---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, particularly the one that reminds noble Lords regarding the members of CLA and the NFU. One bit that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just mentioned is the question of the long-term provision of food. Some of these flood areas are key grade 1 land. The Bill does not recognise or address that. One could argue that there is no need for it so to do, but the changes in climate cycles that we are experiencing—even if one does not believe in climate change as such—with the weather being too hot, or too much rain coming in great depth, will reflect on food production. Clearly, there are particular areas in England; if we take the grade 1 agricultural land that lies below the five-metre contour, approximately 40 per cent of vegetables produced in England and Wales come from low-lying fen areas. Perhaps I might raise two other issues. The first is in connection with consultation. As I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, at the moment the area of the land around Morecambe Bay is out to consultation. I think that the consultation process has actually finished but, before a decision is taken, even having consultation on it actually puts a blight on the land value of that area. I do not think that that has been taken into consideration at all, or whether compensation will be paid. At the moment, it is in some places and is not in others. However, whether it be on the west side of the country or in Norfolk, where my noble friend Lord Cathcart lives and where the Government have clearly decided that they are not going to continue to struggle against the sea, which will be allowed to come in, the whole question of coastal erosion has huge implications, not just for the food producers there but also for the value of the houses and the farming land around it. I should be grateful for greater clarification from the Minister on two points: first, that low-lying land may well be removed from consideration of flood prevention schemes and, secondly, about the effect that consultation is having on the farms concerned. I have looked at the area being considered at Morecambe Bay. I know that some 20 farms and farmland areas there are very much under threat, and that is of great concern locally. Returning to my noble friend’s comment, I suggest to the Minister that it is not adequate that the Bill does not specifically include landowners—I would call them land managers, but it does not matter what they are called—among those required to be consulted under Clause 7(3). Only "the public" is mentioned, but how do the Government weigh the evidence that is given by the public in response to a consultation? Is it the case that the greater the number of people who respond, the greater the weight they carry, compared with those who manage or work the land? This may be the appropriate time to raise the whole issue of assessment. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for having raised this matter and I hope that I am right, at this stage of the Bill, to stress the importance of the role that assessment can play not only in relation to flood protection but also in relation to areas of good-quality land, which are very much the bread-baskets of our country but which may be at risk.