---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I do not wish to intrude on a slightly unpleasant private argument between the two opposition parties, particularly as we had the benefit of hearing an extended debate on orders in the Chamber earlier this week. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and others are proposing amendments on appeals provisions in the Bill. All their amendments would make any and all use of the powers to make regulations on appeals subject to affirmative resolution. I am sure that they have been tabled as a response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. The government amendments in this group also respond to the recommendations of that committee and would make the regulation-making powers under Clause 15, paragraph 15 of Schedule 1, paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 and Sections 2E and 19A of the Reservoirs Act 1975, as inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill, subject to affirmative resolution in the case of the first regulations made in each case. We take the view that, in doing that, the House will be presented with a full opportunity to scrutinise and debate the detailed appeal provisions proposed in each of the regulations. That approach is fully in line with the DPRR Committee’s recommendation and has precedent—for example, in Section 2(9) of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. The Bill requires the Minister to make these regulations establishing a right of appeal in each case. The first set of regulations in each case is, therefore, crucial if the Minister is to fulfil this obligation. They will also set out important matters such as the grounds for appeal. However, once the appeals provisions have been established, changes are likely to be largely procedural and involve technical detail which is unlikely to be of significant interest or concern to Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly. Small changes may be needed to keep the provisions up to date or to reflect changing circumstances. To require a debate every time this happened would, in our view, be disproportionate. The negative procedure for subsequent exercise of the power provides an adequate and proportionate level of scrutiny. If there were concerns, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee could draw the legislation to the attention of Parliament and a debate could be called in the normal way. With that explanation, I hope the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendment.