Flooding

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way. I have given way on a number of occasions, and I want to make progress.

This reckless short-termism is set to cost the country more than the cuts were intended to save. The Pitt review commissioned by Labour after the 2007 floods made it clear that investment in flood protection needed to rise, and by time of the 2010-11 Budget set by Labour, funding had gone up from £500 million a year to £670.1 million, yet by 2011-12, in the first Budget set by the coalition Government, that had been cut to £573 million, which is a reduction of £97 million—a 17% real-terms cut.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I want to make a little progress.

The budget has remained the same since then, meaning further significant real-terms cuts, year on year. Taking into account the extra funding announced this month, there will still be £64 million less available for flood protection this year than in 2010. The figure is £606 million now, compared with the £670 million available under the previous Government. The chief executive of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Nick Baveystock, said in the past day that this level of spending

“provided neither the level of investment nor long-term certainty required to improve resilience against flooding... This under-spend has been detrimental to communities, business and infrastructure”.

The Government’s decision to reduce the commitment to flood protection was a deliberate one. When the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rewrote his Department’s core list of priorities on taking office, he chose to remove the priority to

“prepare for and manage risk from flooding.”

He then stated in front of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he had ordered civil servants to use his new priorities, which no longer included flood risk, when applying spending reductions within his Department. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, continue to claim that more is being spent on flood protection in this Parliament than in the previous one. In real terms, that is nonsense. Thanks to the complaint from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) to the UK Statistics Authority, we now have an independent view on the Government’s claims. Andrew Dilnot said:

“Our analysis...supports the conclusion that the statement ‘over the current spending review period, more is being spent than ever before’ is supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in nominal terms and includes external funding, but is not supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in real terms or if external funding is excluded.”

That is categorical, so I hope that the Communities Secretary will apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister and all those Ministers who have repeatedly sought to misrepresent the truth on spending on flood defences. As the UK Statistics Authority has stated, the Government like to include external funding in its figures, or “partnership funding” as it calls it.

The figure that Ministers quote is £148 million, yet thanks to a recent parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the Government have been forced to admit that there is an £80.4 million black hole in this total because they have failed to secure the contributions anticipated. I hope that the Communities Secretary can update the House on how that will be filled.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. Match funding is important in this. Last night, North Lincolnshire council set its budget, in which the Conservative-led council added £5 million for flood defences along the Trent and the Humber. Can she tell me why Labour councillors voted against that budget and that funding?

[Maria Eagle]

I hope that if the Minister, whose parliamentary answer I am quoting from, has updated figures, he will provide them to the House when he replies to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pickles]

Of course. Absolutely. A mobile home is entitled to the same protection as a dwelling that has foundations.

On the Pitt review, in which the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) took such an interest, the vast majority of its recommendations have been implemented, with the majority of measures now in force. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is committed to implementing the remaining five Pitt recommendations by the end of this year. We are making the necessary legislative changes in the Water Bill.

Rightly, attention should now turn to how councils plan for development and how they build. Decisions on whether to grant planning permission are, of course, a matter for local planning authorities.

[Andrew Percy]

On the issue of building on floodplains, may I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the proposals going through North Lincolnshire council to build up to 10,000 homes on a floodplain between Burringham and Gunness in my constituency and Scunthorpe, a project created by the previous Labour council? I am deeply concerned about it, as is the leader of North Lincolnshire council. It is still going through the local development framework process, but may I just put it on his radar and urge him to support those of us who are concerned, after what we have just seen, about development on floodplains?

[Mr Pickles]

I will come on to the question of floodplains in a few moments, but the matter is on my radar. My colleague the Planning Minister will of course look at it with a completely open mind when the time comes.

Rightly, attention is now turning to how councils plan to develop and where they plan to build. Councils should take advice, where appropriate, from the Environment Agency and weigh up the different material considerations, from biodiversity to the need for more homes. Having said that, 99% of proposed new residential units that the EA objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with EA advice, where the decisions are known. I would say this, however: there is no monopoly on knowledge. Local elected councillors should decide and be held to account for their decisions.

Nevertheless, the estimated number of dwellings built in areas of high flood risk in England is now at its lowest rate since modern records began. That figure will change from year to year. It may rise and it may fall, but it will never be zero. A zero figure would mean a complete ban on any form of development in many existing towns and cities that happen to be flood-risk areas. Approximately 10% of England is high flood risk, such as large parts of Hull, Portsmouth and central London—indeed, this Chamber is in a high flood risk area. National planning policy clearly states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Councils should direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is unavoidable, it must be demonstrated that it is safe and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Councils have a robust power to reject unacceptable planning applications. Councils’ local plans should also shape where development should and should not take place. They should address the needs of associated infrastructure to accompany new building. National planning policy is clear that any new building that is needed in flood-risk areas should be appropriately flood-resistant and resilient. Mitigation measures such as land raising, landscaping, raised thresholds and rearranging the internal use of buildings can also make a development appropriate in such areas.

For example, London has long been at risk of tidal flooding, as evident from the North sea floods of 1953, which inflicted immense damage to the east end of London. However, since 1983 the Thames barrier has mitigated that risk. We did not have to ban all development in London; we overcame the challenge through science. We do not face a binary choice of economic growth versus flooding, town versus country or bailing out flood victims versus saving children in other parts of the world from being killed by contaminated drinking water. These are false comparisons and false choices. I want to be clear: we can and must do both. All that is required is political will, determination and innovation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). We both have experience of the 2007 floods—she as a Member of Parliament and myself as a councillor—and a good understanding of flooding in our area.

It has been an interesting debate, and I have liked a number of contributions. However, some Opposition Members have been more interested in trying to make political points about flood funding rather than in dealing with the recovery in which we are engaged. If they were honest, the reality is that after the devastating flood in 2000, which affected a large part of my constituency, the Government at the time increased flood funding but not to the level that they should have done, although we saw another boost after 2007. If we look at the history of flood funding, we see that we tend to get a boost after a major incident, and then it starts to taper off over a number of years. Sadly, that has been the case for decades. If anything comes out of this, it is perhaps the need for us to take a more long-term sustained approach to flood funding.

It is also a little bit incredible for Opposition Members to talk about flood defence funding as if they would not have made the same reductions had they won the last general election given their own commitments to cutting the deficit. We just need a bit of honesty from all parts of the House on this.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

No, I will not give way, because there are others who wish to speak. The flood defence funding issue in my constituency was not related to cancelled schemes. In fact, the improvements that were expected in my area were not scheduled until 2023, and 2028 in many cases. Our flooding was down to a significant tidal surge, which flooded 350 homes in my constituency. As I have said on numerous occasions, that incident coincided with the death of President Nelson Mandela, so it was not top of the six o’clock news. None the less, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited, as did the chairman of the Environment Agency. Eleven communities in my constituency were flooded. Some of them, such as Burringham and Keadby, received warnings, but others in South Ferriby and Reedness did not and many people found themselves in quite dangerous situations with water in some cases as high as their waists, and in one case up to their chests. A number of residents were stuck in their properties because they had not been provided with proper warnings.

We had a public meeting in South Ferriby last Monday night; a couple of hundred people turned out. It was a really well attended and good spirited meeting. One thing residents asked me to take back is the issue of flood warnings. A lot of people are elderly and not on the internet. Large parts of my constituency have internet speeds of about one megabit a fortnight, so it is not possible to get the updates. They did not know a warning had been issued in the morning. We did not have a severe warning, and people were not evacuated. The first thing people knew of the problems was when the Humber started pouring through their front doors, which was a frightening experience for elderly people living in bungalows. No one was there to help them, because the flooding was not expected in that community. Had it not been for the parish council and younger, fitter neighbours, a number of residents could have found themselves in an even more distressing situation.

Following that flooding I visited all the communities, but it took me three days to get round them all, given the scale of the flooding across east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. At that time I was struck by the response of the emergency services, and of the Environment Agency, which has come in for a lot of stick, but whose dedicated personnel were out there on the front line—maybe not at the time that some residents would have liked them, but in the days afterwards and since then, informing and protecting residents.

I pay a particular tribute to North Lincs council. The flooding happened on the Thursday evening. From the Friday and the Saturday, the council worked with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on a package of support, which was put in place that Monday morning, of £300 to every home that was flooded and a £1,000 interest-free loan to every resident who had been flooded, repayable over five years, starting six months from the date of the flooding. That package was available and was delivered to people by the end of that week. So within a week they knew the council was there to support them.

I want to say a little about the history of flooding in our area. We know we are likely to flood. I live next to one of our tidal rivers. On 5 December it was about 6 feet higher than my front room; fortunately it did not overtop, but only by an inch or two. We know we live in an area that was drained by Cornelius Vermuyden in the 17th century. It is former marshland. We know the risks we face. That does not mean that we should be written off.

[Martin Vickers]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Percy]

I give way to my honourable neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, who did so much to support his communities.

[Martin Vickers]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local knowledge is particularly important in forecasting, and that it would be very useful if we brought the farmers and councillors who serve on drainage boards into the equation a little sooner?

[Andrew Percy]

That is absolutely correct. It ties in with the point I am making, which is that in 2007 the river catchment plans for the Trent, the Ouse and the Aire were all issued, and those plans at that time suggested reducing defences. That was at the time of the last Labour Government. I, as a local councillor and a prospective parliamentary candidate, did not go around saying that the Labour Government wanted to flood our areas, but the catchment flood plans that we faced at that time would have reduced our defences substantially. We fought them very hard. Largely because of the information and skill of the drainage boards and local farmers, we were able to disprove the Environment Agency’s argument for its proposal and to win a change in the policy, so now our defences will be maintained and improved in line with rising sea levels.

That is all now subsumed by the River Humber flood strategy. This is where we really need some action. That strategy was adopted in 2008 for the Humber. It highlights large parts of my constituency as in need of improved defences, but at some time in the future—15 years hence. That is not good enough, bearing in mind what we have seen in the past few weeks. We need the funding for that, and we need to know what that strategy actually means. At a public meeting in South Ferriby, and in the previous public meeting we held at Reedness, residents were saying, “It is fine for our areas to have been identified in 2008 as needing improvement, but it is not good enough for us not to know when that will happen.” That is why I am pleased that last night the Conservative group on North Lincs council passed a budget that is bringing forward £5 million of funding, which we hope will be unlock that other funding.

What we want from Ministers now is leadership. Where money has been made available to unlock that match funding, as it has from North Lincs council—voted against by the Labour group, it must be said—we want Ministers to ensure that that match funding is unlocked now, not at a time convenient to the EA. Two and a half million pounds of that funding is scheduled for this financial year, specifically for defences on the Humber and the Trent, and the remainder in the forthcoming years. My plea to Ministers would be to ensure that where that match funding is being offered, the EA’s hand is snapped off and we can bring forward this investment as quickly as possible. I will end there, because I understand that there is pressure on time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—