Flooding

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

It is right to begin with the human cost of flooding. My constituency is no stranger to flooding, and the devastation to home owners and businesses is incredible, which is why we need a clear policy, supported and understood by Members on both sides of the House, whichever party is in government, that gives the public confidence that the Government will provide the investment in flood protection that is necessary to minimise the risks.

In his speech the Secretary of State seemed to make the case that because a substantial number of Government Back Benchers got up to thank him for putting investment into flood protection measures, all was fine. [Interruption.] He says he did not mean that, but he certainly advanced the argument that many people were grateful for flood protection measures. So, too, am I. We had a hiatus with one particular scheme in York after the new Government came in, but it is now going ahead, thanks to funding from the Environment Agency and our local City of York council. But the budget for flood alleviation measures has fallen from the time this Government came to power in 2010 from something like £650 million a year to something like £550 million a year. There would be more Members getting to their feet to thank the Secretary of State, as I have done and as other Members have done, if that additional £100 million a year had been spent.

Back on 9 January at DEFRA questions the Secretary of State claimed falsely that the coalition Government were spending more on flood protection than the Labour Government had spent. I challenged him, quoting figures that his Department had given to me in answer to a parliamentary question in July last year, pointing out that spending was in fact down by £113 million from what it was at the time of the general election. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gratuitously accused me of being a slow learner, because I had the cheek to challenge his slippery figures, and he repeated his bogus claim that

“this Government are providing more”—

for flood protection—

“than any previous Government in the current spending review.—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 440.]

I was appalled at this statement. I tabled a further parliamentary question which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). He gave me a different set of figures, but they confirmed a fall of about £100 million since the general election. I asked the House of Commons Library’s statisticians to comment on the figures that I had received, and they concluded:

“Departmental spending on flood defences in 2011-15 will be lower than it was in 2007-11 in both nominal and real terms”.

I therefore went to the UK Statistics Authority to ask whether it agreed with the House of Commons statisticians’ analysis or with DEFRA’s. I quote from the reply that I received last week from the chairman of the authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot. He said:

“The Statistics Authority’s own analysis of the available figures concurs with the conclusions of the note prepared for you by officials in the House of Commons, attached to your letter and subsequently reproduced in a published analytical article. We agree with their finding that, as at January 2014, Government funding for flood defences was expected to be lower in both nominal and real terms during the current spending period than during the last spending period.”

In order to justify his bogus and misleading claims, the Secretary of State did four things which no professional statistician would do: he selected particular time periods which favoured his case; he included estimates for future projected expenditure, when we do not know whether that will actually be spent or not; he added projected and unconfirmed estimates of private investments in flood protection, and showed them as Government expenditure; and he gave cash figures without showing that these were reduced when one took account of inflation.

The Secretary of State’s figures were unprofessional, massaged and spun. This is what Sir Andrew Dilnot had to say about them in his letter to me:

“Defra does not publish figures on flood defence spending as official statistics. There is therefore no obligation for Defra to comply with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics in relation to these figures. However, given the salience of these figures and the public interest in them, it is my view that it would better serve the public good if Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure by the relevant organisations on aspects of flooding and coastal erosion management”.

There is a solution to the problem of slippery figures changing from one parliamentary answer to another. It is clear that DEFRA cannot be trusted to provide truthful figures in-house. In future, figures on flood protection spending should be provided as official statistics, produced in a quality-assured way and issued by the independent and trustworthy UK Statistics Authority. It is clear that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs misled the public, this House and the Prime Minister, who has been repeating his figures—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to accuse a Government Minister of misleading the House.

[Hugh Bayley]

Well, he gave figures that are being contested by the independent UK Statistics Authority. I wish him a speedy recover—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can find a different way of phrasing the point he wishes to make.

[Hugh Bayley]

I just have found a different way of phrasing it.

I wish the Secretary of State a speedy recovery, but when he returns he should make a statement to the House to apologise for inadvertently misleading us and to confirm that figures issued on flood protection will in future be provided as official statistics from the UK Statistics Authority. [Interruption.] If he wants to apologise to me for his gratuitous insult, I will accept an apology at that time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not need advice from Members on the time limit—I can count.