---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, it occurs to me how appropriate it is that we are here discussing flood and water management in, of all places, the Moses Room. I start by declaring my interests. They are fairly extensive, I regret to say, in this case, but the House asks us to declare them in Committee. I am a landowner, farmer and grower, working in a family farming business—it is just three metres above mean sea level, so drainage is very important to it. We are members of the National Farmers’ Union and the Horticultural Trades Association, both of which have made submissions on the Bill. I am a member of a number of other bodies connected with farming and horticulture which have a general interest in the Bill. More directly, however, I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which represents the engineers and administrators of bodies engaged in flood and water management. Specifically, my nephew is one of my co-directors in the family business and is an elected member of the South Holland Internal Drainage Board, which is in turn part of a consortium of drainage authorities in eastern England called the Water Management Alliance. We are also, as a family business, members of the Holbeach Marsh Irrigation Co-operative, which plans to manage the water supply to some of the country’s most productive agricultural land. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for opening our scrutiny of the Flood and Water Management Bill with this first amendment, which goes straight to the question of what happens when flooding occurs. As has been said numerous times, the Bill is, on the whole, a good one and rightly has widespread support. The Pitt recommendations for dealing with flooding cannot be implemented soon enough and we look forward to getting the legislation in place. Plainly, we hope to minimise the disruption caused by flooding because we know that from time to time—indeed, perhaps increasingly frequently—floods will occur. It is therefore very sensible of the noble Lord to raise the question of what arrangements are put in place in the event that a flood does happen. Clause 3 gives a very helpful list of suggestions of what risk management might include. There are 10 suggestions in Clause 3(3), which one imagines were put in by the Government as a guide as to what the Environment Agency and local authorities should be considering when they develop their risk management strategies. The Bill is reasonably carefully worded to make it clear that these are examples, which of course may not be suitable in every circumstance. The noble Lord has added his amendment to that list, so that those responsible for framing the strategies might also consider coming to an agreement with landowners to make preparations for land to hold flood water when needed. The suggestion is a good one. Plainly, when a flood occurs, water will go somewhere. Why not then plan ahead so that identified fields can be kept in preparation? The better prepared we are for flooding when it happens, the better we ought to be able to ameliorate its consequences. There are washlands in the Fens which serve exactly that purpose, and the owners and occupiers of that land are well aware of the use to which it might be put at a time of crisis. I am interested in the noble Lord’s proposal that the arrangements, which would be voluntary, must recognise the financial impact on landowners. In the recent Cumbrian floods the devastation wrought was widespread, and it will take a long time, if ever, to get back to normal. I spoke to one farmer whose land was inundated and was afterwards left strewn with what officials described somewhat euphemistically as "gravel" but which you or I might classify as boulders and which logistically will be very difficult, if not impossible, to remove. The economic consequences for that farm and for the area in general will be long-lasting. If an arrangement can be made so that use is made of flooded fields as a sort of holding area for flood water so that the landowner sees a benefit, that might help to ease the situation. I note that the noble Lord’s proposals are voluntary so far as concerns remuneration. I suspect that that is the right approach and that it would allow flexibility in different situations. This flexibility is the key to risk management, given that it would be absurd to try to micromanage it in legislation. The list of examples is useful for reference but should not become a binding or definitive checklist. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right, too, to point out with his Amendment 2 that the list is not exclusive but that it can and should be augmented with approaches that suit local circumstances. I cannot help but sympathise with him about the inconsistency of the Government’s position on this list in particular and their position in general on lists in primary legislation when either he or I seek to introduce them.