| Flood Risk Management-Flood Prevention, Protection and Mitigation
|
|
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for those assurances. Could I draw the Minister's attention to the planning issue? I have just learnt today that one of the businesses in the centre of Boscastle, which was swept away in the devastation on 16 August, is seeking planning consent simply to restore the business, not to build something new. The planning authority, under instruction from the statutory consultees—the Environment Agency—has decided that it cannot give planning consent, even to restore an existing building, because of the flood threat that is now identified there. This is a difficult area. As I am sure the Minister would agree, the last thing that we want is for that building to be swept away again. But, as I said earlier, we can all assume that the devastation of 16 August will not happen regularly. There is a whole host of reasons why not, not least because the Environment Agency will be approving a new flood prevention scheme. Mr. Morley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. While I was there I looked at where the Environment Agency intends to improve the flow of water through Boscastle, which will minimise flood risk. It would not have stopped that dreadful event, which was so overwhelming and extreme that I doubt whether anything could have stopped it. Nevertheless, it reduces risk and that should be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman has identified a real difficulty. The property that he mentioned was swept away because of its vulnerability to that surge. On the other hand, it was an important business and part of the tourist attractions in the area. It is for the local planners to weigh up all those risks and to make the final decision. There are no easy answers. The hon. Gentleman asked who could disagree with this communication? Well, I seem to have managed to inject a bit of disagreement. I will try to deal with the various points. It is worth stressing that this is a communication and not a directive. For quite understandable reasons, some EU countries would prefer this to be a directive. Anyone who is at the end of a major river system that has bad management upstream will suffer the consequences and may want to Column Number: 17 have the reassurance that definitive action will be taken. However, we believe that these matters can be resolved without taking the steps of going to a directive.I accept that we need a flexible approach in the way that we deal with flood risk management because it varies from country to country and within countries. It varies within our own country in terms of the nature of flood and the types of river. Maximum flexibility is essential. We agree with the Committee's conclusions on that. That will be the position that we will take in discussions with the European Commission. The hon. Lady asked about the solidarity fund. The hon. Gentleman was right. It takes a disaster incurring expenditure of more than è3 billion, which is a considerable sum of money, or 0.6 per cent. of gross national income, which is an even bigger sum of money in relation to our economy, to trigger its use. Although we have had some quite major floods events, there has not been damage on that scale. I can think of only one example where money has been paid out and that was in the dreadful Rhine floods, which took place right along the Rhine and caused huge amounts of damage. It is also not a fund that can be used for sea walls or sea defences. The hon. Lady asked about the role of the rural development fund. In relation to our decisions and the priorities given to funding from the English rural development fund, following on from extensive discussion and consultation, we have made available in our agri-environment programmes the option for landowners to go into schemes that could, for example, reinstate salt marshes or water meadows, or could put back meanders into rivers—a range of land management options that could reduce flood risk. We are very interested in that area. Obviously, such schemes would depend on the circumstances, because there would be different solutions in different areas. Those kinds of soft defence schemes will not work in all areas; in some places the traditional engineered defences will be needed. However, where we can use the soft defence schemes, we should do so. For example, Lincoln is partly protected by a flood meadow scheme, which floods during the peak of the river and therefore reduces the flood risk. I should like to see more of those schemes, because they are also reinstating some important lost habitats, including water meadows and wet grazing, which had long gone from this country; it is an opportunity to put such habitats back. Miss McIntosh: Without stretching my technical knowledge, is the Minister saying that areas can be reinstated only to what was there before, and that there could not be new projects? In relation to the point that the Minister made about the communication, my understanding, based on my two and a half years in private practice as a lawyer in Brussels, is that everything, particularly if there is a financial base, has to have a legal base. I notice that the explanatory memorandum, which, I think, is prepared by his Department, says that there is no legal base. In Column Number: 18 my humble view, there must be a legal base. Would the Minister write to me about that matter, if he cannot address it today?Mr. Morley: I think that I will have to do so, because I am always wary of stepping into the legal minefield of lawyers and laws and legal bases. In my experience, going down that route will cost money one way or another. I am glad to say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has an excellent legal department, which will sort all those things out in-house; I am sure that it can deal with that particular point. The hon. Lady asked whether, if someone owns an existing feature, they can claim agri-environment money. That very much depends on the condition. For example, if someone already owns a salt marsh, they cannot ask for money to turn it into a salt marsh. If someone has land that floods naturally and regularly, that may be a feature of the land already. However, there are still possibilities. On land that floods naturally, such as the Somerset levels, the water is traditionally pumped off as soon as possible. However, some of that land can be put into agri-environment schemes in which the water levels are maintained at a certain depth and for a certain time. Farmers and landowners can receive payments for that, because they keep the land wetter for longer than they normally would. Matthew Green: That touches on a point that I raised earlier, to which I do not think the Minister gave a full response. My point concerned the fact that the new single farm payment is only payable where the land is actively farmed. I have already received a response from the Department saying that the area of a footpath running across land will not count towards a single farm payment, which runs contrary to the general desire for new footpaths. I am concerned that if there are areas of salt marsh, for example, that are not actively farmed, they will not qualify for the single farm payment, which would seem to be the logical way of ensuring some financial recompense even if they do not qualify for changing something that does not need changing. Mr. Morley: If it was not actively farmed in the past and is not being actively farmed now, there is no change in the situation. Each circumstance will have to be examined on its individual merits. As a general principle, if land is being altered or taken for flood defence purposes there is usually an entitlement to a payment. The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of flood walls, for example. Incidentally, this is not a case of not having enough money. We have plenty of money in our budget for flood defences. The question is one of long-term sustainability and whether maintaining certain sea defences is cost-effective compared with the value of the land or asset behind the wall. That is what we must consider. Column Number: 19 Miss McIntosh: Can the Minister clarify a point about which I am confused? I understood that land would not qualify for flooding under the single farm payment, but I think that he said that it could qualify under a rural development grant. Mr. Morley: It depends. Miss McIntosh: But are there different criteria for sea walls as opposed to managed retreat in respect of rivers? Would managed retreat not also apply in certain circumstances? I am thinking of salt marshes on the Essex coast. Mr. Morley: Yes, in the case of estuaries, managed realignment may apply, because it may be the best option. There is a large scheme on the edge of my constituency whereby agricultural land is to be flooded as part of a managed realignment. In that case, it is a deliberate policy of flooding the land, so the land has been purchased from the landowner, who is incredibly supportive of the scheme. The landowner has a long-standing commitment to conservation management and has taken a great personal interest in it. The local community is also supportive. That scheme could be a great asset. In fact, the benefits are so great that it has even attracted a contribution from the regional development agency, because there is an element of regeneration as regards attracting tourists. There may be a range of benefits from managed realignment. With regard to the single payment, it depends on the circumstances. For example, there may be a traditional farming practice whereby there is grazing in summer but the animals are taken off the land in winter and the land is allowed to flood. That is active farming. I am pretty sure that that would qualify for Column Number: 20 the single farm payment in those circumstances. The circumstances must be considered. Salt marsh grazing is another example. Whether the single farm payment will apply depends on the circumstances. All I can say is that I can think of circumstances in which it will apply in relation to agri-environment programmes, and we will get a range of benefits from that.This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. Flood and coastal defences are important to us all. As we have heard, this is not just a coastal or fluvial issue; it is also a matter for urban communities, given the risks that they face. The issue is linked with climate change, which is why the Government take it so seriously. Long-term investment is needed, but there is also room for innovation and a more holistic and integrated approach. I am glad to say that the common agricultural policy reforms, the forthcoming water framework directive and the application of our agri-environment and flood defence budgets are giving us more flexibility. I am confident that there will be further opportunities to reduce flood risk and to produce the environmental and social gains that we all want. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
|
| |
| Prepared 8 December 2004 | |
