---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I have great pleasure in giving the warmest possible support to every word that has been said by my noble friend Lord Taylor. However, I must speak on this amendment because there is one small word in it that worries me very much—namely, "and". Earlier, I mentioned my concern that in many clauses throughout the Bill the lesson comes across that the people who are looking at flood risk and trying to set out what the dangers are and making suggestions for combating them are also looking at coastal erosion. I think I am right in saying that that is mentioned nine times in this one clause alone. I do not understand why we cannot say "flood or". I spent 10 years of my life as a local councillor and I am well aware of the frequency and joy with which local councils waste time. I can think of no better way of wasting time than to say that every council, whether or not it had any coastal problems, would have to consider them. That is the message that I get and it is repeated in the amendment. The Minister well understood this and kindly commented that somewhere such as Birmingham or Northampton—where my home is—should not have to waste time considering coastal erosion. Why can we not ensure that consideration is limited to the dangers which might occur in any one area? This may seem a small point but, given the present passion for sending out forms containing boxes to be ticked, I can well imagine boxes coming out by the thousand on forms sent to all these councils asking them to consider what they are going to do about coastal erosion in Birmingham. It may surprise noble Lords, but I can tell them that councils could waste a good deal of time trying to figure out what those coastal erosion problems might be. Is it not possible to make it plain that there is no duty on any area which has no likelihood of suffering coastal erosion to have to consider that point? At the moment there is no certainty in that regard. In fact, as I read the Bill, it seems that they will have to waste time considering that. May I have an assurance on that? Otherwise, I support this amendment and so much of what my noble friend said about the need for consultation. There is a great interest now in flooding, because a great many people have had close personal experience of its dangers and of the agonies of families who have had it happen to them. We should most certainly consult, but recognise that wasting time on consultations that are not needed is not very sensible.