HC Deb 10 September 2003 vol 410 cc131-8WH

4 pm

Norman Baker (Lewes)

I am sorry to be here again, as I am sure the Minister is, to speak on a matter that I had hoped we had, if not quite put to bed, at least sorted out in a way that would provide good progress for our local community.

The Minister will be only too aware of the terrible floods that hit Lewes in 2000, which we believe were the worst in the country. They were certainly among the worst, and—there is the Division Bell.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

4.25 pm

On resuming—

Norman Baker

I was musing on the fact that the stop-go arrangements that have characterised the beginning of this debate are not too different from the stop-go arrangements that have characterised the provision of flood defences in Lewes. I said during the half-minute or so that I had at 4 o'clock that the Minister knows only too well that the Lewes floods in 2000 were, if not the worst, certainly among the worst in the country. He visited Lewes, and I am grateful for the interest that he has continually shown in the matter.

The Minister may remember not just houses but upstairs bedrooms that had been flooded—the sight was unbelievable. Obviously, the floods caused huge distress and inconvenience to people living in Lewes. In some instances, they were out of their houses for almost two years. The feeling in Lewes is very much that such floods must never happen again. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about a wake-up call. I am here to ensure that the Government have not gone back to sleep but are continuing to try to provide flood defences for Lewes.

People are particularly concerned, given that after the 1960s floods there was, apparently, a similar determination to do something about flood defences, but it ebbed away. In 2000, people recognised that the opportunity after the 1960s floods to improve the defences had been lost, and they are keen that the same mistake is not made again.

As a matter of fact, people in Lewes do not want to talk about floods and would rather put them behind them. They want to come together and move on with their lives after the unfortunate, unpleasant and stressful incidents that happened to them, but they cannot move on as they want to because the situation remains fragile. Yes, they are back in their homes. Yes, they are getting insurance cover now, and I thank the Minister and his colleagues for all the work that they did with the Association of British Insurers to help bring that about. Yes, the Environment Agency and the flood defence committees have produced plans that, by and large, the people in Lewes are happy with, but there is now a real concern that flood defences will not be provided.

The Minister may think that that is over-egging it, but that is what is circulating in my constituency. The local paper, Lewes Life, ran the headline "Anger as Government scraps flood schemes" a couple of weeks ago. I hasten to stress that that is not coming from me but is what is being said in local papers. Naturally, the people of Lewes are getting very edgy.

They are made even more edgy by the suggestion that has come from meetings with the Lewes Flood Action Group and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials and in comments from the Environment Agency, that a solution may be found for part of Lewes but not for all of it. It would be very unfortunate if that were to be the case. When the town of Lewes was flooded, it pulled together very well as a community. People say to me that the community response and the way in which people helped others were similar to that in the second world war. People expect a townwide solution to a townwide problem, but instead they are offered cells.

The Environment Agency has done its best and has produced plans that will, if enacted, deal with nearly all the town. As the Minister knows, it has not been able to justify action in some areas: the Landport area, which is mostly council housing—there is a possibility that the district council could do something there—and Malling Deanery and New Malling, where there are a few houses. There are a few odd patches that are outside the main Environment Agency scheme, but the scheme, for which I am thankful, should deliver flood defences in Lewes. However, it now appears that it may not happen.

There will almost certainly be flood defences in Malling and probably in the Cliffe cell, but from the information that I have been given it seems unlikely, or at least highly debatable, that flood defence schemes will be produced for the other cells: town centre, west, the Talbot terrace area, North street, and so on. That is very serious. People would once again have the spectre of flooding hanging over them, with no relief in sight. People deserve better than that, after the horrors they went through and the promises that they thought the Government had given.

Insurance companies have, with the Government's help, been quite supportive. The insurance problem has, by and large, gone away because of the schemes; people are being asked to pay a lot more, but can mostly get insurance. However, that problem will recur, because if the insurance companies think that the schemes are off the agenda, they will simply pull the plug. We must not let that happen.

I could spend some time listing constituents who are worried about the matter, but I refer to Minister to just one group, in Lewes new school, a private, progressive school that has had coverage in the national papers for the education style it provides. It is in the Talbot terrace area. The school was badly flooded shortly after it opened. It has scrambled to get itself back together again, with a great deal of parent and community effort. It was flooded by up to 4 ft of water for three days during the 2000 floods. In a letter to me, dated 9 September, its representatives gave their view: If the Environment Agency does not flood-proof the Pelts"— that is in the Talbot terrace area— we will be caused distress because: It is unlikely that we will be able to renew our, or get any, insurance as the current coverage is contingent on the Environment Agency installing flood measures for our area. The ongoing stress of the threat of winter flooding will be intolerable on our small school, especially as predictions are that more flooding is likely to occur as a result of global warming"— the Minister will recognise that as a genuine concern— and we understand that flooding of the Pells area is more likely if other areas like Cliffe High St. are protected. The idea of dealing with flood defences in cells is divisive and nonsensical. I hope that the Minister will say that we will move away from the cell culture to a common community defence standard for the town. Why is there such a cell culture, and is the Environment Agency in favour of it? Has it made representations to say that it should be replaced? My indication, from national conversations, is that the agency does not like the cell culture. I am not convinced that the Minister does, either, although perhaps he will say he does. So who does like it? The Treasury, which wants to control funds? If so, why not say so in the open, so that we can deal with the problem?

It is invidious and inappropriate to have a cell culture, particularly if, by providing defences in one part of Lewes, the risk in other parts is increased, because the floodwater has to have somewhere to go. Will the Minister say directly whether the provision of flood defences in one part of Lewes will worsen the flood risk for parts that are not protected? If the answer is yes, it would suggest that the cell approach is completely wrong, and that in itself is justification for a common community defence standard in Lewes—and indeed in similar towns throughout the country. What is the DEFRA view on cells, and will the Minister answer my question about the relative risk to other areas?

There is genuine concern about how the present arrangements work. Tom Crossett, the flood defences co-ordinator for Lewes Flood Action, drew attention to some of the inconsistencies caused by the present arrangements in a letter to me, dated 5 September. He estimates that the defences for Malling will cost £800,000, and those for Cliffe £2.2 million. He says: the current points system, with its emphasis on economics rather than people, sets greater value on the assets protected. (£18.4 million as opposed to £4.5 million in Cliffe.) He continues: The tragedy of human suffering that flooding brings and you know so well among your constituents is much better represented by the rate of flooding. You will see from the attached tables that every time a flood occurs in the Brooks…the average Cliffe resident will have had to mop up between 2 and 3 times…In other words the rate of flooding in the Brooks is 1.9 houses per year, whereas in Cliffe the rate is 4/". The risk to individual people, which is what matters, changes, but the economic calculation that is applied does not take that fully into account. That is a problem.

I recognise that the Minister is sympathetic—I am not buttering him up; he knows me well enough to know that I say what I think. He has tried his best to resolve this matter, and I have confidence that he will continue to do so. However, I need to know what obstacles are slowing things down in providing proper flood defences for Lewes. Is the flood defence review interfering? Is there simply insufficient funding for flood defence? There has been some increase in funding from the Government in recent years, which has been welcome, but if that is not enough I hope that DEFRA Ministers are saying clearly to the Chancellor that more money is needed. It is intolerable if towns such as Lewes—I am sure that there are others—continue to suffer major risks of flooding because the Government will not provide the necessary funds.

One of the problems in Lewes is that the cost of dealing with the walls is greater than was originally thought. Perhaps cost will make things more difficult, but Lewes's walls are more than 200 years old in places and they have not had money spent on them for the past 40 years. Is the Government's policy to replace or repair them, or shall we give Lewes back to the river and marshland? Lewes is an historic and special town, and it is recognised by the Government as one of the top 50 towns in the country for urban environment. We must have a townwide solution because we cannot have continued risk hanging over our head.

Downstream storage is not the whole answer, and I do not pretend that it is. However, three years after the floods occurred it seems that no progress has been made on identifying how we can use fields south of Lewes and north of Newhaven as excess storage capacity in the event of floods.

The Environment Agency acknowledges that using downstream storage would, at the very least, take the edge off some of the flooding that would happen in Lewes in the event of a major flood. Why has no progress been made? It seems a relatively simple matter of making environmental assessments, of having discussions with about 12 landowners and farmers and of ensuring that compensation plans are in place. That does not seem terribly difficult to organise. How could it be easier to get planning permission for dealing with major town walls in the middle of an historic town than to sort out downstream storage in a lot of fields? However, every time I raise the question with the Environment Agency I fail to get a straight answer. Will the Minister find out why no further progress has been made on the use of downstream storage to ameliorate the situation and take the edge off any future flood—God help us if that occurs?

I know that the Government would like to use contributions from developers or riparian owners to meet some of the costs of flood defence—who would not? If a Government of any persuasion can find someone else to pay for something that will be of public and private benefit, they will take that opportunity. My concern is that the rules are not clear. When do the Government expect riparian owners to contribute? Is it simply a question of when the Environment Agency is able to lean on people and persuade them to cough up, and if they do not the Government will make up the difference? What rules apply to contributions from riparian owners?

Can the Minister also assure me that we are not seeing a two-tier flood defence system emerging, whereby those areas with rich riparian owners who can contribute have their flood defences mended because they provide match funding, and those areas with no such owners do not have defences provided? It would be intolerable if there were one rule for rich areas and another for poor areas. I hope that he can confirm that that is not the Government's position. He needs to set out the position on riparian ownership. Finally, can he assure me that if riparian owners do contribute, their money is not counted as a windfall by the Government and will not be deducted from the money that DEFRA would otherwise provide?

I hope that the days of my securing debates on flood defences in Lewes are numbered. I am really sorry to have to return to the matter today, but the uncertainty of the present situation makes that inevitable. I know that the Minister means well and I have every confidence in him. I hope that he can give some answers to reassure my constituents.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate. I understand his concerns and those of the people of Lewes who were badly affected by a severe flood. He was right in what he said. It is not unreasonable to have an opportunity to explain some of the complications of and reasoning behind flood risk assessment and the analysis of the general principle of flood defences.

I understand that people become frustrated, but it is not fair to go to the papers and say that flood schemes in Lewes will be scrapped. That is not so, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given the go-ahead for Malling Brooks, which meets the criteria. It might be delayed by last-minute technical issues that the Environment Agency must resolve, but the scheme has our approval because it meets all the criteria and is not a problem in that sense.

I have been at great pains to ensure that I have been honest when I talk to the local media in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about the problems facing Lewes. Installing a flood defence scheme there is not simple. If it were, it would have been done a long time ago. There are complex technical and engineering issues, with the complication of riparian owners, walls being in private ownership and private contributions. There are all sorts of problems, and many of them can be resolved, but not overnight. I have always made it clear that there must be a proper assessment. A strategy must be put in place and worked up, and that is being done.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the walls, which are a complication in Lewes. As he knows, for many years, houses have encroached on the river because people like to live next to rivers. That means that the walls are part of the foundations of the houses and of the river defences. The Environment Agency is trying to find an equitable split between the contribution that the Government, the agency and the regional flood defence committee are prepared to make towards strengthening those walls for flood defence purposes and the benefits that will accrue from strengthening the structural foundations of the houses. Under the strategy, some of the walls will have flood defences on top, and there is concern that because of their age and condition they will not take the weight and might collapse. There is also concern that when poking about in structures that may be many hundreds of years old an awful lot of problems may be found. That may increase the cost and we must have some idea of the cost implications, because the cost may be a great deal more than has been projected. That is not to say that the scheme will not go ahead. We are not saying that if the costs rise there will be no scheme—I want to make that clear—but we need to know exactly what is involved.

We expect the Environment Agency to seek contributions from riparian owners for flood defence benefits, as well as the structural benefits from flood defence walls. That is of direct benefit to property owners because of the impact on property prices. If a lot of money is spent strengthening and defending a property, that will be reflected in its value and it is not unreasonable to have a contribution from the owner. That creates all sorts of problems, and the agency is currently trying to find a way through.

I concede that the way in which cells are approached is not ideal. For engineering purposes, it is normal to look at a flood defence scheme in terms of self-contained cells. That is part of the engineering assessment. I will be quite honest and say that it is also the case that an assessment must be made of the cost-benefit ratio. It would not make sense to spend millions of pounds on a cell if that is far greater than the value of the property within it. We have 1.7 millions properties at flood risk, and we face demand for schemes all over the country, including in the Uck catchment. We have to use resources in the most effective way.

To illustrate that point, I can give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the calculations that are made. He is quite right about the Malling Brooks and Cliffe areas. If we take a one in 100-year flood event, which is the kind of protection level that I want to see, there are about 218 residential properties at risk in Malling Brooks and 166 in Cliffe. There are also commercial properties. Town centre, west has a score, but one that is low priority. We have two residential properties at risk there in a one in 100-year event. In North street there are no residential properties at risk in a one in 100-year event. In Talbot terrace there are six. Some schemes may cost millions to defend a tiny number of properties.

I know that that is not much consolation to the people who live in those areas, or to the school in Talbot terrace that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I sympathise with their situation, but they cannot expect millions of pounds of taxpayers' money for a very poor return on those cells, when that money could go to other schemes, including in Lewes and other parts of the Uck area, where many more people can be defended. My intention is quite simple: I want to reduce flood risk for as many people as I possibly can. We sometimes have to accept that kind of cost-benefit analysis to get the maximum benefits from the available resources. That is why it is done in that way.

Having said that, with the development of new technologies that we are funding and experimenting with, although those communities do not qualify for defence now it may well be that they will in the future. It does not mean that there may not be some form of temporary or portable defences, which are being developed around the country, that could be applied to defending such areas. It does not necessarily mean that they face a future with no possible defence whatever. I do not know all the circumstances, and I do not know at present whether it is possible to use those means there; what I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that we are actively looking at ways of doing so. We are looking at ways all the time of maximising protection for people either through permanent engineered defences, soft defences or new technologies, such as portable, demountable or temporary defences. We are considering all those things, which may have potential benefits for people who live in areas that currently do not qualify for a scheme. It is not necessarily the end of the story.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about downstream storage.

Norman Baker

Before the Minister leaves cells, will he say whether the provision of flood defences in some parts of Lewes can worsen the flood risk in others?

Mr. Morley

Yes, I will deal with that point, because I think that I have some stats that I can give the hon. Gentleman. In examining the schemes, we have to take into account the impact on other areas of putting defences in one area. That is a normal part of the assessment. Looking at the defence that is likely to go to Malling Brooks, because the case has been accepted, up to a flood event of one in 50 years there is no change and no impact at all on other parts of the town. If we take a flood event of one in 100 years, there may be a difference in the water level as a result of the schemes of between 30 mm and 70 mm, which is not a very large amount. To put it in perspective, we would get a much bigger wave from people driving through flood waters as, sadly, they are rather inclined to do, not knowing that it creates a bow wave that raises the water level and can cause a lot of problems for people in flood-hit areas. The amount is minuscule. It is not really going to impact on other parts of the town. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

I am pleased to say that our discussions with the Association of British Insurers have been very constructive. The insurance companies are taking a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic position. In the case of the school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the ABI says that even properties without the short or medium-term prospect of a defence will not be automatically disbarred from insurance. The insurance companies are prepared to examine cases on their individual merits and talk to the people concerned.

Apart from the new technologies, we also give advice on floodproofing and flood mitigation through the Environment Agency. That can help to ensure that insurance is maintained and that people deal with potential risks even when there are no flood defences.

Do not think for a moment, however, that that is our preferred solution. Our preferred solution is, of course, to provide people with proper flood defences, but we must face the reality that we must prioritise. When I was the Minister responsible, I was very keen on the scoring system that we introduced. I want people to see how things are calculated, so that residents are aware of where they are in a calculation. A priority score is a way of ensuring that the maximum number of people most at risk get the priority. That is entirely justifiable. I know that it disappoints those who do not qualify. Although they may not qualify now, that does not mean that they will not qualify in the future, nor does it mean that no other measures can be taken to deal with the problem.

The hon. Gentleman asked about downstream storage. He knows that I am very keen on the upstream flood plain reinstatement and downstream soft defence approaches—they both have a role. The Environment Agency is actively modelling the benefits of removing some of the banks downstream from Lewes. As he said, when it models it must consider the impact on other areas, which it must ensure is not detrimental. It also has to model the removal of banks to understand what reduction there would be. One would not want to see the expenditure of large sums, which could be spent elsewhere on flood defences, to obtain only a small reduction. That would not work. The agency has to convince itself that the expenditure would be beneficial, and that work is under way.

I understand people's frustrations—with particular reference to the lady in the newspaper article that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I am always keen on getting things done tomorrow, if possible, but sadly, it does not always work like that: one has to go through the correct process. It is worth pointing out, however, that through the agency we have spent about £600,000 so far in the Uck-Ouse river valleys. That includes reinstating the existing defences to their pre-flood standard, and a lot of that money has gone into Lewes. The expenditure also includes improved telemetry and warning systems throughout the river network, and the upgrading of pumps in Malling Brooks. That £600,000 is money on account and is not to be sniffed at. It demonstrates the commitment of the Environment Agency and ourselves. We are committed to reducing risk.

We recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has every right to make it. I hope that he understands that I will not mislead people about the technical and practical problems that we face in areas such as Lewes. It is not the easiest place in the world to install flood defences, but I can assure him that we will install them. We have approved the first cell and I am confident that the second cell will also be approved. We will not stop there. We will continue the research into whole catchment management and continue to support new technology and defence innovation. We will also continue to provide advice for local residents, and to work with local councils and agencies to reduce risk.

I am sorry that progress sometimes seems slow, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that our commitment is unwavering, and that we will find every way that we can to ensure that we improve the defences for the people of Lewes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.