---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will forgive me, I will echo her remarks, which I very much appreciated, but I preferred the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not think that we are dancing on the head of a pin; but I do think, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested, that on a spectrum with compulsion at one end and complete freedom at the other, we are close together in the middle. The Government do not disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said. I would like to convince the Committee that our positions are close together, and will indicate through assurances how we expect the Bill to work. I hope thereby to confirm that the Government's stance is acceptable to those who have tabled amendments. We are firmly committed to ensuring that local authorities have considerable discretion in respect of their flood management strategies. However, we do not consider that these amendments are necessary. It is intended—we had this discussion last week, as several noble Lords have mentioned—that the national strategy will set out broad approaches. It is not meant to be prescriptive: it is not a diktat. It outlines a broad strategy that is not to be prescriptive in respect of flood risk management in any particular area. We have given an indicative outline of the likely strategy that we foresee being developed. The content of the national strategy will be the subject of consultation before it is approved by Ministers. That is why we also emphasised last week when we tabled our Amendment 20 that the national strategy will be subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny. Scrutiny in Wales will have parallel arrangements, as defined by the National Assembly. The national strategy will get full consideration and therefore will reflect the points I have made that it is not meant to be prescriptive but to give space for local discretion where we recognise that that has an important part to play with regard to the overall position. Local strategies need to be consistent with the national strategy. They will need to follow the national strategy to avoid having detrimental impacts on other areas within the same catchment or just further along the coast. While, at a local level, a decision to manage risk in a certain way may make sense, in the wider context it may not. That is why we need an overarching national strategy and why I was sympathetic to the concept that was advanced the other day in Committee about the catchment areas broadening the issues beyond the local authority. However, I did not want to take away risk management from local authorities as that responsibility is properly vested in them. This is a question of ensuring that risk management authorities have areas where they can develop their risk management policies in line with local needs but having regard to a national strategy which does not set out to prescribe how they should do it but guarantees that there is consistency if that is the way in which the risk management makes sense. It is vital also that the risk management authorities act consistently with the local strategies to ensure that they work together and that the management of some risks in an area does not exacerbate others. We discussed this at some length in a previous Sitting. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we are not hostile to the thinking behind his amendment. However, we think that it is unnecessary. We consider that we have the balance right between the national strategy and the necessary role of the local strategy. Our Amendment 20, which the Committee debated and approved last week, responds to the Delegated Powers Committee and provides for the necessary parliamentary scrutiny. I say emphatically with regard to prescription that it is dependent on parliamentary approval, not on government diktat. When we say that the local strategy has to have some consistency with the national strategy, we are talking about a national strategy which has been thoroughly considered by Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, emphasised a particular dimension with regard to the internal drainage boards. I am grateful to him for giving me notice that he would raise their anxieties regarding local strategies. As he indicated in his opening remarks, the Government value the work of the internal drainage boards. We want to see them working in partnership with the Environment Agency, Natural England and local authorities in exercising their statutory functions. I am aware of the importance of the point that he made that some see participating in limited liability partnerships or companies as a desirable way of pursuing their business. I understand that statutory bodies may take actions that are incidental to their statutory functions. These incidental powers do not need to be expressly set out in legislation, although this has become more common in recent years. The Bill in effect requires partnership working by the internal drainage boards by making them risk management authorities, giving them a duty to co-operate and requiring them to act consistently with local strategies. Depending on individual circumstances, a court may find that participating in companies or limited liability partnerships in cases such as this is within their ancillary powers, and that is how they would go about their business and meet their obligations and the needs of risk management. We are looking at whether further provision might be necessary in potential future legislation, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we do not see this Bill as inhibiting internal drainage boards from carrying out their function in that way. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and I note the persistence with which he ensures that his concerns are considered. I want to assure him within this framework, because it seems to me that we are arguing about the relationship between the national strategy and the local position of the risk management authorities. As for my noble friend’s point about water boards—I know his anxiety about water boards—the reason why they are not included in the Bill in the way that he suggests is that they already have a statutory regulatory authority: Ofwat. That is the governing structure for their responsibilities. Their national responsibility in those terms might inhibit them from following the local strategy that my noble friend recommends. We anticipate of course that in most cases the water boards will fit into the overall strategy and will not ride roughshod over local positions, but the water board might be concerned about a development which might put extra costs on its consumers. It has clear statutory responsibilities in those terms. The water boards are not the same as the other risk management authorities; they have other obligations; they are under a different regulatory regime. That is why, although I know that my noble friend is eager to bring them within the framework, the Bill requires them to "have regard to" local strategies and guidance in exercising any flood or coastal erosion risk management functions. Under the Bill, their position cannot be foursquare with a local risk management authority. Their obligations are greater than that. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates why that must be so.