---

Flood and Water Management Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of the time and the volley of questions that I have been asked. Therefore, I shall try to respond without repeating all the arguments that have already been voiced in defending the position that the Bill adopts. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for identifying that Sir Michael Pitt’s review recommended a more risk-based approach to reservoir safety. He thought that this issue needed to be addressed and applied to reservoirs of more than 25,000 cubic metres. However, the problem is that we cannot afford to ignore the risk posed by reservoirs below that capacity. The problem lies in identifying the correct figure. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was right to indicate that there are difficulties in this area. However, I emphasise to the Committee that the 10,000 cubic metres threshold figure has not just been plucked out of the air. The view of the dam engineering profession based on its extensive knowledge and experience of dams and reservoirs is that the figure of 5,000 cubic metres originally proposed by the Environment Agency is too low but that 10,000 cubic metres is the right figure. So we have expert advice on this, but I accept the obvious point that there are difficulties in identifying reservoirs at risk that do not all relate to size. We cannot be certain about the minimum figure: that is why the Bill enables it to be adjusted, if appropriate, in the light of further evidence that may emerge in future. We have to do the risk assessment at some point, and if expert advice indicates that we should look at reservoirs of 10,000 cubic metres and above, that is what the Bill will provide for. Therefore, I hope that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will recognise why I cannot accept Amendment 82 with its figure of 25,000 cubic metres. I will also reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I do not in any way deny the validity of all the points that he made. However, the Bill already provides for the effect of his amendments. I could go into inordinate detail in justifying this position, and do so at inordinate length. However, I would not make that statement to the noble Lord if I were not absolutely certain that, in syncopating my reply, I am saying that we understand his amendments fully and that the Bill already provides for the points that he made. I also say to the noble Lord that there are farm reservoirs that are currently regulated which pose a negligible threat to life. As we said at Second Reading, the routine supervision and inspection requirements will not apply to reservoirs that pose a negligible risk to human life. This is the case with many farm reservoirs. Equally, for those reservoirs brought into the Bill by these proposals, those that pose negligible risk to human life will also be exempt from the regulations. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with that response. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours will not be satisfied with my response, because he is never entirely convinced by a position in response to an issue that he raises. He has properly identified a great anxiety that he has. He has been involved in these issues for a considerable time. I will have difficulty in responding to him, except in these terms. He asked about uncontrolled releases. They arise either from a collapsed embankment that has been overtopped and washed away, or from within. I will write to him in more detail about uncontrolled releases. As far as concerns the releases themselves, I understand exactly the point that he made about his anxieties. However, I emphasise that the purpose of the Reservoirs Act 1975 was to manage the risks of a potential catastrophe, not to regulate the way in which reservoirs release water as part of their operations. I understand entirely my noble friend’s anxieties about how the release happens, and about its consequences. However, I emphasise that our first obligation is to deal with a potential catastrophe: that is what is addressed by the Bill. There are other aspects concerning regulation of the utilities and their reservoir operations to which my noble friend has given attention. This part of the Bill is not the place to address the problems that he has identified. We are aware of the desirability of the operation of a reservoir taking account of the overall flood management of the area. Many reservoirs are operated by water companies. Clause 11(4) will require the water company, as a flood risk management authority, to have regard to local and national strategies and guidance in exercising functions that may affect a flood risk, including operating its reservoirs. The issue comes within the ambit of the Bill in those terms. However, the noble Lord will recognise the difference between that and the issue of catastrophe. I will give way to my noble friend.