|
?:reviewBody
|
-
The government's claim to have spent more on flood defence schemes misrepresents its record. Funding for flood defences have increased overall, although it was originally set to fall. There do seem to have been cuts made in particular areas, such as staff at the Environment Agency. We were ... surprised to hear you claim at Prime Minister's Questions this afternoon that you 'are spending more on flood defence schemes'. This is simply a misrepresentation of what has happened since you took office five and a half years ago. Letter to the Prime Minister from Jeremy Corbyn and Kerry McCarthy, 6 January 2016 Labour's letter to the Prime Minister appears to challenge his claim to have increased spending on flood defence schemes. But while it cites specific cases of cuts—such as a reduction in Environment Agency staffing since 2010—it doesn't provide evidence that spending overall has fallen under Mr Cameron. It hasn't. Central government funding for flood defences in England over the last five years was higher than the same period under Labour. This is true even if you take inflation into account. But it's only higher because of a funding surge in response to floods two winters ago. Although Labour's evidence doesn't directly contradict what the Prime Minister said about spending, it does show that cuts were made in particular areas. Taken over several years, flood defence funding is up Official figures for spending on Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England show that £3.37 billion in central government money was paid out under the Coalition. This compares to £3.17 billion during the previous five years under Labour. This is taking account of inflation, so giving the value of the spending in this year's prices. In cash terms, there's a bigger difference. £3.23 billion was spent between 2010/11 and 2014/15, up from £2.72 billion over the previous five years. Taking spending in a five-year block hides the year-on-year trend, which showed cuts in the early years of the Coalition but increases more recently. Spending in 2010/11 reflects both Labour and Coalition spending plans. Spending for this year would have been set initially by the previous Labour government, but was cut by 5% shortly after the Coalition took office. But no matter how you slice and dice the figures in making the comparison, they don't show a fall in overall spending under Mr Cameron. For instance, if you attribute the 2010/11 spend to Labour, the five-year total becomes £3.27 billion in real terms. The outlay under Mr Cameron between 2011/12 and the current 2015/16 financial year is planned to be £3.34 billion. Cuts in the early years of the Coalition, increases more recently If you Google this, you'll find plenty of articles contradicting what we say above—including one of our own. The simple explanation for these is that they're out of date. As we've noted, the government cut spending initially when it came into power, so that it was lower than under Labour for several years running. But there was a spike in spending in 2014/15 after flooding the previous year. It was over £800 million, where it was planned to be more like £600 million. So when you now tot up total funding over several years, there isn't an overall cut, due to this injection of funds. Previous analysis from 2014 had shown there would have been a cut, although at the time the government still claimed that spending had risen by including funding from external sources. This is money spent by the Environment Agency on flood defences in addition to what it gets from the government. It's raised by local levies and fundraising, as well as various other charges. Including this pot of money in the headline spending figure led to a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority. The Department for Environment now publishes it separately. Budgets don't prove effectiveness The amount of money the government provides for flood defences isn't everything. As with most spending areas, what matters is how the money relates to demand and how effectively it's spent. If periods of very heavy rainfall are becoming more frequent and the risk of flooding greater, you could argue that spending has to rise accordingly. And Labour says that particular areas have suffered as a result of the initial cuts. Reporting at the time backs up the claim that 274 schemes on an indicative list to receive funding in 2011/12 were postponed. This included a scheme in Leeds along the River Aire, which flooded last month. We can't replicate exactly Labour's claim of a 20% reduction in Environment Agency staff. But it's correct that numbers are down. In March 2010, the Agency employed the equivalent of 13,600 full-time staff. Last year, it was down to 11,400. This includes staff employed on one-off capital projects.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}