Examination of Witnesses (Questions 841
- 851)
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY 2008
MRS JULIE
O'NEILL, MR
PETER JESSE,
CLLR KEITH
MARQUIS, CLLR
REGINALD A SHORE
AND MR
JAMES NICHOLSON
Q841 Chairman:
With the speed of a quick-change artist we move to our second
panel of citizens who have been kind enough to provide the Committee
with written evidence. Can I formally welcome, on behalf of the
Burton Joyce Residents' Association, Julie O'Neill, their Chair,
and from the Strensall & Towthorpe Parish Council, Cllr Keith
Marquis and Mr Peter Jesse, their Chairman, and, from the West
Lindsey District Council, Cllr Reginald Shore, who is their Leader,
and James Nicholson, who is the Director of Neighbourhoods and
Health. If we can follow the same procedure as we did with our
previous witnesses, if one representative of each organisation
would be kind enough to speak for about five minutes to set the
scene about the issue from your standpoint and then, as before,
the Committee will ask you some questions. Julie O'Neill, may
we start with you, please?
Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. Burton
Joyce is about six miles from Nottingham. The village stretches
along the valley floor and up the hillside alongside the road.
To the south is the River Trent. The village has got no formal
flood defences, but a railway embankment serves as a partial informal
defence from the Trent at a 1:30 year level. We have got several
potential sources of flooding in our village: the River Trent,
the stream that runs through the village from the hills, rainwater
that runs-off from the hills through properties and roads when
there is no drainage channel to follow, rainwater runoff from
the main road and other roads, and groundwater as the village
lies on an aquifer which is very near to the surface. Much of
the village was flooded in 1947. Some of the village was flooded
in 2000. In both these events, the River Trent was the cause of
our distress. The flooding that took place last summer was completely
different. Four times in June and July heavy rainfall caused flash-flooding
as the water poured through the dumble, which usually only has
a couple of inches in it, right down the hill into the village
where there was inadequate capacity in both the watercourse and
there were blockages in culverts under roads and all this caused
flooding to the houses in the centre of the village. There was
also flooding elsewhere as water overtopped drainage ditches or
flowed from the roads or other hard surfaces and overwhelmed the
drainage system. In some places sewage backed up or spilled out
into properties too. Our village was fairly lightly affected and
only about 24 houses were flooded, but other nearby villages,
especially in the local authority of Newark and Sherwood, many,
many villages were affected much more badly than ours. For all
the villages the causes were the same: unprecedented volume of
rain; unmaintained watercourses, ditches and dykes; blockages
in culverts and in road gullies; and the drainage and sewerage
systems unable to cope. The problems that we faced I have heard
mentioned by so many people in different ways already today and
I do not want to repeat them all, but I want to pick out a few
particular issues that have become important to me since the flooding.
Firstly, there is the issue of overall responsibility. I think
we have all agreed it needs to be simplified and there should
be one agency responsible for all kinds of water management. Secondly,
there is the issue of the responsibilities of landowners. I know
I did not pick this up initially in my earlier report but I have
come to the view that many landowners, and by that I mean householders,
do not respect their obligations as riparian owners. Many do not
even know that they have got these obligations. Some use watercourses
and ditches on their property for depositing rubbish and some
fill them in to extend the size of their gardens. As a result,
last summer one of the causes of flooding in our village was rubbish
and debris, including tree trunks and wheelie bins, that came
sweeping down into the village through the dumble and added to
the existing blockages in the culverts. Those who do maintain
their watercourses and drainage ditches complain that their neighbours
do not. When individuals bring such matters to the attention of
the local authority they are told this is a private matter between
individual householders, they must sort it out themselves or take
legal action against their neighbour. Other landowners do not
give any consideration to the impact on others of developments
they carry out. For example, the creation of large paved areas
or building walls is often carried out with complete disregard
for the impact of rainwater runoff. There are generally no planning
controls over such development unless it is new build. What I
am highlighting here is landowners' ignorance of their responsibilities
and lack of consideration for others. There is a need to do more
to inform landowners of their obligations and for a regulatory
authority to enforce action wherever appropriate. Thirdly, there
is the issue of the lack of maintenance to watercourses, dykes
and drainage channels. These must be properly maintained on a
regular basis by everyone responsible. In our village drainage
ditches that existed in earlier years on the edges of fields,
gardens or alongside roads have either been filled in or built
over by farmers, house owners or developers who have either not
understood or ignored their purpose. Drainage ditches should be
fully mapped and protected. I understand that my neighbouring
authority, Newark and Sherwood, has recently asked parish councils
to map drainage ditches in their area. This is surely a step forward,
but how will the protection of these ditches be implemented. I
have raised this issue with my local authority which advised me
there is nothing they can do to protect existing drainage channels
except when a planning application which could affect drainage
is before them. This seems very strange to me and it should be
addressed. Fourthly, there are planning issues. In my village,
developments have been permitted over decades in flood-prone areas
or in such a way that drainage channels have been destroyed or
interrupted. Currently, the practice of building an extra house,
or two or three or ten, on a garden which once existed is taking
place everywhere without apparently any regard being given to
the capacity of the drainage or sewerage system or the increased
flood risk as the amount of land available to absorb water decreases.
Those of us who care about such things can only despair as our
objections and the staggeringly obvious is ignored. We are numbed
by the mindlessness of it all. This brings me to the issue of
PPS25 and how local planning authorities are implementing this.
Let us take the issue of Flood Risk Assessments. PPS25 sets out
clearly when they should be required and the type of assessment
appropriate for each type of planning application, but I am concerned
that my local authority does not seem to be following the recommended
practice. It does not necessarily ask for a Flood Risk Assessment
at an early stage, and sometimes gives conditional planning permission
with the later production of an assessment being one of the conditions.
That seems like putting the cart before the horse and surely is
not what PPS25 intended. Finally, there is the issue of the preference
given to urban areas and the relative neglect of rural areas in
terms of funding for flood defences. Summer saw large urban areas
being flooded. Given the limited funding available for flooding
defences, those in rural areas who have suffered flooding for
years, and might have recently been given a glimpse of the possibility
of a defence in the future, now suspect that their chances have
been completely washed away by the summer floods. Given the points
system operated by the Environment Agency and the inevitability
that new emphasis will be given to renewing water and sewerage
systems in urban areas that were flooded last summer, rural dwellers
fear that the needs of large populations in urban areas will be
given priority yet again. In flood defences, as in so much else,
rural populations have reason to fear that their longstanding
needs will be sacrificed at the urban altar.
Q842 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed. Who will speak for your Council? Mr
Jesse, off you go.
Mr Jesse: Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you for giving Strensall & Towthorpe Parish Council
this opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of our parish
and for making our case heard in regards of the flooding circumstances
in the Strensall area, which is part of the City of York unitary
authority. We sit seven miles due north of York. Can I add a preamble
and say that our problems, our issues, are not directly from flooding
by rivers per se. Whilst we have the River Foss within the village
our problems are far more long-term, as I will make you aware.
Strensall's history goes back to the Domesday Book, so clearly
times have dramatically changed. The Parish Council believes this
exceptional flooding merely highlights a longstanding problem
which arises regularly and not just in times of unseasonal rainfall.
Our problems are perhaps insignificant compared with other areas,
such as last year in South Yorkshire and Gloucestershire, but
are just as important to those affected by flooding of their property
or the highways which have to be negotiated on a regular basis.
Heavy and continuous rainfall is now becoming a regular feature
of the weather in the Strensall and Towthorpe area, obviously
country-wide, and it is common knowledge to us that the soil is
predominantly clay which exacerbates the problems with surface
drainage. During the past 30 years the village of Strensall and
the hamlet of Towthorpe have been massively extended into what
is now a community of the size of a small town with over 6,000
residents, most of which have had the new drainage system bolted
on to the existing one. For many years, Strensall & Towthorpe
Parish Council have communicated with the City of York Council
on those occasions when flooding has affected parts of the parish,
but because of restraints, presumably financial, and lack of detailed
knowledge of the drainage systems, little has been achieved over
this period. Our concerns are not only for the present but for
the future insofar as every new property that is built has an
effect on the mainly clay soil to deal with the surface water
runoff, although when planning applications for infill or new
developments come before the Parish Council the response from
us to the planning officer is to take account of this aspect,
yet in practice most applications receive approval. It is a fact
that developers are required to allow 15 per cent of the development
to be available for the purpose of the removal of surface water,
however, as we all understand these days, many residents today
put in applications for conservatories with the added problem
of patios and drives so, therefore, that 15 per cent is quickly
reduced with the obvious effect. Another aspect of this subject
is that it appears when the local water services provider, in
our case Yorkshire Water, is asked by the planning officer for
any objections and whether their system can cope with the additional
surface runoff from a new property or development, the answer
is almost always "yes" as in many cases when surface
water is piped into Yorkshire Water's system it is often dispersed
into either private, local authority systems or drainage ditches
which pass the problem to the system or ditch owner. The latter,
of course, do not get any recompense for the additional problems
which can ensue but the utility raise sewerage charges against
the new property owners. Lack of detailed information is a prime
cause of the local authority not being able to resolve flooding
situations and in Strensall, if I can just give you details of
one particular situation, there is a classic case of a system
partially maintained by the Foss Internal Drainage Board for that
length of the underground piped drain nearest to the River Foss,
and it is a 24 inch pipe I understand. The remainder of the system
which takes surface water from properties between York Road and
Ox Carr Lane in a partially covered/partially open ditch arrangement
is the responsibility of riparian owners, and you have heard about
that today, including the MoD. Ditches alongside Flaxton Road
and Scott Moncrieff Road fill with surface water but this does
not subsequently drain to anywhere and results in highway flooding.
The riparian owners are probably totally unaware of their legal
maintenance responsibility for the system over or alongside their
property as the developer who originally installed the system
could well not have passed on to purchasers details of the ownership
of the drain. Talking to the Internal Drainage Boards, they told
us the pipe the developers use is a nine inch one. Local residents
consider that the ditches should flow into Strensall Drain, but
this is likely to be on MoD land and there appears to be an impasse
between the local authority and the MoD to resolve this problem.
I do have some photos here, Chairman, for your delectation.
Q843 Chairman:
Thank you.
Mr Jesse: Another example is the
lack of dredging work on the River Foss in recent years. The Foss
Internal Drainage Board dispute that dredging would improve the
flooding problems and insist that channel profiling and margin
maintenance is the only efficient way to tackle this problem.
They did advise us that if you dredge out the bottom of the river
nature just fills it up again and if you take away silt all the
banks will fall in as well. Finally, the road gullies, which are
the responsibility of the local authority, do not always cope
with the amount of surface runoff that is prevalent in such wet
conditions, and whilst those which do not drain freely are regularly
reported and occasionally jetted, the basic problem returns time
after time. In recent years, the maintenance of the road gullies
has been reduced to annually, but pre-1999 it was twice a year.
When this reduced programme is combined with not clearing fallen
leaves in autumn, the result is more fire-fighting action to clear
these gullies. Finally, Strensall & Towthorpe Parish Council
believe that the problems we encounter are probably replicated
nationwide and to resolve them will need massive investment in
compiling drainage system records and a comprehensive review of
the whole surface water and sewerage systems and ensuring among
all the agencies involved regular and effective maintenance of
the whole system is carried out. Thank you, Chairman.
Q844 Chairman:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for these graphic photographs,
they certainly amplify some of the points that you were making.
Let us move on to West Lindsey Council. Mr Nicholson, are you
going to speak for the Council?
Mr Nicholson: Yes, Chairman. I
am speaking on behalf of West Lindsey District Council which is
a large rural area, the most sparsely populated district in the
East Midlands. The district covers 447 square miles and serves
84,900 residents and employs 365 staff. The district was affected
by the floods in June 2007. A number of areas across the district
experienced varying degrees of flooding. The most severely affected
were the wards of Saxilby, Scotter, Nettleham, Blyton, Ingham
and Langworth. It is understood that some parts of the district
over a two day period experienced up to 80mm of rain. The Council
operated an emergency control room from 25 to 28 June and continued
to offer 24 hour standby which was covered by volunteers until
2 July. A district-wide independent survey undertaken in August
2007 identified that 434 properties were internally flooded. However,
at 16 January 2008, 59 families were residing away from their
home address. During the floods the Council received 567 requests
for sandbags and distributed 14,000. There were 92 requests from
residents to remove flood damaged goods, which the Council collected
free of charge, 43 householders were awarded Council Tax rebates
and, of those flooded, 190 received grant payments. The Council
took a lead in co-ordinating an inquiry with its partner agencies
to determine lessons learnt. This has been wide-ranging, including
a full postal survey to all households and businesses, seven local
meetings with Parish Councils, local councillors and flood wardens,
and a public meeting in Middle Rasen, culminating in a Citizens'
Jury event on 19 January. All of the information was brought together
for the successful event with over 50 members of the public, all
affected by flooding, attending to listen to the evidence, to
cross-examine the key agencies and to deliberate and reach recommendations.
During this process, residents raised issues over the lack of
co-ordination between agencies, lack of and problems with communication,
confusion over who is responsible for drains, pipes and ditches,
waterways not being dredged and cleaned, and poor planning decisions.
Some form of central co-ordination point to manage the process
of responding to flooding which has clearly defined roles and
responsibilities for those involved would have alleviated some
of the issues raised by residents and agencies. Provision of additional
funding to allow for an annual programme of works which focuses
on annual dredging of waterways would also have assisted with
minimising the impact of floods. What has the Council done since
June 2007? We have undertaken this survey work in flood affected
areas along with looking at a number of flood alleviation schemes.
The Flood Working Group, which is a multi-agency group which was
set up in 2004 after flooding affected parts of Gainsborough,
meets to ensure that agencies are sharing information and taking
appropriate action to deal with drainage issues. The group has
identified a number of issues and taken action to resolve them.
It identified that planning applications did not contain reference
to or ask questions relating to watercourses. This was raised
with central Government and now such a question is asked, but
only on full applications. The group have led on ensuring adequate
maintenance of a watercourse and major balancing ponds serving
the most significantly affected area in Gainsborough resulting
in the district taking over responsibility for the watercourse.
It was also instrumental in establishing the need for the replacement
of a trunk sewer and significant work at three major pumping stations
during 2005-07. Two capital schemes to relieve critical throttle
points will commence in 2008. Work continues to take property
off "at risk" registers and two schemes related to internal
flooding risks are currently being worked on, one in Saxilby.
Since the 2007 floods the group has become more involved in complex
issues of dispute and, where necessary, formed sub-groups to deal
with local area issues. A new drainage system for Bransby has
in principle been allocated funding by a number of agencies with
the intention to commence before this bird nesting season. In
Laughton, a poor maintained riparian watercourse, which was the
cause of major flooding, has been cleared in partnership. The
work of the Flood Working Group has geared up as a result of the
2007 floods and will continue to be a central focus for the ongoing
improvements required by all agencies to minimise risks of flooding
across West Lindsey. The 19 January Citizens' Jury review was
a successful event and well received by those attending. The 58
recommendations have provided a platform for agencies to work
from. A number of key themes have emerged from those recommendations,
and these include: the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities;
better access to information and communication both internally
across agencies and externally with residents; better maintenance
of the current infrastructure; planning issues linked to the built
environment; and resources/investment to alleviate further flooding.
Some of the recommendations offered possible solutions and these
include: production of a central database containing vital flooding
information with clearly defined areas of responsibility which
is communicated widely across all agencies; purchase of flood
barriers; better links between the agencies and flood victims;
divide the Environment Agency into two parts, so one part has
overall responsibility for flooding; emergency centres should
be set up in each affected area as a point of contact and information
for the community; and highways should regular monitor drains
to inspect for damage and companies found responsible should pay
for the damage. To take these recommendations forward, West Lindsey
District Council will produce and monitor an action plan which
will be reviewed by the relevant agencies through the Flood Working
Group. Residents will be kept informed on a biannual basis by
sending a newsletter to the people who sat as jurors on the Citizens'
Jury. Thank you, Chairman.
Q845 Chairman:
Thank you very much. That sounds like a very interesting initiative.
When, if you like, is the final version of this going to be available?
Mr Nicholson: In fact, it should
be available within a few weeks' time when this is going to be
presented to the Council with the Citizens' Jury recommendations.
Q846 Chairman:
I am interested to know how you are going to follow it up. You
have touched on the responsibilities of a lot of what I call big,
sometimes national bodies who may be very polite in saying, "Thank
you very much for sending us these very good suggestions",
but then they disappear from view. What is the plan for that?
Cllr Shore: If I can come in there,
Chairman. One of the frustrations of everyone who has spoken to
you today is the fact that you cannot nail things down. There
is a lack of clarity, a lack of who has got responsibility. What
we said we would do at West Lindsey District Council is take on,
head-on, all the locations of any flooded areas in the West Lindsey
District area and also as part of a database we would audit problems
occurring at those sites. We would then look at the causes of
those problems and, most significantly, we would look at the responsibilities.
That could be a single person, it could be riparian ownership,
joint riparian ownership, a whole plethora of people or, quite
significantly, on paper it might be no-one because there are so
many areas that are contested or disputed that no-one quite knows
who is responsible. Just having a blank space there on the database
will be significant. Then we move on to something which is another
important one, possible solutions to these problems and the timescales
involved. It is really important that the public, West Lindsey,
and probably all flood areas, understand those perspectives because
I do not think everyone does. I do not think they understand the
cost implications of some of the work that has got to take place.
All of those issues complicate it. At least if we have got these
on a database people can access that database, see what is going
on in their particular area, see what problems are being addressed,
understand why their problem is not at the top of the list, which
may require government funding never mind local funding to actually
start to solve the problem, and at least they can keep track of
that. From that database we will then be calling in all the agencies
and sitting round a table we will literally go through the database
looking at the responsibilities and where things are contested
and try to establish some kind of relationship as we did in Bransby,
indeed, when several people were involved in solving the problem.
Some of the problems are going to be very difficult to solve.
I have got a booklet here with some examples which are horrendous.
There have also been strange planning decisions. The fact that
no-one anticipated getting 80mm of water in 24 hours when normally
we only get 50mm and no matter how good the systems were going
to be they were never going to cope with that amount of deluge.
However, I think we have established here today that there was
a hell of a lot we could have done and that would have made one
hell of a difference and would have saved a lot of money for a
lot of people. That is where we are going to. At the end of the
day, I think it is going to take your powers, gentlemen, to deal
with some of big picture issues but we will do what we can through
structures like this database.
Q847 Chairman:
I am sure the Committee are genuinely impressed by the work that
all of you are doing and, although we propose to conclude next
week we hope in taking our formal evidence, if in the meantime
you wanted to, if you like, expand a little bit in the way you
have done in your oral evidence and send us a little shopping
list before then saying, "We hope the following points will
be responded to", we could put a note in our report saying
we welcome the efforts of your council and others and hope that
all the agencies will respond positively. From the point of view
of looking at a local area you have defined a pretty formidable
work programme. I hope there is something else going on in the
council, you are not doing that full-time, are you?
Cllr Shore: It is a high priority,
Chairman.
Chairman: Good.
Q848 Paddy Tipping:
I just wanted to pick up on the last point that Mrs O'Neill made
which was about the view in rural areas that flood prevention
measures were going to go to urban areas because of the cost-benefit
analysis. I just wonder, Mrs O'Neill, whether you would spell
out a little bit more the situation in Nottinghamshire where,
as I understand it, multi-million pound schemes are taking place
in the Nottingham conurbation and, to make matters worse, not
only are the rural villages like your own not getting any flood
protection but their risk of flooding is increasing because of
the work further upstream.
Mrs O'Neill: Yes, that is right.
I did not mention this in my submission because it was not relevant
to the summer flooding, but I will say that there is a flood protection
scheme for Nottingham, called the Nottingham Flood Alleviation
Scheme, which will enhance the flood protection for Nottingham
from a 1:50 level as it is at the moment to 1:100 I understand.
The impact of that will be to increase the flood risks to downstream
villages, including our own and about 12 other villages. This
is a project which has been put forward by the Environment Agency,
so we are in this interesting situation where the Environment
Agency in protecting the urban area is prepared to sacrifice the
rural area. Perhaps that sounds a little unkind because the Environment
Agency do a lot of wonderful things for us but, on the other hand,
a spokesman from the Environment Agency is on record as saying,
"Well, the rural areas are used to being flooded so a little
bit extra won't make much difference", to which we do not
take too kindly, it is just not acceptable. There are villages
downstream of Nottingham that have no flood protection at all
and it is just going to be made worse. In the rural areas we do
not find that acceptable. We cannot sit by while others say, "Okay,
let's all this money and all this protection go to the urban areas,
the rural areas can just look after themselves", because
that is how we feel.
Q849 Chairman:
I want to come back to a point, Mr Jesse, you were making on behalf
of your council. You made the point at the beginning that many
of the issues you had identified were of longstanding, and no
doubt, if you like, the summer rains last year and the flooding
crystallised that view, but you must have made efforts in the
past to get a response. Just give us a flavour of the negative
responses that I fear you have had up until now? Who is the worst
offender in saying, "Not here, please"?
Mr Jesse: Longstanding, this happens
every time it rains every winter. Every winter the roads flood
in certain areas, as per the photos, regardless of excessive rainfall.
We perpetually, and my councillor friend here is one of the guys
who does a lot of work, badger the City of York Council and Yorkshire
Water in this regard. The excessive rains last year drove us to
write to Defra as per we were invited to. Do you want to say anything?
Cllr Marquis: We started off by
writing to the local authority about the situation with regard
to flooding in general terms and we received a response from them
saying they were fully aware of the problems but they have no
money to put it right. We also wrote to Yorkshire Water in July
last year and there has been a postal strike since and we have
not had a response, we presume it is lost in the post. It is good
housekeeping that is the cause of a lot of the problems in my
view. The gullies that we understand were installed on the basis
of a once in a ten year storm situation are not capable of coping
with heavy, prolonged rainfall. Strensall is a peculiar area of
the City of York unitary authority and as you come into Strensall
you seem to cross over what we locally call the Towthorpe divide
and you can have bright sunshine on one side of the line and heavy
rain on the other. You do not need much more than half an hour's
continuous rain for some of the highways to become flooded. As
the Chairman alluded to before, one of the worst areas of flooding
is this business where the ditches, we are told by local residents,
should go into a drain which ultimately is the Internal Drainage
Board responsibility but part of it from this end, furthest from
the river, is the responsibility of riparian owners. The local
authority does not want to be heavy-handed with owners to force
them to do things but where the ditch is open some of the property
owners have created features in the water which interrupt the
flow and exacerbate the problem. How do you deal with that sort
of situation? The main problem is getting everybody together who
is involved to come to a solution. I have been involved in the
Parish Council for ten years now and these problems have been
there for that length of time. Some were not able to proceed because
of the conservation situation with wetland areas and the great
crested newt population in that area, but what concerns us in
that particular area is the road floods, especially at this time
of year, and if you have a heavy icy spell you have got an ice
rink that motorists are driving on. The only solution that the
local authority seems to have is to raise the level of the road
but, you know, if you raise the level of the road eventually it
is going to happen again, so it would be a waste of money.
Q850 Mr Williams:
This relates to West Lindsey Council. Does an Internal Drainage
Board precept operate or more than one Internal Drainage Board?
Mr Nicholson: Five Internal Drainage
Boards.
Q851 Mr Williams:
Are you happy with that arrangement? Given the fact you are taking
a more proactive role in addressing these issues, do you have
a good partnership with those bodies? What are your thoughts on
that precept arrangement?
Mr Nicholson: I think the precept
is fine, we do have excellent partnership arrangements with all
the partners on the Flood Working Group and that has some good
practice. We have got commitments from all those partners and
we are working very well with them, including Joint Solutions,
which is the partnership working body, and that is doing a really
good piece of work. It has needed some dedicated resource and
we needed a co-ordinator to pull the agencies together but it
is working and getting the schemes together. £250,000 is
the amount that we are looking at for draining water.
Cllr Shore: If you can help us
in one way it would be to try and seek out some of the permissive
powers and turn them into duties and, secondly, to help us solve
some of the disputes that may be unsolvable, similar to the way
planning appeals take place so that we have one place to go to
in the case where there is a judgment to be made so and we can
get on with the job. It is this blocking mechanism that we find
most frustrating and I think the people on the panel have expressed
that today.
Chairman: I am glad you have made that
point because it was certainly one that occurred to me when I
read your written evidence and it is a very positive note for
us to end on. Whilst the Committee cannot sort out every individual
problem, in terms of the collective recommendations that colleagues
may come to, pointing a way to help people who want to help themselves,
as you all do, to make certain there is a positive response by
the big bodies to the problems of the small is a very powerful
point. Can I thank all of you for what you have said to us and,
importantly, what you wrote to us by way of your written evidence.
May I say collectively to everybody who is in the room, who has
given evidence, who has been stimulated by these proceedings,
the door remains open for any further points by means of written
evidence. As I said, we have a week to go before we finally close
the door on taking information and then we have to sit down and
deliberate and produce a report. I am very grateful to all of
our witnesses for coming to us this afternoon. May I thank all
those who have been involved in making the splendid arrangements,
they have gone absolutely wonderfully, as long as we get our train
back eventually! May I thank those members of the public in the
audience who have come along, perhaps for the first time, to see
what a House of Commons Select Committee does. You may be interested
to know that some of the proceedings of our inquiry into flooding
have been on the Parliament Channel. I know that because I have
had at least one letter from a person who remained awake throughout
the whole thing! If you want to carry on, the chances are that
our remaining sessions will be on. We have got one on Monday and
one next Wednesday, so there is a chance to maintain your stalwart
interest. Thank you all very much indeed for your contributions,
it is greatly appreciated.
|
