Flood Defences Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Lord Spicer
Main Page: Lord Spicer (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Spicer's debates with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I understand what the Lord said. The whole purpose of Flood Re is precisely to give householders—53,000 home insurance policies are now backed by Flood Re—the benefit of affordable insurance, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, is it possible that we waste a lot of money on flood defence systems? Especially around rivers, you do not abolish flood-water by spending money on defences but simply push it on elsewhere. In my former constituency, I did wonders for Upton upon Severn and ruined the lives of people in Tewkesbury.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the whole of the taxpayer’s financing of this is predicated on receiving the best value we possibly can. Perhaps under the natural capital programme, with the further £15 million following on for schemes such as those in Pickering, Holnicote and Upper Derwent, we can have whole catchment systems on rivers such as those my noble friend mentioned, whereby we engineer the use of natural capital.