to statutory functions from Bills other than those mentioned in the list?
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is certainly so, but the existence of statutory functions means that Parliament has reached a position on the wisdom of those provisions. That is why negative resolutions, which are referred to repeatedly in past legislation, are sometimes debated when an issue is of sufficient salience-but most often of less significance-so long as they are brought before Parliament and properly identified and examined. I speak as a veteran of the Opposition. Each day we had a very limited team who had to collect the list of statutory instruments, which I always seemed to think was a little longer than my arm, and within two days shadow Ministers were expected to have a clear idea of whether they should take action. Mercifully, as members of the Opposition will know only too well, in well over 95 per cent-perhaps 99.9 per cent-of cases, such action is not required. However, the list is absolutely enormous because the issues have already been considered by Parliament. If we were laying down functions that were not statutory, we would have recognised the argument for having an affirmative procedure. That is why we have the negative procedure here and I am sure that that is right.
The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but, as he said, the powers might possibly be extended beyond what is immediately visible at the moment. I think that we may want to come back on this but we will study with care what he said and I shall not press our amendment.
Clause 5 : "Coastal erosion risk management function"
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC239
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the amendment appears on its own, slightly to my surprise. The clause defines "groundwater" as meaning,
- "all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil".
It occurs to me that there may be instances where groundwater, at certain times of the year, is not in contact with the surface of the ground, however that is defined. It is still groundwater, and it still may be important to contribute to flooding at various times. Groundwater may be an aquifer and it may be what might be called underground streams, particularly in areas of limestone or perhaps chalk. We all know places where there are winterbournes, which flow during the winter and not the summer, for example.
It is equally possible and almost certainly occurs that some bodies of groundwater come to the surface beyond the coast. I am not sure whether "ground" includes the intertidal zone or whether it includes the land below the sea below low water. Without wanting to stray into marine Bill territory, it seems to me that a clear understanding that groundwater may sometimes, for part of the time, not actually be in contact with the ground would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I did not prepare any notes for this amendment, because I was somewhat puzzled about what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was proposing. I thought I would listen to him in the hope of having further insight. I am afraid that I am no wiser now than I was when I first came across the amendment.
Water that is not in contact with the ground is something I think of as rain, and I cannot think of any other. I might be mistaken; obviously I stand to be corrected. As I see it, groundwater is much more familiar to people I know as sockwater, and the water that lies below the surface of the ground is a permanent feature of soils. It may be at a depth of several inches or many feet. It is usually a permanent feature of most soils. I understood that that is what this was referring to, but I would like the Minister to clarify the Government's position. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might like to have another go at explaining what he was trying to persuade us of.
Lord Greaves: There are clearly instances when the groundwater is not in contact with the soil and there is a gap between the surface of the ground and where the aquifer or the underground range takes place. There are times when that drainage does not come to the surface, but it is an important feature of flooding when it does come to the surface.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am eager to take on any responsibility as a Minister, but explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, means is not my function. As long as I
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC240
Of course we thought about this seriously. After all, it is one of the crucial definitions with regard to the Bill. We have defined it as,
- "all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil".
That reinforces what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, understood to be the definition of groundwater. This is a wider definition than that in the water framework directive, and does not only relate to water in the saturation zone of the soil. We think we have the correct definition. We are not sure that Amendment 7 would improve it. In fact, my note says that it might add confusion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that if he has confused the leading opposition spokesman, I am right in my prediction. I am also right in saying that I want the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall defer declaring my interest until I speak later. I, too, am interested in this. The problem is that there are three words in here that are what I would call legislative garbage, in that they fulfil no function except perhaps to add confusion. The three words are "direct contact with". If you took those three words out, the meaning would be perfectly plain, and even the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would understand what the Bill was about. Would the Minister like to take that home when he is thinking about the Bill later and see whether he can clarify the matter in that regard?
4.30 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: The reason why we say,
is because we are not talking about water that is in pipes. It may be below the ground, but that is a different consideration. We are talking about groundwater in the soil or below the soil level.
I have nothing further to add. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will help the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, if there is any further confusion, but I am absolutely clear on what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants, and I do not think that it adds to the Bill. In fact, he must confess that it spreads confusion, so we had better stay safely with the Government.
Lord Greaves: I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments. I suppose that what I am really talking about is underground water. I have taken the word "ground" to mean the surface of the ground, or the soil very close to the surface of the ground. If the ground actually includes everything under the surface of the ground until you get to the area where there is no water left because it is too hot or under too great a pressure, I am happy with that. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, never goes caving because he might get a real shock when he comes across underground lakes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC241
Lord Campbell-Savours: I declare an interest in that my former parliamentary constituency included the towns of Keswick, Workington and Cockermouth-
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We have a Division in the House. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
4.32 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.42 pm
Lord Campbell-Savours: I was declaring an interest-I have to get my breath back because I have only one lung-as my former constituency included Cockermouth, Keswick and Workington. I am in contact with a lot of people up there who have been flooded. My amendment was originally moved in the Commons. It is about placing a clear statutory duty on fire and rescue services to deal with flooding incidents, thereby ensuring that they are properly equipped and trained. I am not arguing that they do not respond already. During the recent flooding in Cumbria, firemen went out of their way, showing great courage and determination, in their efforts to help those who were suffering, but they need proper support. These amendments would secure that objective.
Why does the law need to be changed? In the view of many, particularly the Fire Brigades Union, the law at the moment is incoherent. Fire and rescue authorities have to plan for floods and have the power to respond, but do not have a duty to respond. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 placed duties on fire and rescue authorities with respect to emergencies, including flooding. The duties include assessing the risks of emergencies and planning to prevent emergencies and to reduce, control or mitigate their effects. Of course, in reality, responding to flooding is a core function of the fire and rescue service and should therefore be treated as such. The public rightly expect firefighters and other professional emergency services to respond to flooding and other emergencies.
4.45 pm
During the 2007 floods, firefighters from scores of brigades outside the flooded areas responded to hundreds of incidents, rescuing more than 3,500 people during that period. The Pitt review recognised all this and therefore advocated a statutory duty. Recommendation 39 of the Pitt review stated that the Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with fire and rescue authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty. The Pitt review also noted how fire service personnel worked in difficult conditions, often using personal protective equipment designed for routine firefighting duties, or for infrequent short-duration incidents in rivers, lakes and canals. Fire crews were
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC242
The floods in Cumbria in November 2009 were a major test of existing arrangements. In Cumbria there were only 64 sets of swift water rescue personal protective equipment. I gained that information from the Fire Brigades Union magazine, Firefighter. The Fire Brigades Union in Cumbria reported that the crew trained to carry out swift water rescue was mobilised to pick up dry-suits and SWR equipment when the floods first kicked in but there was generally nothing for them to wear. During those first two safety-critical days that station could not carry out its rescue provision in water because it did not have any kit. The station does not have its own stand-alone supply of kit due to funding issues.
There are 700 firefighters in Cumbria-200 whole-time, based at five stations, and 500 retained-duty firemen at 33 retained stations. Fire Brigades Union reps said that there were firefighters available for recalled duty who were never utilised due to the lack of equipment. The Fire Brigades Union has been trying to get better provision of equipment for the past two years, while retained members do not have satisfactory personal protective equipment to carry out the work that they have been doing. The Fire Brigades Union also reported that some boats did not have engines, while other engines had so little power that they struggled to operate in the conditions. I am sure noble Lords will know the relevance of the boats and engines that I refer to; they were shown on television throughout the period of the most recent flooding.
The amendments that I am moving today were all moved in the Commons, although I have duplicated some of the amendments by placing them under an arrangement whereby they could be introduced to the legislation later by order. I do not know whether my noble friend has had time to see the revised amendments that were tabled yesterday. In the course of Commons proceedings, the Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies said:
"Fire and rescue authorities undoubtedly have a critical role to play in flood response, including flood rescue ... That was shown to good effect in Cumbria, but I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about the feedback that he has received".
There has obviously been much discussion between the union and Members of Parliament on the whole question of making this a statutory responsibility. Huw Irranca-Davies also said that the Government support Sir Michael's recommendation that,
- "a fully funded national capability for flood rescue should be put in place, with fire and rescue authorities playing a leading role, underpinned if necessary by a statutory duty". -[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/10; cols. 224-25.]
"I want to make it clear, for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington"-
- "and for all those who have spoken in support in the amendment, that we do not reject totally the idea of a statutory duty option 'if necessary', as Sir Michael Pitt said. Our assessment at the moment is that that duty is not clearly needed right here and now, although we are already doing work in that direction".-[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/10; col. 225.]
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC243
The work they were doing was a project which co-ordinated a number of agencies in assessing their flood rescue capabilities.
"My hon. Friend also raised the interesting point that an amendment could be introduced later in another place".-[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/10; col. 226.]
The amendment I have tabled would defer the requirement to introduce the statutory instrument subject to an order approved by each House. I hope my noble friend will respond positively, as I understand a number of Members of the other place will follow his comments with great interest. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I apologise to the noble Lord if I rushed him. I am glad he has got his breath back.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have in this group Amendment 43 as an amendment to Amendment 42, although clearly it could apply equally to Amendment 43A.
Before speaking to the amendment, I congratulate the noble Lord on his remarkably eloquent presentation of his case. He has considerable experience and knowledge of these matters over many years, as a Member of Parliament for a part of the Lake District and, indeed, as a former parliamentary candidate in the Pennines in east Lancashire many years ago. In particular, we all appreciate and applaud his interest and involvement in the aftermath of the recent flooding in Cumbria.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support his proposals and we congratulate him on bringing them forward. My amendment is more limited but draws attention, yet again, to a cause which the noble Lord has raised previously-that is, the voluntary mountain rescue services, the moor land services, the fell services and the cave rescue services. These organisations and enterprises are run voluntarily and the people who take part in them are volunteers. They, too, have great expertise, which is not only of huge value in rescuing people from rock faces or hauling them out of the ground when they get stuck, but also in emergencies such as the recent flooding. The mountain rescue services in Cumbria, in particular, received a great deal of publicity for the superb work they did alongside the police, the fire services and so on in the recent floods, and in other parts of the country, such as Derbyshire and the Pennines, where they were equally involved in helping people.
More recently they have assisted in the snow-which is obviously not about flooding, although it could be solid flooding, I suppose-which brought to the Pennines conditions that were unprecedented for 20 or 25 years. The mountain rescue services could reach people who were snowed-up in the more remote areas and take them to hospital or get services to them.
The problem is that, as voluntary services, they are at a financial disadvantage when compared with the other parts of the rescue services. They are not funded by the Government or directly by local authorities; they rely on voluntary income. The mountain rescue services are not eligible for VAT relief in the same way
17 Mar 2010 : Column GC244
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |