EYEBROWS will doubtless be raised by the fact that, according to the Government's Civil Contingencies Bill, flooding ranks alongside a terrorist attack, a huge oil spill or the outbreak of war as a source of national concern.

The new powers for police to seize the homes of flood victims came a step closer when MPs passed it without a single vote of opposition, last night.

Judith Robbins, whose Worcester home is threatened by flooding, thinks placing a rising River Severn on the same level as an al Qaida attack is "very strange".

There'll be many thinking the same, of course.

As we see it, the chances of police having to use the full force of the law in the two counties would be so remote as to be negligible.

On the other hand, though the Faithful City's been fortunate not to have witnessed deaths in the floods of recent history, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone, somewhere might adopt a Blitz mentality and refuse to budge as the waters rise.

What concerns us most, however, is how the legislation is used when, as expected, it's put in the hands of our law enforcers.

The sight of law-abiding onlookers being arrested under anti-terror laws in London peace demonstrations, last year, is recent and chilling enough to trigger fears over how the new law might be applied in real life.

If it's used wrongly, as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, it'll be regarded as a bad law, and rightly so. If it isn't, then we can rest more easily.