---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I cannot give immediate assent to that proposition, but I will take it on board. Certainly, it is consonant with our obvious intent that, as far as possible, there is effective communication with the Environment Agency and the public over the document. If the noble Lord will accept that assurance, I will look further at how we can effect that. Noble Lords will recognise that I want to speak to Amendments 20 and 22, and move them in due course. They are in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report, which raised concerns about the Bill providing for guidance that it is mandatory to follow and advised that the House consider inviting Ministers to explain why guidance under Clause 7 was not subject to the negative resolution procedure in the same way as the guidance on contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act is to be examined. We have considered this point and are happy to comply. Amendment 20 provides for the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy and the guidance for England to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, as the committee recommended. I hope, by the same token, that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will withdraw his amendment. I think we have met the burden of Amendment 22. Amendment 50 was not moved. I should move more logically, in numerical order, to Amendment 49A. I have considerable sympathy with the point that was made about that amendment. I emphasise that the report will certainly be published as soon as is practicable. It is not necessary to place this obligation in the Bill, and I resist that. I fully expect reports to be published as soon as is practicable after they have been received. I made the point a moment ago that publication may have to be reserved for security or other reasons, but in broad terms, I accept the noble Baroness’s point. I assure her that that is how we intend to act. I think I have covered Amendment 51. The issue of cost was raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. The Environment Agency will meet the initial costs of preparing the national strategy from its existing budget. That is its job. Key aspects of the strategy will build on material which already exists, such as the long-term investment strategy and the Flooding in England report which were published last summer. The Environment Agency has some of this information at present. It is on the agency that the burden will lie. No doubt if this is more burdensome than its budget will stretch to, it will make its presence felt as it always did in the past under the tutelage of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If tasks were being enjoined that did not have sufficient resources, the point was made to the department, but we think this is within the agency’s compass. I give assurance on that. Our second amendment covers reports by the Environment Agency in relation to Wales. Welsh Ministers support calls for proper scrutiny. The Environment Agency has presented evidence to the Sustainability Committee of the National Assembly for Wales on flood and coastal erosion risk management several times in the past 12 months and is likely to be asked to do so regularly in the future. I hope that covers all points, although I was slightly thrown by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was partly here and partly gone, and his amendment partly moved and partly withdrawn. I hope my reply is sufficiently comprehensive for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.