Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-84)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MS ANNE
SHARPE, MS
MARIE PENDER
AND MR
MARTIN NESBIT
4 DECEMBER 2007
Q80 Chairman: Given that climate
change tends to increase the risk of flooding, is it sensible
to go on building homes on land that is at risk of being flooded?
Hilary Benn: As you know, we have
strengthened the planning guidance twice in relation to this,
most recently with PPS 25. That is the first thing we have done.
The second thing we have done is to give the Environment Agency
who are the experts in assessing the risk not just the right to
be consulted; they have to be consulted in relation to planning
applications. Thirdly, it is open to ministers to call in applications
if they are unhappy about what is being proposed. All of that
puts an obligation on planning authorities to ask themselves the
question: is this a sensible place on which to build? If we are
going to build, what are the measures that can be put in place
to protect people from flooding? We are sitting on a flood plain
this afternoon in this evidence session. We happen to be on the
first floor but it is a flood plain which is protected by the
Thames Barrier. From memory, there are about two million homes
in the country built on flood plains. I think we have the mechanisms
in place. The responsibility is clear. The question is can you
adequately defend? Ultimately, that responsibility falls within
the framework of the guidance and is subject both to the Environment
Agency's views and the power of call-in with the local authorities
who are responsible for granting or not granting planning permission.
Q81 Chairman: Would you say that
you are making progress in ensuring that adaptability to climate
change is becoming an integral part of the flood and coastal erosion
management decisions?
Hilary Benn: In relation to the
Bill, you will have seen what was in the original Bill, what we
said in response to the consultation and you will have seen what
the Prime Minister said in his speech about an amendment we intend
to bring forward to give us the power to require public authorities
to produce a report on adaptability. We have recognised that there
is a lot of interest in adaptation. That is the first point. The
second point, in relation to flooding, is that I am very struck,
given the number of houses that I have visited in June and July
that had suffered terribly, by the steps that could be taken as
those houses are refurbished and repaired, simple things like
trying to put the electrics up here as opposed to down here. I
know it is difficult but kitchens get really badly affected. Do
you have them on the ground floor or on the top floor? There are
some steps that could simply be taken relatively, if you are talking
about a small amount of water threatening to come in through the
front door, covering up air bricks and defences at the door to
stop it coming in and ruining the carpet. I think it is an issue
both about building in those areas, to make sure that those kinds
of things are in from the start and, secondly, I think it is an
issue for the insurance industry because after all they are paying
for the repairs, stripping out kitchens, replacing the electrics
and so on, so we should try to build that in. I remember visiting
Waterside Close and it is called Waterside Close for a reason;
it is just that the river has not flooded to that extent in the
past. Thirdly, on flood defence more broadly, as you will be only
too well aware, we are considering increasing the expenditure
on flood defence. During the summer floods there were some places
that were protected because of the success of the schemes that
have been put in place. With the recent storm surge in East Anglia
was, in truth, a combination of a bit of luck that the height
of the surge did not quite coincide with the height of the high
tide and Great Yarmouth missed by about this amount, plus all
of the investment there has been since the 1953 terrible flood
which claimed over 300 lives in the UK and 2,000 in Holland that
meant that those communities were able to be protected. There
is a growing awareness. I think the Climate Change Bill and the
mechanisms it is going to put in place—the government's
obligation to report, to have a plan and the new power that the
Prime Minister has just announced—will help us to make progress
on this.
Q82 Mr Stuart: Just following up
on that, I am grateful for your openness to those of us whose
areas were affected by flooding earlier this year. Of course,
this is not new. There has been much interest in flooding in recent
years, several reports from Parliament, government and others,
and yet there are many ways in which it went wrong. I wonder if
you can tell us why you think so many things that were preventable
went wrong and why we should believe the array of reports, views
and lessons learned will make more of a difference this time to
deliver some of the things which you have already touched on,
practical things perhaps that could be changed.
Hilary Benn: I would not accept
that lots of things went wrong. What went wrong was that vast
quantities of water came out of the sky. Neither you nor I, nor
anybody else, has yet found a way of preventing that. It was pretty
exceptional rainfall. The scientists tell us that we might be
likely to experience extreme weather events of this sort more
frequently in future.
Q83 Mr Stuart: I must come back on
that. You do not accept that lots of things went wrong. We had
critical infrastructure which was basically unprotected and which,
in some cases, either failed completely or, I think in the case
of Hull's pumping station, it was two feet under water and just
survived. We have villages like Leven near Beverley where the
sewage pumping station is at the lowest point below the passing
ditch. You could go through a whole array of things which are
fairly basic things which were not done as well as the houses
being built in completely the wrong place. There were a lot of
things that went wrong that were entirely preventable, that were
addressed in previous reports. There were promises in 2000 of
major change happening and too few of those promised changes were
implemented. Is that not true?
Hilary Benn: The referee in this
is going to be Michael Pitt and he is going to produce his interim
report pretty soon. We will have to see what he has to say. The
reason I bridle a bit at what went wrong, I think is that the
starting point has to be an acknowledgement of the scale of the
deluge. Two types of flooding, as you know, took place. One was
river flooding. There are very few instances in which the defences
failed to protect at the level that they were meant to protect
at, but a number of them were overwhelmed because of the quantity
of water. That is not withstanding a doubling of the expenditure
on flood defence in the last decade, £300 million to £600
million, the first point. Secondly, the government already recognised
that we needed to do more. That is why it was on 2 July, I seem
to recollect, that I got up in the House and said that over the
next three years it is going to rise from £600 to £800
million and we have now announced the phasing of that. The ABI
asked in June for £750 million by 2010-11. What I announced
to the House on 2 July was £800 million. The ABI asked, over
the three years, for £2.25 billion, I think I am right in
saying. The phasing I have announced will give us £2.15 billion,
so not bad going in relation to what the ABI itself has asked
for, the first point. The second point is the surface water flooding—Hull
in particular. The truth is that the system simply could not accommodate
the quantity of water that came out of the sky. In terms of who
is responsible, let us tell the truth. If in urban areas you concrete
over, you asphalt over, you pave over all your bits of earth,
do not be entirely surprised if large quantities of water fall
out of the sky and they have to go somewhere. If the drainage
system cannot cope there is an issue about responsibility for
surface water drainage. As you know, we have already been consulting
on giving most likely the Environment Agency an overall responsibility
for that. I am going to listen obviously to what Michael Pitt
has to say on that front because we are dealing with a legacy
of drainage that was not built to accommodate that amount of water.
One thing you can do is build a new at a better standard so you
can shift more of the water away. Secondly, things like permeable
paving. There is a consequence to what we as a society have done
and I do not think it is fair to say that is all the fault of
government because people pave over their drives and put paving
in their back gardens. That is the second point. The third point
on essential infrastructure—you are absolutely right—this
revealed a weakness. The saving of Walham in Gloucestershire was,
if you like, the high point of that second incident because the
prospect of power going out for the whole of Gloucestershire really
did not bear thinking about and it was pretty darn close. All
credit to the Environment Agency for getting the temporary barriers
there and to the Gurkhas, the military and others for erecting
the barriers and saving that. That is a lesson that we have learned.
Water pumping stations tend to be next to rivers, water treatment,
and that was the case in Mythe, but it was overwhelmed and 340,000
people lost their water supply. I am determined that we learn
lessons. You are not a finger-pointing because you and I have
discussed on previous occasions how your constituents were affected.
I am determined that we do learn the lessons. There are lots of
us who need to learn the lessons so that we are better protected
from this in the future but I am not going to sit before this
Committee and say, "I have worked it out so I can stop anybody
being flooded in any circumstances", because I cannot and
that is the truth.
Q84 Chairman: Secretary of State,
thank you very much indeed for a good tour round the issues. We
are very grateful to you for giving up your afternoon and we look
forward to seeing you again in due course on the same matters.
Hilary Benn: Me too. Thanks a
lot.
|
