Select Committee on Agriculture Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 600- 619)

WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998

MR ELLIOT MORLEY, MP

  600. So could you just give us your views about what you think of the review, what it is proposing and what you would like to see changed?
  (Mr Morley) [3]The review is projected to finish at the end of this year and this is a national review and it also comes back to part of the national strategy as well. Shoreline Management Plans themselves are approaches which, by their very nature, will have to be adapted and reviewed because it is part of the changing nature of coastlines as well. So I think that is right and proper. The SMPs are also designed to fit into the development of Coastal Zone Management Plans, which cover much wider issues. Indeed, they are not quite so advanced in relation to the Shoreline Management Plans, but I think that when we have the review completed at the end of this year, then we will have a much clearer picture and I am confident that they will fit together in the way that I believe they should do and the way they are intended to do.

  601. I wonder if you could go into a bit more detail about what action you would hope to be in place? It is very nice to have warm words about hoping that it does all fit together, it is a complete picture, but there are some areas where there is quite a big gap. What can you hope to do so that you can make sure it does knit together properly?
  (Mr Morley) Part of the national review is part of that approach to make sure that all the Shoreline Management Plans are in place. They have been reviewed to update them in relation to whether or not they are meeting their objectives in coastal policy and that is in hand, as I say, and that should be completed at the end of this year. There may be one or two which may slip over to the beginning of 1999 but by and large they should all be done.

  602. Could I move on slightly differently to coast protection. This is really about the money because that is what it all comes down to in the end. We are told in the memorandum from MAFF that maintenance of coastal defence work is not grant-aided and therefore, poor maintenance may increase the risk of failure and reduce the planned life of defence or the effectiveness of a channel or cause environmental damage. According to the Local Government Association, the result is that virtually all funding made by MAFF is for projects where there is failure, or imminent failure, of existing works. We have been talking about sustainability. We have heard that it is a bit elastic but this is hardly economically sustainable policy, is it? How can you expect local authorities to act on MAFF's advice when the Ministry is not able to make funds available except for just emergency work? We are not actually planning for the future, we are not being sustainable here. It is finger-in-the-dyke stuff at the last minute, is it not?
  (Mr Morley) But that should not be the case and that is very much a responsibility for local authorities in relation to the maintenance of existing defences. It is fair to say sometimes you might get a catastrophic failure of a flood defence and it is quite right and proper that they would then make application to MAFF for capital funding towards that. But there is a standard spending assessment within all local governments', particularly coastal local governments', expenditure, which is designed to cover a maintenance programme of existing defences. Indeed, my understanding is that the Local Government Association acknowledged that they were content with this approach.

  603. But, Minister, you know as well as I do that SSAs get played about with and SSAs get moved from one area to another and unless we are going to have maintenance grant-aided we are going to have a problem where the SSA from any local authority gets raided, gets diminished, and although the Local Government Association may generally say to you, "We are quite happy with the situation," there is a problem, is there not? You and I know that in all local government budgets some budgets get attention but roads maintenance and I suspect coastal maintenance and those sorts of things are the ones that we always plunder?
  (Mr Morley) I was just going to draw a parallel with roads maintenance actually, but that could be a bit unfortunate now. But it is a parallel. It is like saying a local authority might say, "We will not do any maintenance to this road until it completely collapses and then we will apply to the DETR under the transport programme to rebuild it." All local authorities have to have a responsible attitude towards the maintenance of infrastructure within those areas, and I would argue that the maintenance of coastal defences is just as important as the proper maintenance of roads. I do not dispute what you are saying in relation to the way that funds get moved around within local authority budgets. I also would not dispute that from the local authority point of view the standard spending assessment is not exactly perfect in the way that it works. You are probably aware that the DETR are embarking upon a review of the standard spending assessment and that is the proper forum to discuss whether there should be changes and whether it is working properly, but in the context of flood defence I would very strongly say that local authorities do have a responsibility for the normal maintenance within their budgets and they have an SSA allocation to that end.

  604. So you do not have any plans to take some of it and say that some element of the maintenance ought to be grant-aided so that we can have a fair bit of economic prudence here, that we put in a little bit of seedcorn every year from MAFF so that we are not just funding things that are almost at their life's end and are, therefore, going to be very costly?
  (Mr Morley) Again that is sometimes a consequence of poor maintenance and we cannot ignore the situation, but it is an issue between maintenance work and capital work. The priority for MAFF has to be capital and on occasions that well may mean replacing existing defences which have reached the end of their operational life. That does happen and, as I say, it may involve rebuilding defences which have had a catastrophic failure, and that is all part of the capital programme. That is all quite legitimate in relation to the bids that local authorities make for grant-aiding, but for day-to-day maintenance it is not an excuse just to do nothing and then apply for a grant from MAFF for work which should be included within a normal maintenance programme.

  605. So if we follow that through then are we saying that those local authorities where they had a Northamptonshire flood at Easter, they are going to be all right next year because they are going to get some money to replace failed flood defences, failed coastal protection?
  (Mr Morley) I think it is fair to say that in relation to the problem of Northampton there are particular needs there and I think those needs will be identified in terms of the independent review. There has already been an announcement by the Environment Agency that they are taking immediate action in relation to the consequences of the Northamptonshire floods and part of that immediate action is actually improving existing flood defences.

Mr Hurst

  606. Minister, I wonder if I could ask you about managed retreat. It has other names, it has been called robust advance—
  (Mr Morley) Managed realignment, planned realignment, that sounds suitably vague.

  607. Managed retreat does not seem to have at the present time—
  (Mr Morley) Or soft defence or green defence.

  Mr Hurst: Or indeed any number of other names.

  Mrs Organ: Very militaristic, is it not?

Mr Hurst

  608. Nobody likes retreat. In particular the National Farmers' Union does not show a great deal of enthusiasm for this subject but one of the points they make is that they have not had enough information from the Ministry and from other sources so they can conduct a conclusive debate within their own circles as to the effect it will have on the farming community.
  (Mr Morley) Actually I do not think that is a fair criticism because we do have a National Flood and Coastal Defence Policy Review Group and the NFU, and indeed other groups, do sit on that group and issues like managed realignment are discussed. Obviously managed realignment is only going to apply on certain parts of the coastline. I would not want to give the impression to the Committee that it is going to be the main approach in relation to coastal policy to have managed retreat, it is only going to be suitable in particular circumstances. The concept I think is well understood. It has been discussed with the various organisations, they understand what the concept is. When it comes down to particular parts of the coastline which could be suitable for managed retreat then of course there has to be involvement with local landowners, local authorities, the nature conservation organisations, all the various people who have a legitimate interest. In that respect, of course, there will be full consultation. Indeed, where there is a number of schemes—at the moment there is only a small number of schemes which are involved in managed retreat—there is full and on-going consultation with all the people who will be affected by it.

  609. Are you satisfied, Minister, that the research that MAFF has carried out—there has been quite a lot of research and information—is being disseminated throughout the farming community?
  (Mr Morley) I think a lot of research is very detailed research and it is done by our R&D commitments. Indeed that is available, in fact, in another context. It is available from the Ministry. Also, all our research documents are put on to the MAFF web site and they can be accessed by any member of the public or any individual who wishes to see any document that we publish on any issue that we research into, that includes also managed retreat. I think that the information is available although a lot of it is so detailed in terms of concept, it is of particular interest obviously to those people who are in areas most likely to be affected. I think it is a very sound concept, managed realignment. I prefer the term soft defence because it is true that managed retreat, the word "retreat", does have unfortunate connotations, particularly with landowners. We can get considerable biodiversity gains, we can get considerable habitat gains in terms of nature conservation, we can meet our objectives in terms of combating coastal erosion and the risk of flood because salt marsh, as I say, is very good at absorbing wave energy. It is possible also to include the landowners within some of our existing MAFF stewardship schemes so that by putting their land into a managed realignment scheme they do get compensation for that.

  610. I fully understand the point you make and I think perhaps I can move on to what flows from that. I will use managed defence because I only learned that phrase a little while ago and to go on to soft defence is beyond my immediate brain span. It naturally follows if the public bodies are going to allow the sea to come in, which will be part of the scheme in any event, then in fact those who are the losers should be properly compensated.
  (Mr Morley) Yes.

  611. Would you agree that there might be a more favourable debate amongst the farming communities if there was a more detailed discussion of the compensation that would come from an agreed programme of managed retreat?
  (Mr Morley) I think I should start by saying, so there is no misunderstanding, that in general terms, of course, there is no obligation to either compensate people who lose land as a result of coastal erosion or indeed flood defence or for that matter to provide flood defences. In terms of managed retreat or managed realignment, the issue there is to try and meet a particular objective and of course to work in co-operation with the local landowners. Because you can meet a number of objectives then it does fit in to schemes which we as a Ministry have, notably stewardship, where we can provide compensation for a landowner. That is part of a particular scheme and a particular strategy in a particular area, it is not a universal strategy.

  612. I do understand that and I sense that is one of the difficulties whenever we have evidence from the wildlife organisations, that they do not want to talk about compensation and when we hear from the farming group they do want to talk about compensation.
  (Mr Morley) Sure.

  613. If I was a landowner close to the sea and I had been protected, or my forebears had been protected for centuries, I think I would anticipate that the Government carried on protecting my land. If the Government then said: "No, we are not going to do that consciously" then I think I might feel a little aggrieved unless I was quite a step of the way forward. Do you not believe that if we started to grasp the nettle of compensation we might find the way forward in planning terms very much easier?
  (Mr Morley) I think there are two issues here. One is in particular schemes. As I say, if there is a particular scheme where we are asking landowners to voluntarily give up their land, either as part of a managed realignment or indeed for works or whatever, then there are facilities for compensation. In terms of general loss of agricultural land around the UK, and particularly the East Coast, this has been going on for decades, if not for centuries. There is nothing new about this and really it is not possible to defend whole areas of coastline where basically there is just farmland behind it and nor is it really possible to provide compensation where of course none has been provided before. There are not the resources to do that and indeed what there would have to be, you would have to take resources away which are currently for providing flood defence and preventing coastal erosion into providing compensation. It is not really in general terms a realistic option.

  614. I do not know, I think that may be one of the problems in that we are not really getting to grips with managed retreat because, firstly, there is a lack of enthusiasm amongst the maritime landowners for it and, secondly, I think you concede it is only going to be a limited number of cases where this occurs, it will not be a large compensatory bill in any event. The third problem, it seems to me, in planning terms is linked to compensation, as you gather I would favour, there should be the power of compulsory purchase. There is no earthly point in managing a retreat in field A if, in fact, in field B it is still there. There does need to be a power on the part of the public authority to plan a scheme with the landowner but ultimately for that scheme to be put forward if there is an occurrence.
  (Mr Morley) I think we are slightly at cross purposes. I am not disagreeing with you in relation to a particular scheme where if there is land being taken for a particular scheme there is provision for compensation and there is provision also for compensation payments in relation to our stewardship schemes in terms of the management of that land as part of an overall package. That is a possibility but they have to be dealt with in relation to particular schemes and particular events.

  Mr Hurst: I accept that.

Chairman

  615. Can I ask a couple of questions of my own. A lot of the issue is that quite often the land we are talking about is grade 1 agricultural land, high value land, particularly valued by the landowners. Also, I was struck when we went to Lincolnshire by the sense of passion, not just among land owners but among the elected politicians, over the fact that there it was their land which they had wrested from the sea over centuries and they were not going to give it back to "old man sea". It was a passionate thing and it was deeply ingrained in the psyche of the people and, of course, not surprisingly the natural processes have allowed them to expand their land over the centuries. Do you not think the point that Mr Hurst made might help to deal with some of those deeply ingrained problems and also the very high quality of the land often being discussed?
  (Mr Morley) Sometimes it is high-quality land and, of course, that is taken into account in relation to the indicative scoring, but, of course, it is difficult in relation to competing with priority schemes for agricultural land which is suffering erosion—and, as I say, there is nothing new about this, it has been going on for centuries and, indeed, villages have been swallowed up by the North Sea as part of that erosion and it is also part of the natural process—in that it comes back to the point that land lost in one part of the country does have a habit of re-appearing in another.

Mr Hurst

  616. It is a problem that the land owner does not have his name tag on it?
  (Mr Morley) That is a problem. Yes, I can appreciate that.

  617. If I can move away from that to another contentious matter, which is development in flood plains, and Sally has obviously touched upon it in her discussion on Northampton and other areas; at the moment, as we understand it, the local authority will have the planning power to grant or not, will consult with the Environment Agency, who will advise, and then the local authority will just proceed to ignore that advice, if they so choose. That has very heavy financial responsibilities ultimately for the public at large in that when it becomes a flood area great public expense is going to be paid out as a consequence. Do you feel we are reaching a time when we can get rather more stringent or robust planning controls concerning the flood plain and that there should be different procedures to involve the Environment Agency in advice?
  (Mr Morley) As you will appreciate, planning is a DETR matter and it is for the DETR to decide these issues. However, I would say that there is no doubt that development on flood plains is a serious issue and I think it does have to be considered. There are complicated issues here also to consider because, in relation to planning, it is part of again devolved decision-making to local communities, to local authorities. It is true that the situation is that any development in a flood plain must be referred to the Environment Agency for comments. The Environment Agency can recommend that that development should not take place or, indeed, that there should be measures to mitigate any consequences of that development. It is then up to the planning committee to decide whether or not they implement that advice. That, of course, is not unusual or unique to flood plain development. Planning committees are advised by their professional officers. They have to take into account such things as Structure Plans and the committee can choose to listen or not to listen in relation to that. It is also the case, Chairman, if I might just remind the Committee, that if organisations or, indeed, the Environment Agency felt that their advice was being ignored irresponsibly, they do have the option of asking the Secretary of State to call in those plans and have a public inquiry, where, of course, the case for and against can be put to an independent inspector.

  618. Do you know, Minister, if that has occurred on many occasions?
  (Mr Morley) I really do not have that information.

  619. I wonder if that is information, Chairman, that could be made available?
  (Mr Morley) I think it is the DETR that you would have to contact on that.


3   Note by MAFF: Shoreline Management Plans should be completed for the whole coastline of England and Wales by early 1999. These plans are living documents and so will be subject to review as an ongoing process. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 5 August 1998