Climate Change Bill [HL]

My view on this amendment is quite simple. Good law will have to be based on the experience of those who have had to deal with these issues as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had to deal with the problem in Maidenhead, which I know very well indeed. The decision to create the Jubilee River was momentous and it saved the whole town of Maidenhead. It has had huge implications for housing development and industrial development in the whole of the Thames basin in that area. I want to use another example, and in many ways this will be the test of whether this amendment really works. I live in Keswick in the Lake District. Keswick is at the head of the Derwent Valley, situated under Skiddaw and about three miles downstream from Thirlmere, which is the main water supply for Manchester. In 2005 there was a major flood which, in the view of most people in West Cumberland, arose because of climate change. The powers of the Environment Agency were tested. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is in the Chamber, is the chief executive of the Environment Agency. She saw all my correspondence and knows of the many meetings that I have had with it. During my dealings with the Environment Agency, I found that there was a dispute over what powers it had to instruct the water company—United Utilities, which owned and extracted water from Thirlmere—to control the amount of water that it holds there. The higher the water level, the greater the likelihood of flooding in Keswick at times of the year when there is heavy rainfall. There was heavy rainfall in 2005 and the town was flooded. I understand that the owners of many properties further down from where I live made insurance claims, and that many people in the town were moved. I understand that there was extensive flooding in Carlisle as well. I was worried about the limited powers of the Environment Agency. In fact, we found ourselves arguing with its lawyers about what powers it had. I thought that it had the powers and I was quoting from sections of legislation. We took someone on who was willing to work for us for free in order to examine the law to establish where the powers lay. We were convinced that the Environment Agency had the powers to instruct United Utilities to take action, whereas it said that it did not have such powers. The test of this provision in the Bill is simple. It is whether United Utilities could be instructed, in conditions of flooding arising out of the management of its reservoirs, to take action on water levels. It would have the effect of reducing the likelihood of flooding downstream, not just in Keswick but also in other communities in the United Kingdom where a water company might have a reservoir that could overflow and cause that level of flooding. I met with United Utilities on Monday to talk about the dangers in the current flooding. Of course, people in Keswick are very worried about flooding right now due to the weather. United Utilities appears to be moving and is being reasonable. But the fact is that it is a private company and water is its asset. Therefore, there is a conflict. The shareholders and the company will want to retain their assets. But the people will say, ““Our communities are endangered”” because of what they believe to be the effects of climate change. I really would like to know that we have reserve powers to intervene and say, ““I am sorry, the shareholders are important, but in these circumstances, arising out of these changes in climate, we have the power to tell them to do it and to give them an instruction””. For me, that will be the test of how well the Bill works in this area.