Proceeding contribution from Earl Cathcart (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 24 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Flood and Water Management Bill.
Flood and Water Management Bill
My Lords, Amendment 44 is fairly straightforward. Clause 14 allows the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities to request a person to provide information in connection with flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. On first reading, that sounds quite reasonable, and undoubtedly a flow of information will be required to set up strategies to carry out flood risk functions and to co-ordinate properly with other relevant bodies. However, I am concerned that there is a lack of proportionality here. The obligations in both cost and time that could be imposed on a land manager, for example, could be huge. The power to request information should therefore relate only to information that is "reasonably necessary" in connection with the authority’s flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. That is what the amendment seeks to do. Moreover, we do not see why the information has to be provided in the form and manner requested. If the provider can supply it in a relatively understandable alternative form which is cheaper and easier for him, he should not be prohibited from doing so. I invite the Minister to comment on that. When this point was raised in another place, the Minister’s honourable friend Huw Irranca-Davies said that it is important that authorities can ask for information from different organisations in a consistent way to manage the cost of collating information centrally. However, that rather misses the point. The power is not limited to organisations, because information can be required from anybody. Clause 14 quite clearly states "request a person". More significant is that it seems somewhat unreasonable that the legislation is based on the convenience of the agency rather than the land managers and businesses that may be required to provide the information. I do not doubt that the clause is necessary, but I feel that the wording is too stark and potentially open to cause considerable inconvenience where, I am sure, none is intended. What I am asking for is a certain proportionality and flexibility. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 718 c373-4GC
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Conservation Construction Coastal areas Buildings Coastal erosion Housing Flood control Infrastructure Land drainage Inland waterways Environment Agency Floods Planning Railways Sustainable development Wales Urban areas Sewers Reservoirs Internal drainage boards
- Legislation
- Flood and Water Management Bill 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:22:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633786
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633786
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633786