Examination of Witnesses (Questions 34-39)
MS MARY
DHONAU AND
MR LAURENCE
WATERHOUSE
1 JUNE 2009
Q34 David Taylor: I know that NFF
was formed by three residents of Bewdley. Are you two of those
three?
Ms Dhonau: No, we are not, actually.
If I can give you a little background. I have been involved in
the National Flood Forum since its inception, but I was busy taking
on Severn Trent Water, who were repeatedly flooding my home downstream,
to be involved in the actual inception, I was not one of the three,
but I came on board almost immediately and have worked very closely
with the National Flood Forum.
Q35 David Taylor: I congratulate
you on the work you are doing and I am going to ask you a question
about it in just a moment. You heard the tail end of the questions
a moment or two ago. We were asking about the draft bill and what
priorities they would have, particularly if it was just a short
bill that was introduced, but you have had a look at the draft
bill. What would you have liked to have seen in there, what are
you surprised was not in there, and perhaps you could just give
us some indication, very briefly, of your priorities for this
bill, including any inclusions you would like to see?
Mr Waterhouse: I am not one of
the three either, I am from North Yorkshire, so mine is a different
perspective on the flooding issues. I think we have been fairly
unique in that our input, certainly up until today, comes from
the flood victims. We are the ones who represent the people who
have been flooded, in my own case five times since 2000, so I
do have some experience of the flooding side of it. I think the
input we have been able to give into initially the Pitt Report
has been the experiences of people who have been flooded, the
case studies. There are numerous case studies in the documents.
I think Mary has provided quite a few of them. I believe that
is our role in this consultation, our input into the bill, because
unless you have been flooded you do not know the consequences,
the after-effects and the ongoing mental and medical problems
involved with flooding. Overall we welcome much of the bill, we
would have to, I think, because it ties up many of the issues
whereby we have seen gaps in legislation. We have seen gaps in
the response and gaps in how things are managed right across the
spectrum of flooding. For example, it always amazes us that to
get some form of flood defence or to get some action in my own
village—our stream is only 300 metres long but we have seven
stakeholders, seven utilities, district, county, parish, utilities
and landowners and to get any sort of action to help to mitigate
the flooding or even to stop us flooding again is very, very difficult.
It has taken two years just to get everybody around the table,
so I think the first thing that we do welcome seriously is that
it is essential to bring together everyone who is involved in
flooding. I think that has been a major milestone in what we have
seen so far.
Q36 David Taylor: Yes. The NFF has
been around for about seven or so years now and you rightly pointed
out, Mr Waterhouse, the gaps in legislation, the gaps in the response
and the gaps in management, as you have described it, and one
gap that was there seven years ago would be the gap for stakeholder
engagement, the ability for communities to influence legislation
and policy, and the NFF to a significant extent have bridged that
gap but not totally. Where are the continuing weaknesses in stakeholder
engagement, in decisions about flood management, would you say?
Ms Dhonau: I personally think
that initially the National Flood Forum was looked upon as a pressure
group and I firmly believe that those who manage flood risk do
not like pressure groups, and that is where we come in because
I can give you a classic example of a pressure group which has
sprung up in Leeds, where they have been flooded twice very quickly,
and because they were naturally quite hostile those who manage
the flood risk backed off and the National Flood Forum intervened
and actually got some kind of semblance of an organised group
which was non-hostile and I promised those who manage flood risk
that I would sit in on the inaugural meeting and stop anybody
from taking their kidneys and livers out. Actually, they now have
a very regular meeting and I firmly believe in local knowledge,
local partnership, and I do not like the fact that those who manage
flood risk often look on potential pressure groups with some disdain
really. People do have an awful lot of local knowledge and it
is incredibly valuable when deciding how to manage flood risk.
Q37 David Taylor: Defra assert their
continuing support for your general stakeholder role and the Environment
Agency in terms of flood project work that is involved, and you
have therefore become a very important organisation in this particular
area. I would have expected you to have been consulted extensively
on the content of this draft bill. Has that consultation taken
place?
Ms Dhonau: It has indeed, and
I have to pay tribute to Defra. I feel that the doors of Defra
have opened far more regularly and far more willingly since we
have developed a close working relationship with them and I feel,
particularly with their stakeholder forums, that we have been
listened to at every step of the way. There are many things in
the Draft Flood and Water Bill which I have lobbied for personally.
If I could just give you two examples. One of them obviously is
the resilience and resistance grants. That is one thing where
I really think the loophole in the law has got to be tightened
up, the fact that we have now got grants up and running, and I
do hope they are long-term grants and not short-term grants because
with the best will in the world everybody cannot afford to protect
themselves. While I do believe we should take responsibility to
protect our own properties, because it is our home, many, many
people could not begin to afford to do it and I do hope that the
grants are longstanding. I have worked alongside Defra in the
delivery of the pilots and of the grants and I do hope they carry
on, but with grants for resilience as well as resistance. We are
not talking of keeping the floodwater out, but it is my belief
that one day every hard engineered defence, every domestic flood
protection product is going to be overwhelmed and that really
we have got to learn to adapt our homes. Therefore, we have got
to have grants made available for resilience. If I can tell you
that I was flooded myself in 2007. I had put resilient measures
into my home and I did not make an insurance claim. I rang the
National Flood Forum helpline, knee-deep in water in my own home,
knowing that it was not going to cause damage and I believe that
is one thing that has got to be addressed. Another thing I worked
very closely with Defra on is that post-2007 I can honestly say
that about 80 per cent of our telephone calls were from people
who were being flooded by other people through overland run-off
in South Yorkshire, who had tarmaced over their car park, sending
run-off straight down into 30 terraced houses. There is no redress
for people in that position and that is something I feel needs
to be dealt with very firmly.
Q38 David Taylor: Your reputation
is very high, that is true, and Defra and the Environment Agency,
I am sure, would be persuaded that it is in their interests to
get constructively engaged with you because you are positive in
your approach, but is that weakened slightly by one of your purposes,
to encourage the sanctions of community-led groups for mutual
support, because those groups will often want to pressure the
Environment Agency, Defra and others in perhaps a different way?
Three of us in this room went in the early aftermath of the floods
to Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, and we went to Upton upon
Severn, and there I guess the community-led group for mutual support
would be a classic example of where they can be useful and effective.
This draft bill we are looking at today, does that help or obstruct
you in promoting the creation of community groups of that kind
to provide mutual support and response?
Mr Waterhouse: I think from my
own experience that this helps. It helps in that it is very difficult
for an individual person who has been flooded to gain access to
the different types of information and in many circumstances it
is difficult to gain access to the funding without the group scenario,
without the support of others, in small villages and small towns
without things like district and local parish councils. As I said
earlier, what this brings together is the forum for communication,
the overseeing role of the Environment Agency, but a tightening
of the responsibilities and also an acceptance of those responsibilities.
It is not about tightening them, but unless people actually do
things, unless councils do what they are told to do nothing happens.
Even in my own case, my own village, it has taken us two years
to get people around the table because we did not know where to
start, because everybody said it was not their fault.
Q39 David Taylor: The provision of
information is fine. That is rather reactive, but you do have
an active role to catalyse community campaigns, I guess, at times
or to advise on how that can be best achieved.
Ms Dhonau: Yes. If I can give
you one example of a group I am working with just outside Upton
upon Severn. You probably drove through the village of Kempsey,
just outside Worcester, from Worcester and then down to Upton
upon Severn. They have been flooded there and for any of you who
have read our newsletter, they have been flooded 29 times in not
very many years at all, just a few years. Obviously they do not
qualify for the national funding pot, but we can go in and help
them with local levy schemes and advise them on how to apply for
local levy funding. Also, this particular community have become
very active in working with the Environment Agency to arrive at
a solution for their own flooding, but—and I have to pay
tribute to them—they are so desperate to raise money they
are organising whist drives, fashion shows, wine and cheese parties
and they are opening their gardens to actually put money into
their own flood defence scheme.
|
