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
|
