---

Flood and Water Management Bill

For the purpose of the whole Committee stage of the Bill, I declare my interests as a farmer, landowner and as a member of the CLA and NFU. Clause 3(3) contains a long list of arrangements that can be made in connection with flood risk or coastal erosion risk management. I realise that the list is not, as the Explanatory Notes say, exhaustive or limiting. As I said at Second Reading, I was surprised that there was no mention of the one recourse against flooding that serves to hold back the water of a catchment as opposed to merely accelerating it around the sensitive areas. Clause 3(3)(b) mentions, ""maintaining or restoring natural processes"," but that does not really cover it. We are not necessarily talking about natural processes. Perhaps I can explain. I am proposing a series of voluntary arrangements or agreements entered into willingly by two separate parties. The local authority enters into a contract with the landowner or farmer who is paid to prepare a field, fields or water meadows for flood relief. There are many examples of what it could be; the local authority might want to dig a two-foot bank around a group of fields or the edge of a field, or the farmer merely puts a 9-inch ploughed strip around the field. It could also involve sluices or a pump where the water can be pumped away from the river or into an area that can hold the water, not necessarily adjacent to it. The farmer is then paid an annual retainer for holding his land in readiness for such an eventuality. When flooding occurs or is likely to occur, the farmer, at a signal, or the local authority, floods the relevant area of land. The farmer gets extra compensation for the loss of his crop, including a profit, as well as for any soil damage that might occur. It will not always be appropriate. Sometimes concrete is the only solution. As I said at Second Reading, in a big river, hard defences and the inevitable acceleration of water downstream can only cause extra problems for those at the bottom end of a catchment. Therefore, any decent local flood risk management strategy should consider such soft defence mechanisms wherever possible. It seems to me that, in an admittedly non-exhaustive list, which contains 10 possible options, to have no mention at all of modern soft flood defence mechanisms is remiss. As the one form of defence that is truly sustainable and helps to relieve a whole catchment, as opposed to putting in a quick fix for some localised built-up area, such soft flood defence mechanisms are worthy of consideration. I beg to move.