Examination of Witness (Questions 543-
559)
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
Chairman
543. Minister, welcome to this, our final session
of evidence-taking in our inquiry into flood and coastal defence.
I am reminded by my Clerk that you were, of course, a previous
Member of this Committee?
(Mr Morley) I was.
544. I am not sure who is the poacher and who
is the gamekeeper.
(Mr Morley) It is very interesting looking from this
side, I can tell you, from what it was before.
545. Welcome especially. Before my opening remarks,
may I express our gratitude to both your officials in MAFF and,
indeed, the relevant officials in the Environment Agency, who
have gone out of their way to help this Committee during the course
of this inquiry and have organised the very interesting visits
we have had. We are deeply grateful to all of them and I think
it is right that we should put that on the record in public at
this stage.
(Mr Morley) Thank you. I am sure that will be much
appreciated by my officials.
546. I am afraid inevitably it is going to be
quite a broad-ranging afternoon, for which I apologise, but it
does reflect the very broad-ranging evidence we have received
and the views we have heard in what has been, I think, a particularly
interesting inquiry for the Committee. May we begin with the overarching
question of the institutional arrangements for flood and coastal
defence, and in particular the division of responsibility between
the different operating authorities, which, speaking as someone
who does not come from the Northampton Internal Drainage Board
area, I found particularly confusing. I do not think that anyone
would think that the structure you have at present is the most
efficient possible way to organise flood and coastal defence,
so if you had a clean piece of paper, what would you put in its
place, and given that you do not have a clean piece of paper—so
start with the ideal—is it your judgment that it is sufficiently
broken to require fixing institutionally?
(Mr Morley) I should start by declaring an interest
as a Vice President of the Association of Drainage Authorities—I
should get that on the record—as MP for an area which does
have a number of IDBs working within it. Certainly on the face
of it it does look a very confusing structure in relation to the
Internal Drainage Boards, the Regional Flood Defence Committees
and, of course, MAFF, the Environment Agency, and, of course,
you could argue that there is a weakness there in relation to
the divisions and the fact that if you had one agency, for example,
or two agencies, there would be potential cost savings. That is
an undoubted case, and perhaps if you were starting from scratch
that is the kind of structure you would look at. But having said
that, coastal policy and also flood defence is very regionalised;
it varies, of course, from area to area and the strength of that
particular approach does involve a great deal of local democracy.
Local authorities are involved in representation on the IDBs and,
indeed, the Regional Flood Defence Committees and, of course,
that is quite right and proper because there is a levy on local
authorities and they put money in as well. There is the Environment
Agency, which is also broken down into regional structures, and
they are involved in terms of estuary planning and river basin
management planning. So I think that, although on the face of
it it does look unwieldy, it does have some strengths by being
devolved, which is very much an approach the Government wishes
to take in relation to devolution and involvement of local people,
taking into account regional differences and regional priorities.
So I think the present structure does meet that. Also, I would
say that, given the fact that we are an island, we do have a very
high rainfall, we have a lot of river systems, floods are very
rare in this country. The system does work by and large in terms
of delivery of service and I think that ought to be recognised
as well. In relation to DETR and MAFF—is that another point
you want to discuss as well?
547. Perhaps we can come to that separately
and keep that to the end.
(Mr Morley) Fine. It is the institutional angle at
the moment.
548. Yes. Perhaps we can keep that to the end.
So the Comprehensive Spending Review has not really asked too
many challenging questions about the structure of flood and coastal
defence policy?
(Mr Morley) The Comprehensive Spending Review has
been considering the structure of flood and coastal defence, which
is only right and proper. The priority has to be looking at the
most efficient delivery of service. So in that respect, yes, it
is fair to say that the institutional structure has been a consideration
in the CSR. As you know, the CSR has not reported yet, so I am
not in a position to say what the conclusions of the CSR are on
that, apart from emphasising that the element of local democracy,
regionalisation and devolution are valued within the present arrangements.
549. One other overarching general question
before I hand on to Mr Mitchell: we have heard evidence from,
for example, English Nature that what we have at present in terms
of policy and, indeed, legislation—and I quote from their
evidence to us—"was shaped really by the floods of
the forties and the fifties ... and a culture of resisting and
controlling natural forces." Do you agree with that and do
you think that is the right legislative base, given what we now
know and the advance in scientific understanding of the processes
involved, the right basis from which to work?
(Mr Morley) I think that was the case in the past
and I think that was a fair criticism. I think that is no longer
the case. I think both we as a Ministry and the Government, the
statutory agencies and the DETR, have recognised that in relation
to coastal defence in particular you cannot always completely
tame the natural processes. Indeed, in some cases it is undesirable
to do so, because if you put in hard defence, if you reinforce
one area which is eroding naturally, you can actually have detrimental
effects on other parts of the coastline. It is also the case that
erosion in one area actually puts sediment in other areas, which
is also part of flood defence. We have also recognised—indeed,
I can say to you, Mr Luff, we will be announcing today that MAFF
is going to embrace the responsibilities of protecting areas of
high nature conservation value under our obligations under the
Habitat Directive, and we have conceded that we have a responsibility,
both internationally and nationally, either to protect those areas
or, in some cases, where it is not feasible to protect areas such
as freshwater marsh, to reinstate them and actually incorporate
them perhaps as part of planned re-alignment. Soft defence, saltmarsh
defence, beach defence, beach replenishment, these are all now
part, if you like, of the MAFF approach, in that some of these
approaches will not be suitable for all areas of coastal defence,
but it is certainly something that we are increasingly embracing
and trying to have a coastal policy and coastal defence working
with natural forces and not just trying to resist them.
550. So you are working with nature and you
are not going to have radical change, is the implication of your
earlier remarks, and you would actually probably confirm the Financial
Times report of 27 June that the Comprehensive Spending Review
has come down against shaking up the agencies involved?
(Mr Morley) I think that is press speculation, Mr
Luff. As you know, you cannot always believe what you see in the
newspapers.
Chairman: I never do.
Mr Mitchell
551. When it comes to a proper balance between
a hard and soft approach or whatever and whichever one you want
to develop, you have to start from where you are now and the fact
is that some areas have harder protection than others and that
investment has accumulated behind those defences. You and I both
represent an area where industry has developed in a situation
where it could be threatened. What do we do in that situation
because I am sure we will both want to protect that industry?
(Mr Morley) That is right. Actually I do not necessarily
think it is a contradiction to have a combination of both kinds
of approaches. Indeed, on the Humber, which is the area both you
and I represent, we already have quite sophisticated flood defences
on the Humber bank and, as you quite rightly say, millions of
pounds worth of investment behind those defences. Those defences
will have to be maintained and indeed we recognise that as part
of our overall strategy. As you know, we do have an indicative
score of which that kind of approach would score certainly very
highly because of the huge investment behind those defences. It
is also the case in areas like the Humber, in terms of the management
strategy and shoreline management plans and estuary plans, there
is some scope, perhaps not very large scope but there is certainly
scope, for actually recreating some habitat, soft marsh and wetland
areas as part of the overall strategy as a combination of both
hard and soft defence.
552. I am very relieved to hear what you say
about the South Humber area. In a sense you are saying: "Let's
not be soft in my back yard" or "Let's have Viagra in
our back yard"! Sorry. It is an area where it could be argued
that the defences need to be even stronger if that area is going
to be sold as a base for long term development.
(Mr Morley) If that is the case obviously in relation
to rising sea level and that is factored into the long term investment
plans there is a case in some parts of the country to raise the
defence levels to take that into account. Indeed that has been
taken into account in areas like the Humber on both the north
and south bank where there was a very large investment recently
to protect the Salt End chemical works and also East Hull from
flooding from the sea. That is recognised, certainly, and indeed
it is part of the overall strategy.
553. Does MAFF actually have a national strategy?
The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers said to us that
"... if a fully developed national strategy for the English
and Welsh coastline exists ... it is not apparent".
(Mr Morley) I think it is a little unfair to say that
because, again, we go back to the devolved nature of coastal protection
and planning because in each of those areas we have the shoreline
management plans which we as a Ministry, if you like, are the
sponsoring body for that, but the shoreline management plans are
done locally with the Environment Agency, local authorities and,
of course, the Regional Flood Defence Committees. Each of those
plans do fit together to form a national strategy around our coastline
and indeed on our main river systems. The plans are drawn up locally
and regionally but they do fit together to form a national approach.
554. The strategic approach in the evidence
is fairly vague. It says "... to reduce the risk to people
and developed natural environment by encouraging the provision
of technically environmental and economically sound and sustainable
defence measures".
(Mr Morley) Yes.
555. Fairly vague. Economically sound, does
that mean cheap?
(Mr Morley) No, what it means in that respect—I
go back to the criteria for defending priorities, indicative scores
and also the indicative plans—is in relation to the amount
of money which is spent on the defences compared to what you are
protecting behind them in terms of value, infrastructure, homes,
property, lives and everything else. That is all part of the criteria.
556. You intend to grade the areas depending
on the degree of protection you consider necessary?
(Mr Morley) It comes into the points score in that
obviously the points score is not just on the economics, it is
also on the condition of the sea defences and the priority and
the need. That all comes into it. It is part of, if you like,
a comprehensive assessment in terms of priority of each particular
coastal defence strategy.
557. Does MAFF intend to develop the approach
so we do have a kind of overarching national strategy?
(Mr Morley) I think perhaps there may well be a case
for making the national strategy somewhat clearer. I do emphasise
that in relation to the shoreline management plans in terms of
the way that the regional strategies are drawn up they do all
fit together like a jigsaw in terms of giving you that national
approach.
558. MAFF is going to be responsible for fitting
them all together?
(Mr Morley) We do through the overall strategic view
along with the Environment Agency.
Ms Keeble
559. You have already said that you did not
think that we should trust the Financial Times article
of 27 June but it does say that a MAFF working group had looked
into the possibility of having a national agency to handle flood
and coastal defences. Is that true? Have you looked at that possibility?
(Mr Morley) Yes, we have looked at that possibility.
|
