Examination of Witness (Questions 560-
579)
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
560. Why was it turned down, or has it not been
turned down?
(Mr Morley) The final decision is for the Comprehensive
Spending Review and that has not yet been reported so I am not
in a position to say what the decision will be.
561. What is your own view? Do you think that
would help, bearing in mind we have had evidence from Peter Bye,
the Chair of the independent review, who says ".... the failure
of the planning, separation and response that we will describe
in our final report is a direct consequence of the present confused
and confusing arrangements". He also talks about the fact
that the present arrangements mean that under the present system
it—i.e. the agency—can only proceed at the pace each
individual Flood Defence Committee is prepared to fund. Do you
think that having a national agency would give a much better chance
of achieving national strategic objectives?
(Mr Morley) I think the answer to that is not necessarily.
As I say, I think it is right to have an open mind about the institutional
structures in terms of delivering these particular services. It
is true to say that it has been considered within MAFF and it
is being considered within the context of the Comprehensive Spending
Review but that review, of course, has not been completed and
has not been announced. I do come back to the point, if you like,
there are pros and cons in both these approaches. I think the
pros in terms of a national organisation are that, yes, you have
one body, it takes decisions, it could develop a national strategy
but, on the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that the
national strategy will be any better. There will still have to
be priorities decided by whatever bodies. With a national body
there is an issue of democratic accountability in terms of deciding
priorities but it is not very clear how that would be. At least
within the present system there is a system of democratic accountability
in local areas in terms of deciding their priorities and also
in terms of delivering the kind of services, if you like, in relation
to the environmental good and the protection for local communities.
562. I just wanted to ask a bit more about the
local accountability because on the account that we had from the
Environment Agency it sounded as if that was a bit rubber stamping
because we had people from the Environment Agency saying that
the Agency developed plans and put them to local Flood Defence
Committees who then approved them and then the Agency went back
and did them.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
563. That does not sound like an awful lot of
accountability or not initiative anyway.
(Mr Morley) I think that is a matter for the local
Flood Defence Committees to comment on, and I am sure that they
have in relation to evidence that both they and the Association
of Drainage Authorities have given to the Committee. I think it
would be unfair to say that these bodies are simply a rubber stamp.
They do consist of people who represent different aspects of the
community, landowners, farmers, conservationists now, local councillors
and I think that they are in a position to comment on the kinds
of proposals and to amend them if they think that appropriate.
I do not think it is fair to say they are simply rubber stamped.
564. One of the things that came out very clearly
from our session in Peterborough, particularly with the discussion
around what happened in Northamptonshire and in Northampton, was
that the level of consultation had not worked very well and some
of the local councils, although they had received the documentation,
were not very clear about the consultation. So I do not see how
the national issue, how some of the national strategy, even gets
relayed properly to a local level, much less getting the feedback?
(Mr Morley) I think there is a strategy which they
work within but in terms of Northampton—and, as both you
and I know there are lessons to be learnt from Northampton and
I am sure that they will be addressed in the independent review
which is currently taking place—but in relation to what
we know already I am not at all sure that a national body would
have addressed the kinds of problems that Northampton suffered
any better than the present structure.
565. I just want to ask, why is the strategic
spending review looking at the method of a policy or a service
being delivered? Should it not be done on the effectiveness of
the service delivery rather than just on the cost value, because
you can make a budget fit any different way? So why cannot the
decision be taken by ministers on the basis of what would deliver
the best flood defences and warning systems rather than just in
the context of the Treasury spending limits?
(Mr Morley) Surely, but the Comprehensive Spending
Review is part of that. The Comprehensive Spending Review is not
just a question of looking for economies, although, of course,
that is part of it. The Comprehensive Spending Review is also
looking at the institutions of Government and the efficiency of
those institutions and whether, indeed, they could be more efficient.
It is not just about cost. It is, as you quite rightly say, about
the efficient delivery of services, and so it is quite appropriate
that structures, institutional arrangements, like this are considered
within that context because you have the cost implications which
are also under consideration and, of course, you have the structural
and efficiency considerations which are part of the CSR.
566. Are you not concerned, as the minister
responsible, about this criticism that Peter Bye brought up and
that everybody else must have seen about the patchiness of the
present arrangements, that there is not the same sort of strategic
overview; it is left, to a certain extent, to local decision and,
therefore, you have some areas that have state-of-the-art defence
and others that have, sadly, not, and we see what the consequences
were at Easter?
(Mr Morley) That is right. I think it is a fair comment
to say that there is a patchiness of provision, but again I come
back to the point that I am not quite sure that if you had a national
agency that would be very different. Part of the reason that you
have patchiness of provision is that you have to have priorities,
the areas most at risk in terms of the sophistication of the defences
and also in terms of the priority of need, and if you moved away
from a kind of priority approach, then what the danger would be
is that you may spread the resources wider on a national scale
but much thinner and you would then put some areas at risk because
of the priority of their needs. I am just speculating on that
but I think they are considerations that you have to take in terms
of a national versus a prioritised regional approach.
567. But are you not concerned about the systems
for having an overview of this policy area in MAFF when they did
not pick up the fact that areas where there were lots of people—forget
about agricultural land and things like that; I know that is serious
but I do not get quite so upset about crops being flooded—that
there were areas where there was a large number of people whose
lives were put at risk because of patchiness in the provision
of defences and of warning systems?
(Mr Morley) I would want to emphasise that, although
it is MAFF which is the lead authority in terms of flood defence
and coastal strategy, the policy is not geared up to protecting
farmland above all else. The policy approach that is taken is
a cost-benefit analysis, as I say, based on indicative scores
taking into account property, taking into account people's lives,
risks, infrastructure, industry and, indeed, yes, agriculture
comes into it as well, but it is all part of an approach. So those
areas with the greatest need and the greatest dependence are those
which get the greatest priority. So I think in that respect the
system is right in the way that it identifies those areas of priority,
and I come back to the point that it is always right and proper
to look at improving structures and improving service, but by
and large the delivery of service within this country has worked
and floods are a rare occurrence. Indeed, it is impossible completely
to eliminate the unexpected and the unplanned. Obviously the priority
has to be to try and do that as far as possible and to be able
to adapt to that.
568. I have one more particular question on
this point. Clearly you said that you want to make sure that there
is a role for local people to be involving in decision-making
and so on and that arguably could be done with a national agency,
too, but do you have any system for ensuring that there is any
evenness in performance standards between the Local Flood Defence
Committees in the way that, for example, there is scrutiny of
what local councils do in comparison with performance levels and
things like that?
(Mr Morley) Yes. All Local Flood Defence Committees
do come under scrutiny and, of course, they are audited as well
in the normal way like any public body would be, but in the end
they are also accountable to their local authorities, their local
people, local organisations, and I can assure you that all those
stakeholders, if you like, watch what is happening very carefully
in relation to the overall strategic delivery of services by those
devolved committees.
Ms Keeble: I have to say I think that is a bit
patchy.
Chairman
569. Before I hand over to Mr Marsden I want
to raise one point of procedure with you really. You have quite
reasonably—and I do not criticise you for this at all, Mr
Morley—said that there are a number of issues you cannot
really discuss with us because we are waiting for the Comprehensive
Spending Review. Do you know when we are likely to get that? Are
our best guesses still accurate?
(Mr Morley) Next Tuesday, I understand.
570. That will help because obviously we do
not want to produce recommendations which the Government has already
looked at and rejected, and it would be very helpful. What form
will the response of MAFF take as a result? Will we get a detailed
document?
(Mr Morley) From your Committee's recommendations?
571. No, from the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Will we know in detail whether you have looked at specific options
and rejected them or will it just say what the conclusion actually
is?
(Mr Morley) I am pretty sure that most of the areas
which have been considered will be referred to in relation to
the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. As you appreciate,
it will be the Treasury who will formulate that, so I am not completely
certain of how they will do it.
572. But all that supporting documentation is
likely to be available on the same day as the major statement
itself?
(Mr Morley) It is a matter for the Treasury. I am
not trying to be evasive. I really do not know just what they
will do with that.
Chairman: I understand that. It just helps the
Committee in considering how this works. Mr Marsden?
Mr Marsden: Elliot, I have to say, that from
what you have said you do not leave me with a warm feeling that
you are taking within MAFF a strategic approach to this whole
problem. You say that there is a patchiness of provision and yet
there are national standards and empowered local authorities.
Yet you are agreeing that within 100 yards of a stretch of beach
or a river there could be a different authority or body actually
overseeing it, which we see in, for instance, Northampton, failed
miserably. At the end of the day there are ordinary people whose
lives are being ruined by what has happened and will continue
to happen because, in my opinion, there is not a strategic approach.
Can you please not offer more reassurance that there is a strategic
approach?
Chairman
573. If I may, if you will allow me, one can
have recourse to the coastal issues where one sees a district
council and the Environment Agency cheek-by-jowl operating policies
independently of each other apparently, such as we saw at Happisburgh,
with very serious consequences, so are you satisfied that an obviously
divided administration can actually deliver the goods?
(Mr Morley) I think that the present structure can
deliver the goods. As I say, it would be wrong to say that you
should close your minds to any kind of proposed changes. They
should all be looked at on their merits, but I do want to assure
the Committee that the delivery is part of a regional approach
in relation to the Shoreline Management Plans, but there is a
national strategy document, which has been produced by MAFF and,
indeed, was published in 1993 following extensive consultation
with all the various interested parties, and that strategy is
aimed to provide a comprehensive framework document for operating
authorities to work within while carrying out their responsibilities
for flood and coastal defence. Apart from that, the strategy for
flood and coastal defence was produced in 1993, there are the
Shoreline Management Plans, which I have also mentioned, there
are Water Level Management Plans, which have also been produced—guidance
was produced in 1994—which went out to all local operating
authorities, there is a code of practice on environmental procedures
for flood defence operating authorities, which came out in 1996,
a flood and coastal defence project appraisal guidance note, which
I referred to. We also have a research and development implementation
strategy which is developing in detail the kind of policies again
which relate nationally. MAFF has also produced notes for guidance
and funding for flood defence and coast protection. So in terms
of MAFF's role, if you like, as a strategic overview body, that
guidance on a national level, a strategic level, is already in
place. The various components of the bodies like IDBs, the Flood
Defence Committees and the Environment Agency, work within that
strategic framework so it is there and in situ.
Mr Marsden
574. Let us just turn to specifics. In the submission
from MAFF, paragraph 22, it clearly states there is a clear concept
underpinning MAFF's policy of flood and coastal defence and it
is the notion of sustainability. So, as Austin started to mention
previously, is it to encourage the provision of technically, environmentally
and economically sound and sustainable defence measures?
(Mr Morley) Yes.
575. Has MAFF, therefore, instituted sustainable
targets for those operating authorities to ensure that the policies
are fulfilling the objectives?
(Mr Morley) Yes. That will be covered in the actual
implementation strategy guidelines and also the procedural guides
which we give on the components. Within those guides they will
cover issues like environmental aspects, economic appraisal, the
shoreline management plans, the water level management plans and
also the strategy plans—the local strategy plans—in
relation to flood and coastal defence works. So very clear guidance,
if you like, is given to the various authorities.
576. Very good. So in that case what success
have the operating authorities had in fulfilling them?
(Mr Morley) Well, the success I suppose is the measurement
of where floods do not happen, basically. I think the success
is that by and large compared to major flooding on the East Coast,
for example, there has not been a repeat of that and other areas
I think have been successfully addressed even when on occasions
there have been very high water levels, very high tides. That
is not to say that on occasions things have not gone wrong, and
indeed Northampton is a case in point.
577. If I may stop you there, in terms of the
strategic approach which you say MAFF takes, you have obviously
a series of performance indicators for this and you rate in hard
facts and figures across the country how well it actually performs.
I presume that is published and printed and I presume you can
therefore tell us how well you have performed in past years rather
than just picking on isolated areas?
(Mr Morley) I am not quite clear about the point you
are making.
578. It is a basic strategic concept to take
forward the actual strategy of managing such a large organisation.
(Mr Morley) Yes. I have no problem with the strategic
approach, indeed I hope I have reassured the Committee there is
a strategic strategy.
579. On sustainability?
(Mr Morley) Yes, on sustainability as well. In terms
of the point you are making about rating, if you like, the implementation
of one flood defence against another, that is very difficult to
do because, of course, you could be building flood defences to
a standard that may only be tested once in a hundred years. So
it is very difficult to have the kind of detail I think that you
are asking for. I do not disagree with the concept in terms of
indicators but it is very difficult to do that in a very precise
way, that is quite hard. I might also add that there is a survey,
if you like, an audit, of the river defences and also the condition
of flood defences which is taking place currently in every region.
Each regional Flood Defence Committee is responsible for carrying
out that audit.
|
