House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 1992

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : As the debate is short, I shall speak essentially about surcharges but shall raise a couple of other points at the outset.

The position of Land Travel has already been mentioned, but it is pertinent that the House should know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) received today a letter from the Prime Minister. It says that not only was Companies house aware that the company was trading at £2.1 million adrift in terms of liabilities in relation to assets, but that Ministers were also aware of it and initially denied it. The letter confirms that Ministers were alerted to the problem by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) but nevertheless took no action. That is a sad indictment of the Government's competence in failing to protect consumers.

I have no doubt that there has been sustained and active consultation between the Department and ABTA, but it is important that Ministers understand that dealing with trade associations does not always mean that every corner of the trade is reached. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has received correspondence from a company in his constituency, Shalder Coaches, which said that it learned of the regulations' implications late in the day and will have considerable difficulty in complying with them. It feels that, too often, Ministers concern themselves with

Column 1089

ensuring that the big operators know what is going on, while the small operators are left to struggle to catch up in due course. The public are greatly concerned about surcharges. Consumers view the practice with hostility and suspicion with good reason, because many of them have suffered what they can only describe as a "rip off" in the past. It is worth pointing out that companies can impose surcharges up to 30 days before departure. The fact that we are getting a 30-day ruling, as opposed to the 20-day ruling in the directive, is a small gesture, considering that we are legalising surcharges. I believe that the directive provided the opportunity to abolish surcharges.

If, by countenance, the consumer wishes to cancel, the penalties imposed on him or her are much more disadvantageous than those that the companies impose on themselves. It is true that in the past few years the issue of surcharges has not been topical, but it will certainly be topical in the coming months.

In the past few weeks, Conservative Members, at least from certain quarters, have been happy to trumpet the great choice of leaving the exchange rate mechanism and the freedom for the pound to float. Consumers will not always be entirely happy with the consequences of the floating of the pound because it will reintroduce perforce the surcharges that the directive will legalise. The simple question is : why on earth should we allow a trade to have such a legal benefit? What is the conceivable justification? I do not think that the Minister has made any case that I regard as sustainable, credible or justifiable. There are few other business sectors that would have the audacity to ask for a legal benefit, or expect it. Terms of trade are terms of trade.

It is a very uneven contract between consumers, who have virtually no bargaining power, and large tour operators, who hold virtually all the trump cards. So that I am not misunderstood, it is right to say that millions of people in the United Kingdom take package holidays and in most cases such holidays offer good organisation and value for money. However, problems arise when things go wrong, and at that point the law must enter the fray and defend the interests of consumers.

Tour operators get money many months in advance. Large operators almost universally buy forward. Therefore, they avoid the risk of losing money as a result of changes in fuel prices or exchange rates. They use the money that they can get their hands on in time. They buy competitively, and they can get good results. They can also benefit from accumulated interest from the use of their customers' money and playing successfully on the foreign exchange markets.

The Minister is saying that those companies, having completely covered themselves against the losses, can nevertheless come within 30 days of departure and say, "Oh dear! The exchange rate has gone in the wrong direction and fuel charges have gone in the wrong direction. The fact that they have not affected our company one iota is irrelevant ; we will surcharge you." That is a complete and absolute rip off. Tour companies make an excess profit for which no risk has been taken and no effort expended, and consumers should not be expected to pay for it.

Column 1090

When the boot is on the other foot and companies make substantial benefits when fuel charges fall, as they have done in the past, and when exchange rates move favourably, as they have done in the past, there is no obligation whatever to reduce the price of the holiday 30 days before departure and, indeed, give the consumer the benefit of a windfall spending money to take with him. It is an uneven contract. Frankly, I am appalled that Government Ministers have proposed to enshrine that as a legal justification for a trade. That trade may well have an established practice, but we should not be extending it ; we should be stamping it out.

The matter of the 2 per cent. absorption is marginal. A much more effective constraint to prevent companies from introducing surcharges gratuitously would be to allow an absolutely unconditional right of cancellation at any time that the surcharge is being imposed, with full compensation. In such circumstances, it would certainly concentrate the minds of those who run travel companies who would be unwilling to lose the risk of total business for the sake of 3, 4 or 5 per cent., especially when they had not incurred the loss. I know that Conservative Members will say that there will be enforcement provisions. However, it has already been said that it is not possible to enforce such provisions. It is not possible to investigate the detailed mix of surcharges that are being sustained by any one company. It will simply be an excuse for excess profiteering at the expense of consumers.

It was stated in the House of Lords report that in 1988 companies imposed fuel surcharges of up to 20 per cent. In the case of a 737 aircraft, the extra cost was calculated at £2.85 per customer on the price of the package holiday. That is surely an amount which any tour operator could absorb. Indeed, Holiday Which? stated that the amount of money paid over in surcharges was the equivalent of the Brink's-Mat bullion robbery. Robbery is exactly what it was, particularly because fuel charges fell, yet surcharges were still imposed.

A practice has recently developed of introducing second and third brochures with revised prices. Surely that is the way for the industry to move forward. If operators want to say that their prices have increased, those who contract later in the year can pay the higher price. But the price that people contract when they buy their holiday should not be alterable.

To raise a constituency point, holidaymakers from the north of Scotland who go on package tours are effectively surcharged before they start because of the point at which they start. If they face surcharges, for example, as a result of currency changes, the charge is usually a percentage of the holiday price. A substantial part of the higher holiday price for leaving from Scotland is for flying costs across the United Kingdom and is nothing whatever to do with the exchange rate. So a percentage is not valid. There should be an absolute charge which relates to the real extra cost of the holiday. I do not see why people who live in the north of Scotland should pay more than people in London when the cost to the holiday operator is exactly the same. That point has not been addressed.

The Minister could argue that the absence of surcharges could lead to higher costs. I suggest that that is not true. It would certainly not be true in a highly competitive market in which some of the conditions that I have suggested applied. Operators would know that if they

Column 1091

passed on surcharges that were not justified, other operators might not do so and they could lose business, especially if unconditional cancellation were allowed.

Even if there was a marginal increase in price to take account of the insurance provision, most consumers would probably prefer that. They would then know exactly what they had paid and could budget for it. They would prefer that to knowing that they could face an extra £20, £30 or £40 per holiday 30 days before they departed--an arrangement which is unjustifiable.

The debate is entitled on the Order Paper "Consumer protection". The regulations are the exact opposite. They are protection of the industry. They give operators the right to rip off consumers and make profits that they have not earned and to which they are not entitled. I urge the Government to think again. This summer surcharges will be imposed and complaints against the industry will increase. The Government will be responsible for failing to take action to protect the consumer in ways that the consumer would expect the Government to act. I assure all hon. Members that they will feel it in their post bags next year.

9.43 pm

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate) : In a debate of one and a half hours, the Chair should have some discretion to limit the length of speeches so that those Members who wish to make a speech are able to do so. I welcome this measure to harmonise package holiday legislation within the European Community. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain exactly what other countries are doing to bring themselves into line with the measure, which is important. Everyone realises the significance of giving the consumer protection from companies that go bankrupt and leave them stranded on their holiday or with a lost deposit. The Association of British Travel Agents has done a good job historically in bringing to the notice of the public the consumer protection that it offers. It has been one of the pioneers in the business. I applaud it for that.

I hope that Britain's lead in Europe was significant in framing the directive. I do not entirely agree with all aspects of it, but it is important that we take measures to protect the consumer. I regret that the industry has not given greater support to the directive and that a way has not been found to obtain its support.

The important consideration is whether the measure will deliver the goods. I have a feeling that it will, but it may not be so good as some of the alternatives that were suggested by the industry, such as universal licensing and its own monitoring and bonding arrangements. That would be a good arrangement, but the costs would have to be examined carefully. I gather that the Government feel that consumers would find the cost difficult to bear.

I am disappointed by the exclusion of package holidays within the United Kingdom. Many people take short-break holidays that cover travel and hotel accommodation, and I see no reason why they should not be protected automatically in exactly the same way as those who are travelling only 20 miles or so across the channel to France. Obviously, some people make bookings by telephone. One of the strictures of the directive is that failure to provide the person taking the order with the necessary information about the terms on which he is agreeing to the

Column 1092

holiday would constitute a criminal offence. I hope that some common sense can be brought into that. If someone picks up a telephone and makes a fairly short-notice booking with a tour operator, it is inevitable that he cannot provide all the necessary details before the booking is finalised.

I think it perfectly fair for surcharges to be made, given the possibility of unusual developments. Everybody recognises that oil prices can go roaring up, for instance. Under the directive, the company has to bear the first 2 per cent. of increased costs before it can impose a surcharge, which I consider a fair arrangement. VAT can go up by 5 per cent., which could have a significant effect on some bookings.

We are on the threshold of the industry's new year marketing effort. Many of the brochures will have been printed for the 1993 winter holidays, and the summer holidays that will follow ; but they will not contain information that it is important for them to contain. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the difficulties that the industry will experience in complying with the regulations when it has already printed brochures but has not made them available to the public. I hope that he will turn a Nelsonian blind eye to any proceedings that may result!

9.47 pm

Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) : It is noteworthy that every speaker has been critical of the Government's position, although the Government have had three years to work on it. I am not about to buck that trend.

A number of references have been made to the collapse of Land Travel, the Bath-based company which cost 40,000 people their holidays last summer. Had I more time, I would refer to some of the several hundred of my constituents who have written to me from the south Hampshire area about Land Travel. In any case, the factors involved in its going bust are very clear. It was obvious to many people that it was going under. It was obvious to Price Waterhouse, the auditors, and the state of the company was drawn to the attention of Ministers by Conservative Members of Parliament and local Conservative clubs. Despite that, the company continued to trade. It took money from one of my constituents in April this year and it took more money in June and July, only to deprive that constituent of a holiday in August.

Will this measure leave our constituents any better protected? Will it lead to better protection for one of my constituents who lost £275 on a trip to EuroDisney? She is unemployed and her husband has occasional casual work from an agency. They have lost their first holiday in six years. They are typical of the 40,000 people who lost their holidays through the collapse of Land Travel. Unscrupulous companies target their business on those least able to pay--people who, because they are most vulnerable, need most protection.

The regulations amount to a system of self-policing, which will not be followed by companies such as Land Travel. The absence of a licensing requirement means that such companies will continue to exploit loopholes until they are caught, and people such as my constituents and those of other hon. Members will suffer. It is desperately sad that, despite having so long to prepare the legislation, the Government have failed

Column 1093

abysmally to protect our constituents. We are told that the obstacle is cost. What estimate have the Government made of the cost of licensing? I suspect that constituents who lost £275 or £500 would have accepted a slightly higher cost if they could have kept their holiday.

9.50 pm

Mr. Leigh : I am grateful to those hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Others such as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who came to see me about the regulations, wished to participate but could not do so.

I inform my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) that under Community law all member states are required to implement the provisions of the directive and must notify the Commission of measures adopted to do so. If a member state fails to implement, infraction proceedings may be taken. We shall keep a close eye on such matters.

In a characteristically forthright speech, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) accused us of minimum consultation. My hon. Friends have shown that that is not true. In July 1991, we consulted all ABTA members and members of other trade bodies, consumer groups and other interested parties, including operators who do not belong to trade associations. That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

The main thrust of the attack of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was why we were not licensing operators. I can only repeat the point that I made earlier : the number of operators who would fall within the scope of the regulations would be significant. Many of the operators would be small and the unit cost of issuing each licence would be high, disregarding the costs of providing protection for repayments. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), and we acknowledge the expertise that he brings to these matters. At best, such a licensing procedure would increase cost to consumers ; at worst, it would potentially drive small operators from the market and reduce consumer choice.

Any licensing system would have to be paid for by the licensees ; there can be no question of any Government money. We believe that more than 20,000 operators would need to be licensed, and the number could be even higher. It would be a massive, frighteningly expensive operation.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths : How much does the Minister estimate that licensing would cost?

Mr. Leigh : I have just said that there is no direct evidence of the number of operators, but there could be between 10,000 and 20, 000. Any licensing system would have to be paid for by those operators. Many of them are small operators, and the costs would fall on them and ultimately on the consumer. It is impossible for a Minister to say how much it would cost, but if one accepts that there are more than 20,000 operators the cost would be high and it would fall on small operators.

We acknowledge the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West in relation to business travel and the contribution that business travel makes to the economy. Unfortunately, we cannot exempt

Column 1094

packages which satisfy the definition given in the directive. We must carry out the directive. Many arrangements made by business men are not pre-arranged and offered for sale or sold at an exclusive price, so they would not fall within the scope of the regulations. I will mention one point to my hon. Friend which I hope that he will welcome. The incentive travel industry was particularly concerned about absorption of the first 2 per cent. of any surcharge. As a result of the representations made to us by my hon. Friend and others, we have now modified this regulation so that it is only individual consumers, and not corporate consumers, who will benefit from this provision. I hope that this meets some of the objections and concerns of my hon. Friend.

Another major thrust of the case put forward by the Opposition was a point made particularly by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South and for Gordon. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate dealt in his speech with the problem of surcharges, but I have to reiterate the great difficulties that anybody seeking to prohibit surcharges would be under.

When prices increase, tour operators can cut into their profit margins, take some form of insurance, or impose a surcharge. I accept that from the consumer's point of view the first is to be preferred, but I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will accept that that may not always be possible. He recognised that the package travel industry is highly competitive and that costs are generally cut to the bone. A company's capacity to absorb a significant rise in prices which is outside its control is, therefore, likely to be limited. The other routes also have their costs. Insurance would involve a certain cost, whether it was done by conventional insurance or by building a margin into the price at which the tour was sold. Many tour operators therefore prefer to keep their initial price as low as possible and to cross the bridge of increased cost when they come to it by reserving the right to impose a surcharge if need be. This seems to be a matter of legitimate commercial choice, so long as customers are made fully aware of the terms of the contract they are entering.

Regulation 11 places conditions on the circumstances in which an operator may surcharge, which is similar to the regulations which currently work well from the consumer's point of view.

I shall deal now with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West on telephone bookings. There is nothing in the directive to stop telephone selling, last-minute or otherwise, which is a point that he raised. Except where the booking is last-minute, the customer must be given the terms of the contract before the contract is concluded, and the terms must include those specified in schedule 2 of the regulations. Often, however, the information can be given to the customer via the organiser's brochure, which he will have in his possession.

Another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South- West concerned repatriation. I agree with the comments that he made. We believe that the proper interpretation of this requirement of the directive is that repatriation arrangements should be made on the spot, not simply that the customer may reclaim the cost of repatriation after having made his own way home. The regulations mirror the wording of the directive. We have not defined in the regulations how the repatriation requirement is to be met because there are many ways in

Column 1095

which this could be done and we were anxious not to be over-prescriptive. Of course, failure to have proper arrangements for repatriation will be a criminal offence.

Some of my hon. Friends raised the question whether repatriation arrangements would be needed for domestic packages. The directive does not define what is meant by repatriation and our regulations have not attempted to do so. It is the view of the Government, however, that the repatriation requirement does not extend to domestic packages. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, however, that this directive and its implementing regulations apply to domestic packages. A requirement for repatriation within the United Kingdom could be extremely burdensome. A very large number of weekend breaks of which travel forms a part would be caught by the regulations. To require them all, however short the distance travelled, to provide a back-up would be bureaucratic and in most cases unnecessary.

Another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South- West concerned compulsory liability insurance and why we have not made liability insurance compulsory for operators and retailers. We have given careful thought to what we know to be the strongly held view of much of the travel industry that liability insurance should be compulsory, but compulsory insurance would be an additional burden and, as such, undesirable on deregulation grounds. Whether to take out insurance will be a matter of commercial choice. Also, an enormous variety of organisations would be offering packages, many of them quite remote from the mainstream travel industry. It would be unreasonable to require them all to have liability insurance. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South and other hon. Members said that all travel agents should be bonded. We believe that if an agent takes money on his own behalf and not on behalf of an organiser, the regulations require him to have protection for any prepayments taken. If the agent puts together a package himself, he would become an organiser and would thus need to have protection in place like any other organiser.

This has been a difficult task for the Government. We have consulted widely, and I believe that it is a major measure of enormous importance to the consumer. We have had an excellent and fair-minded debate. Once again, the Government have shown that they are prepared to act for the consumer but not to load undue burdens on British business.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Order [4 December].

Column 1096

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Deputy Speaker,-- pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Question on Estimates, 1993- 94 (Vote on Account) (Class VII).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £17,763,619,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for civil services, in Class VII, for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 232 of Session 1992-93.

Estimates

Mr. Deputy Speaker-- then put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [1 December].

Supplementary Estimates

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £4,384,141,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 231 of Session 1992-93.

Estimates 1993-94 (Vote on Account)

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £65,973,856,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services, in Classes I to VI, VIII to XIX, XIX,A and XIX,B for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons papers Nos. 232, 233 and 234 of Session 1992-93.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1993 and 1994 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Column 1097

National Rivers Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

10.2 pm

Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield) : This debate is about my constituents who, at the hands of successive water

authorities--especially the National Rivers Authority--have been humiliated by a disgraceful lack of concern or action to alleviate their genuine fear for their lives through flooding.

On 8 December I received a letter from Lord Crickhowell, the NRA chairman, which said :

"I fully understand the anxieties of those who live in the area and their impatience to find a solution."

How long would the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that my constituents should wait before they can be charged with impatience--one month, three months, six months, one year, two years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 60 years? My constituents have been waiting for some action since 1928.

It is an old adage, but nevertheless true, that an Englishman's home is his castle. Furthermore, it is a saying which is fundamental to Conservative beliefs. As a Tory, I believe in the sanctity of property, and in property becoming an extension of an individual's personality. All my instincts tell me that it is property which gives an individual a stake in society. Those who have worked hard to buy their own property, or, indeed, those who rent it, have a right to expect that their households will be protected.

If a house is burgled, the public expect the people involved to be caught and punished. If riots break out and a mob threatens to attack a house, the occupants have a right to expect the powers that be to repel that attack. Yet in my constituency, there are law-abiding families who have lived for more than 60 years under repeated threat of attack, of having their homes damaged and their valued possessions destroyed, and their repeated requests for action to the relevant authorities have gone unheeded for 64 years. It is a disgrace, and totally intolerable.

This threat comes from our most insidious force, which is often not taken as seriously as it should be. One of our greatest natural assets has also become a home wrecker. I am talking about Britian's rivers. Flooding is not just property-destroying, it is soul-destroying. Years of saving, a lifetime of memories, can be swept away in a night's work. People therefore rightly look to the relevant authorities to offer protection.

Tragically, as the residents of Warrengate road in my constituency know to their cost, the National Rivers Authority and its predecessors have not attended to a problem that has been with them for 64 years. They have negated their duty and almost their honour. Although the first serious flooding of Warrengate road took place in 1928, occurred again in 1936, and again in 1947, the position worsened dramatically in the early 1950s. I take hon. Members back to 1955, when "Rock Around the Clock" was the best- selling single in both America and Britain ; Elvis was just 20 ; Attlee was still leader of the Labour party, and Winston Churchill was succeeded as Prime Minister by Anthony Eden. That was also the year in which the residents of Warrengate road yet again warned of the danger of flooding from the Mimmshall brook. Since then, this country has witnessed

Column 1098

11 general elections and had nine Prime Ministers, and still nothing has been done to alleviate the fears of my constituents. While the tide of history has ebbed and flowed, the water authorities have allowed the houses on that street to be flooded twice-- first in 1979 and then three months ago in the early hours of Wednesday 23 September-- despite the fact that, almost every year since 1955, residents wrote in the clearest terms of the threat to their homes.

I shall quickly list them : January 1928, serious flooding ; January 1936, serious flooding ; March 1947, serious flooding ; 1955 ; July 1958, flooding of the whole road ; 1960, December 1965, 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1979, flooding to the road with flooding to 11 properties to a depth of 3ft, plus road flooding ; 29 October 1987, flooding up to the doors of properties and road flooding to a depth of 3ft ; 29 January 1988, flooding to the road to a depth of 3ft ; 1990, flooding of the road to 3ft ; 23 September 1992 flooding to 18 residential properties and four commercial properties to a depth of 4ft.

Up to 1979, while not violating the housing in the street, heavy flooding occurred, and the level of the brook rose dangerously high ; but nothing was done. After 1979, in response to the first disaster, some widening and a little dredging took place, but residents warned that the steps taken were not adequate to deal with the problem. Their warnings were ignored even when, in 1989, the brook flooded to the doorsills of Warrengate road.

The flooding of the houses in 1979 was still regarded by the water authority as a once-in-50-years event, yet, as the residents repeatedly pointed out, the potential for flooding has increased rather than diminished. The surrounding area has been developed and urbanised, which has led to an enormous increase in the amount of surface water run-off which finds its way back into the brook. The development of the A1(M) has further added to the problem. Another disaster was just waiting to happen, and it did, in September this year.

When faced with the dangers of flooding, Noah spent 40 days and 40 nights building an ark. Confronted by the same problem, the National Rivers Authority finally, after 64 years, conducted a feasibility study. The study was begun in 1991 and has still not been made public. Even the NRA chairman, Lord Crickhowell, received a copy of its conclusions only last Friday. That is a classic case of too little, too late.

Reading the National Rivers Authority's literature, one would think that it was an organisation to rival the United Nations. Apparently, in the day it took up its duties,

"it became the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe",

and it is invested

"with extensive powers and responsibilities by Parliament". More than half its manpower is involved in flood defence projects, and from its flood control rooms staff are supposed to keep a round-the-clock check on weather conditions and river levels. Staff interpret the information and give the emergency services early warning of possible flooding. Yet the authority ignored warnings dating back to 1928.

This is not the case of a watchdog with no teeth, but rather a case of a watchdog which has curled up and gone to sleep by the fire. Indeed, until this year's flooding, letters from the residents to Lord Crickhowell went unanswered,

Column 1099

or the answers were unacceptably delayed. Furthermore, the two-stage channel which was promised to alleviate the problem never materialised.

Let us return to September. It is 4 am, and the homes of old-age pensioners, some of whom fought in two world wars, are flooded. The Minister's grandfather would know what those people gave him and the nation, yet here they are at 4 am. They survived the German blitz, yet now the National Rivers Authority is putting their lives in danger. Young children are terrified, and there are rowing boats and fire engines everywhere, all because of the incompetence of the NRA. Families and old- age pensioners will spend this Christmas in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and all because, after 60 years, the authority cannot solve the problem--I hope that Lord Crickhowell hears about that.

The right honourable Baron Crickhowell of Pont Esgob--that sounds like something that comes out of the water rather than someone who regulates water--wrote to me recently. The penultimate paragraph of his letter added insult to injury by saying :

"I must, however, make it clear that it is a possibility that the study may be judged unacceptable on economic grounds to alleviate the flooding to only 16 properties."

I have news for Lord Crickhowell : one property is too many. We are told that the scheme would cost £2 million. But think of the £1 billion stolen from the social security every year--or is it £2 billion? What about the new age travellers? Are we prepared to spend millions of pounds on them but not on my residents who fought in two world wars? Oh no, they are not considered worthy of having £2 million spent to look after their properties, which they have spent a lifetime buying and living in. It is a statement that fails to recognise the traumas suffered by the residents and it ignores the fact that they have been complaining since 1928.

Furthermore, the letter contained a number of factual inaccuracies, not surprisingly, which did nothing to inspire confidence in my constituents. Lord Crickhowell got the name of his own chief engineer wrong. For his benefit, I can tell him that his name is Brian Izzard. Lord Crickhowell also noted that arrangements were in hand by the Countryside Commission to have trash removed from the swallow holes. In fact, the countryside management service organised a band of volunteers to carry out clearing work in March 1991.

This case is a classic example of how a public authority has woefully failed in the execution of its duty. I am surprised by the tolerance exercised by my constituents. All they have ever wanted is for their homes to be protected from flooding, yet they have twice endured the disasters that they had predicted. On several occasions, they have held their breath and only by the grace of God have they escaped further flooding. If I were in their shoes, I would sue the water authority tomorrow. Let us get a writ out and let us get this Crickhowell man off his whatsit

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to speak of Members of another place in such derogatory tones. Perhaps he would like to rephrase his remark.

Mr. Evans : I withdraw that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Column 1100

If successful, public authorities can be awarded charter marks, can we consider conferring official black marks on organisations such as the NRA that fail to deliver the services for which they are responsible? The NRA calls itself the guardian of the water environment. It is a pity that it has failed to carry out its duties to my constituents. It is a pity that the chairman and his officials chose to ignore my constituents' plea for something to be done to protect their lives in September and in future.

10.16 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield North (Mr. Evans) on securing a debate on such a crucial matter in the interests of his constituents. He made a speech full of clarity and vigour, with all the force and candour for which he is rightly famed in the House. I fully understand that the question of flooding is of fundamental importance to him and to his constituents. I assure him that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes the issue very seriously. We have the deepest sympathy for those who have suffered damage, distress and inconvenience through the flooding.

My hon. Friend was right in his views about the sanctity of private property and about the importance that ordinary constituents--those whom we represent--rightly attach to it.

Flood defence is an important and sometimes controversial issue. In recent weeks, we have seen the serious effects that flooding can have in a number of areas of the country. Before commenting on the specific points raised by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I explain how flood defence matters are handled.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for the alleviation of flooding--whether by rivers or by the sea--and for the protection of the coastline against erosion. The Ministry sets broad national priorities and my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that these give greatest emphasis to the protection of life and hence, generally speaking, to the protection of urban areas.

Secondly, the Ministry also makes substantial sums of grant aid available each year to the various local bodies that carry out flood and coastal defence capital works. In the current financial year, grant aid provision amounts to some £62 million. That grant aid covers, on average, about half the capital costs of the schemes, the remainder being raised locally and reimbursed through the revenue support grant. Thirdly, the Ministry gives guidance on the engineering, environmental and economic factors that bodies responsible for carrying out flood defence works should take into account.

My hon. Friend, who has a detailed knowledge of these matters, will be aware that responsibility for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of flood defences in particular locations lies at local level. Schemes are undertaken by local authorities, by internal drainage boards or --in the case of our major rivers--by the National Rivers Authority. In the case of Mimmshall brook, to which my hon. Friend referred, responsibility for flood defence works rests with the NRA's Thames region.

It is those local bodies that decide whether to put forward proposals for flood defence works to the Ministry for grant aid. Although the Ministry's regional engineers

Next Section

Home Page