HC Deb 15 December 2003 vol 415 cc1403-12

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

8.32 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con)

Seven thousand years ago, half my constituents were fish. The Somerset levels were part of the seabed, Bridgwater was a bustling port, and if one wanted to go anywhere outside that area, one had to go by boat. Six thousand years ago, the tide turned; I was not there myself, but perhaps one or two hon. Members were. The peat bogs began to develop and the landscape started to look a little like what we see today. There has always been a lot of water and a high risk that high tides and high rainfall will bring flood. They still do, but why on earth does it have to be that way?

I asked for this debate because political memories are often far too short, in this place and others. We have had a long, hot summer and a lack of rain ever since, and the reservoirs are still half empty. It is easy to forget what happened at the start of the year, or during the previous year or the year before that, but unfortunately my constituents, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and of most Somerset MPs, cannot forget—and, as the Minister knows, many do not forgive. The rivers broke their banks and the sea surged inland: people were driven from their homes and farmers watched valuable fields sink beneath the torrent. Millions of pounds worth of damage was caused in a very short space of time.

I am sure that the Minister knows the figures, but I want to give him some idea of the frightening price of flooding in this country. The national cost of the last floods was £800 million. I obtained that figure from Britain's biggest insurance company, Norwich Union. Unfortunately, it will probably not surprise the Minister to learn that I also got from the company a rather strong taste of how it feels about flood defences. This year, it issued a helpful pack to all its policyholders—including me—entitled, "How to lobby your MP". Some hon. Members might have received it; if any have not, because they are not policyholders, I will let them have a copy. The insurance industry is far from satisfied that enough is being done to protect us from flooding, and I fear that it might be right.

This year, the Government have said that they will spend roughly £564 million on flood protection in the financial year that ends in 2006. The insurance industry is far from satisfied with that. It might sound like a great deal of money, but let me put it into perspective. Two years hence, the Government intend to shell out £250 million less than it cost to clean up the last big floods that we had two or three years ago. They simply are not aware of the risks involved in that. If I may be so presumptuous, I should like to quote the Prime Minister's own website, which states: Did you know that flooding has the potential to affect 5 million people and inflict damage on assets valued at over £200 billions? Far be it from me to criticise the Prime Minister's sums, but, set against a £200 billion risk, an annual expenditure of £564 million is obviously not enough.

I should like to give the House a couple of homegrown examples. The experts—the very people whom the Government employ to protect us from flooding— tell me that the water levels in the parts of Somerset represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and me could rise by up to 3 ft in the next 50 years because of global warming and other effects. Let us just think about that. I know that the Minister is a fine, upstanding fellow with a good, solid girth, and he would be waist-deep in water if that were to happen in my constituency. He would certainly see birds of a different feather in those circumstances.

There is a cure, however. Those same experts have worked out how to defend Bridgwater, Taunton and other areas of Somerset. The Bridgwater barrage—or sluice, or whatever you want to call it—is going to cost about £40 million at today's prices. Down the road, however, in the middle of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, experts have calculated that the defence work needed to protect Taunton will cost about £130 million in today's money.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con)

No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that recent calculations by the Environment Agency show that Taunton now has a one in 30 year risk of flooding, which worries people such as me who own a house in the centre of the town. Does he have any comment to make on that?

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

The most appropriate comment probably comes from Norwich Union, which says that incidence of flooding is becoming more and more frequent. I remember that, two years ago, Taunton came within an inch of being under water. Unless we spend the money now, the generations that follow us here and in our constituencies of Taunton, Yeovil and elsewhere are going to be affected by flooding for many years to come. I am afraid that, if we continue as we are doing, the one in 30 year risk will decrease rapidly to one in 20 or one in 10. I know that, across the levels, the risk used to be one in 75 years and is now down to one in 30, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton so eloquently said.

So where is the money coming from? This year, Somerset has about £15.7 million in the bank to spend. Big bucks, you say; well, maybe. I agree that it is enough to tackle the short term problems, but it would not buy one third of the Bridgwater barrage or pay for an eighth of the work that we have to do in Taunton. I have not come here to advocate a profligate increase in public expenditure. I shall modestly leave that to the Liberal Democrats. There is, however, a powerful case for the Government to identify the intense flooding risk in Somerset and to set about finding—dare I say it—new and adventurous mechanisms for tomorrow's vital defences. It is in the national interest to do so, and the Minister has spoken eloquently about this on many occasions. I pledge tonight that the Minister can rely on my co-operation and that of other Somerset Members. We have all said that we will co-operate. My Somerset colleagues and I are prepared to talk any time about what defends our constituents against nature's worst.

May I make an initial suggestion? The Minister is aware of the responsibility of the South West of England Regional Development Agency. Perhaps he or his colleagues can encourage that body to spend a little of its money on conducting a long-term scientific study. I know that the agency, which I have visited many times, regards Bridgwater as a vital industrial area. Such a study might cost, say, a third of a million pounds, but it would protect the long-term viability of not just one part of the area, but the whole of it. It must be remembered that the agency covers an enormous part of Somerset, parts of Devon, Dorset and a little bit of Wiltshire. It could produce a very intelligent, long-term flood protection brief for the south-west—it is an ideal organisation to do so.

I am impressed by some of the recommendations of Lord Haskins to streamline the way in which flood defences are managed. The Government will soon implement those recommendations. From next April, some long-overdue administrative common sense will begin to kick in. At last the people who know how to deal with floods and undertake the major defence work can start to get on with their job properly. I refer to the Environment Agency.

I pay tribute to Dr. Tony Owen at the Environment Agency and his team in Bridgwater, who have done a phenomenal job, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances. They have a vested interest. If Bridgwater floods, their building goes underwater. Let me assure you that they are good at keeping their control room on the third floor. If you have not visited, Minister, I suggest you do. It is a most impressive organisation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. I know that this is an Adjournment debate, but the hon. Gentleman must try to use the correct parliamentary terminology. He keeps using the word "you", which is not accurate in these circumstances.

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thankfully, we are in the dying days of a muddled system that gave Somerset county council the biggest say in what we did. We will bid a tearless farewell to many of the unnecessary flood defence committees. In future, the bulk of the money—public money—will go directly to the Environment Agency, not through the coffers of county hall. That will mean less paperwork and more action. I am sure everyone will agree that that is good news.

I hope that that is good news. I shall not dwell on the subject for long, but Somerset county council is notorious for creating a waffle shop of well-meaning worthies who waste money willy-nilly. Public enemy No. 1 is Mr. Humphrey Temperley. He used to be leader of the county council until the electors suggested he move on. Do not worry—Humph did not get the hump; he simply shuffled sideways, taking on the chairmanship of an outfit of his own creation, the Parrett catchment project. If hon. Members are puzzled, I hasten to point out that that has nothing to do with ornithology. The Parrett is the river that runs through Bridgwater. It needs a lot of looking after, and it has the double problem of tides coming down and tides coming up.

The people who do the donkey work there are the Environment Agency. The Parrett catchment project does the diplomatic bit, talking to the interested parties, and produces voluminous documents, almost enough to dam the Parrett. It is the Andrex puppy of paper, running out roll upon roll of its own reports—absorbent, soft and very long winded. It finally dawned on Lord Haskins and others that the Parrett catchment project might usefully be absorbed itself. That course of action was suggested some time ago by the Minister, who said that we would have to evolve and look ahead.

Why not, I suggest to the Minister, include the Parrett catchment project in the new Haskins proposals, along with other stakeholders such as English Nature and many others? Humphrey has already jumped ship, not once, but twice. First, he took the chair of the Somerset flood defence committee. He has now found an even comfier chair on the Wessex flood defence committee. Surprisingly enough, this is not a gratuitous attack on Mr. Temperley. I am genuinely anxious about him and about what he has done, is doing and, I am afraid, has failed to do.

There have been various scare stories about the quality of the Environment Agency's work. The Environment Agency must lead from the top and not allow others to set the agenda for flood defence in our area. A successful policy will result in the Environtnent Agency being allowed to do its job.

We cannot have people such as Mr. Temperley strutting round Bridgwater like a latter-day Napoleon, telling everyone how he will persuade the Government to protect people from floods. That is not his responsibility, but that of the Environment Agency. Has the Minister heard about the barrier that the experts want, which has been mentioned many times by Mr. Temperley? It is difficult to know how to move forward if the Minister has not heard all the stories.

Next April, things will change. The Environment Agency will get more money direct from Whitehall and there will be less involvement from county councils and—dare I say it?—the Temperley faction. County councils will still get about £800,000 a year for flood defences. Neither the county nor the Environment Agency knows what the county's responsibilities will be and how much influence they will have in the new order of things. If the Minister provides an answer, it will go not only to Somerset county council, but throughout the UK.

I want to refer to the Steart peninsula, about which the Minister and I have had many debates. Many people worry about what is going to happen there. We are not talking about a risk of an extra 3 ft in 50 years; if things go wrong, Steart could become an island this winter. It might rain too hard or the tide might come up, and Steart needs a sluice or safety valve now. That is on the Environment Agency's shopping list; it costs about £3 million. However, a wave of worry is being created in Steart about what the future will hold.

Under new European flood defence rules, all member states, understandably, have to follow a policy of give and take with nature. For every barrier or alignment created, one must give part of the area one is dealing with back to nature. However, I can see some problems. What happens when the Environment Agency completes its work at Steart and removes the risk to the people who live there? Which bit of Somerset or the surrounding area gets flooded as a trade-off? I am not suggesting that homes will be flooded, but land. Does it have to be Somerset?

The Government have set targets for flood protection in this country over the next year and aim to safeguard about 80,000 people. How on earth will we achieve that if every time a bit of Somerset is protected, another bit has to be sacrificed to the rising tide? It is not a question of people being nimbys; everyone in our area is fair-minded. But should we not be looking to the long term, rather than looking to the less populated areas of England to meet the requirements of the European rules? Should not this be a national matter? The decisions, and the interest, must be taken at national level.

While the Minister is considering flooding, I shall mention another concern. A lot of Somerset is a flood plain; it is agricultural land that is kept clear by the drainage boards and the Environment Agency. The farmers on the levels get paid to maintain the land; it is not a great deal, but it is enough to make the task not only bearable but worth doing. The money comes via Europe through the common agricultural policy, which is currently having its mid-term review. I warn the Minister that if the grant money dries up, there will be little incentive for hard-pressed farmers to bother with the important maintenance work. If the farmers stop bothering, the land will go under water. The drainage boards, the farmers and everybody involved in the common agricultural policy must work together to create harmony in nature and not try to control nature in the wrong way. At the end of the day, there must be funding and it must be real money.

The whole story of flooding in Somerset is rather a sad cycle: inadequate funding over the long term to tackle long-term defences, and huge bills when the water inevitably comes up. Who pays? The insurance company and thus, unfortunately, all of us, pay. Some countries handle things better than we did. America offers incredibly generous flood aid in federal grants and soft loans—far more than British compensation under the Bellwin rules. We could emulate the US method, or we could find a new way of raising money to resolve the most acute flooding before it happens.

As the Minister is aware, 684,000 people in Somerset could be affected by flooding. Some 11,500 homes stand in the line of a rising tide, and 1 million acres of very valuable land are under threat. We have gone through this issue before, and it does not involve special pleading. It is an appeal, I suppose, for common sense. Yes, the Minister could reel off a long list of the fine things that the Government have done to improve defences, but that would be a pity. I do not begrudge the efforts made by the Minister, the Environment Agency or anybody else, but I am appealing for something more important, which politicians rarely think about. May we please have a long-term strategy—a very long-term strategy? It is not a question of what happens today, tomorrow or before the next election. We need to think about the big future, and as the Minister is well aware, it is in the interests of us all to do so.

8.51 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing what is the second debate this year on flood defences in Somerset. He has a great interest in this subject, and he has advocated his constituents' concerns powerfully. I understand and share his concerns; I also share his commitment to reducing the flood risk to the people of Somerset, and to the people of this country in general.

A projected annual budget of £564 million is a substantial amount of money. Indeed, as I have explained before, because of the demand that that budget places on contractors, experts and consultants, it has to be wrapped up in such a way that the capacity exists to spend that money. I have spoken to the Institution of Civil Engineers about the need for more civil engineers to carry out this work. It is very concerned about the need to attract more people into the profession, and I hope that that happens. It is good to see that that level of investment is also stimulating the engineering sector.

We should also consider the range of engineering. These days, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have moved away from a simple concrete approach. We have become much more sophisticated: we now consider different areas and needs, how to apply flood defences and water management in a more sustainable way, and how to secure a range of benefits. Indeed, the Parrett catchment plan is one of the pilot projects—funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that have examined this new approach. As I have said before, I like the fact that it involves a partnership approach. It gets the various groups—landowners, farmers, conservationists, local people and the Environment Agency—to work together and to seek innovation. Here, I echo the hon. Gentleman's point about a long-term strategy, and Humphrey Temperley has done a good job in that regard. He should receive some credit for the role that he has played.

I understand that there is also a need to integrate the international importance of nature conservation in the area with the equally legitimate flood defence needs of householders, farmers and other landowners. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's point about support for farmers on the levels, but I believe that the reforms we achieved through the common agricultural policy, and which we are currently implementing, will be of great benefit to them. We have broken the link between production subsidies and the farming practices that, in some cases, have proved unsustainable. Such practices will no longer be the driver for subsidies. Instead, the money will be provided through direct payments and agri-environmental payments, which are ideal for an area such as the Somerset levels, because schemes can be tailored to proper management and the skills of farmers can be utilised in the man-management.

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

That is excellent and I thoroughly applaud it. However, could the Minister expand on how the money will reach areas such as the Somerset levels and how it will be utilised practically?

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how the environmentally sensitive area schemes and countryside stewardship schemes work in the levels. They are going to change into an entry-level scheme and higher-tier schemes. I envisage that most of the farmers in the levels would want to be in the higher-tier schemes, which would mean extra payments for water management. There will be other changes to support payments, but they are not yet finalised and I am not in a position to spell them out. In due course, however, I will, and intense consultation is going on.

The area has also produced a catchment management plan, which is important in assessing the various options. The catchment flood management plans are being taken forward by the agency. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the proposed new land use agency, which is an amalgamation of English Nature, parts of the Countryside Agency and our own rural development service, could incorporate the work carried out by the Parrett catchment plan. I am sure that we can examine the problem as the new agency develops. It is certainly within the philosophy of having an integrated land use agency that integrated management of land use, landscape, water management, and nature conservation is possible. It also involves recognising the social needs of people in the area. The three pillars of sustainability are social, economic and environmental, so it is ideal in respect of the concept that we are debating.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned problems on the Steart peninsula. As he said, I have been there to examine the position and talk to the Environment Agency about the relevant issues. I have not yet seen the preferred option on which the Environment Agency is working, but the sort of ideas that we discussed involved defending the village and taking into account the need to keep the road link open. That is certainly within its thinking and planning. More sustainable defences would be required for creating additional salt marsh.

In that sort of scenario, there would be no requirement, as I understand it, for compensatory land measures, because additional habitat is being provided. Compensatory habitat would not have to be found: it would be necessary only if some form of hard structure were proposed that meant taking some habitat away. In that scenario, under the habitats directive, compensation would certainly have to be provided. However, the way in which the agency has discussed the issue with me suggests that that is not the case with respect to the hon. Gentleman's area. I hope that that will reassure him.

The Environment Agency is progressing with the development of the sea defence strategy for the Steart and Stolford peninsula, and options for future management are currently being explored. I understand that the agency has just appointed consultants who have also been involved in the preparation of the Parrett catchment flood management plan and the water management strategy action plan produced in spring 2002.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about support for the area and the need for an increasing programme of flood defence capital works in Somerset. That has been recognised and continues to be recognised in DEFRA's allocations. The allocation to the agency's Somerset local flood defence committee for grant-eligible expenditure has increased from £3.5 million in 2001–02 to £5.5 million in 2003–04.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, with the advent in 2004–05 of the grant-in-aid for the EA flood defence, we will no longer allocate the grant rates through local authorities. Grants in aid will be allocated by the EA headquarters direct, taking into account DEFRA's announced priority score thresholds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a better and more open and transparent scheme. It will allow the agency and flood defence committees to move faster and have more control over decision making.

It is none the less still important to have local links and local accountability and to have an involvement with local government. In that respect, I see a continued role for the county councils in flood defence. Following the funding review, they will be able to fund local service through the continuing levying arrangements, and they will continue to be represented on the new streamlined single-tier committees. I do not want to break that link, and I want to give them flexibility when it comes to deciding some of their own priorities. The Environment Agency's distribution for 2004–05, based on indicative DEFRA national allocations, will provide Somerset with an increase of 10 per cent. over the 2003–04 levels.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the building of a tidal sluice on the River Parrett. I am advised that the EA has the tidal sluice proposal on its programme of works for detailed further investigation, so it is taking the idea seriously and putting it forward for consideration. The proposal is one component among the possible solutions to some of the flooding programmes suggested in the Parrett catchment project report. As he rightly said, it is a big scheme, and a great deal of consideration is needed for any such project by the EA and other agencies. A lot of engineering assessment, modelling and other work needs to be done. It is not a minor scheme, and it will not appear overnight. Like any such scheme, it will have to satisfy the normal technical, economic and environmental criteria, and the priority score arrangements for funding, including under the flood defence grant in aid.

I have been advised that the hon. Gentleman was briefed in detail at a meeting on Friday 28 November about the time scales and hurdles that any capital scheme for a tidal sluice at Bridgwater would have to cross. I also understand that the agency provides him with regular updates, and he will be aware that no scheme has yet been put forward for formal approval. Such a scheme would have to be prepared in detail, and I stress that major engineering works of that kind, which might well be the preferred option in the end, would have to go through careful consideration.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that some features in Somerset, such as the high conversation status of the Somerset levels and moors and the Severn estuary, mean that it is already given special consideration. The area is well known to me, and the management of water there has a long history, as have flood defence works.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the impact of global warming: it is a serious issue and of great concern to the Government. I recently attended the climate change conference in Madrid at which we made a number of detailed presentations, with our Hadley centre and Tyndale centre, about the impact of global warming and what it means for the UK and regions around the world. We also made a presentation on what the UK is doing to reduce greenhouse gases, and that was "standing room only". There is enormous international interest in the commitments that we are making and the fact that we take the matter seriously. That links to the hon. Gentleman's first point, which was that we are spending a lot of money on flood defence but that it pales into insignificance when compared with the massive value of the assets that we are protecting, not least when compared with the inconvenience, misery and distress caused to people who are victims of floods.

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

The Minister is hitting the most salient points throughout his speech, and I am grateful to him for it. He knows that if we lose it completely, we will lose the M4, the railway and the A303. The west country would be cut off by one river system. I am grateful to him for labouring the point because one of the most important problems facing this country is that our peninsula could be cut off if we get matters badly wrong.

Mr. Morley

That is right, and the protection of infrastructure is a criterion that we use when assessing whether to spend money on flood defences. Much important infrastructure, as well as many people, is at risk in the hon. Gentleman's area.

We can never completely eliminate risk, but we can ensure that we minimise the risk that people face. The measures that the Government have taken have reduced risk. Incidentally, I must correct what I said about the climate change conference being in Madrid—it was in Milan. It is important that we develop the long-term strategy that the hon. Gentleman requested. Water management and coastal defence are long-term businesses, as is predicting the kind of climate changes that we will face in future. We are committed to those issues financially, and we want to put a long-term strategy in place, to the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o 'clock.