Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine]

I have already mentioned the Isle of Wight fire brigade, and generally speaking, the Hampshire fire and rescue service were incredible. I have heard from many colleagues around the country about the work they did. I had the mobile number of the chief fire officer and I was constantly talking to him. At one point, I remember being out in the village of Littleton in my constituency; I called them and within two hours, they came out and helped pump out some people who were in real trouble. So yes, they were incredible.

On the statutory duty, my honest answer is that I am not sure, but I am well aware of the debate. I am more than open to it, and fire officers have talked to me about the issue in my part of the world. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The tale of central Winchester last winter is a winter’s tale with a happy ending. That was in no small part down to the effectiveness of Gold control, which is based in Netley in southern Hampshire, backed up by Silver control in Winchester at the Guildhall, under the leadership of Simon Eden, the chief executive, and Rob Humby, the leader of the city council. That is the sort of command and control system that I am sure Members will recognise from their areas, designed to co-ordinate cross-agency working. It was a recommendation of the Pitt review following the floods of 2007 and it is key now to our planning for next winter if needed. It worked, and to visit it, as I did on a number of occasions back in February, and see city officers working alongside the Army, county colleagues and fire and rescue colleagues was very reassuring indeed.

The most visible example of that was one very bleak afternoon in February in Winchester, when those of us who had been heaving sandbags for longer than we would care to remember were more than a little relieved when Silver control sent some incredible guys and girls from HMS Collingwood to help us. Something tells me that they had the shoulders for it more than I do, and they were very welcome.

I said at the outset that I wanted to explain the wider socio-economic impact that flooding can have in a constituency such as mine. That is why I shall focus on what happened in a number of the villages that I represent. In places such as Kings Worthy, Headbourne Worthy, Littleton, Hursley and Sutton Scotney, flooding from groundwater, not the river, is the main flood risk management issue. The impact of groundwater flooding on individual communities such as those is severe and long-lasting in terms of the duration of flooding and recovery. My constituents living in Lovedon lane and Springvale road in Kings Worthy, as well as Chris and Sharron Bruty, who, with Ross Brimfield, run the King Charles pub—they were incredibly helpful to me and many other residents—would recognise that problem, as it was in their lives, and almost in their pub, for a month or more.

Residents just up the road in Headbourne Worthy, whose parish council chairman in a meeting with me just last week described his village as the “plughole for the valley”—he meant it in the nicest possible way—had weeks of deep water creeping closer to their homes and the ancient St Swithun’s church. The road through the village was closed, at their request, because of the bow waves—that became a hashtag last winter—caused by inconsiderate drivers flying through the floodwaters.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, and he is absolutely right to raise the issues that arise in villages. Does he agree that this is one of the challenges? The Environment Agency does a good job with the major schemes, and that is reasonably well funded. However, when we get to the smaller schemes, we find that the local authorities are simply not funded and therefore the prevention—there are many things that you can do in fields with help from farmers—is not done, because the money simply is not there. One protection and prevention measure this year could be to put the funding in those local authorities—particularly the rural authorities, which are so dreadfully underfunded.

[Steve Brine]

My hon. Friend is a visionary and a futurist. Bear with me—“bear with”, as someone recently said.

I was touching on Headbourne Worthy. The Good Life Farm Shop lost thousands of pounds of business because of the road closure. That is part of the wider socio-economic impact that I mentioned. My constituents in the village of Littleton, another place where my team and I shifted thousands of sandbags, took that to a whole new level, as one end of the village was the ungrateful recipient of thousands of tonnes of water flowing off groundwater-saturated farmland at the other. One thing that I have learned this year is that water is ruthless and will find its way, no matter what or who is in its way, to the lowest common point. I saw that happen to devastating effect.

Meanwhile, villagers at the other end of my constituency, in Hursley, saw rising groundwater levels fill cellars and infiltrate sewerage systems, with the resulting outpouring down the picture-postcard streets. The villagers do not look on that as their village’s finest hour and I would not want to see it again.

What do all these communities, including Sutton Scotney in the north of my constituency, where there are still constituents out of their homes, have in common? As I said, their flooding was the result of groundwater—levels just overspilled. The problem that they all share is that the cost-benefit ratio for flood alleviation schemes—this issue was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris)—under the national funding formula does not favour them or, I am sure, many of the villages that colleagues represent, because of the low number of properties that are actually physically flooded.

The difficulty is being able easily to quantify impacts such as the road closures that I mentioned, disruption to local businesses, such as the Good Life Farm Shop and the King Charles pub, deliveries to those businesses and to homes, welfare services, social care, education—I mentioned St Bede’s school—and normal life in general. Our experience in Winchester points to the need for the cost-benefit analysis for flood alleviation schemes to be articulated in a very different way.

We know that the national funding formula, the so-called flood defence grant in aid programme, will never touch us, but we want to build something that is complementary to it, not in place of it, which properly recognises the value of multiple small-scale local measures to deliver community flood resilience.

Weather Events (South West England)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on an extremely valuable introduction and on getting this debate on the table. Clearly, for all of us in the south-west, the impact of the storm in the weeks from 3 February onwards was more than significant. Certainly in Dawlish in my constituency, the damage was unprecedented. According to Network Rail, the breach in the sea wall was something the like of which had never been seen before.

Not only Dawlish was damaged—there was significant erosion damage in Dawlish Warren, which depends on tourism for its livelihood. Losing four metres of sand not only reduces the defence mechanisms, but the lack of sand on the beaches impacts on tourism, and there has been a delay in the recharge project to bring the beaches up to standard.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

All along the coast, from Cornwall to my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have seen unprecedented coastal damage that will affect tourist businesses. Does she agree that the message must go out that the south-west is still very much open for business?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. It is clear to me from the conversations I have had with Network Rail that we will be open for business for Easter. It has been a challenging time, but from everything I have seen—I see the concrete lorries filling that wonderful hole—I am absolutely sure that we will see a successful result.

As for the damage, I will focus on Dawlish, which is where the most significant impact was. It would be wrong not to mention some of the other things that have happened, and the erosion is a part of it. We have also had significant flooding in some of our smaller villages. I have 40 villages in my constituency. I will not name each of them and list the damage that occurred, but Ringmoor and Stokeinteignhead were significantly damaged. However, Dawlish is where the most significant impact of the storm was felt.

Some 56 families had to be evacuated late at night. The police had to knock in windows to get residents out. Countless businesses lost trade and, although that was partly due to sodden buildings, it was also because the train was not running. The cafés that usually got the business from the tourist footfall simply did not do business. The district and county councils were brilliant in all that they did, doing much more than might otherwise have been expected. Volunteers were fantastic. There was a lot of action during the night. Tea was available 24 hours a day, served by a wonderful lady, and the Network Rail team, in their orange jackets, have now become almost iconic in Dawlish. The local community love them to bits and see them as local heroes. They are still giving them cups of tea and pats on the back, and whatever else it takes to keep them going.

During the crisis, First Great Western finally got up to speed and put in place the coaches that were needed, but it is fair to say—I am sure the right hon. Member for Exeter knows this—that there were severe challenges going south from Exeter, and I heard tales of queues of 200 people struggling to find places on coaches.

We need to remember that the impact of everything that has happened was not only physical, but emotional and economic. For my constituency, the impact has been devastating. That coastal railway line has stood the test of time since Brunel built it, although it has breached before. There are some wonderful pictures of previous breaches when passengers got off the train, walked over the rocks and got on another train on the other side. I am not sure we could do that today, but the pictures are interesting.

The coastal railway is an economic lifeline. The loss to the region is—conservatively—£2 million a day. It is crucial that the line is up and running for Easter. As the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned, the line is particularly crucial in my area, not only because it is an economic lifeline, but because it is a flood defence. It protects 951 properties in Dawlish, Dawlish Warren, Starcross and Cockwood. It is absolutely mission critical for me as the Member of Parliament and for the constituents I represent that the railway line is made better and more resilient, and that it is there for the long term.

We must look seriously at what can be done to support the railway line. I hope the Minister addresses that in his remarks. There is new technology that will allow a secondary wall to be put on the external front, with wave-breaking technologies that will reduce any damage. There is also the potential for a breakwater to be put further out. I believe that has been done in Sidmouth and Plymouth. I see no reason why it should not be considered in Dawlish. Indeed, from conversations I had with Network Rail last year, I understand that it was already under review. However, I thought 2019 was too late and simply not an adequate answer.

The Dawlish station footfall, believe it or not, is 480,564 people per year. That is the 2012 figure, the most recent I could find. Over the past 10 years, the footfall through Dawlish has risen by 81%. The footfall for Teignmouth is 566,528 individuals a year—again, that is the 2012 figure—and that has seen growth of 98%. If we add the footfall in Newton Abbot, the number is similar to that in Exeter St Davids or Plymouth, so this is not a small rural area. It is a significant part of the south-west, with a significant local economy, much of which is driven by tourism, and it is absolutely crucial that the Government support it.

The Government’s help has been very welcome. The resilience review, which I gather the Army will be undertaking in five weeks, will make a big difference. My question is this: if the Army can do it in five weeks, why has it historically taken Governments years? Can we not make the process faster and have a real assessment of what can be done, with some proper open discussion about what money is needed and what money can be spent? Although the Prime Minister has said money is no object in relation to flood damage, given the budget left by the previous Government, there is not a lot of spare cash. However, this is a critical area for spending, and we must future-proof the railway.

[Lilian Greenwood]

On the best way to tackle resilience at Dawlish, it might be concluded that a new line is necessary or that substantial work is needed to strengthen the Dawlish sea wall. Is the hon. Lady concerned that the money could come from already squeezed Network Rail budgets and other projects in the south-west, rather than being funded with new money from central Government?

[Anne Marie Morris]

First, I do not think there is any question in anybody’s mind that any additional railway line or loop would be instead of the existing line—it must always be as well as the existing line, not least because any new building of railway will take a significant length of time, and whether someone lives in Plymouth, Exeter, Newton Abbot or Dawlish, they need the line and they need it for the long term. It is not a question of an alternative, but an addition.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Hear, hear.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. As for the hon. Lady’s comments about squeezing other budgets, I would request, as I am sure she would, that additional money is found elsewhere in the Government’s coffers. They have some big issues to deal with, and I am afraid I am going to be a bit controversial here. Almost without exception, constituents have come up to me and said, “Why have we got so much money in the international aid budget?” In many ways, that budget is absolutely right, but what about our own people? Does not charity begin at home? I am conscious that that budget is not big and would not cover all the flood prevention work that is needed. Although it is laudable to have a fund for international aid, there must be a balance, and the time for reviewing that balance is now.

The help offered by the Government to date has been welcome. We have had a business rates holiday for businesses, and the changes to the Bellwin scheme, which gave us 100% cover and lowered the level that had to be reached before money was forthcoming, were welcome, but I have a concern for the Minister to pass on to his Cabinet colleagues. My concern is that the Bellwin formula money did not assist district councils, but most of the expenditure in my area was incurred by the district council, not the county council.

I am equally grateful to the Government for the business support fund, which is to provide support for businesses that have lost trade as a result of this weather event. There is considerable confusion about what “flooding” means. In my constituency, yes, we have flooding and water standing in properties, but we also have storm damage and erosion. It is far from clear what that support covers, because businesses clearly have lost trade from all those things. When my constituents and the council ring the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hotline—and, indeed, when people speak to Devon county council—they find that they do not know either. We need some clarity about exactly what the business support fund covers.

I am grateful for the £22,500 that has been earmarked for my district council, Teignbridge, but I am saddened that, even as I speak this morning, it has still not been paid. I wonder whether the Minister could raise that matter with his colleagues.

Going forward, we need a proper strategy and proper flood prevention and advice. Villagers who have been flooded are concerned because they feel that they did not have any advice about what to do to shore up their properties. Could we not talk to the fire service to see whether it could provide advice? Otherwise it will be a free-for-all for individuals who might be giving the wrong advice. Villagers were also concerned that there was no early warning and said that a siren would have helped, because this weather event was in the middle of the night. Indeed, Network Rail only discovered it was a double black rather late in the day. Perhaps something could be done about warning and notification, not just of individuals and organisations that can do something, but of residents. That would be helpful.

As the right hon. Member for Exeter said, this is no time for complacency. There is much to be done and it must be done now. That railway line along the coast is vital to the whole south-west and action is needed now. I do not think any of us would condone delay until 2019. Now means 2014 or 2015 and, at the latest, 2016.

Flooding

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, his local council can now work with the Environment Agency on partnership funding. I am not sure of the exact physical circumstances, but if there is a possible scheme, there is now a real chance of getting that scheme over the wire. He makes a good point about the maintenance of schemes, and that has been a daily question in our Cobra meetings and our DEFRA meetings to make absolutely sure that any breaches were mended. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency for the rapid manner in which it worked through the night, certainly in early December, to put right those breaches.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Prevention is undoubtedly better than cure, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees that, in addition to wonderful flood prevention schemes, education is critical. In my constituency, one of the fatalities involved a misguided rescue attempt. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we should ensure that councils work with parishes to make sure that plans are in place? No plans were in place in some of my coastal villages, and that was exactly where we needed them.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and valid comment, and I hope that she will contribute to our review. She points out that several absolutely tragic deaths in recent weeks were really unnecessary—if only people had paid attention to the warnings. One cannot fault the Environment Agency for putting out a huge number of warnings using every possible medium, and we need to ensure that those warnings are heeded.

Water Bill

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

The Government are to be commended for all they have done with regard to securing our water supply and trying to help our resilience in relation to flooding. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who in his time as a Minister was a great supporter of such work. I am pleased to say that as a result I had three flood defence schemes supported locally, and I am grateful for that. The Bill is very welcome as part of a series of across-the-House measures to try to address this problem. Introducing competition in water supply is an excellent move forward. The fact that the Government have managed to negotiate the Flood Re deal is very much to their credit.

The challenge, inevitably, is in the detail. The Minister, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might remember that in 2005, when there was deregulation of the industry, there was a review of the so-called cost principle, which had been put in place to ensure the protection of water authorities in areas where, because of their rural nature and the distances involved, water would be very expensive to supply. It meant that rural customers did not have to bear a disproportionately high price for their water supply. That has now been removed and responsibility for overseeing the issue has been transferred to Ofwat. I am concerned that that control has been removed from the Government and politicians, so will the Minister assure me that it will work?

On flood insurance, flooding is a very key issue in my constituency and I think that a fantastic deal has been brokered, but there are challenges. The Minister will probably agree that prevention is undoubtedly better than cure. Our planning process has a number of statutory consultees, but after speaking to my local district council and the Environment Agency I understand that neither the Environment Agency nor the water companies are statutory consultees with regard to planning or connection. That means that a disaster is waiting to happen. Such consultation happens on a voluntary basis from time to time, but not regularly.

What happens, therefore, is that connections are made and the water companies have no power to make any recommendations—they certainly have no power to object—and yet, when the rain comes down, the sewers are flooded and the playing fields get covered in sewage, as has happened in my constituency, it is the water companies that have to take up the challenge of remedying the problem. I urge the Minister to consider making those bodies statutory consultees or to put in place another measure that ensures a holistic, joined-up approach so that the different bodies involved work together.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. As chairman of the Truro and Kenwyn neighbourhood plan, I can absolutely say that this is a problem and that it would be enormously beneficial if there was a statutory obligation to consult on plans.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is always nice to get support.

The Bill singularly fails to address the issue of tidying up the fantastic Government initiative to help South West Water bill payers with a subsidy of £50. That was incredibly welcome and it has been incredibly well received, but unfortunately, as with many such things, the challenge is in the detail. The Government proposed that, when domestic users were billed through commercial intermediaries, the benefit would, in effect, pass down the line. For example, if the owner of a park home with a number of plots applies to South West Water for the rebate, the intention is for that rebate to get passed down to local users. Unfortunately, there is no obligation on commercial intermediaries—which include not just park home owners, but housing associations and Ministry of Defence premises—and the consequence, as I have discovered in my constituency, is that a number of local residents are not benefiting. Park homes represent 2.5% of the housing stock in my district council area of Teignbridge, so this is not a small problem; it is a significant problem.

Will the Minister consider some changes that I think might resolve the problem? First, on the obligation, one of the reasons why park home owners and others are not claiming is that they say that the claim process is complex and time-consuming and that they get no compensation, so let us simplify the process. Secondly, it seems that any claim has to be validated by the district council, so why not give the opportunity to a tenant whose commercial intermediary does not claim to ask the district council—which will have the records and will know whether they are a domestic individual—to apply on their behalf to the water company and then the subsidy could simply flow through?

There is another issue: I am afraid to say that some unscrupulous commercial intermediaries will take the money and not pass it on to the individual resident. At present, the only recourse for the resident is to bring a civil action—a small claims court action—which costs, on average, £1,000. To be frank, that is completely inappropriate given the amount of money involved. From my days studying law, I remember learning that if someone takes something with the intention of permanently depriving someone else of the use of it, that is theft, which, in my book, is a crime. If not passing on the subsidy were to result in criminal rather than civil liability, that would be a measure with teeth and I suspect that those who are not minded to pass on the subsidy at present would do so.

I hope that the Minister will find those suggestions helpful. This is a good Bill. I have used up my time, but I hope that I have made my point and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Water Industry

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

Very much so. I and, I am sure, many other Members would argue that Ofwat should have a stronger role as a consumer champion, but that ought to be done within the framework of the national infrastructure we need. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I hope he will explore it further during this debate.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Although, clearly, much more needs to be done in the industry to ensure a better balance of risk between the shareholders and the taxpayer, the Government have taken some steps to help in the south-west and we now have a significant £40 million pot from which individual local consumers get £50 each off their bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulators at Ofwat and the Government need to ensure that that is delivered to all residents in the south-west? At present, those who receive benefit through intermediaries—park home owners, for example—do not get that benefit and it cannot be enforced. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs fixing?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which Ministers will no doubt take on board. This Government have been great in driving a better deal on water for people in the south-west, and they deserve credit for that.

On potential reforms under the Water Bill, we need to consider the extent to which Ofwat needs new powers and whether the Government should include appropriate provisions. Those are important questions.

The previous Labour Government mismanaged the economy and took Britain to the brink. It was not just the economy they mismanaged; they left a toxic legacy of mismanagement in our utility industries, making life difficult for hard-working families. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at water reform and I wish them well.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that despite the fact that the £50 cut will be impacted by high inflationary rises, those rises apply across the country, so one cannot say that we are worse off in the south-west, because we are still better off by that £50?

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is absolutely right. I am afraid that water customers across the country are paying the price for this Government losing control of inflation. The reason we are all facing these massive increases in the current financial year and the next is that inflation is out of control. We in the south-west are suffering like everybody else. However welcome the £50 cut is, it will already have been wiped out by the time we get it. People will not notice it because their bills will be no lower than they were before, as a result of the two years of increases that they will suffer this year and the next.

We must stop the culture of annual increases, and I hope that the Government will do that when they bring forward their full water Bill. The hon. Member for St Ives is absolutely right about this. We always talk about the water industry as though it were the same as the gas industry, the electricity industry and the other privatised utilities, but it is not—it is a monopoly private provider. Customers in the south-west cannot choose where they get their water from. Admittedly there is also a problem in the energy industry, but people do have a limited choice of provider for their gas and electricity.

The other reason it is completely wrong to put water in the same category as the other privatised utilities is that water is plentiful. We live in a wet country; it rains. If it stops raining, we might as well all pack up go home, but that is not going to happen—we hope. Water is not like gas, electricity or oil, where the resources are finite. The Government must challenge the assumption that water prices should always rise. Given the advances in modern technology, there are strong arguments for water bills coming down rather than going up. I ask the Minister to look carefully at the structure of the industry and the strength of the regulator. For the reasons that the hon. Member for St Ives and I have mentioned, there is a very good argument for the water regulator being much stronger than the regulators of the other privatised utilities.

The Prime Minister is fond of making speeches about crony capitalism; well, he can show us his mettle by dealing with an industry that is a private monopoly where customers have no choice. The industry has its hands round their necks, they cannot go anywhere else, they are fed up, and they do not understand the inevitability of year-on-year increases.

Of course we have to improve our outdated infrastructure, and a lot of work has been done on that. However, when I hear industry spokespeople and Ministers saying that we are about to face a terrible drought, worse than that in 1976, I wonder why the industry and the Government have not looked more carefully at the idea of water trading, which I think has been mentioned by a Government Member. Why do we not pipe water from the Severn catchment area, where it is plentiful, to the Thames catchment area? That could be done quite cheaply. It is not hugely expensive or terrible for climate change, as the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks. A similar thing could be done across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) mentioned reservoir capacity.

There is no reason why in this country, which has a cool, temperate climate with plenty of rain, we should pay such high prices for our water. We should not accept inexorable rises year on year, particularly when families are feeling the pinch. I share the admiration of the hon. Member for St Ives for the current management of South West Water. However, in the increases that that company and the rest of the industry have asked for in this financial year and the next, they have not shown the sensitivity that they might have shown to the state of household finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government, because they have done an extremely fine job. Frankly, I find the comments about the £50 reduction being cheeseparing a bit sad.

I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and I agreed with him on many points. He said that he is concerned that the £50 will be wiped out by price rises. As I said, there will be price rises across the country. Is he saying that the Opposition would have provided more money to give a greater subsidy? If so, how would they have funded that? I will leave him to ponder that.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady asked about Opposition policy. We support the £50 payments in the south-west, but are looking for further action on water affordability across the piece, which this Bill does not provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

Like the hon. Gentleman, we are all looking at how we can deal with the affordability issue. However, the Bill is intended purely as an academic piece of legislation to allow the £50 reduction, not to address the whole gamut of water issues, which is substantial. I welcome the £50 reduction and think that the 710,000 householders who will benefit from it will be absolutely delighted.

I will raise some technical points, because this is a technical Bill. I will not talk about the big picture of water issues. I will be grateful if the Minister considers the points that I raise in his winding-up speech, whether that be today or on another occasion. My concern is that the £50 is aimed at the domestic user as opposed to the non-domestic, commercial user. I understand why the Government are trying to be careful with their resources, but I emphasise that including the non-domestic, commercial user would mean an extra £3.5 million, which falls within the £40 million ceiling. I recognise the Government’s concerns, but there is a potential issue with domestic households that pay through commercial intermediaries.

For example, park homes cover a significant number of residents throughout the south-west, and the rates are effectively levied against the park home owner. I am therefore concerned that those living on park home estates will not receive the benefit. There is a similar problem with sheltered housing. I am worried that subsection (7) of proposed new section 154A in clause 1 does not fully address that. I would be grateful if the Minister considered that because I cannot believe that anybody feels that those individuals should be excluded from the benefit.

My second technical concern relates to the debate about WaterSure and support for those who cannot afford to pay their water bills. I will not go into the debate because it is something for the water Bill. My concern is technical because, if the Government decide to support the Consumer Council for Water’s view that WaterSure should be nationally funded, I am not sure whether subsection (2) of proposed new section 154A would enable them to take that position. I would therefore be grateful if that were reviewed.

Otherwise, I think I will make history by making the shortest speech of the afternoon and simply say, “Well done Government—huge benefit! £40 million should not be sniffed at.”

Water Bills (South West)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier, I hinted that I would return to that, and of course he understands that further questions remain, which, if settled fairly and equitably, could ensure that the contribution set aside in the Budget has the maximum impact, and that none of its benefits are lost through unintended consequences with regard to tariff schemes.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and would like to add my thanks to the Government for what is undoubtedly a great contribution to our household bills. Is my hon. Friend expressing concern that, while that is a good first step, we want to ensure that the benefit is not eroded by future changes? There is the prospect of further EU directives impacting on the cost of preserving our beaches.

[Dan Rogerson]

We must always have an eye on those sorts of costs and look at any other measures that the Government introduce to deal with the emerging issue of water poverty, which is unfortunately catching up in other parts of England and Wales. Any measures to tackle that should not undermine the good done in the recent announcement.

The time of privatisation in the late 1980s was particularly fraught in my constituency, because it coincided with a water poisoning incident at the Lowermoor treatment works, which is still controversial today. A link was drawn between the fact that there was no inquiry into the incident at the time and the fact that privatisation was under way. I must say that that feeling still exists in the minds of many who feel that they may have been affected by that incident. There is an ongoing inquest in Taunton that is finally getting to the bottom of some of those questions. I pay tribute to Doug Cross for all the work that he and his fellow campaigners have done on that issue over the years.

We then moved into the period when it became apparent that all of this work needed to be done. It was done, and there have been huge improvements in water quality, with benefits to the local community and people from further afield who can come and enjoy our wonderful environment. After the departure of the last Conservative Government, we moved into the period of the Labour Government. I pay tribute to Linda Gilroy, a former Member who campaigned a lot on this issue. It was very helpful to have one Member on the Labour side—they were few and far between, and it is even further between in the south-west now—and she very much engaged with this, and was seeking a response.

Right at the end of the previous Government we had the Walker review. At the last gasp of their term in office, they finally had that review. I must say, however, that we had the feeling at the time that there was not going to be the kind of response that we wanted to hear, in terms of national recognition of this problem. We wanted the recognition that it needed to be handled at that level rather than by the relatively small population in the area. I was frustrated by the attitude of Ofwat in all of this. They could have played a much stronger role in advocating to the Government on the issue of unfairness and the problems it causes for bill payers and the industry in the south-west.

We move on, however, and we now have a coalition Government who put their determination to do something about this in the coalition agreement. I pay tribute to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Liberal Democrat side, and to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) on the Conservative side. I know that both of them are determined to work with DEFRA to deliver on this and ensure that that commitment is met. However, with the very welcome £50 contribution towards each household’s domestic bills in the South West Water area, there are further decisions to be taken around WaterSure, which is a scheme that helps people who are in the most need with their bills. It is funded by a form of cross-subsidy from billpayers. The crucial question is whether that subsidy is a within-region subsidy, or whether it is a national one.

I have heard the view that it should just be within the water company’s area. However, that is a dangerous road to go down, for the following reasons. First, I believe that it should be about meeting need, wherever that need may be. Even after this £50 contribution to high water bills per household in the south-west, we will still have the highest water bills in the country, by some way. If we compare the average £517 annual charge in the south-west—and that is the average, of course; those who are unmetered will have a much higher charge—with the Thames Water figure of £319, we see that there is a £219 difference. The £50 will close that gap a bit, but it will still be considerable.

I accept that that is as far as the Government could go with that measure of financial support in the Budget. However, for customers still struggling with those high water charges, WaterSure is a lifeline. For those who are just above that threshold, as always, we have this issue. It would be unjust, having at last secured recognition and support from the Government, to see some of that £50 clawed back in a significant way to fund WaterSure, and also further in regional social tariffs, which is something that water companies are exploring.

South West Water have really engaged in this process. As a private company, it is a tricky thing for it to do; confronting the fact that it has the highest bills is perhaps something it does not want to talk about. However, I pay tribute to Chris Loughlin and the management of the company, who have been absolutely straightforward about the fact that this is the problem they are facing. They want a solution, and they want to play their part in driving forward efficiencies in the business. They were honest about the situation that we face.

South West Water also want to do more with social tariffs. However, the issue for the company is that if we were to have WaterSure funded only within the South West Water area, that would mean that every bill payer who is not on WaterSure would be paying approximately £3.41 towards those who are, whereas across the country the average funding for WaterSure on bills—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I get this wrong—is 30p to 40p. That is a far fairer way of dealing with the issue. Just because someone happens to live in the south-west, they should not be affected by these social tariffs to a greater degree than people elsewhere. The need for people to be on social tariffs in the South West Water area is much higher than in other parts of the country, because the bills are higher, but also because, despite what some might feel about the leafy south-west, it is an area of great poverty. My own region of Cornwall is in receipt of convergence money from the European Union in recognition of the fact that, sadly, our economy still has some way to go to catch up with the wider UK economy.

Another parallel that could be drawn is the issue of additionality. It was always a battle under the previous regional development agency regime to say that, just because we are getting the convergence money, we should not miss out on our fair share of the regional development agency’s money as well. It is supposed to be additional, to help us get to parity with everybody else. This £50, welcome though it is and a tribute to how the coalition Government is tackling these problems, should be in addition to WaterSure and social tariffs that come along. It is not a replacement for them. While the Minister’s Department is looking further at how these social tariffs could play a role in meeting that need, my key point today, in thanking the Minister and the Government for what they have done for our constituents with this £50 assistance, is to ask that when we return to the issue of WaterSure and social tariffs, we should, as far as possible, make them fair and focused on individuals, no matter where they are in the country, rather than being in some kind of fortress south-west, because we would then be taking a step back, having made a step forward. I would hate the Government to be doing that when they are at last making great progress on an issue which has been a huge problem for us over the past two decades.

Seagulls (Coastal Towns)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I am pleased to have secured the debate, which gives me the opportunity to raise an issue that in recent years has affected the lives of many residents in my Waveney constituency, in particular in Lowestoft, as well as around the country, in coastal towns and further inland. In Waveney, there has been a problem in Beccles, some 10 miles from the coast, while problems have also arisen in such places as Bath and Birmingham.

Seagulls are part of the fabric of seaside Britain. Historically, other than following the plough, they have kept themselves to the coast. However, in recent years they have moved inland, nesting, feeding and breeding in buildings and on roofs, and in doing so causing considerable nuisance, stress and anxiety to nearby residents. In Lowestoft, much of the current problem centres around Waveney drive and the adjoining streets, and residents have been disrupted in a variety of ways.

Gulls are powerful birds, with a wing span of almost 5 feet, and they have messy habits. They have been known to tear apart refuse sacks and scatter the contents of litter bins in their search for food, making a mess and distributing litter, which has the potential to attract other, more conventional vermin.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that gull faeces cause a risk to the quality of bathing water in towns such as Teignmouth in my constituency? The Environment Agency is having to look at ways of preventing the birds from nesting on roofs and by the pier.

[Peter Aldous]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s drawing that fact to my attention, as it illustrates the number of environmental issues that arise. Seagulls are indiscriminate defecators, with the ability to expel significant quantities of runny faeces on the wing. The consequences are most unpleasant for residents in their gardens and for anyone else out and about in the open. Householders cannot hang out their washing, and windows, cars and garden furniture are continually fouled and have to be cleaned. One household I know has stopped holding their annual family barbecue. Relaxing in the garden is no longer possible, while soiled clothes, sheets and towels have to be thrown away. There is an additional burden on local authorities’ cleaning duties. Noise nuisance is also a factor. Gulls have a distinctive, prolonged, piercing and very loud laughing call. For many people, a good night’s sleep is a thing of the past.

Flood and Water Management

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I add my voice to the voices of others who have commended the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Select Committee. The Committee’s report is an excellent piece of work and it is thoroughly welcome.

As a Member who represents a constituency in the south-west, it will come as no surprise to people that I wish to speak today about water charging. The water charges in the south-west are the highest in the country, with an average bill of £517. I am afraid that that figure is rather higher than the one given in the Select Committee’s report, which puts the figure for the south-west at £490. At £517, the average bill in the south-west is 43% above the national average for water charges. Although I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on the challenges that she faces in Wales—I absolutely empathise with her—the south-west has 30% of the country’s coastline and 3% of the population, so the burden that we bear is exceptionally great.

Unfortunately, in addition we also have a large amount of sewage pipework inherited at privatisation without the adequate funding to get it into the state that is required. The problem was inevitably exacerbated by the bathing water directives, which were not foreseen and which have created all sorts of challenges for us in the south-west. The problem in the south-west is very significant.

Possible solutions have been considered by a number of different bodies. I commend the Walker report, which came out with a number of very good options. Equally, Ofwat came up with some good options. I will not go into the details of those, because they are well rehearsed in the Select Committee report. I am pleased to say that DEFRA has consulted on a solution. Of the four areas that were looked at, information on three of them was included in the DEFRA consultation. With the interests of the people of the south-west at heart, I will comment only on those options, which I hope will inform the Minister in his thinking when he comes to draft the water Bill, which I, like others, am keen to see sooner rather than later.

The first suggestion related to social tariffs. Whatever else we do, we certainly need to get a social tariff in place that works properly. The current tariff, WaterSure, is a good start, but unfortunately it does not protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Come what may, it needs to be reviewed. The suggestion that the social tariff be transferred to a central pot rather than continue to come out of the individual water companies’ pots is a good one. If that happened, I would want the water companies to take a sensible approach locally, to do what is right to meet the particular and peculiar needs in their own part of the world.

The second option considered was rebalancing who pays for what within the south-west itself. Given the overall unfairness of the settlement at privatisation—I am sure that that unfairness was not intended and that it was just one of those unfortunate consequences—rebalancing within the south-west itself is not something that any south-west MP would view with any comfort. Paying south-west Peter by robbing south-west Paul is not the solution, I think. Other suggestions include rebalancing sewerage charges and the business community paying a higher share, but tourism is crucial for us, so any rebalancing of that nature would certainly be most unwelcome—I am sure that the Minister recognises how unwelcome it would be.

I was interested that the third option put forward by Anna Walker in her report was not in the DEFRA consultation; in fact, I was very pleased that it was not in the DEFRA consultation. That option was to cross-subsidise the south-west from water-charge payers in other water company areas. The Minister, in ruling out that option, said that it would be quite inappropriate to take money from an individual in Newcastle who was on benefits to provide a subsidy for a water-charge payer in the south-west who may well be a millionaire. I say gently to him that perhaps he does not fully understand that the average income in Devon is actually £2,964 lower than the national average. Contrary to what too many people believe, the south-west is not a countryside of cream teas and beautiful cows, in which we all sit eating our strawberries and cream. The area is very rural, but we have a number of very deprived areas and the highest number of retirees and pensioners in the country. There is not a large number of millionaires sitting in the south-west, waiting to be bailed out by those in the north who are less well off.

The final option in the DEFRA consultation was one that I very warmly welcome. If I have one message for the Minister today, it is, “Yes, please, that is exactly what we want.” It is the suggestion that the Government put a £40 million subsidy behind South West Water bill-payers, which would effectively knock £50 off each bill-payer’s bill in the region. That would not only be welcome but, in the current circumstances and given the history, it would be the right and fair thing to do, because even though, if that subsidy were given, people paying water rates in the south-west would still have the highest water rates in the country, they would at least be less badly done by than they are now.

We need to look carefully therefore at what we do. It would be nice to see a “Benyon report” suggesting that the Bill include the adoption of the £40 million subsidy but, as the hon. Member for Llanelli pointed out, there is an ongoing challenge for those of us whose constituencies have long coastlines, and that is a challenge for the Government. If I might be so bold, given that two more directives on water quality will come from Brussels sooner rather than later, we should consider the matter urgently, rather than wait for the water Bill after the forthcoming one.

The Government have bravely already looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the private sector in other areas. They have considered renegotiating some of the private finance initiative contracts that were biased against the taxpayer because the risk had not been properly assessed at the time they were entered into. Likewise, they have looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the banks. Now might be an opportune moment to look at the relationship between the taxpayer and the water companies. I am sure that there would be all sorts of legal challenges and hurdles to overcome, but that does not mean that it should not be done. For water authorities that face particular challenges as a result of the water quality directive—for example, where the percentage increase would be very difficult for the local community to bear, a cap on above-inflation rises allowed by those companies might be considered in the annual review. That is something for the Minister to think about.

I shall turn very briefly to flooding. The Minister knows very well that it is a subject that is also close to my heart. I have to thank him for what he has done to ensure that I have flood defences in Shaldon and hopefully—subject to planning consent—in Teignmouth. Flood prevention is critical, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for the careful and thorough analysis she set out at the beginning of the debate. She hit the nail absolutely on the head. If, as evidence seems to bear out, for every £1 we spend now we effectively save £8 in the future, flood prevention must be a key priority, and I am glad that it was presented as such in the national infrastructure plan.

I share some of the views that other hon. Members have expressed about the best solution. In planning policy, although the report makes it clear that it would be inappropriate to ban building on floodplains, developers have done very well from building on such land without having to contribute to the windfall, so there is an argument for reviewing the planning rules and regulations with a view to possible limits on building on flood plain. In insurance, which is the second key issue in the flooding debate, the renegotiation of the statement of principle that will lapse in 2013 needs to involve all parties, and not be seen as a matter for just the Government and the insurance industry. Developers and other beneficiaries of changes ought to play their part.

Those are the key points that I wanted to make today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this crucial matter.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind everyone that the winding up speeches start at five minutes to 5. I call Priti Patel.

Flood Defences

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and it is now on the record. My officials and I will look carefully at it. However, that is not the information that I had when preparing for this debate, so I will take that point away and get back to her.

Let us look at the case that my hon. Friend raises, because it is important to understand the history. I apologise to other hon. Members who might wish to intervene, but I have only a few moments left. My hon. Friend called this debate and I want to be able to answer her points. Last September, an independent reservoir engineer was appointed to assess the proposals in the context of the Reservoirs Act 1975. The Act is designed to ensure that public safety is maintained. The engineer acted in accordance with guidance produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. At that stage, the engineer identified the reservoir as a category A reservoir. That classification means that a breach of what could be an 85,000 cubic metre reservoir could seriously endanger a community—we have already discussed what constitutes a community. As a result, it is only right that the highest standards of public safety apply. At best, a failure would increase the level of flood-water, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. At worst, a catastrophic failure would result in human tragedy. The engineer agreed necessary design standards that should apply in this case to maintain public safety.

In March, new modelling led the engineer to conclude that a higher design standard was necessary. In May, a second opinion was sought, again from an independent reservoir engineer. The second opinion confirmed that the Institution of Civil Engineers guidance on the 1975 Act had been correctly applied and that a higher standard was needed. That led to a redesign that incorporated the higher design standard of the spillway, to which we referred earlier. Inevitably, that pushed up costs. Despite the significant local investment already on the table, the shortfall in funding amounted to around £2 million. Frustratingly, at that level of cost, the scheme is not cost-beneficial under the Treasury Green Book rules. It is not my view that the guidance is wrong. That said, the case does underline the sense in reviewing the guidance. That is a firm assurance that I can give to my hon. Friend today. A review on highly technical guidance—I have already referred to the complexity of the document—is not a quick fix, and will require broad engagement. In the mean time, I welcome efforts to reassess these proposals.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area. That said, I know that many of the innovative approaches that my hon. Friend has described are continuing in parallel. It may well be that we can fairly quickly achieve a different scheme that complies with the Reservoirs Act 1975 and has a sensible cost frame and a sensible cost-benefit analysis result. All the work going into reviewing the guidance will not affect the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. If it does, Ministers will have the power to apply other criteria to assess whether, on the balance of risk, it is right that these schemes should go ahead even with the lower threshold.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area, so I genuinely applaud the real openness and innovation. There has been engagement with the local authorities, local landowners and many other partners, and leadership from my hon. Friend.

The Environment Agency and local partners are working hard to reassess the designs and to drive down costs. Other options that were originally put forward are also being discussed. Once consideration is complete—I expect that to be at the end of July—the agency is eager to continue working with local partners to explore what can be done while maintaining public safety.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully in this case, as he did when he enabled me to have a flood scheme in Teignmouth, for which I am extremely grateful.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to this debate; not all hon. Members come to debates to give a thumbs up. The difficulty with flood defences is that we only know that they work when issues are not raised because problems have been resolved. I know that the issue is a burden for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). There are serious problems affecting communities around the country. We are changing the way in which we approach flood funding.