| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise with you the consequences of the guillotine motion that has been applied? You will appreciate that there remain outstanding eight groups of amendments; the last group of amendments, relating to the code of practice, were debated in about one minute; moreover, there was no debate on Third Reading. The cause of all that was the guillotine motion. The result is that a substantial part of the Bill has not been debated on Report. I recognise that you are bound by the guillotine motion and that I cannot complain about that. However, I can point out--and I do point out--that one of the reasons why time was eroded was that, yesterday, a statement on the London underground was made by the Deputy Prime Minister--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament and I think that he recognises that the answer to his point of order lies in what he has already said. The Chair is indeed bound by the terms of yesterday's guillotine motion, as is the House. What he has said so far is a matter of comment and debate, which should have been said at the time of the guillotine motion. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Hogg: I am coming to my substantive point. I was laying the background. One reason why the debate has been truncated tonight is the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday about the London underground. The practice is for a Minister to inform the Speaker of his intention to make a statement. The consent of the Speaker is not required, even though the Minister always begins with the phrase, "With permission, Madam Speaker". However, it is within the discretion of the Speaker to seek to dissuade the Minister. Furthermore, it is certainly within the discretion of the Speaker to ensure that the question and answer session that follows is kept very short. My point of order is that when there is a guillotine motion the Speaker should seek to ensure that there is not--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should resume his seat when I have risen to my feet. He is getting dangerously close to criticising the decision of the Chair. If there was a moment to do that it was yesterday, not now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard sufficient in two bursts from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that this is not a matter on which I can rule now. It relates to the decision of the Chair that
was taken yesterday. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, it will have to be on a substantive motion criticising the Chair.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not in any way criticising the Speaker. I am bringing a point to your attention so that you can have an opportunity to discuss it with Madam Speaker. When there is a guillotine motion that constrains debate, the Speaker should seek to consider whether--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little that I can add to the point of order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make, because he is implicitly criticising the decision taken by the Chair yesterday. The Speaker must be presumed to be aware of all the relevant matters. If an hon. Member wishes later to challenge a decision taken by the Speaker, it must be done on a substantive motion.
Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that the Government went to considerable lengths this evening to ensure that we had a vote on amendment No. 9, but that was achieved only by sacrificing any debate on an important subject. There were other important issues to be debated on Report, as well as a tranche of other matters that could have been addressed on Third Reading but were not scheduled for debate on Report. Those subjects were guillotined out of debate not as a result of any lack of progress on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was conducted in an exemplary manner, but because of a perceived lack of progress on another Bill. As the guardian of Back-Bench rights and the rights of debate, does the Chair have a view, or will you be taking a view, on the use of a guillotine to curtail not the debate in question, but a separate debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question whether there is a guillotine and the terms of it are not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate on the substantive motion put down by the Government and the decision of the House on it.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
Question agreed to.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.--[Mr. Clelland.]
12.19 am
Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare): I present a petition on behalf of 682 constituents. The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider its proposals regarding the Medicines Control Agency and introduce an
- immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines, except on grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe natural health products.
Flooding (Lewes)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]
12.20 am
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of flooding in my constituency and especially in Seaford. Each problem is different, but there is a common thread: lines of responsibility are not clear, so action that everyone agrees should be taken is left undone. My central call to the Government will be: please acknowledge the problem; please undertake to rectify it; and, in the meantime, please knock some heads together to ensure that the very real problems are not allowed to drag on any further.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Is my hon. Friend aware that we have also had serious flooding problems in Montgomeryshire? Does he accept that the issues that he is raising call for a strategy across the United Kingdom, including Wales?
Mr. Baker: I certainly agree that we need a national strategy.
Let me deal first with the problems in Cliffe high street, Lewes, which is one of the town's main shopping streets. Regular flooding occurs, with water invading private properties and the church of St. Thomas a Becket, the oldest church in the historic town. The cause is an ancient culvert that has silted up and for which no body will accept responsibility.
I have had sight of correspondence initiated by my constituent Mary Chandler, who is church warden at St. Thomas a Becket. It will be instructive to run through it. In October 1993, she wrote to the highway authority, East Sussex county council, after flooding to the church had occurred. It told her a month later, having investigated the matter, that it was the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority--which has now been superseded by the Environment Agency--and its agent, Lewes district council.
In December 1993, Lewes district council wrote to say that the county council was wrong and it was a matter of surface water drainage, which is the responsibility of Southern Water. Sensibly, my constituent suggested that the NRA, Southern Water and the two councils should get together to sort the matter out. No such meeting took place at that point, but, throughout 1994, the church continued to flood, the NRA continued to maintain that it was a matter for Southern Water, and Southern Water continued to maintain that the culvert was not a public service water sewer and therefore not maintainable at its expense, suggesting that the district council use its powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Public Health Act 1936.
By May 1995, the district council was suggesting that it might be a matter for the riparian owner. The various bodies were by now talking to each other and some without prejudice work had been done by both the county council, in respect of the culvert, and the NRA, in respect of the discharge point into the River Ouse; but the church was still flooding.
By the beginning of 1997, the Environment Agency and the two councils had appeared to conclude that Southern Water was responsible, and I understand that a letter to
that effect was sent by the agency to the company on 17 April 1997; but the position was not accepted by Southern Water in its reply of 25 July. Meanwhile, the church flooded again on 23 June and on 8 October 1997.
Some basic work was done on 9 October by Southern Water to alleviate the problem. Meanwhile, Ofwat had been dragged into the matter and declared that it was unable to resolve the issue. The matter was brought to my attention on 4 July 1998, when Mary Chandler attended one of my surgeries. I immediately wrote to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and received a reply from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), offering sympathy and telling me that there was a difference of opinion between Southern Water and the Environment Agency. I think that I had already worked that one out.
The two sides met again shortly after the Minister's letter and agreed on a closed circuit television survey of the channel in principle, but they could not agree who should pay for it. Meanwhile, the church continued to flood, including on Christmas day 1998.
I then tried writing to the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord De Ramsay, who, in his reply dated 25 February this year, gave me some interesting and useful information about the history of the culvert, but could offer no real solution.
I am also indebted to another of my constituents, Bruce Yorke, for the valuable historical information that he has been able to give me. He makes a reasonably convincing case that the county council might be responsible. I shall be happy to send the Minister a copy of his letter if that would be helpful.
What is the latest position? East Sussex county council has written to me this week and it says:
However, Southern Water does not take that view. It says:
Meanwhile, the church continues to flood, most recently earlier this month. Not only has the church been affected; local residents have suffered too. One lady tells me that her property is now badly affected by damp and that her valuable grand piano is at risk.
The problem has gone on for at least six years, with continual flooding of an historic church, damage to other properties and numerous calls to East Sussex fire brigade, which has been superb, as always. Public money has been spent, not least as a result of all the fire brigade call-outs,
but six years on we still have no solution--not for technical reasons, but because of a demarcation dispute. We are little further on than we were in 1993.
This really must be sorted out. In the short term, will the Minister intervene to knock heads together and to require that the problem be solved without any further delay? I hope that he will do that. Let the parties argue afterwards about who should pay. My constituents have suffered long enough.
I have spent a long time on that specific example because I owe it to my constituents and because I suspect that if this is happening in Lewes, it must be happening elsewhere as well, and be a problem for other hon. Members.
I come now to the second and in some ways potentially even more serious problem which I raised during another hon. Member's Adjournment debate on 24 February 1999, since when nothing has happened to deal with the problem that I then identified for the House.
I refer to two connected issues in my constituency. The first is also in Lewes, also, as it happens, in Cliffe high street, albeit at the other end, and also caused by unsatisfactory and muddied lines of accountability and responsibility. It relates to the banks of the River Ouse, which flows through the centre of Lewes and which is marked in Lewes by the lovely Cliffe bridge.
The Environment Agency has identified work which needs to be undertaken urgently and has warned that if it is not done the river walls are at risk of collapsing. Those walls are right in the middle of town, abutting listed buildings. Were they to collapse, the effect would be serious, not just for the property owners but for the town itself.
I visited properties abutting the river on Monday in the company of Peter Midgely, the area manager of the Environment Agency. He impressed on me yet again his concern and that of the Environment Agency about the position.
The second matter relates to the sea defences at Seaford. That work has been undertaken every year by the Environment Agency, but this year it is not taking place. A press release issued by the Environment Agency on 9 December 1998, said:
The problem has arisen because the Environment Agency is the specialist body responsible for identifying works, but local flood defence committees fund them--or not, as in this case. So essential sea defence works at Seaford have simply been stopped. The start date of the works at Lewes, far from being accelerated because of the condition of the walls, were already late and now have been put back a further year.
In a letter dated 15 February, Lord De Ramsay, chairman of the Environment Agency, wrote:
I shall repeat a point that I made on 24 February, to which the Minister on that occasion did not have time to respond. Either the flood defence committees should be abolished and their work passed to the Environment Agency, or they should take on the relevant responsibilities that rest with the agency. The present arrangements are a hotchpotch and do not work. There is also a need to clarify the respective powers of the Environment Agency, the county councils and the district councils. I spent some considerable time last year trying to sort out another flooding problem in my constituency, in Plumpton. It dragged on for far too long, mainly because of the unclear legal position of the three bodies involved.
However, I return to the problems in Lewes. What happens if the river wall collapses? Who is responsible? I raised this matter with John Crawford, chief executive of Lewes district council and a qualified lawyer. In a letter dated 1 March, he said:
The situation becomes even more complicated when private frontages are involved. Peter Midgely, Sussex area manager of the Environment Agency, wrote to me on 3 September 1998 about this matter. In respect of the position in Lewes, he wrote:
There is a very clear role for the Government if they will take it. In the short term, they need to bang heads together and twist the arms of the various bodies to force them to do the work that has to be done and which can be done with no great technical problems. In the medium term, the lines of accountability and responsibility for flooding matters must be recast, so that the incidents that I have described cannot happen again.
"The County Council sought legal opinion in 1996 regarding responsibility for the culvert. This indicated that there was enough evidence to show that it was a public sewer and not the responsibility of the then Southern Water Authority."
The Environment Agency, in a note to me dated 11 June, denied that it is responsible and suggested that Southern Water should pick up the responsibility. But it also offered to work with various parties--Southern Water, the district and county councils--to share responsibility and clear the culvert.
"a Queen's Counsel has advised that the problem culvert is still a land drainage channel, probably the responsibility of the Environment Agency."
It concludes:
"it would seem appropriate for Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council to join in"
efforts to solve this matter.
"essential maintenance will halt. The Agency will be unable to carry out work at Seaford which it considers is essential to the security of the Ouse Valley."
It is also essential to all those properties along Seaford sea front that have now been left defenceless and at the mercy of the waves.
"We have an overall shortfall of some £4 million in the funding which flood defence committees have made available for 1999-2000 . . . Under current arrangements for funding flood defence the agency has no powers to interfere in the democratic process whereby Flood Defence Committees approve their levies."
16 Jun 1999 : Column 536
So the Environment Agency blames the flood defence committees, while East Sussex county council, which supplies some of the committee's members, blames the Government and says that levies from external bodies should be ring-fenced and taken into account in the Government's funding and capping decisions. I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply. That is a ludicrous arrangement. The Environment Agency has responsibility without power, while the flood defence committees have power without responsibility.
"It is still not clear to me what specific obligations arise if a local flood defence committee refuses to levy for the amount of money required to fulfil the Environment Agency's recommendation to them that certain works must be done to avoid flooding."
I hope that the Minister will deal with that point also.
"The necessity for flood defence in this area is clear, but the legal position is not."
If two such key people, both of whom I hold in high regard, are unclear about matters as basic as that, we have a mess--in terms of accountability, responsibility and legality. That mess threatens the basic river defences in the county town of East Sussex in the middle of my constituency, and all the listed buildings that abut that river. It is a mess that means that essential sea defence works are not being carried out at Seaford. A similar mess has allowed the St. Thomas a Becket church to flood regularly for six years. While the various bodies fiddle, Lewes floods.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |