---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this important group of amendments. I can reassure each of them. As regards Amendment 60 to paragraph 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, this paragraph prescribes the conditions which must be satisfied before a structure or feature may be designated. The noble Lord has proposed replacing "affects" with the phrase, ""is likely to have a material effect on"." The meaning of "affects" is that there is a material effect on flood risk or coastal erosion risk. If there is no tangible effect, a designation would be inappropriate. Amendment 61 would ensure that a designation cannot interfere with a normal operation of infrastructure. He spoke at length about the representations that Network Rail has made in respect of this part of the Bill. I am happy to provide the same clarification and reassurance that has been given to Network Rail, to British Waterways and to Ofwat. A designation will not interfere with the operation of infrastructure; nor will it prevent maintenance works to keep the feature in the state that it was in at the time of designation. A designation will not impose a maintenance duty, nor require a higher standard of maintenance than already exists. The infrastructure provider will not become responsible for managing the risk: that responsibility will rest with risk management authorities. In the past month, officials from the department have met representatives from Network Rail, who raised these issues. We reassured them about the intent and effect of the Bill. When this was explained to them, they said that they were content with what officials had said, and that they accepted that the operation of the network would not be adversely affected by the provision. Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is intended to protect an individual's interests. This amendment is unnecessary. Paragraph 6(5) states that the authority may refuse consent only if a flood risk or coastal erosion risk is affected. This is not the same as stating that it must refuse consent if a risk is affected. When the provision was discussed in the other place on 29 January, the Minister made it clear that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The only circumstance in which the authority’s discretion is limited is where the proposal has no effect on flood risk or coastal erosion risk. Where this is the case, the authority must give consent. The authority will still have complete freedom to consent to a change, or even to cancel a designation, if it recognises that there is a wider gain to be made, or a different approach that is just as good. Risk management authorities are expert at appraising and evaluating options and wider considerations. All relevant factors may be taken into account, be they social, economic or environmental. Authorities will be alert to what should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also tabled Amendment 64, which would include in a provisional designation notice the things that an owner of the designated feature may do without needing consent. I have answered that point, and my answer also applies to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Those amendments are also unnecessary. I assure the Committee that a designation will not prevent routine operation or maintenance of a structure or feature. There is scope for regulation under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, which can require that additional information is provided as part of a designation. We will consider the extent to which this can address the routine maintenance that might be carried out without requiring consent. Only measures that change the state of a feature from what it was when it was designated will require a consent. That consent must be given unless flood or coastal erosion risk is affected. Even if it is affected, the authority still has to act reasonably and can grant consent if it thinks that other considerations outweigh the flood or coastal erosion risk. Government Amendment 65A is also in this group. This simply refers to the new name for the Lands Tribunal. It is now part of the Upper Tribunal. No other changes are brought about by the amendment, which I shall move formally at the appropriate time. I commend that amendment to the Committee, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his.