---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I can be reasonably brief in response to the noble Lord’s amendment, because there is nothing in his contention with which I disagree at all. As he indicated, the issue was also raised in another place, so there has been some debate on it. In response, we indicated that there was potential in Clause 11 to require other authorities to have regard to the national and local strategies. Clause 29 provides for Ministers to make an order that would allow responsibility to be reassigned between authorities or for additional authorities to be listed as risk management by amending the definition of a risk management authority. If it were the case that, in future, Natural England assumed a flood or coastal erosion risk management function, which it palpably does not at the moment, it would then be possible to list it as a flood risk management authority. We do not have any plans—to give a direct answer to the noble Lord’s direct question—to confer a statutory flood or coastal erosion risk management function on Natural England, although it will certainly work with risk management authorities, because it is in the nature of the work in which they are engaged. If we had intended to confer a statutory function, we would have done so with the Bill, but we do not see that as necessary at this stage. I fully understand the points that the noble Lord makes. It is the case that Natural England in some of its functions will need to relate to these risk management authorities; that is the case without a shadow of doubt. But we do not intend to list them because we do not think that Natural England will engage with all the aspects that a risk management authority has in relation to the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that his case is well made and that, if it became necessary, and the role of Natural England became significant in those terms, we have provision for that to be possible.