---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and for the constructive beginning that we have made. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it is entirely appropriate that we are in the Moses Room; there is no division between us on this amendment. Just as Moses was the unifier of his people, I hope that I can unite the Committee on this group of amendments. With Amendment 1, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is seeking to provide for financial arrangements to be entered into with landowners to keep certain fields available for flooding with compensation payable for losses suffered. I assure him that we have absolutely no argument to make against this concept. I want him to withdraw the amendment because I assure him that it is unnecessary. The practice is already permitted as a method of managing flood risk under the broader range of works powers in Schedule 2—which is important in relation to these issues—combined with the incidental powers of these authorities to enter into agreements, and powers to give grants under Clause 16 or existing statutory powers. The flood risk management authorities also have the powers, under the Environment Act 1995 and the Land Drainage Act 1991, to acquire land and interests in land which will allow them to take precisely the action to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, refers. If I thought that the amendment was necessary because the legislation does not provide for meeting exactly the point that is indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I would take a different view. However, it is unnecessary because the powers are there. That is also the case with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I understand that he described government Bills as the famous Morton’s fork. They are either too detailed, in which case it is necessary to add to the list an objection to prescription, or they are too loose and, therefore, he wants them defined more accurately. I can never make the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, entirely happy with any approach to legislation that we produce, but I hope I can make him happy at least with regard to this amendment. We do not need the words "not … an exclusive list" because that is exactly how the legislation is constructed. The first sentence of Clause 3 makes it quite clear that this is not an exclusive list. It is a list which clearly identifies key areas. Noble Lords should appreciate the obvious fact that the Bill provides for a change in the approach to flood and coastal erosion risk management. The list in Clause 3(3) provides for a better understanding of the sort of approaches that might be used. It is not meant to be exclusive. We are creating legislation that we trust will stand the test of time, as I have indicated in the well attested case of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. We need to ensure that we have the powers for that. I can assure the noble Lord of that. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will therefore forgive us on this occasion for having produced a description of the kind of powers that are necessary. It is not drafted as an exclusive list and, therefore, does not need the noble Lord’s amendment to make clear what is already in the clause. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.