---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I am not sure whether that intervention was addressed to me or the Minister, but anyway, the hon. Lady did not resolve the problem of what it is difficult to avoid calling a mistake in new clauses 5 and 6, namely the use of the word "urban", so I cannot support them. New clauses 7 and 8 and amendments 13, 16, 17, 14, 18, 2 and 3 repeat proposals made in Committee, none of which were pressed to a Division. Because important discussions on insurance and planning permission are coming up, I am not going laboriously to repeat my support for, or opposition to, each proposal, but my support or opposition is broadly in line to that I offered in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Vale of York has raised a very important issue, and I make clear my support for the unambiguous ending of the automatic right to connect. I hope that that is now common to all parties. Amendment 23, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and I, addresses an important aspect of planning in relation to sustainable drainage. It reflects a misunderstanding in the Bill between the respective roles of county and district councils in two-tier authority areas. County councils have very limited planning functions—they most commonly relate to things such as schools and waste management, for which they have responsibility. The recent exercise of those planning functions in Gloucestershire did not go entirely smoothly, and I am not filled with confidence when it comes to county councils getting involved in a matter such as sustainable drainage, in which they do not have a lot of planning experience. The risk of the current arrangements in the Bill is that developers will need to get planning permission from two different local authorities—the county council, in its lead flood-risk management role, as reflected in schedule 3, and the district council, which would have to happen anyway. That could further exacerbate the confusion of responsibilities and delay the approval process. That serious issue needs to be addressed. It is better by far in two-tier areas to default to the normal planning authority, which is the district council. I humbly submit that proposal to the consideration of the Minister and the House. Government amendments 53 and 54 look eminently sensible. They reflect concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Vale of York in Committee and it seems sensible to support them. I am sympathetic to amendment 19, which was tabled by the hon. Lady. Certainly, what she just said in support of it was correct. I am slightly puzzled by the drafting, and we might need further definition of the word "new", which I could imagine being hotly contested in practice, but the proposal addresses an important issue. Government amendments 55 and 56 are largely technical, and I have absolutely no objection to them. Finally, amendment 15, which is also in the name of the hon. Lady, makes an eminently sensible link between the Bill and building regulations, which I am happy to support.