---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I have had to make a choice about to whom I am going to be discourteous. I want to speak in this debate on the Floor, and of course it is courteous to be in the Chamber when the opening speeches are made, but I have listened to only part of the noble Lord’s speech. Equally, I could have been discourteous and simply failed to turn up for two of my own amendments. So I hope that I am forgiven all round. My Amendment 38A refers to Clause 11. The Explanatory Notes state: ""This clause requires English risk management authorities in exercising their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions to act in a manner consistent with the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy and guidance under Clause 7. ""These risk management authorities must also, with the exception of water companies, act consistently with relevant local flood risk management strategies and related guidance"." In other words, all but water companies have to act consistent with local flood risk strategies. However, the Bill also says that water companies are, ""required, in exercising a flood or coastal erosion risk management function, to have regard to local strategies and guidance. In other words, water companies need only have regard to local strategies and guidance"." This was picked up by someone in the Keswick Flood Action Group, with which I am closely involved, and they wondered why there is an inconsistency here. Surely "have regard to" is weaker than "act consistently with". Surely water companies should at least treat seriously strategies in which local authorities have been involved, in the sense that water companies would "act consistently with" those strategies. The question is why—why the distinction between the two? That is all I have to say on the amendment.