Last Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Derek Twigg, answered two written questions about Aborfield Garrison put by John Redwood, details of which may be found below.

(Source: Hansard)

<strong>Mr. Redwood: </strong>To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to seek planning permission for more housing development at Arborfield Garrison prior to disposal of surplus property and land. [150923]

<strong>Derek Twigg:</strong> The Ministry of Defence is required to obtain market value when disposing of surplus assets. Officials work closely with English Partnerships, regional development agencies, local authorities and other key stakeholders when considering its disposal strategy. This will often include an assessment of development and regeneration opportunities which can be taken forward by prospective purchasers.
Currently we are promoting the surplus land holdings at Arborfield Garrison within the emerging Local Development Framework for a residential-led mixed use re-development. This may lead to a planning application being made by MOD prior to disposal of the land.

<strong>Mr. Redwood:</strong> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what area of land at Arborfield Garrison he expects to become surplus to his Department’s requirements by 2012; and how much of that area is designated brownfield. [150924]

<strong>Derek Twigg:</strong> Arborfield Garrison consists of Rowcroft Barracks, Hazebrouck Barracks and West Court Officers’ Mess that are due to become surplus to the Department’s requirements by 2012. The site areas are respectively 50.753 hectares, 67.332 hectares and 28.393 hectares. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, we consider most of the land holdings as previously developed land (often referred to as brownfield land).
In addition there is 2.24 hectares not assigned to any of the above sites and a number of Service families accommodation, owned by Annington Homes Limited (AHL), that will become surplus to this Department and will be handed back to AHL under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement.

We should also be preparing for possible sea invasion as well as improving our response to too much rainfall.

The biggest task ahead is to renew the Thames barrier. The barrier is forecast to have an effective life up to 2020. We should recognise how crucial it is to offer proper protection to the millions of people in the East Thames and London area, and should be planning a bigger barrier further east. This could be linked to land reclamation in the estuary to create value for development that would help pay for the scheme.Sea defences along the Kentish coast also need to be strengthened, now that so much new development is going into the East Thames corridor.

The government should announce a competition for private sector plans for a new barrier, asking for their bids on how much money the project could generate and what public funding might also be needed.

We should reconsider the Environment Agency’s planned strategic retreat in places along the east coast, to see if there are realistically priced solutions to keeping the sea out in other places.

The latest floods have revealed how inadequate our sewerage and drainage system has become in many parts of the country. One of the worst features of the flooding in my area was the foul water mixing with the surface water, making clean up so much more unpleasant and difficult a task.

The government should learn the following lessons:
<ol>
<li>It’s Inspectors should not grant planning permission on flood plain, without reaching agreement with a developer on improving local drainage and expanding the capacity of the local system to the benefit of existing homes?? as well as for the protection of the new ones. Development gain will be a useful source of finance for sewer and drain improvement.</li>
<li>The Environment Agency should clean and clear ditches, culverts and flood defences more regularly to a higher standard.</li>
<li>The Environment Agency should in conjunction with private interests take action to raise river banks near to towns and important infrastructure, and should organise more drainage ditches where these could reduce the flood risk.</li>
<li>The capital programme of the Agency should be used to bring forward schemes which can do most to divert or handle water in the vulnerable places.</li>
</ol>

Last summer we were rightly worried about too little water being collected?? by our water industry to allow us to water the gardens as well as wash the dishes. We were being urged to cut down on the showers, drive dirty cars and let the bedding plants die.

This summer, tragically, many homes have no drinking water in the taps because they are flooded . There are some questions about?? the response of the Water suppliers to the crisis

The reason we appear to be short of drinking water is that we allow the main companies to retain their monopoly over domestic and most business supply. We are not short of water to collect and clean in the UK . We use very little of the rain that falls. Water is the ultimate renewable resource, as the water cycle takes water to the sea and returns it through the clouds.

We could transform the response of the industry if we opened the whole market up to competition. We would doubtless see?? a cascade of innovation in quality and?? service as we did in telecoms. New businesses would emerge to collect and clean water. Some might decide to supply different grades of water for different purposes. Borehole water and water from the wetter parts of the country would become available.

The Regulators would have two tasks. As now, they should prevent removal of too much water from a river or stream to endanger it. They should also act as compulsory arbitrators where competing companies could?? not reach agreement on access to the main pipes, as the pipe network would have to be a common carrier.

In??the 1980s the Conservatives inherited a country with very run down infrastructure. We set about releasing the energies, ideas and money of the private sector to give the country better phones, cheaper electricity, more gas, improved air transport and road freight.

In crucial areas like telecommunications the transformation was breathtaking. In the early 1980s there were long waits to get a new phone installed. There was insufficient line capacity between main business cities at peak times. It was difficult getting phone lines that could handle data, and the range of equipment you were allowed to attach to Post Office telephone lines was very limited.

Within ten years the UK had gone from being a telecoms laggard to being a leader. A huge mobile phone industry sprung up thanks to deregulation. The phone became almost universal amongst British families. The revolution in the City and its huge growth needed the big leap forward in telecoms and data handling that the changes permitted. Large numbers of new devices and types of phone were added to the networks.

No-one asks any more how will we pay for all the telecoms investment we need. They had to in the 1970s, when every extra penny of spending by the Post Office for telephony had to be approved by the Treasury.

Today we have a new Prime Minister. Over the next few days I will set out how private capital, choice and competition could start to transform other parts of our run down infrastructure, in the way liberalisation so changed telecoms for the better.

On 6 July I warned about the debt mountains built up on both sides of the Atlantic during the decade of easy money, and forecast that the central Banks would carry on tightening. leading to the further collapses after the sub prime crisis.

On 15 July I talked about the huge imbalances between Asia and the US and the instability they are creating in world markets.

In the last two weeks the message has begun to get home to share markets. Tonight the UK index is down 200 points and the US one currently 340 points lower.

The Uk market has to discount the big losses made by many businesses as a result of the floods as well as the impact of tightening credit on the debt inflated markets worldwide.

During the easy come easy borrow years people fell in love with independent central banks who kept interest rates low. I wonder how long the love affair will last, if the Central Banks really mean this squeeze and carry on pressurising debt out of the system. I assume the central banks will back off quite soon. If they don’t then it could be quite a collapse.

It was kind of the French to include the garden of England in the now??inappropriately named Tour de France before EU annexation of Southern England into its new cross Channel region is complete. I guess they had good commercial reasons for wanting to start the race in London, providing a?? boost to supporter numbers and potential sponsorship.

It is unfortunate that the race should this year have proved so contentious in its eponymous home country, creating so many bad news stories for the organisers?? and some of the participants. If the practise of including England in the tour is to continue,??maybe there should be ??a change of name?? – perhaps Tour de deux pays – and?? more English involvement in organising and supervising the overall competition.

Last Wednesday in the House of Commons, John Redwood intervened in the debate on the Corporate Manslaughter Bill to challenge the Secretary of State for Justice over the management of custody of offenders in the country. The extract from Hansard follows:

<strong>Mr. Redwood:</strong> I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office? [Interruption.] Yes, I obviously hope that there will be a change of governing party to the Conservatives, but there might be no overall control in the House of Commons? and there are all sorts of possibilities that would make it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to honour his pledge.

In the meantime, as the Liberal Democrats so rightly pointed out on this occasion, it must be a matter of grave concern to all of us that a decent man who is Secretary of State for Justice cannot reassure the House that custody in this country is being sufficiently well managed for it to be under this legislation. He is newly in post and trying to get to grips with it. He tells us that his officials are telling him that there could be acts of gross negligence leading to death in custody, but that they do not feel that anything can yet be done about it. Surely that is a matter of grave urgency.

<strong>18 July 2007 : Column 346</strong>
<strong>
Mr. Straw:</strong> Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that no official has said that to me and I do not believe that any officials have said it at any stage to any of my right hon. Friends. At no stage has that argument been advanced. None of us wants to see gross negligence or failure in systems. A huge amount has already been done in the police and prison services to ensure that such a situation does not develop.

<strong>Mr. Redwood:</strong> I am glad to hear that reassurance, but it makes it even stranger that we are dealing with a period of five to seven years. I shall therefore vote with my Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

At the weekend John Redwood went around his constituency of Wokingham to assess the impact of the recent flooding, which has left houses without electricity, several families in need of re-housing for the next few months, and resulted in the closure of Emmbrook School. Several Councillors have also visited people affected by the floods in their own wards and sent reports to John.

Having witnessed the damage, John Redwood yesterday asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at why several recent housing developments in his constituency had experienced flooding. In approving these developments, Mr Redwood said, the government and the Environment Agency had failed to insist on the adequate provision of drains and ditches to protect these new home owners, and he asked the Secretary of State to investigate this failure. <em>[See item 1, from Hansard, below]</em>.

Mr Redwood will also continue to press the government on why, despite early warnings from the Met Office about the likelihood of a wet summer, in addition to concerns raised by him and others over the past few years about the risks of flooding, neither they nor the Environment Agency appeared at all prepared for what happened. People need to know exactly what the government is going to do in the future to stop this happening again.

From his tour of Wokingham and West Berkshire it was clear that the worst affected areas were entirely predictable low lying roads and homes on land near rivers. The government and its Environment Agency should do more to divert water and put in place suitable barriers near homes and important public infrastructure.

John Redwood has been concerned about flood defence for some time, and has continually warned Ministers about the likely consequences of inadequate maintenance and lack of capacity. On two occasions earlier this month he highlighted the Agency’s unsatisfactory record in maintaining flood defences. <em>[See items 2 and 3 below]</em>.

Over the previous few years John Redwood has asked successive ministerial teams to give urgent attention to the need to replace or strengthen the Thames barrier in the immediate future, and to look at the efficacy of coastal defences in general. <em>[See items 4-10 below]</em>.

<strong>Item 1 [Hansard, 23rd July 2007]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): </strong>Will the Secretary of State look at why several recent developments of homes in my constituency have been flooded, and will he ask why the Environment Agency did not insist on more adequate drainage and ditches when the developments were being put in place, to protect new owners from that terrible shock?

<strong>Hilary Benn:</strong> As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in answer to an earlier question, we have now given the Environment Agency a much stronger position in the process by requiring it to be statutorily consulted when new planning applications come in. We have tightened the planning guidance? both in 2001 and in 2006? by further strengthening it to make it clear to local authorities that in the end, the planning authority has the responsibility for ensuring that it has weighed up all the risks before deciding to give planning permission.

<strong>Item 2 [Hansard, 9th July 2007]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Why were more than half the flood defences maintained by the Environment Agency in an unsatisfactory condition last year? What urgent action will the Government take to improve the standards of maintenance carried out by the agency, and to do the most important capital works to increase capacity where people are most at risk?

<strong>Hazel Blears:</strong> As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the events of the past couple of weeks have in everybody’s terms been unprecedented. It is inevitable that whatever the defences we had put in place some would be breached in such circumstances. As I have explained, a significant amount of extra investment has already been made in flood defences, and even more will be put in during the next couple of years.

Rightly, the right hon. Gentleman calls for urgent action. We all want action to be taken as quickly as possible, but it is important that extra investment is targeted at the areas where it will have the most effect, and where we will get the best value for money. It is without doubt that there is a significant amount of investment, which I hope will help in future, but it would be tempting fate for any Minister to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we could have prepared for what has been a series of unprecedented events.

<strong>Item 3 [Hansard, 2nd July 2007]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Will the Secretary of State tell the Environment Agency that people expect it to maintain its flood defences to a good standard, which it does not, and to improve those defences to stop flooding, rather than putting people’s homes on a map of properties at risk, which makes it very dear to insure them?

<strong>Hilary Benn:</strong> I am sure that the Environment Agency would say that it does its best to make sure not only that new flood defences are provided, but that the existing ones are properly maintained. If the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about particular flood defences where he thinks that that is not the case, will he please draw them to my attention and I will raise them with the Environment Agency?

<strong>Item 4 [Hansard, 19th July, 2007]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Will the new ministerial team urgently look at the need to strengthen or replace the Thames barrier at some point in the next decade, as current predictions are that its design-life probably will not extend beyond 2020 at the latest? Given the pressures from flooding risks and the Government’s worries about global warming, is there not an urgent need to manage the consequences of such developments, and could we not link a new barrier to reclaiming land from the estuary so that we create valuable land for building?

<strong>Mr. Woolas (Minister for the Environment):</strong> The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the defences, and that is being considered. All those issues are a question of balance. Judgments have to be made on the types of defences and where they should be. We should not confuse? I know that he is not doing so? the need to protect against floods and the various causes of floods and coastal erosion, which has already been mentioned as it affects the eastern region.

<strong>Item 5 [Hansard, 23rd April 2007]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. Redwood:</strong> Under this part of the amendment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two most important steps that we must take to adapt? I agree with him that that is what we must do? are to collect more of the water that falls when it rains to use during the dry periods, and to have better coastal defences, especially to protect the 7 million people in the London area, because we are told that the Thames barrier will soon no longer be fit for purpose?

<strong>Rob Marris [Finance Minister]:</strong> I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman foreshadows remarks that I was about to make on building adapted homes? zero-carbon homes, for which there are fiscal incentives in the Finance Bill. However, I am not aware that there are any fiscal incentives? in this Bill, or previously? to deal with matters such as those that he refers to.

<strong>Item 6 [Hansard, 12th October, 2006]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Even if Britain is miraculously good at controlling its carbon emissions, the fact is that we are not going to control the world’s carbon emissions. As that is the reality, should we not turn our prime attention to how we protect our coastal and low-lying areas with sea defences?

<strong>Item 7 [Hansard, 8th June 2006]:</strong>

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Can we have an early debate on management of the likely consequences of climate change, which would allow us to look into the use of desalination plants, such as the one proposed for Beckton, for more water resources and better coastal protection? Otherwise, the welcome for the Olympic games in Britain will be, Don’t shower while you’re here. These are the dirty games. There’s no water to wash? but be careful in case there’s a flood?.

<strong>Mr. Straw:</strong> The Olympic games will be a triumph for the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]? and for all the parties who have supported it over the years on a bipartisan basis. We have had plenty of debates on climate change, but I strongly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

<strong>Item 9 [Hansard, Written Answers, 28th Jan 2003]</strong>

<strong>Mr. Redwood:</strong> To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to the Environment Agency concerning priorities for capital projects to tackle flooding. [93601]

<strong>Mr. Morley:</strong> In order to be eligible for DEFRA grant aid a capital flood defence project must satisfy fundamental economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score based (from April 2003) on a combination of three elements? (i) benefits as compared to cost, (ii) the number of people protected as measured by the number of households at risk, their vulnerability and the extent to which adequate advance warning of flooding can be given, and (iii) environmental protection and enhancement.

<strong>Item 10 [Hansard, Written Answers, 20th November 2002]</strong>

<strong>(1) Mr. Redwood:</strong> To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on home values and insurance costs of the published maps of the Environment Agency showing properties at risk of flooding. [81025]

<strong>Mr. Morley (DEFRA):</strong> No assessment has been made of the impact of these maps on insurance costs. The Environment Agency have always made it clear that their maps show the indicative floodplain area, not flood risk or definitive flood boundaries, and are based on land topography taking no account of the defences which are in place. The insurance industry is aware of this, and of the need to use the maps with considerable caution.

It is advisable for any prospective purchaser of a property on a flood plain to obtain further specific detail of flooding risk from the Environment Agency. This should be done as part of the normal conveyancing process.

The agency are developing a National Flood and Coastal Defence Database, with funding from Defra. The aim of the project is to provide a single, easily accessible definitive store for all data on flood and coastal defences which should assist insurers when making commercial decisions based on risk. Additionally, new maps indicating flood risk are being developed, to which the insurance industry will have access.

<strong>(2) Mr. Redwood:</strong> To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Department’s budget is for flood relief measures in 2002?03. [81017]

<strong>Mr. Morley:</strong> Following a recent re-allocation of budgets within Defra, those for funding of flood and coastal defence measures undertaken by operating authorities have been increased to ??124 million. Defra also provides funding of ??4.5 million for the Storm Tide Forecasting Service and ??2.5 million on research and development.

The dollar fell heavily again last night, reaching a new low of $2.06 to the pound and falling below 80 on the DXY dollar index. Wall Street also took a pounding as shareholders worried more about the housing??decline and the sub prime crisis.

Risky bonds are still look expensive compared to low risk bonds. No-one can??be sure how much "reappraisal of risk" there has to be – that’s just a smart new fashioned way of saying risky assets are probably too dear and have to fall. It all depends on how far the Fed goes in tightening the clamp on the market by increasing interest rates further, or by leaving them where they are for longer.

??Credit has been very easy for a long time. There are billlions of dollars of borrowings in all sorts of fancy and clever arrangements and funds which will need to fall in value if the squeeze goes on.

Whilst we find out how far this credit crunch will go many will be reluctant to maintain big holdings in bonds. Clearly large sums are being moved out of the dollar, as overseas governemnts and investors decide to spread their investments around a bit more. They too will not want to lose a packet on dollar bonds. The falling dollar will help US exporters. It is bad news for UK exporters to the US, and?? bad news for the tourist trade in the UK wanting?? more dolar tourists – as if the floods and the weather ??had not done enough damage already.

At the weekend John Redwood went around his constituency of Wokingham to assess the impact of the recent flooding, which has left houses without electricity, several families in need of re-housing for the next few months, and resulted in the closure of Emmbrook School. Several Councillors have also visited people affected by the floods in their own wards and sent reports to John.

Having witnessed the damage, John Redwood yesterday asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at why several recent housing developments in his constituency had experienced flooding. In approving these developments, Mr Redwood said, the government and the Environment Agency had failed to insist on the adequate provision of drains and ditches to protect these new home owners, and he asked the Secretary of State to investigate this failure. [See item 1, from Hansard, below].

Mr Redwood will also continue to press the government on why, despite early warnings from the Met Office about the likelihood of a wet summer, in addition to concerns raised by him and others over the past few years about the risks of flooding, neither they nor the Environment Agency appeared at all prepared for what happened. People need to know exactly what the government is going to do in the future to stop this happening again.

From his tour of Wokingham and West Berkshire it was clear that the worst affected areas were entirely predictable low lying roads and homes on land near rivers. The government and its Environment Agency should do more to divert water and put in place suitable barriers near homes and important public infrastructure.

John Redwood has been concerned about flood defence for some time, and has continually warned Ministers about the likely consequences of inadequate maintenance and lack of capacity. On two occasions earlier this month he highlighted the Agency’s unsatisfactory record in maintaining flood defences. [See items 2 and 3 below].

Over the previous few years John Redwood has asked successive ministerial teams to give urgent attention to the need to replace or strengthen the Thames barrier in the immediate future, and to look at the efficacy of coastal defences in general. [See items 4-10 below].

Item 1 [Hansard, 23rd July 2007]:

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Will the Secretary of State look at why several recent developments of homes in my constituency have been flooded, and will he ask why the Environment Agency did not insist on more adequate drainage and ditches when the developments were being put in place, to protect new owners from that terrible shock?

<strong>Hilary Benn:</strong> As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in answer to an earlier question, we have now given the Environment Agency a much stronger position in the process by requiring it to be statutorily consulted when new planning applications come in. We have tightened the planning guidance? both in 2001 and in 2006? by further strengthening it to make it clear to local authorities that in the end, the planning authority has the responsibility for ensuring that it has weighed up all the risks before deciding to give planning permission.

Item 2 [Hansard, 9th July 2007]:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Why were more than half the flood defences maintained by the Environment Agency in an unsatisfactory condition last year? What urgent action will the Government take to improve the standards of maintenance carried out by the agency, and to do the most important capital works to increase capacity where people are most at risk?

<strong>Hazel Blears: </strong>As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the events of the past couple of weeks have in everybody’s terms been unprecedented. It is inevitable that whatever the defences we had put in place some would be breached in such circumstances. As I have explained, a significant amount of extra investment has already been made in flood defences, and even more will be put in during the next couple of years.

Rightly, the right hon. Gentleman calls for urgent action. We all want action to be taken as quickly as possible, but it is important that extra investment is targeted at the areas where it will have the most effect, and where we will get the best value for money. It is without doubt that there is a significant amount of investment, which I hope will help in future, but it would be tempting fate for any Minister to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we could have prepared for what has been a series of unprecedented events.

Item 3 [Hansard, 2nd July 2007]:
<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Will the Secretary of State tell the Environment Agency that people expect it to maintain its flood defences to a good standard, which it does not, and to improve those defences to stop flooding, rather than putting people’s homes on a map of properties at risk, which makes it very dear to insure them?

<strong>Hilary Benn:</strong> I am sure that the Environment Agency would say that it does its best to make sure not only that new flood defences are provided, but that the existing ones are properly maintained. If the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about particular flood defences where he thinks that that is not the case, will he please draw them to my attention and I will raise them with the Environment Agency?

Item 4 [Hansard, 19th July, 2007]:
<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): </strong>Will the new ministerial team urgently look at the need to strengthen or replace the Thames barrier at some point in the next decade, as current predictions are that its design-life probably will not extend beyond 2020 at the latest? Given the pressures from flooding risks and the Government’s worries about global warming, is there not an urgent need to manage the consequences of such developments, and could we not link a new barrier to reclaiming land from the estuary so that we create valuable land for building?
<strong>
Mr. Woolas (Minister for the Environment): </strong>The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the defences, and that is being considered. All those issues are a question of balance. Judgments have to be made on the types of defences and where they should be. We should not confuse? I know that he is not doing so? the need to protect against floods and the various causes of floods and coastal erosion, which has already been mentioned as it affects the eastern region.

Item 5 [Hansard, 23rd April 2007]:
<strong>Mr. Redwood: </strong>Under this part of the amendment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two most important steps that we must take to adapt? I agree with him that that is what we must do? are to collect more of the water that falls when it rains to use during the dry periods, and to have better coastal defences, especially to protect the 7 million people in the London area, because we are told that the Thames barrier will soon no longer be fit for purpose?

<strong>Rob Marris [Finance Minister]:</strong> I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman foreshadows remarks that I was about to make on building adapted homes? zero-carbon homes, for which there are fiscal incentives in the Finance Bill. However, I am not aware that there are any fiscal incentives? in this Bill, or previously? to deal with matters such as those that he refers to.

Item 6 [Hansard, 12th October, 2006]:
<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Even if Britain is miraculously good at controlling its carbon emissions, the fact is that we are not going to control the world’s carbon emissions. As that is the reality, should we not turn our prime attention to how we protect our coastal and low-lying areas with sea defences?

Item 7 [Hansard, 8th June 2006]:
<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): </strong>Can we have an early debate on management of the likely consequences of climate change, which would allow us to look into the use of desalination plants, such as the one proposed for Beckton, for more water resources and better coastal protection? Otherwise, the welcome for the Olympic games in Britain will be, Don’t shower while you’re here. These are the dirty games. There’s no water to wash? but be careful in case there’s a flood?.

<strong>Mr. Straw: </strong>The Olympic games will be a triumph for the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]? and for all the parties who have supported it over the years on a bipartisan basis. We have had plenty of debates on climate change, but I strongly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Item 9 [Hansard, Written Answers, 28th Jan 2003]
<strong>Mr. Redwood: </strong>To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to the Environment Agency concerning priorities for capital projects to tackle flooding. [93601]
<strong>Mr. Morley: </strong>In order to be eligible for DEFRA grant aid a capital flood defence project must satisfy fundamental economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score based (from April 2003) on a combination of three elements? (i) benefits as compared to cost, (ii) the number of people protected as measured by the number of households at risk, their vulnerability and the extent to which adequate advance warning of flooding can be given, and (iii) environmental protection and enhancement.

Item 10 [Hansard, Written Answers, 20th November 2002]
<strong>(1) Mr. Redwood: </strong>To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on home values and insurance costs of the published maps of the Environment Agency showing properties at risk of flooding. [81025]
<strong>
Mr. Morley (DEFRA):</strong> No assessment has been made of the impact of these maps on insurance costs. The Environment Agency have always made it clear that their maps show the indicative floodplain area, not flood risk or definitive flood boundaries, and are based on land topography taking no account of the defences which are in place. The insurance industry is aware of this, and of the need to use the maps with considerable caution.
It is advisable for any prospective purchaser of a property on a flood plain to obtain further specific detail of flooding risk from the Environment Agency. This should be done as part of the normal conveyancing process.
The agency are developing a National Flood and Coastal Defence Database, with funding from Defra. The aim of the project is to provide a single, easily accessible definitive store for all data on flood and coastal defences which should assist insurers when making commercial decisions based on risk. Additionally, new maps indicating flood risk are being developed, to which the insurance industry will have access.

<strong>(2) Mr. Redwood:</strong> To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Department’s budget is for flood relief measures in 2002?03. [81017]

<strong>Mr. Morley:</strong> Following a recent re-allocation of budgets within Defra, those for funding of flood and coastal defence measures undertaken by operating authorities have been increased to ??124 million. Defra also provides funding of ??4.5 million for the Storm Tide Forecasting Service and ??2.5 million on research and development.

I am pleased that the PM and the new Environment Secretary have decided to set up an independent enquiry into flooding. It is a good sign that they are listening to the worries many of us have about flood defences and anti flood planning and are prepared to take some advice from outside on what to do about it.

The review should examine

1. Why so many defences were not maintained in good condition, and how this can be improved in future.

2. How we can ensure drainage systems for surface water on highways and near developments can be kept clean.

3. Which ditches should be widened/deepened to take a bigger quantity of water.

4. Where new river courses can be created to take some of the excess water at times of flood, taking the water away from built up areas.

5. How future housing developments pushed through by government Inspectors can be conditional on improvements to the pattern of local drainage, given the faster run off of water they will encourage.

6. Where surface drainage needs improving urgently to handle the impact of past developments.

7. Where sea and coastal defences need strengthening

8. Where temporary or permanent barriers can be used to protect important installations or houses from nearby streams and rivers

I was dellighted to read that the government has given permission for a desalination plant for water supply for London. It is needed as a back up, and if built promptly it could save us from the embarrassment of a water shortage during the Olympics. I have been warning that if we have a summer like last year’s for the games we will have to issue leaflets to people saying "Welcome to London,. Welcome to the dirty games. Please do not shower or bath while you are here, as we need to conserve water".

Now we need to press on with the Abigndon reservoir, to keep pace with all the new homes the government plans for the South-east, and to keep up with all the demand from all the extra people coming to live in the UK.

When rivers swell following a period of very heavy rain there are three courses of action open to the Environment Agency which has the duty of water management.

??The first is to let nature take its course. The excess water is then deposited on towns, villages and fields depending on the lie of the land and the height of the river banks from hills to sea.

The second is to build up the banks, permanently or temporarily, in built up areas so the water is deposited over farmland and fields instead of in built up areas. This should be combined with compensation for crops destroyed – cheaper than repairing damaged buildings.

The third is to divert water onto fields from??swollen rivers above towns and villages where otherwise it would burst the river bank and cause flooding.

People expect the Agency to combine methods 2 and 3. Instead the Agency gives the impression of helplessness. Its public statements combine complacency – we did warn you, we will go on warning you so we did our job??- with fatalism – this is a once in 200 year event, you cannot expect to stay dry because we??have not been spending enough money.

There was plenty of warning of a wet summer from the Met Office. The very heavy rains of last friday were predicted.

Why was more not done to put in place temporary flood barriers at the weakest points?

Why did Mr Miliband do so little as Environment Secretary to prepare us for this? He was very keen to lecture us on climate change, and several of us kept saying the House of Commons we needed to plan for both water shortage and water excess.

What is the government going to do for the future to stop this happening again?

Will the government and Environment Agency make a statement about where they do have in place the necessary measures to divert or contain water in built up areas, and which other towns prone to flooding will be given such protection next?

Will they accept that these floods are not a once in 200 year event – many of these areas have been flooded much more recently than 1807, and most were flooded in 1947.

<p>The lack of preparation by the Environment Agency for floods over the last two years should be brought out by the media following the grave situation in flooded England.</p>
<p>Mr Milliband, Secretary of State for the Environment under Tony Blair, failed to lift the poor performance of the Environment Agency or to come forward with flood defence plans capable of protecting large areas of England.</p>
<p>Barbara Young, Chief Executive of the Agency, only tells people they should log onto her website and then look after themselves. She should try logging on to a website when the living room is under water and there is a torrent outside in the road.</p>
<p>What we want the Environment Agency to do is to put in the flood and surface water defences we need, and to maintain them in good condition. Clearly they have done neither to an acceptable standard.</p>
<p>They knew heavy rain was coming, yet obvious weak points on river banks near main roads were not bolstered by sand bags or other containment. Some important drains and flood defences were not maintained to a good standard, leaving them unable to cope with large volumes of water.</p>
<p>Instead of giving Barbara Young easy interviews for her to pump out her self justifying script, she should be asked why the Agency has done so little to improve the condition of existing defences, failed to put in more new defences and failed to put in temporary water containment.</p>
<p>We do not want more flood warnings – we want more flood protection.</p>
<p>And where have Ministers gone to? Why aren’t they out and about seeing what can be done to help people?
</p>

Target – "Increase from 50% 2004-5 to 56% 2005-6 percentage of urban flood defence structures and linear defences in good condition or better"

Result – not achieved for 3rd party maintained defences (42%), achieved for EA ones. Target is low.

??Target: "Reduce from 5% 2004-5 to 4% 2005-6 percentage of urban flood defence structures and linear defence in poor condition or worse"

Not achieved for EA defences (4.7%) nor for 3rd party maintained structures (6.6%), achieved for rest.

They knew the floods were coming. They knew where the floods were likely to hit. They did very little about it.

??I have been round wet parts of Berkshire yesterday and today. the worst floods occurred where flooding is common in the autumn – low lying roads on land near rivers. Berkshire was plunged into chaos.

Why didn’t the authorities place sandbags on river banks near main roads? Why didn’t they put pumps in place at low points on main routes where water was likely to collect? Why didn’t the authorities get out and clean the drains and ditches before the downpours?

??It is appalling that so many people spent a whole night on the M5 motorway because the authorities could neither keep it open nor conduct them out along the hard shoulder to the nearest exit. It was bad that so many of my constituents spent hours in their cars travelling short distances as main roads were closed near river crossings. Once again public transport was especially badly disrupted.

Ministers should personally supervise a faster clear-up, and apologise for the lack of preparation despite the clear early weather warnings.

A slice of life at the Today programme

This morning was a classic illustration of the bias of the BBC. During the last part of the programme we heard the following items in sequence:
<ol>
<li>A review of the papers. This highlighted the bad floods, with no mention of the failure of the government to sort out heavy flooding on roads and railway lines despite early warnings. It then alleged the Conservative party post the by-election results was in a bad way, drawing on the Star and Daily Telegraph.</li>
<li>A fawning interview with Lady Young, head of the Environment Agency. She was not asked why the Agency she presides over admitted last year many of its flood defences were in unsatisfactory or worse condition. She was not asked what her Agency was doing to try to maintain flood defences to a higher standard this year. She was allowed to praise the government for giving more money for better flood defences in 2010-11 why not now? Why should we believe promises of money for after the next General Election. She was not asked which schemes should be a priority to protect people next time. She was allowed to advertise the Agency’s website. Any serious reading of it reveals what a poor job the Agency has done.Why does it spend over ??1 billion a year but not keep us dry at home?</li>
<li>Nick Ross was then given a long slot to back the government’s view that crime is falling sharply, and the media and the Conservative opposition are to blame for leading people to think that crime is a major worry. This was balanced? by a short interview with someone from the Daily Telegraph who disagreed a little with it. No one was allowed on from the Conservative party to answer Ross’s criticisms</li>
<li>We were then treated to a discussion between Mr Dancona and Mr Hitchens on the problems in the Conservative party, with both agreeing that the latest by-election results were bad for the party.</li>
<li>The finale was an advert for the website of the Environment Agency.</li>
</ol>
What could they have done?

They could have run the stories about discontent with Menzies Campbell’s leadership of the Lib Dems, asking has he done enough to stabilise the position?

They could have asked why so much of the UK flooded following heavy rain, and looked at the failures of the government and EA to keep the drains and ditches clear, and to put in pipes and ditches capable of taking the volume of surface water. They could have press both the EA and a government Minister on what lessons they were learning from recent floods, and how they will prevent a repetition.

They could have highlighted the Conservative campaign to have a referendum on the EU Constitution in the light of more embarrassing quotes from the continent showing that the revised Treaty is broadly the same as the Constitution, to balance their anti Tory items.

John Redwood raised again the need to prepare for future sea surges, storms and heavy rainfall causing flooding by strengthening or renewing the Thames barrier defence to the east of London. He proposed that the new Ministerial team enable the private sector to plan a new sea defence, using profits from land reclamation in the Thames estuary to help pay for the works. John believes we need to adapt to possible floods, and to periods of drought, by proper water management. He welcomes this week’s decision to install a desalination water plant in east London.

<strong>Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):</strong> Will the new ministerial team urgently look at the need to strengthen or replace the Thames barrier at some point in the next decade, as current predictions are that its design-life probably will not extend beyond 2020 at the latest? Given the pressures from flooding risks and the Government’s worries about global warming, is there not an urgent need to manage the consequences of such developments, and could we not link a new barrier to reclaiming land from the estuary so that we create valuable land for building?

<strong>Mr. Woolas:</strong> The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the defences, and that is being considered. All those issues are a question of balance. Judgments have to be made on the types of defences and where they should be. We should not confuse? I know that he is not doing so? the need to protect against floods and the various causes of floods and coastal erosion, which has already been mentioned as it affects the eastern region.

Last Wednesday in the House of Commons, John Redwood intervened in the debate on the Corporate Manslaughter Bill to challenge the Secretary of State for Justice over the management of custody of offenders in the country. The extract from Hansard follows:
<strong>
Mr. Redwood:</strong> I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office? [Interruption.] Yes, I obviously hope that there will be a change of governing party to the Conservatives, but there might be no overall control in the House of Commons? and there are all sorts of possibilities that would make it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to honour his pledge.

In the meantime, as the Liberal Democrats so rightly pointed out on this occasion, it must be a matter of grave concern to all of us that a decent man who is Secretary of State for Justice cannot reassure the House that custody in this country is being sufficiently well managed for it to be under this legislation. He is newly in post and trying to get to grips with it. He tells us that his officials are telling him that there could be acts of gross negligence leading to death in custody, but that they do not feel that anything can yet be done about it. Surely that is a matter of grave urgency.

<strong>18 July 2007 : Column 346
Mr. Straw:</strong> Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that no official has said that to me and I do not believe that any officials have said it at any stage to any of my right hon. Friends. At no stage has that argument been advanced. None of us wants to see gross negligence or failure in systems. A huge amount has already been done in the police and prison services to ensure that such a situation does not develop.

<strong>Mr. Redwood: </strong>I am glad to hear that reassurance, but it makes it even stranger that we are dealing with a period of five to seven years. I shall therefore vote with my Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).