News
We'll regularly update the site with news and information as we continue to lobby for the River Thames Scheme (RTS).
ThamesAwash asks where were our MPs?
Not one of our local MPs contributed to a recent Select Committee meeting about the 2013-2014 floods - ThamesAwash asks why?
In a recent Select Committee meeting on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a discussion on the flooding of 2013-2014 took prime place on the agenda. In that meeting representatives from Humberside, Wales, Somerset, Cornwall etc. all discussed the affects of the flooding on their local economies.
Not one of our local MP’s contributed.
The member for Vale of Clwyd quoted he was from the SECOND most affected area – so what of the most affected region? What of the 15,000 properties, businesses, commerce, transport, infrastructure and utilities in the UK’s most densely populated flood risk area? Nothing. There were no Thames Valley MP’s involved in the discussion.
ThamesAwash thinks this just isn’t good enough. So we’ve written to both the Windsor MP Adam Afriyie and Philip Hammond about why weren’t they there? Why weren’t they there representing you?
Below is a copy of our letter to Philip Hammond
Dear Mr Hammond
Please see below a link to the Hansard account of the the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs debate on its report on the winter floods of 2013-2014
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150108/hall
text/150108h0001.htm#15010860000001
There are two key issues arising from this important debate which, quite frankly, are the cause of much concern to us.
- It would appear that neither you nor Mr Afriyie were either at the debate or represented by a Member of Parliament who could raise the concerns of your respective constituents concerning the serious flooding in the Lower Thames Valley and the critical importance of securing funding for its long term solution, the River Thames Scheme.
- As a result, probably the most serious event in last winter's flood affecting the most homes, businesses and infrastructure (both public and private), namely the flooding that took place in the Lower Thames, was not even mentioned in the debate. Reading through the Hansard report, a visitor from Mars could be forgiven for believing that this flooding, which caused so much distress, hardship and which cost so much financially, had never taken place.
We would value, ahead of our planned meeting on 13th February, your interpretation of what this means for the funding of the RTS. Does the absence of both yourself and any reference to flooding in the Lower Thames in the debate mean that the scheme is "in the bag" - that we should no longer worry about its funding because a deal has been agreed?
Or does it mean that the RTS has now been rejected as a flooding solution and the most populous and infrastructure heavy area subject to severe flood risk in the UK will continue to be under critical threat from flooding? This could be construed as consistent with the EA document in December which outlined start dates and costs for every other scheme except the RTS for which it merely summarized the design.
Does this mean the battle for the RTS has been won.. or lost?
This is an issue that we believe we must urgently bring to the attention of our supporters.
We look forward to receiving your advice on how we should respond and thank you in anticipation of this.
Yours sincerely
Chris Bertram
Chairman, ThamesAwash