Flooding (Somerset Levels)

Debate between Tessa Munt and Ian Liddell-Grainger

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

rose—

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Of course I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

I would like to add a plea for the Axe and the Brue to be dredged, because they are also in need of dredging, and the level of flooding caused by those rivers is extremely worrying for my constituents. So it is not only the Tone and the Parrett that need dredging but the Axe and the Brue.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

My hon. Friends are both absolutely right. This is a ridiculous situation. All our rivers need to be dredged, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells has done an enormous amount for the Brue and the Axe, as indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane has for the rivers in his area. He is absolutely right that we are 40% below capacity. If we took an empty Coke bottle and filled 40% of it with sand, we would not get the Coke in the bottle. It is ridiculous to be told otherwise. I see on the BBC website that the Environment Agency says our comments are “too simplistic”. Is the agency now insulting the people of Somerset? I think it is.

The dramatic effect became visible in summer floods two years ago. The rivers could not drain water away because of the volume of water pumped into them, which happened precisely because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane says, the capacity of both the Tone and the Parrett is so greatly reduced. The Environment Agency was attempting to push water into an outlet that was already completely full. The agency was also having great difficulty pushing water because many of the pumps being used were more than 40 years old and—as we have now discovered—they had not been properly maintained. In case anyone was wondering, the responsibility for maintaining pumps is the Environment Agency’s, nobody else’s.

I am afraid that the people at the agency are what we call serial offenders. They stick to an agenda that seems to allow them to do exactly what they want. The agency’s own literature is full of vague phrases and get-out clauses. No. 1 is:

“We will continue to maintain defences where there is an economic case to reduce the risk from flooding to people and property.”

What do they mean by the words:

“where there is an economic case”?

Who decides that? No. 2 is:

“We will continue to maintain defences that are required to protect internationally designated environmental features from the damaging effect of flooding, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest.”

That is a big clue. The agency will go out of its way to protect “internationally designated environmental features”, but not our farms or our people. No. 3 is:

“We will consider maintaining defences that do not fit categories 1 and 2 above”—

this is absolutely true—

“but where work is justified due to legal commitments or where stopping maintenance would cause an unacceptable flood risk.”

Note that the agency will only “consider” maintaining defences; it does not promise to do anything at all. No. 4 is:

“We will, following consultation, consider stopping maintenance of defences that do not fit the above three categories. We will work supportively with interested parties to explore options in such circumstances.”

So the agency admits that it may stop maintaining some defences altogether, which is precisely what it did in 1995, as soon as it was established. We have been struggling with those daft decisions ever since.

The Environment Agency believes that the levels should be allowed to return to the swampy wilderness that they were in the middle ages, and all in the name of “managed flood risk”. The most it is prepared to do is to dig out teeny-weeny bits of two rivers—“pinch points”, as it calls them. One of them, at Burrowbridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, is not capable of being dug out. The agency promised to do the work last year. It started—guess what?—in October and it is not even halfway through the work. The price of this unfinished business alone is put at roughly £4 million. Obviously, that is a great deal of money. I have no idea whether or not the agency is telling the truth about the figures; we are taking the best guesstimate we can.

The Environment Agency’s argument throughout the past 19 years is that dredging is uneconomic—tell that to the locals—but when Northmoor and Currymoor were allowed to sink beneath the flood waters last year, I can tell this House that the real cost to the local economy was in the region of £10 million.