Opposition Day — Flooding — Spending on Flood Defences — Review of Flood Policy — 6 Jan 2016 at 18:50

The majority of MPs voted against spending £800 million per year on maintenance and strengthening of flood defences and against an urgent, independent, public review of flood policy.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House
  • extends its sympathy to all those affected by recent floods and its gratitude to the emergency services, armed forces and volunteers who rallied round to help afflicted communities over the holiday period;
  • notes the damage the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s cuts, which the National Audit Office estimates amounted to 10 per cent over the course of the last Parliament, excluding emergency funding, have caused to these communities;
  • notes that by delaying or cutting new flood defence projects or neglecting maintenance of existing flood defences, the Government has failed to protect these communities;
  • notes with concern the recent decision by the Scottish Government to impose a six per cent cut on funding to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency;
  • believes that there has been a dismal lack of action by the Cabinet Committee set up after the floods of 2013-14 and questions the effectiveness of the newly-created Cabinet Committee under the same leadership;
  • further believes that the UK needs a long-term plan which includes a complete rethink of flood defences, as proposed by the Environment Agency, measures to make homes, communities and infrastructure more flood resilient and a greater focus on flood prevention, particularly through uplands and water catchment management; and
  • calls on the Government to commit to the figure that the Environment Agency said in 2014 was required to protect communities of £800 million per year on maintenance and strengthening of flood defences and to carry out an urgent, independent, public review of flood policy.

The 2015/16 budget allocation for flood and coastal erosion risk management was £695.3m.[1] This was the current budget at the time of the vote.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con281 (+2 tell) 0085.8%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 205 (+2 tell)089.2%
LDem0 6075.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
UUP0 20100.0%
Total:281 216087.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive