HC Deb 16 October 1995 vol 264 cc119-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

10 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to raise this subject during the Adjournment debate tonight. The concerns of the residents of Shalfleet were first raised by me on 7 June in a debate about the listing of Shalfleet bridge following the flooding of the river on 30 December 1993. Nearly two years later there has been no action for the residents, whose house contents were ruined, and in one case destroyed.

I shall deal with some of the points that arose from that debate. First, the island's only newspaper has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to give its readers the impression that I criticised Mrs. Freeman, the clerk of the parish council. It even juxtaposed a comment that I made specifically in response to a comment by the Isle of Wight council against comments by Mrs. Freeman. In the previous debate I made it plain that Mrs. Freeman was the only person from the parish council who criticised the situation. She organised the leaflets for the meeting with the National Rivers Authority, and it remains a mystery why the meeting with the NRA representative was not reported in full by the county press.

The editor has continually urged me to ask the ombudsman to use his discretion and investigate the matter. In July I wrote to the ombudsman and sent him all the relevant papers—particularly in view of the conflict between the National Rivers Authority's version of events and that of the council. Imagine my amazement, therefore, when I received a copy of a letter sent to the residents by the clerk of the Isle of Wight council expressing surprise that the ombudsman had been requested to investigate the matter.

Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, that virtually no action was taken from June to September and yet the council expressed surprise that the residents should approach the ombudsman nearly two years later? I wrote to the ombudsman in a letter dated 22 September, in which I said: Further to my letter … and my secretary's telephone call with your office, I understand that you have gone back to the Council requesting a further letter setting out the position and I am now extremely concerned to learn that the Council are suggesting in their letter, a copy of which I enclose for your information, that the request for answers to the questions is a precursor to legal action by the residents and therefore the Council are effectively saying they can't take the matter any further. I dispute that interpretation of events. I continued: This really is a travesty of the truth and I set out in chronological order for you the events that lead up to these questions being asked and the fact that the Chairman of the Parish Council"— the parish council was encouraging the residents to ask those questions and to hold a meeting— is the Deputy Leader of the Isle of Wight Council and I believe this whole ploy is being used to try to get the Council 'off the hook'. As the Ombudsman will know from his recent report on Gurnard. my other Constituent John Dart was actually lied to by … the Council and I believe there is an even more sinister situation arising over Shalfleet. At the Parish Council meeting held on Wednesday, 14 June, it was agreed that if the residents concerned set out their questions in writing, the Parish Council would try and obtain the answers for them. This they did and sent a copy to the Parish Council on the 23rd June. In a letter to Captain Jones on the 11th July, Mr. Hetherington"— the clerk to the Isle of Wight council— acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire but no answers were forthcoming. There have still been no replies to those questions and the Parish Council were asked to chase up replies to them. The residents stated that they were happy to have a meeting with the Council, but only when they had seen the Council's replies in writing because they are so fed up with the way in which the council has tried to obfuscate over this whole matter and"— as I believe— have lied to them. The concept of the questions and obtaining the answers from the Council was entirely the prompting of the Parish Council through their Chairman, the Deputy Leader of the Council. If this is now to be turned against the residents, one can only believe that it is a ploy to prevent any further action by the residents. You will see from the dates that it is quite implausible for Mr. Hetherington to suggest, as he does in his letter to Captain Jones of the 8th September which has been copied to you, that he is disappointed that they have sought the Ombudsman's assistance when there were meetings in the offing. The Council has steadfastly refused to answer questions on this issue. Unfortunately our local paper has sided with the Council and it is left entirely to myself and the local residents and I can assure you we are all very upset by the treatment we are getting over this issue. I am sad that the new council isn't putting all this behind us and taking a rather more positive attitude, particularly as I have now spoken privately to the leader of the Liberal Democrat Controlling Group, Councillor Morris Barton and discussed the situation with him and had hoped that common sense would prevail.". Since that letter to the ombudsman, the residents have been in correspondence with the clerk to the council. On 1 October the residents sent a letter that was signed by all the residents affected by the flooding to Mr. Hetherington, the clerk of the Isle of Wight council. It stated: We are in receipt of letter dated 8th September 1995, from which we still note that your Authority denies its legal liability. Without undermining your conclusions as to your denial we the residents still claim from the local Authority compensation for material loss as claimed in the first instance, also for the sheer upheaval to all our lives during and after the flooding. The Council, we strongly believe, had total disregard for the residents of the adjacent cottages, despite the warnings from the N R A and written confirmation from yourselves, the props used would be inspected on regular intervals and if debris accumulates between them action will be taken to clear it before a blockage occurs. If it becomes clear that this method is not satisfactory the situation will be reassessed. (letter dated 10/11/1992 signed by Mr. Smith for County Surveyor to the NRA). The question of whether or not all or any of the resident received financial compensation by way of insurance in whole or in part is irrelevant to the response we have requested to the thirty-five questions. There is no question of any of the residents waiving any legal rights they may have against the Authority for compensation. We would, however, take the view that openness on your part in replying to legitimate questions raised in our letter would be conclusive in resolving this long-standing dispute.". I take that last paragraph to mean that the residents do not intend to pursue legal action. On 12 October, they received a letter from the clerk to the Isle of Wight council which says, inter alia: I am grateful to you and the others for clarifying the issues in the letter—this is very helpful to me. I understand that you are seeking compensation for material loss and also for disruption during and after the flooding. As to whether or not you or the other residents received compensation from your insurers, I disagree with the view that it is 'irrelevant'. It is in fact very important as insurance companies do attempt subrogation where it is felt that a third party might be liable in whole or in part. Additionally, now that very helpfully you have clarified exactly what you and your fellow residents seek, I will of course take the view of the Council's insurers as to how best we might proceed. My hon. Friend will note that there were still no answers to the questions. I happen to agree with the council on the principle that an injured party cannot benefit twice, but some residents have been averaged by their insurance companies and at least one resident lost all his furniture and was not insured.

The island council's expenditure on the island's only newspaper places a special duty of care on both the council and, most especially, the County Press. It should have a published contract or charter with the people of the Isle of Wight, so that the readers will know what they may expect the newspaper to do in their defence. That is the last great reform required on the Isle of Wight, not for political party or factional benefit but for the defence of ordinary citizens, who feel that the system is too big for them to fight. I say that that is the last great reform because I am told that the new Isle of Wight council will shortly be publishing a complaints procedure, which hopefully will prevent such an impasse happening ever again.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position of the National Rivers Authority in respect of the blocking of the bridge and the warning given by the NRA to the council before the flooding occurred. I ask that because my hon. Friend will know that the island's only newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press, informed its readers that I have not proved my case. Isle of Wight Radio feels aggrieved about inequality of opportunity and the lack of funds that come to it by way of Isle of Wight council. I can hardly believe all that is a figment of my imagination. Does the editor of the Isle of Wight County Press expect us all to believe that, following local discussion on a Shalfleet bypass to avoid the bridge, it was suddenly found to be unsafe? It was propped up with Acrows by the then Isle of Wight county council.

It was the council's action, contrary to the advice of the NRA, that blocked the river and caused the flooding. Then, an expensive Bailey bridge was brought in, so that traffic could continue to flow across the existing Shalfleet bridge. All of a sudden, it was found that the bridge was to be listed by some unsung hero in Whitehall. Then it was found that the bridge was safe after all and that there was nothing wrong that a few drops of resin would not cure. If the editor really believes that that situation does not absolutely stink, he must believe that all his readers came across the Solent in a biscuit tin.

The council has led residents a merry dance. In one year and 10 months, we have gone full circle. Yet again, we are waiting on the council's insurers. The parish council either cannot or, more likely, its chairman—as the council's deputy leader—will not obtain answers from the Isle of Wight council.

The correspondence between the NRA and the then Isle of Wight county council that I have passed to my hon. Friend the Minister for tonight's debate clearly indicates to me that the authority did warn the council. Photographs taken at the time by residents plainly show that the bridge was jammed solid with rubbish as a result of the Acrow props placed underneath it. I hope that my hon. Friend will shed light on the NRA's actions and responsibilities for the river. I hope also that the clerk to the Isle of Wight council will, following tonight's debate, join me in a without prejudice meeting with residents, to see if we can resolve the situation.

One last thing. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Minister will explain, for the benefit of the editor of the Isle of Wight County Press, that my attendance tonight almost alone is the usual and normal practice of the House on an Adjournment debate? On the occasion of the last debate, that editor went to extraordinary lengths to try to pooh-pooh and belittle my efforts because I was not addressing a packed House. He publicly concluded, in a sneering sort of way, that it showed a lack of interest in the matter.

I say yet again to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister that 5 ft of water bursting through the front door of people's homes because the surveyor's department has made an absolute Boggins of the matter is reason enough for me to be here tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell my constituents how to obtain redress in the terrible position in which they find themselves.

10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tim Boswell)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has set out his concerns and those of his constituents with his customary force and feeling. He is a redoubtable constituency Member of Parliament and much to be congratulated on the diligence with which he has looked into the matters surrounding the flooding at Shalfleet in his constituency and their confused and complex aftermath. It is much appreciated that he has come to the House tonight to discuss it. It is an index of his concern that it is the second occasion on which he has brought differing aspects of the matter before the House on the motion for the Adjournment. I am responding for the Government in view of my Department's responsibility for flood defence policy.

Flooding and the damage and distress that it undoubtedly causes is a highly emotive subject and understandably so. Even in cases where life and limb are mercifully not lost, the damage and distress that are sustained by those affected is often very severe and not just in economic terms; the experience is a horrible one. While natural phenomena such as flooding can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that those public authorities which are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk do whatever they reasonably can to tackle it and are seen to do so.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England. At local level, responsibility for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of defences rests with one of a number of authorities, depending on the particular location and the nature of the problem. The National Rivers Authority looks after the major rivers and sea defences. Local authorities are involved with lesser rivers and with protecting their coastline against erosion. Internal drainage boards provide arterial drainage and flood relief in certain localised areas.

My Ministry makes substantial financial support available for flood defence and coast protection capital works undertaken by these bodies. In the last financial year, MAFF grant amounted to more than £60 million. It is estimated that, in aggregate, this investment programme helps prevent flood damage amounting to about seven times the cost of the defence works themselves.

In the particular case raised again by my hon. Friend, the Caul Bourne stream at Shalfleet in the Isle of Wight is designated as a main river. This means that the National Rivers Authority—NRA—is empowered to carry out flood defence measures if it deems them appropriate. It also means that the NRA's formal consent must be sought when third parties propose to erect structures in the watercourse so that the flood defence implications can be assessed.

I now propose to set out the facts with regard to the flooding at Shalfleet as reported to my Department by the NRA. I understand that in November 1992, the NRA was informed by the Isle of Wight county council that the council had had to take action to prop up several weak bridges on the island, among them the Shalfleet bridge, owing to traffic loadings. In its letter, the council undertook to inspect the props used at regular intervals and to clear any debris which might accumulate. Officers from the NRA inspected the sites concerned and wrote to the council on 8 December 1992—that is, promptly—expressing some specific concerns.

My hon. Friend quoted from the NRA letter in his speech and during the previous debate. The authority's main concern is set out explicitly in the letter. It was that there was a potential flood hazard associated with the props holding up the Shalfleet bridge, particularly as a result of debris accumulating in areas obstructed by the props. The council was advised that it was essential that the site was inspected on a regular basis and inspected continuously during stormy or wet periods to prevent blockage. The letter added that the council was responsible for ensuring that no blockage took place. It also made it clear that the NRA's formal consent was needed for the works to the bridge.

It might be helpful to quote one sentence from the letter of 8 December which my hon. Friend did not mention, although he did mention other passages. The first point to the county council is made as follows: The extensive bracing incorporated on the bridge at Shalfleet is of great concern. The props are without question a potential flood hazard as any rubbish, branches washed down the watercourse, particularly in a flood, could get caught on them, thus effectively forming a dam". So the NRA understood that and warned the council about it from the outset.

I understand that the NRA then wrote to the council again, in February 1993, reminding it of the authority's concern about the risk of flooding. At that time the council had not yet applied for a formal consent from the NRA. The NRA issued a consent for the permanent works involved in the reconstruction of the Shalfleet bridge in October 1993. But the NRA has informed my Department that it did not formally consent to the temporary props. Even if it had done so, the onus remained on the council, in accordance with the NRA's advice, to monitor the props and keep them free of obstruction by debris.

As we now know and as my hon. Friend has graphically described, flooding occurred at Shalfleet on 30 December 1993 following heavy rainfall. I understand that four properties were affected. I deeply sympathise with those who suffered loss or damage—not to mention distress— as a result. It is clearly right that when such events occur inquiries should be made by the relevant local agencies to establish the cause and to assess any lessons that need to be learnt for the future.

I understand that the NRA has examined the flooding at Shalfleet and considers that, although the event was preceded by heavy rainfall, debris trapped by props under the bridge was a contributory factor in the flooding. My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are difficult and complex technical matters, but I have cited a summary of the consultants' report to the NRA, which shows that the flooding was of a certain return frequency and that it was worse than anticipated, as was the amount of damage. So what might have been heavy rainfall turned into a substantial flood with damage to property.

While clearly the NRA cannot state with absolute certainty what would have happened if the props had not been there, it is considered unlikely, on this evidence, that debris would have accumulated if the bridge had been free from obstruction, or that flooding would have occurred in the absence of any obstruction.

Mr. Barry Field

If I may just explain: it is a fairly small bridge, and one might imagine that the Acrow props would be put under it so as to be in line, thus creating two channels down either side. In fact, however, props were put in across the bridge, effectively forming a series of small triangles under the bridge, thereby impeding rubbish more effectively than if they had been put in in a vertical plane.

Mr. Boswell

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, which forms part of the context of the NRA's warning to the county council.

My hon. Friend touched on his constituents' concerns about compensation. I hope that he will accept that this is a difficult area for me to comment on without prejudice to any legal proceedings that may be in train, now or in the future. What I can say—he has acknowledged it already—is that flooding is usually an insurable risk in this country and is covered in most household policies. There is no provision for compensation from public funds for those affected by flooding when it is an act of God, as it often is. However, if it can be shown through the normal legal process that flooding occurred through negligence or some other human agency, compensation may be sought from those responsible, but that would need to be decided in the courts on the facts of each case. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect but will not press me further on that.

I understand that, at some time after the flooding at Shalfleet, the bridge props were removed, so the particular potential flood hazard no longer threatens. The NRA has advised my Department that it does not believe that any new flood defence works are required at Shalfleet bridge now that the river can flow normally.

The NRA has said also that, as part of its flood defence emergency response, its flood defence contractors will inspect Shalfleet bridge and other similar bridges on the Isle of Wight during times of heavy rainfall to assess the flood risk and to take any appropriate countermeasures. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is now no question of there being the property of any other public authority in place in the river that it would have the responsibility of maintaining.

It has been extremely useful to bring these matters out into the open. My hon. Friend has performed a service to the House and to his constituents. I hope that he will accept that I have been as helpful as I reasonably can be in setting out the train of events as seen by the NRA and my Department and, indeed, documented. He will wish to consider with those of his constituents who were affected by the flooding, and in the light of my remarks, what further steps he wishes to take to bring the matter to what I hope will be a satisfactory conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.