---

Flood and Water Management Bill

Let me deal first with the Government amendments. I find it difficult to understand the logic of amendments 50, 51 and 52. I do not know why, at such a late stage, amendments 50 and 51—referring respectively to conditions 1 and 2—require loss or disturbance to be the result of a "reasonable" exercise of powers, or why amendment 52 seeks to replace the reference to "a refusal of consent" with""a decision in connection with"" consent. However, I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain. New clause 10 relates to the resilience of critical infrastructure. New clause 11 relates to the resilience of individual properties, households and businesses. New clause 12 sets out the basis for an annual report from the British Standards Institute, and new clause 13 sets out that there should be an annual report from the climate change adaptation sub-committee. On new clause 13, the first Pitt recommendation was;""Given the predicted increase in the range of future extremes of weather, the Government should give priority to both adaptation and mitigation in its programmes to help society cope with climate change"," yet we do not see anywhere in the Bill how the Government will monitor adaptation. What prevention measures is the Minister asking interested parties such as the Environment Agency to take to ensure that they meet the adaptation requirement? I hope that the Minister will look favourably on new clause 13, which relates to new clauses 10 and 12. It is in everyone's interests that property should become more resilient and more resistant to future floods. Surely we should have the opportunity to consider an annual report from the climate change adaptation sub-committee to the Secretary of State, which would include information on the progress made towards implementing each recommendation for adapting to climate change. Will the Minister say whether the Government are minded to do that, what the mechanism will be and why there is no mention of adaptation in the Bill in that regard? New clause 10 relates to the Secretary of State requiring utility companies to report on the critical infrastructure and their ability to withstand future floods. Again, in light of the Government's most recent report and some answers in response to written questions, I think that it is fair to say that we have not had the level of reporting on critical infrastructure and the audit that Pitt required. I think that there has been some delay in the Cabinet Office; it may not be DEFRA. However, it would be helpful if the Minister enlightened us as to where we are in that regard. New clause 11 asks for the resilience of properties, households and businesses to be reviewed annually. The report would include information on any developments with insurance companies on anti-flood measures that would be recognised by reduced premiums and excesses. Is the Minister minded to report to us on whether there has been any movement in that regard? In new clause 12, we are asking the British Standards Institute to set out an annual report. My understanding is, following discussions with it, that we are not asking it to do anything that it would not be capable of doing. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to support the provision. We would wish to go further. If a kitemark were issued and a product proved not to meet the test of resistance, we would want the Government to allow an action to be taken against that product. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has tabled a new clause on low-cost affordable insurance. It is good that we have that discussion. He will obviously not be aware that we have had some debates on those insurance issues, but the provision goes to the heart of the concern that constituents throughout the country may have in that regard. As it would be courteous of me to allow others who wish to support their amendments to comment, I will leave my remarks there at this stage.