Is Scotland Ahead? - The response from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
On 10th July 2002 , in a Westminster Hall debate, it was suggested by Mr Mark Todd (MP for South Derbyshire ) that Scotland is ahead of England and Wales in a number of areas relating to flooding. Mr Elliot Morley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responded vigorously to this suggestion, and made a number of statements on the subject. The author believes some comments are necessary to set the record straight. The author has attempted to do this below, and apologises if some of these comments repeat what has gone before in this report.

What really matters if there is to be any improvement in flood hazard and insurability is the appropriate attitudes and commitment to improvement not only at a national level but also within local government. Nevertheless, spending on flood defences is important, so before examining Mr Morley's comments it would be useful to go through the numbers again.

As demonstrated earlier in this report, the number of properties at risk from inland flooding in England and Wales is around 12 times higher than in Scotland . Coastal figures are still quite inaccurate, but for the sake of comparison, the coastal risk is included in the following.

•  According to the latest figures from the EA, 2 million homes and 185,000 businesses are at risk of flooding in England and Wales- property, land and assets to the value of £214 billion.

•  According to a recent Scottish Executive research report, in Scotland 171,021 homes and businesses are at risk, if coastal flooding is included.

In other words, if coastal flood figures are included and are correct, the number of properties at risk in England and Wales is not just 12 times higher, but 12.8 times higher than in Scotland . Earlier in this report, the author highlighted the fact that between 1997 to 2000, 11% of new properties were built in flood risk areas in England and Wales . Perhaps it would be more accurate to take the up to date figure of 27% of the value of new properties which are currently being built in flood hazard areas, a big increase over the 1997-2000 figure.

Even if this proportion now stays constant, with a million more houses to be built by 2010, it would appear that we could expect the number of properties at risk in England and Wales to increase by 270,000, to 2,455,000. By contrast, effective planning controls in Scotland mean that the Scottish figure should remain at around 171,000. This means that by 2010, the factor could rise to 14.4.

The other important factor is that while the Scottish Executive have never refused flood defence grant aid on the grounds of lack of money, in England, the government's own research shows that they need to increase their spending by up to 85%.

These points should be borne in mind in what follows.

Mr Morley's points:

Point 1

Mr Morley: "The annual budget of £150 million of capital works supported by DEFRA grant represents a 25% increase over the £110-120 million average in recent years."

Comment

Presumably this includes the "one off" payment from the Deputy Prime Minister of £50 million following the floods in 2000. Mr Morley did not mention that the DEFRA spending in 2002-3 was due to reduce again to £114m.

Point 2

Mr Morley : "The total spend on flood and coastal defence in Scotland is about £10 million a year on capital and £2 million a year on revenue. In England , we spend a combined total of more than £400 million."

Comment

The planned spending in England and Wales for 2002-3 was actually £394m, of which £280m is to come from local authorities. This is only a plan, and local authorities are not obliged to spend this amount. Going by past performance it is almost certain that local political pressures will mean that the actual amounts spent in some areas will be much less. A fairer comparison would be to compare the central grant aid figures. Scotland central grant aid for 2003-2004 was to be £8.5m, while the corresponding figure for England and Wales announced in the spending review was to be £114m. In terms of spending per property at risk, this is a comparable level to Scotland .

In this case, comparing the amounts spent does not reflect the true position. There is no point in spending money if it is not needed. Mr Morley did not mention that in Scotland , central grant aid has never been refused for a flood defence on the grounds of lack of money available. Scottish budgets are simply increased to meet demand, and if the benefits of a defence exceed the costs, then money would be found. In England and Wales, money is "rationed" by artificial constraints to limit the size of the benefits calculation and even then, benefits would normally have to be at least five times bigger than costs, and under the current rules, as much as ten times greater than costs in many cases.

Point 3

Mr Morley : "In the 40 years since 1961, 60 schemes have been approved in Scotland . More than twice that number are approved each year in England . Since the floods of 2000, my Department has approved a total of 274 new flood and coastal schemes, at an approved cost of £386,417,694. That is the difference in scale."

Comment

It is rather misleading to simply quote the pre- Devolution figures without mentioning what has happened since Devolution in 1999. By 2001, there were 60 new defences in the pipeline in Scotland . Using the factor of 12.8 calculated earlier, this would be the equivalent of England and Wales having 768 schemes in the pipeline.

Point 4

Mr Todd raised a useful follow up question:

Mr. Todd : "While my hon. Friend is on the subject of comparisons with Scotland, will he discuss the primary legislation that exists in Scotland but not in England that obliges local authorities to perform various duties in respect of flood defence?"

Mr. Morley : "I am grateful that my hon. Friend raised that matter, because such legislation does not exist in Scotland . There is no duty to undertake capital works in Scotland , in the same way that there is no duty to do so in England . There is a duty to carry out maintenance of watercourses if they represent a risk of flooding in urban areas and there is, in effect, a duty to maintain the existing defences in our country through the regional flood defence committees, but there is no real difference between the two countries."

Comment

It is inappropriate for Mr Morley to be so dismissive of the importance of the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage ( Scotland ) Act, 1997. Scottish local authorities have been working extremely hard to implement the Act, and are given additional funding to enable them to do so. They are obliged to publish a biennial report on progress made in fulfilling their statutory duties to maintain watercourses and culverts, and to bring in appropriate flood management measures. These are not always flood defences, there is considerable use of river restoration techniques, emergency detention basins and designated flood plain storage land. If such duties do exist "in effect" in England , they are frequently neglected. Mark Todd MP had previously stated:

"I was staggered by the evidence (in answers to written Parliamentary Questions about watercourse maintenance) that a large number of local authorities (in England) had responded by saying either that they did not have the resources to do the job or that they did not have the expertise to do it and that it would therefore have to be postponed until a more appropriate time or until they could find such expertise."

The ABI does not seem to be convinced by Mr Morley's answer either, as they have specifically made it a condition of future flood insurance availability that government consider similar legislation in England.

Another aspect which Mr Morley did not mention is that the Scottish act, by creating a statutory duty, could give rise to a cause of action by insurers or property owners against local authorities to recover the costs of flood damage.

Point 5

Mr. Morley : "I am not aware that Scotland has agreed to the higher defence standards that have been proposed by the ABI."

Comment

As far as the author knows, the ABI has not proposed higher defence standards. The ABI has proposed that planners take into account the author's Insurance Template but this simply highlights potential insurance problems if the flood hazard exceeds the 200-year return period. Whatever the ABI may have said to Mr Morley, it is not up to the insurance industry to set design standards for flood defences, or to tell planners where they can or cannot build. They do have an obligation however, to warn society if the consequences of planning decisions mean that a significant number of properties may become uninsurable, or insurable only at a much increased premium.

Thanks to Flood Liaison and Advice Groups, all the major local planning authorities in Scotland have decided not to allow new building where the flood risk exceeds the 200 year event. This has been done voluntarily by individual councils, taking into account local circumstances, because they can see that it makes sense. How many Councils in England or Wales have done likewise?

«back to top«