Examination of Witness (Questions 580-
599)
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
580. That includes the sustainable targets you
talked about before?
(Mr Morley) In what respect?
581. Obviously you just agreed that there are
sustainable targets based on the strategy that has been driven
from MAFF.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
582. What I am trying to get down to is the
nitty gritty of what those sustainable targets are and how you
rate the operating authority against what the targets are?
(Mr Morley) That is the point I was coming to. It
is very difficult to rate operating authorities because of the
very fact that the implementation of the defences—
583. What is the point of having targets if
you cannot rate them?
(Mr Morley) Because the targets that I am talking
to are in relation to the environmental aspects, the economic
appraisal, the shoreline management plans, the water level management
plans, the strategy plans for flood and coastal defence works
and also, in terms of new schemes and indeed reinstating or improving
old ones, there are the indicative scores. Those are targets as
well in relation to the scoring system which takes into account
all those issues, cost benefit analysis, environmental objectives.
That is all part of the comparisons that can be made. You cannot
have absolute comparisons because of the difficulties I have mentioned.
Chairman
584. This question of sustainability, the word
is thrown around a lot in the environment these days.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
585. It means different things to different
people.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
586. Specific schemes, for example the Lincshore
scheme, the beach replenishment there, is that a truly sustainable
scheme in your judgment?
(Mr Morley) Yes. I would argue it is a sustainable
scheme because it meets its objectives of protecting the area
from flooding from the sea but also in an area of high environmental
sensitivity. A scheme like Lincshore, I think, does meet that
although it has to be said, of course, that a beach replenishment
scheme is likely to have a limited life and at some time in the
future it will probably have to be replenished.
587. Is it sustainable if it has a limited life?
I am trying to test what the word "sustainability" means?
(Mr Morley) My view—I know it is a difficult
definition—of sustainability is a scheme which meets its
objectives and can be maintained and sustainable in a sense that
a particular scheme is not having undesirable consequences in
relation to the overall management of shoreline or indeed environmental,
social or economic objectives.
588. I do not want to preempt the questions
of Mr Marsden and I am in danger of doing that but just move down
the coast a bit, Skegness, are the coastal defences of Skegness
sustainable?
(Mr Morley) I think that they are, yes. Again it comes
to a point where in any kind of beach replenishment scheme there
are unknowns in this. Sometimes the actual sand builds up quite
rapidly and lasts longer than is envisaged. Sometimes there is
continuing erosion and therefore at some time in the future there
may have to be another beach recharge scheme. Of course, that
is taken into account in terms of how long those schemes are going
to last in relation to the planning for that. Obviously if you
were going to have a beach recharge scheme which was going to
wash away in five years then that would not be within the definition
of sustainable, that would not stand up to any kind of cost benefit
analysis.
589. Ten years might, 15 years might?
(Mr Morley) I would have thought longer than that.
That is certainly the projection.
590. I think you would agree that sustainability
is a bit of an elastic concept?
(Mr Morley) I would agree, yes.
Ms Keeble
591. Can I ask one other supplementary question.
You mentioned there is an audit taking place of flood and coastal
defences.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
592. Is that the one where either you are year
three of five years or year two of three years? As I understand
it that audit is not complete so we do not have a national picture
of the state of the flood defences?
(Mr Morley) That is correct. It will take some years
to complete that audit.
593. Is it five years and we are into three
years or a three year one and we are in year two of it?
(Mr Morley) It is at different levels in different
parts of the country but I think you are looking at around about
a five year maximum timescale, yes.
594. We are in about year three of that?
(Mr Morley) It varies. Some places have completed
their audit already and some places have not, so it is within
the overall timescale.
595. It would be quite helpful to know which
ones have and where the gaps are, the places where there are gaps
in the warnings?
(Mr Morley) I do not have that information.
Mr Marsden
596. Is it possible to furnish the Committee
with further details of how you move from the sustainability approach
within the strategy to setting targets and how you rate, in whatever
way, operating authorities against those targets? Any further
information on that?
(Mr Morley) Certainly we will give you as much information
as we have on that.
597. Thank you.
(Mr Morley) Indeed, also another approach on sustainability
is back to this issue of the hard and soft defence. On some occasions
you can achieve your objects through a soft defence scheme at
considerably less cost than you can through a very comprehensive
hard defence scheme. That should come into consideration of sustainability
also.
598. Perhaps I may gather up one theme which
we started to touch upon and that is something following the Committee's
visits in connection with this inquiry. We have heard that the
current policies for flood and coastal defence may not adequately
take into account long-term projections of such things as land
tilt, climate change and sea level rise and so on, that actually
protect some of the most important assets in the United Kingdom,
including London. We would need some possible change in policies?
To give you an example, it is predicted that London relative to
the sea level is actually sinking by about 1 metre every 100 years.
Therefore, within, say, 2-300 years, we are saying that large
parts of the capital may have to be abandoned. Without being alarmist,
that is clearly worrying and it is some great deal of time off,
but it is a fact that we believe is actually going to happen.
How do you actually prepare long-term strategies because, to give
you an example, a private company, Shell, has long-term strategies
projecting forward hundreds of years in terms of oil, for instance?
I am curious to know how MAFF do the same?
(Mr Morley) In terms of the discussion we are having
on sustainability, sustainability in relation to the development
of coastal defences and a rising sea level is part of that calculation
and that is certainly within the guidance which was given to operating
authorities in terms of developing those flood and coastal defence
strategies. One of the key factors for that is the Shoreline Management
Plans which I mentioned. They take all that into consideration.
In terms of rising sea level and, indeed, the geological tilt—I
do find it hard to envisage a country which is sinking in the
east and rising in the west apparently but that is the case—they
are factored into the long-term strategies in terms of the guidance
given, the heights of defences and the projections. There are
some unknowns in relation to rising sea level. We are not absolutely
clear on what the maximum projected rise is and, indeed, in terms
of the standards which have been applied it may be the case that
the projections are on the high side. They may not actually be
as high as scientists are predicting. Nevertheless, we are taking
into account those factors and that is all part of the sustainable
approach.
Mrs Organ
599. We have been talking about reviews and
sustainability quite a lot this afternoon, so let us move on to
another review. We understand that later this year the Shoreline
Managements Plans, the first tranche, are being reviewed. I have
just a couple of things about that. I wonder if you could give
us your thoughts on how you feel about the review, whether you
are satisfied with the arrangements, what changes you believe
ought to be made to the mechanism and, indeed, to the structure
of coastal groups based on this review? Also, may I take you up
on a point that you made earlier when you did talk about Shoreline
Management Plans. You mentioned that they fitted together like
a jigsaw. They do not. That is one of the reasons that the review
is going on, is it not, that there are problems where, in certain
areas, they do not fit together at all? There are quite big holes?
(Mr Morley) Perhaps I should have said the intention
is to fit together like a jigsaw.
| 
