HC Deb 20 December 1965 vol 722 cc1829-40

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

It is one of the blessings of our Parliamentary system that we spend a great deal of time talking about affairs of worldwide importance, as we have been doing today, but we can also find time to ventilate the grievances of Her Majesty's subjects. That is what I propose to do tonight.

For some years now the Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford areas of my constituency have been subject to serious flooding. This is due to the inability of the existing water courses and the River Roach to cope with the surface water. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, the problem has worsened as considerable building development over a much wider area has interfered with normal drainage and has caused an increased run-off of surface water. My latest information is that about 160 residential properties are periodically flooded by surface water and are sometimes cut off completely and that half of these are subject to flooding from foul sewers caused by surface water infiltrating into the sewerage system. Certain roads are flooded and one which serves Southend Airport becomes impassable once or twice a year. The flooding of farmland has resulted in the loss of growing crops and the erosion of soil.

This has caused and is causing great anxiety and discomfort to a large number of my constituents. Periodic flooding of homes by sewage-contaminated water is not only distinctly unpleasant but carries with it, as our area medical officer of health has recognised, the risk of sewer-borne infection.

Up to last year there was some division of responsibility for dealing with the problem in the sense that the Essex River Board, or the Essex River Authority, as it has now become, was responsible only for main river drainage at the extremity of the area affected, the internal drainage area being the responsibility of a number of local authorities. In November, 1960 the Rochford Rural District Council formally asked the Essex River Authority to take over responsibility for certain water courses in its area. The authority began an investigation, but no decision was taken at that time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that for obvious technical reasons it is not possible to tackle a drainage problem of this magnitude in piecemeal fashion or to leave it to separate local authorities. Suffice it for me to say that improvement of certain channels would only increase flooding elsewhere; it would simply transfer the problem from one area to another. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, it was precisely considerations of this kind which led to the setting up of river authorities in the first place.

So it was that in August, 1963 the Essex River Authority proposed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it should take over responsibility for an enlarged internal drainage district in the Rochford area and should prepare a comprehensive scheme. Since then two new developments have combined to make a comprehensive scheme imperative. First, the proposed extension of the main runway across Southend Municipal Airport at Rochford involved a major interference with the drainage of that part of the area and in order to prevent serious flooding in the town of Rochford it became necessary for the River Authority to acquire a site for wasteland within the Airport's boundaries. Secondly, a long-delayed traffic improvement scheme for Rochford involving the construction of a by-pass calls for the diversion of the River Roach. Although the Essex County Council as highway authority would have to bear the cost of realigning the river it asked the river authority quite properly to meet the cost of any improvement of the channel. In this it was supported by the Ministry of Transport.

In the event, the authority agreed to a contribution for an improvement, subject to approval of its scheme for grant aid by the Ministry of Agriculture. The response of the Ministry to the Authority's proposal in 1963 was not too enthusiastic. It undertook merely to look at the problem on the basis of existing needs, ignoring the fact that with rapid development in the area—this is one of the most rapidly developing areas in the country—the problem was bound to grow. It took the view, I understand, that the cost of improvements should be a charge on the developers, in the area, although it gave no indication as to how this might be enforced. However, I understand that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government made it clear that such a requirement could not be imposed as a planning condition.

By the beginning of 1964 it was clear that unless a sense of urgency was injected into the situation those of my constituents who were already suffering grievously from flooding would soon be faced with an intolerable situation. So it was that in February, 1964 I intervened and pressed my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to secure a firm decision on two matters. The first was to resolve the division of financial responsibility to the proposed road works as between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture. The second was the making of a firm decision on grant aid for the river authority's proposed scheme as a whole.

In March, 1964, I was told that discussions were proceeding with the Departments concerned and that the Ministry officials would discuss the matter with the river authority. These discussions, incidentally, took place at a time when we had a severe bout of flooding. A few weeks later the Parliamentary Secretary told me that as soon as the authority submitted its detailed proposals the question of grant would be considered. This was great news. Flooding was continuing but at least there was now some light at the end of the tunnel.

The Essex River Authority lost no time. It submitted its proposals and in May, 1964, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that before a decision was made to offer graint-aid the Minister had to be satisfied that the scheme was technically sound and that the land drainage benefits justified the expenditure involved. This would take a little time to resolve but the Ministry assured me that they were fully alive to the problems in the Rochford area and will complete our examination as soon as possible. Then came the change of Government and I had to start pressing a new array of Ministers. In the meantime, traffic congestion in Rochford was getting worse and no progress could be made by Essex County Council, the highway authority, until the contribution by the river authority could be settled, and that could not be decided upon until the Ministry had agreed upon the scale of grant-aid.

In April the Minister of Transport actually made a decision. He gave his approval for the construction of the bypass and authorised a grant of £66,000 out of the total expenditure of £152,000 and we were all delighted. As expected, the grant did not include any contribution towards the £41,000 estimated cost of carrying out river improvement works, and the county council, not unnaturally, was concerned that no decision was yet forthcoming with regard to the contribution from the river authority.

I had no option but to return to the attack on the Minister of Agriculture. In May of this year the Parliamentary Secretary told me that his Department's examination of the authority's proposals, estimated to cost about £350,000, would be completed as soon as possible but he was still not able to say whether grant-aid would be forthcoming. This was almost identically the same sort of letter that I had received a year before. Incidentally, flooding was again causing trouble to my constituents, many of them suffering from surcharging from the sewers. In July I again wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, pointing out that there had been further flooding and asking whether a decision had been reached. I was faced with the same answer and a fresh excuse. He wrote: I am afraid that our examination of the proposal submitted by the Essex River Authority is not yet complete. We have had to consult the Chief Valuer's Office to obtain an assessment of certain benefits from the scheme to existing properties and areas scheduled for development. As the work will also facilitate improvements to surface water drainage in the urban areas, we have also had to seek advice from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We have to take this information into account before we can reach a decision on grant-aid. We expect to receive the reports shortly, and, when we have been able to reach a final conclusion on this scheme, I will write to you again. One wonders what had been happening in the intervening 12 months. In September I wrote again to the Parliamentary Secretary and said that I felt that it was high time that a sense of urgency was injected into the matter which had been hanging fire far too long. I wrote: You said in your letter that you were hoping to receive a report shortly and that you would write to me as soon as you had reached a conclusion. I beg of you to expedite the matter. I received a reply, a very polite one, but, again, I was told: We are still not in a position to give a decision over the proposals of the Essex River Authority. I can assure you that we are anxious to find the right answer to this difficult case as soon as possible and I will write to you again as soon as we are able to give the Essex River Authority our decision. My constituents and I were left to decide what was the reason for this long delay and for these fatuous excuses. Was it incompetence or was it something else? Was it due, possibly, to an internal struggle between Government Departments? Was the Ministry of Agriculture still trying to persuade the Ministry of Housing to put part of the cost upon developers? If this is the reason, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say so, so that my unfortunate constituents can know that they are being made to suffer while two Government Departments engage in a wrangle.

Accordingly, I resolved to bring the matter to the Floor of the House, and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for making it possible for me to ventilate it here tonight. It was interesting to note that within a few days of its being known that I was to raise the matter, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me saying that the Ministry had been able to approve the authority's scheme in principle and to offer grant on expenditure not exceeding £200,000. Since the proposed expenditure was of the order of £350,000 and not £200,000, however, it will be seen at once that the Ministry's decision falls far short of what is required. Indeed, that decision is quite incomprehensible.

From the very beginning, it has been recognised that the task of providing proper drainage facilities in this area of my constituency would have to be tackled by a comprehensive scheme. This has never been contested. The authority took endless trouble to produce such a scheme and its details have been known to the Ministry for months past. I suggest that only two conclusions can be drawn. Either the Ministry is trying to force the authority to embark upon a reduced scheme, catering only for present requirements and putting off the need to make adequate provision for the future, or it is trying to eliminate part of the scheme. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can explain what his Ministry is seeking to achieve.

If the Ministry is seeking to force the authority to accept a reduced scheme after long months of negotiation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say so. Let him give the reason. Is it shortage of money? If so, I can tell him now that no responsible river authority is likely to engage in a project which, it knows, must be amended later to cater for future development at a greater cost than would be the case if proper provision were made now.

Alternatively, if the authority is to be required to drop part of the scheme, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say what part his advisers have in mind. Is it true that they consider that the proposals for the Hockley-Hawkwell area should be dropped as being less urgent than the others? After years of flooding and suffering from the surcharge of sewers in the area, my constituents are entitled to know what the Government have in mind in forcing a reduction in the scheme.

The delay in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion is had enough; it stretches over a period of two Governments and several years. But to make a decision which throws a carefully-planned scheme out of gear and forces a number of my constituents to continue to suffer the sort of discomforts which they have suffered for so long is unforgivable.

Subject to whatever the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may have to offer by way of explanation or fresh information—I hope that he will be very forthcoming—I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister my view that the decision is not only mean, but shortsighted. It is neither economical nor just. While clarification is sought and the scheme has to be amended, further delay is bound to be caused. I beg the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to reconsider the matter and to do so with the utmost speed.

10.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

First of all, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for raising the question. He has every right to ventilate it because it has been a difficult situation. I am sorry that after the change of Government he had to start all over again, but I can assure him that I do not think it made any difference to the train of events, and, important though his raising of the matter tonight is, I do not think it made any difference to the time the decision was made.

The hon. Gentleman has catalogued the events leading up to the decision. I do not basically quarrel with what he has said, because he has been fairly accurate. It is rather gratifying—I am sure he is gratified—that following the recent rains, which have been clearly heavy all over the country, in Essex, where we both live, there has not been any excessive flooding—none last weekend, I gather. His constituents will be reasonably grateful about that.

I think from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he appreciates that this has not been an easy drainage scheme either to cost or to decide the amount of grant that would be available, simply because —the hon. Gentleman answered his own point—of the complexity of it. It is not only a rural area with agricultural land, some of which floods and some of it which is affected by flooding, but it is a very highly developed area. There is an aerodrome concerned and there is a new road, and there is work on the river to make provision for this, all of which complicates the situation very much and has led to some of the delays about which the hon. Gentleman complained.

I should like, first of all, to explain the general considerations that have to be taken into account in dealing with an application of this kind. Before approving a scheme for grant aid, we must be satisfied that the scheme is sound on engineering grounds, and also that the extent of the benefits justifies grant aid. Where the benefits which we take into account for grant aid match the cost of the scheme, there is no problem and approval comes quickly. Where the benefits are less than the cost of the scheme, we do not automatically refuse grant. We would in that case, if the calculated benefits were so much less, consider whether there were other benefits which would justify our giving grant aid towards the scheme although the other benefits were not such as could be directly grant-aided.

The hon. Member has gone into some of the history of this problem in Essex, and I do not propose to go into it again. However, I should say that the first intimation that the Essex River Board considered work to be necessary on the River Roach and its tributaries reached us in August, 1963. The cost then—this is a very pertinent point—was estimated at £185,000. Before we could tell the board whether grant would be forthcoming, we had to ask for the details necessary to enable our engineers to examine the technical feasibility and soundness of the scheme and also apply the worthwhileness test which is applied to all land drainage schemes.

There seems to have been a measure of misunderstanding on the part of the river board on the amount of detail which we had to have for these purposes. This led to considerable delay. But the board undertook to give priority to the detailed designing and costing of the scheme. However, I am afraid that, as the hon. Member said, it was not until March, 1965, that we eventually received the necessary technical information. At this point the proposals were shown to cost £350,000, which was substantially more than the first estimate that we received. Work began right away on the examination of the scheme in my Department. Our engineers pronounced it technically sound. It was evident that there was an urgent need for improvements to the carrying capacity of these rivers because of the increased run-off from the rapidly expanding urban areas. This happens wherever one has an urban area expanding; the run-off is quicker than from agricultural land.

There were other objectives of the proposals which we agreed were sensible. But there were added difficulties in evaluating the benefits of the scheme in monetary terms and in matching the result with the estimated cost of £350,000, nearly double the original estimated cost.

I will endeavour to expain why it has taken as long as nine months after the necessary information reached my Department from the river authority in March, 1965, to arrive at the decision which was conveyed to the river authority a few days ago. This had nothing to do with the debate. The decision was arrived at in the normal way.

This requires a brief explanation of the mechanism of the "worth-whileness" test. I fully realise that many river authorities are troubled by the application of the test. There have been discussions between my Department and the Association of River Authorities about a possible change of system and when these discussions are resumed—I hope in the not too distant future—this will be considered further. Meanwhile we have to continue the present system of examination of schemes submitted to us by river authorities.

The object, as I have said, is to try to assess the benefits of a land drainage scheme so as to compare them with the estimated cost. For example, this scheme should prevent the flooding of roughly 64 acres of agricultural land and make possible the under-drainage of 800 acres more. The benefit to this land is assessed by reference to the increase in production which should result and to the additional capital required by the occupier to bring this about. By a fairly simple calculation of the flooding in the area, one reaches a figure of, according to the hon. Member, 160 residential properties, some roads and, of course, the question of the over-flowing of sewers and so on. My figures are that flooding affects about 56 houses and about 8 acres of urban land.

Mr. Braine

My information comes from the local authority—the Rochford Rural District Council.

Mr. Mackie

I am not doubting the hon. Gentleman's figures. But one can have different ideas of what actually is flooding. The measurement of benefit of a flood protection scheme to urban properties is a more difficult problem because there are imponderable social factors as well as others which cannot be precisely expressed in money terms—for instance, there is hardship by flooding, lack of communications and so on. All these things are difficult to assess in monetary terms.

The basis of the calculation for this class of land is an estimate of the capital appreciation of the property directly affected by the scheme, coupled with an allowance for additional special factors of the kind I have mentioned. The process I have described always takes time. These are not straightforward calculations and it is important to get them right. In this case, when we had the results, it turned out that the benefits calculated on this basis amounted to only £200,000 compared with the estimated cost of £350,000. The extra £150,000 is not eligible under this scheme for assistance.

Looking into all this took yet more time. However, I am glad to say that the further examination of the scheme showed that it was of sufficient value to the area generally, in view of future development, improved surface water sewage and road construction which it would make possible. We therefore reached the conclusion that we would be prepared to pay a grant of £200,000 of the estimated cost of the scheme. At the present rate of grant of 80 per cent. this would mean a contribution of £160,000. I hope I have made it clear why our consideration of the scheme took as long as nine months and also why we are only able to offer grant on £200,000 of the estimated cost.

Mr. Braine

Where is the balance to come from—the rates?

Mr. Mackie

The river authority and the local council are the authorities concerned in looking at that. As far as the law is concerned, the Ministry can only give the grant I have mentioned. I make it clear that we are not pretending to anything like mathematical exactitude in making this test. Many people feel that the worth-whileness of a particular scheme of flood prevention should be left to the judgment of the river authority. But the Government have a considerable stake in this—the total of grant aid on land drainage works today is of the order of £5 million annually. A procedure has therefore been devised to enable us to apply a rough yardstick to the large number of schemes put forward by river authorities to determine which are likely to give the best value for money and to enable us to allocate the funds available to the best advantage.

I know that our offer has been disappointing to the river authority. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have examined all the facts very closely and have done all we can to help. All this, of course, has taken time. Even at this stage we have invited the authority to submit any new and relevant facts which might enable us to increase the offer we have made. I hope that it will do so.

I hope that I have shown clearly that the consideration of this scheme presented rather special problems to both the river authority and the Ministry. I hope that the authority will be able, in view of the offer we have made, to go ahead with the scheme and satisfy the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am certain that if it does this the flooding problem there can be solved but I would like him to appreciate that under the present law there is no question—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.