---

Flood and Water Management Bill

This amendment is intended to deal with projects to build on land which is a flood plain. The motive and belief behind it is similar to the amendment I moved earlier; namely, that the public have a right to know what official action is planned in connection with a threat and a danger to the things which profoundly affect the lives, finances, capabilities and future of hundreds of thousands of people. Until now, it has been almost impossible, as I hinted earlier, to get answers from the Environment Agency. Even when those answers are given they have often been wrong. Money, for instance, is alleged to have been allocated in my area, but no one can say if, when or how that money has been spent. I have to say that there has been a terrific row and the matter may well end up in court. It is important that noble Lords understand the grave concern felt by many local people when an area that they well know, or at least believe, is a flood plain is marked down for house building. I do not quite buy the excuse that everywhere is a flood plain and that people should not worry because action is going to be taken to counter the inherent dangers. When a cloak of secrecy covers what that action might be, when it might be taken and how effective it might turn out to be, the answer is not known. In the past, people who have bought houses built on flood plains find that they cannot get insurance, so the houses are unsaleable because of mortgage difficulties. If subsequently those houses are flooded, their predicament is dire. Frankly, I am shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, feels that it is so important to get houses built that it does not matter whether they are constructed properly. Perhaps I am not reflecting what he really thinks, but it seems that when the dangers are known, it is only right and fair that people should know that something has been done about those difficulties. Without my amendment, so far as I can see, there is no compulsion whatever to inform the public about any investigations that have been made into the extent of the danger of flooding, what steps have been taken to deal with known hazards, what plans are in place for the future, and what assurances can be given to potential house purchasers. It is not unfair or unreasonable to ask that potential house purchasers should know about these things. If it leads to a delay in the plans for building, that may be unfortunate, but I know that I would not build a house if I was told nothing other than that the land was a flood plain and that, so far as I could see, nothing had been done to deal with the problems. If there is a more important or reasonable or fair duty that this Bill should ensure, I do not know what it is. In the Queen’s Speech debate on this measure, I said that a Minister had announced in 2007 that houses could be built on flood plains so long as the electricity supply is connected into the first floor instead of the ground floor. I could hardly believe that that was thought to be sufficient to make a house safe, but apparently that is the information people were given—that it would be perfectly all right because the electricity would go in upstairs instead of downstairs. The lower level might be badly flooded, but never mind that, the electricity supply would go in on the higher level. I think people should know if that is all that is being done. The information will not cheer them very much, but at least they should know. That is my view, and it is appropriate to remind the Committee that in 2007, out of 209 local authorities which replied to a survey on this matter, 56 said that they could not even find out through an official channel whether or not new houses, numbered and planned, were or were not to be built on flood plains. Fifty-six out of 209 not only did not know, but could not find out. I cannot believe that anyone in the Committee thinks that that is reasonable, because it is an impossible position to be in if you buy a house and are not told, but then find out later, that it stands on a flood plain. We really cannot keep these vital details secret from the public. I refer again to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, at Second Reading. He said that there was an absolute need—those were his exact words—to consult, work with and co-operate with local communities, which is different from local councils, in everything that is done on flood management. Those are the words from the man who currently heads the Environment Agency. I found them perfectly reasonable and I am sorry that there is not complete agreement in the Committee that they are such reasonable words. That duty cannot be enacted if those local communities—and, indeed, everyone—are not given full information to work with. I cannot see why that commitment should not already be in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept, or at least think about, its inclusion.