‘The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument implement the provisions of section 32 and Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and any other provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of those provisions, no later than the end of the period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.’.—(Miss McIntosh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5 —Abstraction reform—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision to introduce a reformed abstraction regime.

(2) An abstraction regime under subsection (1) must—

(a) be resilient to the challenges of climate change;

(b) be resilient to the challenges of population growth; and

(c) better protect the environment.

(3) An abstraction regime must be introduced no later than the end of the period of seven years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

New clause 6—Onshore oil or gas activities—effect on water environment—

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 there shall be inserted after paragraph 13 the following—

“Onshore oil or gas activities—effect on water environment

13A (1) Without prejudice to the operation of Regulation 35(2) and paragraph 5(1)(d) of Schedule 10 and of Regulation 35(2) and paragraph 7(j) of Schedule 20, the regulator shall refuse an application for the grant or variation of an environmental permit or for the transfer in whole or in part of an environmental permit if—

(a) the regulated facility to which the application for or transfer of the environmental permit relates is to be carried on as part of an onshore oil or gas activity; and

(b) the regulator is not satisfied that the applicant or the proposed transferee has made or will make adequate financial provision for preventing or mitigating pollution of the water environment, by ensuring all of the following—

(i) operation of the regulated facility in accordance with the environmental permit;

(ii) compliance with any enforcement notice or suspension notice or prohibition notice or mining waste facility closure notice or landfill closure notice which may be served on the applicant or transferee by the regulator under these Regulations;

(iii) compliance with any order of the High Court which may be obtained against the applicant or transferee under Regulation 42 for the purpose of securing compliance with any of the notices listed in sub-paragraph (ii).

(iv) compliance with any order of any court issued under Regulation 44 against the applicant or transferee; and

(v) recovery by the regulator of its costs upon any exercise of its power against the applicant or transferee under Regulation 57;

(c) for the purpose of this paragraph ‘onshore oil or gas activity’ means any activity for the purpose of exploration for or extraction of onshore oil and gas;

(d) for the purpose of this paragraph ‘adequate provision by way of financial security’ means financial provision which is sufficient in value, secure and available when required.”.’.

New clause 13—Unlawful communications—

‘(1) Section 109 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (sewerage: unlawful communication with public sewer) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (1)(b).

(3) In subsection (2)(a) after “close”, insert “or redirect”.

(4) In subsection (2)(b) omit “from the offender”.

(5) At the end add—

“(4) The expenses are recoverable from—

(a) the offender; or

(b) the owner of the drain or sewer.

(5) A person who obstructs a sewerage undertaker in exercising a power under subsection (2)(a)—

(a) commits an offence; and

(b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”.’.

Amendment 2, in clause 21, page 62, line 19, after ‘undertakers’, insert ‘and highway authorities’.

Amendment 3, page 62, line 22, after ‘undertaker’, insert ‘or a highway authority’.

Amendment 1, page 62, line 23, at end insert—

‘(2A) Highways authorities must include in schemes for the construction of new roads, drainage systems with a specification designed to decrease the risk of flooding of public sewerage systems.’.

Government amendments 55 to 57.

Amendment 5, clause 51, page 107, line 5, after ‘premises’, insert ‘and small businesses’.

Amendment 6, page 107, line 7, after ‘premises’, insert ‘and small businesses’.

Amendment 8, clause 53, page 107, line 37, after ‘made’, insert

‘which shall include the occurrence of a 1 in 200 year loss scenario’.

Government amendment 58.

Amendment 7, clause 69, page 119, line 37, at end insert ‘“small businesses”.’.

Amendment 10, clause 80, page 124, line 1, at end insert—

‘(f) section [Sustainable drainage and automatic right to connect].’.

Amendment 11, page 124, line 1, at end insert—

‘(g) section [Abstraction reform].’.

I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but this is the first occasion that I can remember when there has not been a parliamentary week between the completion of the business of the Public Bill Committee and consideration on Report and Third Reading. I should therefore like to pass on my thanks not only to the Committee staff who have accommodated our being able to table amendments in a timely fashion, but to all those involved in the House service who have enabled us to have amendments before us to debate this evening.

I shall go through the new clauses and amendments first and then give the reasons for them. I, along with a number of members of the EFRA Committee, have thought it fit to assist the Government yet again, and I hope that we have more success with this round. Anyone who knows me even remotely will know that I am becoming a compulsive obsessive on sustainable draining systems and that I will never pass over a opportunity to discuss SUDS. So, under new clause 4, we seek to introduce the sustainable draining system, which is woefully late. It was already given statutory powers under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and in new clause 4 I link that to the end of the automatic right to connect.

I should like to pay tribute to a great Yorkshireman, Sir Michael Pitt, who after the surface water flooding of 2007 attempted to get on to the statute book under the 2010 Act—the then Government’s legislation—the end of the automatic right to connect. I would go further with substantial developments than I have had the opportunity to do here. I should personally like Yorkshire Water and other water companies, as well as drainage boards, to be given the right to be statutory consultees on major new developments on the same basis as that enjoyed by the Environment Agency following the 2010 Act.

It is worth pointing out that local authorities in Scotland place great emphasis on the opinion of Scottish Water, which is, indeed, treated as a major statutory consultee when local authorities are making decisions about developments.

As a non-practising Scottish advocate, I would always say that the Scottish legal system has a great deal to commend it, but Scotland needs to remain part of the United Kingdom to allow us to benefit from that.

That is for another day.

Indeed, that is a different argument.

I shall give our reasons for new clause 4 in a moment. Abstraction reform forms the basis of new clause 5, in which we would return to what was in the White Paper, where the Government waxed lyrical on abstraction regimes. We particularly call for the abstraction regime to be introduced no later than the end of the period of seven years beginning on the date on which the Bill is passed and comes into legal effect.

Amendments 2 and 3 would insert into clause 21 the relevant language of “undertakers” and “highways authorities”. I am attracted to amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend Mr Spencer, and look forward to his speaking to it in due course. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 would include small businesses in the flood reinsurance scheme, for reasons that I shall give in a moment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Flood Re clauses will help the people whom the Minister and I met in Looe last Saturday who were unable to get insurance because of repeated flooding? Flood Re will give them the opportunity to obtain realistically priced insurance.

Our thoughts are obviously with my hon. Friend’s constituents who were sadly inundated during the recent flooding. I look forward to hearing further from her during the debate, as well as the Minister’s response.

Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential amendments to clause 80 arising from new clauses 4 and 5.

Before I explain why the amendments and new clauses are important, I should point out that we have seen three types of flooding in the past three or four months. The most recent examples have been of coastal flooding, but the Yorkshire and East Anglia coasts suffered tidal surges before Christmas to devastating effect; more than 80 houses were evacuated at Filey in my constituency and a number more in Whitby. However, we have become more accustomed to surface water and river flooding, and surface water flooding has been on the increase, and has become more of a problem, since 2007.

I want to hear from the Minister why SUDS have been delayed. The latest we heard was that there was an implementation date of April 2014. People have been trying to convince me that Brawby in my constituency suffered in 2013 not from flooding but due to surface water running off from fields and roads into the combined sewerage pipe, which then spilled water from the sewerage system back on to the road. In that case, the water did not go into anyone’s house, but at Castlegate in Malton when exactly the same thing happened—water ran off the road into the combined sewers—water then entered a house.

The missing link is an audit of existing SUDS and an examination of future SUDS when major developments and roads are built. However, from my experience, and given what we heard during the statement on the floods, there is a further problem to deal with. If water runs off a highway, it is the responsibility of the county council, the unitary council or the Highways Agency itself. However, if that water then runs into the combined pipes, it suddenly becomes the water company’s problem, although what has happened is not its fault. I hope that that unacceptable situation can be addressed through the measures that I and other members of the EFRA Committee have tabled, or through amendment 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. If fields are saturated, as is the case at present—it was the situation in my constituency between September

2012 and March 2013—highways authorities must take responsibility and create a SUD to take the excess water. I accept that such a process would involve cost, but I applaud the Government’s approach on partnership funding, so we could look to public sector partners, or be more imaginative by looking for private sector partners, such as local businesses that might be interesting in investing. However, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which surface water running off a road becomes the responsibility of a water company and thus forces it to take preventive measures, given that the highways authority—whichever one it might be—should accept responsibility for it.

The EFRA Committee’s report following our pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill highlighted concern about the delayed implementation of the provisions on sustainable drainage systems in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010—it is now four years since that Act was passed. The Committee also criticised a lack of urgency on improving the management of surface water in its report on the water White Paper, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify what has been happening and why the process seems to be so complicated. As the Committee has not been convinced that the Department’s work to improve the management of surface water has involved the urgency that constituents throughout the country would expect, new clause 4 would require the Government to implement the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act within a month of the Bill being passed.

The key provisions to be implemented relate to ending the automatic right to connect to public sewers in England and Wales. In addition, developers of substantial property developments should be required to construct sustainable drainage systems before carrying out any new construction work. When houses are built on a field in Filey that takes surface water, that water will be displaced to existing developments, or more likely to the school, which required a multi-million pound refit following the 2007 floods. Water will find its way.

We also want the Environment Agency, highways authorities, British Waterways, internal drainage boards and water and sewerage companies to be statutory consultees when the new SUDS authority makes a determination on an application for connection. The reason for that is simple: why should a water company be asked to connect what are often outdated Victorian pipes to a major development of 300 houses, for example, when that is simply not possible? It is necessary that action is taken prior to planning permission being granted so that developers can make the necessary arrangements and save a great deal of grief down the line.

Surface water flooding is a major contributory factor to the damage caused to homes and businesses. It is a relatively new threat, especially when surface water runs off fields and roads and then floods public sewers. Extreme weather involving sporadic and intense rainfall—whether that is due to climate change or because of another reason—has caused surface water flooding, and it is difficult accurately to predict where such flooding will occur. In 2009, the Environment Agency estimated that of the 2.4 million properties then at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea, some 1 million were also at risk of surface water flooding. In addition, 2.8 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding alone. If a house is built on land that is prone to flooding, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for insurance. However, in the case of Filey, an existing bungalow or the school can suffer due to displaced water—secondary flooding, almost—and then find that its insurance premium and excess increase. Does the Minister think that that is fair? I do not think that it is, so we need to bring forward SUDS as a matter of urgency and end the automatic right to connect.

Amendments 2 and 3, which would amend clause 21, are important so that highways authorities have the power to construct, maintain and operate sustainable drainage systems to reduce the volume of surface water entering public sewers. If sewage water backs up into people’s homes, we know that they will be displaced for much longer than if only clean water had entered the house, given the public health requirements that must be met before they are allowed to re-enter. Clause 21 already gives the power to sewerage undertakers. Our amendments would extend the power to highways authorities, and clarify the fact that highways authorities are able to construct SUDS to prevent surface water flowing into sewers. It is the link that is missing at the moment.

The Committee’s report on managing flood risk, which was published last July, recommended that DEFRA should liaise with the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government on measures to encourage highways authorities to install SUDS, which will improve the management of water run-off from roads. This is intended to be a precursor to creating a statutory duty for highways authorities to take responsibility for surface water on new and existing roads, and to build SUDS to address the problem of surface water flooding. We cannot ignore the incidents and frequency of surface water flooding in addition to river and coastal flooding incidents. The amendments are intended to be helpful to the Minister and the Government in that regard.

Let me turn now to abstraction reform and new clause 5. The Committee has repeatedly called for the implementation of abstraction reform by 2022. I cannot see how we can consider introducing upstream competition without having the necessary reforms to abstraction in place.

Hear, hear!

It is always a delight to be supported by the hon. Gentleman.

The current system for managing abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers was introduced in the 1960s, and does not effectively address the severity of pressures on water resources caused by increasing demand from a growing population and an increasingly varied climate. The current system does not help abstractors to trade water effectively or provide an incentive for them to manage water efficiently. The current weaknesses in the system mean that it could start to constrain economic growth, reduce the resilience of the water supply and lead to environmental damage.

I note that the reasons and need for abstraction reform are acknowledged and discussed in the Government consultation “Making the most of every drop”, which was published last December. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he address the issue of why there was so much emphasis on abstraction and resilience in the water White Paper, and why we lost that emphasis in the draft Water Bill and, to a certain extent, in the Bill before us this evening?

The detail of a new abstraction regime will need to be developed following the end of the Government consultation, which was launched on 17 December. Following the conclusion of that consultation, which will not be until March, DEFRA will have to produce legislative proposals and secure space in the highly charged legislative programme before a new regime can be introduced. Once again, these amendments are intended to be entirely helpful and constructive.

During the Committee stage, the Opposition tabled a new clause to provide that upstream reform may not be implemented until new primary legislation on the licensing of abstraction has been passed, and five years has expired to allow for its implementation. Sadly, that proposal was voted down.

New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to introduce a reformed abstraction regime within seven years of the Act being passed—by 2021. That was on the basis of the evidence that we received, and we believe that that is the most accurate and cost-effective timetable for all the parties involved.

The abstraction reform must be resilient to the challenges of climate change, or extreme weather conditions, and population growth and better protect the environment. Those high-level requirements are entirely in line with the key commitments regarding abstraction reform in the water White Paper.

Let me turn now to upstream and abstraction reform. In our pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft Water Bill, the Select Committee called on the Government to make clear in the Bill the key principles that underpin the introduction of upstream reforms. Further work needs to be undertaken to establish how upstream reforms can be introduced in a way that will preserve investor confidence, ensure that customers do not face increased bills and maintain resilience in the sector. I was extremely pleased to see the emphasis on resilience in the water White Paper.

Upstream reform aims to encourage upstream competition. I am talking about the input of raw or treated water into a water company’s network or the removal of waste water or sewage for treatment. Clause 1 unbundles all the existing licensing structures so that new entrants can sell raw or treated water into an incumbent’s network. It also looks at the wholesale authorisation to input water into a part of the system. The Environment Agency’s statistics show that on average, between 2002 and 2011, only 45% of the annual total of water licensed for abstraction in England and Wales was actually abstracted. Therefore, if all of this unused but already licensed water was abstracted, there could be a significant deterioration of the environment. We hope that when the Government look at abstraction and upstream reform, they will bear these thoughts in mind.

One other aspect of upstream reform and abstraction that the Government should consider is, very topically, the role of water companies and other private sector companies in flood prevention and in protecting homes and businesses from floods. The Minister will be familiar with the work of his Department in the Natural Environment White Paper, which looked at a project known as ScaMP—Sustainable Catchment Management Programme—involving United Utilities in Cumbria. Surely there must be much more scope for the type of partnership approaches we have seen in Pickering where the first soil of the reservoir will be dug tomorrow.

I will conclude my remarks by looking at flood insurance. Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 seek to amend clauses 51 and 53. The Select Committee took a lot of evidence in relation to Flood Re and the potential for reinsurance companies. Given how deeply wedded the Government are to Flood Re, I hope that they have not closed the door completely on reinsurance. In summing up this debate, perhaps the Minister will inform us how the state aid application to the EU Commission in Brussels is going to enable Flood Re to come into effect according to the Government’s timetable.

Clause 51 and the amendments we propose to it would have the effect of bringing small businesses within the ambit of Flood Re. There is considerable doubt and anxiety that small businesses will not be covered under the new Flood Re proposals. The impact that flooding can have on small businesses is clear. In 2001 and 2005, a dental practice in my constituency was flooded twice and the dental chair and all the computer equipment had to be replaced each time.

I am sure that many Members will have a deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend and her concern for small businesses. I guess that the difficulty in getting this into legislation will be how to define a small business. Perhaps she has some ideas on that.

Like my hon. Friend, I merely shadow DEFRA so I do not have the definition to hand, but I am sure that the Federation of Small Businesses will have a definition. I think it is generally deemed to be a business that has fewer than 50 employees, though many small businesses employ five or fewer or are often a single employee. The example I cited was that of a small dental practice with two or three dentists. The knock-on effect on an independently run, stand-alone dental practice of fitting, for the second time, a new dental chair and computer equipment goes beyond what would normally be expected. The knock-on effect on the insurance premium and excess for that dental practice was considerable and, possibly, unaffordable.

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that not only would small businesses and micro-businesses in commercial premises not be covered by Flood Re, but people who run businesses from their own homes would find it almost impossible to get insurance under the arrangements as they stand?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I believe that homes generally are covered. Our Government have persisted with his Government’s arbitrary choice of 2009 as the relevant year, although this is a new Bill and we have a still relatively new coalition Government. I was very taken by what Joan Walley said in a previous debate about 2009 having been plucked from the air as an arbitrary date, and many people will not realise that homes built after 2009 on a floodplain are simply not covered by insurance. One of the purposes of tonight’s debate is to entice the Government to seek a different year—it could be 2013 or 2015, but let us be imaginative.

Will my hon. Friend clarify the difference between an insurance policy that covers a business premises and one that covers a private home? Insurers, and the Association of British Insurers, would probably find it difficult to distinguish if we were to include small businesses, but because her amendment is well intentioned, I am sure that she will be able to clarify her differentiation.

I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. There is great concern among the farming community that farms may be excluded whereas the farm house may be included. I commend my hon. Friend’s knowledge, because she worked in the insurance industry for a time. We need to know whether farms and people working from their own homes are going to be included, and what the position will be for small businesses, because this could put them out of business in some of the areas that we have seen flooded over the past two years in repeat flooding incidents. It has also been brought to my attention, although, unfortunately, too late to have tabled an amendment, that there is concern that blocks of flats—leasehold flats—may be excluded from this arrangement. That may be news to the Minister as well, but before Third Reading he might like to ponder whether such blocks will be excluded.

Our amendments to clause 51 address concerns relating to the exclusion of small companies such as charities and, as I have mentioned, farms under the new Flood Re proposals in the Bill. Any business based in a property that is primarily a residential one, and on which the occupier therefore pays council tax, would fall within the Flood Re scheme. Any business based in premises used primarily for business will not be covered. It is extremely important that we understand these issues. For the first time that I can remember, under the Flood Re scheme, once it is up and running, the Government will be added as an insurer of last resort if in the three years before the fund has built up we suffer an exceptional one-in-a-thousand-year incident.

In the Public Bill Committee, the ABI stated that Flood Re is not the solution for small businesses and that there is not a sufficient evidence basis for providing insurance cover for small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that small businesses that have affordability problems will not be covered, other than in respect of the insurance premiums or excess that they might seek to defray. Although they do not pay council tax, they do pay business rates and therefore could be rated in a similar way to household customers under Flood Re. There remain a lot of known unknowns with Flood Re as to why a council band rate has been chosen and which particular band rate has been opted for, but that is a separate debate. If there is a lack of evidence, further investigations and monitoring should be conducted with regard to small businesses and how they might cope with sourcing flood insurance in the free market.

Our amendments to clause 53 would have the effect of ensuring that insurance companies cover for any liability in excess of a one-in-200-year loss. Our amendments seek greater clarification of the Government’s role in this scenario of a one-in-200-year loss, and, in particular, how the taxpayer would be protected. As I have mentioned, the Government will, for the first time, be the insurer of last resort. In later years, after the fund has built up, I do not believe that that will be a problem, but we are seeking the Minister’s reassurance about what the implications will be in respect of the first three years. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that there is no Government liability for Flood Re and that the Government have made it clear that Flood Re is not guaranteed above the one-in-200-year level, so he might just like to revisit that and clarify the point.

Our amendment 8 would put the Government’s commitment in the Bill and create certainty for all concerned as to who will assume the additional liability. A one-in-200-year loss scenario would be the total value of claims from households reinsured through Flood Re that, during the course of a year, actuaries would not expect to be exceeded in 99.5% of years. Expressed in a different way, that would mean that the actuaries would be 99.5% confident that the limit would not be exceeded in any one year. It is important to note that that is not the same as a one-in-200-year flood event; the ABI has estimated that this would mean flooding six times worse than that experienced in 2007. Obviously, neither the Minister nor the insurance industry will yet be able to say what the cost of the recent floods has been, but I hope that he will see fit to lend his support to our amendments, and I commend them to the House.

I am fortunate to follow Miss McIntosh, who speaks with the greatest authority on these subjects, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. I particularly share her concern about drainage and surface water, and I agree with the points she made earlier about the need to ensure that highways authorities also have statutory duties, so that we can deal with this issue in a joined-up way. The debate on this group of provisions is important because we have had pre-legislative scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the draft Water Bill and subsequent debate in that Committee. When the Minister addresses the various comments that have been made, we will see the extent to which the Government are listening to what Parliament is saying about the amendments. There may not necessarily be agreement on all of them; I am talking about the amendments that seek genuinely to try to improve matters on the whole issue of water. We have an opportunity to put in place legislation that is fit for purpose, so I hope that improvements will be made.

It will probably not cheer my hon. Friend to hear that every single amendment tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, and indeed by coalition Members, was rejected, even though the Minister had previously agreed with them in the Select Committee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As I have said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we will wait to hear what the Minister says in response. Given that the Bill has further stages to go through before Royal Assent—I am glad to see Roger Williams nodding—I think that it is the Opposition’s duty to press the Government as much as possible, because it is important that Parliament does the right thing. Even if the Government do not make concessions at this stage, there will be an opportunity in the other place to put more flesh on the Bill and to make it much more fit for purpose. We will wait to see what further progress we can make.

I will speak briefly to new clause 6, which stands in my name, because I realise that many Members wish to speak. I want to introduce my comments by considering the issue of contaminated land. It is clear to me from the work I have done recently that there is a problem with how we deal with contaminated land. The current regime and the funding for it, particularly that which involves local authorities, is not fit for purpose, and it needs to be. We are dealing with a huge amount of legacy problems. I do not want the Government to set up a whole new regime without giving due consideration to the preventative measures that would need to be put in place in relation to fracking and shale gas extraction.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would rule me out of order if I were to speak this evening on whether we should have fracking or shale gas extraction. The point I want to make is that if it is to go ahead, with the enormous tax concessions it currently has, there needs to be a proper regime in place that relates to water, water quality and concerns about contamination. It is for that reason that I have tabled new clause 6. I acknowledge that, were the Government to act on the concerns I am raising, there would be need to be consequential amendments to paragraph 9 of schedule 20 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, so I do not want the Minister simply to claim on a technical point that the new clause is unworkable because it is not thorough in that regard.

My understanding is that the principles that the polluter should pay and that prevention is much better than an end-of-pipe solution mean that we should be dealing at this stage with the procedures that need to be put in place to prevent contamination of water as a result of fracking. I point out that the new clause is supported by many non-governmental organisations working on the front line to deal with that, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Salmon & Trout Association.

New clause 6 would amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 to introduce a liability guarantee to ensure that fracking companies have the funds available to pay the clean-up costs should an accident occur during the fracking process. I think that is eminently sensible. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee and briefly debated, as my hon. Friend Thomas Docherty just pointed out, but it got nowhere. I believe that it was important to table it again for further consideration, mainly because the Minister’s response in Committee did not offer adequate assurances that the public purse would not be hit should an accident occur.

As I understand it, the Minister’s main argument was that the existing regulations on the statute book already ensure that operators are technically and financially competent to carry out fracking activities. However, a financial competence check is carried out only in specific circumstances, and competence is not the same as securing a form of financial provision or guarantee for long-term environmental liabilities. In other words, it does not guarantee that a company has put in place funding or insurance for dealing with an accident; it only provides a snapshot in time of its financial situation. I am reminded of the complex discussions there have been about the ownership of football clubs and where due diligence should lie.

It is vital that anyone looking to carry out fracking should have the finances in place to pay for any remedial work that is needed. Tests for technical competence, which the Minister also mentioned in Committee to reassure Members, are also limited. Even the most technically competent operator might not be able to avoid an environmental impact as a result of its operation.

I understand that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made the point in Committee—I was not party to those discussions but read the reports assiduously—that the amendment was intended simply to ensure that there is a plan in place for the low-probability but high-risk scenario of a pollution incident occurring. Although a stringent and well-enforced regulatory regime will mitigate risk, it cannot eliminate it altogether. It is for that reason that we need to look seriously at making that amendment before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The importance of protecting ground and surface water must not be underemphasised. In the midlands—I represent a midlands constituency—40% of public water comes from ground water. The figure is even greater—more than 70%—in the southern regions of England. Not only do we depend on that resource for drinking water, but farmers and industries across the country depend on healthy aquifers, which are estimated to be worth £8 billion to the economy. We must look at this in the round, because we are talking about the food industry and food security. Are we really going to risk contaminating all that simply by failing to put proper safeguards in place when introducing legislation?

The Government must therefore put in place adequate provisions to ensure that companies are able to pay for the clean-up of a contamination incident. There is much peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that that is something we should be prepared for. For example, a study in the USA last year examined stray gas concentrations in 141 drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction sites in Pennsylvania. It detected methane in 82% of drinking water samples. Average concentrations were found to be six times higher for homes within 1 km of natural gas wells.

Some would argue that our regulatory regime is much more stringent than that in the US and that we can therefore prevent such accidents from occurring. Although it is true that the existing regulatory regime, if properly implemented and enforced, should mitigate most risk, that does not detract from the need for the new clause. Even if liability can be proven, there remains the risk that companies could go bankrupt, leaving taxpayers and water companies with the clean-up costs.

The precedent for that has already been set. I note that several Members present this evening represent former coal mining constituencies. Those of us who have dealt with the legacy of mining pollution will know that the cost of clean-up often falls on the taxpayer. In 1994 it was estimated that abandoned coal mines had polluted more than 400 km of rivers. Treatment schemes and remedial works undertaken by the Coal Authority have helped to protect the environment and people, but at a cost of tens of millions of pounds a year to the taxpayer, not the polluter. It is vital that we follow the principle that the polluter pays.

There is also concerning evidence that regulation is not being adequately enforced. I understand that at Preese Hall, the only site in the UK to be hydraulically fractured to date, the Environment Agency did not issue the environmental permits that were required. At the same time, the agency has committed to a dramatic reduction in the time it takes to issue permits. Streamlining regulation and issuing permits in this way is all well and good in some circumstances, but as we are dealing with a new technology in the UK with unknown risks, we should not be looking to streamline regulation until we can be certain that proper procedures are being followed.

The new clause would ensure that the fracking companies that will benefit from the most generous tax regime in the world for this industry have the funds available to pay for the cost of clean-up should an accident occur. Since we are repeatedly reassured that the risk of an accident occurring is minimal, why should we be concerned that the new clause would impose unreasonable costs on the industry? If there is a minimal risk, there is not a huge likelihood that it will be needed, but it would ensure that in the event of an accident the industry did not impose unreasonable financial and environmental costs on the public.

I wish briefly to refer to aspects of the Flood Re scheme and the amendments that relate to it. The adaptation sub-committee, which advises the Committee on Climate Change, has, through its chairman, Lord Krebs, made various points about the importance of getting the scheme absolutely right at this stage rather than later on. In a letter that he wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the awareness of flood risk and the importance of taking account of rising flood risk levels, he said that there are at least five issues that the Government need to address but have not yet done so. Given that, as we heard earlier in the Secretary of State’s statement on flooding, we know that we are now going to get events of this kind far more regularly, it is incumbent on Parliament to make sure that the insurance scheme that is being introduced is absolutely fit for purpose.

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 10, particularly amendment 1, which stands in my name.

There is enormous frustration in Nottinghamshire about the fact that when a new development takes place there is an obligation to connect and that often means that the public sewer, which is already under pressure, becomes flooded. Many Members will recognise that villages in our constituencies have grown over a number of decades. Often in Nottinghamshire, those villages have a working sewerage system but no one has developed a surface water system. That means that when somebody builds a new conservatory at the back of their house the local authority allows them to put the downpipe into the public sewer, and that puts pressure on an already pressurised sewerage system.

The problem is exacerbated when a new road is built. There is a good example of that in Nottinghamshire, where the Hucknall inner relief road, which has been permitted by Nottinghamshire county council, is about to go right through the town of Hucknall, and the plan includes dumping the surface water from that new road into an already flooding public sewerage system. That is unacceptable. To put it into Sherwood language, while we have got diggers on the ground digging up the whole town to put a new road in, it is not beyond the wit of man to put an enormous pipe underneath the road to take the surface water and not put it into the public sewer and flood the homes of people who are already suffering from sewage flowing through them.

We have exactly the same problem in my constituency of Stroud in connection with Slimbridge and a relatively old sewerage system. The real question is how we manage to calibrate the capacity and quality of the systems, certainly some of the older ones, within the context of this Bill.

It is very difficult, but we can make sure that anything new that is built does not make the problem worse. We have an obligation to try to improve things as developments take place. What causes enormous frustration is that the bodies responsible, whether it is the sewerage company or the highway authority, pass the buck so that, in effect, the person who causes the problem does not take responsibility for solving it but it falls on someone else.

Another example is a small village in Sherwood called Farnsfield, where there is already flooding. A developer is applying to put a large number of houses and new roads at the edge of the village, and there is no surface water system. The poor people in the old village who are suffering with sewage flooding their homes are going to have that problem made much worse if the new development takes place and the surface water is put into an already overflowing sewerage system. I appeal to the Minister to see whether he can find a way to encourage, if not force, local authorities to take responsibility when they allow planning permission for a new highway or road and make sure that the highway authority that is developing the road, or the developer that is developing a new estate, picks up the cost of solving the problem that they are creating and disposes of the surface water responsibly rather than putting pressure on an existing, overflowing sewerage system.

I want to speak to new clause 13, which I have tabled. It is headed, “Unlawful communications”. Several hon. Members have asked me about that, and I apologise because it is a little confusing. It does not deal with unlawful communications but unlawful connections, or, more colloquially, misconnections. The new clause would amend section 109 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and that is why it uses the word “communications”, which is used in that Act. It is exactly the same as an amendment that was included in the draft Flood and Water Management Bill of 2009 but sadly had to be dropped from the final Bill because of a lack of legislative time as we approached the 2010 general election. The reason for tabling the new clause is to find out why the provision has not been included in this Bill.

Misconnections occur when separate surface water and foul water sewers are wrongly connected by households or businesses. The reasons for this range from the over-enthusiasm of household DIYers to cowboy builders and plumbers connecting to the first and most convenient sewer, which is often the wrong one. The consequence is pollution of groundwater, watercourses, streams, rivers, and, in my case, a local lake. The problem comes to light only as a result of the visible pollution that we can see, which is sometimes accompanied by some rather unpleasant smells, as has affected local communities in my constituency.

The cost of tracking this down once it has been discovered is very difficult to quantify, because it is extremely difficult to find out where the misconnections have taken place. It is also very time-consuming. As a result, it is a significant problem, particularly in more densely populated areas. A large number of misconnections are occurring in parts of my constituency.

Thames Water estimates that one in 10 homes in its area are misconnected. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that 300,000 homes in England and Wales were misconnected in 2009 and, ominously, that the number will increase to 500,000 by 2015.

Part of the solution, of course, is better information about and greater awareness of the problem of misconnection. Some steps have been taken to try to address that. Thames Water has set up an industry strategy group, as have other water companies. My local authority has sent leaflets to areas particularly badly affected. Of course, we can do better, but the reality in my constituency and up and down the country—this is verified by DEFRA figures—is that, as current misconnections are dealt with, others are adding to the problem and it is getting worse, not better. I could cite instances in my constituency and I am sure that other Members have similar examples.

Part of the reason for the problem is that, although water companies can disconnect from the connected drains, they cannot redirect them into correct sewers; only local authorities have the power to do that. If, for any reason, the householder or business does not carry out the works, the local authority has powers to do so and to bill that individual or organisation for the costs. New clause 13 seeks to grant water companies the same enforcement powers as those available to local authorities. They could then deal directly—they already deal with other aspects of the problem—with misconnections.

This is not intended as a strike against the work of local authorities. Indeed, in the Greater London area—I suspect the situation is similar in other parts of the country—many local authorities are doing tremendous work. One London local authority—the borough of Ealing—has a 90% record on sorting out these problems and the majority of local authorities achieve greater than 50% of corrections within a reasonable time frame. My own local authority achieved 64%. I am not, therefore, having a go at local government, but one London borough—I will not name it—has achieved only 12% of corrections. Indeed, it has misconnections going back to 2005.

Local authorities are not incentivised or always resourced to give the priority necessary to misconnections. The situation is getting worse: local authorities are finding it difficult, adjustments have to be made due to the austerity programme and this is one of the areas likely to be under considerable pressure.

There would be benefits from allowing water companies to carry out this sort of work. It should be more efficient if the same organisation did all the preparatory work and then carried it through. That should also mean that the work would be completed quicker and that it would cost less, which might incentivise some households and businesses to correct the problems they have created.

I commend new clause 13 on the simple basis that two bodies—the local authorities and the water companies—should have the opportunity to carry out the work. It may make a significant inroad into the problem. If there is confusion, the Department should play a co-ordinating role and bring local authorities and water companies together. There are real benefits to be achieved, including a significant environmental benefit. The lake that has been polluted in my constituency is a running sore. The same is happening to water courses and rivers up and down the country. We could really make a difference through this very simple procedural measure.

I ask the Minister in a positive spirit whether he has thought seriously about accepting the new clause. If there are good reasons for refusing to do so, I would accept them, but it seems to me to be a relatively simple measure that could make a significant difference.

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 5, but I also want to touch on the comments made by my hon. Friend Miss McIntosh about Flood Re. I was intrinsically involved in the tortuous and detailed negotiations with the industry to try to come up with something from zero when the coalition Government came into office. We had urgent and overdue discussions about what would replace the statement of principles. All hon. Members would agree that it is absolutely right that this needs to be scrutinised by the House, with ongoing scrutiny of how it works. I hope that the Minister will agree that flexibility should be built into it to enable it to be changed as circumstances change in years ahead.

However, on behalf of my constituents, who suffered some of the worst flooding in the south of England in 2007 and have continued to face flooding in certain areas since, I beg the House not to unpick the detailed negotiations that have resulted in the Flood Re proposal before the House. For example, if we started to introduce a wide range of businesses into the scheme, that would completely change the complex mathematical—probably algorithmic—calculations that will make it viable. I want as many properties to be included as possible, but if we start to say that we want it to include band H houses, different types of businesses, and houses built after a certain date, hon. Members have to understand that that would come at a cost. The cost might be that the industry walks away and that we have nothing, with constituents who live in risk of flooding facing the really terrifying prospect, when we have the kind of weather we are currently experiencing, of not being able to get insurance. The affordability factor that we have managed to build in would be gone, so I just urge the House to have a little caution when—rightly—scrutinising this Bill, which I really believe is right and should become law as quickly as possible.

I want to speak about new clause 5, but I should have started by reminding hon. Members about my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been accused of obsessing about over-abstraction, and I have been obsessed about it since long before I entered the House. More than 20 years ago, I set up an environmental body relating to a small river in my constituency, the River Pang, which is a chalk stream. It was one of the National River Authority’s ALF—alleviation of low flow—schemes. We managed to stop over-abstraction by a water company at the top of the aquifer and to restore the river. It is currently in desperate need of further restoration, as are others in my area, particularly the River Kennet. It seems strange to talk about over-abstraction when many of our rivers are overflowing at this time, but it is nevertheless a very serious issue. The River Kennet is a site of special scientific interest, and has overlaying European and national designations. It is an example of a river for which we have to find a better solution.

When I was in the Minister’s role, I would dearly have loved to bring meaningful abstraction reform before Parliament, but it would have been wrong to do so. As has already been said, we have been dealing with a regulatory system that dates back to the 1960s, when people did not mention the words “climate change” and we did not have the levels of population and demand that we now face, particularly in the south and east of England. When the consultation and all the work being done by the Department and the Environment Agency is over, I know that we will have about 30,000 abstractions that affect the livelihoods of our constituents and the ability of their businesses to perform and that have a huge impact on our environment. I hope that the House agrees that we must get the system right, and that we legislate in haste and repent—in opposition—at leisure. I hope that we get this right, and that the reassurance the Minister will be able to give us will set my mind, and those of other hon. Members, at rest.

I have said that the problem is complex. Organisations such as the WWF have been a fantastic help to the Government and hon. Members in our thinking about how we should deal with over-abstraction. I regret that the abstraction incentive mechanism originally hinted at in the water White Paper has been diminished in relation to its ability to address abstraction where it will cause real problems to the environment. I hope that it comes forward in the future as a very useful tool that values water differently where it is scarce and where it is plentiful.

There are technical measures in the Bill that will not be talked about in the Dog and Duck, but that are groundbreaking—perhaps game changing would be a better description. The change from using the environmental improvement unit charge method of assessing over-abstraction to putting it in the five yearly price review is a major one that will make a big difference to how we deal with the environmental damage that is caused by over-abstraction.

I looked closely at new clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and other Members. I wondered whether it might be an elegant way forward. However, I think that it would face problems. There would be problems in getting the legislation through Parliament. It undoubtedly uses Henry VIII clauses and would give a dramatic power to the Committee Corridor, as opposed to the whole House. That would concern many Members of this House and would certainly concern Members in another place, where they do not like Henry VIII clauses. I hope that the Minister will address that in his remarks.

I then looked at how such secondary legislation would implement the abstraction reforms that we want to see and that will result from the current consultation and the implementation of a new scheme. If that could all be dealt with in the obscurity of the Committee Corridor to a level that satisfied my concerns and the concerns of the many organisations that are worried about over-abstraction now and in the future, that would be fine. However, the use of secondary legislation is a limiting factor. I regret that in my time as a Minister, I did not get my head around what an abstraction Bill in the next Parliament would look like. I suspect that it will be a relatively complicated document. That legislation would be diminished if it was dealt with as secondary legislation, as under new clause 5.

I hope that the Minister will give two assurances. First, I hope that he will address the concerns that were put eloquently by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and my concerns about whether such legislation would deliver what we want it to deliver. The second assurance is perhaps an impossible one for him to give, but I will ask him to give it anyway. I hope that he will give an assurance that the Government are as determined as they were when they put together the water White Paper—a document that was roundly welcomed by Members in all parts of the House, the industry, NGOs and every stakeholder I can think of—that abstraction reform will be followed up by his party and mine, and hopefully by other parties, and that it will race through the House in the early years of the next Parliament so that we can see meaningful abstraction reform that addresses the problems that blight so many rivers. This is not just an environmental problem; more fundamentally to many of our constituents, it is an economic one. Not only do we rely on rivers and aquifers for aesthetic reasons and leisure activities; they are fundamental to our economy. That is why it is so important that we get abstraction reform right. I hope that the Minister will give us those assurances this evening.

I will be extremely brief and confine my remarks to Flood Re. With all due respect to Richard Benyon, if this is the best that three and a half years of intense negotiations can produce, I am not sure that congratulations are in order. As I understand it, the scheme will cover only a fraction of the 6 million homes that are deemed to be at flood risk.

I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, if it is true that there is a 60% chance that the scheme will fall into deficit, and if, as Professor Diacon, who was asked to review it, said, it relies on luck in the first place, what are the contingency plans if the scheme falls apart? Secondly, what will be the trigger for the Government to intervene on the insurance companies if insurance premiums for everyone else, who will not be covered by the scheme, continue to rise to such a point that they cannot afford them?

There is not a lot of mass flooding in my constituency, but in one particular area, on the River Rea near Dogpool lane in Selly Park, homes have been flooded. It was the same problem that everyone will be familiar with—people were washed out and their belongings destroyed. In my question following today’s statement, I mentioned a constituent whose insurance premium has gone up by 50% in 12 months. If insurance premiums continue to rise, what will be the trigger for doing something about it? If there is no trigger, this will all have been a waste of time.

Finally, if Flood Re is not going to cover small and micro-businesses, what is the Government’s plan for them? Are we simply going to stand aside and see them washed away?

May I wish you a warm and happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker?

We have had a thoughtful and knowledgeable debate over the past hour and a half or so. I commend two Select Committee Chairmen and a former Minister for their remarks, even if we did not agree with every part of the former Minister’s interpretation of the past three and a half years.

Time is limited, so I hope the House will understand if I restrict my remarks to some of the new clauses. Unsurprisingly, the Opposition agree with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about SUDS. I am sure that, as a former member of that Committee, the Minister will agree with himself on the issue. Miss McIntosh, who chairs the Committee, was right to highlight the increasing burden being placed on a network that, in many cases, is struggling to cope. We have heard that the ability to cope with additional development is not always given the consideration that it needs. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the cross-party support on that point that the hon. Lady demonstrated.

There is a broad coalition of opinion on abstraction reform, to which Richard Benyon alluded, but it is not just made up of what he might describe as the usual suspects—the non-governmental organisations involved. That well known environmental organisation the Food and Drink Federation made a submission to the Public Bill Committee. We welcomed the Minister’s announcement in the Committee. It was disappointing that his colleagues chose to make it to the media before it was made to Parliament, but of course I assign no responsibility for that to him. We welcome the consultation, but we agree with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that it is long overdue.

I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that the Government certainly could not be accused of legislating in haste, because after almost four years we simply have not seen sufficient progress on abstraction reform. My hon. Friend Maria Eagle and I look forward as Ministers in the next Parliament to taking such legislation through with due speed, and we look forward to the support of Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend Joan Walley, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, made an incredibly thoughtful and logical speech, and we support her new clause 6. We are clear that, as she said, this is not a debate about the merits and demerits of fracking technology. It is about trying to ensure that there are safeguards in place. Her constituency is still suffering the fallout from open-cast mining not having had sufficient guarantees in place, so I understand exactly where she is coming from.

Given that time is incredibly short I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but it is clear that the other place will have an important job to do in the weeks ahead. A number of issues in this group of amendments—and indeed elsewhere—have not been addressed, and my hon. Friend Steve McCabe is right to say that we must consider Flood Re in some detail. With the greatest respect, the Opposition will not simply go along with the Government because they have come to a deal and say that that is good enough; we need more detail from Ministers. We look forward to the Bill making progress but we will, as I have suggested, press some amendments to a vote.

In the time available I shall seek to respond to as many points as I can. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Miss McIntosh, has been a strong advocate of and campaigner for sustainable drainage over many years, and the Government are pressing ahead and implementing the requirement to secure approval for sustainable drainage systems for new developments under schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Regrettably, it is looking increasingly unlikely that we will be in a position to ensure that the scheme comes into force this April, which was our preferred date for implementation as stated previously. I accept that that will be a great disappointment for the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, but I remain committed to introducing the legislation at the earliest opportunity. I plan to lay the relevant affirmative regulations by April, to underline the Government’s commitment to addressing flood risk.

I share the hon. Lady’s frustration that the process has been so protracted, but we are working with developers and local government to develop the processes, standards and guidance that are an integral part of a new SUDS approvals and adoption regime, rather than just imposing them. That takes time, but it is time well spent if the end result is an approach that is fair to all parties and successful from the outset because local government and developers are fully prepared to take on their respective new responsibilities.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 address flooding on highways or that caused by the run-off from highways. The causes of flooding can be complex and it is difficult to make a general statement about them. There are already legislative powers to ensure that highway surface water drainage does not pollute or flood, and section 100 of the Highways Act 1980 enables the local highway authority to take action related to the drainage of highways—for example, it can construct drains or erect barriers on the highway or adjoining land to divert surface water into an existing drain.

The majority of new road drainage systems are not connected to the public sewerage system. Typically, they discharge under designated conditions, either to a watercourse or a storage pond with controlled exits to a watercourse, or alternatively soak into the ground in a designed manner. A decision to connect new highway surface water to a combined or foul public sewer can be made only subject to an agreement with the receiving water authority. There is no automatic right to connect new highway drainage to the public sewerage system. We recognise, however, that in some cases local flooding may be exacerbated by drainage from existing highways, and as I have said, the 2010 Act places a duty on lead local flood authorities to develop a local flood risk management strategy for their area. I hope hon. Members will be reassured by that.

Let me seek to address the points raised by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about flood insurance, and amendments 5, 6 and 7, which relate to small businesses. Flood Re has been specifically designed to recreate the current cross-subsidy in the domestic home insurance market. There is little evidence that the same type of cross-subsidy applies in the commercial insurance market, and the majority of business insurance policies are already priced to risk. A recent English business survey of more than 9,000 businesses in England found that fewer than 1% of businesses had experienced difficulty getting property insurance in the last year due to the risk of flooding, and that no businesses had been refused insurance cover due to such a risk.

As outlined by the Association of British Insurers in its evidence session, businesses tend not to face the systematic issues that householders experience. We must also remember that Flood Re is funded through a levy on all household insurance policies. We have deliberately set that at £10.50, which the ABI estimates is the same as the current cross-subsidy. Widening Flood Re to include small businesses would significantly increase costs. We do not want someone living in a council tax band A property, for example, to subsidise the cost of insuring a private company that potentially earns up to £1 million a year. I am also mindful of the need to comply with state aid rules. Government intervention to support business would be carefully scrutinised and at greater risk of rejection—I know the hon. Lady is familiar with that issue.

On flood insurance and amendment 8, which was tabled by the same group of hon. Members, we are clear that we are talking about a one-in-200-year annual loss, not a one-in-200-year flood event. If Flood Re is legally responsible for claims above a one-in-200-year level, the cost of the liability could be prohibitive. Likewise, if the Government took on a liability beyond a one-in-200-year level, we could expose the taxpayer to extremely large and unpredictable costs. In such a catastrophic situation, many more homes than would be insured by Flood Re are likely to be affected. That is why the memorandum of understanding says that the Government of the day would work with Flood Re and representatives of the insurance industry to decide how any available resources should be distributed to Flood Re customers if flooding exceeds such a level.

Government amendment 58 is a technical one. On the issues raised by Joan Walley, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee—we discussed them in Committee—the Government remain convinced that the existing provisions would be helpful enough in terms of the checks on companies’ financial probity and their technical ability.

However, she rightly raised issues that could be addressed following Lord Krebs’s intervention in his letter. I am pleased to hear her calling for things such as betterment, meaning better quality reinstatement, and more information to customers, for which Lord Krebs has also called. Many hon. Members would like to include that in discussions with the ABI.

On misconnections, Mr Love is aware that local authorities currently have the power. We are not convinced that giving the power to companies would be helpful. His points are on the record and it is right that the Government take account of what he has said. I am happy to talk to him in future to see that we get the right response.

There is only a very little time for me to respond to all the points hon. Members have made on abstraction. My predecessor as Minister, my hon. Friend Richard Benyon, has rightly said that there is agreement in the House that we want progress. Action is taking place under the existing regime—the Environment Agency has changed 77 licences since 2008, returning around 75 billion litres of water per year—but we need to go much further. That is why we are consulting. The process is under way and will lead to legislation, hopefully with the support of all parties, to reform that complicated system. However, we need to do that properly. I do not believe it is appropriate to do it in the way suggested in the new clause.

Finally, Government amendments 55 to 57, which I have tabled, seek to clarify the resilience duty. We want to make it absolutely clear to hon. Members that we are covering environmental sustainability. I hope the changes we are making to the resilience duty will reassure hon. Members who believe that we need to elevate the sustainable development duty that we are looking at environmental resilience as well as social and economic resilience.

We have had a good debate on Flood Re. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee wanted to flag up the point that the proposals do not reflect the value for money of other aspects of Government policy.

We have also had a good debate on abstraction, but the jury is out. The Bill would be a retrograde step if there is a severe drought between now and whenever the Government introduce provisions.

Obviously, both personally and on behalf of the Committee, I am disappointed that the SUDS provisions will not be in place. The House would wish to record its disappointment and the fact that, if the regulations will be introduced only in April, there is time before those who must apply them are in a position to do so.

However, mindful of the opportunities that hon. Members have had to debate the matter, and that the Bill must continue its passage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.