| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): May I raise something that has not been mentioned yet? In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that additional applications would be considered, including applications relating to small mines. The losses experienced by such mines may mean that they cannot survive, whereas RJB Mining could possibly subsidise one plant from, for instance, opencast operations. Is it possible to take that into account?
Mrs. Liddell: That was a useful question. The decision on aid is made per production unit, regardless of whether the mine is small or large and regardless of its ownership. The key is the ability to show that, notwithstanding present losses, the pit concerned will be in a position to be viable by the time the coal subsidy scheme ends. That is a way of giving a future to an industry that was ignored by the last Administration.
This is a significant night for coal communities. I am very pleased to commend the order to the House.
- That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and in respect of coal mining qualifying for aid under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme, sums exceeding £10 million for each of Hatfield Coal Company Ltd, Mining (Scotland) Limited, and RJB Mining plc.
PETITION
Death of Anna Fisher
9.48 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth): I wish to present a petition on behalf of the people of Ryhill and Havercroft in my constituency. It relates to events following the tragic death of Anna Fisher, and the collapse in public confidence in the criminal justice system that succeeded those events.
- The Petitioners respectfully request that the House of Commons asks Ministers in the Home Department to review the course of the criminal justice system following Anna's death, and if possible to meet Anna's parents to discuss these and related matters.
And the Petitioners remain, etc
Flooding (Gowdall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.49 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): Mr. Speaker-- I am pleased to get your title right this time--I welcome you to the Chair for this debate. A week ago, you kindly called me at Prime Minister's Question Time, when I raised the issue of flooding in the village of Gowdall in my constituency. I was pleased to receive a positive response from my right hon. Friend, who has subsequently made efforts to get the situation moving. Nevertheless, a week later, the village still has severe problems. I should like to explain the problems to the Minister, and give him an opportunity to comment on some of the village residents' very real concerns about all the events of the past fortnight.
Gowdall is a small village in the north-west tip of my constituency, on the border between east and west Yorkshire, and has suffered dreadfully from flooding in the past week or so. Of course, there have been floods in many parts of the country. Floods in York--which moved down around Selby, and into parts of Selby--received national media attention, but they ended up in Gowdall. We have also seen media reports from various places about how the situation is returning to normal and people are getting back to their business. In Gowdall, however, the situation is still difficult, as water is still within the village boundary and some residents are unable to return to their homes.
When the water first started moving towards Gowdall, the Environment Agency attempted to prevent it from reaching the village by making a dam across a railway embankment. Sadly, there was so much water that the dam burst. Very quickly, Gowdall was under several feet of water and people had to be evacuated from their homes. Almost 100 homes, in a village of 150 homes, had to be evacuated. It has been a traumatic experience for everyone involved.
Some of my comments in this debate will deal with the response of agencies, emergency services and local authorities to the flooding. I should say right away that there has been nothing but warm praise for the exceptional efforts made by people from the agencies, emergency services and local authorities who were in the village as events unfolded. They were working against extraordinary weather, and they faced an extremely difficult task with great fortitude. I know from conversations with villagers that they very much welcomed all those efforts.
Whenever there is a severe flood, questions are inevitably asked about the Environment Agency--which, after all, has the responsibility for looking after the country's flood defences. Villagers had some real concerns--which, as people's homes were flooded, turned to anger--about the agency's actions. The entire ground floors of some people's houses were flooded, and some bungalows were entirely flooded. The damage has been very significant and very real.
One reason why frustration has turned to anger is that, last week, the local community tried to organise a public meeting with the Environment Agency, so that agency representatives could answer questions about what had
gone wrong and what the agency could do to help in the future. The Environment Agency, however, failed to attend the meeting. That has made matters rather worse.Last week, I raised that very point with the Prime Minister. Subsequently, on Sunday, Sir John Harman, the Environment Agency chairman, visited the village and met several of the villagers. He heard some of their concerns, and he answered their questions the best he could. I am pleased to tell the Minister that, this weekend, we hope to have another public meeting which Sir John has assured us will be attended by a member of his staff who will answer villagers' questions. I think that that in itself will be a step forward.
One of the villagers' main concerns was about why the floods were so severe this time. Gowdall has flooded in the past. Indeed, there were particularly bad floods in 1947, but there has never been flooding on the scale that has been experienced in the past week or so. People want to know whether that was due to the actions taken by the Environment Agency.
We all understand that floods are fast-moving events; that an extremely large quantity of water has to go somewhere; and that, after all, flood defences direct water but do not take it away. Nevertheless, there is real concern that the actions taken by the Environment Agency made matters in Gowdall very much worse than they had ever been before. That gives rise to a very real feeling that because bigger communities needed protecting, Gowdall was somehow neglected. It is a small village and people were concerned that it had become expendable as attempts were made to save larger communities. The absence of any attempt by the agency to answer that point has heightened that fear.
People want to know what lessons have been learned. We have certainly found out that the enormous plain of water that remains--which continues for several miles and which is quite deep in parts--will not go away naturally. The Government have brought in some of the largest water pumps in the world from Holland, where they understand quite a lot about the process. This has been done at enormous expense. If this happens again in Gowdall--obviously, we hope that it will not--or elsewhere in the country, what preparations will the Government and the agency be making to ensure that they do not have to take the extreme measure of importing the technical equipment necessary to pump the water away? Lessons need to be learned and we would very much like to hear from the Minister about that.
We understand that there is likely to be some temporary work to install some sort of flood defence as soon as possible. It is absolutely certain that the natural defences and barriers that were in place before the floods have been completely obliterated by the water that has come into the village. At the moment, the village does not even have the level of protection that it previously enjoyed. Residents are concerned that the weather may worsen again. Indeed, we are told to expect several months of this. If the village is left unprotected, all the efforts that are now being made will be wasted and the residents will be back where they were a few days ago.
The agency seems to be saying that it is likely to be five weeks before even a temporary defence will be in place in the village. That certainly causes concern among residents. Any reassurance that the Minister can give us on that will be most welcome.
Most of the houses and bungalows in the village have been so badly flooded that it will be some time before people can move back into them, but residents are trying to get back to the village to do some work on their properties. Some of them are bringing in caravans and mobile homes. If people are considering taking the time, trouble and expense of having a mobile home on their land or in their drives for weeks, before the village has any flood protection, they want some advice from the Minister about that.
When the temporary defences are in place and people move back into the village to begin the recovery process and try to get their lives back to normal as quickly as possible, they want to know about longer-term issues and what will be done to ensure that the village remains adequately protected. Will there be a review of Britain's flood defences and will they be co-ordinated so that in protecting some parts of the country we do not push the water into other communities? Surely the whole point of good and adequate defence is not only to protect larger communities, but, wherever possible, to move water away from all communities so that people can get on with their lives with a degree of confidence in what is happening in their areas.
Part of that process can be the use of local people. People who have lived in an area for a long time often have an extremely good knowledge of what happens when water moves and banks burst. They have seen such things happen over the years, and there was some criticism, when problems began to affect Gowdall, to the effect that some local people had tried to speak to--
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |