§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
11.55 pm§ Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)I very much regret the necessity for this debate, and my regret is in no way related to the hour. I regret the fact that many of my constituents in the Langside and Battlefield districts of Glasgow are placed in a state of fear each time heavy and sustained rainfall occurs; in a caring society, that should surely not be allowed to happen. The second reason for my regret is the negative response that I have received to my letters on the subject, from both the Minister who is to reply and from the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
On 6 October, the latest serious flooding of the White Cart river occurred in the district to which I referred. Three days later, having visited the areas and having spoken to families who had been forced to leave their homes, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland. On 22 October, I received a reply from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West declining my request that he should visit the affected areas to see for himself the effect of the damage.
On 9 December, I wrote to the Minister who has responsibility for local government asking to meet him to discuss the matter along with the elected representatives on Glasgow district and Strathclyde regional council. Five weeks and several promptings later, I finally received a response in which the Minister declined to attend such a meeting. I therefore had no alternative but to seek this Adjournment debate to put my case to the Minister.
White Cart water rises to the south-west of the city of Glasgow between Eaglesham and East Kilbride. It flows through much of the south side of the city. After some 22 miles, it joins the Black Cart near Glasgow airport and then flows into the River Clyde at Renfrew.
There is a long history of flooding in much of the area through which the White Cart flows—most notably in Cathcart, Langside and Shawlands. Records dating back to 1908 suggest serious flooding in those districts on at least 16 occasions. That represents a frequency of once every five years.
During the early hours of 1 January 1984, flooding from the White Cart water caused extensive inundation, resulting in widespread disruption and affecting almost 500 homes and business premises in the Battlefield and Langside area. Water levels rose with exceptional speed —in some areas at more than I m per hour. Unfortunately, only 12 days later, on 13 January 1984, an almost identical flood occurred in the same area, with similar results.
That month was clearly exceptional but floods of a similar or greater magnitude had occurred in August 1920, January 1932, October 1959 and September 1962. Even though the average period between the most serious instances of flooding is around 10 years, there are many instances of floods which were less serious but which none the less forced residents to evacuate their homes. Overall, the interval between successive flooding of all categories has ranged from 12 days to 17 years. That illustrates a further problem—the sheer unpredictability of such events.
135 The last serious flooding occurred on the night of 5 October 1990. More than 200 families in my constituency had to abandon their homes as precautions that included moving furniture upstairs and placing sandbags against doors and windows proved quite inadequate to stem the flood waters. Some homes were flooded to a depth of 2 ft, and it is estimated that resultant insurance claims will exceed £2 million.
It is not difficult to imagine the despair felt by families in such circumstances. Their fear and anxiety at times of heavy or prolonged rainfall are distressing enough even when the river remains contained. Think how much worse it must be when the high water flows over retaining walls, flooding gardens, streets and houses. Property is damaged, often beyond repair. Families are forced to flee their homes, leaving possessions behind. It is usually many weeks after the water has receded before a return is possible and even then it is far from a return to normality.
Last month I witnessed events. On the evening of 1 January, a matter of weeks after the October floods, residents in Melbrae crescent and Woodfed street, which are regularly the areas worst affected by flooding in my constituency, were visited by police and warned that the White Cart was rising to dangerous levels. They were issued with sandbags. Fortunately, that was a false alarm and the water subsided two or three inches below the limits of the retaining walls. However, it was a close-run thing and yet another distressing occasion for residents. When I visited several of those residents the following day, they showed what I thought was remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I was struck by the fact that none of them had carpets in their homes. The explanation was simple: their floorboards had not dried out following the October flooding.
I have several distressing letters from constituents about the flooding, and I want to refer to one from Mrs. Margaret Morran of 450 Tantallon road. She lives in a sheltered complex for the elderly and she wrote to me about the night in October when the floods came, stating:
I was terrified as I watched the waters rising at the back of the house where the Cart flows and the front—in Tantallon Road … the residents … cannot take any more, people afraid of the future, afraid for themselves, afraid for their homes, afraid of the next downpour of rain, afraid to go to bed when they hear it—like myself!What do we do, and the many people here who are over eighty years of age, when we hear a warning signal? Where do we go from a one-roomed house situated on the ground floor? Something must be done immediately.She is absolutely right. Those people and many others are in a quite intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to continue.The problem is becoming even more acute as the years pass. It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that Glasgow has by far the highest rainfall in Scotland. However, as I said, it is getting worse. Between 1950 and 1980, Glasgow's average rainfall was 950 mm. In 1985 it was over 1,100 mm and last year it was more than 1,200 mm. Last year Glasgow also had its wettest three months since records began, with measurable rain for 70 consecutive days, culminating in the dreadful events of 5 and 6 October to which I referred a few moments ago.
What can be done about it? The Minister and his colleagues have written to me saying that responsibility lies with Strathclyde regional council and, strictly speaking, 136 that is the case. The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 gave discretionary powers to local authorities to carry out flood prevention schemes to protect non-agricultural land. Eight years ago, the duty to warn of flooding—although, interestingly, not to prevent it—was passed to river boards in Scotland. The Clyde river purification board has just announced its decision to spend £96,000 on a computerised early warning system for the Cart. That is fine so far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. It addresses the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
The responsibility may rest technically with Strathclyde regional council, but how realistic is it to expect the authority to deal with the problem of the White Cart in the foreseeable future? For the Scottish Office to answer pleas for assistance with, "Go tell it to Strathclyde region," is disingenuous at best. The regional council's sewerage department had a project expenditure for 1990–91 of £26.5 million and the projected figure for 1991–92 is £30.1 million. The increase will be entirely eaten up by existing projects.
Nor can the region be accused of ignoring the problem of the White Cart. With regard to one of the Cart's feeders, the Broch burn, which has been a constant source of floods for a long time in the Pollok area, the Strathclyde regional council has committed £2.7 million this year for a flood relief scheme. It is also spending money on the Pollok relief sewer. At the same time, to expect the regional council to allocate in excess of £10 million for a scheme for the White Cart is not just unreasonable; it seriously underestimates the scale of the problem.
In 1987, the region commissioned a report from a firm of consulting engineers in Glasgow called Babtie, Shaw and Morton. It was asked to report on the flooding of the Cart and to recommend a solution. It produced a plan that involved the introduction of a flood storage scheme, the creation of flood plains and the construction of walls and embankments up to 2.5 m high. The estimated cost was in excess of £6 million, with another £2 million-plus needed to cover consequential effects downriver. That report was never acted upon, because the regional council faced greater priorities, largely as a result of the enhanced standards that it is required to meet in terms of water and sewerage.
It must be stressed that flood prevention is a discretionary, not statutory, requirement of the regional council. At present, Strathclyde regional council is involved in pruning £20 million from its current budget to meet Government-induced expenditure cuts and shortfalls in poll tax revenue. That involves cutting into budgets relating to its statutory duties, including education and social work, and it forms part of what will be a massive £60 million cut over the next two years.
The councillors are in an impossible situation—they are damned by the public if they do, and damned by the Secretary of State if they do not. When the region, the largest local authority in Britain, is unable to meet its statutory requirements, how can the Minister tell me that it should be prioritising discretionary duties? It simply has nothing to spare. Any attempt to point the finger at the regional council is buck-passing by the Government.
In my exchange of letters with Scottish Office Ministers, I have been advised that
exchequer grants of up to 30 per cent. would be available to the regional council for flood prevention schemes.137 That is well known, but, if a suitable scheme cost even a modest £10 million—that is in 1987 figures, so it will clearly be more than that—it would leave the regional council needing to raise £7 million itself, and it simply cannot do it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West offered advice in an even more tongue-in-cheek fashion, when he wrote to me in October:Authorities have flexibility to anticipate future capital allocations by up to 10 per cent. and are generally free to transfer funds between programmes to meet their assessment of overall priorities. In addition, capital allocations can be enhanced by generating capital receipts through the disposal of surplus assets, and capital expenditure can be financed from current revenue without being recorded against the capital allocations.In other words: "Sell off the family silver, but don't look to us to help you." That will not wash with my constituents. There may even be EC funding available, but the bottom line is clearly that, unless the Government and the Scottish Office make special funding available, nothing will change in the foreseeable future.I am well aware that other parts of Scotland are afflicted with flood-related problems, and my arguments this evening are in no sense to be taken as detracting from their needs. However, I was sent here to fight for the people of Glasgow, Central, and the pressing need now is for the Scottish Office to join that fight. As the House knows, countless millions were made available for the Thames flood barriers. Will the Scottish Office fight its corner for Glasgow as vigorously as the Government were prepared to fight for London? If not, why not?
Hundreds of constituents are living in houses that they cannot sell and are surrounded by furniture and possessions that they cannot insure. In desperation, following last October's floods a packed meeting of residents in Langside hall decided to form the White Cart Flooding Association. They have already set up a fighting fund, distributed petitions and written to the Scottish Office and to Strathclyde regional council. They deserve the right to live their lives free from anxiety, and only special funding from the Scottish Office will bring them peace of mind. In his letter to me, dated 16 January, the Minister said that he had "every sympathy" with those who had suffered distress and damage to property. They do not want sympathy; they want action, and I mean to see that they get it.
§ 12.7 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on having secured this Adjournment debate on behalf of his constituents, and I am glad to respond to it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the severity of the effects of the flooding that occurred on Saturday 6 October. There is no dispute about the severity of what happened. As he said, many properties, businesses and roads in the Cathcart, Battlefield, Langside and Shawlands areas of Glasgow were inundated with floodwater from the White Cart water. The hon. Gentleman said that, in certain parts of the flooded area, residents had to be evacuated—indeed, elderly residents had to be evacuated from their houses by boat. Hon. Members will agree that that must have been a disturbing experience. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have every sympathy for all those who were affected by the flooding.
138 I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services for the assistance which they provided on that occasion. The police issued the warning to which the hon. Gentleman referred and assisted with the evacuation of properties. The fire brigade also assisted people. The local authorities mobilised squads of workmen with lorries and sandbags to reduce the effects of the water. Three reception centres were set up and the housing office was open for temporary accommodation. In the event, however, I understand that few people remained in the reception areas overnight.
The response to the emergency is unlikely to have been made any easier by the fact that the flood reached its peak at about midday on the Saturday. Undoubtedly, that is a factor which the emergency services will have considered when assessing whether any improvements could be made to their procedures.
I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that officials in my Department have discussed what happened with officials in Strathclyde regional council and officials from the Scottish Office have visited the area to see the position for themselves.
As the hon. Gentleman told the House, the beginning of October was a particularly wet period in Scotland. Although, within 20 km both north and south of Glasgow, the rainfall was barely noteworthy on 5 and 6 October, in the White Cart water catchment area, rainfall of more than 2 in was recorded between the evening of 5 October and early afternoon on 6 October. That rainfall, falling on an already saturated catchment area, resulted in a rapid run-off, generating a flood in the river, which passed through Cathcart during the morning and afternoon of 6 October. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the severity of the flood. I confirm that, at its peak, the flood was the third highest recorded, both upstream of the affected area at the Overlee gauging station established in 1981, and downstream at the Hawkhead gauging station, where records are available from 1964.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a long history of flooding in the areas. It is not a new problem. He said that records dating back to 1908 show that serious flooding has occurred on at least 16 occasions. My notes say 17, but we can broadly agree that there is a considerable history of serious flooding. In addition, observations suggest that minor flooding in the built-up areas occurs at least once every two years on average.
The interval between floods is extremely variable. To give the House one example, in January 1984, two major floods occurred within 12 days, whereas no serious flooding is recorded during the long period between 1932 and 1959—over a quarter of a century. That illustrates the unpredictability of such events.
The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on his case for flood prevention measures to improve protection against future flooding in the area. I am sure that the House has every sympathy with the sentiments that he expressed on behalf of his worried constituents. I assure him that the Scottish Office is aware of the desire for action. However, I must emphasise—this is not a technical but a real point —that the body with statutory powers for flood prevention—as he said, discretionary powers—is not the Scottish Office but Strathclyde regional council.
The council has wide powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to take such measures as it sees fit to prevent or mitigate flooding of nonagricultural land in its area. To record the powers in detail, 139 the council may maintain or improve any watercourse in its area. In particular, section 4 of the Act provides that, apart from maintenance and management operations, flood prevention schemes made by the council must be approved by the Secretary of State.
It is at that point that the Secretary of State formally enters the decision-making process. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, will recognise that progress is therefore dependent in the first instance upon decisions made by the council. I give the hon. Member an assurance that any scheme for flood prevention on the White Cart water put forward by Strathclyde will receive serious consideration, but first, in the light of all the circumstances, the council has to decide what a flood prevention scheme would entail and whether it wishes to proceed with such a scheme. That is a right and proper procedure for it to undertake, and no one can criticise it for proceeding in that way. I do not criticise the council, as I think that the hon. Gentleman alleged I was going to.
The council was fully aware of the problems of flooding from the White Cart. Indeed, as the hon. Member told the House, it commissioned a firm of consulting engineers to study and report on possible flood alleviation measures, following the serious flooding in January 1984. That report contained a number of recommendations. For example, it recommended the construction of flood walls and embankments between Cathcart and Pollokshaws. The proposal was to build the works to a level which would provide protection against a flood with a theoretical return period of not less than 50 years. As the hon. Member told the House, at that time, the cost was estimated at £6 million, which at today's prices would exceed £10 million.
At that time, a similar investigation was carried out by the consultants in respect of the Brock burn and Levern water. I should perhaps declare a personal interest in Levern water, as it passes in front of my house, although rather further upstream. The report identified flood prevention measures that would provide protection against the one in 100-year flood, which were estimated to cost about £1.25 million.
I understand that Strathclyde regional council is currently preparing detailed proposals for a flood prevention scheme on the Brock burn and Levern water and has made provision in its financial plan for expenditure of £2.7 million over the period 1992–94. Those proposals will no doubt be widely welcomed by the local community.
The hon. Member mentioned resources. As he will know, flood prevention comes within the Scottish water and sewerage capital expenditure programmes. Provision for that programme has been substantially increased in recent years. For example, in the 1989 public expenditure survey, the programme was set at more than £500 million for the three-year period 1990–91 to 1992–93. The hon. Member will also know that, as part of the 1990 survey, the Government recently announced another substantial increase in resources. For 1991–92, the investment level for the water and sewerage programme has been set at £167 million, rising to £238 million in 1993–94. The three-year programme now totals more than £620 million. The figure 140 of £238 million for 1993–94 is two-thirds higher than the provision for the current year, and more than double the level for 1988–89.
That increased provision takes account of the needs identified by regional councils in their financial plans. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the provision already announced to Strathclyde broadly meets the programme that the council has submitted. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, if Strathclyde regional council were to decide to promote a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water and to make provision in its financial plan, it would receive serious consideration. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that if such a proposal were to come forward, at that stage, of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and a delegation from his constituency, if he thought that that would be helpful. However, we do not have a scheme before us, and it is for the council to decide whether or not it wants to promote one. Priorities and the timing of projects are matters for the council to decide.
As to the provision for Strathclyde, that has risen from £45 million in 1989–90 to a provisional allocation of £71 million for 1991–92—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final 1992–93 allocation will be at least the provisional figure.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), pointing out that authorities have flexibility in determining available resources, which is a point of some importance. Authorities can, in the light of their own priorities, make a limited switch of resources between various blocks of expenditure—and they can also fund capital projects from current revenue without that counting against their capital allocations.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that special funding should be made available to Strathclyde for the specific purpose of a flood prevention scheme on the White Cart. As he knows, capital allocations are not granted for specific schemes, because it is for councils to determine their own priorities according to local needs. Any departure from that approach would limit the discretion presently available to local authorities.
That general approach has been consistently supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—which, rightly, wants to defend that discretion and has not wanted to go down the road of earmarked funds for particular capital projects, as that would undermine the discretion that they can apply.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, under flood prevention legislation, Exchequer grants are already available to regional councils. In the case of Strathclyde, the grant would be 30 per cent. of the eligible costs of an improved scheme.
I dwelt at some length on the powers and flexibility that regional councils have in commissioning flood protection works. However, I readily acknowledge that, even if Strathclyde decided to go ahead now with a White Cart scheme, there would be a lengthy planning and construction period, and residents would continue to feel apprehensive every time there was heavy rain and the river started to rise.
Of immediate benefit will be an advance warning system, which would allow appropriate action to be taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decision by Clyde river purification board, in response to strong representations made by him and by councillors, including Councillor 141 James Shields, to implement a flood warning system for the White Cart water. Work on the instrumentation of that complex catchment and development of a mathematical model is proceeding. Final commissioning of the system will take about a year.
Meanwhile, the availability of improved information about rainfall and catchment response from the new instrumentation should allow for much better advance warning of possible flooding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a positive measure and one which will be welcomed by his constituents. I congratulate 142 him on taking this opportunity to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that if, after taking account of all its priorities, Strathclyde regional council decides to bring forward a flood prevention scheme for the White Cart water, I shall be happy to discuss it personally with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, if he wishes.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.