The Norfolk Broads: Drainage Scheme (Hansard, 17 June 1981)

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the Internal Drainage Board has been discussing the proposed drainage scheme with the Broads Authority for some months, and there now seems a reasonable prospect that a solution will be achieved which will protect the sites of special scientific interest in the area and preserve part of the existing landscape. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is awaiting the outcome of these negotiations before deciding what action he should take.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Is he not aware that considerable conservation interests have been aroused on this issue? There are very deep economic questions which should be gone into, and does this not really call for a public inquiry by Her Majesty's Government, to go into all these issues, rather than just the narrow Norfolk or narrow farming interests, as it is possible that the farming industry may be in danger of falling out with the public because of the economic pressures which are in turn put on it, and this concerns many of us?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern, but of course he will realise that public inquiries are expensive things to carry out. The present position is that there are four statutory bodies concerned, the Internal Drainage Board, the Broads Authority—on which are representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—as well as the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. I think it would be unreasonable for my right honourable friend to step in at this stage and say, in effect, that whatever the outcome of the negotiations of these four statutory bodies set up by Parliament he would nevertheless hold an inquiry. What he wishes to do is to see what agreement they can come to and thereafter he will decide what action to take.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that, not only in this instance but in respect of other and future MAFF plans to improve an area for agricultural purposes through expensive drainage schemes, there should be a statutory requirement on the Government to notify local authorities, who can then raise these questions and discuss them among the local people?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my right honourable friend is bound under Section 11 of the Countryside Act, 1968 to have regard to the needs of conservation and 635 amenity. I would only remind the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that in fact this area is artificially drained anyway and that the real worry is that if the pumps concerned are not replaced, then the area will become flooded—and the pumps would bave to be replaced if the area is to remain as it is at present. The next matter, having decided to replace the pumps, is whether they should be replaced by bigger pumps than those which already exist.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Countryside Commission has expressed any public view on the matter?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it has certainly expressed a number of views to the Internal Drainage Board.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is proper for the Government to spend nearly £1 million in the form of a grant towards this scheme, of which I feel sure the public disapprove, when the Government at present, quite rightly, are unable to spend similar sums on a great many things that the public want? Secondly, does he agree that in reality the area will be excessively drained, solely in order to secure this grant of nearly £1 million, because it has to be an improvement and therefore, as the Minister said, there will be the question of bigger and better pumps; whereas if they are simply replaced in order to maintain the status quo, the grant would not be payable?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my understanding is that my noble friend is not correct on that point. The cost of the new pumps would be £1.27 million. The cost of replacement of the existing pumps is about 75 per cent. of that figure. The cost of the new scheme to farmers would be £20 per annum per acre for 20 years. The cost of replacing the old pumps would be £15 per acre per annum for 20 years. The problem is whether the farmers concerned will be able to recoup the £15 per acre from just grazing, if it is done as it is at the moment. Either scheme—whether it is an improvement and larger pumps are used, or the existing pumps are used—is, to my understanding, eligible for grant, because the replacement of the old pumps which are now between 30 and 40 years old is, of itself, an improvement.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the value of that land, as it is, is £1,100 an acre and when fully drained it is £2,500 an acre? That would give the most enormous gain to farmers, and I hastily add that I am one. If I were in their position I would hold my hand out for it willingly. But this is rather a large amount of gain to be given to people at public expense when there is considerable conservation worry as to the outcome.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords,—

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, perhaps I might answer my noble friend's question first. I absolutely take my noble friend's point that of course there is a gain. Equally, there will be a loss if the pumps are not replaced and the land becomes flooded and therefore 636 useless. That is the point which is being considered by those authorities concerned. I would only like to remind my noble friend that the Broads Authority have suggested that two areas, totalling about 700 acres, should be kept artificially undrained, and I understand that they are prepared to pay compensation of something like £25,000 to the farmers concerned. That offer was made on 5th June and we hope that there will be some arrangement as a result of it.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, will the noble Earl assure those of us who live in that part of the world that the Government will do nothing hasty, but will take time to listen? There are a great number of disturbed and differing voices in Norfolk, and if the Minister will at least assure us that he will not do anything tremendously quick or hasty it would comfort us enormously.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that my right honourable friend will not do anything hasty, which would be undesirable. However, I do not wish to give him the impression that it will be so "unhasty" that he will be accused of doing nothing. I am in a slightly embarrassing position because I think that this Question Time has gone on for 26 minutes. I am perfectly prepared to accept any other questions—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, wants to ask one—but I think that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we pass on to the next business, even though it will also be for my convenience.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, I should merely like to ask the noble Earl, would he not agree that it is unlikely that we would ever have had the Norwich school of painters had it not been for cattle grazing in wetlands in East Anglia? Would he further agree that the cost of restoring unique areas of countryside such as these when once they are lost, is immeasurably greater than that of protecting them in the first place?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley's, first suggestion is, if I may say so with respect, slightly off beam. There is, of course, a great attraction in areas which are natural grazing land as there is in arable land and as there is in flooded land. My right honourable friend has not taken any decision upon this matter as yet, but he will do so when he has heard all the appropriate views.