“Flood” and “coastal erosion”

I beg to move Amendment 131, in Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—

‘(1) “Flood” includes—

(a) any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, or

(b) any case where water has rested just below the surface.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 82, in Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘waters,’, insert—

‘(da) groundwater.’

Adds groundwater specifically into key concept of flooding, makes it consistent with local provisions and beyond doubt in national ones.

Amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘waters,’, insert—

‘(da) surface water flooding from whatever original source,’

Amendment 84, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).

I welcome everyone to the formal sittings. I am delighted that we are under way and I am sure we shall be able to make brisk progress.

The Minister and the Committee will be aware that there are already several definitions of “flood”—pluvial, fluvial, surface water flooding and below-surface water flooding.

On a point of order, Mr. Chope. It is difficult to hear and I assume the people at the far end of the room will not be able to hear a thing. We could all move down.

We shall have the fan eliminated, so that people can hear. Miss McIntosh, please speak up in the meantime.

I shall speak more slowly, to make the time pass.

We are getting very old.

I could not possibly comment on the hon. Gentleman’s Intervention.

I am delighted to be moving Amendment 131. The Minister and the Committee are aware of several definitions of “flooding”. The purpose behind the amendment is simply to convince them that the definition in the Bill is defective. The definition of “flood” in subsection (1) only relates to

“any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.”

I would love to know the background to that definition, which the Minister might like to share. It is completely innocuous as it stands, but it does not go far enough. I hope the Minister and the Committee will look favourably on what we would like to do, which is to expand the definition to cover, in addition,

“any case where water has rested just below the surface”.

The reason for that emerged from the evidence session last Thursday, when we heard that damage to property begins at 300 mm below ground level—that was established in 1977—and that soil structure is affected by waterlogging, which can have adverse impacts on foundations of infrastructure, most notably road and rail infrastructure but also property infrastructure. I would like to return to property infrastructure separately. Vegetation and crops cannot survive in conditions in which high ground water levels persist——which is 500 mm below the surface, as established in 1992. By omitting to include the below-surface level and failing to acknowledge that flooding begins before water reaches ground level, a considerable risk could be placed on infrastructure across England and Wales as well as the damage to property, whether homes or land.

One of the Government’s own top scientists has said that the biggest challenge we face is climate change, while another said that the biggest challenge is food security—I forget which was the Department’s and which the general Government chief scientist. On both issues, Clause 1 serves a useful purpose by improving climate change and increasing food security. The omission of our amendments would prevent the relevant authorities from even considering sub-surface flooding when weighing up the costs and benefits of flood-alleviation schemes, projects and action. In many instances, that may make the difference between a favourable cost-benefit assessment and failure, resulting in many potentially essentially schemes being sidelined. Are the Committee and the Minister agreeable to considering our definition as presented in amendment 131:

“any case where water has rested just below the surface”?

In any event, will the Minister concede that floods should be redefined to include waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level?

I have related most of my remarks to infrastructure such as roads and railways, but I hope that the Minister will concede that secondary flooding is a serious issue. That is particularly the case in Hull. I visited Hull and saw that for myself. I gather that in other cases—I cannot remember whether in Plymouth or Portsmouth—secondary flooding is horrendous and poses all sorts of problems for the houses affected, and for clean-up and insurers. It can come back months after the initial  flood. Our purpose in drafting the amendment to broaden the definition is to recognise flood scenarios that can create real damage to property, infrastructure, vegetation—farmers cannot recover the costs of damaged crops—and, most importantly, to the numerous poor households that are subject to secondary flooding. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider our amendment favourably.

We have had a request to have the air-conditioning turned down or switched off. That request has now been referred to something rather Orwellian called central control, and we hope that central control will respond quickly.

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. I wish you well in your battle with central control throughout the proceedings.

We have waited a long time to get to this stage and I am pleased that we are finally here. There is much to welcome in the Bill, and it is very welcome that we have the Bill at all. There is still much to debate, but I put on record my appreciation of the open way in which the Minister and his team have approached discussions.

In Clause 1, we perhaps confirm some people’s worst fears about politicians, because we have the opportunity to debate what a flood is for some time. Someone who cannot recognise one has certainly not lived in Cheltenham. Subsection (2) is comprehensive, but there are a couple of issues in the clause that I think we are going to address in the amendments. One, an almost philosophical issue, is the definition in subsection (1):

“land not normally covered by water”.

That perhaps implies that floods are unnatural events, that flooding is bizarre and strange, whereas flooding is part of the natural process of rainfall and tides, and part of the natural scheme of things. Underlying some of the difficulties in the Bill is an attempt to get towards processes that work with nature rather than against it, and that work with natural landscapes and natural landscape features. Perhaps that definition reveals an underlying philosophy that a flood is not natural but something against which artificial defences need to be erected. It will perhaps be more helpful as we go through the Bill to look for opportunities to work with nature and the landscape wherever possible. Ah, peace and quiet at last; the air-conditioning has been turned off.

We then have the different forms of flooding and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, when the water is flowing down your high street it is rather difficult to tell which type of water it is and to whom it belongs. I shall illustrate one problem with the definitions of water by quoting a couple of examples given to me by the National Flood Forum:

“A disabled women of 89 rang the office to say her neighbour had changed the contour of his drive and as a consequence every time it rained the run-off from his drive flooded her home. She went round to complain, he was very abusive and refused to do anything about the situation. The lady rang both the”

Environment Agency and the local authority,

“only to be told it was” not their kind of flooding

“and there was nothing they could do to help her. Her only form of redress would be to take the very costly legal route.”

In another example,

“A mill owner in south Yorkshire tarmaced a staff car park and after that every time it rained the water ran down the hill side flooding a line of terraced houses. They too complained to the mill owner and got the same reaction as above from him and the”

Environment Agency and the local authority. That tangle of responsibilities and the inability to work out who is responsible for what led Sir Michael Pitt to ask for the clear oversight role—the buck-stops-here role—for the Environment Agency that all of us support. I am slightly worried because we are not sure that, in all cases, the Bill delivers that. It is important that we address not only Amendment 131, but amendments 82 to 84.

Amendment 131 deals with the specific concern of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has rightly said that damage starts below ground level. I am not sure that we need the specific amendment that we are discussing, because there is a definition of ground water at clause 6(4), which says:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.”

I should think that that definition—if we can make it explicit in the definition of a flood—covers the concerns of the hon. Member for Vale of York. However, I am sympathetic to her amendment and would happily support it, for the avoidance of all doubt.

Our amendments 82 to 84 would put a few specific definitions of flooding beyond doubt and within the scope of the Bill. The first definition that we are concerned with is groundwater, in a sense making our objective the same as the one behind amendment 131. The specifics that we deal with reflect the reality that many of my constituents in Cheltenham faced when they were flooded. For example, an area called Little Bayshill terrace in Cheltenham is virtually surrounded by the River Chelt, which goes round two sides of that road. That little cul-de-sac ends in a fairly comprehensive wall that is designed to stop the water coming in and flood defences were installed at the entrances to that area, with sandbags also put in place in the event of June and July floods. But it was all as nought, because in many cases the flood water simply came up through their floorboards. That kind of ground water flooding was just as distressing and, in a sense, more frustrating because the people there had put so much effort into stopping water coming in by other means.

We need to be specific. In respect of the overall definition of flooding and the responsibilities for flooding that we are passing to the Environment Agency—

The hon. Gentleman will know that the problems with both Mythe and Castle Mead pumping stations were from water coming from below. All the erroneous media reports about the water being about to overwash the barriers were unhelpful, because it was about trying to stop the water coming through from the ground. I sure that he knows about that.

My neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud makes an important point. He is right about the Mythe water pumping station. For all the media attention on the flood defences that were being put round the outside, when people spoke about Mythe—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I am confusing that with Walham electricity substation, which people talked about  being a few inches from being flooded, although it was water inside the perimeter rising up at ground level and threatening to damage the machinery that was the problem.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for amending the definition. In support of his contention, may I reflect upon my Constituency office? It is called Watergate, which should have given us some indication that we might have problems before we took the lease. Flood defence has done much to counteract the fluvial flooding, but we still have flooding from ground water that comes up in the basement. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Yes. Watergate is not necessarily a politically suitable title for an office; I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not changed it.

Amendment 83 would deal with a similar issue in respect of surface water flooding and reflects an underlying concern identified by the National Flood Forum. It says:

“We feel that the Draft...Bill does not go far enough in meeting the needs of the vulnerable and those in the flood prone communities. We are concerned that the vital area of surface water flooding is to be left to Local Authorities to deal with, under the auspices of the EA”— the Environment Agency. It goes on to point out the possible practical difficulties. We will come back to that theme in later clauses and amendments, and the question whether there should be a horizontal or vertical Division of responsibilities between the Environment Agency and local authorities.

This seems to be a good opportunity to point out that surface water is a key element of flood responsibility and that we should get the definition right at the start. For the avoidance of doubt, we should also add ground water, surface water and, if necessary, the Association of Drainage Authorities’ definition of water below the surface.

Amendment 84 addresses a slightly different matter—the two exemptions in the Clause. First, it exempts

“a flood from any part of a sewerage system, unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater”— luckily including snow—

“entering or otherwise affecting the system”.

Secondly, it exempts

“a flood caused by a burst water main”.

It is obviously most distressing if floodwater enters the sewerage system, because foul water contaminates people’s houses even more than normal floodwater. It seems a slightly clumsy approach. Will the Minister explain why the Government introduced the exemption only to qualify it? What breaches from sewerage systems does he imagine are not caused by rainwater? Rather strangely, subsection (3)(b), which is about burst water mains, includes no such qualification. A burst water main that is

“caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater...entering or otherwise affecting the system” seems to be exempted. That, surely, must be wrong.

The flooding that one sees on the A46 on the Shurdington road in Cheltenham, where the water main seems to burst every time there is the least amount of flooding, let alone the one in a century floods that we suffered in 2007, will all be part and parcel of the same flood events. It seems strange that the floods mentioned in paragraph (b) have no qualification comparable to that in paragraph (a). Why is that?

In practice, we are talking about flooding in total. We are talking about flooding that is sometimes exacerbated by the failure of structures and physical systems such as sewers and water mains. It should all be included in the definition of flooding and come under the overarching responsibility of the Environment Agency. I see no good reason for such exemptions. If there is a reason, I am sure that the Minister will explain it.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who made some good points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York in moving Amendment 131.

I wish to pick up on something the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. He asked whether it was absolutely necessary to make such an amendment, given that Clause 6 defines ground water as

“all water which is below the surface of the ground”.

I believe that the amendment is necessary because, although the Government seek in clause 1 to define the meaning of flood, no mention is made of water under the surface. Clause 1(1) attempts to define a flood, and we need to amend it in order to avoid doubt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York made a good point about water resting below the surface. Recently, a contentious planning application of quite large scale was made in my Constituency in Longford, an area with which the hon. Members for Cheltenham and indeed for Stroud will be familiar. The area floods—there is no doubt about that, as anyone who lives or travels near there knows—but the contention was about whether it flooded. In part of the area water rests on the surface although, even so, some people—usually supporters of the developers—contended about whether it flooded; in another area the water rests below the surface.

The Environment Agency, when assessing that particular planning application, said at a public meeting that, if the water was resting below the surface, an area was not considered to be a flood-risk area. That troubled me. Anyone who lives near that area and anyone who was flooded in 2007, without any development on the land, would view that opinion with worry. They would be extremely concerned about houses being built on that land. Yet, because the water was slightly below the surface, it seemingly did not constitute a flood risk in the eyes of the Environment Agency and the appeal to build on the land was granted. People who live close by will be very worried indeed—some were flooded and could not get back into their houses for more than a year because of the floods. They were living adjacent to the land; the flooding for them is going to be far worse. It is very important that we add the amendment to clause 1 because if water is resting slightly below the surface, it is only a few millimetres different from resting on the surface, which surely constitutes flooding or flood risk.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also made a good point about land that normally floods. Separately, the hon. Member for Stroud introduced the problem that we had at the Mythe water treatment works in 2007—Mythe is in my constituency, close to where I live in Tewkesbury. The fields around the Mythe flood several times a year. They do not necessarily flood at the Mythe water treatment works—that has only happened on the one occasion so far—but the fields do flood regularly. They are flooded now, and three, four or five times a year, because they are very close to the river and the water table is high in that area. Without wishing to be pedantic, does the Minister consider that to be “flood”? The area floods so often, but how often is normal in that respect? I do not mean to be awkward, but would that land be deemed flooded if it floods so many times a year? Water is obviously not intended to rest on the land, but because it does so often, would that be considered a flood?

It is particularly important that we define flooding in rather more detail than clause 1 does at present, so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on including water resting below the surface. She went into agricultural purposes, but I am afraid that I have not researched the matter in that detail and do not profess to understand too much about agriculture. However, the amendment is important to the clause for the purpose of house building. I hope to return to the theme later this morning, but we are going to have a regional spatial strategy—it is not quite finalised yet—that proposes to build something like 14,500 houses in my constituency, in what is obviously a flood-risk area. The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether we really need to define what flooding is—if we see a flood, we know it is a flood—but apparently we do for the purposes of legislation. The threat hanging over us is the building of so many houses in a flood-risk area. The increase in the number of houses is massive, something like a 40 per cent. increase on what we already have in the constituency over the next 16 years.

When we have such a threat hanging over us, it is important that we define in legislation exactly what a “flood” is. My hon. Friend’s amendment will help us to do that somewhat more accurately.

I welcome the spirit in which everyone has entered the debate in Committee and on Second Reading. I was not at Second Reading, because I was away in Brussels unfortunately, fighting the good fight at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, but I am glad to be here now.

Looking at the definitions in Clause 1 is a good starting point because, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly said, most people recognise a flood when it is heading towards them, whether it is coming up through the basement or down the street. It is important, however, that we have clarity here, and I think that I can give that. I very much welcome the nature of the discussion so far, because it is important to try to bolt down what is and is not covered, and why it is defined as it is. I hope that I will be able to give the assurances that Members want about why we have addressed the issue in this way.

Amendment 131 would expand the definition of flooding to include areas with water just below the surface. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Vale of York. The amendment could extend the scope of the  Bill considerably, so that areas with a high water table, as opposed to areas that are being flooded, would be considered to be flooded, even though that might be the normal state of affairs. That is an important area for definition. We do not want to automatically say that every area that has a high water table is flooded.

Let me expand a little. It is important to distinguish between high ground water levels, which occur in many areas, and floods. Many Members here represent constituents who have high ground water levels as a matter of course, but they are not floods as we would normally know them. We recognise that flooding may also occur as a result of high ground water levels, or have been contributed to by them. The definition of flood in clause 1 is deliberately inclusive rather than exhaustive in that regard. Subsection (1) states:

“‘Flood’ includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.”

Subsection (2) continues:

“It does not matter for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a flood is caused by—

(a) heavy rainfall,

(b) a river overflowing or its banks being breached,

(c) a dam overflowing or being breached,

(d) tidal waters, or

(e) any other event”— and importantly—

“(or combination of events).”

On that point, does the Minister recognise that land being covered for a period each day would probably be too frequent an occurrence for the definition? I am thinking of tidal water. However, if that happened once a month or so, it would be a less than normal, but regular occurrence. In some cases it would happen less frequently than a regular tide, but sufficiently frequently for it to be noticeable.

I want to studiously avoid the necessity to define regularity or infrequency of flooding in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why. We have water-meadows that flood frequently as part of natural processes, and within local areas it is recognised that they do that. In other areas, there might be seasonal flooding. Twice a year the Burry estuary in south Wales—my own area—has high river tides, and if they correspond with high spring and neap tides we have flooding. The Welsh salt-marsh lamb that is produced on the marshes there is a benefit of that wonderful pastureland, which floods not only fairly regularly, but twice a year at a high level.

Let me explain where the definition comes from. It is important to say that it is inclusive rather than exhaustive. We do not want to get into the business of trying to define exactly what we mean by normal or regular and so on, because this is where the work on the ground goes on and where the national strategy link to the local implementation of plans matters. The definition is consistent with EU directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, and with existing practice. I remind Members what the definition in that directive is:

“‘flood’ means the temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water. This shall include floods from rivers, mountain torrents, Mediterranean ephemeral water courses,”—

I appreciate that we do not have many of those in this country—

“and floods from the sea in coastal areas, and may exclude floods from sewerage systems”.

Let me go on, because it is helpful to explain this in the round. It is recognised that relevant authorities may also need to manage water below ground for agricultural or environmental purposes, as Committee members have said. Drainage for agricultural and other reasons is covered already by the Land Drainage Act 1991 and will be permitted for environmental reasons by the environmental clauses 38 and 39.

I have mentioned that the definition we are talking about is inclusive. Putting it in straight terms, it does not exclude water below ground level. Anything within that definition that contributes to a flood event is included in it, including ground water. Damage to property, which we will discuss in respect of infrastructure and so on, begins at 300 mm below floor level, not at ground water level. Just to reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, secondary flooding is covered in the definition, as are any other aspects of flooding in that definition.

If it is included, it seems sensible to put it in the Bill.

A few moments ago, the Minister mentioned, or questioned, our having a high water table in Tewkesbury, for example, where the Severn and the Avon meet, although I do not think he was suggesting that because it floods regularly it should not be considered a flood.

No.

Would he accept that that is flooding?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the context of the explanation that I have just given and the definitions that I have mentioned, and my remarks at this point, it is clear that what we mean by “flooding” is anything that contributes to a flooding event, whether that is ground water or another eventuality. I will come to the sewerage issue in a moment, because that is important in respect of the hon. Member for Cheltenham’s asking why we have excluded that and brought it back in as part of the Bill—because it ties into the definition.

I think that there is confusion in respect of land not normally covered by water, and the Minister is persisting with that in his response. I am not talking about ground water, although I take the point made about it. There is a discrepancy between the 300 mm that will result in damage to property and the 500 mm, which will result in damage to vegetation. That is why we have come up with the formula to recognise the fact that it is not just about what is covering the land—that is where the definition is defective—but about what is below land as well. The Minister is not addressing that point in his remarks.

I think I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. I will return to the point about the detail in respect of the 300 mm and the 500 mm, but it is important to put that in context of the definition of “flooding” being inclusive, so any aspect in terms of this definition would be covered.

Martin Horwoodrose—

I turn now to the hon. Gentleman’s points, because doing so might address some of the issues that he mentioned. Then I will be happy to take an Intervention.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned what a flood is and how we would recognise it if it was coming towards us, and the aspect of what is not normally covered by water. Just to clarify that, it does not have to be rare or a freak event. We are certainly seeing such events more frequently now and we recognise that they are naturally occurring events that are happening more often. We will return to the matter of working with nature, as the hon. Gentleman commented earlier, on discussions of subsequent amendments, because we want that to happen in all aspects of the Bill.

The question of whose flood water it is—as asked by somebody who faces a flood incident—is the focus of the Bill. Let me turn to the detail of amendments 82 to 84, tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, which would amend the definition of “flooding” to include ground water and surface water from any source, as well as removing the exclusions for flooding from sewers not caused by rainwater and burst water mains.

The exclusions included for sewer flooding not caused by rainfall and burst water mains are there because those things are covered by existing legislation, principally sections 37 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and are best managed independently of other flood risks, since they relate only to the water and sewerage networks. That needs to be put in the context of what I said previously—I will return to it in a moment—which is that any flooding event with a contributing factor comes into it. I will explain why the exemptions issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is important.

Will the Minister give way?

Let me finish the point. To include those sources of flooding within the definition of flooding in the Bill would involve unnecessarily a much wider range of authorities in these matters and could impose significant burdens.

I have some sympathy with the concern that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has about flooding from sewerage being excluded. Pitt made it clear that this was to be a unifying Act, bringing together all the legislation. The Committee is united in that ambition. If we are amending other aspects of the Acts that have been referred to, why cannot we bring those Acts into this legislation? I think all Committee members would agree on that. It would then be much simpler for anybody inside or outside this House to understand what “flood” means. If a house is inundated with sewage, it causes a lot more damage, there are public health consequences and it takes longer before people can return to their home.

I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

I think it might be logical for me to speak at this point. There seem to be two logical problems with what the Minister is saying. It is not clear what he is saying about ground water. He may be saying that ground water becomes a flood only when it reaches the surface and covers land, even if it has originated from underneath, but that seems to contradict definitions later in the Bill. The definition in Clause 6(4) is:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.”

In clause 10(2), ground water—that is water below the surface, as defined in clause 6— is one of the flood risks that must be included in local flood risk management strategies. By a process of elimination, that means that we must have ground water causing flood risk from below the surface. There is clearly enough confusion about this for us to want to clarify it with Amendment 131 or amendment 82. It already appears to be an area that lawyers will try to decide on subsequently. They will pore through the Minister’s remarks in this Committee as evidence of what the Bill means. It would be much simpler to accept one of the amendments.

That is an extremely long Intervention already.

On the back of those two interventions, I will reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York first. The Pitt recommendations were clear. He requested a unified law on floods, not on all water matters. The Bill therefore does not deliver unified legislation on all water matters, but it does on floods. We have made it clear that we want to see consolidation following from the Bill. This is a short-Session Bill and it is not possible to deal with all matters now. We have the capacity to manage the water and sewer works separately, but within the Bill, water companies are one of the risk management authorities. They therefore have to have regard to the planning of risk management for flooding in their area and to do with their assets.

Will the Minister briefly give way?

I have not yet responded to the hon. Gentleman’s original points. Perhaps he would like to intervene when I have done so.

On exemptions, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause floods by collapsing or being blocked because such eventualities are catered for in other legislation. We add sewers back because we want the legislation to include them if the flood is not because of a failure of infrastructure, but because rainwater has overwhelmed a sewer. That is the rationale behind the definitions for sewer and ground water. Pitt was clear that anything within the definition of flooding should be included; that includes ground water. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about ground water, but I have made it clear that ground water is a source of flooding when it rises above the ground and causes and contributes to a flooding incident. It needs managing, and that is catered for in Clause 10.

That is absolutely not the definition in Clause 6(4), which states:

“‘Groundwater’ means all water which is below the surface of the ground”.

We are talking not about ground water that has risen above surface level, but about ground water still below the surface of the ground. Surely that must be included, and that is the very reason for us tabling the amendments.

We may be dancing on the head of a pin, in the sense that that definition is, as I said in my opening remarks, inclusive. Where ground water contributes to flooding, or where a sewerage incident contributes to flooding, with the horrendous situation of sewage coming into someone’s house after a flooding incident, those aspects are covered. The hon. Gentleman wants to specify ground water within that. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but it is not actually necessary. Even though I am tempted, as a legislator, always to bolt everything we can into Bills, it is not actually necessary in this case.

I want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York about the difference between the 300 mm and 500 mm and how that relates to damage to property and crops. The 300 mm, as she knows, relates to ground level for damage to property, and the 500 mm relates to below ground for damage to crops. Different assets, by their very nature, will be affected by water at different depths. It is not possible to set a specific, universal threshold for all damage, which could be considered as part of the current definition. There are, as she has said, different levels for different assets.

On a technical point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, the definition of flood clarifies that the various causes of flood listed are covered. I heard what he said about the ground water in Clause 6, but I think my remarks make it clear that, in clause 1, anything that contributes to that flooding event is covered. The Amendment that would add to the list “source of flood” is unnecessary, as flood retains its natural meaning in the definition as drafted. A flood is a flood, whatever its source may be. I could not be clearer on that. I mentioned which floods are not caused by rainfall, and that could be the collapse of a sewer, for example. If that contributes to an overall flooding event, however, it is within the definition of the Bill.

In that case, I press the Minister for an absolutely definitive reply—yes or no—to the following question: is ground water below the surface of the ground, as in Clause 6 and Amendment 131, included in the definition of a flood or not?

Yes; I can absolutely give the clarity that ground water, when it is in situation, is by necessity as defined in Clause 6. Where that contributes to a flooding incident, as defined in clause 1, it is clearly a factor to be taken into account, so it is quite clear that ground water is indeed part of the definition where it contributes to a flood event that includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water, as set out in the subsequent subsections in clause 1.

I am trying to help the Minister, because I am not talking about ground water. I am talking about the Bill encompassing within the definition  waterlogging or saturation of soils. Around 65 per cent. of the Vale of York probably falls within the definition that he so eloquently put in his initial response, but with respect to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, that is not the point I am raising. I am raising the fact that the present definition is defective because I would wish it to cover waterlogging or saturation of soils within 500 mm of ground level. So, I am trying to help him.

In my introductory remarks, I made it clear that Amendment 131 would have the result of expanding the definition of flooding to include areas with water below the surface, as the hon. Lady has just remarked. However, the amendment could actually have the result of extending the Bill quite considerably, so that areas with a high water table would be considered to be flooded. It cannot simply relate to a high water table as opposed to where a high water table contributes to an event of flooding, which is where this definition is focused. Those are two quite different approaches. Pitt’s recommendations were clear in focusing on flooding as opposed to all water management, which is what this definition tries to deal with.

I now turn to the amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I hear what he is saying, but I would be reluctant to add something to the Bill that I do not think needs to be in there, because the definition does, indeed, encompass the matter. Let me take the proposal away, have a look at it and see whether it would do any harm to the Bill—to be honest, I do not think it would do harm, but I do not think it needs to be in the legislation. Let me take the matter away, consider it and see what I can bring back subsequently, because I think we are arguing for exactly the same thing: that where ground water contributes to a flooding eventuality it should be in the Bill. I am arguing that that is clearly in the legislation, but for the purposes of putting it beyond any doubt whatsoever, let me go away and have a look at the matter and see if we can do what he asks. I am not averse to that.

As regards the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York, if waterlogging is part of flooding, it is included in the Bill and there is no need to have any amendment on it. If the waterlogging is not linked to water on the surface, it is not flooding—in other words, it is not included. Just to make it clear: if someone has secondary flooding or basements are being flooded that is part of this definition. However, the simple waterlogging of soil is not part of this definition; it is where it contributes to a flooding event.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving that explanation, which is now clear. Does he not accept that if the water is resting just below the surface it might, for example, be unsuitable to build on that land? The matter is important because there may be a number of planning applications or, indeed, appeals that revert back to this legislation to determine what a flood area is. It is very important that we get this right. Does he accept—I do not think he does—that water resting just below the surface could constitute flooding? I do not think he accepts that, and that worries me.

No. Water below the surface of itself does not constitute flooding as it is described in the European definitions or the definitions in the Bill. I think I have made it clear that a high water table can itself contribute to a flooding event. That falls within the definition in relation to, for example, flooding of a basement, secondary flooding and things such as that. We will return to the issues surrounding planning later within subsequent amendments and that will be a good debate to have. I have made it clear that I am quite sympathetic to both points that have been raised, but let me take the matter away to consider and see whether we can bring something forward subsequently, because we are aiming to do exactly the same thing.

There is not a necessity to go further in the way that the hon. Lady is suggesting because it would extend the scope of the Bill considerably. However, just to make it clear, in asking the hon. Members for Vale of York, for Upminster, for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press their amendments, I am sympathetic to what they are saying. I think we have dealt with the matter already, but I am particularly happy to take away the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and have a look at it.

I would just push something a little further to see whether we get an agreement. The water below the surface does not emerge—obviously—as long as it remains below the surface. The problem is, once we build on the land, the water does emerge and the area floods. Am I correct in saying that it is not a flood today but it may be a flood tomorrow?

That is a speech. The Minister has already sat down.

I am pleased by what the Minister said and am grateful that he will go away and look at the issue seriously. The fact that we have ended up debating it in such detail suggests that there is a bit of a problem with the definition. Both amendments, although not addressing identical issues, are on similar territory.

In closing, I would like to press the Minister for a reply on one of the other issues that I raised, relating to Amendment 84. Why, in subsection (3), is there a qualification to flooding from a sewerage system—

“unless wholly or partly caused by an increase in the volume of rainwater”— that does not then apply to a burst water main? I take the Minister’s point that he thinks the Water Industry Act and other legislation covers the issue but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said, the whole point of the legislation was that it was supposed to be comprehensive. Water companies are flood risk management authorities, according to the later definition in the Bill, so burst water mains should surely come well within the competence of the Bill. We should be able to have either the exemptions recommended in amendment 84 or the same qualification as in paragraph (b).

As I mentioned before, we exclude sewers in so far as they cause the flood because they may collapse or be blocked and discharge surface foul water as a result of such an eventuality. We add them  back—this is pertinent to the discussion we have just had—because if the flood from the sewer is not caused by the failure of infrastructure but by the volume of rainwater overwhelming the sewer and contributing to the flood event, we want to include such an eventuality. That is why we do that. However, Amendment 84 refers to a burst water main not caused by the flood events and we are trying to exclude that aspect. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and clarify exactly why we have included the one and not the other.

I am not quite satisfied with that answer. If the same qualification applies, why is that not in the Bill? Why is the same wording as in paragraph (a) not in paragraph (b)? Why have we done it that way round and not put in the words that the Minister has just used, about the exclusions being from flooding caused by structural failures? A burst water main is, by definition, a structural failure, but the question is what has caused it—is it dilapidation or is it, as in the regular case I referred to in my Constituency, the usual cause of heavy rainfall, which seems to be excluded from the Bill? At the moment, I am afraid I wish to press Amendment 84 to a vote, although I am happy not to press the other amendments.

I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply. However, although I do not intend to press many amendments to a vote, I would like to persist with my Amendment. The reasons are simple. Recommendation 28 of Pitt clearly stated:

“The forthcoming flooding legislation should be a single unifying Act that addresses all sources of flooding, clarifies responsibilities and facilitates flood risk management.”

In the December progress report on the Government’s response to the Pitt review, the Government stated that the definition lies within that part of the progress they wish to fall within the Bill.

My reason for pressing the amendment to a vote, in spite of what the Minister said, is that although I take his point on secondary flooding and the high water table, I think he failed to grasp the point of excluding such damage, particularly to crops. He failed to recognise that any definition of flooding has consequences. Leaving that out of the definition and not supporting the amendment will have serious consequences for farming and the farming community. On that basis, I press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 84, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Martin Horwood.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.