§ 35. Commander Pursey
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food it he will state the present-day Newlyn equivalent of the height required by the Hull Corporation Act, 1925, for wharves on the River Hull, at the mouth of the river and at Stoneferry, respectively; and what was the height of the last equinoctial high water spring tide and the freeboard, respectively, at both these places.
The height required by the Hull Corporation Act 1925 for wharves on the River Hull is 16.00 feet above Ordnance datum Newlyn at the River Hull mouth and 14.97 feet at Stoneferry. High tide was not recorded on the 20th March at the mouth of the Hull, but a level of 1595 feet above Ordnance datum Newlyn was recorded I mile upstream from the mouth of the Hull at Albert Dock entrance on the Humber. This would, of course, be slightly higher than the level reached at the mouth of the Hull. The level 654 recorded at Stoneferry was 14.95 feet above Ordnance datum Newlyn. The freeboard was .05 feet and .02 feet at Hull mouth and Stoneferry respectively.
§ Commander Pursey
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why he has previously been so cagey about giving information about this serious flooding in Hull in March? Are not the thousands of my constituents affected entitled to know why they get flooded out, sometimes more than once a year? Is it not the case that the Corporation's statutory level for wharves has never provided any freeboard for safety at flood tides?
I can hardly be charged with being cagey, considering that I have answered about 14 Questions, written as many letters and replied to an Adjournment debate on the details of the recent flooding at Hull. If the hon. and gallant Member wants any more detailed information, I will do my best to obtain it for him.
§ 36. Commander Pursey
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the time required by the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board to consider flood alleviation schemes for the River Hull; whether any of the wharves shown to be deficient at the flooding three months ago are to be raised before the next equinoctial high tide on 23rd September, 1961; and how much money is available in the River Board's 1961 budget for flood alleviation work within the Hull city boundary.
I am informed by the river board that they have made no specific provision in this year's estimates for any improvement schemes on the River Hull within the city boundary, and that consideration by them of flood alleviation proposals for the River Hull will depend on the extent of the problem remaining when action has been taken by the Hull Corporation to require wharf owners to build up their wharves. I am advised that the Hull Corporation are to consider serving notices on 21 wharf owners.
§ Commander Pursey
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is serious concern among my flooded-out constituents in Hull about the failure of the River Board to go ahead with 655 the 1954 alleviation schemes which it has in hand, and that so far this year no flood prevention work has been carried out within the limits of the Hull City boundary?
Hull Corporation and the River Board are both autonomous responsible local authorities and they are just as concerned as the hon. Member about conditions in Hull. They have been pressing forward with their survey urgently for the last few weeks, and I understand that they are to meet in July. I would have thought that we could probably do little between now and the conclusion which they reach then, when the river board will be able to consider what further action it will have to take.