---

Flood and Water Management Bill

Clause 30, which gives effect to Schedule 1, allows a designating authority to designate a feature integral to the management of flood risk or coastal erosion, which means that the owner would not be able to change it without obtaining consent from the designating authority. The first of our amendments, Amendment 60, is perhaps a more general probing amendment than Amendment 61, which was inspired by representations from Network Rail. Amendment 60 would mean that, rather than simply having an effect on risk management, it would need to have a material effect. I have tabled this amendment because, in theory, almost anything could have an effect on flood risk and therefore make the power extremely, if not unimaginably, wide. For example, almost every pipe, nut and bolt owned by a water company might affect flood risk in some way, as might a paved-over driveway at a private house. I am sure that the effect of encompassing almost everything one can think of is not what those who drafted the Bill had in mind. Clarification from the Government would be welcome. Amendment 61 came from Network Rail, which has a specific concern about the power of designation on its assets, which by and large tend to form large landscape-changing features. This amendment would ensure that infrastructure such as railway assets which are not designed to act as flood defences are designated as such only if that does not undermine their primary purpose, such as the safe, efficient and reliable running of the railway. I am thinking, for example, about embankments. Network Rail has made representations to us regarding its considerable concerns about Clause 30 and Schedule 1 on designation. I am sure that the organisation would appreciate a reassurance from the Minister that railway infrastructure is designed, constructed and maintained solely for operating a railway, thereby fulfilling Network Rail’s statutory licence obligations as the owner and operator of the network. The assets concerned have not necessarily been constructed using the appropriate material for flood defence or coastal erosion prevention purposes and therefore are unlikely to be robust enough to act as permanent flood defences or erosion control features. Similarly, coastal and estuarine railways often run on hard or soft structures designed purely to carry rail traffic and protect the railway itself from water damage. It would therefore be inappropriate to designate railway infrastructure as flood defences. In common with the issues I raised under Amendment 60, we would also be concerned if owners of private property were to find themselves at a disadvantage because of these powers, which would require them to get permission from the designating authority when altering, removing or replacing assets. Designating authorities will be given a broad range of responsibilities and powers over assets that they designate, including emergency powers and powers of entry. We therefore seek assurances from the Government that the powers given to responsible authorities over any railway assets that they designate will not supersede Network Rail’s statutory powers and duties as owner and operator of the rail network, or compromise the efficacy of the primary purpose of the asset, whatever it may be. The powers of responsible authorities under the Bill should be exercised only with the consent of Network Rail and should be consistent with the safe, efficient and reliable running of the railway. I beg to move.