SEA DEFENCES (Hansard, 23 March 1962)

§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I am raising today the question of the sea defences of the country, including river flooding. Once and sometimes twice a year we have reports from various parts of the country of our sea defences being breached and of many communities on the coastal strips suffering great distress. We have also the situation at least once a year of the flooding of areas where we have our rivers. The effect is that every year we have the same story of property destroyed, lives lost and a great deal of distress suffered by the people concerned.

We had earlier this month, in Cornwall and parts of Devon, a repetition of what has been going on throughout the ages. The people of those areas are suffering almost continuously. These are areas with very small county district authorities which can ill afford to impose on the residents the cost of either the maintenance of sea defences or the consequences of flooding. It is true that the Exchequer makes certain grants, but when we questioned the Minister of Housing and Local Government about flooding in Cornwall he admitted that any burden on some of these local authorities would be an undue burden. This situation has arisen this year in Devon and Cornwall but there is constant repetition, for it arises wherever small areas are vitally affected in this way.

Many people who have suffered the consequences of flooding have been unable to secure the necessary insurance to cover their property—and when I speak about property I am speaking not merely in terms of bricks and mortar but in terms of family homes which have been built up over many years, often as a result of great sacrifices. Then, as a consequence of a breach of our sea defences, those people have to suffer the indignity of being the recipients of charity because we have the archaic system by which we create national funds of one kind or another to meet the situation.

811 In addition, there is the important issue of agricultural land. The National Farmers' Union is very much concerned with the cost to the farming community of the losses due to flooding of one kind or another. But the N.F.U. also brings out another point. At present, there are certain Exchequer grants in the case of both the breaching of sea defences and land erosion, but once the revetment has been done there is no assistance from the Exchequer for the maintenance of that revetment. The N.F.U. has argued consistently for many years that sea defences ought to be a national responsibility, and in the case which it presents the N.F.U. emphasises the necessity not merely for the acceptance of the principle of national responsibility for sea defences but for the acceptance of the principle of national responsibility for the maintenance of the works once they have been carried out.

The position is that there is divided responsibility—and that is not good enough. Britain is an island. The biggest enemy of the island is the sea around our shores. We are involved with the lives and property of British subjects, and we meet that situation with a divided responsibility. This is our biggest enemy, but I do not think that Ministers see the problem in its proper perspective. For a long time the State has accepted its responsibility to ensure the defence of the country against external enemies. We spend enormous sums of money in defending the country against external enemies, but in an island what greater external enemy can there be than the seas around our shores?

Year after year, part of my constituency suffers from flooding. It also faces the problem of erosion. An ex-public house known as the "Jolly Waterman" will be no more within a few years' time, because the River Severn is gradually eating into the bank—gradually eating into the coast, in a sense—and the "Jolly Waterman" will be in the Severn. That is only part of the whole story of erosion which is taking place along the banks of that river. The river board is doing as much as it can, but it has not sufficient money to carry out the work necessary to maintain what are, in effect, the coasts in my part of the country.

812 If national responsibility can be accepted in respect of our country's defence against external enemies we should surely accept it in respect of the defence against our natural enemy—the waters around our shores. It is true that the Waverley Committee rejected the principle of national responsibility in its Report, but it also made many other recommendations which have not been implemented. But that Committee was set up largely in consequence of the flooding on the East coast in 1953. It reported in 1954, when it made all kinds of recommendations without accepting the need for national responsibility.

But since then we have had flood after flood, and breaches in our sea defences have occurred time after time. It is not sufficient for the Government merely to rest their case upon the fact that the Waverley Committee rejected the principle of national responsibility. We must consider the question again. We ought to take national responsibility in order to ensure that people living in the coastal areas and other areas which are subject to flooding are given the maximum defence, and are not caused the sort of distress that has occurred in the last year or two.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has raised an important topic, which it is difficult to discuss fully in the short time available. Taken in isolation, a case can be made out for all sorts of services being made a national responsibility. At various times it has been suggested that the Exchequer—that is, the general body of taxpayers—should pay the whole cost of education and of the police and fire services, because national standards are required and national rates of pay have been adopted.

On the other hand, it is said that the Exchequer should give greater aid to those authorities which have special problems which are not faced by more fortunate areas. But if some authorities have burdens cast upon them to maintain sea defences and coastal protection, burdens which do not fall upon other areas, they have corresponding advantages, in not having to face the problems of slum clearance and overspill, the costs 813 of which fall on many other areas. Furthermore, the cost of refuse and sewage disposal is often much less.

What we seek to do by way of the present system of Exchequer grants is to see that our national resources are spread as equitably as possible by means of the formula for the distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant and also by means of the rate deficiency grant payments. In respect of many services, such as slum clearance and, in this case, sea defence and coast protection, we make special provisions.

I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to see us undermining local responsibility for local affairs. Certainly, there are occasions when the local authorities can and do act as agents for the central Government, but this should be for a minimum of functions if we are not to make them simply branch offices of Whitehall Departments.

Both coast protection by maritime local authorities under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, and sea defences by river boards under the Land Drainage Acts are responsibilities which call for local judgment. In the case of coast protection, it should be for the local authority to decide whether protection works are necessary and what form they should take. At seaside resorts, the sea wall is often part of the promenade and, to that extent, a valuable asset as well as an amenity. I see no case for the central Government taking the entire responsibility for a service like this, especially at a time when our general policy is directed to giving more and more control to local people over their own affairs.

The Waverley Committee accepted that the cost should be distributed, and rejected quite firmly the suggestion that the responsibility for coast defences should be placed on the central Government. The Government still feel that that is the right view. Of course, there is a national interest, and that is to ensure that the burden failing on individual authorities is not unduly heavy in relation to their resources.

The sea does not discriminate in its attacks on rich or poor authorities, and it is right that we should try to even out the discrepancies. I hope that I shall be able to go some way, at any rate, towards convincing the hon. Gentleman 814 that this is done, by and large, by the existing system of financial aid.

Under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, provision is made for grants from the Exchequer towards the cost of coast protection schemes. When Exchequer grant is paid, the county council also has to contribute. If the county council and the coast protection authority disagree about the amount of the contribution, the Minister determines the dispute.

Since the war, nearly 400 coast protection schemes have been approved in England and Wales at a total cost of about £16½ million. Exchequer grants so far paid have amounted to about £8½ million, or slightly more than half the total cost. In making those grants, account is taken of all the relevant local factors, such as the burden on the rates, and so on. There is no statutory limit to the amount of grant, but, in practice, it has usually been between 20 and 80 per cent. Prosperous authorities like Bournemouth carry out the whole of the work with no burden on the Exchequer. However, each case must be considered on its merits.

The capital works of river boards are eligible for grant under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Broadly, the level of grant depends on the financial circumstances of the river board. Normal drainage work is aided at rates between 20 and 80 per cent., but sea defence work is eligible for an additional 15 per cent., subject to a maximum of 85 per cent. Since 1953, £38 million has been spent by river boards on sea defence work, of which £34 million has been met by Exchequer grants. A substantial part of that £34 million consists of 100 per cent. grants made to the East Coast river boards after the floods of 1953.

The Waverley Report stated that the members of the Committee were firmly convinced that the maximum grant of 85 per cent. should not be increased, for, if there was to be any responsible local judgment on the value of new works, some significant part of the cost ought to fall on the river board making the decision. That view is reinforced by the earlier and extremely authoritative Heneage Report.

It is true that the Waverley Committee suggested that the expenditure on 815 maintenance, to which the hon. Gentleman specifically referred, of river boards and coast protection authorities should be eligible for Exchequer grant not exceeding 50 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government carefully considered the suggestion at the time but decided not to accept it. Apart from the fact that new legislation would be needed, we think that maintenance is properly a local responsibility and that inasmuch as it is a burden it will be assisted by the rate deficiency grant payable to local authorities whose circumstances qualify them for it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of dual responsibility. This is another matter which was exhaustively considered by the Waverley Committee. The desirability of having different responsible authorities, both at ministerial and local level, has been questioned on a number of occasions since.

It was not only considered by the Waverley Committee, but also when the Coast Protection Act, 1949, was being enacted. Most people—and certainly 816 the Waverley Committee—have concluded that there would be strong objections to disturbing the existing distribution of responsibility. The Waverley Committee urged the need for closer contact between all the bodies concerned, however, and, since the Report was published in 1953, a great deal has been done to review the arrangements for cooperation between river boards and coast protection authorities, and general agreement has been reached about the division of responsibility. We have found very few cases of difficulty and do not envisage that any such cases are likely to arise in the future.

There is no evidence to suggest that either the present administrative system or the sea defence work cost in itself is placing an undue burden on local finances. Bearing in mind, therefore, the substantial Exchequer contribution which I have described, the Government do not feel that there is any general case for altering the existing arrangements.