Oral evidence: Winter floods 2015-16, HC 666Monday 11 January 2016

Oral evidence, 6 January 2016.

Witnesses

Sir Philip Dilley, Chairman, Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive Officer, and David Rooke, Deputy Chief Executive, Environment Agency, gave evidence.

Chair

Welcome, gentlemen. For the record, would you like to start by introducing yourselves? Then we will carry on with the evidence session. Thank you.

Sir James Bevan

I am Sir James Bevan. I am the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency.

Sir Philip Dilley

I am Sir Philip Dilley. I am the Chairman of the Environment Agency.

David Rooke

I am David Rooke, Deputy Chief Executive of the Environment Agency.

Chair

Thank you, gentlemen, very much for coming to our inquiry. It is a very important time and, of course, a very difficult time with the amount of flooding. My first question to you is: can you give us a summary of how Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire are, following the floods in December and early January?

Sir James Bevan

The overall situation in all three of those places is gradually improving. Obviously, we are still watching the weather very carefully. We still have very saturated catchments, which means they respond very quickly to any rainfall, so there is a higher flood risk now than there might normally have been. We are particularly vigilant, of course, about further rainfall that might be coming towards us over the next few days and weeks. We are continuing to monitor that, and we will carry on issuing flood warnings as necessary. Right now, we do not currently expect any widespread or significant flooding in the next few days, but, as I say, things can change quickly. In those parts of the north that were so badly hit by the floods, our primary focus is on repairing the flood defences that were damaged in December and on helping the communities themselves recover. We have teams out again today across the country, pumping away any flood water that remains, inspecting and repairing a lot of the damaged flood defences, monitoring those river levels and offering advice and support to flood‑hit communities. Our teams have now visited almost every community that has been hit by the December floods, whether it is in Cumbria, Lancashire or Yorkshire. I was in Yorkshire yesterday. Some 130 of those communities have now been visited by our people. Yesterday I was in York and Leeds in the Calder Valley to talk to local councillors, MPs and local people, and to look at the work that is taking place on our flood defences. I have to say that it is heartbreaking to see what has happened to those communities, to people’s homes, to businesses and daily lives. It is not just damage to buildings; it is clearly damage to people and to the economy. Some quite fundamental damage has been done there. That is heartbreaking. It is also very inspiring—I certainly find it inspiring—to have seen the community spirit across the north in dealing with these issues. Personally, I also find it inspiring to see the spirit of our own staff, who have been working 24/7 for the last month to help people, first, to prevent flooding and then to get back on their feet after that. Finally, I want to say, by way of introduction, that I agree completely with what your previous panel just said. We face a very big challenge now in dealing with flooding in an era of more extreme weather, and the way to deal with big challenges is to deal with them together. I very much want to see the agency, under my leadership, ensure that we work in partnership with local communities, businesses, farmers and local councils, because the best way to deal with a big problem is to deal with them together.

Chair

We would echo the support and thanks to all those in the Environment Agency and the emergency agencies who have worked so hard through this period. We would like to put that on record, as well as you. Thank you for that. There are going to be some detailed questions, but there is one question I would like to ask you. In places like York, where the pumps failed, one of the things we talked about in the Somerset floods in the last Parliament was to have large mobile pumps such as the Dutch brought over. Do we have these pumps? Do we have enough of them? Can we not move them around the country much more quickly than we do? I thought that was one of the lessons we learned. Where are these pumps? Do we have any?

Sir Philip Dilley

We did buy 10 such pumps after the Somerset floods. Most of them are still in Somerset but, in fact, at the Foss Barrier, which is where you are talking about, the pumps did not fail. There is a story attached to that. David, you are probably best to tell it, if there is the time.

David Rooke

First of all, my sympathy to all those who have been flooded. Like James and Philip, I have been and seen, in Yorkshire and Cumbria, the impacts of those floods. In relation to the pumps, following the Somerset floods, we bought 10 big pumps, like the Dutch. We moved one of them up to Cumbria, which we used to pump water out in parts of Cumbria. When the pumps at the Foss Barrier were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of water coming down and we raised the gate, which allowed floodwater to go into the River Ouse to alleviate flooding on the River Foss, had we left the gate in its down position, it would have formed a dam and, because there was so much water coming down that the pumps could not cope with, it would have just built up. It was very unfortunate that 600 properties flooded, but, by taking the action we did, we saved a further 1,000 properties from flooding. We also had problems with water getting into the Foss Barrier pumping station, which caused us to switch off the pumps and to isolate the electricity supply before the water met the 11,000 volt supply. We considered whether we should bring up some pumps from Somerset, but the pumps at the Foss Barrier are enormous compared to the mobile pumps in Somerset. The best plan, which was implemented, was to co‑operate and work with the military. Using a Chinook helicopter, we brought in generators and we managed to get all eight pumps working again, which meant that we could then close the gate and get the water out of people’s houses.

Sir James Bevan

To add to that, we also did move pumps from the south of the country up to the north throughout December in order to handle the situation. There were 40‑odd pumps going north to deal with that, five kilometres of temporary flood defences to provide greater protection, thousands of sandbags, and a lot of our people. We also made sure that it was not just the teams who were sitting in the north from the Environment Agency who were dealing with the crisis, but that we moved staff as well.

Chair

I do not want to labour this point too much, because there are lots of other questions, but we seem to be getting more flooding happening; we seem to be getting flash flooding happening. We surely must need more pumps to be able to move around. It is lovely to have them in Somerset, but the idea is that you have to have enough pumps so you can move them across the country. I know it will not solve all problems, but it will solve some. Will you be looking at that again?

David Rooke

It is striking that we work very closely with the gold commanders, and we met all the asks of gold commanders in terms of pumping requirements. As James has said, we brought 45 pumps up from different parts of the country—some were our pumps and some we hired in from contractors—and we met all the needs. Certainly, both of us were on many Cobra calls where gold commanders were consistently asked whether they had the resources and equipment they needed and, working with the military and local authorities, we were able to meet those needs.

Rishi Sunak

I have a very specific follow‑up on the pumping station and the River Ouse. My constituency is 30 miles north of there. I am not directly aware, but what I was being told or I heard from people was that they were frustrated that the pumping station was going to fail or perceived to be failing when the river levels were not as high as they were back in 2000 when the pumping station ran for 10 days continuously. There was a lot of irritation and anger at that and wondering what was going on. It would be great to have an explanation on that point.

David Rooke

I can totally understand the frustration and the feelings. I was there in York in 2000. I went into the Foss Barrier when we were operating it in 2000 and was assisting in our response in York in 2000. The river level on the Ouse was higher in 2000 than it was this time by about four inches. What was different this time was the amount of water coming down the Foss. We had much more rain on the Foss catchment. The timing of that rain against the timing of the levels in the River Ouse meant there was so much water that the pumps were overwhelmed and they just could not cope. The river levels started to rise on the Foss very quickly. We issued flood warnings and then we took the decision, when the level on the River Foss was more or less equal to the level on the River Ouse—in other words, the levels either side of the Barrier were more or less the same—to raise the gate and allow free discharge into the Ouse from the Foss.

Sir James Bevan

To give you a flavour of how much water was coming down the Foss that afternoon, on Boxing Day, the levels were constantly rising in the Foss and the team in the Foss Barrier, which I was visiting yesterday, had all our eight pumps working at full capacity. Normally, when you do that, it takes the level down. The level just kept on rising, even though every second these eight pumps were taking out the amount of water that fits in a large oil tanker. It is a very large amount of water being taken out, but it was not making a difference to the Foss getting higher and higher.

Sir Philip Dilley

The story in many places is that the defences we had were tested beyond their design. Quite often, they were overtopped. They did not fail. They stayed there; they protected properties against flooding that would have occurred had they not been there; and, most importantly, they gave a lot more time to people to rescue precious possessions and get out. They undoubtedly saved lives.

Jim Fitzpatrick

I have a small technical question. As part of national resilience, the fire service was purchased high‑volume pumps based mostly at Moreton‑in‑Marsh and the national Fire Service College. Some other brigades purchased them. How do they compare to your 40 pumps? Are they similar? Are they much less powerful? Do you have a call on them? Do you liaise with the fire brigade or are they just not suitable for this type of flood?

Sir James Bevan

I will ask David to give you a technical answer, but it is certainly right that they have some very impressive capacity and we work very closely with them. For example, in Croston in Lancashire, where we had a failure in the wall of one of the defences that goes alongside the riverbank, a lot of the way we have been managing the flood risk to prevent further flooding has been using fire service pumping as well as Environment Agency pumps.

David Rooke

Fire service pumps are available to gold commanders. The chief liaison officer for the fire service attends Cobra meetings, like we do, and makes sure that national resource is available to gold commanders to add to the resource we make available in terms of the pumping, so all the needs of gold commanders are met.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Are the pumps similar, your pumps and their pumps, in terms of power?

David Rooke

Our ones in Somerset are much bigger. They need a low loader and all sorts of equipment to move. Moving those pumps is a massive operation. We have some smaller ones in the fire service and we have some much bigger ones. Collectively, there is a good resource available nationally that can be mobilised to where the need is the greatest.

Chris Davies

You said that pumps were left in Somerset; some pumps were moved up north and some were not. Who actually makes that decision?

David Rooke

The ask comes from the gold commanders, who provide the strategic leadership for responding to a particular event.

Chris Davies

Who makes the decision in the Environment Agency?

David Rooke

We make our pumps available and then we decide where to move them in response to requests from gold command.

Sir James Bevan

To add to that, we have a central crisis operation that is looking at the country. As I was saying, we took an early decision to send more pumps and flood defences to the north, because we thought we would want that capacity. We divide it into local areas. Each area makes requests for the kind of capacity it needs and we answer those requests. In terms of the deployment and the need, as David said, it is the gold commander—usually the police chief—sitting in the strategic co‑ordination group who decides, on our advice and the advice of the emergency services, what he or she needs.

Chris Davies

Who in the Environment Agency is the “we”, in answer to my question? Who is the “we” who makes the decision?

David Rooke

It is the Executive Director of Operations. They are responsible for the operational response.

Chair

Where are they sitting?

Chris Davies

Are they here with us now?

David Rooke

No. Out of hours, we have a national duty manager, so we can provide a 24/7 service in terms of making those decisions.

Chris Davies

As the three heads of the organisation, as far as we are concerned, you do not make that decision.

Sir James Bevan

The Executive Director of Operations reports to me, as one of our executive directors. As David says, he is in charge of ensuring that our operations are running effectively and that we provide the capacity we need to deal with operations, including in crisis. In practice, what is happening every day and what has been happening for the last month is that I, David and all of our senior leadership are sitting in at least daily conferences to decide what the situation is on the ground, what we may need to do to improve our resilience for the future. We are aware of those decisions and, where necessary, we are helping to take them, in order to get the resources where we need them.

Angela Smith

It is not just the Environment Agency, though, is it, that has responsibility for water courses? The Canal and River Trust, for example, local authorities, drainage boards and so on all have a role to play. Particularly in relation to the River Ouse, the Canal and River Trust is a major partner in the management of a river like that. What role did they play in helping to manage this situation?

David Rooke

I do not know the exact details in terms of their day‑to‑day operation in the flood, but we can provide a note. I am aware of past events where Canal and River Trust resources have been deployed through silver and gold commands to ensure there is a co‑ordinated response.

Angela Smith

From having worked with them and seen what they do in South Yorkshire to help manage water flows, surely they are part of the planning process. I would expect the agency to be on top of what exactly the Canal and River Trust is doing to manage its own waterways and to co‑ordinate with the agency in doing this work.

David Rooke

We work very closely with them on a day‑to‑day basis. I thought your question was about the emergency, and I do not know that particular detail.

Angela Smith

I would have thought the day‑to‑day working fed the emergency response itself. Some written evidence on how you work together and how you respond in an emergency would be appreciated.

David Rooke

We are very happy to do that.

Chair

Can you add something to that written evidence? If, for instance, you do not have enough pumps, how quickly can you get them from the Netherlands? They came to Somerset, but it took quite a while to get them there. They were vast pumps that I saw. They absolutely emptied the river faster than water would get into it. Some of those pumps could do a lot of good if you moved them in time. I am not convinced the pumps are not necessarily big enough. There are some very big pumps out there. Do we have them? Do we need to get them? Can we get them from the Netherlands if we need them and can we do it quickly? That is the answer. When it floods, you need to deal with it very quickly, and I am not certain that we are moving quite fast enough.

David Simpson

You are very welcome, gentlemen. Sir James, at the start, you outlined what you are currently doing in relation to the difficulties in affected areas. Looking into the future, you have heard the evidence previously, and, unless I picked it up wrong, the folk giving the evidence made it clear that they believed there was not a close enough working relationship with the Environment Agency in relation to the difficulties. I suppose your agency is somewhat like Defra: it covers a wide remit of issues right across the whole of the United Kingdom. Is flooding a big enough priority within your organisation? You do cover a large remit. Working with communities, the areas at risk, how can you improve that to give the residents the confidence they did not seem to have today?

Sir Philip Dilley

I will start with that, and James might want to follow on. We work very closely with communities. One of the differences between us and Defra is that we have a strong area structure. A lot of our resources are in areas and offices around the country. Those offices and the leaders there have developed close contact with communities. I also heard the evidence, of course, and there are some lessons to learn. We will certainly go back to these people and pick those up, but, generally speaking, I would say that a lot of effort goes into creating those community arrangements.

Sir James Bevan

Is it a big enough priority? The answer is yes. Every one of the 10,000 people who work for the Environment Agency is clear that the top priority for us is the protection of lives and property. We spend more than half of our total budget on managing flood risk and protecting people as far as we can from flood risk. I am increasingly interested in using more and more of our staff who are not on a day‑to‑day basis dedicated to flood risk management, being able to flex those staff and ensuring they are well trained so they can join the effort when we have flood crises. I am absolutely clear that our top priority is people and I am absolutely clear that the organisation needs to be fit to deal with the kind of crisis we have seen over the last month. That is going to be one of my priorities.

David Simpson

Finally, it is good to hear that you are working with community groups, but community groups, farmers and people on the ground who have lived there for generations know the area and the lay of the land. Is the information they feed into you taken and acted upon? They would have the experience of how the water flows and all those things over a generation. Is that taken on board?

Sir James Bevan

My answer would be yes. In my short time as Chief Executive, one of the things I have learned is that the secret of successful flood risk management is not concrete, but relationships. It is about having close relationships between us, the other professionals we have heard mentioned today and those local communities. On the basis of what I have seen in five weeks, I am satisfied that it is a top priority for all our area managers, all our teams in the areas concerned, including the three we are talking about today. They make it their business to have relationships with the local authorities, with the local communities and with people, like your witnesses earlier today, who are leading local flood action groups. They have relationships with flood wardens in local communities, where they can ensure that they both listen to what they are hearing from the community and help the community understand what their flood risk is and how to manage it. We will never be perfect, and we must constantly strive to enrich those relationships, but I am satisfied that we are very clear that one of our primary weapons in the fight against flooding is those strong relationships with local groups.

Simon Hart

In the 10 seconds before we vote, possibly, on that very point, I just wondered, in the communication of all of this, whether you are satisfied that the distinction between risk management and risk elimination is fully understood by everybody you have to communicate with, including the media, for that matter. The basis of the evidence you have given us is that you are never going to be able to have flood‑alleviation machinery on the ground, movable or immovable, that can cope with the sort of weather conditions you had. Therefore, it is about managing expectations. Are you where you need to be as far as that is concerned?

Sir James Bevan

As you say, Mr Hart, we do need to be clear that there is no such thing as 100% protection against flood for everybody. We are in the territory of managing risk not preventing floods. I do not think we have yet managed to convey that message sufficiently. That is another task for me and the whole of the agency. Just because we cannot prevent all floods, it does not mean we should not try to lower the risk to the lowest possible level. One of the ways to do that is what we do in terms of building flood defences, warning and informing communities when they are at risk. Another part of the solution is for local communities, like the ones who were interviewed here this afternoon and others around the country, to take ownership of their own flood risk and work with us and the other actors on the local scene to manage that risk.

Simon Hart

Your colleagues presumably share that view.

David Rooke

If I could add to that, we recognise that there is a real issue in terms of the communication of risk. We undertook a science project called Sciencewise. We had a number of focus groups, including one in York, which gave us really good feedback and evidence in terms of how we might improve the language we use in communicating risk. We will be using the findings from that research, which was quite recent, to improve the way we communicate.

Simon Hart

You gave a warm welcome to working in partnership with various other organisations, volunteer groups and professionals. Is that the starting point? Are those relationships reasonably sound at the moment? We have been talking about the Cumbrian scheme, for example.

David Rooke

Relationships are absolutely essential so we can build trust with communities and work with them to find solutions that they want and have ownership of. It is absolutely crucial.

Rishi Sunak

On that point, it is great to hear you say you want to do that. More often than not, I hear that that is not the feeling that people on the ground are getting. It still feels like it is too remote from them; it is too far away; there is no one person who is the local champion they can speak to.

Chair

It is top down rather than bottom up.

Rishi Sunak

Yes, exactly. It is good to hear that there is willingness on your end to do that, but I would suggest there is probably more work to do to make that a reality for people on the ground. Some of them you heard from this afternoon, but in my area as well they would want more of that. But we must vote, and then we will be back.

Chair

Yes, we will adjourn now and be back in about 15 minutes. If you do not mind hanging on, democracy needs to take its course. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—

Jim Fitzpatrick

I have a small clarification. Sir James said in his answer a moment ago that the Environment Agency is not about preventing flooding; it is about managing risk. Can I just ask that that be qualified? Surely, it is partly about preventing flooding where you can, but managing risk where you can. Perhaps you would just correct that and get the balance right?

Sir James Bevan

It is about protecting the largest number of people against flooding. I am just saying that you cannot protect everybody all the time.

Jim Fitzpatrick

I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify that, because it was too much one‑way in the answer you gave previously.

Chair

I have one final question. The evidence that was taken with the last witnesses was, if you have a one in 50 year flood and it happens twice in five years or 10 years, surely, in theory, you should not flood there again for another 100 years. People are not really buying this, are they? What is the alternative?

Sir Philip Dilley

We touched on the issue of communication earlier. It is quite clear that most statisticians understand that, but most members of the public do not, and you can have a one in 100 year flood or rainfall this year, and you can have it again next year. Just because you have had it, there are not 99 years to wait for the next one. We have gone away from using those forms of statistics. It is quite difficult. We now talk about percentage probability, which is arguably easier to understand, but maybe not. There is more explanation to do there. In a way, the more important issue is, if you look at a one in 100 or one in 50 year event, you are looking backwards; you are looking over the last centuries.

Chair

If you were doing percentages, one in 100 would be 1%, and so on, so that in a way is almost exactly the same, is it not? If it is a 1% chance of flooding, and it floods this year and then five years later it floods again, it is still the same system.

Sir Philip Dilley

I have some sympathy with you, because I agree. I do not think it is very easy to understand. But, arguably, you can have a 1% chance every year, which is slightly better.

Chair

Not necessary in the same spot, surely.

Sir James Bevan

There are two points. First, nobody understands it, so by definition it is no good. We want people to understand in order to act, so we need to drop it. Most people want to know, “Is my house going to get flooded, and what do I do about it?” We need to focus on ensuring that people have that information so they can act. Secondly, it might be wrong, because, as we experience greater, more violent weather, we may find that the old ways of calculating flood risk are out of date. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, announced the National Flood Resilience Review, which is going on now and we are participating in. One of its tasks is to look at precisely this issue of how we model and calculate flood risk, and what conclusions we draw from it.

Chair

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, we will be looking again in the near future at flooding and long‑term flooding, as well as what is happening now, so we will be asking you back again, I suspect. By then, I am sure you will have all the answers. We shall look forward to that.

Dr Monaghan

Sir Philip, at your pre‑appointment hearing before this Committee approximately a year ago, you suggested that your personal response to a crisis would be to “turn up in wellingtons very early on”. Why did you not return to the UK from holiday when it became clear that the recent storms were going to have a catastrophic effect?

Sir Philip Dilley

I was in the UK, and I was in Cumbria, of course, during those events. I was away, as you are well aware, over the Christmas period, and the severity of the flooding became apparent to us and to me on Boxing Day, the 26th. I was in regular contact with both the Chief Executive, James, and my own deputy, a woman called Emma, very regularly, quite often more than once a day. I started looking at opportunities to return on the 27th, and I actually returned on the 29th, overnight, arriving on the 30th. Could I have come back earlier by one or two days? In hindsight, do I wish I had? Yes, I do, but I do not feel guilty of leaving it many weeks.

Dr Monaghan

Do you think the general public have a right to expect you to turn up in wellingtons, after you promised that to the Committee last year?

Sir Philip Dilley

It is important for me to visit these affected areas, to talk to communities—I have done a lot of that since I have been back—and to see first-hand the kind of devastation that has taken place. We have all said it, but I would like to take the opportunity to say that my sympathies, of course, go out to those people too, and mostly those whose homes and businesses have been flooded. But another key point here is that we are an organisation where Sir James Bevan is the Chief Executive. He is in charge, ultimately, of all the operations. I had and still have every confidence in Sir James and his team. My role, on the other hand, is the non‑executive Chair of the agency. It is to chair the board, of course; it is to get the board working as a team; it is to set the agenda; and it is to hold the executive to account. I believe we have been doing that very effectively. Through my regular communication with the agency all of the time I was not in the UK, not just after the flooding, I felt that that was going suitably well. It was only after the severity of the floods became apparent that I felt that the right thing to do was to come back.

Dr Monaghan

I think we all understand the difference between governance and operations. Since you have returned to the UK and you have been out there in wellingtons—travelling around England in the main, looking at the devastation—what difference have you made to the response of the Environment Agency?

Sir Philip Dilley

I heard the evidence earlier. My view is not just a narrow view; it is a view taken by talking to a lot of individuals who have been affected, both businesspeople and residents, and going to some of the worst‑affected areas. I have been to the Upper Calder Valley, to several places; I went to Leeds; I have been to a range of places, and earlier to Keswick and Cockermouth. The general impression that I get, and the stories that I get told, are that we deliver a very effective operation on the ground. The people on the ground, as I said earlier, who come from our area offices are well connected with those communities. They are very often known by some of the local people involved in the flood activity, and the arrangement is very effective. Having said that, of course, I am not complacent; we need to look harder at how we can do things differently and better. We already had a plan—it is something that I instigated some months ago—to strengthen our areas; to give them more autonomy; effectively to put more emphasis on the local content of what we do, which is a really important way forward. Of course, we will be pushing that very much after the current issues have calmed down.

Dr Monaghan

What lessons have you learned from your visits?

Sir Philip Dilley

In Cockermouth, for example, I met a wonderful couple who run the local toy shop. They had been flooded before, and when they were flooded before they put back their shop in a way that is much more resilient to flooding, recognising—exactly as Mr Fitzpatrick was saying—that we protect them from floods, but we are not always going to be able to protect them. They realised that it might happen again, and they have reassembled their shop in a way that is very resilient. They have waterproof plaster; they have concrete floors; they have electrics raised above flood level; and they even have the shop fittings arranged in a horizontal pattern, so that, if some of it gets damaged, you can take it off without losing the whole wall. Now, they were very grateful for the advice that was given on previous flooding, and very grateful for the help and the warnings that the agency gave during that time. There are little stories like that, and there are plenty of them, where we can take snippets and pieces of advice and spread and share them with other communities.

Dr Monaghan

That is a very localised example of a lesson that you have perhaps learned, but, in strategic terms, what lessons have you learned from traveling around England over the last few weeks, looking at the devastation that has occurred?

Sir Philip Dilley

The rainfall was exceptional. The Met Office confirmed today that it was the wettest month ever recorded in the whole of their history; that is virtually a century, I think, so it was absolutely exceptional. There is a very big lesson about what we do in the future, and how we handle these situations in the future. We need to look at this afresh, and you have heard already about the review that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have set up in order to look at that, so that is one very big lesson: how are we going to cope with these kinds of events when they have exceeded some of our previous expectations and predictions by a long way, not by small amounts? That is one very big lesson. The other one is one that you might say was substantially learned already, but one of the stakeholders or support teams that I spoke to was the army. I have spoken to one of the commanders there on the ground, and they were, at the time, sandbagging parts of a town in the Upper Calder Valley. He was saying that this is much better organised this time than he has experienced in the past. We brought the army in, or we recommended the bringing‑in of the army, effectively on day one, whereas, in previous events, the army has been brought in as a last resort when other things are not quite working. There have been lessons learned. Now, I am quite sure that this is not perfect everywhere. Again, we need to work out from the communities what their response is and what their belief is, and next time we will do it even better. But there are some positive things that we can take forward, as well, and make sure we do those even more.

Dr Monaghan

What are those positive things?

Sir Philip Dilley

As I have just described, for example, bringing in the other services very early. We have a little internal motto, which is “think big, act early”, which we instigated this time. As I say, we just need to make sure that where that did not happen—and there will be examples where it has not gone as smoothly as it might—this is spread even wider.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Sir Philip, I am sorry to labour this a trifle, but the PR and the spin around where you were became almost as much of a story as the floods, which was unfortunate, because we wanted to focus on the floods. But when you appeared in front of us previously, following the criticisms of Lord Smith, you did say, “Wellies on, seven days a week, even though it is only a part‑time job.” To a certain extent, you made a rod for your own back with those very positive commitments. You are entitled to a holiday; you are entitled to go abroad. You are the Chairman; you are not the Chief Executive or deputy, and therefore you are always criticised, but this was a PR disaster for you personally, was it not?

Sir Philip Dilley

Yes. As I said, in hindsight, it would have been much better if I had come back as early as I could, which was one or two days earlier. That is quite right.

Jim Fitzpatrick

But the first answer from the Environment Agency as to your whereabouts was that you were at home with your family. It was 24 hours before that was qualified to say that you were in Barbados at home with your family, and then a further 12 hours before it was, “He is in Barbados at a family home.” That handling, that lack of transparency, almost made you a target for days in the media, when the real examination should have been of the floods, the agency’s response, the Government’s preparations and the rest of it.

Sir Philip Dilley

Yes. Indeed, one of my biggest regrets is that that focus on me has detracted from what really matters, which are the people that you heard giving evidence earlier and all those other people who have been affected, so that was indeed unfortunate. As to that expression that was put out, lots of things are written for me and sent to me for agreement, for approval. I saw it; I approved it, so it is my problem. But I also probably should explain that I have two homes. My wife is from the Caribbean; we have a home there, and I spend some time there over Christmas, particularly. When I am there, I do not feel I am away; I feel I am at home, because I am equally at home there. As I said earlier, I keep in regular contact; I work from there. It was more of a holiday because it was Christmas, but in normal times I work from there, and I keep in very regular contact with all the people who matter. I know that none of my actions or inactions detracted from the performance of the agency, but I agree with you: the communications effort would have been much better if it had been different.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Planning for next year’s winter holiday break, it might not be abroad, perhaps.

Sir Philip Dilley

I do not have any plans yet. I will see, but, as I just said, we will learn some lessons.

Chair

I do not want to carry on too long on this.

Angela Smith

I have two or three questions, if you do not mind, Chair. That distinction, Sir Philip, about what a home is an interesting one, but I have heard that you were advised by your officials, in fact, not to go abroad, if I can put it that way, at Christmas. Is that true?

Sir Philip Dilley

No, it is not true. I did not have any such advice. I have heard that rumour as well, and we have had some media asking that very question, but it is not true.

Angela Smith

It is not true.

Sir Philip Dilley

Indeed, we put plans in place, as we always do, because I was to be away, as to who was responsible for what, as we will one day when Sir James goes on holiday.

Angela Smith

Your distinction, as my colleague pointed out, between the corporate and governance functions of the agency is also interesting. On that basis, do you regret your criticism of Lord Smith?

Sir Philip Dilley

I have not looked at the transcript of that session, but my recollection is that I did not criticise Lord Smith. I said that, in hindsight, it would have been better if Lord Smith had come back rather earlier.

Angela Smith

Well, according to my information, you said that he arrived a bit late after the crisis and that you would not make the same mistakes. Do you believe you have made the same mistakes?

Sir Philip Dilley

This is difficult to judge, because clearly the same kind of reaction and media issue has arisen and, therefore, you could argue I have made the same mistake. I do not think it was quite the same circumstance. The Somerset floods were of long duration, very slow draining—hence the pump questions that came earlier—and Lord Smith was a long time in arriving. As I said, it was evident to me that there was a big issue that needed to be dealt with on Boxing Day. We talked about that. I spoke to my deputy and the Chief Executive and I started looking at possible options to return, which I did on the 29th. I do not think it was a long delay.

Angela Smith

On the basis of what I have heard, if I broaden this slightly for one minute, it does not require a long answer, but you are a very recent appointment, as you have just stressed. Given the problems we have had with floods in recent years, given the 24% cut in staffing resource since 2010 and the 28% cut in funding from the Treasury for the environment overall, what on earth made you take this job on? What persuaded you? Who persuaded you to take this job on?

Sir Philip Dilley

Is that a question you would like an answer to?

Angela Smith

Yes, I would, very much.

Sir Philip Dilley

The Environment Agency, despite the criticism it attracts, is a very professional organisation. I thought that before I took the job on, but it has been reinforced to me in all the journeys I have done. I have travelled the country very widely; I have been to all our 16 areas, many of them several times. It is a job that is important. It is a job that is supportive of communities. It is giving something back. It is something where I can use some of my technical knowledge to support the agency. When I moved from a full‑time executive role to a series of non‑executive roles, I was advised to only take things on where you like the people, and the people are terrific.

Angela Smith

It was not the Prime Minister or anybody else who persuaded you to take it on then.

Sir Philip Dilley

No.

Angela Smith

No, nothing at all. You were not asked to take the job.

Sir Philip Dilley

I did not speak to the Prime Minister about this appointment prior to taking it.

Chris Davies

I was delighted to hear, Sir Philip, that you have confidence in Sir James. I shall not ask Sir James if he has confidence in you as Chairman, but I shall ask Sir James: we have already heard from Mr Fitzpatrick that the debacle, the PR disaster that happened, happened under your watch. The statement regarding Sir Philip’s whereabouts came out while you were in charge of your department. Why did that happen?

Sir James Bevan

It did and I take responsibility for that because I am the Chief Executive. What I would say is, with hindsight, should that statement have been clearer? Yes, it should, clearly. You are absolutely right. What I would also say is that, that day and every day before and since, I was not focused on drafting statements for the press; I was focused on ensuring that the organisation saved lives and protected property. I was working 24/7 with my staff to make sure we got the right people and the right equipment into the right places, sitting in Cobra to make sure that we were co‑ordinated with the Government, with the military, with the local authorities and making sure that we did everything we could to help people in need.

Chair

There is one final point from me. Sir Philip, one of the problems is that you may well have weakened the role of Chairman, because basically, if you have the Floods Minister, the Secretary of State, they expect to see the Prime Minister and I think people would have expected to see you there. That is a problem, but you have made your position clear and, in hindsight, I do not think you would probably let this happen again. I think that is fair to say, is it?

Sir Philip Dilley

I travel abroad probably more than average, partly for pleasure, partly for business, and I cannot guarantee that there will never be a flood event while I am away. If indeed there is, I will liaise with my colleagues and work out the right thing to do. The point about this event was it was totally exceptional.

Chair

I do accept that, but you have to also accept that, if a head of state leaves the country when there is a crisis, he may not be head of state when he returns. That is putting it quite bluntly, but you have to accept that the role of Chairman is there because you are seen to be in charge. If there is a moment of great flood, then we expect you to be there. I do not think it is unreasonable, and the people who are suffering in the north of England also do not think it is unreasonable, that you should be there.

Sir James Bevan

I would add that the Chief Executive also needs to be there. I was there. I was the person responsible. I remain the person responsible for managing this crisis. The team have done a fantastic job. I was there on Boxing Day with the Secretary of State Liz Truss. I was there the day after. I had been up in Cumbria at the beginning of December and I was in Yorkshire again yesterday and on Monday. The leadership of the Environment Agency was present on the ground and will remain present on the ground wherever we need to be.

Rebecca Pow

Sir James, were you not irritated that your Chairman was not beside you and that he was having a holiday?

Sir James Bevan

No. I am the person who is responsible for the operational response. I was leading the operational response and I think that was the right approach.

Chair

Okay. We are in danger probably of overplaying this, but I think you can realise how seriously we take the situation. I move on now, and this question really links back to the evidence we had earlier on. What role will the EA have in the Cumbrian Floods Partnership? We talked a lot about how we can build a partnership on the ground from the bottom up, so what ideas have you on that?

Sir James Bevan

Minister Rory Stewart has been nominated by the Prime Minister to lead the Cumbrian Floods Partnership. Obviously, he is a local MP. He has been incredibly active since day one in this. He knows everybody and is very committed to ensuring that Cumbria gets the best possible protection in future against flooding. What role will we play? First, we are hosting the Cumbrian Floods Partnership; it is having its meetings in the Environment Agency’s offices in Penrith. Secondly, we will play a key part in contributing advice to how the partnership can best operate. Thirdly, we will be a key partner in delivering with others—the local authorities, MPs, local communities—the conclusions that the partnership comes to.

Chair

Right. What we found with the Somerset floods and others is that the Environment Agency is always very keen to work with local people at the time. I just rather fear that, when the water recedes, so do your ideas of working with everybody and dredging and other things—we will not talk about dredging now because there is a question on dredging—and you go back to your old ideas and do not necessarily listen to the grassroots enough. Do you think you are learning that lesson?

Sir James Bevan

I have only been in this job for a few weeks, but, in between trying to run the crisis effectively, which I think the agency has done, I have been seeking to go out and visit every single one of the 16 areas that the agency has across the UK. I have done five or six. In every one of those areas that I have been to, the area manager and the staff who run our operation in that area are absolutely clear that, for everything we do, not just flood protection but promoting biodiversity, ensuring that businesses do not pollute the environment, the key is to have strong relationships with the local communities. On the basis of what I have seen, I am very satisfied that the agency is committed to doing that, not just in times of crisis but as part of business as usual.

Rebecca Pow

This is addressed initially to David Rooke, please. You said recently that you thought we should have a complete rethink of the UK’s flood preparations. I wonder what you meant by that. What exactly were you referring to?

David Rooke

What I mean in terms of a complete rethink is that we need to look, first of all, at the historic data we are using and ask ourselves if that is still valid to predict the future. The Government’s review will look at exactly that question. We need to look at our models in terms of how we predict floods and how we forecast for them. Again, the Government’s review will look at that, and we will play a role in it. We then need to look at how we respond when we get these extremes of weather, so making buildings and houses more resilient—as the Chairman said earlier, solid floors, waterproof plaster, moving electrics up the wall, etc.—so that, as a country, we are more resilient to these extremes of weather. We need to look at a catchment approach to managing water, which would include floods, so that we work with nature rather than work against nature. We need to improve our warning systems and our mapping systems, so that people have a better understanding of the risks they face and we can give early warnings that are accurate and timely such that we save lives as well as people’s livelihoods and their homes. That is what I meant.

Rebecca Pow

That is very interesting. Given that we have had major flood issues up in Cumbria previously; we have had the big Somerset levels flooding, were you not feeding all these ideas through? That is over at least five, six years. Were you not already starting to think perhaps your modelling was a bit outdated; perhaps your reaction was reactive rather than proactive?

David Rooke

We have made significant investments not just in defences but also in modelling and mapping. The National Audit Office 2014 review acknowledged the improvements we had made and the value for money we were providing. What is different now is that we are seeing these extremes of weather, which, certainly at the start of my career, I would have expected to see once in my lifetime, and we are seeing them every two or three years. That, to me, is the significant shift, and that is why we need this rethink, just to recalibrate how we manage flood and coastal risk management in England.

Rebecca Pow

Maybe one of the others would like to answer this. What seems to happen often is that we get terrible extreme weather and these awful human consequences, and then we react quickly. It is like a sort of sticking plaster effect: let us build a dam, let us dredge a river. Is it not all back to front?

Sir James Bevan

We need to react quickly in the immediate to ensure that we protect lives and property, and that we help people rebuild their lives, but you are absolutely right that that is not a substitute for long‑term strategic thinking. David is absolutely right. Everyone I have talked to in the affected communities says the same thing: “Something is different. We have never seen anything like this before.” That means we need to think differently. That is why the National Flood Resilience Review, which the Secretary of State announced a few weeks ago, will be thinking very differently and very long term. Do we have the models right in an era of climate change and more violent weather? What does that mean for our critical national infrastructure? We had big problems with some of our major infrastructure as well as with our flood defences in the last month. What does all that mean for the kind of flood defences we are going to need in not just the next five but the next 10 or even the next 100 years? It will be a very comprehensive, very long term and very strategic review, and I think that is absolutely right.

Rebecca Pow

How quickly do you think we should move on this?

Sir James Bevan

The intention on the part of the Government, who are leading the review, is that we will have conclusions by the summer.

Rebecca Pow

So relatively quickly. Thank you.

Rishi Sunak

You will have seen—there is very clear commentary in the newspapers and from people involved in active flood management—the perception that there is not enough dredging going on and that is contributing to some of the problems we have seen. No one on this Committee is saying it is a universal solution. Indeed, the last Committee hearing said that specifically, but it does have a role and can alleviate problems. What would be your response to the more general allegation that there is not enough dredging going on, first of all?

Sir James Bevan

Dredging is a core part of our armoury in dealing with flood risk, and we will do it where it can make a big difference to reducing flood risk and where it is value for money. Where those two conditions are satisfied, we will do it. There are places where it works and there are places where it does not work or is not value for money, but it is definitely going to be part of our approach over the coming period. It already is. In the last couple of years, we have spent £20 million on dredging. I have seen the effect in Somerset. I visited the Somerset levels a few weeks ago and saw what we have done in the Parrett and the Tone. I talked to local communities; they told me it was working well.

Rebecca Pow

We were going to meet, but it has been postponed. I look forward to the meeting.

Sir James Bevan

Done in the right place it works, and where it works, where it is value for money, we will do it.

Rishi Sunak

On the Somerset example, the perception is that the Environment Agency was essentially instructed to do that, after a crisis, by the last Secretary of State. People are then worried: is it not happening anyway? Why is it not happening? Why did it not happen beforehand and where is the next problem? The £20 million is not to be sniffed at, but in the context of a budget that is several hundred million—I am not in the best place to judge—is it the right amount? Is there a possibility to have more transparency around the annual spend on dredging and miles that are dredged, for example? People keep asking us where the number is, and we cannot find the data. I guess there are two questions there.

Chair

Can I add to that before you answer? For years, we have all been saying in Somerset the rivers need to be dredged. I was an MEP back in 2001 and I was told by the Environment Agency, “The capacity of the rivers does not matter, Mr Parish. You can let them silt up.” Therefore, like I said, I am not convinced that the Environment Agency has necessary changed its philosophy. When you had the Prime Minister down in Somerset twice, saying, “The rivers will be dredged”, the rivers were dredged, but is the Environment Agency really changing its spots? I am not convinced it is.

Sir James Bevan

I am the new Chief Executive. I am interested in what works. Where things make a real difference to people’s flood risk, we will do them. I am clear already that dredging is part of that menu, and we will do it where it works and where it is value for money. There is another myth that the Environment Agency does not care about people; it just cares about wildlife. That is a myth. I am very clear, as I have said before this Committee, that our primary duty is the protection of lives and property, and I will make sure that we adhere to that. I am equally clear that, if we do this right, we should not have to choose. People want to live in places where there is good wildlife, where the water is clean, and it is in our interest that we can do that. I have seen very good examples of where the Environment Agency already has managed to combine those things. For example, there is a chalk river, the Bulbourne, which flows through Hemel Hempstead. In the 19th century, it was turned into a straight drain. The Environment Agency, with local partners—it is a great example of community engagement—is turning it back into a natural chalk river, which, as you know, is very sinuous. That is good for wildlife, which is worth doing; it is good for people because it creates a nicer environment for them to walk through; but it is also a better way to do flood defences because it slows the flow and helps protect people. For me, that is a great example of what we should be aiming to do. Of course people come first, but let us try to find ways in which we can create a better place both for people and for wildlife.

Angela Smith

You said, Sir James, what works and what is value for money, and I was glad to hear that you qualified that slightly by pointing out that, actually, it is what is appropriate and that we need catchment‑scale responses to this. That is really important as well. Going back to the review, I asked the Secretary of State yesterday whether or not she was prepared to make the review an independent review. Her response was to say that, as long as it is open and transparent, everything will be fine. You have committed to a comprehensive and strategic approach. Are you confident that it will be open and transparent? Has the work started, for instance? Nobody around this table knows whether the work has started. Nobody knows who the partners are who will be involved in the review. Nobody knows what the terms of reference will be. How confident can this Committee be that it will certainly be open and transparent, and that we will be satisfied that it is indeed comprehensive and strategic? I have to say I have no confidence so far that that is going to be the case.

Sir James Bevan

It is important that it is open and transparent and strategic, as you say. A statement was issued when the Secretary of State announced the review, which sets out what the review is seeking to do. I have explained that the idea is to complete the review by the middle of this year; I think that is the right timing. It is right that it is led by the Government, because the conclusions we reach, whatever they are, are things that the Government are going to have to lead the implementation of, whether it is about modelling, whether it is about critical national infrastructure, whether it is about how we manage flood defence in the future. I also think that it will be a better outcome if we have regard to the voice of independent experts. I am certainly very interested in hearing from independent experts about what we need to do on those issues and I am confident that other members of the Committee will also be interested in that.

Angela Smith

I do not take the point that, because the Government are involved in implementation, they have to lead the review necessarily; otherwise the infrastructure commission would not need to do its work independently, but there you go. Is there a commitment from the Environment Agency to make sure that the review understands, as I believe, that members of this Committee would want to see openness and transparency, and that we want to see evidence of that very quickly?

Sir James Bevan

We will certainly be open and transparent with you. I sit on the review with David. The review has had its first meeting already; we did that before Christmas. We are very keen to hear from you and other stakeholders your views about the issues that we are discussing and will be very happy to reflect those as we go forward with this review.

Angela Smith

When can we expect to see the terms of reference and the scope of the inquiry?

Sir James Bevan

That is a matter for the Government. It is led by the Government, so that is a question you need to put to the Government.

Chair

We can put that to the Secretary of State when she comes in on the 26th, but we look forward to working with you in this great openness and transparency that you are offering us. We will decide whether it is transparent enough.

Rebecca Pow

Do you think the way we calculate what to spend on flood defence, the methodology, is right for that? We suddenly react and spend lots of money on these big defence projects. Are we doing that the right way based on the right information?

Sir James Bevan

The primary consideration when we are calculating where to spend money on what is the numbers of properties and people that we can protect. I think that is the right starting place. The formula also includes other things, though, that are very important: businesses, farming, critical national infrastructure. They are all weighted in the way that we make these calculations. I think that is right too. But, as I said earlier, our top priority is the protection of lives and property. David is the expert. Do you want to add something?

David Rooke

We need to look at this as part of the review, because it depends upon how frequent the flooding is in terms of the economic analysis that we undertake. If the frequency of flooding is changing rapidly as the result of a changing climate, then we need to ask ourselves whether it is still valid to do it in that way.

Chair

That is very necessary.

Rebecca Pow

Everybody tiptoed around the climate change aspect for weeks, and suddenly you are now mentioning that climate change might have something to do with all this. Are your scientists and your evidence suggesting that that is part of it and we need to factor all that into our climate change strategy?

Sir James Bevan

There are two points. First, there is a difference, obviously, between climate and weather. I cannot say personally whether the extreme events that we have seen over the last month are climate change, but I am quite clear that climate change is happening. The Government are clear about that, which is why, along with 140 other Governments, the Government signed a deal in Paris a few months ago to try to combat it. It is happening and we need to have regard to it. The second point is that our calculations of the kind of flood defences that we need already factor in projections in relation to climate change. As David says, we may need to go back and look at those again and ask ourselves whether they are still valid.

Rishi Sunak

I have a more technical question. Obviously your budget is split into revenue spending and capital spending. Given the kind of work you do, it is a slightly arbitrary distinction in some respects; I think the last Secretary of State referred to it as a grey area. Do you think you would benefit from that distinction not being there, essentially, in giving you more flexibility to allocate between the two? Does the distinction force you to make decisions that may not be in the best interest of flood defence, but you need to because of the budget split?

Sir James Bevan

I was going to say that the classic distinction between capital and revenue is inherent, as you know, in the way that government operates. That is just how government financing works. What I would say is that, for us, we are in a decent position with capital. As you know, we have this commitment for £2.3 billion over six years to invest in protecting 300,000 new houses. That is a good commitment. That is a real terms increase. Ministers have also been clear that they will sustain in real terms the spending on maintenance of flood defence. Those are important commitments, which I welcome.

Rishi Sunak

You do not see any major need for there to be greater flexibility for you. Take the example of dredging. My understanding is that the Somerset dredging operation was classified as capital because it was very large, at one time, but thereafter essentially the same activity done on an annual basis is revenue. It is the same thing.

Sir Philip Dilley

The vast bulk of what we do is quite clearly revenue or capital, but there is this grey zone, as you imply, in the centre. If the Somerset levels had been dredged a little bit at a time over many years, it would have been maintenance, so there is a bit of scope there. I come from the private sector, so I am not used to revenue and capital separation. Therefore, I think it would be easier not to have it, but I do not believe it is something worth dying in a ditch over; it is too difficult to achieve it. The good news on the capital settlement is that we have this six‑year programme, which not only gives us certainty but enables us to let contracts more efficiently; we can look forward beyond the end of year. There is a benefit beyond just being certain of the money; it gives us the ability to be more efficient in the way we let contracts.

Chair

Sir Philip, you hit the nail on the head there, because it is a capital project to dredge the river and then you need the maintenance money to keep the river dredged. Do you have that in the Environment Agency? Do you need more drainage boards? How are you going to deal with that? It is a big issue.

David Rooke

What we want to do is to work even more closely with local communities. Where we are prioritising our resources, if we do not have the funding that is needed to fund everywhere, we need to work more with local communities who are willing to pay, who are willing to work with us. We have some really good examples of working with internal drainage boards, where we are looking to hand responsibility over for main rivers to them.

Chair

When you hand responsibility over, are you thinking about handing over any cash at the same time?

David Rooke

What the Government have done, in terms of setting up the Somerset Rivers Authority, is to enable it to raise money locally, so there is a local choice by local people as to their willingness to pay for the maintenance of flood defences. The maintenance that we have talked about in terms of the dredging in Somerset will be funded locally in the future. That is exactly what we need to do.

Chair

The answer is no; you are looking for it to be funded in some other direction. Is that the answer?

David Rooke

We will need all sources of funding, working in partnership, to provide solutions.

Chair

Do you not think it is right that the Environment Agency should give something towards it, rather than moving away from the responsibility?

Sir James Bevan

The best of all schemes are those that are designed in partnership locally, with local partners and, where possible, funded in partnership, because then everybody has a stake. I think that generates the best buy‑in, the best projects and the largest amount of money to do what you need to do.

Chair

The Environment Agency would buy into it then, would it?

Sir James Bevan

We already are. This is our approach, but we need to do it more.

Chair

I am not sure you have answered the question.

Jim Fitzpatrick

We have the briefing, which tells us that the original flood defences in Cumbria, the Cumbrian Floods Partnership, is being revisited, reviewed and redone. Is that happening in other parts of the country as well or is it just Cumbria because of recent events?

Sir James Bevan

The Government have also announced that, in addition to Rory Stewart being the Cumbrian Floods Envoy, Minister Robert Goodwill will be Envoy for Yorkshire. I was in Yorkshire with him two days ago as he launched his mandate, so that is another good way to deal with the issues in Yorkshire. As you will have seen, the Prime Minister has announced some additional funding to repair the flood defences that were damaged over the Boxing Day storms.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Can I just get the architecture right? After the floods in 2007, the Pitt review recommended the Cabinet Sub‑Committee to raise the profile, the importance, the significance of cross‑government working to address flooding. In 2010, the coalition scrapped that Sub‑Committee. In 2013, we had the floods. In 2014, Prime Minister Cameron reinstated the Cabinet Sub‑Committee, but now we find out that it has only met three times in 22 months. Now we have an announcement from the Government that there is a review, which has basically reconstituted the Cabinet Sub‑Committee to which you are invited. Is this going to be third time lucky? Are we going to get Government attention and support for the agency and the important work you are doing?

Sir James Bevan

That is a question that you are going to have to put to the Government.

Jim Fitzpatrick

Forgive me. You are absolutely right, and I will be putting that to the Secretary of State, if the Chairman allows me, but I was just wondering if the Environment Agency has a view.

Sir James Bevan

Am I satisfied that we are getting the support we need from the Government? Yes, absolutely. Does it feel to me as if the Government, the Environment Agency, the emergency services and the military are working together in the way they should to deal with the crisis we have had? Absolutely.

Jim Fitzpatrick

I suspect, given your new appointment and Sir Philip’s recent appointment, Mr Rooke is the only one who has been around while the Sub‑Committee was working previously. Does it feel similar? Does it feel the same? Does it feel different? Does it feel better? Are you more encouraged, more positive about the outcome this time, and that the Government are going to take it more seriously than perhaps they have?

David Rooke

I am encouraged and delighted to be invited to be part of that review. We will make a massive contribution towards it, along with others, so that the Government get the best advice they can to make the decision they need to make.

Chris Davies

How much has the Environment Agency spent on the storms and how much still needs to be spent to protect all communities from high flood risk?

Sir James Bevan

I am sorry; I did not catch the question.

Chair

How much has been spent on the storms?

Sir James Bevan

The honest answer is we are still counting the cost. What we have done is get ahead with the emergency repairs. In Cumbria, we have already got ahead and done a lot of the repairs that needed doing to our flood defences after the storm. We are currently going through the process of inspecting the defences in Yorkshire and Lancashire. I was up in Yorkshire, as I said, earlier this week talking to the teams that are out there doing the inspection. The £40 million that the Prime Minister has announced will allow us to get on quickly with those repairs and we will do that, including spending £10 million to repair and upgrade the Foss barrier that was mentioned earlier.

Dr Monaghan

You have answered some of this question, so I will rephrase it slightly. Sir James and Mr Rooke, you have talked about the review process that will be underway in terms of spending patterns and so on and so forth. Can you give the Committee a reassurance that, given that extreme events are increasingly becoming routine, funding emergency relief will also be dealt with as routine business activity rather than as a response to crises after they occur?

Sir James Bevan

That is another question that you should put to the Government, but in the last few weeks we have seen a very rapid response from the Government, both in terms of money that has helped us get on with our repairs in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire, and, as we heard earlier, in terms of money available to local communities to begin the task of rebuilding. As I say, I think the response from the Government has been quick.

Dr Monaghan

Perhaps we can put that question to the Government.

Chair

We can, because we have the Secretary of State in on 26 January, so that would be a useful question to ask.

Chris Davies

Members will certainly be putting questions forward to the Secretary of State, but I want to ask you, with the £40 million that has been announced and other announcements, in your opinion, as head of this organisation, is that enough to cover the high‑risk flooding areas at the moment?

Sir James Bevan

The first thing we need to do is get on with spending that money so we can repair all the essential critical assets we need to repair to ensure that people are, once again, as well protected as they can be against flooding. We are doing that already. That is one of the reasons I was up looking at the Foss barrier a couple of days ago. It may well be that, as we inspect assets, which is only just beginning in Yorkshire and Lancashire, we find that the cost of repairing or replacing those assets is bigger than we had expected. But, if you look at the Prime Minister’s announcement, he is clear that this is £40 million for us to start these repairs and that there may be more needed.

Chair

A slightly wider question than that—and we have talked quite a bit through this—is: in your view as the Environment Agency, do you feel the experience over the last few years has shown that the risks are greater than we believed them to be before and, therefore, the need to spend more on resilience is there?

David Rooke

It depends on what assumptions we make in terms of climate change. In 2014, we published our long‑term investment scenarios document, which sought to look a long time ahead in terms of what the funding needs are, both capital and revenue, to manage and alleviate flood risk. The £2.3 billion that the Government announced for the six years—this parliament and one year after it—enables us to reduce flood risk by 5% and it is entirely in line with that long‑term investment scenario document that we published. Clearly, in the light of changes to climate, we will need to review as to whether the assumptions we made about climate change are still valid and, if so, we will need to rework that long‑term investment scenario document.

Chair

Whether it is climate change or not, what is happening is that we are flooding with more frequency. Climate change gets blamed for all sorts of things that it may or may not be guilty of, but what in practice is happening is that the one in 25 years, one in 50 years and one in 100 years floods seem to be happening every five years, not everywhere, I accept, but surely the evidence that you are gathering as an agency is that there is more flooding happening more frequently and, therefore, we need to do more about it. I do not feel you are being dynamic enough about it.

Sir Philip Dilley

If you had asked us that question on 1 December, I think the answer would have been that we are properly funded.

Chair

It was not raining then.

Sir Philip Dilley

No, but we have all the history up until the last month. In other words, for the long‑term investment strategy that was developed in 2014, nothing was abnormal up until 1 December. Thereafter, the changes that we have experienced are potentially ones that need to adjust it. As of 1 December, there was no under‑funding. We are happy with the amount of money we have and it is, by and large, the same amount of money that we recommend is necessary.

Chair

Are you not the agency that is deemed by Government to give us some idea of what might be happening? Surely you need to be a bit more proactive than just sitting there and saying, “Hands up, we do not really know.”

Sir James Bevan

With respect, I do not think that is what we are saying.

Chair

No, I know. I am being slightly facetious, but what we are hearing does not sound very positive.

Sir James Bevan

Let me put it another way. The answer to your question is yes. You are asking: are we seeing more violent weather? Yes. Is that having more serious consequences for ordinary people, for infrastructure, for our country? Yes. Do we need to think differently about how we deal with that? Do we need to think bigger about how we deal with that? Yes. Should the Environment Agency be contributing to that debate? Yes, and we will be doing so in the context of the review that is now going forward.

Angela Smith

I am not sure the people of Leeds will be very much inspired, in terms of their confidence in either the agency or the Government. I have always been a defender of the agency, particularly in relation to the staff on the ground. Let me make that clear. But I hear that the agency has sufficient funding, and yet Leeds had its scheme cancelled and, in Sheffield, the funding and the work that we need to protect the city from floods, on the basis of the 2007 floods, is only just starting eight years later. How can you argue that the funding is sufficient?

Sir James Bevan

I was in Leeds on Tuesday.

Angela Smith

You must understand the anger that we all feel then.

Sir James Bevan

I do. I talked to people. I read the Yorkshire Post. I know how people feel. What I would say is two things. First, we apply the same criteria for deciding where we fund projects everywhere across the country. My staff are committed to doing their absolute best for everyone in this country, wherever they are. Secondly, in relation to the Leeds scheme, we have a position now where we have agreed with the local authorities on a scheme. It is going to cost £45 million.

Angela Smith

But it was cancelled. The question I am asking is about it being cancelled, not what you are doing now. Why was it cancelled?

Sir James Bevan

I was not in this job at that time, so I cannot give you an authoritative answer. What I will say is that we now have agreement on a scheme that will make a difference to the people of Leeds. I was there yesterday to see that it was beginning. We have already begun that scheme. It is quite likely that already, even though it is not yet complete, it protected some areas from flooding over the Boxing Day period. That scheme will be complete in 2017. Then we should sit down and ask ourselves what more we might need to do to protect the people of Leeds.

Angela Smith

You said there, Sir James, that we need now to rework that long‑term investment scenario because everything changed at the beginning of December. In 2014, there was promised a similar reworking of the investment scenario on the basis of what happened in Somerset, and yet all that turned out to be was a clutch of Ministers gathering around a table for a cup of tea on three occasions, as far as I can gather. It is not really true, is it, that everything was okay until the beginning of December last year? We had had the Somerset levels experience; we were supposed to have a significant review on the basis of changing weather patterns then. It did not happen. The record here is not very good, is it?

Sir James Bevan

Again, as I said, that is a question you should be putting to the Government.

Angela Smith

The Environment Agency always passes the problem to the Government and the Government will pass it back to the Environment Agency. When is somebody going to give us an answer? You, as professionals, ought to be giving us a view on whether or not there were sufficient resources, whether or not the review in 2014 should have been completed and whether it should have led to significantly different decisions in terms of the investment needed. You should be able to give us a view on that.

David Rooke

Our long‑term investment scenario document set out exactly what should be the optimum level of investment in flood and coastal risk management across England over a long period of time. It did that. It updated work that we did in 2009. Our first report, which was advice to Government as to the long‑term funding needs for the country, was set out in 2009 and a range of options were presented. In 2014, we did a major update, using much better information and much better modelling, to give a much more confident assessment of what the long‑term funding needs are for the country. The SR13 settlement for the £2.3 billion capital programme is entirely consistent with what we set out in our long‑term investment scenarios and we expect that it will reduce flood risk by 5% over the six years.

Angela Smith

But that decision in 2014 was based on a recognition that funding had been cut when it should not have been, between 2010 and 2014.

David Rooke

It was entirely separate from any funding decisions that had been taken in the past. What it did was to set out for the future what the long‑term funding would be and the £2.3 billion settlement that the Government gave us to provide better protection to 300,000 households was entirely consistent with what was set out in that document.

Sir James Bevan

Just to add to that, if you track the line of investment spending in flood defences over the last two or three parliaments, it goes up. From 2005 to 2010, it was an investment of £1.5 billion. From 2010 to 2015, it was £1.7 billion and, as we have said, in this period of the parliament, these six years, it is going to be £2.3 billion. It is an increase in real terms.

Angela Smith

Forgive me, Sir James, but that is a civil servant response. Of course we all know it had to go up, to some extent, because of the experiences in 2007 and 2009 and the Pitt review. That was one of the reasons why investment had to be secured. What we are saying now, as a Committee, I hope, is that recent experiences are demonstrating that the responses we are getting so far from the Government and the professional agencies are not really sufficient.

Sir James Bevan

Well, we have the money that we have from the Government and that we earn from other sources. My intention is that we will use that in the best possible way to provide the maximum protection for the maximum number of people. I am confident that that £2.3 billion over six years will allow us to hit our target of providing better protection for 300,000 properties. It is not enough on its own, which is why, as David is saying, we have this partnership approach and we need to pull in another £600 million or so from our partners, from local authorities, from businesses, in order to hit that target. It is not just the £2.3 billion, but I am confident that we will be able to do that over the six‑year period.

Rishi Sunak

To go back to the dredging, in this era of transparency and openness, can you provide for us, for the past few years or however far back it is possible to go, an annual spend on dredging, and, if it is possible, miles dredged as well? There is a lot of misperception or concern in this area, and having the numbers and the data would make that a more productive conversation for everyone to have.

Sir James Bevan

Yes, we will tell you what we spent each year, where we spent it and what it did.

Rishi Sunak

That would be great. I would urge you, on a go‑forward basis, if there is no reason not to do it, you might as well, because it will make these conversations more productive for everyone.

Chair

You will provide that for us in writing.

Sir James Bevan

Yes.

Angela Smith

This is a question that relates to the funding that you just referred to. What role does the Environment Agency have to play, do you think, in sourcing partnership funding and how successful has it been in Cumbria?

Sir Philip Dilley

As Sir James has said, the £2.3 billion settlement comes with the expectation that we will attract £600 million of partnership funding over that six‑year period. We have had some good successes, in our recent history, in attracting partnership funding so far. Of that £600 million, we believe we have secured £250 million already and we have identified sources, without reaching agreement yet, for something like 95% of it, so we are on track. I cannot promise we will get there, but I can promise it is our intent to get there. A lot of that partnership funding is brought about through discussions, communications, negotiations between our people and the local people providing the funding, so it is not, generally speaking, James or David or me. It is people on the ground developing those relationships that we talked about.

Angela Smith

Of course. I understand that £61 million of the £250 million is from the private sector.

Sir Philip Dilley

The sources of partnership funding are various. Of course, there is a substantial potential contribution from the public sector through county councils, local councils and so on. We would like and expect to get, and have some examples of getting, funding also from the private sector. For example, if a developer wants to develop some land that is currently subject to flood risk, if a scheme can prevent that from being subject to flood risk, then there is a potential benefit for him to pay into the scheme. I would quite welcome the idea of exploring doing similar things and this whole partnership idea with some of the infrastructure providers. I am completely making this up, but, if Network Rail needs to raise a rail line to make it flood resistant, then maybe they could put that money into something that we can do jointly to prevent that need. There are opportunities that we are looking at.

Angela Smith

Can you confirm the figure of £61 million?

David Rooke

I think it is of that order, but we will confirm that.

Angela Smith

As to the remaining £400 million that you are looking for and that you are working towards securing, as you point out, you are looking for a mix of private and public sector funding. Do you have a target for a percentage of that to be from the private sector? What is your target for private sector investment?

David Rooke

We do not have a target. We are negotiating on a case‑by‑case basis.

Angela Smith

If you do not achieve the private sector investment, because that is very much about partnership working, will you be looking to the public sector in its various guises to make up the shortfall?

David Rooke

We will be looking to communities, looking to local authorities, looking everywhere in terms of being able to secure the funding such that the schemes can proceed.

Angela Smith

Are you confident that you will get there?

David Rooke

We have the first two years of the programme fully funded, which gives us four years in which to secure the deals we need to do to enable the rest of the schemes to be completed.

Angela Smith

Do you recognise that local authorities in particular are finding it incredibly difficult nowadays to find resources for this kind of work?

David Rooke

We recognise that absolutely.

Chair

I talked before about the role of drainage boards. Should there be a greater role for internal drainage boards in carrying out flood management work?

David Rooke

Yes.

Chair

How are you going to facilitate that?

David Rooke

Through partnership working. We have already what we call “public sector co‑operation agreements” with internal drainage boards. These are where internal drainage boards can do work on our behalf; we can do work on their behalf. There are some really good examples up and down the country, particularly in Lincolnshire and elsewhere, where there is very good close co‑operation. It is bringing local benefit and doing it in a very effective and efficient way.

Chair

I know the Secretary of State is very interested in bringing more drainage boards into being. Would you see that as a good idea?

David Rooke

Yes.

Chair

Would you fully co‑operate?

David Rooke

Absolutely.

Chair

In your co‑operation, would that mean a certain amount of money as well as just talking to them?

David Rooke

It would depend on how they are set up. We have been working closely with communities that want to set up internal drainage boards, and that will continue.

Chair

What does that answer mean?

David Rooke

It means that we will continue to co‑operate with them and work closely with them.

Chair

I thought I was the politician. You can talk to as many people as you like, but in the end the Environment Agency has a role in protecting us from flooding. The drainage boards can carry out quite a lot of that work, I suggest, on a local basis possibly more cost‑effectively and more efficiently, because of just getting people through from a centralised position with the Environment Agency. When you are talking to them, surely it is not just about talking to them, it is also about sharing some of the resource as well that you have.

David Rooke

That is exactly what we do through these public sector co‑operation agreements. If we need some work doing and internal drainage boards are doing work nearby, they are doing that work on our behalf, so everyone benefits.

Ms Ritchie

On this issue of the internal drainage boards, should they be able to raise money from levies on local communities beyond flood risk areas, including those living in areas upstream?

David Rooke

Those are questions for Government, because it is a policy matter.

Ms Ritchie

With all due respect, you cannot say this is always an issue for Government. Surely you have a view, you have an opinion and the Secretary of State and her suite of Ministers would surely ask you for your opinion, and you would be giving those opinions in briefs and submissions to the Minister.

Sir James Bevan

The point is that, as we have said earlier, it is absolutely right that local people make choices that affect them, and they should be able to make choices about whether they are prepared to fund things that affect them. I am a big believer in devolution and that local choices are better than choices made in remote offices, so that would be my advice to the Secretary of State. As David says, the policy decision is a matter for her.

Ms Ritchie

From an operational point of view, you are saying you would not have any particular problem with drainage boards.

Sir James Bevan

No. We work well with drainage boards. We want to empower them. We want to find ways in which we can devolve more activity to them because, as I say, local decisions are likely to be better than centrally made decisions.

Ms Ritchie

How would you anticipate greater reliance on community levies to impact less economically well off areas?

Sir Philip Dilley

Could I make a point? You ask whether we have an opinion. I do, and I do think it would be a good idea if more of this money was collected locally in order to deal with the issues of flooding. As was touched on earlier in this Committee, the water that causes the flooding frequently comes from people whose properties are higher up the hill, and therefore the area that is potentially flooded is offering an asset to them; it is offering a place for their water to flow. One of the issues is who you charge for this, so it is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but it rightly ought not to be just those people who are susceptible to flooding.

Ms Ritchie

Flood funding is complex, with a tangle of funding flows between the various agencies, but ultimately local communities are paying, either through levies or their council tax or through central taxation. Do you think there is an argument for simplifying this so that people can better understand what they are paying for and what they get for their money, and so the hypothecation is properly explained?

Sir Philip Dilley

You are not going to like the answer, but it is necessary for Government to do that; it is a policy matter. Obviously, simplification and better communication, from the public’s point of view, is always a good thing.

Ms Ritchie

I just cannot accept that you do not have a view or an opinion, because surely, in preparing a Minister to make decisions, you make recommendations, and many of us in that position would know that before. How can planners be held accountable by tax and levy payers when flood defences have failed?

David Rooke

The flood defences that we saw in Cumbria and in Yorkshire were just overtopped by the sheer volume of water. It is really difficult when that happens, because clearly people have got used to being secure behind a defence, but, as we have said earlier, no country guarantees to protect all its people against all floods, which is back to the point about making properties more resilient, having warning systems so we can save lives. It is really difficult when defences are overtopped.

Ms Ritchie

How can planners be made accountable?

David Rooke

Our role in the planning system is an advisory one and so we advise in terms of flood risk. We publish maps that show what the flood risk is.

Chair

You can also object.

David Rooke

We do object and there is a good record: 96% of our comments to planning authorities are taken on board and listened to and provide sustainable development proposals.

Sir James Bevan

I will just add that lots of people design and build flood defences. Sometimes we do that; sometimes others do it with our advice. When we do it, I am accountable. It is my responsibility if flood defences fail, and I am happy to take that responsibility. I would also say that, although in December, as David said, we saw our flood defences as well as others overwhelmed and thousands of people flooded, and I have seen the misery that that causes, those defences protected thousands more people and they did not fail structurally. If they had failed structurally, people would have been killed. Is this a good situation? No. I have seen the devastation and we must do better, but it is important to remember that the defences that the Environment Agency put in place protected many thousands of people and it is important to remember that the warnings we gave people in advance almost certainly saved lives.

Ms Ritchie

You said that the Environment Agency objected to various planning applications. On a proportionate basis, could you indicate, in those areas that witnessed the greatest level of flooding, how many planning applications for housing and other types of development you objected to because, in your opinion, there was a greater risk of flooding if there were unprecedented levels of rainfall?

Sir James Bevan

We will almost always object to proposals to build major new developments that are at risk on a flood plain. We provide that advice. It is for the planning authority to take a decision. In most cases, the planning authority will go with our advice. The latest statistic I saw is that 87% of new housing development is not taking place on flood plains. You can do the maths; that means that 13% is. Those are ultimately matters for local planners to decide, but our position is that we would almost always advise against those kinds of proposals.

Ms Ritchie

If there happens to be a planning approval given, is there a condition placed on it with an advisory note from the Environment Agency that there could be a problem further down the line in terms of years?

Sir James Bevan

When those decisions are made, the people who make them will have to have regard to the consequences. One consequence may be the difficulty of getting insurance if you are building on a flood plain.

Jim Fitzpatrick

I have a tiny aside, and apologies for taking up the time. “Overtopped” is a new word to me. Is that a technical term within the industry? It is very easily understandable because it is graphic: the water goes over the top. Is that the standard terminology?

Chair

We will answer them all together.

Dr Monaghan

Mr Rooke just mentioned the agency’s role in terms of producing maps. We heard earlier today there is widespread dissatisfaction with the agency’s mapping: that it is out of date; that it influences insurance, and all the rest of it. I would like to hear some undertaking that the mapping efforts of the agency will be reviewed and will be brought into line as quickly as possible.

Angela Smith

Sir James said that 87% of building is not on flood plains, but is it not the case that the rate of increase of housebuilding is slightly higher on the flood plains than on areas of land that are not on the flood plain? In other words, the rate of increase is higher on the flood plains.

Sir James Bevan

That I would need to check.

Angela Smith

That is a slightly different way of putting the statistic.

David Rooke

Yes, we use the word “overtopping”, and it graphically describes what happens. The defences have not failed; it is just that the flood we have experienced is greater than the structure was designed to cope with. On the mapping side, we are constantly improving our mapping. There is a lag between when changes are made, us being able to update our maps and then the insurance industry being able to update their systems. We do provide a service whereby householders can request a letter from us and we will state what the latest assessment of risk is. They can use that and take it to their insurance companies or brokers, so that they are informed in terms of the latest risk, even though our maps may not reflect that.

Chair

There is a final one from me. Sir Philip, you talked about the effect of development further upstream that brings water down into a flood area. You are a statutory consultee in a flood zone, are you not, as far as planning is concerned, but you would not be a statutory consultee when it is further upstream? Do you think that perhaps local government and the Secretary of State for Local Government should relook at that?

Sir Philip Dilley

What you say is correct: we are not a statutory consultee in those circumstances normally. I am hesitant to say that we should extend that, because it would potentially cover almost anything in the country, all planning, and that would be an enormous task needing funding.

Chair

Perhaps “areas that are at high risk further upstream”, or is there any way of wording that?

Sir Philip Dilley

We should certainly explore it. It might be something where the responsibility is put harder on the local authority, because they are, after all, determining the application.

Sir James Bevan

We are all clear that part of the future is whole catchment management, managing upstream, slowing the flow. That involves a whole bunch of actors. It includes the Environment Agency. We need to be involved in this process; you are right about that, and we need to find ways to bring everybody into that process.

Chair

That is a very good position to finish our evidence in. Thank you very much for giving so generously of your time. We will be inviting you back, I suspect, again in the near future, because we have had a very good one‑off session on flooding, but we will be coming back to it in a detailed form. I thank again those who came down from Cumbria today. Thank you very much for making the journey; it was well worth it for the evidence. Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your evidence this afternoon. Oral evidence: Winter floods 2015-16, HC 666 21