§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
11.42 pm§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)I represent one of the great cities of Europe, but for some of its inhabitants it has become something of a nightmare to live there. The cause of the problem can probably be set down to the Roman centurion who decided to build a town, which is now the city of York, at a ford in the Ouse, because the place that he chose has been throughout the centuries a place where flooding takes place.
The difficulty is that in the catchment area of the Ouse and the other rivers that pour into it, up in the Dales of Yorkshire, a considerable amount of water may come down at any one time. It has to come down the river and pass between the narrow banks of the city of York. Over a period the river has overflowed the banks. In the past 103 years it has flooded over them 62 times to a height of more than 12 ft. It enters property in York at about 13 ft 5 in, and over the past 100 years it has done that 20 times. The alarming thing is that, of those 20 occasions, 12 have been since 1965 and six since 1976. In other words, the incidence and frequency of flooding has increased over the years. I initiated an Adjournment debate on the same subject in 1968. For seven years after that debate it never flooded. I would like to think that, unlike Canute, I managed to turn the water back. In retrospect, I think that the water authority paid some attention to that debate. I hope that I shall have the same success tonight.
In 1968, I argued that areas by the river, known as the washlands—low-lying areas upstream from York—could be flooded at a time of potential flooding of the river around the city so that the water could be held there for a limited period and released back into the river when the flood had subsided. Some work was done on washlands up river almost immediately afterwards, which seems to have changed the incidence of flooding that preceded it. In the period immediately before 1968, the river flooded to a height of more than 13 ft at least once a year for four years. After that, it had not flooded for about eight years.
I should be happy if the Minister would tell me that she is willing to help the water authority preserve the remaining houses threatened by floods when the river rises above 13 ft 5 in, whatever the cause of the flooding. Perhaps I could better persuade her of that if I could also persuade her, as I tried to persuade the Minister in 1968, that the cause of the increase in the incidence of flooding is not just natural weather conditions but because when the water falls on the uplands it manages to get into the river more quickly. As a result, a potential flood in York builds up faster than it used to. The case that I made then, and make now, is that that has been caused by the increase in land drainage in the upland areas of north Yorkshire. Since the Ministry is anxious to increase the amount of land drainage, and gives considerable grants to help farmers undertake it, there must be a spin-off to protect the cities and residential areas downstream so that they are not placed at a disadvantage. It can be done.
Not only was the washlands experiment carried out after 1968, but in recent years work has been done on the Clifton Ings as a reservoir, and after the major flood in 1978 a bank built alongside the Leeman Road area successfully resisted the flood that occurred in January this 1090 year. As a result, 400 houses were saved from flooding that hitherto had always been flooded when the river rose to a height of 16 ft 5 in. If that can be done for those 400 houses, I am anxious to preserve the other 250 houses that were flooded.
The 250 houses are in five different areas. Two of those areas are already scheduled, under the water authority's proposals, to have protective measures taken to help them to resist the flooding—the area around Ebor Street, and the area in Longfield Terrace. The work in Ebor Street was due to be started on the day the flooding began in January. I expect that that work will go ahead and that protection for those houses will be achieved within a reasonable time.
That would leave three other areas. One of them is Holgate Beck where the problem is that the water authority rightly put storm drains on the end of the beck to stop the river coming back up the beck in flood. Those storm drains have worked effectively. But water comes downstream from the areas where it was collected in the built-up areas above Holgate Beck and that means that water floods in the low-lying areas, and a substantial number of the houses are in that area. What is required is a pump at the end of the beck to pump the water into the river over the top of the storm drains. The water authority, I understand, is well aware of this, but cannot raise the £500,000 that is required to pay for it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance on this point. The proposal is technically feasible.
The second area is the Marygate area, a low-lying area alongside the river in one of the environmentally desirable parts of York which could be protected by a wall along the river. It might be thought, as some councillors have already indicated, that it would be unsightly. I doubt that. The height of the wall that would be necessary, according to my information, seems not to be such that it would make it an undesirable part of the city's architecture. No one has carried out a technical survey to discover the cost. It cannot be a considerable amount, certainly nothing like the £500,000 for Holgate Beck.
The third area is where the Foss joins the Ouse. The water comes back up the river from the Ouse and also collects water coming down into the Foss from Tang Hall Beck and other areas. That area is much more difficult to protect. Although a barrage could be built along the mouth of the Foss, it would interfere with the waterway. People use it for both environmental and business purposes, especially one firm. Whether a barrage is technically feasible the water authority has not yet decided. However, it is clear, given the money, that it would be possible to safeguard the houses upstream.
The water authority or its predecessor, the river board, has recognised the danger of those houses but has always thought that the financial consequences of taking action was not justified by the incidence of flooding. Where the flooding is caused by the land drainage, as I suspect, or by a change in weather conditions, the incidence of flooding has increased to the extent where it is sheer hell to live in those houses. Each year, when the humidity increases, there is a danger that the water will come up from under the floorboards. Everyone in the area, particularly the elderly, are anxious about the possibility of another flood.
To find, within a year or two of a previous flood, that once again the carpets, the television set and the refrigerator are ruined and all the electrical installations have to be replaced while the water eats into the plaster 1091 and woodwork is the kind of thing that no civilised person wants to tolerate. It is not good enough for the water authority to say that the work could be done but that the expenditure cannot be justified on the basis of the discomfort that is caused. It is crucial for those people that it should take place.
Although I recognise that the Foss area problem is especially difficult to solve, I maintain that it is desirable to do so. The number of residential houses affected in that area is fairly small—no more than about 50 or 60—but in addition many businesses are affected by the regular flooding. In at least two garages the possibility of the flood affecting the petrol exists during every inundation and other businesses must close down for some time before they can recover from the floods. The cost benefit of putting in such work would be considerable. For that reason, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that it is desirable.
I do no wish to strain the hon. Lady's patience by arguing the case for my suggestion about land drainage, because I know that the water authority and the Ministry dispute it, as they did in 1968 when I put the matter to my former colleague, Mr. John Mackie. Mr. Mackie told me on that occasion that the Ministry would be helped by a study that was about to be done by the Institute of Hydrology. I tried to get that study, but I found that there is only one copy available, which is in Oxford. I might receive it tomorrow. I noticed that it was referred to in an article in New Scientist on 21 January 1982. The institute said that in the area that it studied from 1966 to 1968, where drainage had taken place, there had been
quite a dramatic change in the run-off after drainage, The time between the water starting to rise and peak flow fell from five to 2½ hours once drainage was improved in the region supplying river water.Therefore, it is not right to go on disputing the issue, as the water authority still does. The increasing incidence of flooding suggests that there is something in it. Whether there is or not, my constituents' premises are being flooded more and more frequently. It is desirable that something should be done to stop it. For that reason, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the water authority will not be impeded in dealing with the problem by the limits that are at present imposed upon government spending. This problem must be solved quickly, and it would be to everyone's benefit if it could be done before the next flood came.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)I congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) on the way in which he has brought to the attention of the House the very serious flooding problem in York. Most of us saw the pictures in the press and on television showing the streets and houses awash in that city, and I am sure that I reflect the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I express sympathy for those who have suffered by having their houses and business premises inundated.
Before I attempt to reply to the points that the hon. Member has raised I wish to explain where the responsibilities for flood alleviation in Yorkshire lie and how my Department is involved. Flooding in York is. of course, caused by the River Ouse and its tributaries. Because of its importance, the Ouse is designated as a 1092 "main river" under the Land Drainage Act 1976, and improvements to it are therefore the responsibility of the Yorkshire water authority. As with all other water authorities, the land drainage and flood alleviation functions of the Yorkshire water authority are delegated to a regional land drainage committee which is composed of a chairman and three members appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister, two members appointed by the water authority and seven members appointed by the county and metropolitan county councils. The chairman and members appointed by the Minister were chosen because of their knowledge and experience of land drainage, either as farmers or as members of internal drainage boards or as former members of the Yorkshire river authority. The members appointed by the water authority are able to bring to the committee their knowledge of other water services while the county council members have the knowledge of their own localities. They also represent the views of the ratepayers who pay for the land drainage work carried out by the authority through the drainage precept. So the committee has a balance of knowledge, experience and local representation which places it in an ideal position to decide what work needs to be done, what priority should be given to the various schemes and how much the ratepayers can afford to pay to finance the operations each year.
In June every year the committee submits to my Department a programme showing the capital works which it proposes to carry out each year for the next five years. In reaching its decision about the level of expenditure, the committee takes into account whatever guidance may have been given by the Government about public expenditure generally and, more importantly, what effect the programme will have on the drainage precept which is levied on the county councils and recovered through the general rate.
In the autumn when the Government have decided how much can be allocated nationally to land drainage and flood protection under the public expenditure programme for the forthcoming year, the committee is told by my Department how much is available to be spent in Yorkshire for the forthcoming year. The committee can then go ahead with detailed budget planning.
This is the stage at which we are at present. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member that the amount allocated to Yorkshire for capital spending in 1982–3 is precisely what the land drainage committee asked for—£4½ million. So there is no question of the Government holding back the land drainage and flood protection programme in Yorkshire.
The hon. Member suggested, however, that even that sum—which is an increase on the amount allocated to Yorkshire in the current year—might not be enough. I am sure that he realises that I cannot give any firm commitments tonight, but I can assure him that if the water authority finds that it needs additional funds next year we will be prepared to consider any request that it might make. I ask him to bear in mind, however, that additional spending by the water authority would have to be financed in part by an increased precept on the general rate throughout the county. So it is not just a question of the Government allocating additional funds; it is also a question for the ratepayers throughout the whole of Yorkshire.
I turn now to the arrangements for dealing with the individual drainage or flood protection schemes. Those are 1093 eligible for grant aid from my Department, and the grant rate in Yorkshire is currently 33 per cent. In order to qualify for grant, the committee has to submit details of each scheme in advance and my Department has to satisfy itself that the proposals are technically sound, that the cost is reasonable and that the probable benefit from the scheme is sufficient to justify the payment of grant.
I must emphasise that the initiative for deciding to put forward a particular scheme rests entirely with the land drainage committee. It must decide in the light of its knowledge of local conditions which schemes should be put forward for grant. The only constraints which the Government impose are first that the total capital expenditure in any year must not exceed the allocation and second that the scheme meets the conditions which I have mentioned.
It is against this background that I turn now to the recent flooding in York. First, the cause. On 2 January the upper parts of the Ouse catchment were covered by snow to a depth of about 18 in.—this is equal to about 1½ in. of rain. This heavy snowfall was quickly followed by a sudden rise in temperature of about 10 degrees Centrigrade. At the same time another 2 in. of rain fell in a period of 6 to 12 hours, followed by less intense rain during the next 36 hours. The soil was still frozen and as a result this mixture of melted snow and rain made its way quickly to the rivers. This led to the highest level of water ever recorded in the Ouse—16 ft. 7 in. above the average summer level and more than 6 in. above the record 1947 flood.
The hon. Member suggested that this flood was due to the amount of farm drainage carried out at the upper end of the catchment which resulted in more water from upstream reaching the urban areas downstream. I am advised that this is not the case. As I said, the soil in the catchment area was frozen, so none of the melting snow or the rainfall which followed could penetrate the soil to get into the farm drains. In any case, most experts are agreed that farm drainage usually reduces the amount of water flowing into the rivers—or, at least, delays it—as compared with rainfall on undrained land. The reason is that the underdrainage of land helps to dry it out more quickly. That, after all, is why farmers put drains in. As a result, after a short spell of dry weather the fields with underdrainage absorb the first few millimetres of rain, and the drains do not begin to discharge until the topsoil is soaked to full capacity. By contrast, the undrained fields will already be much wetter before the rain begins; they can absorb little extra water, so the run-off into ditches and streams begins very soon after. When the whole catchment is soaked to capacity, any additional rain runs off the soil at the same rate—much as it runs off concrete or tarmacadam roads. So my advisers do not accept the general argument that farm drainage generally worsens flooding down-stream. A further point, if one is needed, is that in any case very little of the land in the catchment of the River Ouse above York has in fact been underdrained.
1094 I will deal now with the steps which the land drainage committee of the Yorkshire water authority has taken and is proposing to take to alleviate flooding in the city of York. Basically, there are two ways of preventing flooding in towns. One is to create flood storage areas upstream so that when the river level starts to rise the excess water can be diverted to or held in temporary reservoirs and released only at a rate which the river can handle without overtopping. The second method is to increase the capacity of the river itself by building banks which will contain the excess water.
Because of the configuration of the ground upstream and the undesirability of constructing large banks or walls within the city, neither of these methods can be adopted to the full extent at York. Some flood storage has already been provided at Linton Ings at a cost of £280,000, and another scheme at Clifton costing £1.2 million is almost complete. Within the city itself, some bank raising at Leeman Road successfully prevented the flooding of 300 houses, and another scheme estimated to cost £130,000 has recently been approved. A further scheme to protect the Longfield Terrace area is in the course of preparation. This is estimated to cost about £100,000. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to that area.
I understand that the land drainage committee has other investigations in hand and that these may lead to further small schemes being prepared. The authority has assured me that any additional work which it may decide to carry out in 1982–83 can be accommodated within its existing budget. A major difficulty—as the hon. Member will recognize—is that, because York is a conservation area, and rightly so, drainage schemes tend to be more difficult to design and more expensive to carry out than in the average town or city.
I am, however, satisfied that the land drainage committee of the Yorkshire water authority has given and will continue to give full and urgent attention to the need to protect York from flooding. There has been no suggestion that lack of finance from the Government has delayed any of the work which the committee wishes to carry out. Indeed, we have so far been able to allocate to it all the funds for which it has asked and, as I have indicated, we are willing to consider requests for a modest increase if this is needed.
The debate has been useful. It is a little déjà vu for the hon. Member for York, but I have explained the background to the flooding. I hope that I have convinced him about the action which has been taken. I congratulate the hon. Member on raising a subject of so much importance to his constituency and I assure him that my Department will do all that it can to assist the Yorkshire water authority in its endeavours to remove the threat of flooding from York.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o' clock.