Examination of Witnesses (Questions 170
- 179)
WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2007
MR KIM
RYLEY, PROFESSOR
TOM COULTHARD,
SIR ROBERT
KERSLAKE, COUNCILLOR
JAN WILSON
AND MR
JOHN CHARLTON
Q170 Chairman:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our further evidence
session on flooding. For those of you who may miss the odd moment
of action, this session is being televised. For those of you who
missed part one, it was on the Parliament Channel, I think, last
Saturday or Sunday, so there is always an opportunity to see how
you perform as far as the Committee is concerned. Can I formally
welcome representatives of Hull City Council in the shape of Mr
Kim Ryley, their Chief Executive, and Professor Tom Coulthard,
Lead of the Independent Review Body in Hull; and from Sheffield
City Council, Sir Robert Kerslake, their Chief Executive, Councillor
Jan Wilson, the Leader of the Council, and Mr John Charlton, the
Director of Streetforce, Development, Environment and Leisure.
You must be a very busy man, Mr Charlton, with quite the longest
title we have had for a while. You are all very welcome indeed
before the Committee. Naturally we were very sorry about what
happened to both of your cities. In human terms they were tragic
events and certainly caused an enormous impact on your respective
cities but, nonetheless, we are delighted you have been able to
come before us today. May I thank you also for the written evidence
that you were able to give us, it was very helpful indeed and
very clear in giving us a flavour and insight into what happened.
If I might start with Hull. You have been undertaking your Independent
Review and I wonder if you might give a flavour to the Committee
of your initial findings and perhaps clear up one concern that
we have had. When they came before us the Environment Agency gave
us the impression that Hull had triumphantly said there should
be a national body to co-ordinate everything that you ever wanted
to do with flooding. Looking at your evidence, I think what you
said in paragraph six was: "A creative and collaborative
approach, on a multi-agency basis, should ensure that the future
impact of such flooding is much reduced and that the city's recovery
is swifter and less costly"[1],
which seems to be slightly at odds with what the Environment Agency
in the shape of Baroness Young were saying to us. Preliminary
findings and comment on the Environment Agency, please?
Professor Coulthard: Thank you.
One of our first preliminary findings was that there is a difficulty
in the organisation of drainage systems in the UK, certainly in
Hull, in that you have the Environment Agency that is responsible
for water and open watercourses, and that same water may then
flow into a culvert, the same watercourse being covered, and it
is the responsibility of the council, the council is responsible
for gullies at the edge of the road and these all drain into sewers,
in the case of Hull, which are then the responsibility of the
local water utility, in this case Yorkshire Water. So you can
have the same piece of water that can flow from someone's house
into the EA's watercourse into a council culvert and then into
Yorkshire Water's sewer. There seemed to have been a clear lack
of co-operation in the past between these three bodies. There
seemed to be very little evidence of them talking. At one of our
first meetings about two months after the floods, which was when
the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and the Council gave presentations,
the representative of the Council showed us this map and said,
"It's great, we have all got together and for the first time
we have got a map of where all the watercourses and drains and
culverts go within Hull. We've all got together and talked to
each other", and I thought, "It's a bit of a shame that's
the first time you have done that". That was quite a surprise.
Q171 Chairman:
In your evidence, in the second paragraph it says: "Hull's
effective flood defences are designed to protect from river or
tidal flooding in the Humber Estuary" and then it goes on
to talk about "Hull's pumped drainage and sewerage system
being overwhelmed ... "[2]
Professor Coulthard: Yes.
Q172 Chairman:
Given that before these events Hull already had a clearly challenging
and complex set of drainage arrangements, did you discover why
the parties to which you have just referred had never got together
to discuss the agenda? You very clearly, if you like, in a verbal
schematic said it is pass the parcel with the same piece of water
going in and out of different people's systems but, given the
complexity of Hull's drainage requirements, why had such conversations
not taken place before then?
Professor Coulthard: I do not
know is the answer. I think that is a very good question. I imagine
there had been some conversation between them, I do not think
it was a complete silence, but there appeared to have been a complete
lack of co-operation when it came to designing, planning or managing
the system. You almost get the impression it is like when you
cross a county line from one county council to another and the
road surface suddenly changes because they tarmac up to that point.
You get the impression that gullies were cleaned up to one point
and then it came into the council's operation or the Environment
Agency's area and there was a different practice. There is a lack
of joined-up thinking there. I cannot answer what went on before.
Q173 Chairman:
Mr Ryley, do you want to add something because I am sure you do
not not talk to your colleagues in other organisations?
Mr Ryley: No, indeed. There has
been dialogue in the past, particularly around day-to-day operational
issues. The lack of strategic thinking in the past about holistically
designing a complete system, which of course stretches well beyond
the city boundaries into the East Riding anyway, which is where
the water flows from originally, particularly from rainfall, is
a real problem we have identified. Whilst there has been an ongoing
dialogue and whilst there has been good co-operation on the ground
over individual operational issues, and particularly over the
design in the past of tidal flood defences, which are now very
effective, what the nature of the flooding in Hull revealed was
a different problem which perhaps had been inadequately prepared
for and inadequately thought about and where there was not an
holistic approach to designing the whole system to cope with an
event of that kind. That is really what has been thrown up for
us. The absence of a single drainage board, for example, for Hull
as a co-ordinating body is something that we are now anxious to
alter and correct.
Q174 Mr Drew:
If we look at this whole area of relationships, I think it would
be very useful if you could be quite candid rather than saying
it all worked terribly well and you have learned lessons but you
all got on well. If we look at the issue in both cases, and in
my own case in Gloucestershire, the key agency initially in terms
of the overview of this is the Environment Agency. I would welcome
your views on what you felt your relationship was with the Environment
Agency prior to the flooding, during the flooding and certainly
subsequent to the flooding. This may have come out in terms of
the post-recovery scenario. If you like, a very quick view of
how you thought the Environment Agency performed and performs.
Mr Ryley: It may be difficult
to generalise in response because the Environment Agency operates
on a regional basis and different parts of the country and different
authorities will have a relationship with different parts of the
Environment Agency and it may operate differently in different
places. Certainly in relation to Hull, as we have said in our
evidence, that relationship has been a positive one. The Environment
Agency are willing to work very closely and collaboratively with
us. Their expertise was much valued, particularly during the emergency
itself, and they played an instrumental role in our emergency
service response in avoiding the flooding being far worse and
improving our recovery and response to it. Their ability to offer
expert advice about watercourses and rivers, the dangers of them
being overtopped, which we feared would happen in Hull, allowed
us to direct resources on the ground, particularly key pumping
operations, in a way that was very effective and at the end of
the day prevented the flooding being much worse. In that sense,
they are a strong partner from our point of view but, as Tom has
said, their concern is very much with rivers and watercourses
and not with the whole system.
Professor Coulthard: Certainly
in very urban areas, simply because you are dealing with an urban
drainage system as opposed to rivers and open watercourses, the
local water utility is going to take a larger role in the drainage
of that area, whereas in more rural areas the Environment Agency
is going to have a far greater role in the management of that
situation.
Q175 Mr Drew:
Sheffield?
Sir Robert Kerslake: Your three
questions were before, during and after?
Q176 Mr Drew:
Given the overview that the Environment Agency has, before, during
and after what was your relationship? Let us pinpoint initially
the Environment Agency.
Sir Robert Kerslake: Before we
give a response to that, I think it is important to say that Sheffield's
circumstances were different from Hull's.
Q177 Mr Drew:
I am looking at commonality.
Sir Robert Kerslake: Hull was
clearly an issue of drains and the issues with Sheffield were
about the rivers. This is very relevant to the performance of
the Environment Agency. Before the event we had perfectly good
working relationships on key issues. We were not seen as one of
the higher risk areas within the region in terms of flooding,
and therefore had not had a major study done. In terms of our
day-to-day working relationships with the Environment Agency they
have been fine. At the time of the flooding I would highlight
two issues. The first one is the timeliness of warnings is clearly
an issue. In practice, as our submission suggests, a severe flood
warning was not issued until four o'clock on the afternoon of
the floods, by which time we were already severely into flooding.
There is an issue about the timeliness of flood warnings. Secondly,
it is fair to say that their capacity during the period, at least
during the initial period, was stretched in terms of their ability
to have people of the right level available in the Silver Command.
After the event, we have had a good working relationship in analysing
the issues and following up on public concerns. The next key stage
for us is their work on the Catchment Flood Management Plan which
will provide the guide to any preventative measures.
Q178 Mr Drew:
I went to a session this morning which I know we, as Members,
were all invited to and it was very interesting that the representative
from the Meteorology Office said one of the great weaknesses structurally
is the lack of joined-up thinking between meteorology, hydrology
and the communication system, so it is useful to have that as
a backdrop. Can I look at the emergency itself, which again is
very interesting to me coming from Gloucestershire. Just so I
am clear, there was Gold Command working in both Sheffield and
Hull, is that right?
Mr Ryley: Not quite true. We did
not go to Gold Command at any stage but we had the ability to
go to Gold Command.
Q179 Mr Drew:
You had the ability to go to that?
Mr Ryley: Yes.
1 Ev 54 Back
2
Ev 54 Back
|
