---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I apologise for harping on like a bad gramophone record that is stuck in the groove about catchment-based management, but I believe very strongly that this is a pearl that we have in this country and that we must not throw it away lightly. It might not be strictly necessary to specify in the Bill the criteria, the boundaries and the membership of the new regional flood and coastal committees, but the trouble with producing guidelines later is that it is often difficult for Parliament to have a say or to find the time to focus on what is happening and on how the guidelines are being implemented. As what the Minister has to say on the Floor of the House—in other words, here—during the passage of the Bill becomes important, I will look for a few well judged words from him. The Minister indicated in his reply to me at Second Reading that catchment-based committees were more than likely, but the Minister in the other place had indicated earlier that catchments would be only one of many criteria used for establishing the boundaries of these committees. It is to be hoped that the Minister’s later reply to me represents the department’s current, not to mention future, thinking. On my Amendment 56, which is also in this grouping, I will re-rehearse the arguments about having an overall local authority majority on these committees. The reason for paragraph (a) in Amendment 56 is that I sympathise with the concern of various noble Lords to achieve democratic accountability on a local basis and, wherever possible, to give local authorities power over their affairs. However, there is a question of subsidiarity here. As I understand it, the principle of subsidiarity is that decisions should be taken at the lowest level that is practically possible. Here, although in an ideal world I would want local authorities to take decisions, it is only practical that they should do so within the cohesive unity of the catchment. Thus, if the RFCCs are established on catchment boundaries, it is only right and proper that the local authorities as a grouping should have an overall majority on those committees—as they have at present on the equivalent committees. That will give local authorities as a catchment grouping overall control over the local flood and coastal strategy, without allowing them to act individually and independently from each other. Again, I look for some favourable words from the Minister on the matter. I will not speak to paragraph (b) in my Amendment 56, which refers to IDBs, farmers and landowners, because we covered all those arguments last week, albeit in a slightly different context. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could give me some encouraging words concerning the likely membership of the committees. While on my feet, I should just refer to the new Amendment 56A tabled by my noble friend Lady Knight. I have grave worries about any possibility of delays in the planning system. I think that it will be impossible for the committees to consider individual planning applications—especially if they are dealing with a whole catchment and several local authorities—unless they will be sitting virtually all day and every day. In any case, the Environment Agency already has a duty to consider the possible flood implications of all planning applications and does so in most cases. Giving those powers to the committees would not be suitable. I beg to move.