HC Deb 29 January 1976 vol 904 cc814-24

10.29 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

I wish to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be a very serious situation in my constituency concerning flooding from the North Sea.

In 1953, as the House knows, there was very serious flooding from the North Sea in the Thames Estuary, and on the East Coast. At Whitstable, in my constituency, the sea defences were breached and the central area of the town was flooded to a depth of 5 feet. The sea level was 15 feet 4 inches above ordnance datum. There were 1,550 properties flooded and 5,000 people had to be evacuated. The extent of the damage to property and services was very severe indeed. Mercifully, there was no loss of life.

After that disaster steps were taken to improve the defences at Whitstable in line with the defences for the whole length of the East Coast where this needed to be done to meet the recommendations of the Waverley Committee. At Whitstable the height of the sea wall was raised to match the conditions laid down by that Committee.

Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when speaking about sea defences on the East Coast, said that the defences should be improved to a standard sufficient to withstand another flood of the same proportions as occurred in January 1953."—[0fficial Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 1057.] That is the relevant part of what I seek to say tonight. The defences were raised to meet a situation such as occurred one night in January 1953 in order to face a similar surge of water at high tide and wind at the same time.

I maintain that these repairs in the area of Whitstable and Herne Bay were inadequate and are no longer sufficient to protect my constituents in the centre of Whitstable. I do not wish to exaggerate or to put fear into the minds of my constituents, but I believe that there is always a possibility, particularly in winter, of a disaster of major proportions.

I am advised by the Canterbury City Engineer—the Canterbury District Council covers this area of coastline at Whitstable and Herne Bay—regarding sea defences that major lengths would collapse under the conditions for which they were designed. Those conditions were to cope with the tide and storm conditions of 1953. He estimates that 3,000 properties would be within the flood area and that nearly 1,000 would be flooded by more than 8 feet of water.

That was over 20 years ago. A few weeks ago, on the night of 3rd-4th January, there was a great storm in the North Sea and we came very near to such a disaster in Whitstable. We were saved from such a tragedy only by the clock. I shall explain. We had an emergency situation that night at 11 o'clock. The police had to go out issuing public warnings to people in the flood danger area to be ready that night to evacuate with their families. Luckily that did not happen.

As I said, we were saved by the clock. The surge of the North Sea—the Minister will know what I mean by that—of nearly 10 feet occurred before high tide. Had it come at the same time, we would almost certainly have suffered severe flooding in central Whitstable.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that a plan has been prepared to protect the town at this most vulnerable point, the low-lying part. There has been close consultation between the city engineer's department and the Department of the Environment, in particular with the Government research station at Wallingford, and advice has been given to improve the sea defences there to the same standards as have been approved by the Department for the Thames Barrage.

The estimated cost in today's terms is £5 million. This scheme is not exceptional. It is on the same lines as has been planned for the Thames Barrage for Essex and for sea defences across the North Sea in Holland. There is nothing exceptional about the case that I am making for the coastline at Whitstable.

Of course, many of my constituents do not want these new defences, not only because of the cost, much of which would fall on them in the form of rates, but because a higher sea wall would spoil their sea view and might even rob them of it. I can understand and sympathise with their views, and so also, presumably, did the Minister when he ordered a public inquiry a year ago, in February last year. It sat for eight weeks taking evidence and hearing both sides of the case. We are still awaiting an answer from the Minister nearly 12 months later. I hope that it will not be long before we get that answer.

I am very concerned at the prospect of the sea breaking through. My concern is not so much with the view, but a view of the sea breaking through the sea wall is something which no one wants. That would be a terrifying prospect. But we in this part of Kent live with such dangers all the year round, and particularly, as I have said, in the winter months. We face the threat of invasion by the sea—nothing more, nothing less.

The coastline in question is subject to continual change. The shingle, itself a vital sea defence, is constantly moving and drifting away. I want to put before the Minister a remarkable piece of evidence. I am advised that this part of England is actually sinking and that the land is settling at a rate of half a metre each 100 years. The question of maintaining our sea defence is, therefore, a matter of top priority in my constituency. It is a never-ending task and a never-ending charge on the ratepayers.

That is what I think is so extraordinary. One would think that the responsibility for the defence of our island against the sea was a national responsibility—but not a bit of it. The Government pay us less than half the cost. They used to give us as much as 57½ per cent. in grant towards local government expenditure on sea defences. Now, in recent grants, they give us only 41 per cent., and the balance of the cost has to be shared between the district council and the Kent County Council on a fifty-fifty basis.

The Minister has told me that as local interests are involved it is right that we should carry some of this burden, with the greatest respect, I find that a very thoughtless remark. The burden is that people's lives are in danger and that thousands of houses are at risk. What sort of advantage is there in that sort of local interest? The Minister should think again. Our burden is great. It is much too high and very unfair.

I am not talking about a few new groynes, a few lorry loads of shingle and keeping the promenade in good repair. Our requirement in central Whitstable is a scientifically designed sea wall capable of withstanding a North Sea gale and a tide and surge 18 ft. above normal. As I have said, the cost is about £5 million. In the last two years we shall have spent nearly £2 million on cliff stabilisation and beach and groyne repairs.

I am asking the central Government to carry the whole financial responsibility for sea defences. I believe that there is an uneven apportionment of costs at present throughout the country. It varies from district to district. Only last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food disclosed that it was his Department that was responsible for administering sea defences, and, as he said, with generous grants of up to 85 per cent.—that is where the sea defences are administered locally for the Ministry of Agriculture by the water authorities. I understand that where sea defences are the responsibility locally of water authorities, they automatically get an 85 per cent, grant from the Government.

Imagine how people in my constituency, in Whitstable and Herne Bay, feel as they look along the coast towards Faversham Creek and up the River Swale, because that stretch of coast comes under the Southern Water Authority and enjoys an 85 per cent. grant—more than double the grant that we get for a similar piece of coast.

Why are there these differences? What age-old custom decreed that low-lying coastal areas should come under water authorities and that high-level coastal areas should be the responsibility of the local district council? Why is there a difference in the grants?

In my constituency I know that it is the earnest aim of the district council and of the county council to reduce expenditure and to tighten their belts. They recognise the economic dangers that we face if we do not take such economic measures. They are under great pressure from the Department of the Environment to do just this. Certainly they are continuously reminded by the ratepayers that they must do it.

But we face danger from another quarter—from the North Sea. It is wrong that we should be forced to say that we cannot afford to do anything about that real danger. We know, however, that if we achieve any growth in local government expenditure, even for such vital defences as these, the Government will automatically reduce the rate support grant. So we are caught.

I believe that this is a national problem and a matter of life or death. It is for the Government to put it right, to protect the people and to pay the bill.

10.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell)

I listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I well understand his anxiety on behalf of his constituents about these difficulties and about the cost of erecting a sea wall, a cost which inevitably under our present arrangements must be shared between the local authority and the Government.

We had an interesting Adjournment debate in the House last week answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reason for the difference in grants about which the hon. Member for Canterbury complained is the difference between sea defences, which are mainly to do with questions of land drainage and which attract one sort of grant, and general works against erosion and defence against the sea for which my Department is particularly responsible and which involve different considerations. The Ministry of Agriculture is concerned with land drainage matters. It may be that we ought to have another look at whether the difference is tenable these days, but that is the historic situation which I offer by way of explanation.

The hon. Member for Canterbury told us a great deal about the situation at Whitstable and Herne Bay, and I want to say first that he was quite right to draw our attention to the severity of the gales and storms which occurred recently and which, presumably, gave rise to this debate. Very properly, he drew attention to the fact that, after the previous very serious flooding and gales in 1953, all these matters were looked at, the sea walls were erected, and a great deal of resources went into providing them.

The extraordinary features of this year's gales, which, 1 understand, were even more severe than the gales of 1953, when so many people lost their lives, is that the work on the defence walls, especially on the East Coast, stood the test this time. Fortunately, we had none of the terrible experiences of deaths and so on that we had on the previous occasion. Therefore, we must pay tribute to the engineers, local authorities and everyone else concerned for having in the interim erected defences against the ravages of the North Sea which in the event proved to be reasonably satisfactory.

Mr. Crouch

I know that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers, especially his engineers at the Wallingford Research Station, are warning the Department and local authorities that the conditions which could obtain in the North Sea obtain only when there is a combination of wind of a certain force from a certain direction and a surge of the sea raising the water level, as well as a high tide at the same time. It did not happen like that during the most recent gales, but it could. The engineers estimate that it could happen once in 1,000 years. That "once" could be next year.

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman is quite justified in drawing my attention to that. If the engineers in my Department have advised us on that, the advice has not yet got to me. I undertake to look into this and to write to the hon. Gentleman again during the continuing discussions that I have no doubt we shall have.

Perhaps I may deal with this question of grant in a little more detail, Before local government reorganisation, which incorporated the Whitstable urban district and the Herne Bay urban district within the Canterbury district, Whitstable had qualified for a grant of 59 per cent. towards the cost of coast protection works in its area. For reasons which I will explain in a moment, schemes in the area which have been undertaken since reorganisation—I refer particularly to a scheme at Tankerton costing about £220,000 and another known as Preston Phase 3 costing about £412,000—have qualified for a 43 per cent. grant.

The position is broadly similar in Herne Bay. The authorities had undertaken a number of substantial schemes in the years preceding reorganisation and received grant aid ranging between 59 per cent. and 79 per cent. of the total cost. I refer particularly to the work at East Cliff for which the various schemes so far completed amount to a sum of money approaching £1½ million. A further substantial scheme for deep drainage works is in progress, although the rate of grant which would be applicable in this case has not yet been determined.

It will be seen from the figures I have quoted that the cost of sea defences is shared between the Government and local coast protection authorities. The hon. Gentleman had some pertinent points to make in this to which I shall try to reply. These local coast protection authorities are empowered by the Coast Protection Act to undertake schemes to protent land in their area from erosion or encroachment by the sea. The same Act empowers my right hon. Friend to pay a grant towards the cost of the work.

Over the country as a whole grant aid to the local coast protection authorities has amounted to about half the total cost of all the schemes which have been undertaken since 1949. This division of responsibility between Government and local authorities did not begin in 1949. It is important to understand the history of the matter. The hon. Gentleman said that some earlier remarks were thoughtless. Even though he may not agree with them, I can assure him that they are far from thoughtless. A great deal of thought has gone into this problem.

The issue was examined by a Royal Commission in 1911. Our present arrangements date from then, when the Royal Commission took the view that it was right for there to be a combination of national and local interests because that would appropriately express the division of responsibilities. However, 40 years later, after the floodings of 1953, another committee of inquiry was established, the Waverley Committee. This was set up in the wake of those disastrous floods to reexamine the arguments. It came up with the view that the Royal Commission's proposals were still valid and said that there should be this division between national and local interest, reflected in the financing of the works. The committee rejected the concept of the whole cost being borne by the national Exchequer.

Although I undertake to re-examine the case, I am bound to say that the force of the argument that the financing should reflect the distinct interests still seems to hold good. Local authorities know the problems in their area. Therefore, they must be closely involved. We cannot superimpose on the local situation a national view on the matter, to the complete disregard of the exercise of local authority. Therefore, the philosophy that the cost must be shared must be right.

The Coast Protection Act authorises the Secretary of State to pay grant towards the cost of improving existing defences or building new ones. Grant may also be paid for repairs to coast protection works where exceptional damage has occurred—for example, in severe storms. The cost of maintenance is totally borne by the coast protection authority, the local authority.

The assessment of the level of grant to be awarded to each of the 80 authorities takes into account four main factors. They are: first, the cost of the proposed project; secondly, the cost incurred by the authority on other coast protection projects since 1945; thirdly, the financial resources available to the authority, calculated by reference to the project of a 1 p rate; and, fourthly, the burden on the rates if the project were totally paid for by the authority.

Depending upon the calculations using that formula, coast protection authorities are awarded grant aid of various set percentages, which vary between extremes as great—I was astonished to find in preparing for the debate—as 24 per cent. and 79 per cent. There is a tremendous variety, but it follows from the examination of the criteria which I have read out.

Some authorities are very wealthy and have undertaken very little work, so they find themselves at the bottom end of the grant-aid scale, whilst others which are not so wealthy and have had a great deal of work to do tend to be in the higher bracket. The rate burden which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is one of the factors taken into account.

Local government reorganisation has also been a factor which has caused variation in the percentage rate of grant offered. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the reduced levels of grant which had been awarded to Whitstable and Herne Bay compared with grants for previous work. There has been no significant change in the level of grant. The proportion which the Government pay for the country as a whole is slightly more than 50 per cent of the total cost. But reorganisation has led to changes in particular areas, and among those affected in this way is the area which is the responsibility of the Canterbury City Council.

The reason for this change is that many of the coast protection authorities formed after April 1974 covered a much larger geographical area than their predecessors. Where that was the case, the new authorities had a larger number of ratepayers among whom to share the burden of paying for coast protection works. On the formula I have read out, that has become a significant factor. Within many new coast protection authorities there are now ratepayers who formerly paid nothing towards the cost of these works but who now have to do so because reorganisation has brought them into the new authorities. Equally, ratepayers in the former coastal authorities now have to contribute towards the costs of projects inland. In both cases the ratepayers also benefit from services within the larger community.

One result of reorganisation has been to combine coast protection authorities into larger units. This has had the effect of reducing the difference between the richer and the poorer authorities. In other words, the load is being spread far more widely. In cases where previously the coastal protection authorities were severely stretched by the costs—this was the case at Whitstable and Herne Bay—there is now scope for sharing the costs with more people. In other places the comparative burden on a coast protection authority has tended to increase, so that whereas in the first case the rate of grant to be received from the Government is likely to diminish, in the second the rate of grant is likely to increase. The effect of reorganisation has been to reduce the previous extreme disparity between coast protection authorities, resulting in less variation in the rate of grant towards one local authority in comparison with another.

It is hardly necessary for me at this moment, given the country's serious economic circumstances and the serious economic situation facing local government, to do anything other than to say that we shall be able to move from the existing situation, which has been recommended to us by two inquiries, only if there is an overwhelming case. Following the previous storm, we were overpoweringly forced by what happened to the sea defences to conclude that that was vital, but we are not forced to that view by the latest storm. Further, we are not forced to that view by the financial results of the local government reorganisation.

All the schemes submitted to my Department for grant aid are considered carefully and dealt with in accordance with principles agreed by the Treasury. Those principles apply to the country as a whole. That is only fair since there is a limited amount of money available for such grants. Special pleading is bound to mean that there will be less money available elsewhere.

Although I entirely agree that the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter as a result of the experience in his constituency earlier in the year, difficult decisions have to be made about what is urgent and what must wait. There are difficult decisions to be made about what can be afforded and what cannot. The right place for such decisions to be taken is at local authority level. At that level it is known which schemes are really urgent as opposed to schemes which are desirable but less urgent.

The way in which our coast defences stood up to the recent battering is vindication of our present arrangements and responsibility, and the coast protection authorities have shown that they are well able to discharge their obligations. That was the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Although the hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree about some financing matters, we are probably at one in believing that it is the work that has been done by the local authorities that has led to a happier result on this occasion. So far as we are concerned—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.