§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
10.13 pm§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)Coastal erosion has been the subject of two Adjournment debates in the past two years. Neither made the important distinction between urban and rural coastlines. I hope this evening to correct that.
Approximately 8,000 sq km of land in England and Wales lies within 5 m of present sea levels. According to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, by the year 2050, sea levels will have risen by about 50 cm. Erosion rates vary across the country. For example, there is rapid erosion along parts of the coast of the east and southern parts of England, where relatively soft geographical formations are found.
Surveys are few, but surveys of the salt marshes along the north Kent and Essex costs were carried out in 1973 and 1988 to assess the loss of this habitat to factors other than development. They found that, over 15 years, between 10 and 40 per cent. of the salt marsh area had been lost in each surveyed estuary because of coastal erosion and land claim.
In 1994, the Conservative Government published the UK's first sustainable development strategy, in line with the commitments made at the Rio Earth summit in 1992. It referred to coastal erosion, and emphasised the need to promote the sustainable use of the coast so that it reflected its human uses as well as nature conservation. The previous Government rightly pointed out that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide, so it is unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is today.
The previous Government's advice to local authorities was to look to a range of options, and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences. That goes to the heart of the point that I want to make tonight—that Government funding is inadequate for that task. I shall return to that shortly. The present Government are consulting on plans for a revised strategy. The consultation paper has a section on freshwater and coastal waters, but concentrates on water quality. Coastal erosion does not appear to get a mention. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me about that.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility in England for flood defence and coastal protection. Its published policy objective is to reduce the risk to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion, by encouraging the provision of sustainable defence measures. It makes grant-in-aid funding available to local operating authorities for between 15 and 85 per cent. of the value of individual capital projects to provide sound and sustainable flood and coastal defences, as well as warning systems. In total, MAFF accounts for some 50 per cent. of the total capital expenditure annually. The rest is met by local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency.
1146 According to research by the Library, coastal defence schemes conducted by maritime district councils or unitary authorities under the Coast Protection Act 1949 receive a grant of 35 to 75 per cent. Flood defence works conducted by district councils or internal drainage boards under the Land Drainage Act 1991 attract flat rate grants of 25 per cent. for works on rivers, while works on tidal waters attract a further grant of 20 per cent.
Flood defence works conducted by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991 attract different rates of grant, depending on region. Grants for rivers vary from 15 to 65 per cent. and for tidal waters from 35 to 85 per cent. However, limits are placed on all three types of grant.
Global warming has changed weather patterns, raised sea levels, and increased the ferocity of storms, rendering some old sea defences useless. As a result, coastal erosion threatens towns, villages and industry, as well as natural wetlands. King Canute famously thought that he could withstand the sea. At the time, he was wrong, but nowadays we can take measures to hold back the sea where necessary. However, the message to local authorities from Governments past and present appears to be adopt the King Canute approach, and will the tide to turn. Adequate funds in the right places are the missing element.
I accept the argument that we cannot protect the whole coastline, but a distinction needs to be drawn between rural and urban coastline. That is partially accepted by the Ministry in its application for funding for flood defence and coast protection, where urban areas get a higher score than rural areas in terms of the type of project proposed. However, they may lose if other scoring factors, such as cost benefit or standard of defence, are too low.
I question whether the administration of such grants should not be a DETR function, rather than one of MAFF, as the responsible bodies tasked with preventing coastal erosion are local authorities, most of which—especially those in urban areas—have little or no contact with MAFF but are in regular communication with the DETR.
My own local authority, the unitary authority of Torbay, has 22 miles of coastline, consisting of the three towns of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham, which are rightly described as the English Riviera; 127,000 people live in Torbay, which is the second largest urban conurbation in the far south-west; and tourism is one of the main sources of employment. Like the majority of local authorities, Torbay is unable to make a contingency provision in its budget sufficient to meet the costs of severe storm damage. When faced with a bill for coastal erosion, as it was last year when the severe winter storms destroyed an access way to Redgate beach and left sections of the cliff face to the rear of that popular beach in an unstable condition, the authority has few options available.
The cost of repairs in that instance was estimated to be £350,000. The standard spending assessment for coast protection in Torbay is £14,000, and its basic credit approval for capital expenditure for the current year totalled –140,000. The council had to conclude that it could not forgo any of its committed capital schemes or find savings of that amount from its already over-committed revenue budget, so it had no option but to close the beach area to the public. It is somewhat ironic that, if the council were able to fund the coast protection 1147 works this year, under the current arrangements it could expect the cost to be reflected in the standard spending assessment settlement for next year and the year after.
That is one example of several important elements in the coastal tourism infrastructure, which is under serious threat from erosion not only in my constituency, but throughout the country. Faced with the changes to the standard spending assessment formula in respect of visitor nights, which move money away from coastal resorts, the prospect of funding repairs and maintenance to redress coastal erosion is ever diminishing. I apologise to the Minister for the time I have spent on the subject of local government finance, but that emphasises the point that perhaps such matters should be a function of the DETR, not MAFF.
I am also concerned that funds tend to be made available only for protecting the coastline in emergencies, not for the on-going daily problems of coastal erosion. The Bellwin scheme provides special financial assistance to those local authorities which, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities. As well as having responsibility for preventing erosion, local authorities have a statutory responsibility to deal with emergencies, yet there is no automatic entitlement under Bellwin to special financial assistance from central Government. The Bellwin scheme is discretionary.
Of course, many other communities are situated on the nation's coastline. The chairman of the north-east coastal authorities group, Mr. Riby, is also principal engineer for Scarborough council. He was quoted in The Northern Echo in May this year as saying, in reference to the amount of Government cash available:
Scarborough Council alone could spend the annual allocation.The Minister will recall that it was on that coastline that Holbeck Hall hotel tumbled into the sea, while the television cameras buzzed away and the world's media watched.My point is that central Government should give greater day-to-day support to those areas which have communities by coastlines under threat from erosion. That should be reflected in the coastline element of the local authority grant formula, and it should be significantly greater for urban areas. Finally, the Bellwin scheme, or an alternative, should be available to assist local authorities with the cost of repairing coastline damaged by normal wear and tear, rather than by exceptional conditions.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this Adjournment debate this evening. I look forward to the Minister's response.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on the succinct way in which he set out his concerns. He made his case very well on behalf of his constituents. I am responding as the Minister with responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy.
1148 The hon. Gentleman showed a great deal of knowledge about funding and structure, and the way in which they operate within government. He said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should take the lead on flood defence matters. I am not a Minister who is subject to departmentalitis; what is important is efficient and effective delivery. If there are other options, they should be properly considered.
Many flood defence and drainage issues are landuse issues. Much depends on co-operation with internal drainage boards, which are closely related to agriculture and coastal areas. In terms of land-use policy, there is a strong argument for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having responsibility for those issues. However, there is a debate on that, and the Select Committee on Agriculture is currently reviewing all the various options.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concerns about coastal erosion and the loss of land and property. I understand those concerns. It is an emotive subject; coastal erosion can cause a great deal of damage and distress, not only in economic terms, to those who live in affected areas.
Natural events such as coastal erosion can never be entirely prevented. It is obviously right that public authorities that have the power to do so take whatever measures they can to alleviate the risk that people face.
The Ministry is responsible for the planning, design, the construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures, but those responsibilities are carried out by a number of operating authorities, including local authorities. Responsibility for protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea rests with maritime district councils. As the hon. Gentleman said, that would be his local council.
Over the past decade, the Ministry has been developing an integrated and strategic approach to sea defence and coast protection. In 1993, it published a strategy for coastal defence, which set out a comprehensive framework within which the Government and the operating authorities can work. In particular, the strategy advocates that defence measures should be based on an understanding of natural processes, and, as far as possible, should work with those processes.
It is for operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas, and to come forward with plans for dealing with it that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the urban and rural divide in relation to flood and coastal defence. I find it ironic that, when I go as a Minister to rural areas, it is said that I am giving far too much attention to urban areas in relation to flood defence. I am now being told that I am paying far too much attention to rural areas.
It may reassure the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that funding for flood defence is based on a scoring system, and that we apply exactly the same criteria, whether it is a rural area or an urban area. I think that he will understand that the criteria are based on priority and need in relation to capital allocation.
As part of that approach, the Ministry has promoted the establishment of coastal defence groups, which provide a forum for discussion and co-operation. They help to 1149 ensure that processes such as erosion that are occurring on particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist the groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, such as the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, the Ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's local council will have been involved in the preparation of such plans. The Ministry has issued guidance on their preparation. The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes and coastal defence needs, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline, and take due account of other coastal initiatives. Shoreline management plans combine with the work of local planning authorities with a view to avoiding problems in the future by discouraging inappropriate development. The plans are intended to be a living document, and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for review should be included in the plans. That approach enables evolving knowledge of physical processes, environmental issues and land use to be drawn into the planning process.
It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman made that point. Instead, authorities must consider a range of options and the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences; there is an issue of cost-benefit analysis and appropriate defence.
Although the Government's commitment to effective coastal defence remains unchanged, the techniques of putting that commitment into practice are constantly evolving and improving. We now have a much better understanding of coastal processes and other conditions on which to base our coastal defence policy. In the past, defences often consisted of concrete sea walls, but experience and research have shown that techniques that preserve natural features, such as beaches and salt marshes, can be more effective in absorbing wave energy. Such approaches also have environmental benefits.
I have spoken so far about the policy guidance that the Ministry provides. It also provides more tangible assistance to maritime councils. In 1993, the Ministry commissioned a coastal protection survey, which examined the extent, adequacy and state of repair of coastal defences, and which I am sure would have included the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay. That report was published in 1994, and the Ministry has since asked the councils involved to update the results regularly. Their reports are included in our criteria for allocating capital funds.
We also fund a considerable research and development programme to examine the most effective way of predicting and preventing flooding and coastal erosion.
One of the hon. Gentleman's key points related to the resources that are made available for coastal defence. As he rightly said, the Ministry provides grant aid for 1150 flood defence and coastal protection. The schemes that we aid must be technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally sustainable. Funding takes the form of direct grants, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. For local authorities, the Ministry also provides approvals to enable them to borrow the balance of the cost of approved schemes net of grant. In the past two years, the Ministry has paid almost –60 million in direct grants for coastal protection schemes.
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there is an ever-increasing demand for MAFF funding, particularly for coastal and flood defence, so we introduced a priority scoring system in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. If there is only a finite amount of money, it is understandable that schemes with the highest priority and the greatest need should take precedence. Those scores take into account criteria such as urgency and the cost-benefit ratio, which tend to favour urban areas because of the value of the property that will be protected by any expenditure on coastal schemes.
Under this Government, sites of environmental importance have been identified and included in the priority scoring system for the first time. We recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life, and hence on those parts of the country where many people live and work. The priorities in the scoring system are, in descending order, flood warning; urban coastal and tidal defences, which meets the hon. Gentleman's point; urban flood defences and environmental assets of international importance; rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets of national significance; and new rural flood defence works, and environmental assets of local significance.
During the past year, all Government Departments, including MAFF, have been conducting a comprehensive spending review of their spending programmes. As part of that CSR, we have established a working group specifically to consider flood and coastal defence issues. That group has included a representative from the coastal protection authorities—from local government—and it has produced a thought-provoking report covering the key issues relating to flood and coastal defence. We shall consider that report and others, and announce the decisions on the CSR later this summer, including the decision on the level of future funding.
The review will have to take account of the many competing priorities, but the need for expenditure on flood and coastal defence, whose importance we are aware of, will be very carefully considered.
As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Select Committee on Agriculture is currently engaged in an inquiry into flood and coastal defence. We await its report with interest; that will be a very important contribution to the debate.
I shall now discuss the Bellwin scheme. The effects of coastal erosion can result in expenditure falling on local authorities; they are expected to budget accordingly. Where it seems to the Government that an undue financial burden would fall on local authorities as a result of taking action following an emergency that involves destruction 1151 of, or danger to, life or property, it is possible for grant to be paid on qualifying expenditure under the so-called Bellwin scheme. The scheme is administered by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Bellwin scheme can be activated when emergency works are necessary that will impose undue financial burdens on the local authorities concerned. Most recently, that scheme was implemented following the Easter flooding.
§ Mr. SandersThe problem with the Bellwin scheme is that it does not take account of the drip, drip, drip effect of erosion. Grants are available only when an emergency occurs, as a result of natural phenomena or a surprise flood or storm. A rock fall due to general wear and tear does not entitle the local authority to a grant under the Bellwin scheme, and the local authority concerned does not have the resources to put things right.
§ Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman is right, but I reiterate that the Bellwin scheme exists for emergencies and for unforeseen expenditure. Routine coastal defence, which is planned and predicted, comes under the normal funding arrangements and the normal bids of local councils.
1152 I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said on the standard spending assessment issue. The SSA system is being reviewed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure that the review will address the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, which I know are of concern to local authorities. Unfortunately, I suspect that the review will take some time because of its complexity.
In the meantime, I reiterate that the Bellwin scheme exists for unforeseen emergencies, and that it is not really relevant to normal planning in relation to shoreline management plans and coastal defence provision. Local authorities are aware of that. They do plan ahead for, and they do submit bids to MAFF in relation to, capital expenditure. They also have their SSA in relation to coastal erosion.
The hon. Gentleman has made some very important points. I hope that I have answered his questions. If he would like me to expand on any points, if he cares to write to me I shall be only too pleased to do so. Naturally, local authorities want more expenditure on those issues. A finite sum of money is available. We do need priorities, and I believe that the priority scoring system that we have addresses the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.