The Prime Minister has told a Parliamentary Committee about the practical difficulties of allocating Government resources to risks currently facing the UK - including floods and terrorism.

The issue is part of a wider debate which is now at the forefront of the political agenda. The damage caused by current severe weather - in particular the destruction of part of the key strategic rail network between Devon and Cornwall - has led to questions being asked between the estimated £40-billion spend on High Speed HS2 rail route versus the  levels of investment likely to be needed for the UK's flood defence infrastructure. 

Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House of Commons the Government would do whatever was required—including fresh money for flood defences, or action across the board in order “to get the issue sorted. “

The comments came in the context of a wide-ranging discussion on security issues when the Prime Minister appeared before a joint House of Commons/ House of Lords Committee on Thursday last week.

David Cameron told members of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the public wanted to know that the Government was doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and that a forward investment programme was in place.

£2.6 billion on counterterrorism and intelligence versus £560 million on flooding?

A question from Lord Harris of Haringey on whether the National Security Council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the national risk register, and if so, how it reaches  a conclusion, marked the start of an interesting discussion which threw some light onto how the Government approaches the issue.

Lord Harris commented:

“People might wonder why we put £600 million-odd a year into policing counterterrorism and £2 billion or so into the single intelligence account, but at the moment they are having problems with flooding and our expenditure on flood defences last year was £560 million, although it is rising next year.”

In response the Prime Minister said it was “very difficult to measure up the amount you spend on one subject with the amount you spend on another against the respective threats.”  There was  no exact science to it, but because all the risks and the register are brought together in the national security secretariat, at least one part of Government was trying  to “measure all this up in a committee that then looks at it.”

The National Security Council did look at the resource choices in terms of budget – however, on the question of whether it measured up directly floods on the one hand against the chance of terrorism on the other, the Prime Minister replied:

“While they are all on the national risk register, it is quite difficult to argue that there is a science to working out whether you have put the exact amount of money in the exact place.”

Asked by Lord Harris whether it was a question of “a finger in the air and saying £600 million for counterterrorism”, Mr. Cameron said

“You are bringing it all together. You look at your potential weaknesses and you try to make sure that you are correctly identifying the gaps.”

The Prime Minister confirmed that the National Security Council had discussed flooding via a sub-committee which looks at resilience, threats and hazards in the context of the national risk register and the national risk assessment. However, flooding had more generally been dealt with through COBRA – although it was a mistake to think that the NSC is entirely strategic and COBRA is entirely operational, commenting:

“I use COBRA to address issues where you need a cast that is slightly wider than that of the National Security Council. Flooding is a good example of that.”

Has the Government considered risks to UK's critical infrastructure from rising sea levels?

Lord Harris of also raised the issue of whether either as part of that process or as part of the National Security Council the Government had a long-term plan in place for the impact of climate change on the UK - for example, had there been any consideration which pieces of the critical national infrastructure are most threatened by rising sea levels.

Mr Cameron said there had been discussions in the National Security Council about climate change and another one was probably needed before the next UN conference of the parties meeting on the issue. He also referred to a study that had been done on the UK’s critical infrastructure and the potential threats to it, including from floods and rising sea levels.

The Committee returned to the issue of flooding several times during the lengthy discussion. Baroness Taylor of Bolton raised the question of risk and public perception, commenting that if people were asked what they thought was the biggest risk faced by the UK today, they would say flooding, Baroness Taylor enquired:

“Who is responsible for engaging the public so that their perception of risk is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the latest problem? When someone challenges what the Government are doing, are you able to explain your position? How do you deal with that? Who in Government is responsible for putting across the message about the proper perception of risk?”

The Prime Minister said the hope was that by having a National Security Council, people can see that risks are being looked at as a whole and in the round. However, in the end it falls to the Prime Minister to try and explain how the Government look at risks and the steps taken to try to keep the country safe, adding:

“The Prime Minister has to front it up and the scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks. That is probably the best you can do.”

With regard to the question of flooding versus terrorism, Mr. Cameron said people wanted to know that the Government was doing everything possible to protect dwellings from flooding and that a forward investment programme was in place. He commented:

“I think they understand that there are severe weather events that can affect the country. You do everything you can to mitigate against them, but in the end you cannot mitigate against every single thing. “

“However, when it comes to appalling terrorist events which can be so indiscriminate and pose such huge risks, people just want to know that you are doing everything possible to prevent them happening in the first place.”

The Government may now need to consider how to adopt a more a systematic approach to its major spending decisions on issues of national security - including how to ensure the UK does not suffer from increasing disruption and damage to the UK economy due to the growing impact of climate change. Just as important, perhaps it also needs to think about how to deliver a clearer, more consistent message on the issue in order to gain greater public understanding and support.