Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4. Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): What plans he has to introduce safer routes to school. [54360]
Dr. Reid: High priority will continue to be given to schemes to provide safer routes to school. We are also actively encouraging schools to establish green transport plans. In addition, we are establishing the school travel advisory group, with the aim of reducing car use and improving children's safety on the journey to school.
Mr. Gapes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, and also his answer to my question. Does he agree with me that it is noticeable that when there is a school holiday, there is far less traffic on the roads at certain times of the day, and that, in cities such as London and elsewhere, pollution and congestion are much related to very short journeys to take children to school? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to emphasise to local authorities and others the importance of providing safe routes so that we can reduce unnecessary car journeys to and from school?
Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend points out, the statistics have changed considerably over the past 10 or 20 years. Two decades ago, one child in three, I think, walked unaccompanied to school. The figure now is one in nine. Improving the safety of walking and cycling, especially round schools, is not only one of our manifesto commitments but would be of enormous benefit both to children and the wider community. However, we recognise and fully understand concerns about the personal safety of children walking to school. We also understand the pressures, especially of time, on parents and schools. We have established--we had the inaugural meeting last week--the school travel advisory group so that we can consider concrete, practical proposals to provide safer and more secure routes to school so as to alleviate parents' concerns and encourage more children to take such routes to school.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): The route to Ridgemont school in mid-Bedfordshire is one of the most dangerous in the county. That is because heavy goods vehicles travelling between the A1 and the M1 go through the very small village of Ridgemont. The county council has put a bypass for Ridgemont at the top of its priority list. Will the Minister do the same?
Dr. Reid: As for heavy lorries and freight, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have listened to my detailed answers to Question 2. As for the hon. Gentleman's local
plan, I shall always consider plans within the context of the criteria that we set out in the White Paper some months ago. I must remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that, despite the pressure on resources, we announced considerably more bypasses in the roads review this year than the Conservative Government did over a period of years.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a proposal in Cambridge to encourage people who drive their children in from outside the city to use collection points at the park-and-ride sites around the city, thereby reducing the number of cars that come into Cambridge at a very congested period of the day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an innovative and interesting idea and one which should be supported?
Dr. Reid: Yes. We want to examine all such proposals with the purpose of producing practical alternatives. We have to recognise the concerns of parents about the security and safety of their children, which are understood by us all, while providing alternative real choices. Part of the answer may be safer and more secure routes, and part of that may be public transport. Presenting people with a choice, and a substantial means of exercising that choice, is the hallmark of the Government's transport policy as well as of our wider aims.
5. Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): If his Department has specific targets in respect of road traffic reduction. [54361]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Relevant targets include both local and national targets. The Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 obliges local traffic authorities to consider whether to set targets for road traffic reduction on local roads in their area. In considering national targets for road traffic reduction, we will seek advice from the commission for integrated
transport, the new independent body that we will set up to review progress on implementing our integrated transport policy.
Mr. Bottomley: With acknowledgements to the hon. and green Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who introduced the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, may I ask whether the Minister will announce national targets? Will she also set an example by announcing the miles travelled by Ministers in ministerial cars and targets for reducing them?
In addition, will the Minister consider particular areas, such as my constituency? It is virtually impossible for a pedestrian or cyclist to cross the A27 in Worthing, where, because the Government have not provided crossings across trunk roads, many people have to use cars.
Ms Jackson:
National targets for the reduction of road traffic must have a clear and specific justification in terms of the environmental benefits that they are expected to achieve, and must, in order to be preferred to other measures, represent the most effective method of achieving those objectives. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stood by his commitment on where we will be on road traffic reduction in five years' time, and I stand by the assurance that I gave to the House on Second Reading of the 1998 Act on 30 January, which was that the first report under that Act would be prepared within 18 months of enactment--by the end of 1999. As regards safe routes across trunk roads, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that Sustrans is engaged in that matter with Government support. Local transport plans will have £700 million more during the next few years. Since we came to office, we have asked local authorities to prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. We expect the issue of improving facilities and encouraging more cyclists to take a prominent place in local transport plans.
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Points of order come after statements. I shall look the hon. Gentleman's way then.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement following the publication of the report by the independent review team on the flooding that occurred at Easter this year. I do this as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence issues in England. Operational responsibility for delivering the flood defence service rests with a number of operating authorities, the principal one of which is the Environment Agency, as well as with other authorities responsible for providing emergency services.
Following torrential rainfall, many areas across central England and Wales were affected by floods, which were the worst for decades. In many respects, they exceeded the floods of 1947 which have hitherto acted as a benchmark for inland flooding in this country. Sadly, five people died as a result of the floods. I offer my deepest sympathy to their families and friends. Thousands had to leave their homes. Many people have still not been able to return more than six months after the event. I have seen for myself the devastation caused by the flood water and repeat the Government's profound sympathy to all those affected. I am sure that I shall be joined in that by the whole House.
The Deputy Prime Minister visited many of the affected areas on the Easter Sunday to assess the scale of the damage caused by the floods and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing is announcing today financial assistance under the so-called Bellwin scheme for Northampton borough council, Warwickshire county council, Stratford-upon-Avon district council and Worcester city council. This is in addition to the financial assistance already announced for Northamptonshire police authority and for Warwick and Wychavon district councils.
It was clear from the outset that issues in relation to the floods needed to be reviewed. No warnings were given in Northampton and Kidlington, two of the towns that were worst affected. There were also allegations that flood defences were operated in ways that sacrificed one town to save another. Such issues needed to be addressed, and lessons identified.
The Environment Agency is the principal flood defence operating authority in England and Wales with responsibility for flood defence in main rivers and sea defences. It also has specific responsibility for flood warning dissemination. I agreed the agency's proposal that an independent review of the floods should be commissioned, with wide terms of reference.
The agency commissioned Mr. Peter Bye, former chief executive of Suffolk county council, to chair the review, with Dr. Mike Horner acting as technical assessor. The review team received and assessed much evidence--both orally and in writing--including visits to the areas worst affected. Its report to the Environment Agency was published on 1 October. It is a balanced, hard-hitting and authoritative document on which Mr. Bye and Dr. Horner are to be congratulated. They acknowledge that the floods were the worst for many years and presented extreme challenges to those with responsibility for responding.
That includes not only staff in the Environment Agency, but those in local authorities, the emergency services and the military. Many people worked long hours over the Easter weekend to respond to the emergency, and the Government pay tribute to their dedication.
The report also finds that, in many respects, the Environment Agency's policies, plans and operational arrangements are sound, and that staff did their best in extreme circumstances, within the limits of agency guidelines and resources. It is also important to note that, rather than defences being breached, the flooding was generally the result of defences being overtopped by water to a depth that exceeded their design specifications. Importantly, too, the report does not find evidence that some areas were sacrificed to save others.
The review team did, however, conclude that there were instances of unsatisfactory planning, inadequate warnings for the public, incomplete defences and poor co-ordination with emergency services. The report deals with those issues in some detail, identifies lessons to be learned and makes recommendations for improvement of the whole service.
I wish to report to the House that I met the Environment Agency chairman, Lord De Ramsey, on 14 October to consider the report and the agency's response to it. He agreed that there are lessons that the agency must learn from the report and that appropriate response measures must be implemented. Without wishing to detain the House too long, I should like to explain briefly the action that will be taken.
As a starting point, Lord De Ramsey and I agreed that there must be a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response. Weather forecast information needs to be integrated with reliable information about flood risk in particular areas--relating to their topography and the protection offered by the flood defences--to generate a flood forecast and, if appropriate, a flood warning. Flood warnings need to get to the people in the area at risk of flooding in time for them to respond appropriately. Local emergency plans must be ready to be activated, and must work when they are implemented. That needs to happen.
At Easter, there were deficiencies. The agency therefore intends to carry out a thorough review of the whole system to ensure that it is focused to deliver the required service, that management arrangements make that possible and that there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility.
The review will need to take account of experience in recent years of current arrangements and increased understanding over that period, as well as addressing the individual recommendations in the report, some of which can, and must, be implemented ahead of others. The agency will publish its detailed action plan next month.
Having made clear the need for a systems approach, I then considered with Lord De Ramsey each of the five broad areas of criticism in the report--management structures and skills shortages; flood forecasting; flood warning; standards of defence; and emergency response.
On management structures and skills shortages, the agency will carry out a review of its internal management structures by April 1999. That must also take account of the concerns about skills in the report.
On flood forecasting and flood warning, we will be considering with the agency its proposal to develop a national flood forecasting and warning service to bring
together existing expertise in a more integrated way. Flood forecasting relies on key information on flood risk in river or coastal flood plains. Improvements will be made in the agency's telemetry systems by March 2000. Before then, improvements will be made in other hydrometric standards, including identification and extension of best practice.
The agency is engaged in a five-year project of flood risk mapping. Priority will be given to publishing the best available information, even if in a relatively unrefined state, by September 1999.
We cannot provide defences that are guaranteed to defend against every flooding event. Flood warning is therefore the Government's highest priority. Flood warning dissemination plans must be checked to ensure that they contain no obvious errors or omissions. The agency already has that in hand and expects to complete the work this year. That is but the first step. The agency must go on to consider the content of the plans, their scope and their coverage. It will need to check plans against parameters and targets, which the Ministry will define in consultation with the agency. That will obviously take more time, but the agency is clear about the need to complete that task by September 1999.
Those actions relate to the plans for dissemination of flood warnings. Obviously, warnings must get to the right place at the right time and ensure the right response. We will therefore be reviewing with the agency the content of flood warning messages to ensure that those who receive them understand their significance and what they must do.
On standards of defence, the agency is part way through a complete survey of its flood defence assets. I have agreed with Lord De Ramsey that initial visual surveys must be completed by April 2000 and kept up to date thereafter. Those inspections will be supplemented by more rigorous, but less frequent, structural surveys of the defences.
The agency's responsibility is to issue flood warnings; its having done so, the emergency response is the responsibility of others. Local authorities generally co-ordinate the local emergency planning process, but when those plans are implemented the co-ordination role normally falls to the police, although they will clearly need strong support from the fire and ambulance services, and emergency planning departments in local authorities, social services and other similar agencies.
Although the first priority is to complete the review of emergency plans, we are also taking up another recommendation in the report, which concerns the need for emergency exercises to test the arrangements. I see the need for a mixture of regular, small-scale exercises coupled with less frequent major exercises to provide a rigorous test of the arrangements.
In relation to flood warning, emergency response and exercises, there are a number of key partners. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is therefore writing to local authorities, police and fire chief officers to stress the importance of effective liaison with the Environment Agency in its review of flood warning dissemination plans. He will also stress the importance of ensuring that emergency plans remain up to date and of active participation in exercises.
I have set out a series of measures that represent a positive response to the recommendations in the report. I have not addressed every recommendation, although the agency will do so next month. However, I assure the House that the Government and the agency take the report extremely seriously and are moving swiftly to address the key issues that have been identified.
In addition to its role as a flood defence operating authority, the Environment Agency is required, under the Environment Act 1995, to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence. The Ministry will work with the agency and the other operating authorities--local authorities and internal drainage boards--in considering how that general supervisory duty should be developed to ensure a greater consistency of service and to ensure that best practice is shared. Targets will also need to be set--I have outlined some key ones today.
The Ministry will consider with the agency the cost of the programme of improvements. We will also liaise with local authorities to emphasise the importance of their contribution to adequate funding through the levies that they pay to the agency. Regional flood defence committees are being made aware of the priority that I attach to achieving those targets. The agency will provide progress reports. I will monitor and be prepared to intervene through ministerial direction if necessary.
I acknowledged at the beginning of this statement that many areas were affected by the floods. It may be invidious to single out one place as being particularly badly affected, but I think that that can be fairly said of Northampton. The town is one of five that were subject to special case studies in the report. Two people died and thousands had to leave their homes. Many have yet to return and some may never do so.
The town's residents have pursued a vigorous campaign for a judicial public inquiry into the floods. They have presented a petition to the House, and, all along, their efforts have been assiduously supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Because of those representations, I have given careful thought to the call for a judicial public inquiry. On balance, however, I am not persuaded that an inquiry of that type will add to the detailed findings of Mr. Bye's thorough and independent report. Even the most cynical of observers could not accuse the report of being a whitewash. It pulls no punches in its conclusions.
I believe that there is a compelling need to move on, to learn the lessons identified and, above all, to implement the appropriate measures that I have set out today. A public inquiry would distract attention from that and inevitably result in further and, I suggest, unnecessary delay. It would also divert considerable financial and staff resources from the vital task of reducing the risk of a recurrence of the devastation of the floods.
Mercifully, serious floods are relatively rare in this country, thanks to the investment that successive Governments have made to protect our natural and man-made assets--an investment which this Government increased in the recent comprehensive spending review by some £23 million for capital works over the next three years.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |