---

Flooding (Gloucestershire)

If Sir Michael cannot do so, I will listen to the individual Members of Parliament. I will raise this matter with him, and I know that he will be diligent. The fact that Members of Parliament raised issues with Ministers, whether we are talking about my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and the Trent basin or the hon. Gentleman and the Severn basin and elsewhere in the country, benefited constituents. Not only were Members able to bring issues of huge importance straight to Ministers' attention, but, more importantly, the team of officials—through the Gold Command structure immediately and through the recovery effort latterly—was able to hear the articulation of people's frustrations on a range of issues directly from the areas. I was proud of our parliamentary system when that kicked in and did so in a completely non-partisan way. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I shall urge that the approach he spoke of will be taken. If it is not, and probably in any case, we shall want to act at parliamentary level. We have increased the funding significantly in recent years. I hope that hon. Members welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement that funding for flood defences will increase to £800 million in 2010-11. We are also working with the Environment Agency to develop a long-term investment strategy, to build on the one that we already have, for river and coastal flood-risk management, looking ahead over the next 20 years to deliver those objectives. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about insurance. I was disappointed to read the comments of the Association of British Insurers earlier in the week. The amount of money spent on flood defences is never enough—I say that openly, although I know that I will be misquoted in certain parts of the media. How does one know how much to spend? One takes a risk assessment, just as insurance companies do. The Government have increased significantly the amount of money that they are spending, but, as the Environment Agency is the first to point out, the lead-in times on projects can be significant. The projects cannot be turned on and off, like water—I hope that you will pardon the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We think that our work with the ABI is constructive, and I know that it reciprocates that view. I assure hon. Members that we have found from our meetings that our shared commitment to the statement of principles that we have with it is secure. There has been no reason to think that insurance will not be available and that the statement of principles will be breached. My understanding is that insurers will use their best efforts to provide flood cover, and will work with customers who take measures to allow insurance to continue, even where they may not be covered by the statement of principles. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents that they will be able to carry on getting insurance, and that we are committed to that statement of principles. I have used more time than I would normally be allowed, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. I have not used this debate to make a comprehensive statement of the Government's policy on flood defences; I would take more than the time that I could use, were I to do so. The hon. Gentleman talked about the critical infrastructure. Clearly, we have to re-examine the defences against flooding. In critical infrastructure we need to include not just the utilities, but some infrastructure that may not be obvious, such as communications infrastructure. I look to Sir Michael's report on that point. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that the matter was simple, but let me say that it is not as simple as putting a barrier around a sub-station. As all of us who witnessed the floods know, drainage and the drain system are critical. Often the most dangerous aspect of flooding is the impact that is has on drains. While pumping out from the drains, one is also trying to stop the water coming in. That is true of critical infrastructure. It was the case at Walham. Water treatment works are often, by definition, at the most vulnerable points in the river basin. That is why they are where they are. The hon. Gentleman knows the geography of the Severn basin better than I do, but simply looking at a map shows why it is where it is. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about bowsers and the co-ordination between utility companies. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we have provision there, should it be needed—may goodness forbid it. From the information that I have, I am confident that that worked well, but it could always go horribly wrong. I invite the hon. Gentleman to take part in the review that Sir Michael is undertaking, which I know will be approached consistently. Through the opportunity of this Adjournment debate, I wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents that the Government and their agencies have not taken their eye off the ball, but are aware that the problems are ongoing. That is as true in east Yorkshire, south Yorkshire and the east midlands as in his region. We hope that we can continue to work constructively to alleviate the devastation that his constituents suffered. Question put and agreed to.