HC Deb 06 November 2000 vol 356 cc21-32 3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the serious flooding that has occurred in England. I start by expressing the Government's heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been affected. Some houses have been flooded several times in the past few weeks. The whole House can only appreciate the desperation of all the householders who have been affected.

We do not need to be reminded of the extraordinarily heavy rains that have fallen in recent weeks—and that are still falling even as I speak. It is an extreme situation: the land is saturated and water is running straight off into already swollen rivers.

Floods on this scale are rare. River levels in York, for example, are the highest that they have been for 400 years. The 1947 flood was the most recent event on a comparable scale. It was caused by a combination of heavy rain and melting snow and resulted in significant economic damage. Direct comparisons, however, are difficult, as there has been much subsequent development on the flood plain and our defences are much better.

Happily, and most importantly, we have no reports of people losing their lives in the floods. Of the approximately 1.8 million properties at risk of flooding, fewer than 4,000 have flooded. Much of the extensive flooding has been of agricultural land. I believe that most flood defences for urban areas—including York, which is being severely tested—have operated to their design standard or better, demonstrating the justification for significant Government expenditure over the years.

As the House will be aware, further rain is to come and the prospect of more flooding cannot be ruled out. I shall return to the issue of funding flood defences in a moment. I have to emphasise, however, that we cannot stop all flooding, but can only reduce its risk. The recent floods have overwhelmed some defences. It would not have been practicable to have stopped them, as that would have required massive walls which, even if they could have been afforded and constructed, would be unlikely to be acceptable visually or environmentally. A few years ago, Shrewsbury turned down a flood defence scheme on those very grounds.

Having set out what has happened, I want to say what is being done in response. First, however, I pay tribute to the way in which the Environment Agency, emergency services, local authorities, voluntary services and the armed forces have responded to the flooding. They have been working around the clock to ensure that warnings are issued and acted upon, to evacuate people and to shore up defences. I also thank the local media, including local radio, for their contribution in ensuring that information has been made widely and quickly available. At the weekend, we saw on television the massive efforts being made to combat the floods in York. Similar efforts are being made across the country.

The Government's impression is that those partnerships have worked well and that flood warning arrangements have also been effective. As the House knows, when the immediate work has been completed, I shall be asking the Environment Agency, in conjunction with its partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked, and what lessons we can learn. Although I shall ask to have that report speedily, I emphasise that I do not want preparation of the report to get in the way of the immediate work that needs to be done. I ask for understanding on that point.

At the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made an important Government announcement on flooding. He said that the Government were improving the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities which incur unexpected costs in response to floods. Assistance under the Bellwin formula will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current floods. The rate of Government support will increase from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. Valid claims will be settled within 15 working days and claims for advance payments can be made.

That announcement addresses important concerns that have been put to the Government. The scheme will also be reviewed more generally when the current flooding is over. The Government are also committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this one and deal with problems of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding. When the current problems are over, the Government, local authorities and other agencies will do all that we can in pursuing the recovery plan to help communities get back to normal as soon as possible.

On the funding of flood and coastal defence, the total amount of spending on flood and coastal defence in England from all sources approaches £400 million this year. The Government are by far the largest contributor to that expenditure. In the current financial year, the Government planned to spend some £337 million in England. That is a combination of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funding towards capital projects of some £80 million and £257 million delivered through the revenue support grant administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Revenue support grant funding is used, among other things, to pay levies to the Environment Agency which the agency uses to fund the maintenance and operational costs of flood defences and the balance of capital works not met by MAFF grants.

The announcement in the spending review in July this year foresaw that MAFF funding would be increased by £5 million next year, £10 million the year after and £20 million the year after that. In all, MAFF funding was expected to total £267 million in the next three years.

We would also expect revenue support grant funding to increase by about 4 per cent. a year, in line with the spending review settlement. Recognising the severity of the floods, I am sure that the House will welcome my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a further £51 million over four years starting this year for additional investment in flood defence works;new whole catchment area assessment studies; and making an earlier start to planned improvements in the flood warning system.

That is new and additional money for England. Further discussions are in hand about the possibility of extra resources for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The further funding is particularly welcome because it will allow us to progress more river-based defence schemes. That is an issue that the Ministry needs to discuss with the Environment Agency, but the Government expect to make an announcement on decisions as soon as possible.

I ask the House to join with me in expressing the Government's appreciation to all those who have been involved in responding to the flooding. I also ask the House to acknowledge the already major investment that the Government make in flood and coastal defence and to welcome the further funding that we are making available to help ensure that the risks are reduced for current and future generations.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I extend the Opposition's sympathy and commiseration to all those who have been so seriously affected by the floods in the past few days and weeks. Many of them, as the Minister has rightly said, have suffered on more than one occasion. None of us can put ourselves in the place of somebody who has seen his home or business totally flooded. I join the Minister in paying tribute to all in the rescue services, who have worked above and beyond any call of duty to help those in distress.

The Minister's statement, although welcome, made no reference to the Bye report which followed the last serious flooding in this country: at Easter 1998, when four people died. As the hon. Gentleman said in this House earlier this year, that report clearly said that work had to be done to stop development on flood plains. Planning policy guidance note 25 has been out for consultation for two years. When will the definitive document be issued, especially as it seems that local authorities are still granting planning consent? In the six months to April this year, the Environment Agency advised local authorities to refuse 190 planning applications because of the risk of flooding, yet in 83 of those cases, the authorities ignored that advice and granted planning consent.

There was speculation over the weekend about maps of flood plains becoming available from, I believe, the Environment Agency. When will that happen? What discussions will the Minister or his colleagues hold with the insurance industry not only on the issues to which he referred but on the whole vexed issue of properties on flood plains becoming uninsurable?

Have not the Government already given permission in the past three years for substantial development on flood plains in Hertfordshire, the Nene valley and Ashford? Will they now reconsider those consents?

I welcome the improvements to the Bellwin system that the Minister has announced. It is obviously valuable to local authorities to get the full 100 per cent. and prompt payment. Will that apply only to expenditure incurred by the authorities themselves, or will they be able to pass on resources to others who may have to take remedial actions to deal with the crisis? That is clearly relevant to what the Minister said about the significant impact on agricultural land.

On flood defences, will the Minister confirm that the £51 million will be allocated over four years, so that the funding, although representing welcome extra resources, amounts to only £13 million a year? Is that additional to the £15 million announced in the comprehensive spending review earlier this year? Does he accept that the figure of £400 million is slightly misleading? Is not it the case that this year the Environment Agency is spending only £290 million, and that MAFF is allocated £80 million—we are not sure whether that is on top, or as grant aid for the self-same capital projects. In short, how much will be spent in total, forgetting by whom, and how much of it will be new money?

Does the Minister agree with the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, published two years ago, that said that there was significant confusion among the different bodies responsible for flood prevention and control—the internal drainage boards, local authorities, the Environment Agency and his Ministry? If so, what action will he take to create a much clearer line of responsibility, so that the House can better understand not only who is responsible but where the money is going and who is to spend it on flood defences?

Mr. Morley

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments concerning those who have been affected and the response of the emergency services.

The hon. Gentleman may remember that the previous statement that I made to the House was on the Bye report and what we were doing in response. We have made great progress in acting on the report by uprating the national flood defence scheme, introducing flood risk awareness programmes and setting high-level targets for annual exercises between local authorities and agencies for dealing with floods.

All that investment and time over the past two years have paid off in the response that we have seen to the current situation, with smooth, professional action by the emergency services, much improved early warning, and everyone living on a flood plain getting a leaflet through the door from the Environment Agency explaining what action to take in response to flood warnings.

PPG25 is expected in December, and we would expect all planning authorities to take into account the advice from the Environment Agency on development on flood plains. In fact, 90 per cent. of applications that are objected to by the agency are turned down.

The publication of flood risk maps was another Bye report recommendation, and the Government have set that as a high-level target for the Environment Agency. All local authorities have flood risk maps for their areas and I understand that the Environment Agency is to make them more widely available.

There will be discussions with the insurance companies about risk with regard to those people who might find it difficult to insure their properties in the future.

The variety of funding sources that go towards flood and coastal defences is being reviewed and a report on that will be out in September 2001. I can confirm that the £51 million announced for the listed schemes is new and additional funding. In terms of the funding proposed, I announced in the statement that the Government are planning to spend £337 million in England—a combination of MAFF funding for capital projects and the funding that is delivered through the standard spending assessment to local authorities for flood defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about funding but, given the Conservative's party proposal for a £16 billion cut in public expenditure, how would it improve matters?

Dr. Jack Cunningham (Copeland)

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, particularly the improvements to the Bellwin formula and the additional £51 million of funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Although we all recognise that the national focus has, understandably, been on the villages, towns and cities that have been inundated, does my hon. Friend accept that if one house is flooded, the misery is the same whether the flooding is localised or widespread? In that connection, and bearing in mind the repeat flooding in areas of my constituency, which, although localised, has nevertheless damaged dozens of houses in Mirehouse, Cleator Moor and Egremont, will my hon. Friend ensure that the changes that he has announced today will be equally and fairly applied to all areas and all families who have suffered, regardless of the extent of the flooding?

Mr. Morley

I assure my right hon. Friend that that is the case. He is right that although there has been much focus on areas in which many houses are at risk, there have been small, localised floods all around the country in which people have been seriously affected. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is ensuring that the Government talk to local authorities about how to make a unified response to ensure sure that people get the support that they need in all parts of the country.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I thank the Minister for the statement and join him in offering sympathy to those affected and thanks to our excellent emergency services. We also welcome the significant improvements to the Bellwin arrangements.

What plans does the Minister have to provide support to farmers in respect of uninsurable losses that they have suffered during the floods? Is he prepared to discuss with the Inland Revenue arrangements whereby businesses that have been affected by the floods will be allowed to submit their VAT and tax returns later than the official due date?

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Minister is planning to review the quagmire of our flood defence arrangements, but is it possible to bring forward the date on which that report is expected? Does he agree that given so many different bodies are able to act but there is no clarity about which has the duty to act, would it not be better to have a single body with the responsibility, power and funds to get on with the job?

Mr. Morley

First, I thank the Liberal Democrats for co-operating with the Government in providing time for the statement on their Opposition day.

The National Farmers Union has already made representations to MAFF about the problems that farmers are facing, and we will look at some of its suggestions. I also understand the hon. Gentleman's point about businesses whose records will have been destroyed in the floods. I give an undertaking that we will contact the Inland Revenue and ask for understanding on VAT and tax returns, given the circumstances, for the businesses affected.

As for the review on funding sources and arrangements, I give an undertaking to look at the time scale again, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

I represent a constituency that has been adversely affected by much of the flooding on the River Aire in Yorkshire, so I thank my hon. Friend and other Ministers for the serious and thorough way in which they have dealt with the problem as it has developed. Will my hon. Friend give more details about the changes to the Bellwin formula which will increase the speed at which help can be given? Will the Government consider developing plans to help people with the reinsurance of properties if they have difficulties insuring them in future?

Mr. Morley

I know that my hon. Friend represents an area that has been affected. I have visited those areas and the emergency centres in Yorkshire, along with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I can assure my hon. Friend about the changes to the Bellwin scheme. Applications had to be made because payment under the old system was not automatic, which could lead to delays. That point was put to me when I travelled the country, talking to local authorities and visiting the affected areas. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has acted—payment under the Bellwin scheme is now automatic, the funding is 100 per cent. and there is a prospect of advance payments and a 15-day turnaround for claims.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)

Does the Minister appreciate that some businesses and households have been told that insurers will cover this disaster, but that their insurance will now cease? Is he aware that, for example, the Yorkshire Dales Icecream Company and the households and other businesses in and around Cononley are in precisely that position even though the flooding there was partly caused by the malfunctioning of a flood reservoir that was built under a previous flood relief scheme? Will he ensure that, while the Environment Agency undertakes its work, which is bound to be spread over a long time, those businesses are protected in the event of further problems between now and those works being accomplished? After all, we are not yet into winter.

Mr. Morley

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, that is one of the matters that we would expect the Environment Agency to look at when it has time to review the situation and the areas that might need attention. He is right about insurance, which is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been anxious to take the issue forward in discussions with the insurances companies and to ensure that consideration is given to those homes and businesses that may face insurance difficulties in future. It is fair to say that, at present, there are few people who cannot get insurance in flood risk areas.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting the Stockbridge area of Keighley last Friday and talking to many of my constituents and taking on board many of their anxieties. On Friday, we discussed topping up area social funds. He assured me that he would take that on board because many of my constituents will need to resort to social funds to help them out of immediate difficulty. The uninsurability of dwellings has been mentioned. That will be a problem for many of my constituents because many insurers—most of whom have been helpful recently—may not want to take on those households again. Yorkshire Electricity's vans were very much in evidence on Friday, but we did not know that the company was charging households a £65 reconnection fee. I was going to mention that to my hon. Friend privately, but I thought that I would get it in now.

Mr. Morley

I was very moved by the experience of the people I met in my hon. Friend's constituency. Again, the local authority was working hard with all the agencies to provide support. I was impressed that Benefits Agency representatives were present at the rest centre to advise people on the spot. I understand that the Department of Social Security has a central contingency fund. I know that applications are being made from flood hit areas to ensure that there is adequate funding for those people who may qualify for the social fund. I shall take such matters as those raised by my hon. Friend into consideration. I must confess that I was not aware that the utilities were charging people a reconnection charge. I should have thought that the utilities would have taken into account the stress that those people were under at the time.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, areas where flooding is predictable already receive much attention from the Environment Agency. Other areas, however, which had not had problems with flooding for many years, including Duffield in my constituency, have suffered from severe and sudden problems during the past few days. How will the Minister encourage the Environment Agency to prioritise work in those areas, and what steps will the agency take to protect areas that had not previously had problems with flooding?

Mr. Morley

The Environment Agency will, because of the current situation, prioritise work on river systems. In the evaluation of the floods, the needs of areas that were affected on this occasion but which had not been affected by previous floods will be taken into account. However, some areas were flooded because of blockages in or the backing up of drains, which are also the responsibility of local authorities. All those points will be taken into consideration.

Mr. John Grogan (Selby)

Will my hon. Friend, who visited the Selby area on Saturday, ensure that the relevant authorities seriously consider a detailed plan from the parish council at Barlby, where 200 homes were flooded over the weekend, to strengthen and repair the flood bank there? He will also receive a report from the Selby area about the failure of the electricity supply during the weekend to more than 10,000 homes. That might have implications for the siting of supply stations and their protection from flooding. As the flood crisis spreads throughout rural Yorkshire, will he ensure that the relevant authorities liaise closely with parish councils, which are often the best sources of local information, community support and volunteers?

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed many of those issues when we met in Selby on Saturday, when we also talked to local authorities. He is right about the situation in Barlby, although it is worth pointing out that many of the houses involved were built in 1995 in a flood risk area. Such considerations need to be taken into account with regard to such developments.

The same point also applies to electricity substations. I understand that the problem in Selby was that the substation was flooded. We need to consider the siting of such stations in flood risk areas and whether they need to be defended. The hard work of the Environment Agency prevented an important substation in Leeds city centre from flooding. If it had flooded—it was very close to being inundated—that would have caused absolute havoc in the city. We will have to take such matters into account when we plan for what might be more frequent extreme weather conditions and the need to protect vital infrastructure, such as substations.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I point out to the Minister that it was not just the Ouse but most rivers in Yorkshire that were flooding. The River Nidd overflowed in Knaresborough, and caused extensive flooding from the riverside through to two caravan car parks. Most of the area had to be evacuated. Thanks to the emergency services, the borough council and, in particular, King James school in Knaresborough, evacuees could be accommodated. Does the Minister share my concern about the fact that many people, especially those on Abbey road in Knaresborough, did not receive a flood warning until the flood was 4 ft high in their dwellings? There was no awareness exercise in that area, partly because—the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made this point—it was not an area of traditional flooding. Will the Minister give me an assurance that the way in which the Environment Agency issues awareness warnings will be reviewed? People should receive that information in good time to save at least some of their property and belongings.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have emphasised that no Government can guarantee that floods will not happen. We must reduce the risks and ensure that people have adequate warning. In response to the Northampton disaster and the lessons that we learned from the Bye report, we have put many extra resources into a national flood warning system which, by and large, has worked better. However, that is not to say that there have been no gaps in the system—the hon. Gentleman referred to one. I give him an assurance that in the evaluation that will take place following the floods, we shall examine the area that he mentioned. When we identify failures, we shall take steps to ensure that the situation is improved.

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)

My hon. Friend will be aware that parts of the midlands—especially in Worcestershire and Shropshire—have been badly affected during the past week. Although, by comparison, my own area in Birmingham has not been particularly affected this time, people in parts of my constituency have suffered four times during the past two years an event that they had been told would occur only once every 50 years. The latest occasion was in July.

As a result, various local taskforces were set up and some lessons were learned that my hon. Friend might like to take on board. First, there is a desperate need to improve flood defences. Although I welcome the changes to the Bellwin formula, we need to take a fresh look at the operation of cost-benefit analyses, because they often discriminate against areas of localised flooding in favour of big projects.

The second point is on insurance companies. Our experience in Birmingham is that, as a result of those four events, some properties are uninsurable or the premiums are unsustainable. Urgent approaches must be made to the insurance companies in order to stop them cherry picking.

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend makes a good point about frequency. Generally, flood defences are engineered to certain standards—for example, one flood in 150 years, or 100 years or 200 years. Although there is much that we do not know about global warming, there is certainly no dispute that the planet is warming nor that we are seeing changes in weather patterns. We may have to re-evaluate current standards of defences that are set at one flood in 150 years, perhaps reducing that time because of changing weather patterns. Of course, there are cost implications in that for the Government. We accept those implications; that is one reason why we are significantly increasing the available budget.

We have to apply a cost-benefit analysis, although I am aware that it causes problems in some local schemes. We shall certainly consider those in future.

The Government will hold discussions with insurance companies on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for visiting Tewkesbury last Friday to look at the flood damage. His visit was greatly appreciated. He will recall that I stressed the additional problem experienced in the small village of Sandhurst in my constituency where there was an explosion at a chemical factory—a couple of days before the floods, thankfully. If it had occurred during the flooding, the emergency services would not have been able to reach the area.

Will the Minister carry out a full investigation into that explosion, including the reason why a chemical factory was allowed to be sited on an obvious flood plain? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, to build houses on or near flood plains causes many problems. One reason why councils do so is the pressure to accommodate the number of houses that they are asked to provide.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman is right about the risk of pollution during floods. Any company dealing with hazardous products, such as chemicals, must follow certain standards. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive is currently investigating the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I am sure that it will be dealt with.

On flood plain development, new guidance will be issued in December and we shall expect planning authorities to act on it.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

The Minister will agree that there has been much debate about who is responsible for approving new developments on flood plains. However, there is a further question: about approval for the development of new estates, where the increased run-off created by extra hard surfaces inundates adjacent areas. That is a recurrent problem—year on year—in my constituency. Who is responsible for approving such plans? Is it the planning authority, the Environment Agency or the drainage authority? At present, they are all passing the buck.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman is right. Increased run-off must be taken into account in flood plain development. I understand that PPG25 will address the issue of run-off as part of the guidance to local authorities. That new guidance will not be merely a code of practice as it was in the past; it will have much stronger force to ensure that planning authorities take note of it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the giving of permission; that is a matter for the planning authorities.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I too thank the Deputy Prime Minister for visiting Malton on Friday. The Minister went to Malton last year; this year, the floods are worse. The beleaguered community wants to know whether his announcement and his change of policy today mean that flood defence systems, currently at the design stage, will be built more speedily. Is it likely that they will be progressed and constructed as quickly as possible?

Will the Minister ask his recovery plan teams to pay attention to the problems of alternative accommodation? Currently, the homes of about 1,500 families in North Yorkshire are flooded and are likely to remain so for several days. Those families will be out of their homes for nine months or longer. We need desperately to find them accommodation for that period—especially during the run-up to Christmas.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman is right. I visited Malton and Norton in 1998 and, given the severity of the flood then, I did not expect it to happen again for a very long time. However, as he said, the floods are even worse two years later.

The additional £51 million, which is new money, means that we can progress more schemes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a scheme for Malton is at the design stage, but I understand that some technical issues need to be addressed. The scheme will be introduced as quickly as possible, and I assure him that the frequency of flooding that Malton has experienced will have an effect on the way that we score the schemes and on the priority that we give to them.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the problems of alternative accommodation is a serious issue. It will be tackled by local recovery teams and we want to ensure that people will continue to receive help from such teams even when the cameras and the newspapers are no longer present.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)

When the Deputy Prime Minister kindly visited my constituency over the weekend, he gave so many assurances that they prompted my constituents to ask when Upton upon Severn will receive its share of the £51 million or when we will be told that it will do so. More generally, when we will we hear any details of the £51 million and, more particularly, what will its impact be on reducing the risks of flooding?

Mr. Morley

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, schemes for flood defence have to go through the processes of design, evaluation and receiving planning permission. They cannot be introduced immediately. Nevertheless, I repeat that the £51 million of new money means that we will be able to introduce a range of additional schemes that we could not have introduced otherwise.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

Is the Minister aware that the focus of attention in my area was the prevention of flooding in the down-town part of York itself? The perverse consequence was that the Vale of York was left totally exposed and, in Rawcliffe, the flood defences were breached. No sandbags were provided even though they had been requested from City of York council at 11 o'clock on Friday evening. I visited the area the next day and saw the consequences of the flooding. Sandbags were still not available and pumping was not started until 4 o'clock that afternoon. In fact, social services were nowhere to be seen until today and no soup kitchens had been provided. When I was in the area, I learned that one couple had not been rehoused and had nowhere to go. It is a serious problem, and the people in that area feel neglected and exposed.

The Minister also mentioned the revenue support grant. Will he respond to the request from the Local Government Association, which wants additional safeguards so that within year changes, as there will be this year, in local authority spending on flood defence schemes are recognised in the SSA for future years?

Mr. Morley

The hon. Lady has an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow and that will enable us to debate some of the issues in more detail than I can now. Much of her constituency is a flood plain and its flooding has taken a great deal of pressure off urban areas. The flood plains in Leeds, which flooded to take some pressure off other areas, have reduced the water level in Leeds by 1.5 m. Water catchment areas form part of the cycle of defence.

Sandbags have been issued in York, but some of the city's flood defences were operating beyond their designed capacity. Sandbags were needed in the city to stop the water getting under the flood defences and destroying them. Therefore, their distribution was an issue of priority. However, I understand that sandbags have been distributed as widely as they possibly can be.

On the SSA, money at above the rate of inflation is being made available for flood defence in all parts of the country. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail tomorrow.

Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire)

Stamford Bridge in my constituency has been affected twice in the past two years. I never thought that I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister tramping around my constituency, but we were grateful that he came. I apologise for not being able to be with him, as I was attending a meeting of the Economic and Development Committee of the Council of Europe.

I am sure that the Minister will recognise that, having being affected twice in two years, with the prospect of floods again in another two years, the people of Stamford Bridge are saying that something must be done. I accept that the problem is enormous and not easy to solve, but when he is considering new flood defence work once the floods have gone down, will he make it clear to the Environment Agency and English Nature that top priority must be given to the safety and property of householders and businesses, rather than to birds and wildlife?

There will be a problem with insurance. In Stamford Bridge, small businesses have been particularly affected. Will the Minister consult the Deputy Prime Minister on whether businesses and houses which people cannot insure or for which excessive insurance rates must be paid should receive council tax relief?

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman will know that when I visited Malton two years ago, I also went to Stamford Bridge, where, again, I did not expect such flooding in another two years. We will have to take into account changes in weather and more frequent flooding—and we are doing so by providing increased expenditure. His idea about council tax relief for affected businesses is interesting. We are discussing the matter of insurance companies, and we shall be looking at a range of options. The option that he is advocating would of course involve increasing public expenditure—of which he has not always been in favour.

Miss McIntosh

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although it is always a pleasure to see the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in one's constituency, may I seek your guidance? I have written to you on the matter. I was informed that the Deputy Prime Minister was coming to my constituency, and then that he was not. In the end, he came to my constituency accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), and a number of national film and local radio station crews, but I was not informed. May I be assured that parliamentary conventions will be respected in future?

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott)

I met you, you twit.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is an established parliamentary courtesy that a Member visiting another Member's constituency on official business should give prior notification. That applies to Ministers as it does to other Members. However, the matter should be sorted out between the Members concerned. I suggest that the hon. Lady write to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Under-Secretary.

Miss McIntosh

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it parliamentary language to call a fellow parliamentarian a twit?

Mr. Prescott

On this occasion, yes.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not nice.