---

Flood and Water Management Bill

Yesterday, I was rather worried that Amendment 49A was not on the Marshalled List. I am very glad indeed to see that that mistake has been put right today and the amendment is included. I was most disappointed not to be able to be in the House on 24 February to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill, although Hansard records my words in the debate on the Queen’s Speech with regard to this subject. I admit that I am not a farmer and that I do not own a reservoir, nor can I claim to be a very active gardener, although I love my garden. My interest is that I am the president of the Nene Flood Prevention Alliance. For the information of noble Lords, who may not be aware of this fact, there is a river whose name is spelt Nene, which runs through the whole of Northamptonshire, but in the south of the county its name is pronounced as the river "Nen", while in Peterborough, which is also in the county of Northamptonshire, it is pronounced as the river "Nene". That is a little confusing. As I say, I am president of a group of volunteers who have studied our local flood problems for many years. They are now extremely knowledgeable about every aspect of the matter and have convinced me that there must be not only openness but a public right to question what is to be done to save our area from floods. They have already suffered several grievous floods. This amendment seeks not only availability but clarity and opportunity. None of this can happen if reports go only to the Minister and probably finish up in either a drawer or a filing cabinet where the sunbeams of public knowledge can never reach them. Our Nene committee has met repeatedly with impenetrable stonewalls when seeking information from the Environment Agency. I wish to quote a letter written only last month which illustrates this problem. It is from a member of the Nene committee who was studying a problem in our area with regard to the operation and management of the Washlands. The letter states: ""I am most concerned to be made aware that not only do you not have the original design drawings and calculations, but that you have now indicated that even the operational figures related to the control sluices are also not in your possession"." Nobody knows where they are. The letter continues: ""In such a situation I am somewhat mystified to understand how you are able to be so clear, that the whole flood management systems installed in this area meet all the necessary storm and flood criteria. This missing data is not only necessary, but essential, to ensure that the right decisions are being made to protect both the town and the downstream areas"." But apparently none of it is anywhere to be seen. I wish to quote one further sentence from quite a long letter. It states: ""In respect of the lack of so much basic information, I question whether your office has ever carried out an investigation into when these documents were ‘mislaid’"." I think that all noble Lords must recognise that that situation is very far from ideal. Earlier, I had sought information on a flood matter from the then chief executive of the Environment Agency and I was sent a letter that those who informed me on the committee were able to show me was incorrect. It was an important matter because it dealt with the likelihood, and the frequency of likelihood, of floods in my area. The information I was given from that source was incorrect. I was very grateful for a gracious letter of apology in which it was agreed and admitted that the details I had been given were wrong. We were not likely to have floods only once in 200 years. In fact, it could be once in less than 50 years and, in some parts of our county, only 10 years. Noble Lords will see that the difference was very great. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, was wonderfully encouraging in his clear acknowledgement that improvements need to be made. He said that, ""there has been real confusion about who is responsible for doing what".—[Official Report, 24/2/10; col. 1040.]" He is so right. He gave me another reason to cheer when he stressed the need to work with and to "consult", which is important, with "local communities". Members of my local community know so much and have studied so thoroughly that their input will be crucial. Neither of these things will happen unless the reports are made public. Last week, in Committee, the Minister gave me the impression that the Government might be prepared to look favourably on this amendment, which refers to matters of huge concern. These people are most concerned because their lives will be blighted if they do not know, if they are not told or if they cannot consult. I feel that the Minister has been good enough to listen to these pleas. However, without seeking to look this gift horse in the mouth too much, will the Minister say what security risks, which he mentioned last week in Committee, may be involved in so doing? I beg to move.