Risk Management: Designation of Features

I beg to move Amendment 139, in schedule 1, page 32, line 5, after ‘environment’, add

‘; including defined geographical areas of landscape.’.

To make certain that areas of green space important to the avoidance of flooding are clearly able to be designated as well as more obvious physical features such as woods, dykes or watercourses.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 129, in schedule 1, page 32, line 7, leave out ‘affects’ and insert

‘is likely to have a material effect on’.

Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 32, line 15, at end insert—

‘(6) Condition 5 is that a designating authority may only designate infrastructure if this does not compromise its primary purpose.’.

The context of this Amendment is, of course, schedule 1 and the powers that it confers. “Designation of features” sounds administrative and harmless, but buried in the schedule are some major extensions of regulatory power, and we must tread cautiously. In that context, it may seem odd that in amendment 139 I seem to be seeking to extend that remit, but I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that, in later amendments, I propose to mitigate some of the regulatory powers that the schedule extends.

Amendment 139 returns to the issue with which I started my Second Reading speech—will the Bill help Warden Hill? I am trying to place the provision in the context of precise local circumstances and how it will work in practice. I remind hon. Members that that part of Cheltenham has an obvious flood risk in a residential area, which could be exacerbated or mitigated by how the land immediately uphill at Leckhampton is used. The fields uphill are a crucial feature of the local environment. They hold water, and have been marked on a map by consultants working on the flood alleviation scheme at Warden Hill in dramatic blocks of blue showing where the water is held in the landscape. However, it difficult to place them precisely in the context of the wording of the list in paragraph 4(1)(a) and (b) of schedule 1:

“a structure, or...a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

Amendment 139 seeks to put beyond doubt the fact that the list may include not just an obvious feature such as a dyke or bund, but an area of landscape that performs a flood management or water management function. That could extend not just to fields such as those at Leckhampton, but to an area of woodland or similar. There could be an argument—some people would have a commercial interest in making such an argument—for the definition of a man-made or natural feature of the environment to need just a clearly identifiable physical thing, such as a watercourse, dyke or bund. The purpose of the amendment is simply to point out that that kind of natural feature can mean that a particular area of land performs an important flood risk management function.

I shall not refer to amendment 129 because I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire wants to speak on that, but I shall briefly speak about amendment 25. It raises a genuine problem, which has been emphasised, particularly by Network Rail, to members of the Committee privately. The amendment addresses an important issue, but I have a slight concern about it. Perhaps when the hon. Member for Vale of York speaks she might talk about the fact that it could unintentionally be quite dangerous.

As I understand it, the amendment would mean that infrastructure can be designated only if it does not compromise the main role of the company, which is fine with something as crucial as a railway structure. However, let us say that a wall on a factory’s estate is part of flood risk management in that it prevents neighbouring houses from being flooded by containing a river flow. Those who work at the factory might decide to change the wall because their primary concern is nothing to do with flood risk management. They are concerned with the operation of their factory and the wall might for some reason be inconvenient, so they decide to knock it  down. I am worried that they might be able to use the Clause to justify that, and that the flood risk management authority would have no redress, even if the wall was a crucial link in a chain protecting local people. I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York can provide me with an excellent explanation of why that would not be the case. I look forward to her remarks.

Before going any further, may I formally move Amendment 25, because I understand that if I do not do so, we cannot vote on it later? Is that correct?

When we come to it at the appropriate time, you can move it formally.

I simply want the Committee to be able to vote on the Amendment.

The Committee will be aware that the National Audit Office’s report of June 2007 on the construction and maintenance of flood defences in England found significant regional variations in the proportion of assets maintained by third parties. The report found that the proportion of third-party assets in good or very good condition was lower than for Environment Agency maintained assets. It also found that the agency had limited powers to force other bodies to improve the condition of their assets.

The Committee will be aware that the provision previously formed part 2 of the draft Bill. We need to be mindful of the fact that we should not downgrade the provisions to the status of a schedule because there are some very important issues to be discussed here. We are seeking to insert:

“that a designating authority may only designate infrastructure if this does not compromise its primary purpose.”

In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, each case will be considered on its merits and according to the facts involved. I do not wish to be too prescriptive; I just wish to cover the situation that he has rightly identified. There are certain aspects that are currently not covered and it is important to include those in the Bill.

I do not see how amendment 139 adds greatly to the schedule as drafted or to my understanding of what the schedule should be. It is much better to define things and designate objects. I wish that the schedule and, indeed, the Bill went further in that regard.

The hon. Lady may have noticed that evidence given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee addressed the designation of “things” and used exactly the same word that she just used. The report states:

“We asked our witnesses from local authorities and the Environment Agency about these powers. None seemed sure what a ‘thing’ was.”

Witnesses disagreed on exactly what the definition might mean, and what it might cover. That was one of the specific fears that the Select Committee included in its report. Is the hon. Lady concerned about it?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the same paragraph that I read out in the debate on Clause 30. I do not accept that his definition takes the matter any  further. We need to define objects—physical features such as woods, dykes or watercourses—not amorphous things. I would like to designate features that belong to third parties, which the NAO referred to in that regard.

What I am trying to do in Amendment 25 is to narrow down the Minister’s all-encompassing powers. There should be a structure for trying to identify who owns the features. There will be issues when we come to discuss sustainable drainage systems that may be more relevant to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in his amendment, but I just do not accept his definition as fair.

We are co-signatories to amendment 129, so obviously we support it and may press it to a vote, depending on what the Minister says. I have some general remarks on schedule 1, but those are my remarks on the amendments.

I wish to make a couple of brief points about Amendment 139. This time, I have to say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham that I have some sympathy with what he is saying. Like him, I am trying to keep several of my communities in mind as the Bill is going through. One of them in particular is Elvet Waterside. I want to ensure that it benefits from flood risk management not only because it is on the floodplain adjacent to the river but because it relies on the leisure space and bowling green that provide a part of the floodplain. I would like to hear whether the Minister thinks that such areas will be protected in paragraph 4(1)(b).

I hope the Minister will forgive me if he did this, but I am not sure that he sought to reassure me on the points that I raised in the Clause 27 stand part debate. Perhaps he could return to them at some appropriate time.

Perhaps not. Perhaps you could discuss it in private.

I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 139, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, and also to amendment 129.

Amendment 139 takes forward the definition of what a feature is. Certainly on this side of the Committee, we are concerned that any natural features that could in some way limit or mitigate flooding should be protected and even enhanced. It is sometimes said that the drainage of uplands to increase agricultural productivity has led to rapidly increased flows of water, and that the flooding in Tewkesbury originated in the Constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

There is work going on in Montgomeryshire whereby upland that has been drained is now being taken back to its original condition, and drainage is being obstructed. It has been shown that that can reduce the flow of water off catchment areas and so mitigate flooding. Amendment 139 defines what could be a strong method of reducing flooding, and the Minister should consider it carefully.

On amendment 129, the designation of features will have implications for individuals, companies, other organisations and third parties, and their ownership of property because it will limit what they can do with  their property. It might even put duties on them to maintain or improve it. We must be careful that things cannot be designated without good cause. There should be proportionality. Features should be designated when they materially affect or improve flood prevention work.

Amendment 129 would take out “affects” and insert

“is likely to have a material effect on”.

That would raise the bar and ensure that if the owner of property did not believe that a designation was justified in the public interest, he had a defence and an objection to the designation. It is important that we give comfort to those involved in preventing flooding that impositions will not be put on them unreasonably. Raising the bar in this way is one way of doing that and of encouraging their co-operation in these matters.

Amendment 139, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, would insert an example of the type of feature that may be designated under schedule 1. That would affect paragraph 4(1), which provides that

“a designating authority may designate for the purposes of this Schedule...a structure, or...a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

The amendment would add the words

“including defined geographical areas of landscape.”

Well intentioned as it is, I do not think that the amendment is appropriate because the definition is intentionally broad so that it includes any natural feature that acts as or forms part of a flood defence. To be designated, the feature must have an effect on flood or erosion risks. The idea of having examples of things that might be designated is good, but those should be provided in guidance, particularly considering the variety of things that might be designated. Including them would make the Bill more complicated.

I clarify that the intention is to designate things that have a tangible effect on flooding, such as boundary walls, embankments and culverts, which have been referred to. I acknowledge that there might be broader benefits, as the hon. Gentleman has said about this amendment and others. Some of those were identified in the evidence sessions. The representative of the Woodland Trust stated:

“If that feature is also going to have other wider landscape benefits for habitat, recreation and biodiversity in other ways, then by protecting that feature for flooding, you are also protecting all those other public benefits.”——[Official Report, Flood and Water Management Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2010; c. 50, Q73.]

I do not disagree with that. The critical point is that in protecting a feature from flooding, the other benefits will be protected. The test for such designated features is that they contribute to flood risk management.

I clarify that designations are intended to control things that are important to managing risk on the floodplain, rather than to label the floodplains themselves or afford areas landscape protections that the legislation designed for such purposes has not given. It seems unlikely that woodland would have a sufficient effect on flood risk to be designated, just for the sake of being woodland. It therefore falls outside the original intention. There may be woodland or parcels of land that are used as flood storage. There are many of those in our constituencies. Alternatively, streams of water might be directed through woodland during a flood and it might be helpful to designate that.

We want to avoid inappropriate designation. Given that we are designating parcels of land, if we inappropriately designated something that was not related to flood risk management, we would be increasing the risk of a successful appeal.

I will now consider the interesting question of whether something is a structure or a feature according to the definitions. Structures are generally interpreted as being man-made or managed assets. Features, however, may include or encompass natural features such as mounds, banks or paths over which water flows. The idea is not to enable vast swathes of land to be included arbitrarily, but it could include those things, provided they affect flood risk.

Amendment 129, tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, would change one of the conditions, set out in schedule 1, that must be satisfied before a feature can be designated. The condition is that a designating authority may designate only where it

“thinks the existence or location of the structure or feature affects...a flood risk, or...a coastal erosion risk.”

The amendment would remove the word “affects” and replace it with the phrase

“is likely to have a material effect on”.

I do not believe that that would have a material effect on the provision, because that is what the Bill means by the use of the word “affects”. I will give an interesting example, because we have teased the matter out in discussions as we have brought the wording forward. One effect in one area that is beneficial could have a negative effect down the line. I think that our use of the word “effect” recognises that one can look at that overall, rather than look just at one instance that might have a material impact somewhere, so we should look at it in the round.

It is clear that the Government do not expect an authority to attempt to designate a structure or feature that did not have a material effect on the risk of flooding or coastal erosion, and the guidance will give effect to that. The appeals provisions provide a further safeguard to prevent that happening. With regard to a duty on people who own features that are designated to maintain them, the Bill does not give that duty to maintain. It provides only that they should not interfere with it without consent. The hon. Member for Cheltenham raised the classic example of something that had not originally been designed as a flood risk management feature but that subsequently provides a flood management role, from a committee’s perspective. The intention is not to ensure that the landowner maintains the feature, but to ensure that it cannot be interfered with to the detriment of flood risk management. The authority cannot withhold consent unless a flood risk is affected.

I am listening to the Minister carefully, but if a feature is in the ownership of an individual, a body or a company, what happens if it deteriorates so that its effect on preventing flooding is diminished? Does that mean there is not duty or burden on the owner to improve it or put it right?

No. We considered whether we should bring forward in the Bill a clear and specific duty on individual owners, but that really will take a fair bit of thought. It is very complex, because we could be  talking not only about companies, but about an individual living on a smallholding or a house where the wall abuts a stream or river that is part of the flood risk management strategy. That will require much thought, so we have not brought such a measure forward. The Bill enables the Environment Agency, for example, to work with such landowners to try to recognise and designate the features that are important and to try to work reasonably and constructively with them towards its maintenance, but there would not be a duty on the individual to maintain it. However, if that wall, having been identified and designated, was crumbling and falling down, the Environment Agency would be able to work with the landowner to go on to the land and ensure that it was repaired, if it relates to flood risk management in the area. In that way, we can achieve the purposes without trespassing on the rights of individuals too heavily, which I know the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire would not want us to do.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of protection for the owners of the assets, which I have just touched on. The owners may make representations on provisional designation, to say that it should or should not be in—this confers some sort of responsibility—and also to appeal a designation notice thereafter. As I have said, authorities will engage with this so that they are properly informed. And let us not forget that the owner will also benefit from effective flood risk management and probably from the feature being there and being kept in good shape.

We agree that it is important to consider whether a designation could impede the primary purpose of a feature in respect of Amendment 25. I would like to reassure the House that under no circumstances do I anticipate that a designation will compromise the primary purpose of infrastructure. But a designation will offer a basic standard of protection to a structure or feature and to those relying on its flood risk management properties, by requiring flood risks to be taken into account before it is altered, removed or replaced. It will be possible to replace the designated structure or feature with another, provided that this flood risk is taken into account. The authority will not be able to withhold consent to a change unless flood risk is affected. In many instances, the owner or operator of a feature designated is also, as I have said, going to benefit from the flood protection, irrespective of its primary purpose.

Therefore, a designation will not affect an operator’s ability to operate, maintain or repair their infrastructure to ensure that it remains in its current state for its primary purpose. I have to make it clear that in all cases I expect designating authorities to work with infrastructure providers in respect flood risk management and consider carefully whether it is appropriate to issue a designation. The affected parties will, as I have said, have the formal right to make representations in respect of a provisional designation and the authority must take these representations into account. If all else fails, a right of appeal is provided. There is nothing in the provisions that will prevent the provider of infrastructure and a designating authority reaching an agreement in respect of flood risk management without recourse to a designation should they want to do so.

Therefore, with that clarification I ask the hon. Members for Cheltenham, for Brecon and Radnorshire, and for Upminster not to press their amendments, on the  understanding that the definition of what may be designated as a feature is intentionally sufficiently broad such that a designation could be made only where it materially affects flood risk, and because the provisions should not impede the primary purpose of infrastructure.

I am a little surprised that some of the Minister’s remarks sounded ambivalent about the value of broader natural features such as woodland in mitigating flood. Earlier in the Committee I quoted, extensively I think, from the Woodland Trust and their statistics about the impact that woodland can have on reducing flood risk. Before he stands up, I might also quote to him some research by the university of Manchester which has shown that increasing the green space covering urban areas by 10 per cent. reduces surface water run-off by almost 5 per cent., increasing tree cover in urban areas by 10 per cent. reduces surface water run-off by almost 6 per cent., and adding green roofs to buildings in town centres can reduce surface water run-off by almost 20 per cent. So there are many and varied kinds of natural or semi-natural features that utilise the natural properties of soil, trees and plants to retain water.

Far from being ambivalent, we do recognise—I apologise if I was not clear—that woodland can contribute to flood risk management. But it is important that a designation is in respect of flood risk management, not woodland per se.

I am not entirely sure I have been helped by that Intervention, which seemed almost to contradict itself. Perhaps the Minister would be absolutely crystal clear on this. Does he think that this intentionally broad definition could cover a feature such as a field or woodland if those had been identified as important to flood risk management?

Indeed, if they were designated as features that contribute to the flood risk management. There’s the rub. That is the important aspect of it. It is not appropriate to designate a woodland or a feature for its own sake. It has to contribute to flood risk management. So, on that basis, yes.

Good. We may have a result in that case. If so, I may not press Amendment 139 to a vote.

Turning briefly to address amendment 129, we may return at other stages to the pretty onerous powers conferred by the Bill. If we do not further amend the Bill in some respect or other, we would allow the Environment Agency and other flood risk management authorities an alarming and surprising degree of control over people’s own property. The Minister keeps using phrases suggesting that he does not anticipate that compromising primary purposes, but I am not sure whether that would be enough to satisfy Network Rail and some worried landowners and farmers. We will have to return to that under the aegis of other amendments, as I do not think that we will press these two to a vote.

I leave the Minister with one thought. Although he seems to be clear about the definition of “a feature”, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was crystal clear. It said:

“We are concerned that bodies that would be able to designate ‘things’ appear unsure about their scope or scale. The purpose of  the provisions is not in question but there needs to be greater clarity about what could be designated, how the designating authorities would coordinate with one another and how differences of opinion between designating authorities would be resolved.”

Those are real issues, to which the hon. Member for Vale of York has also alluded.

The hon. Gentleman appears to have moved on. In effect he has entered the schedule stand part debate.

In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Did the hon. Member for Vale of York wish to press Amendment 25?

No.

I beg to move Amendment 140, in schedule 1, page 32, line 18, after ‘authority’, insert

‘except where routine maintenance or maintenance for safety purposes is required of a structure, and where routine maintenance or use or good management is required of a natural or man-made feature of the environment.’.

To ensure that every act of routine maintenance, agriculture or good land or woodland management in or to a designated feature doesn’t require bureaucratic approval or put the owner or manager at risk of prosecution.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 141, in schedule 1, page 32, line 36, leave out ‘affect’ and insert ‘significantly increase’.

To raise the bar for refusal of consent so that the designating authority has to show the action proposed would actually increase flood risk to the point where other considerations such as ecology, health and safety etc would be outweighed.

Amendment 160, in schedule 1, page 35, line 42, after ‘consent’, insert ‘or conditions’.

Amendment 140 addresses the area of unintended consequences. I hope that the unintended consequences that we will be pointing out will horrify the Minister once we draw his attention to them.

Paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1 is far too broadly drafted. If we look at it precisely, the wording says:

“A person may not alter, remove or replace a designated structure or feature without the consent of the responsible authority.”

That is an incredibly broad definition when we are talking about things that may require maintenance, that may require proper attention in their normal usage—sometimes that might mean rebuilding, sometimes growth if we are talking about natural features, sometimes harvesting, or sometimes ploughing if we are talking about fields. The Minister very kindly pointed out that the definition in the schedule is broad enough to include such features, provided that they have been specifically identified as having a role in flood risk management.

Yet, on the face of it, it is not only Network Rail that would have to seek permission to maintain something, even something that they might think is essential to the safety of rail passengers—a landowner might have to seek permission to maintain and carry out proper land management of a piece of woodland, hedgerow or some other part of the landscape; a farmer might, in theory, if we take this to absurd extremes, have to seek  the permission of a flood risk management authority before ploughing a field if that field had been identified as important to flood risk management and had been designated as a feature. Although it seems absurd that a lead local authority, an IDB or some other body might take it to that extreme, the trouble with such legislation is that if we require such fine judgments about whether something is justified or not, the legislation places all the cards in one player’s hands. In this case, the Bill would place all the powers in the hands of the flood risk management authorities; if they designate a feature, they have carte blanche to insist that a property owner needs consent. It then takes the power away from the particular landowner or asset owner, who would not have a leg to stand on if they disputed the powers being exercised.

I can imagine a special exemption being negotiated for Network Rail, which has made a particular case on the Clause, but what about other bodies, landowners and smaller tenant farmers or upland hill farmers? They would not have the wherewithal to challenge such rules. The clause gives extraordinary power to flood risk management authorities, and that needs to be qualified. We have specifically done so in amendment 140, which inserts

“where routine maintenance or maintenance for safety purposes is required” or

“where routine maintenance or use or good management is required of a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

I hope that form of words would take care of the worries of Network Rail and also the concerns of landowners and farmers.

Amendment 141 addresses the same kind of issues, but leaves out the very broad word “affect” flood risk, and inserts the phrase “significantly increase.” That is partly on a purely logical basis. One would think that if somebody was going to change a flood risk feature, they would want to reduce flood risk, and that would be the perfect grounds on which to do it.

I have an example in my Constituency. There is an area called Keynshambury road which backs on to Sandford park in the middle of Cheltenham. The River Chelt, which is one of the EA’s main rivers, passes behind a row of houses. A wall that was maintained by the Environment Agency looked as though it protected all those houses. It came to an end—it simply stopped—and effectively went down to ground level. When the floods of 2007 happened, the floodwater went around the end of the wall and flooded all the houses. The wall had no impact whatever, except to hold some of the water back in the gardens and prevent it from flowing back into the river. It was the absolute opposite of what it was intended to do. In fact, the Environment Agency had told local residents that they were not allowed to touch that wall. They would not even have been allowed to repair an obvious crack or break, and were not allowed to add to it in order to make it a complete flood defence.

I have great difficulty seeing what the hon. Gentleman’s comments have to do with schedule 1 and designation of things or features. I am sure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will agree that  schedule 1 and all the points I want to make in a short Clause stand part debate would be entirely in keeping. Why are we going on at such length about something that, on any reasonable consideration, does not—

Order. Is this an Intervention on the hon. Member for Cheltenham?

I am having great difficulty following how the hon. Gentleman’s remarks fit in with schedule 1.

Paragraph 6(5) is about consent to alteration, removal or replacement. Once one of these features is designated, extraordinary powers are conferred on the flood risk management authority, which in effect, controls them. The paragraph states that

“the responsible authority may refuse to give consent applied for under subparagraph (3)(a) only on the ground that, in the authority’s opinion, the proposed alteration, removal or replacement would affect a flood risk or a coastal erosion risk.”

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has proved his point in order. If he had not, I would have ruled him out of order.

Simply, the use of the word “affect” means that one cannot even use the defence that one is improving flood defence to justify working on one’s own property. That is a complete nonsense. The scope is so wide that the refusal of consent could put the asset owner in an unreasonable position with respect to the flood risk management authority. Again, it puts all the cards in one player’s hands.

I want to speak about Amendment 160. It is a very straightforward amendment. Essentially, it asks the Minister to provide a right of appeal against conditions that have been imposed by an authority providing consent for work, and the ability to appeal against the refusal of consent. The schedule outlines the circumstances in which an appeal can be made, which do not currently include appealing against any conditions. That point was raised by the National Farmers Union in the evidence session. I will not press the amendment this evening, but will the Minister reconsider the matter?

Let me deal first with Amendment 140, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The amendment seeks to set out what maintenance is acceptable in respect of a feature designated under schedule 1. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would affect paragraph 5, which states:

“A person may not alter, remove or replace a designated structure or feature without the consent of the responsible authority.”

The amendment would add

“except where routine maintenance or maintenance for safety purposes is required of a structure, and where routine maintenance or use or good management is required of a natural or man-made feature of the environment.”

Authorities will not seek to prevent the normal management or operation of a feature that keeps or restores a feature to the condition it was in at the time of designation. The purpose of designation is not to require any owner of a designated asset to do anything other than to continue  its normal use. What will require consent from the authority is a material change to that designated feature. That is because a change could increase the risk of flooding and of coastal erosion. An authority will need to consider whether flood or coastal erosion is affected. If it is, the consent may be refused. However, consent cannot be refused if there is no effect on flood risk. Any designation or refusal of consent would have to be reasonable and be subject to appeals. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 15 of the schedule.

Amendment 141, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, seeks to amend the wording of paragraph 6. As it stands, the provision prescribes that an authority may only refuse consent for an alteration, removal or replacement of a designated feature on the grounds that the proposed change

“would affect a flood risk or a coastal erosion risk.”

The amendment seeks to change the provision so that consent may only be refused if the proposed change to a feature would significantly increase the risks.

Let me make it clear that authorities will not seek to use a designation to prevent maintenance or repairs being carried out that will keep or restore the asset to its present state at the time of designation, nor will designation prevent a change from being made, provided that flood risk is not increased or affected. The only circumstances under which an authority could refuse a removal, an alteration or replacement are where the flood risk or coastal erosion risk is affected. I am not convinced that any further safeguard is necessary.

Will the Minister give way?

Let me expand a little, because I need to explain the nature of the wording proposed by the hon. Gentleman. As they stand, the provisions seek to prevent any increase in risk. It may not be its intention, but the Amendment runs the risk of allowing a gradual, iterative and accumulative reduction in flood risk protection, which, over time, could have significant consequences. So, the current provision refers to the effect on risk. However, there would clearly be no grounds to refuse permission for the work proposed if its effect would be to reduce the risk of flooding.

I accept the Minister’s point about the progressive and cumulative potential of small changes, but, nevertheless, he is therefore arguing that even maintaining a piece of woodland would need consent. Even if that were not unreasonably refused, nothing in the Bill would stop a flood risk management authority designating that piece of woodland as a flood risk management feature and insisting on consent for maintenance.

To revert to our earlier discussion, that is exactly where the appropriateness of the designation must be precise. That woodland, flood meadow or whatever must be appropriately designated as part of the flood risk management within that area and become a designated asset for the purpose of what we are discussing. On that basis, anything that was done to that woodland that did not materially affect it would cause no concern whatever. The issue relates to instances in which the capacity of the asset that has been identified  as contributing to flood risk management is diminished—therefore, someone could maintain, repair, plant, sow or do whatever.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham painted a picture earlier and said—I cannot remember his exact words—that such a situation would clearly be ridiculous. He is absolutely right. The idea that the authority would say, “I’m sorry. You cannot plant additional trees there,” or “You cannot replant or thin out or whatever,” is ridiculous. A duty of reasonableness must be applied. Therefore, the more spectacularly ridiculous situations simply should not apply.

Let me make it clear that a designation does not restrict maintenance that simply maintains the asset in its existing state. Indeed, a formal requirement has not been included to maintain a feature to a given standard for the purposes of flood risk management. The issue has been considered and explained in the consultation response. There may be concern among infrastructure operators that construction and change to infrastructure may be impeded. I seek to offer clear reassurance on that point. My officials are already meeting Network Rail to discuss those issues. A designation does not prevent a change from being made to the structure or feature; what it does require is the consent of the designating authority. Such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

Network Rail in particular has been concerned that authorities would try to designate things that are not suitable to flood defence. We have given it the reassurance that if something is not suited to flood defence, it would not be designated. Operating authorities would engage with infrastructure providers in the course of establishing what should be designated. If all else fails and there is a ridiculous or unreasonable designation of a particular feature, the right of appeal remains.

Network Rail was also concerned about the duty to maintain and that it would be required to maintain things to a higher standard. We have assured it that there is no formal duty to maintain and although an enforcement notice might require remedial action to restore the feature to its state at the time of designation, under no circumstances could a higher standard of defence be demanded. The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the authority controlling a person by means of designation. As I have said, the measure does not mean that they cannot make a change, but it is important that we designate the correct assets. That is the crucial point.

Amendment 160, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, would strengthen the right of appeal in respect of the designation of features under schedule 1. The amendment would add a right of appeal against the conditions that an authority may set in granting consent to an application for alteration, removal or replacement of a designated feature. Conditions would normally be specific requirements relating to the time and nature of works.

I know that the NFU, and possibly others, is concerned that an individual would not be able to appeal against the conditions. We have a comprehensive set of appeals in the Bill and it is only right that individuals are also able to appeal consent conditions. That would be in  addition to the right of appeal in respect of outright refusal to consent to a change, to cancel a designation or in respect of an enforcement notice. So my hon. Friend makes a valid point that we should consider granting right of appeal. That was always the policy intention, but it might be that the provision does not adequately deliver it, as she has spotted. I am happy to look further at the matter. In the light of that, perhaps she would be prepared not to press the amendment, as she indicated.

On the other amendments, I can assure the Committee that the provisions in the Bill are not designed to prevent routine maintenance or the keeping in working order of a designated feature. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw amendment 140 and not to press amendment 141.

Somebody once said that the only freedom that counts is the freedom to do what somebody else thinks is wrong. If everybody agrees that something is a reasonable consent, designation or piece of maintenance, there is absolutely no problem. Clearly, that is the ideal world in which the Minister would like to live. The problem is that it is precisely when one person says, “That is ridiculous. You can’t do that,” or another person says, “It is ridiculous to refuse consent for this. This is something that I absolutely have to do,” that the wording of the Bill matters.

I can imagine a situation where someone’s woodland or even hillside—I can think of a case near where I live—might be designated as important to flood risk management because the vegetation holds water. Good land management dictates that occasionally one has to cut back the vegetation and reduce its volume. Under the terms of the Bill, if that meant that the flood risk increased while the vegetation was regrowing, the land manager would have to go through the time and effort of seeking consent to do the work. The flood risk management authority—the lead local authority or whoever—would be perfectly within its rights to refuse the land manager the right to cut back the vegetation because, on the face of it, that would increase flood risk, yet it would be part of good land management.

The land manager—in some cases, common land and a voluntary organisation might be involved—might have to decide whether to put in all the time, effort and expense and possibly lose an appeal, or, frankly, to give up and do something more productive with their life.

I am worried that we might be arguing about slightly different things. I have tried to make it clear that a natural feature such as a woodland or meadow would be designated only if it can be identified and designated as being pertinent to flood risk management within the area. That is the only occasion. It is important that we get that right first of all and do not designate for its own sake.

People might want to protect a local woodland and designate it in some way that will protect it for ever and a day. The Bill does not deal with that. If we get the designation correct, of a parcel of land for example, it becomes a feature as designated, and it is right that the same conditions should apply there as elsewhere. The important thing is to designate for the right reasons, and to ensure that the designation is targeted specifically at the feature that satisfies the need to protect against flood risk.

I am not sure that I am reassured at all by the Minister’s comment. By definition, we are talking about things that have been designated as important to flood risk management. As we have argued on various occasions and seem to have agreed until now, that can include natural landscape features.

We live in a largely artificial landscape in this country. Even the countryside is largely artificial. It requires active land management and attention, and sometimes the cutting back of vegetation or the maintenance or dredging of channels. All those things require active Intervention on an ongoing basis, yet paragraph 5(1) of the schedule states that, once the appropriate designation has taken place:

“A person may not alter, remove or replace a designated structure or feature without the consent of the responsible authority.”

“May not alter” in any way, presumably—there is no qualification in the schedule. That is an incredibly onerous restriction on active land management, not to mention Network Rail and other people whom we have discussed.

Even if it is completely reasonable and desirable to designate a feature as a flood risk management feature, the schedule confers an extraordinary power. We are simply seeking to qualify it and make it more obviously reasonable.

This is my last Intervention, Mr. Martlew. If an embankment is identified and designated and the farmer decides to ram a hole through it, that is one thing. But for someone who has a field or meadow that has been rightly designated as part of the scheme, the place in which we can describe the kind of relationship that we would expect between the designating authority, the consenting authority and the landowner will be the guidance, not the Bill. We can expand on such things and bring forward proper ideas for how it would work. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone would say to a farmer, “We have designated that. I am sorry, but that is the end of your farming.”

I have a feeling that we are going round and round, gentlemen.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Martlew. We seem to be in a circular situation where the Minister is arguing that something is not in the Bill yet paragraph 5(1) clearly puts it in the Bill. I am inclined to press the Amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

I am conscious that Members have been here a long time. I intend to suspend the sitting for half an hour.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

I beg to move Amendment 142, in schedule 1, page 35, line 24, after second ‘the’, insert ‘reasonable’.

To prevent this Schedule being a general get-out for any loss or damage caused unreasonably. At present it simply has to be shown that it was the result of a power of entry exercised under 13(1) which will be true in almost every case.

The amendment concerns compensation that is payable to a person who has incurred loss as a result of a flood risk management authority’s power of entry. As it reads, compensation would not be due if the loss or disturbance incurred was as a result of powers conferred by paragraph 13(1). That paragraph gives all the various powers by which a responsible authority may at any reasonable time enter land. That creates a circular position whereby no compensation is payable for loss in circumstances which are the only circumstances in which powers of entry may be exercised. The conditions for compensation not being paid will therefore be satisfied in almost every case, as far as I can see. My question to the Minister is, when can compensation be paid?

The amendment would explicitly apply a test of reasonableness. I have heard the argument in relation to other amendments about reasonableness being a condition that applies in any case, so no doubt I shall be told that the amendment is superfluous, but it addresses an important issue. There must be some prospect of compensation for losses incurred as a result of activity during the exercise of powers of entry that unreasonably damages property, land, crops or whatever happens to be at stake, and I would like to know more about the circumstances in which that action might take place.

The Amendment relates to compensation under schedule 1. Paragraph 14 sets out the circumstances in which an authority must pay compensation to a person. Compensation would be in respect of damage caused by an authority in exercising its powers of entry, and those powers of entry are set out in paragraph 13. They enable authorities to enforce designations, and to put things right if the owner refuses to do so. The powers include entry to check compliance with a designation notice or enforcement notice, and enable an authority to take the steps set out in an enforcement notice when the owner has failed to do so. There is also provision for the authority to take action in an emergency to restore a feature.

The Clause as drafted requires compensation to be paid if a person has complied with the law but suffered damage. The hon. Gentleman’s point that the conditions for not paying compensation will always be satisfied—that it is circular—is not valid. It is necessary for the person to have infringed the designation or an enforcement notice. If the person had not infringed the designation or an enforcement notice, compensation will be paid, but it is not payable if the person had breached a designation notice or had failed to comply with an  enforcement notice. It also means that if damage has been done to a neighbouring property, compensation is payable.

The amendment would affect paragraph 14(3), which states that compensation will not be paid to a person who has suffered damage if they have contravened a designation notice. That would mean that they had made an alteration, removal or replacement to a designated feature without consent. The amendment would offer compensation if the authority had acted unreasonably. I appreciate the idea, because the individual property owner would have no control over that. Just because a person has breached a designation or an enforcement notice does not mean that they should have to suffer unreasonable damage to their property. In practical terms, the authority’s ability to make good something that has been damaged or has deteriorated should not enable it to tramp willy-nilly over property and cause unreasonable damage in so doing.

So, in a situation in which a designation notice—for example, for clearing a water channel—has not been complied with, and therefore the authority believes that the landowner is in breach, and its officials enter the land to try to carry out the work, but in the process accidentally damage a piece of equipment, presumably the damage would not be compensatable because both the conditions in paragraph 14(3) are satisfied.

No. I would expect the enforcing authority, in exercising its duty to be reasonable in the circumstances, would have discussions and engage with the landowner to ensure that when it enters the land to rectify the feature that has been damaged, or whatever, it does so in a way that minimises damage to the property. Acting unreasonably might involve not telling the landowner that it needs to go on to the land to remove a feature that has fallen into disrepair or to clear a brook. The authority should say, “Can we talk about which ways we should get on to the land to minimise damage? Is it by this path or across that field?” If it did not do so, but simply rode roughshod, taking a path that damaged the individual’s property unnecessarily, compensation could well be payable.

There is a way forward on this. The hon. Gentleman’s point is valid. If an authority comes on to somebody’s land, which it can rightly do under the Bill, we do not want to see unnecessary damage caused as a result. There is not a de facto power for the authority to do whatever it wants. It has to be reasonable in the way that it uses the power. I am happy to make the commitment that we will spell out in guidance exactly what will be expected of an authority: it should seek to avoid any damage and should work with the landowner to seek access and so on. An emergency might produce difficult situations, but I think we can provide clarity on that in guidance. The first approach must be to try to avoid any damage. If damage must be caused to get to an inaccessible part of a field, for example, the aim must be to minimise it. That is the approach that we are looking at.

I do not think that the Amendment is required because, as has been mentioned, under administrative law, authorities must act reasonably in exercising their functions. If an authority is not exercising powers in relation to the right of entry, it is likely to be trespassing and the owner would have civil remedies.

Setting aside the issue of damage, when will there ever be a circumstance in which a flood risk management authority does not fulfil Condition 1 or 2 of paragraph 14? Regardless of whether it causes damage, it will always fulfil one of those conditions.

If an authority enters the land justifiably, in relation to the powers in the schedule, it still has a duty to act reasonably at all times. The power does not give it the opportunity to tramp willy-nilly across somebody’s land. It gives it the power to access land in a reasonable way to remedy something that has happened to the detriment of an asset.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the owner could be the victim of uncompensatable damages for not clearing a water channel, for example. No; the owner is under no obligation, as a result of designation, to clear a water channel or to take any positive action. He has raised a real issue, however, and I am happy to undertake to set out in guidance the approach that an authority will have to take when exercising this power. Broadly, that guidance will be to avoid damage to property and to minimise damage if it is unavoidable. On that basis, I ask him to consider withdrawing the Amendment.

I am still not sure that the Minister has answered my question. I am now entirely familiar with his argument that any flood risk management authority has to act reasonably under all circumstances and that the law will support that, but the simple fact is that the conditions in paragraph 14(3) and (4), Conditions 1 and 2, are the very conditions needed for entry to the property in the first place, so it is a circular argument. By definition, they will always be fulfilled, unless, as in the rather strange example the Minister suggested, the flood risk management authorities trespass on people’s land, which seems unlikely, so I think we can disregard that.

There is another clear eventuality: that the flood risk management authorities go on to the land because they suspect that a feature has been interfered with, but in doing so they find that it has not. In that case, the power has been used but the condition that the owner has interfered with the feature has not been satisfied. That is a clear example of where that could happen. On that basis, compensation would be payable.

I am sorry, but as far as I read it the Minister is quite wrong. Condition 1 is that

“the loss or disturbance is the result of the exercise of powers conferred by paragraph 13(1)(a) or (d)”, and paragraph 13(1)(a) sets out the power to enter land

“to determine whether a person has contravened paragraph 5(1)”.

Exploratory powers of entry are explicitly allowed and that condition would be fulfilled, so if damage was caused the landowner would say, “Hang on a minute. You entered my land to try to discover whether I was contravening the designation conditions.” And the Environment Agency will be able to respond, “We are sorry, but we were fulfilling condition 1 of paragraph 14(3) of schedule 1, so no compensation is payable.”

I cannot see any way to get around that.

I get the feeling that we are repeating arguments.

It seems to me that an answer has not been given and that the Clause gives a blanket opportunity for flood risk management authorities, whether the lead local authority or the Environment Agency, to refuse to pay compensation, merely on the grounds that they had a legitimate reason to enter the property in the first place. That means that, even if they think they are acting reasonably but accidentally cause damage to valuable property, and although they have the opportunity to compensate for it, the clause gives them the perfect get-out.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s Amendment is necessary, and I have explained why. However, it would not actually detract from the substance of the Clause, so if it would help to speed up the Committee’s progress I am happy to concede to the spirit of what he is saying by taking it away and bringing something back on that. I do not think that it is necessary, but I am happy to do that.

I am delighted by the Minister’s words and beg to ask leave the withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

I invite the Minister to respond to the points I made earlier and wish to draw his attention to some of our other concerns. He is aware that I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and that that Committee expressed its concern that the bodies that will be able to designate appear to be unsure about their scope or scale. We all agree on the purpose of the provisions, but we seek greater clarity about what can be designated, how the designating authorities would co-ordinate with each another and how differences of opinion between them would be resolved, and that relates largely to paragraph 1 of schedule 1.

The Select Committee also raised concerns about the appeals procedure. I repeat that there are 17 paragraphs in the schedule, as the Minister is aware, and I would be interested to know, now that the manager is not in the room, what the Government’s thinking was behind that. Rather than simply pleasing the usual channels and managers of the House, would the Minister explain what the thinking was behind putting that in a schedule? Does that weaken its legislative force?

I am hesitant about regulations providing the right of appeal against designations and refusal of consent, as set out. I am entirely in agreement with the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which said that safeguards and appeals should be included in the Bill, and I would prefer them to be on the face of the Bill. The Committee goes as far as to say that lack of such provisions in the Bill is a serious deficiency, and I find some sympathy with that. The legislation, in its present form, would confer substantial, far-reaching powers on designating authorities. The checks and balances should have been available for this Committee, and the EFRA Committee, to scrutinise, and for interested parties and partners to comment on as part of the consultation.

It might also be helpful to obtain the Minister’s comments on the fact that the EFRA Committee wishes to exclude the Minister from the list of bodies that can  consider such appeals. The Local Government Flood Forum appreciates that the ability to designate features will be useful. I share its concern that the guidance to the Bill links designations to the register of assets, implying that lead local flood authorities will develop comprehensive designating programmes. What funds does the Minister envisage will be at their disposal? If he says that their existing resources must be used, in all probability they might feel unable to develop such a comprehensive approach unless they have the means at their disposal.

Ofwat has raised concerns about the schedule. It is worried about local authorities’ far-reaching powers to designate assets that affect flood or coastal erosion risk management, under schedule 1. Ofwat gives the example that a local authority could choose to designate all or part of the public sewer network that a water or sewerage company operates. The company could not then alter, remove or replace its network without consent. It is a similar argument to that which we had before, but Ofwat has raised particular concerns there.

The Country Land and Business Association, the CLA, has raised a number of concerns about the prescriptiveness. The first condition for designation is that

“the structure or feature affects— a flood risk, or a coastal erosion risk.” and in the CLA’s view that is simply far too broad.

Under paragraph 1, are there no circumstances under which the Minister would either limit or expand upon “Designating authority”? Does he believe that that is an exhaustive list? I wonder if he could shed some light on how “Responsible authority” should be interpreted? To what extent will the “Owner” of the infrastructure or land—in fact, all interested parties—be consulted about the guidance that he has stated will be issued?

Paragraphs 4 and 5—particularly paragraph 5—really are very far-reaching. Paragraph 5(1) reads:

“A person may not alter, remove or replace a designated structure or feature without the consent of the responsible authority.”

On the first reading of it, that really is very prescriptive and very wide-reaching. I wonder if the Minister could define the designation of a local land charge more specifically?

Those are our main concerns. We believe that the schedule is prescriptive; we believe the guidance, the consent procedures and, indeed, the appeals procedures should be made clear on the face of the Bill. We do have some sympathy with the EFRA Committee and others, who say that schedule 1 is defective in that regard.

I rise to express my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham for this first schedule to the Bill, in the sense that we believe it is appropriate to designate certain features that have an effect on flood management and coastal erosion. However, we have difficulty with the tenor of the schedule.

One issue is that we have four designating authorities: the Environment Agency, the lead local flood authority, the district council—whether or not it is the lead local flood authority—and internal drainage boards. The  owner of a particular feature could have four designating authorities looking at any ownership he has of any feature. We have to consider the matter from the viewpoint of an individual, a company, a business or any other body—perhaps even a charitable body—and the fact that they will have to deal with four designating authorities. The complexity of the measure is immense.

The other issue is that of proportionality. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been able to tease out of the Minister that the schedule is not to do with hard defences or just with watercourses, banks and those types of structures, but that it is also to do with environmental features such as woodland, moorland and various other quality biospheres that could play a part in mitigating flood occurrences. We are pleased that the Minister has accepted that.

The key issue is whether the schedule is proportionate. I think the Minister used the term “willy-nilly”, so I would like to ask him whether the schedule gives a designating authority the opportunity to designate something willy-nilly without balancing the effect and the burdens on individuals, companies and other bodies with the public good that it might do. Looking at the schedule, it seems easy to designate. It is more difficult to object to the designation, and it is virtually impossible—it is not impossible, but someone would have to go to great legal lengths—to ever have a designation lifted on a particular feature.

The question we ask in the stand part debate is not whether it is a good thing to be able to designate something—it should be possible to ensure that features are there to mitigate flood occurrences—but whether the measure is proportionate. That is the question the Minister must answer.

Let me go back to the previous points raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York. We had a discussion some time ago about things needing to be defined more closely and on the comments that the EFRA Committee made regarding that. We took on board EFRA’s constructive suggestions, and the provision has moved on from the draft on which the EFRA Committee commented, which is why the guidance is in the schedule. The guidance shows that any structure or feature that affects the flood or coastal risk that the designated authority manages is included: walls, embankments, culverts, natural features and so on, as has been discussed.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the issue of uncertainty about what is a feature. If there is uncertainty, that is simply because we have not consulted on and issued the guidance yet. The type of features involved will vary from area to area depending on the risk that each authority manages, but it is important that the guidance gives some clarity on that. In response to her query, the type of feature could vary from area to area to suit the local circumstances.

Does the Minister not accept that it would be enormously helpful to the Committee and to those monitoring its work if the guidance had been published and consulted on at this stage, so we had greater clarification on those points? I hope he will go on to explain why the provisions are part of a schedule, rather than part of the main content of the Bill, and what the legal implications are of that.

I was going to address that issue straight away. Whenever I have been involved in a Bill, we have always tried—time and resources permitting—to bring forward guidance on matters. We have done the same with SUDS in this Bill. We have done as much as we can within the time available. It would be ideal if we had that guidance to look at now, but we cannot promise anything. What I can promise is that when we bring it forward, it will be properly open for consultation, including for input from the hon. Lady, members of the Committee and others to ensure that it is right. Putting such a matter in a schedule does not weaken the provision. Schedules have equal status to clauses. It is purely a matter of the arrangement of the Bill.

The hon. Lady rightly raises the issue of funding. The additional funding, on which we had an earlier discussion, will be a new burden, so we will seek to keep it under review as part of the debate that we had previously with the Local Government Association and others to ensure that it is properly represented throughout the local government settlement as part of the revenue support grant.

The hon. Lady also asked why local land charges were considered appropriate. It is because they can be transferred when a property is sold or bought. It is a much more efficient and less burdensome system than redesignating every time there is a transfer of property just because the owner changes. It also lets people know what is designated. I would be able to find that out by searching the title of the property.

The hon. Lady raised the issue—I am worried about this one, it keeps coming up—of removing the Minister from various provisions. In this case, she is talking about removing the Minister from appeals and provisions. I promise that I am not trying to build some great tyranny of Ministers and their powers, In practice, as we have made it clear before, appeals would normally be heard by a court or tribunal, which would ensure impartiality and independence. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate that another body takes on the court tribunal role. If the Minister is so moved, the provision will allow him to make the designation to another authority. If we take the Minister out of the equation, legislation would be needed to refer a case to an alternative body, which is unlikely to be in the interests of the appellant or a good use of parliamentary time. We had that debate earlier in the Committee. It is not unreasonable for a Minister—me or someone else—to have that ability, and there would be no conflict of interest. As in the situations that we have previously identified, it is most likely to be a delegation of that particular function.

The question of why the appeals provision is not in the Bill was also raised. The Bill provides for the appeals mechanisms to be defined in secondary legislation, because the arrangements for the appeals process are essentially administrative and process-oriented. As such, they are unlikely to be controversial. Regulations will also enable us to reflect any change in circumstances in future should it become necessary.

The hon. Member for Vale of York also raised the issue of what would happen if more than one authority designated a feature. It is relatively likely that more than one authority would wish to designate the same feature. Paragraph 4 prevents more than one authority designating the same feature. Furthermore, to prevent any potential  confusion, a designating authority—again, it comes down to the issue of working with each other—must inform other authorities with an interest, register a designation as a local land charge and comply with the duty to co-operate under part 1 of the Bill. Therefore, each authority will manage assets relevant to their own risk functions as under paragraph 4(3). The Bill requires authorities to inform one another of the exercise of their powers of designation. There is also a wider duty to co-operate.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the overarching issue of proportionality of the schedule. I welcome the way in which he introduced his remarks because he recognised the necessity of having to designate the features for flood purposes. He rightly said that the powers need to be exercised in a reasonable way. We have the duties of reasonableness, which I will not go over again. We have the appeals process and the ability to make representations. We have the compensation in the provision. It does not interfere with existing use—we also had that debate. It is relatively easy to get consent to alterations; we do not want to stymie that. To clarify the point made by the hon. Lady about appeals, in practice that will be to an independent body.

Let me turn to the other points raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, particularly with regard to parallel powers for authorities creating something of a mishmash, a free-for-all. We do not believe that will be the case. There is a clear duty to co-operate, which we debated under part 1. That should help avoid disagreements between operating authorities in designated features.

I do not dispute that all the designating authorities set out in the Bill would have an interest in the process, but could there not be a lead authority rather than so many authorities?

Indeed. To clarify, there is a lead local authority. So it is the duty of that lead local authority to keep a register of assets in its area and the record-keeping of other authorities. There is also the duty to co-operate; one authority in one area exercises its function but also has the duty to keep the other authorities informed. In practice, this will work very well.

The hon. Gentleman asked which bodies can designate—the Environment Agency; internal drainage boards, and, of course, local authorities. Along with the comments on the stand part debate, I am pleased that we had the opportunity to discuss the issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.