|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Line 47, at end add--
'(8) It shall be an Instruction to the Committee that it shall elect its chairman from among those members of the Committee who are members of opposition parties.'.--[Mr. McNulty.]
That Christmas Day is a special day for all, especially families, and is under attack from the ever-increasing desire of retailers to open their shops for trading. That at present there are no means available to stop shopworkers being forced to work on Christmas Day, unless it happens to fall on a Sunday. That the Christmas and New Year period is the busiest of the year and that shopworkers deserve at least one day of rest during that time.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to introduce a statutory protection of Christmas Day, which will stop shops of over 280 square metres from opening and ensure that not one shopworker is forced to work on Christmas Day. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin by wishing you and our colleagues a very happy Christmas. I extend that wish to House of Commons staff--including the Doorkeepers, who have advised me not to take too long over this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Robertsbridge in my constituency, where more than 70 homes have been flooded several times over the past year. Some of those houses have been under water on no fewer than six occasions since last Christmas.
The House has already held a number of debates on the problems of flooding, which affected so many parts of England and has devastated whole communities in Sussex. Today, I want to focus specifically on the difficulties and challenges facing the village of Robertsbridge.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replied helpfully to the earlier debates, and listened sympathetically in the Lobby when my Sussex colleagues and I canvassed his support. I know that he and his officials, as well as the Environment Agency and other participating authorities, are determined to help. Today, I hope to concentrate the hon. Gentleman's mind on the speed with which action needs to be taken, and on the extent of financial assistance that is required, if practical solutions are to be implemented without delay.
I am mindful that the timing of the debate is a mixed blessing for the Minister and his team of officials in the Box, as it is late on the last day before the Christmas recess. However, I know that he will appreciate that the more than 200 Robertsbridge residents who joined me at a public meeting on Monday last week will welcome this early chance for me to express the feelings that they put across, fairly forcefully, at that meeting.
There is an added bonus for the Minister in that his reply will be the last speech in the Commons this year--just as mine is the last speech from the Back Benches. Furthermore, by my calculation, this is the last parliamentary debate of the millennium; as we count from one to 10, not zero to nine, I reckon that December 2000 brings the second millennium to a close.
The public meeting in Robertsbridge on Monday 11 December, which I have already mentioned, turned into what can euphemistically be described as a full and frank exchange of views between aggrieved Robertsbridge residents and officials of the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency, East Sussex county council and Rother district council.
Quite understandably, the villagers wanted immediate action to minimise the risk of repeating the nightmare of flooded homes. Local residents know the streams, ditches, drains, gulleys and culverts, and the whole flood plain, better than even expert outsiders can possibly do. Most speakers at the meeting had lived in Robertsbridge for years. They saw the bypass built over the flood plain; they saw the old Kent and East Sussex steam railway
The local Robertsbridge people were frankly impatient with officials for their no doubt painstaking explanations of where the flood water flowed from. To the flood victims, water in their kitchen or living room, rising step by step upstairs, is nasty, dirty water that ruins their carpets, floors, walls, cooker and so on--not to mention their sense of personal security and privacy.
Everything that belongs to the victims is ruined--as the people of Robertsbridge have repeatedly found out. The prospect of a contested insurance claim--for those who have been able to afford insurance--or, worse still, the fear of growing debt, and the disruption of the family life that people called their own, behind their front door, is devastating.
The residents hotly contested the Environment Agency's version--that the nearby Darwell reservoir was full and thus added to the floods--because Southern Water has told the local Salehurst parish council that the local reservoir was in fact only 52 per cent. full on the night of the great October flood.
There was little comfort for the villagers in Dr. Buckley's thoroughly well meant assurance that she had told the Minister--in my opinion, she was right to do so--that Robertsbridge was the worst hit community on her watch, which covers not only Kent but a large stretch of the Sussex weald that includes the Robertsbridge catchment area. They lost patience with the scrupulous, but in the event perhaps tactless, attempt by officials to explain the priority rankings that had eliminated Robertsbridge's planned capital improvements for the stream behind Northbridge street and Rutley close in 1997. They did not want to know about the engineering consultants' review of what is, for Robertsbridge, a stark and obvious fact: that the culverts under the bypass are too small to allow floodwater to flow away as freely as it should. That was demonstrated by the fact that water levels on the village side of the bypass were 4 ft higher than on the other side, downstream of the bypass.
Local villagers want officials to dispense with studies and reviews. Instead, they want money spent now, as a matter of absolute priority, to speed up maintenance projects and capital works and to enlarge the culverts under the bypass.
Residents of Rutley close and other home owners are demanding compensation from the Highways Agency, with which I have a meeting after Christmas on that subject, or from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, because they are convinced that the bypass has exacerbated the floods and rendered their homes unsaleable.
The Environment Agency was under some pressure for not having its final report and analysis to present to the public meeting 10 days ago, but in all fairness the agency arranged the meeting before Christmas, with only its preliminary findings available, because I had very strongly urged its representatives to meet local residents at the earliest opportunity, and they were trying to be helpful.
Since the meeting, Dr. Buckley and her colleagues have submitted a helpful draft memorandum defining the up-to-date position. I commend the agency's willingness to help, but it can no longer be in any doubt about the anxieties and growing impatience felt in Robertsbridge.
Today I want to go a stage further and list for the Minister the practical demands that I hope he will be able to meet, to help Robertsbridge. First and foremost, we need, as a priority, a reassessment of the effect of the bypass across the Rother flood plain, where it acts as a dam wall, holding back water. We want larger culverts under that stretch of the bypass, and we need them as soon as is practicable.
Secondly, we want the Government to consider whether some houses in Robertsbridge have been made unsaleable because the bypass caused worse flooding than would have occurred had it not been constructed there, and to address demands for compensation.
Thirdly, we want the storm drain that runs down Silver hill--which, unbelievably, fed the flooded village with yet more water from the surrounding higher ground--to be diverted on to the other side of the flood plain.
Fourthly, we want implementation of the plans to clear the stream bed under Northbridge street, to construct a flood defence wall there, and partially to divert the channel. Those works were mooted in 1994 and 1995 and put to the present Government in 1997, but they were rejected--for lack of funding, I understand--and not given sufficient priority.
Sixthly, it is not only the culverts that need de-silting. The ditches and stream channels also require attention, to remove brambles, secondary growth and other obstacles that impede the normal water flow. This work is under way, but it needs to be completed without interruption. I am pleased to say that, perhaps prompted by the public meeting and the announcement of this Adjournment debate, it is under way fairly busily. I hope that it will continue without interruption.
Seventhly, I should like to repeat the request that I made in the House to the Deputy Prime Minister when he made a statement on the flooding--with the Minister who is present today sitting beside him. My request then was to expedite the maximum assistance under the Bellwin guidelines. As the Minister knows, East Sussex county council has applied initially for £6.35 million. However, the council needs £3.3 million for road repairs as a result of flood damage in the county, and that is a preliminary estimate. The figure might rise to £5 million or even more.
Eighthly, I hope that the Minister will keep in mind Rother district council's call for co-ordination among all the relevant agencies and authorities to ensure that repairs and improvements are delivered against a tight timetable. In that context, I hope that Salehurst parish council will have a useful and important liaison role in Robertsbridge.
Ninthly, I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in his recent Adjournment debate on flooding that council tax rebates would help householders whose homes have been affected by flooding. The Minister addressed that problem when it was raised the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Lewes.
Tenthly, as a practical precaution for the rest of this winter and to provide reassurance to householders, further supplies of sandbags need to be stocked locally given the possibility of yet more floods.
No one disputes that the weather is beyond our control, nor that the emergency services and local volunteers have done wonders in Robertsbridge and elsewhere during the floods. The Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and local authorities are committed to do what they can to help. Inexplicably, the flood defence committee has rejected the Environment Agency's request for higher-level funding in area. Again, that was flagged up during the recent Adjournment debate on floods in Lewes. Ownership of the problem and the remedies lie with the Minister and the floods taskforce that he leads. Like him, I have in the past chaired a Cabinet Sub-Committee tasked with specific objectives. May I suggest that it is up to him to impress upon the Treasury that £50 million of extra funding will not be nearly enough to mend and improve the national flood defence infrastructure.
In East Sussex alone at least £55 million is needed, compared with the £3.2 million that East Sussex county council contributes annually to flood defence projects. Its mammoth task lies ahead, and it needs co-ordination, funding and the sense of purpose that I am sure the Minister is determined to provide. It is up to him to cut through the reviews, the red tape and the bureaucratic procedures to get the work done. I hope that he will succeed, and I wish him well in that important role.
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me early in the new year for further discussions. I hope that he will let me bring representatives from Robertsbridge to the meeting. It would be even better if he were to find time in his busy schedule to visit the village himself in the new year. I can assure him that the efforts being made in East Sussex cut across party political lines in a united effort. With the Minister's help, we can put Robertsbridge back on its feet--on dry land.