Examination of Witness (Questions 680-
693)
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY 1998
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP
680. What is your own feeling about it and about
your Department's ability to ensure that the priorities are carried
through and that the Agency has the powers it needs and the money
it needs—it needs £40 million more—to deliver,
given that the consequences for people are so disastrous?
(Mr Morley) Yes. In terms of my opinion I think the
MAFF Flood and Coastal Protection Division has performed very
effectively and I think we have a great deal to be proud of in
relation to the delivery of the service through MAFF, which is
increasingly being delivered in an integrated way, embracing such
issues as environmental considerations. It is a new phenomenon.
It is part of our commitment to integrated rural policy, integrated
management, an integrated approach towards environmental management
and building environmental considerations into such things as
coastal and flood defence. So I think that there are advantages
for flood and coastal defence being within the Ministry of Agriculture,
as it currently is. I also think that if there were institutional
changes to MAFF, then it would actually strengthen even more the
case for that but, as I say, those are decisions for the Prime
Minister to make.
681. I can take the point that the Environment
Agency and your Department can justifiably take pride in the achievements.
There have been achievements because we have seen some state-of-the-art
stuff and we have also seen some glaring gaps. What responsibility
do you take and what then do you have to say about those glaring
gaps?
(Mr Morley) Obviously it depends on what glaring gaps
you are actually talking about but the Environment Agency itself
by its very nature is a stand-alone agency. It is not part of
MAFF, it is not part of the DETR, and so if you removed—and
I think some of the points that you are referring to relate to
the Environment Agency - some of the functions from MAFF into
DETR you would not necessarily alter the structure of the Environment
Agency unless you were talking about altering it as well.
682. But do you not accept the point that even
if the Environment Agency is stand-alone in terms of service delivery,
the delivery on the policy of this is the responsibility of the
Department and, therefore yourself as the Minister, and that that
cannot just disappear at arm's length, that whatever the managerial
arrangements in the Agency there is still a departmental responsibility
and a ministerial one?
(Mr Morley) Yes. I would not want to give the impression
that in any way I was ducking democratic responsibility. Whatever
structure you have, there has to be someone in Government who
is answerable to Parliament and, of course, to democratic accountability,
and that is also part of the consideration and in that respect
you can argue whether the accountability should be through DETR
or through MAFF and there is a case to be put for both sides.
But I should also say that one of the objectives of this Government
is that we do not operate within departmental compartments, that
we do consult with DETR and, indeed, other ministries in terms
of developing that integrated approach. Perhaps that is more important
than simply arguing who should or should not be the lead department.
Perhaps it is more important to ensure that there is proper co-ordination
in Government in relation to meeting these objectives and delivering
these objectives.
Chairman
683. Could I ask a point of information. Will
all these issues be effectively resolved by the announcement next
Tuesday of the Comprehensive Spending Review or will they still
be in the air after that?
(Mr Morley) I think some of these will be resolved
then, Chairman.
684. Very doubtful, Minister. Which ones?
(Mr Morley) I think obviously the fact that we will
have our budget announced and also, as you know, it will be a
three-year budget, which I very strongly support and I know that
that approach will be warmly welcomed by local authorities, the
Environment Agency and all concerned, because at least we can
then see that we will have a three-year budget and that helps
in terms of strategic planning, which is very important in relation
to flood defence and coastal protection.
Mr Marsden
685. Are you expecting an announcement then
next Tuesday on whether there will be the creation of a Ministry
of Rural Affairs and Rural Development?
(Mr Morley) I do not know the context of how the announcement
will be made but, as I say, that issue has been considered by
the Comprehensive Spending Review and I imagine as it has been
considered they will have to come to some conclusions. Even the
Comprehensive Spending Review, if it is in relation to changes
in structure of Government, I think the final decision for that
will have to be the Prime Minister's.
Chairman
686. He may or may not have made that by next
Tuesday?
(Mr Morley) I am afraid I cannot speak for the Prime
Minister.
687. Minister, finally, I want to take you back
to a question asked by Mr Marsden about the sinking of London
relative to the sea by some metres every 100 years. Now, as Mr
Marsden said, there does logically mean there will come a point,
if all the meteorologists and the geologists are right, and they
seem to be, there seems to be no dispute about these matters,
at which we will either be faced with building walls out there
in the river several metres high, up the window here—
(Mr Morley) I would not go that far.
688. Well, over time it would mean that. In
about 200 or 300 years' time say, your own officials' offices—the
people who deal with these issues—the Millennium Dome, St
Thomas's Hospital, the Secret Intelligence Services, Millbank
Tower, the Liberal Democrat HQ, Conservative Central Office, Nobel
House, your office, where we are sitting now, the Houses of Parliament
themselves will be literally indefensible, the shape of the capital
will change from all recognition. We will all be jostling for
sites on Hampstead Heath to try and make sure we can still stay
in the capital. Now if you accept there is some truth in that
scenario—deliberately dramatically expressed—if you
do, for politicians—such short term animals, appearing between
parliaments is a life time, 50 years is forever but now we are
talking about 200 or 300 years' time—how do we start sending
out signals now that we have to be more humble about mother nature?
(Mr Morley) I was going to say, Chairman, that the
Labour move from Walworth Road to Millbank Tower could be far
sighted in all this.
689. South Bank is more of a risk than North
Bank.
(Mr Morley) That is correct. Yes, these are very long
term projections and while the main thrust of them, I would not
dispute that, you are quite right to say, I think in terms of
the eventual predicted outcomes there is some doubt about what
may be or what will be. Yes, that has to be taken into account
in terms of long term planning, also in relation to the life of
flood defences as well, because, of course, flood defences have
a finite life and they have to be rebuilt eventually.
690. People take decisions about building properties
behind those flood defences now—
(Mr Morley) Yes, they do.
691.—which then lock them into a pattern
of expenditure in the future.
(Mr Morley) Well, I think on that one it is an easy
one, is it not, because there is absolutely no chance that Central
London is going to be allowed to disappear under water.
692. Ever?
(Mr Morley) Unless there is a meteorite from outer
space. I cannot predict for the future. In terms of long term
planning, the nature of areas of concentration of people and homes
is that whatever will need to be done in relation to flood defences
will be done both in terms of medium and long term planning.
693. You will not send out long term signals
about the unsustainability of that particular solution?
(Mr Morley) It is back again to the definition of
sustainability. I do not think that we should give the impression
that London is under immediate threat, for example. There has
been enormous investment in such things as the tidal barrier and
flood defences are being raised already to take into account the
projected rise in sea level. Those projections are built in and
those projections will probably be good for at least the next
100 years. As you say, politicians are often accused of having
short term objectives but I think a 100 year plan is not bad.
What will happen in the next 200 to 300 years I do not know, but
what I do know is that neither myself nor my officials will be
here to worry about that.
Chairman: Well, I am not taking up a 999 year
lease on my basement flat. Minister, thank you very much indeed
for your time and trouble. We are very grateful to you and my
gratitude to your officials for the help they have given to us
throughout this inquiry. Thank you.
|
