---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I agree with all the amendments in this grouping. They are similar to a degree and the Government are clearly spoilt for choice as to what combination of them to accept. My Amendment 63 is slightly different from the others. It refers back to a point I made at Second Reading and which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already touched on: the question of balancing risk. There is always a tendency for experts to see risk in their field wherever they look, and, if they can insure against that risk at no cost to themselves, they will take the route of least resistance and the least risk. I, as a farmer, sometimes find myself in that situation. You go through the risks of your business with an insurance broker and say, "Wouldn’t it be nice to be covered in case of fire, disease and any other accident?". You can even insure yourself against the weather. Would it not be nice to say yes to them all and to be covered for every eventuality? Yes, until you realise that unless you are prepared to take on some of the risk yourself, even if only in the form of a first loss or an excess, the cost to your business is so great that it would probably be in danger of failing. You have to exercise restraint. Let us imagine someone else being permitted to stipulate that no risk at all was allowed, and that furthermore your business would have to pay for the cost of mitigating the wish to avoid all risk. Without some sort of balance, the situation is unfair. In real life, the situation is even worse. It is exacerbated by the fact that you get single focus organisations and single focus people working for them. As I indicated at Second Reading, anyone whose life is based on protecting badgers, bats, newts, late Victorian apertures or whatever it might be, presumes that their specialty is more important than any other consideration. Indeed—this is where I come to the point of my amendment—they do not even allow any other consideration to enter their minds or interfere with their risk averse, single focus mission. Thus, my simple amendment seeks to ensure that they must at least consider other factors. Of course, if any real flood risk is involved, they should refuse consent for the alteration or whatever else is applied for to the designated object, but it is important that they weigh up the cost of their refusal when the flood risk is negligible or de minimis. I was interested to note that the Government have recognised my point in Clause 38(3) on page 24 when it comes to work being carried out by the Environment Agency. Indeed, if I had noticed that clause before, I would have used the same wording in my amendment, which I tabled two weeks ago. Clause 38(3) states: ""Condition 2 is that the Agency considers the benefits of the work will outweigh the harmful consequences for matters listed in section 2(4)(a) to (d)"." Clause 2(4)(a) to (d) states: ""In each case the potential harmful consequences to be considered in assessing risk include, in particular, consequences for—""(a) human health,""(b) the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities,""(c) infrastructure, and""(d) the environment (including cultural heritage)"." So it is all there. I would hope that these conditions could apply equally to consent for work being carried out by others as to work being carried out by the Environment Agency. On Amendment 64, I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said: it is intended to be helpful. This part of the Bill seems to be all about what cannot be done in a catchment. I feel that it omits consideration of what can be done. Is the owner allowed to continue to mow the grass—obviously, I look at this from an agricultural perspective—on the island in the river? Is he allowed to harvest or thin the trees planted on the bank, or are the grass and the trees vital for slowing down flood waters? Is it possible to repair or point up walls or other manmade constructions? To what extent is it possible to carry out constructions to prevent bank erosion when property is at stake, and can these constructions be in concrete or do you have to spile with woven withies? It is important that ongoing management by riparian owners can continue to be carried out with confidence. I look forward to the Minister’s reflections on these matters.