| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
That brings us in turn to the beat of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the importance of proper consideration of the recreational use of rivers. It also brings us to the question of water quality. With only 26 per cent of rivers classified as good, under the new water framework directive, the threat of pollution is ever present. What has become of water protection zones? How many have been identified so far and how many orders has the Secretary of State signed? How many appeals have been completed and how many remain in the pipeline? What progress has been made on the water protection zone charter, as suggested by the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Agricultural Industries Confederation?
A further problem is overabstraction. Winter storage is key to resolving this problem. We need to facilitate the construction of on-farm reservoirs. The technical obstacles are considerable. Is there room for the Environment Agency to assist with free advice and assist in the complex data submissions? A few successful exemplars could provide a real impetus in this direction.
I should say how useful has been the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, to this debate. Indeed, we acknowledge his wider role as chairman of the Environment Agency, a job to which he has taken as if a duck to water—if that is not stretching the theme of this debate to too a dreadful an analogy. The noble Lord referred to climate change and indicated that unsustainable levels of abstraction are a real problem. We know from the Written Answer in the House of Commons Hansard, at col. 526W on 28 January, that 2,970 water resources licences have
3 Nov 2009 : Column 207
Meanwhile, there is yet more reading in prospect. What is the state of play on the report commissioned by the Government from Anna Walker, which is likely to address matter such as metering and tariffs? Both are key in the effective management of water as a consumer resource. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister his views on the water companies' role here.
This has been a useful debate and certainly opportune in its timing. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Dear, on securing it. He has cast his fly with skill, and one hopes that he will be content with his catch. He can judge as will we all, when we hear what the Minister has to say.
8.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dear, on securing this debate and on introducing our deliberations with a very considered contribution. He had a precise focus, to which I hope to give some replies, but I am also obliged to respond to those broader issues of the debate that inevitably arose in the context of water management and river conservation, which is a major challenge for us all. I am obviously grateful to my noble friend Lord Smith for putting that into the context not only of his own particular responsibilities at the Environment Agency but of climate change and the challenges that we all face there.
There is no doubt that water is an important resource that needs management. The Government demonstrated their commitment to its long-term management in our water strategy for England, Future Water, which we published in February 2008. Future Watersets out my department’s long-term vision for water and the framework for water management. The strategy looks at the whole water cycle, from precipitation and drainage through to treatment and discharge, and considers matters such as the sustainable delivery of secure water supplies. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, introduced that point into her speech and was supported, as I would expect, by her noble friend Lord Greaves, who also ranged widely over the issues involved in how we improve and protect the water environment. That is an important and, I think, crucial resource, which we all recognise may be the determinant of very substantial decisions worldwide, given the difficulties over water supplies in the world.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 208
Already, at times, very real difficulties on these matters are being shown. We only have to look at a country such as Australia, wrestling with its climate problems in recent years, to appreciate just what a challenge climate change represents to these points. I think that the House will appreciate that there are major factors to consider in contributing to the balance of the environmental and socio-economic requirements for water. Water is commonly seen as an unlimited resource, but clearly it is not. Climate change presents that major problem, as my noble friend identified. As he said, forecasts predict significant changes to both the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall in the United Kingdom, with real implications for us all.
I want to emphasise that the Government are responding to all the initiatives regarding the use of water to which we are obliged to respond. We all recognise the significance of the water directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also suggested that we might solve some of these problems by being more careful about water and by using less of it. I agree with her; certainly, a part of our strategy has to be encouraging the nation to recognise how valuable water is. Future Water outlined an ambition to reduce the average per capita water use to 130 litres per person per day by 2030. That is a pretty ambitious target, because it is 20 litres fewer than are used at present. I hope that noble Lords will be aware that on 24 September we launched a water efficiency campaign, under the “Act on CO2” banner, which indicates the Government’s determination to operate successfully there.
I will come on to the hydro issue and the whole question of hydropower in a moment and I want to respond to the particular questions from the noble Lord, Lord Dear, on fishing. Before I do so, let me say that hydropower has its role to play in the more general sense with regard to energy generation. We all recognise that climate change imposes significant changes to our electricity generation. That is why we all appreciate the significant change in government policy regarding energy resource. However, hydropower’s present contribution is very limited and we should not exaggerate how important it is. It is certainly green, and successful in those terms, but in comparison to those regions with significant hydropower resources that are easy to generate—Scandinavia is one obvious illustration—Britain’s role is comparatively minor in our ability to operate hydropower.
I wanted to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the extent to which the Government were concerned about alternative energy issues. Indeed, we are. The Government are responsible for contributing half the cost of the billion pound programme to look at alternative energy strategies. Eleven major companies have each put in £50 million and the Government have put in the other £550 million—half the cost—to fund a programme to look at alternative strategies. However, these will take time to bear fruit. None of us is in a position to be absolutely certain which strategies will develop successfully. That is why it is only right that we covet and respect all forms of energy generation, even the relatively minor one of hydropower, as that form of generation would counteract climate change.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 209
As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, so ably identified, tricky decisions have to be taken when hydropower is used, as one needs to balance the benefits of generating electricity from this renewable resource against the necessity of protecting migrating fish. My noble friend Lord Smith referred to the Environment Agency’s interest in this issue. Indeed, it plays an important role in the development of hydropower, but it has to balance a range of duties, which my noble friend identified. It has to wrestle with difficult decisions with regard to water use. As I said, we must balance the need for electricity generation against the necessity to protect fish. Some schemes may have a relatively minor impact on fish, but others might have a considerable impact, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said.
The noble Lord added that there should be no delay in introducing additional powers with regard to the passage of fish. My honourable friend the Minister for Fisheries will lay an order this year on the provision of eel passes and screens. Eels are in a particularly parlous state and a number of obstructions prevent or reduce their upstream migration, thus constraining the colonisation of suitable habitats. It should be emphasised that not all obstructions need to be modified and I have no doubt that the Environment Agency will prioritise the most critical barriers to migration. Measures for additional powers for the provision of fish passes and screens for other species will be laid in 2011.
We are fully cognisant of the point that the noble Lord expressed so succinctly and accurately. I assure him that we intend to act. He also emphasised that passes will not work unless they are in the right place as regards flow. We understand that point. The Environment Agency will need to work closely with owners and occupiers of obstructions to ensure that fish passes are effective. There is absolutely no point in making provision in this regard if fish are not able to negotiate the passes to reach the areas that they need to get to. I accept the emphasis laid by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, on that dimension.
The Environment Agency and government must ensure that we safeguard the interests of fishing and protect species, or particular variants of species, that might otherwise be threatened. I reassure the noble Lord in that regard. Our hydropower good practice guidance sets out requirements for fish screens, which are risk-based according to the potential for damage to fish from different types of hydropower turbines. A great deal of thought is given to this issue. I take sustenance from the contribution of my noble friend Lord Smith, who indicated his interest in the Environment Agency.
As ever, I find myself desperately constrained by the time limit in replying fully to the issues raised. The noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Greaves, were bound to ask me to produce my version of the Queen’s Speech some three weeks or so before it is due. That was a good try, but I am a little too long in the tooth to fall for that one. They emphasised the importance of taking measures to conserve water and prevent flooding. They know only too well how enthusiastic my department is to meet the requirements of the Pitt report, which clearly identified necessary action, and how much progress we wish to see being made. However, they will
3 Nov 2009 : Column 210
On the more general issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised about building on flood plains, of course we are concerned about planning issues that relate to the problems that too much water can provide in certain areas. She will know that we have guidance on how to undertake flood-risk planning. We expect our partners—particularly our fellow department, CLG—to manage these issues effectively.
I have responded all too inadequately to the wide range of issues that have been raised. I emphasise that issues around climate change put the whole question of water into a new, more dramatic and important dimension, but the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is only too right to remind us that particular usages of water are highly valued by members of our community. Their interests also need to be taken into account and balanced.
Policing and Crime Bill
Report (1st Day) (Continued)
8.31 pm
10: Clause 5, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(1) A collaboration agreement may be entered into jointly by a police authority and the police force for its area with another party or parties, but any such joint agreement shall—
(a) set out the matters relating to the discharge of functions by members of the police force under section 23 in a form which distinguishes them from the matters relating to the discharge of police authorities functions under section 23A;
(b) contain the information required under section 23D.
(1A) Any police force collaboration agreement which imposes any legal liability on the police authority must take the form of a joint agreement referred to in subsection (1).”
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I supported the original version of the amendment, but I am moving this version after listening to the Minister in Committee because I remain concerned. I agree entirely with him about bringing greater clarity to which sorts of agreement are appropriate for forces to enter into and which are appropriate for authorities to make. Although a number of rough edges remain to be ironed out in this clause, I support its overall aim and acknowledge that this is a very important area to tackle, to strengthen resilience at strategic level.
The original amendment was not in any way intended to merge or confuse the functions that could respectively be carried out by forces and authorities under collaboration agreements. The amendment was simply to make it clear that forces and authorities could enter into agreements together. However, the revised amendment tries to clarify the points made by the Minister, whereby the functions can be kept separate.
Joint agreements are in practice how most collaborations actually work. For instance, the main focus of an agreement might be to work with another
3 Nov 2009 : Column 211
It might be argued that if the intention had been to provide for joint agreements, the legislation would not have been so specific about separating out force agreements and authority agreements. I am sure that a court would have some regard at a judicial review to the debate that we are having about this issue. However, that will not have the same force as something that is in the Bill. We need to put this matter beyond doubt and be absolutely clear that it is permissible to enter jointly into force and authority collaboration agreements while preserving the specific roles of forces and authorities in those agreements.
The second part of the amendment tries to clarify what should happen when a force collaboration agreement imposes a legal liability on an authority. The Minister implied in Committee that this had already been dealt with because an authority would have to approve a force agreement in any event. I am uneasy about this. Approving a collaboration agreement in advance is very different from being a party to it and involved in operating it. I am concerned here about various statutory responsibilities of police authorities, particularly those that accrue to it as an employer, which cannot be wholly delegated to the chief officer. This includes things like health and safety. The intention is not to suggest that police authorities should become involved in delivering operational policing but that they should be capable of meeting and managing their legal liabilities in a way that might be difficult if their role is merely to approve and then monitor agreements. This might not give them the necessary traction to manage their risks and responsibilities effectively.
This goes back to the earlier point about entering joint force and authority agreements that might cover some of these concerns. There are potential situations where no parallel support agreement is required from the authority, but the authority is nevertheless exposed to liabilities. It worries me that an authority might have limited routes to protect its position in this situation. I have removed the reference to exposure to financial liability because I accept that authorities should have other means of meeting their financial stewardship duties through financial delegation arrangements.
I reiterate that the amendment seeks to improve, and remove barriers to, collaboration. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I will be brief. Having read Hansard, it seems to me that the noble Baroness and the Minister are trying to achieve the same thing. I accept the Minister’s previous assurance that police authorities will have to approve, and be involved in, all police collaboration agreements, including any liability imposed on them and any establishment of accountability arrangements.
3 Nov 2009 : Column 212
In Committee, the Minister said that the detailed clarity that the noble Baroness seeks will be found in supporting guidance and in the example agreements that the Government will publish. We look forward to receiving these—I hope that they will be made available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, the provisions on collaboration agreements deal with the different roles that police forces and police authorities have within the collaboration. The most straightforward way for the legislation to make these details clear is to address them separately. However, that in no way undermines the need for both authorities and forces to assume their distinct responsibilities in the arrangements for a police force collaboration. The provisions ensure that they have a duty to assume those responsibilities.
When the amendment, in a slightly different form, was tabled in Committee, I reassured noble Lords—as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, mentioned—that there was no discernible difference between the present legislation and the proposed new arrangements in so far as they both supported police forces and police authorities signing up to their combined plans for collaboration. The only difference is that the new provisions make it clearer that they deal with two different sorts of agreement about their respective responsibilities, but that these may be interlinked and indeed form two parts of the same set of paperwork. I also reassured noble Lords that such an approach would be the default arrangement in the template agreements set out in the supporting guidance. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, that we must make sure that this is given out soon to the House. That is indeed the basis on which the templates are being drafted.
I recognise the concern behind the amendment. As has been stated, we are both after the same thing. The linkage between force and authority agreements is important and may not appear explicit under the provisions as drafted. However, there is a clear dependency between the two, and all police forces’ collaboration agreements will automatically present an opportunity to the police authorities to develop associated agreements on governance arrangements and support services by virtue of the fact that the authorities must consider them for approval. There is no legal requirement for a police authority agreement to be the same as the agreement between police forces on which it is dependent. We will be happy to provide detailed advice to police authorities and forces on this point in the statutory guidance—I have already touched on that.
I give my further reassurance that the approach set out in the provisions provides a robust and legitimate platform for agreements that combine the arrangements for operational policing collaboration with the governance and resourcing arrangements needed to underpin them. On this basis, I request that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I think that we are probably seeking the same ends but through slightly different means. The detailed clarity to be found in guidance is
3 Nov 2009 : Column 213
11: Clause 5, page 7, line 6, after “force” insert “or more than one police authority acting under joint arrangements set out in subsection (3)”
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I spoke to a number of related amendments in Committee and supported earlier versions of both Amendments 11 and 15 in this group. However, I shall speak first to my Amendment 11.
The Minister’s response at that time focused more on other amendments in the group and did not really deal with this one, beyond acknowledging that many police authorities already carry out their collaborative functions through joint committees. However, I am afraid that that rather missed the key point about accountability, which this amendment seeks to address. It is designed to clarify not so much authority functions as chief officer accountability for collaboration. I have revived it because I am still concerned that it is essential to get governance absolutely clear in what is a very complex area. Therefore, I have removed the reference to joint committees, because I think that that rather confused the debate, and instead have focused on joint arrangements in order to get to the nub of this issue.
There have been occasions in the past when collaboration has been impeded because the chief officer has refused to answer to a joint committee of police authorities for the conduct of collaborative functions on the grounds that in law his only accountability is to his home police authority. The amendment would ensure that that excuse could not be used in future and that a chief officer could legally be held to account for collaborative functions jointly by the authorities involved in that collaboration. I am not convinced that the existing wording in the Bill is specific enough about this because at present new Section 23D(1) refers only to police accountability to a home authority. Subsection (3) does mention joint arrangements but it refers to authority functions and not specifically to the answerability of chief officers. I accept that one function of an authority is to hold to account but there are many others, and the meaning of this new section is, to my mind, obscure and still open to interpretation by a reluctant chief officer. I hope that the amendment puts that beyond doubt, and it is essential if we are to be serious about removing the barriers to collaboration.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |