Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)

My Lords, I have tabled Motion B1. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has set out about it. We have made great progress in relation to many of the heritage aspects of this Bill, not least in the rewriting of Clause 41, which had caused such consternation for heritage groups across the country. I am grateful to the Government for taking that away and rewording it as they did earlier in our deliberations on this Bill. The section that we are discussing relates to reservoirs. That we are still discussing it in this way is because it was inserted in the Bill rather later in the process. I was perplexed as to why, given the progress that we made in rewriting Clause 41, relating to infrastructure projects conducted under the Transport and Works Act, the same protections and caution were not given to heritage assets when it came to the Government’s new proposals on reservoirs. I am grateful for the recognition the Minister has given that heritage assets cannot be replaced if they are lost. By definition, if we are submerging assets underwater through such large-scale projects as reservoirs, the risk is significant, particularly if we are relaxing the rules about who can carry out some of these works. A lot of the concerns that we had were around this being delegated potentially to international companies that are not rooted in the UK and so are not, perhaps, bothered about aspects of our heritage that really matter to communities. We want to be vigilant here.