| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My next point is about resilience. Somerset has been very good and there are some lessons to learn from the area. I invited the Secretary of State to come down to Somerset and I extend that invitation to the Under-Secretary. We have learned from hard lessons and the villages that are most prone to flooding have developed community ideas to provide resilience for individual houses, as well as ways of preventing the ingress of water and of making the houses resistant to water damage once water comes in. Those ideas are being spread as best practice not only in those communities but across all communities in Somerset. A lot can be done in that area that is not being done at the moment.
We need to recognise that the community response is an important factor. We need to identify people who have particular skills who can respond. One of my neighbours has a 4x4 and he is a member of a scheme whereby when there is bad weather, such as in the snows a few weeks ago, he is called in on a cascade system to ensure that doctors, nurses and ambulance personnel can get to people through the snow. That is a wonderful scheme and it is the sort of thing that we should be encouraging and doing more formally, so that we identify people with particular skills and ensure that they are available to help the community at the right time.
There are also basic things that parish councils can do, which work much better when they are localised, such as ensuring that they have warning systems. They know who the vulnerable people are, so they can immediately give support. There are systems that can tell people about likely flooding even more effectively than the Environment Agency provisions. That is partly a matter of making individual forecasting more accurate to a very precise location, but it is also about ensuring that people know about the forecast. For instance, one could get the fire brigade to drive through the village at night with the siren going, so that the warning does not rely on there being a phone connection or whatever and so that people are aware that there is danger.
It is about the simple things. I lost my car in my village under a railway bridge that flooded in the dark much more deeply than I had thought. If there was a flood gauge under that bridge, which often floods a little, I would have known immediately as I approached the bridge that there was deep water. However, I did not and it is very hard to judge, as the Minister will know, when it is dark. I have been encouraging parish councils, when they have known areas of likely flooding, to put up flood gauges. It is a simple thing to do and it is very helpful.
It is also a matter of design, to return to the point that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). Sometimes, elevating a house when it is being built by about 3 ft makes all the difference between that house’s flooding and its never flooding. It is very simple.
My final point is about inter-agency co-operation. I think that we are beginning to get that between the Environment Agency and local authorities. May I suggest one more agency that needs to be involved, which is the Highways Agency? One of the chief problems with flooding in my area, believe it or not, is the A303, a major trunk road that was designed to carry cars and lorries—although it was not designed terribly well for that purpose—but was not designed to prevent flooding. The result is that in some places it acts as a dam and in
others it lets water through. That water then goes over large conduits and into water courses that cannot cope. We need co-ordination and understanding of those processes.
If I had time, I would also deal with insurance. It is a key matter, but many people in Somerset are finding it increasingly difficult to get repeat insurance. We have addressed the problem locally with insurance companies, and I know that the Minister has also been doing work in that area. I should like to hear what he has to say.
6.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this Adjournment debate. He spoke in a measured and well informed way about matters of concern nationally, but he also brought his local knowledge to the debate. He gave very good local examples of how agencies respond to these problems, and of how people work together. I challenge those who say that community spirit no longer exists to examine what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
At the outset, I should like to extend the House’s sympathy to all the people around the country who have been affected by flooding. It is personally devastating and, as happened in the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, it can also lead to fatalities and injuries. Our thoughts go out to everyone affected, but there are things that we can do. In this debate, I hope that I can respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and articulate what more can be done. Flooding is a major problem for him and his constituents, and for people around the country.
The hon. Gentleman said that he has had experience of flooding from rivers and as a result of surface water drainage. I have met several people who have gone through the trauma of flooding that has hit their properties and families, and in that context it is worth mentioning the Queen Camel school. I will not bore the House by going through the long history of that site’s inadequate flood protection, but I will make sure that my colleagues in other Departments are aware of the problem. Like the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, I want it to be solved. I note what he said about relocating the school: he knows that that is not in my gift, but I will make sure the matter is brought to the attention of other Ministers.
The Government fully recognise the importance of the effective management of flood risk. Based on the Pitt report, and on the experience that we have gathered as a result of some traumatic experiences over the years, we know what we need to do. The simple statistics show that we have increased investment in flood risk management to £650 million this year, a figure that will rise to £800 million by 2010. We have more than doubled the amount of investment from the level of the late 1990s, and it will reach a record of £2.15 billion over the next three-year spending commitment period.
I know that the House will welcome that, but there is more to be done. We must tackle issues to do with structure and organisation, and we must also look at what we can do, both nationally and with local input, in making choices on the ground. However, the investment that we have made in the past three years has helped to reduce flood risk significantly for more than 125,000
homes. Over the next two years, we hope to offer an improved standard of protection against flooding and coastal erosion for 145,000 more homes. We always base such figures on risk assessments, and that total will include 45,000 homes at the highest and most chronic level of risk.
There are various flood defence schemes in Somerset, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Somerton and Frome has received some flood defence grant in aid in the past. He will know about the work on the dam at Bruton, and about the schemes at Ilminster, Langport and elsewhere in the county, but—of course and as always—more needs to be done. Currently, we are developing a long-term investment strategy for flood and coastal erosion. It will look at the long-term funding needs and pressures for the next 25 years. That has to be the way forward. The strategy will also consider how the greatest value for money for the taxpayer can be achieved in delivering such investment.
Let me turn for a moment to the floods and water Bill. Our intention is to present the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation within the next couple of months. The draft Bill is our opportunity jointly and collectively to consolidate the existing legislative framework, which is complex and unclear. It will allow us to bring together the regulatory regimes on flood defence and coastal erosion and to ensure—the point that the hon. Gentleman was making—that a co-ordinated approach is delivered on the ground. It will clarify roles and maximise joint working between all bodies, agencies and communities involved in flooding and coastal erosion. It will help to ensure effective protection on the ground.
Of course, we recognise—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does so, too—that we have gone past the old shibboleth; it is simply not beneficial or practical to protect every acre of land and every inch of coastline, particularly as climate change increases storminess, wave heights and incidents of extreme heavy rainfall. So our focus rightly must be on the assessment and management of the risk. It must be on balancing likelihoods and consequences and ensuring that the considerable investment of taxpayers’ money is used to best effect. So where investment is made, it must be done in return for significant reductions in the likelihood and consequences of flooding. It must take place where the greatest benefits can be achieved.
Let me in the time available turn to one helpful aspect: local levy funding. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are interested in the approaches that can maximise not only what the Environment Agency and others can deliver, but what can be delivered in addition on the ground. Where a scheme may not meet the national priorities for funding, it may be identified as a priority by the regional flood defence committees, which can use local levy funding. For example, in Shepton Mallet, where a proposal for work on a critical watercourse did not have enough economic benefits to meet the national funding criteria, the proposed flood defence scheme is being considered for funding using Wessex flood defence committee’s local levy funds of approximately £1 million to £2 million. The scheme is currently at the feasibility study stage, and it is hoped that the design will be finished next year
and the construction completed in the following year. That is a good example of how real additionality can be achieved.
Let us turn to an example of a scheme with low benefits. Queen Camel has been mentioned. Some cases do not match the criteria. For example, recently in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the benefits were low in Queen Camel. Following flooding in 2000, there was a proposal for a flood storage scheme that would have protected 27 properties. That scheme was brought forward for discussion. It would have cost about £8 million and provided for a one-in-25-year level of protection. On that basis and against the criteria, it was deemed not to be economically viable. That does not make it easy for the people who are on the receiving end, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that we must act on the best assessment of risk and the best analysis. What else can be done?
Mr. Heath: We can argue elsewhere about the appropriateness or otherwise of that scheme. I am concerned however that some of the risk analysis is now out of date. One-in-25-year events are now one-in-three-year events. One-in-100-year events are now one-in-twenty-year events. I wonder whether we are keeping pace with what is happening to our climate and environment.
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a valid point, and what we introduce in the floods and water Bill, or whatever it will be called, will address not only some of the structural issues but the long-term funding issues, as well as how we get the balance right in using national taxpayers’ money to deal with what are deemed strategic, high-importance and high-risk areas and what element of that can be delivered either through additionality or otherwise. There are some interesting discussions to be had with some local input, because alternatives are sometimes close by.
In the past couple of years, we revisited the criteria for agricultural land. I know that this will not satisfy everybody, but the value or premium put on agricultural land for reasons of food security was looked at, and it was enhanced slightly. It will always be a case of balancing considerations such as the number of houses and the value of properties and businesses concerned. There is a balance between defence of a particular part of the coast, or a particular water catchment area, and defence of something elsewhere. That is tricky, I know, but I think that we are heading in the right direction.
I mentioned the issue of what else can be done, apart from the floods Bill. One aspect to consider is property-level flood protection. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced the establishment of a property-level flood protection grant scheme, which stands to benefit properties in high-risk areas that are not protected by a community-level scheme. The scheme is run by the Environment Agency. It is open to local authorities to apply to it, on behalf of communities. The Secretary of State announced in December that £5 million will be available to spend on that measure. I understand that the Environment Agency has already been engaged by Somerset county council to consider a future application. I cannot make any comment on that, but it is good to see applications coming forward, including from Somerset.
On land management, the Government encourage a range of approaches to managing flood risk, and that was supported in the Pitt review. Land management practices such as the creation and restoration of wetlands and woodlands can contribute to the reduction of local flood risks—and as Minister with responsibility for biodiversity, among other things, I must say that they bring many other benefits, too. We should look at that. The issue is not simply about capital expenditure on big programmes.
I understand that in Somerset, and specifically in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, surface water was the cause of many recent flood events. In line with Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations following the floods of 2007, we are already—we are not waiting—encouraging better surface water drainage. We announced in December that £15 million would be available to help local authorities to co-ordinate and lead local flood management work, and that the legislation required to implement Pitt’s response would be published in a draft floods and water Bill this spring. There are now six local authorities actively working on that. We look forward to the results, and to engaging with other authorities later this year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues to do with water courses. Our aim is to ensure that the risk of
flooding is as low as possible, and the water courses issues are an important aspect of that. The Environment Agency routinely considers dredging and vegetation clearance from water courses; it prioritises those issues. On raising awareness of flood risks, I think that he would applaud the “Think, don’t sink” campaign that has run in the area, stressing the dangers of driving through flood water, of which everybody should be aware.
We are going in the right direction. We look forward to constructive engagement as we bring the floods and water Bill forward. There is a major challenge in front of us, and not simply for national Government; the question is how we engage people all the way down to regional and local government level, and how we engage communities themselves. The solutions, and the ability to find a way forward, lie in the hands of us all. We will increasingly be subject to major flooding incidents, right across the country—
6.33 pm
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).
| Index | Home Page |