---

Flood and Water Management Bill

That was fine until the noble Lord’s final few words. He did indeed say that the construction of the Bill reflected, ""the reciprocity of national and local obligations".—[Official Report, 17/3/10; col. GC 268.]" He also found that to be pleasing, and I agree with him. It would be surprising therefore if this twin-track approach was not also reflected in the powers to provide for wider benefits from flooding and coastal erosion. For example, the Environment Agency is the competent authority for meeting the water quality objectives which we are required to meet under the water framework directive. While much can be achieved by local authorities and internal drainage boards, they do not have the competency or capacity of the Environment Agency to manage whole catchments, main rivers and the coast; and we will often need the agency to play a leading role to avoid increasing the burdens upon the local authorities and drainage boards. The agency makes an enormous contribution, through its flood management works, to many of our most attractive areas, a number of which have been referred to in the debate, such as the Broads, the north Norfolk coast, the Yorkshire Derwent and the Somerset Levels. Some of this work would continue purely for the purposes of reducing the harmful effects of flooding. However, if the agency were not given powers to continue to do these things for their beneficial effects, or if such work could be led only by a local authority, that would seriously impair the agency’s capacity to act in an integrated and efficient fashion. This new power will not divert resources from flood and coastal erosion risk management. It will, however, enable the agency to act, subject to being able to raise the funds to support environmentally friendly land management. This includes carrying out flood and water level management work, which will allow farmers to maintain habitats and so be eligible for agri- environment payments. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked when powers under Clause 38 might be needed by the Environment Agency and about the scale of the schemes which would be covered. Responsibilities will generally follow those for flood and coastal erosion risk-management. The Environment Agency would be likely to be responsible for larger-scale works across local authority boundaries or at the coast. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already pointed out that the overall scale is likely to be small compared with the total land area. In conclusion, all sections of the community stand to gain from the agency having these powers, while none stands to lose. Indeed, there would be many losers if the agency could not do this work. If we deny the agency these powers, we will seriously disadvantage its capacity to act on our behalf in contributing to the sustainable, integrated management of flooding and erosion. I hope the Committee will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.