Examination of Witness (Questions 620-
639)
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
Chairman
620. Minister, we have heard that quite often
district councils have actually heeded the advice of the Environment
Agency and not allowed a particular planning application in a
flood plain. I think this is a very important point. From my own
experience in Evesham, I am sure that one of the reasons the floods
were so bad there at Easter was the fact that there was much more
development in the area and water was reaching Evesham faster
and running off the land faster. We have heard that even when
district councils are responsible, quite often the Government's
own planning inspectors have overturned the advice of the Environment
Agency and allowed development to take place, and this was under
the last administration. This is not a party political point,
and I have a particular worry because of the additional 4.4 million
homes we are seeking to accommodate at present in the United Kingdom.
Do you feel that we really do need to toughen this guidance very
considerably if we are not to make the problems of Northamptonshire,
Evesham and the other areas, Peterborough and so on, much, much
worse?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I do think that it has to be a consideration
and I do think it has to be looked at very carefully. In relation
to new development, as you will be aware, the DETR have made it
clear that they are moving away from predict and provide and are
trying to take a more planned approach in terms of where development
goes to try and minimise the impact on green belt areas and rural
areas, and, of course, there is no reason why flood plains should
not come into that kind of strategy, which does mean working with
local authorities in terms of identifying those areas and trying
to take an approach. So there are two points I would make. One
is that I do not think it is necessarily the case that all this
new development has to go into flood plains and there is nowhere
else it can go. I think you can look at various options, but it
is also the case that I think it is becoming very obvious that
flood plain development can have an extremely detrimental effect
in relation to water management.
621. Minister, we have had some very interesting
evidence from the Meteorological Office about climate change impact
in the United Kingdom, and in their executive summary they say
it is predicted that days with heavy rainfall will become typically
three or four times more common and this will increase the risk
of inland flooding in certain areas. This really does make a very
strong case, in my own mind, for toughening up the controls in
this area.
(Mr Morley) It does make a case. We have to look very
carefully at the kind of advice and predictions we get. I speak
as someone who made a speech at the On Farm Reservoir Conference
that we were going to get drier springs and after making that
speech we had the wettest April for 100 years. So my own predictions
are not very good on this particular score for myself. So we have
to look at the predictions carefully, but yes, all these factors
do have to be taken into account and I think the issue of flood
plain development is becoming a more sensitive issue for planners.
622. But the trends seem to be quite clear.
It is wetter winters and drier summers as part of the pattern,
with the rainfall coming in rather lumpier bursts. The Met. Office
said that very wet days when rainfall exceeds 25 mm are predicted
to become some four to five times more frequent in winter time.
So this must make all kinds of challenges for district councils?
(Mr Morley) It does.
623. Are we convinced those local councils have
enough resource to deal with it? We had in Wychavon district council
89 different flooding incidents over the Easter period. Wychavon
district council has two engineers to deal with these flooding
issues and all the other issues that confront engineers and district
councils. So is not the message that councils are going to have
to think very carefully about the resource and planning implications
of this increase in rainfall activity?
(Mr Morley) As I said, Chairman, the DETR are the
body responsible for planning action, but speaking for myself,
really in terms of what I saw particularly after the Easter flooding,
you cannot ignore the impact of development on flood plains.
Ms Keeble
624. I wanted to ask something about flood warnings,
but first I wanted to come back to one of the points you made
earlier, when you said that MAFF's approach to flood and coastal
defence was not about protecting agricultural land—
(Mr Morley) Only.
625. But if you look at the memorandum that
MAFF sent in, the figures set out actually do not give a huge
encouragement about any shift in resources towards protecting
houses. For example, in 1995-96 the schemes protected 50,600 houses,
a big increase from the previous year, but in 1997-98 the estimate
was only 34,000, while protection of agricultural land has generally
held up very much better than that. Are you actually satisfied
that the resources are going into protecting houses?
(Mr Morley) I sometimes feel I cannot win on this
because I was berated recently in an adjournment debate for giving
far too much emphasis to rural areas and when I have gone round
the country talking to rural councils they complain that MAFF
is giving far too much emphasis to urban areas. The reality is
that we do have these indicative scores but one of the reasons
I supported the introduction of those scores is that it does address
this particular issue in that our priorities in terms of coastal
defence and flood defence must be the areas of greatest need and
I think we have dealt with that in relation to the scores. So
it would be wrong to say that we are favouring rural areas over
urban areas or urban areas over rural areas. What we are doing
is trying to have a rational, transparent system which people
can see and understand, which makes sure that the available resources
we have go to the areas with greatest need, whether urban or rural.
626. What I have difficulty with is this. I
can understand talking about areas of need but if it is areas
of need I tend to equate that with saving lives of people and
I do not see that reflected in the figures in the protection provided
to houses?
(Mr Morley) I do not know whether you are looking
at the IDB figures in relation to—
627. I am looking at the ones in the memorandum
which MAFF sent to us.
(Mr Morley) Right. I do not have the figures with
me at the moment. There is, of course, the overall expenditure
on flood defences divided between MAFF in terms of its grants,
the IDBs in terms of what they spend and the regional Flood Defence
Committees. Of course the IDBs—the Internal Drainage Boards—a
lot of their priority is agricultural land while a lot of the
capital grants that we give as MAFF in terms of the system it
uses tends to go to defending lives, properties, infrastructure,
roads, communications, that tends to be the split.
628. That is here as well and it does not show
that the money is going towards urban areas. That is here as well.
(Mr Morley) Again, I must emphasise, it is not a question
of money going towards urban and rural areas, it is going towards
the areas with the greatest need, the areas that meet the cost
benefit analysis. In terms of MAFF capital grants, there are of
course the other expenditure headings of the Environment Agency
and the IDBs but in terms of capital grants—although I have
not got that in front of me at the moment—I am very confident
that I think a lot of those by far in relation to protection of
commercial properties is a very large chunk of that. It is true
that there is a considerable sum which goes towards agricultural
land but of course you have to bear in mind within that sum, which
is indicated as agricultural land, that is often low lying agricultural
land whereby if the sea broke through in that area it would flood
to a very large area which would involve a lot of properties and
a lot of communities. It is not a very clear figure when you look
at that. Protection of agricultural land is often not just agricultural
land but protecting a wide range of communities behind it.
Mr Hayes
629. I want to put to you, perhaps in contradiction
of Sally, precisely that point in more detail perhaps. I was speaking
to a colleague, David Prior, who I know has written to you about
this, and North Norfolk. He takes a particular interest in this.
(Mr Morley) Yes, and I have seen him on site.
630. Rural areas take the view that low lying
land on the East of England, the flooding of which would affect
hundreds of thousands of people gets insufficient priority, insufficient
priority not too much priority. Would you be kind enough to make
available to the Committee the figures for the number of people
who would be at risk behind those defences? The low lying land
on the east is such that there is a population in my own constituency,
for example, of about 100,000 people, all of whom would be affected
if those coastal defences were to be breached. I wonder if you
could make those figures in some detail available to the Committee?
(Mr Morley) Certainly in terms of whatever we have
in relation to those figures and how it can be done. I do emphasise
the point again that part of the scheme, which is referred to
in the agricultural land areas, is protecting quite large areas
behind the coast where if the sea broke through would spread a
long way. Indeed when I opened the Salt End Flood Alleviation
Scheme, there was some local criticism that was benefiting rural
areas and indeed one particular industry which was a chemical
plant. But when you look at the actual maps of how far flooding
could spread, it was the whole of East Hull and right up north
into the Holderness Plain. It was an enormous area where that
flood defence scheme was protecting. If you look on the rural
figures, a lot of what was immediately behind it, apart from the
oil refinery, was also farm land.
Ms Keeble
631. I wanted to ask about flood warnings which
as you know has been an issue which myself and others have been
particularly concerned about. Again, in the MAFF evidence it says
that one of the Ministry's strategic aims is to reduce the risk
to people. Also it says in paragraph 24 "... The Environment
Agency has developed local arrangements for disseminating flood
warnings, which allow adoption of best practice as appropriate
to those areas." Now in the light of what happened over Easter
do you think that those arrangements are appropriate?
(Mr Morley) I do not think that they were appropriate
for Northampton, that was clearly the case. Of course that is
one of the issues which is being addressed by the independent
review which is going on. I am quite sure that those recommendations
will be looked at very carefully in relation to improving flood
warning systems.
632. There were other areas too because when
the Environment Agency gave evidence here it was very clear that
the instruction that was done here, the famous one from March
1996, had only been very patchily carried out.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
633. Are you satisfied with the way that instruction
is being progressed?
(Mr Morley) I think we would have to examine the current
situation in the light of what happened in Northampton and also
in the light of the independent review.
634. This is a real matter of ministerial oversight.
What oversight has there been of ensuring that that very clear—and
it was a ministerial directive although it was from the previous
government—directive was carried out? For the life of me
I cannot understand how a ministerial directive can be given and
then there can be no arrangements in place, firstly at a management
level and, secondly, at the political level?
(Mr Morley) No, there has to be some follow up on
this issue. I do think at the moment the most appropriate course
of action is to wait for the independent review which I know is
addressing amongst a number of issues flood warning, and I think
we will have to have a look at that to see what improvements can
be made.
635. Since Easter it was so dramatically obvious
that there were these gaps, certainly in Northampton but elsewhere
as well, for example in Peter's constituency and others, at the
departmental and ministerial level. Has there been any effort
to make sure that directive is carried out in a reasonable time
frame? I know there are plans to get it carried out within three
years but it seems to me that is woefully inadequate.
(Mr Morley) It needs to be examined but I do think
the independent review, the conclusions of that, is a very good
vehicle to examine. What they are looking at I know is what happened
in Northampton but they are looking at the overall national implications
as well.
636. I am sorry to come back to this but I do
not understand, if a directive at that level is given, why there
were not management arrangements to make sure it was implemented
which would be a fairly straight forward thing. "The Minister
said six months ago he wanted this done, what have you done to
carry it out?"
(Mr Morley) Sure.
637. Also particularly which big areas are at
risk. To leave a town the size of Northampton without any flood
warning I think is quite remarkable. I do not see why that glaring
gap was not picked up within three months of the directive being
given, let alone a couple of years.
(Mr Morley) I think that is a matter for the Environment
Agency to answer in relation to their overall strategy.
638. It was a ministerial directive.
(Mr Morley) It was.
639. Clearly it came from a MAFF minister, not
you.
(Mr Morley) No.
|
