TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr David Curry, in the Chair
Mr David Borrow
Mr David Drew
Mr Alan Hurst
Mr Michael Jack
Mr Paul Marsden
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mr Lembit ™pik
Mr Mark Todd
Dr George Turner
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
MR ELLIOT MORLEY, a Member of the House, (Minister for Fisheries and
the Countryside), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
examined.
Chairman
66. Minister, you are a recidivist, thank you for coming
again.
(Mr Morley) That is all right. Actually I am a bit worried after
seeing someone going out. I do not know what the Committee has been doing
to people in here, I am very nervous now.
67. You will be happy to know that a glass of water brought
him round. Colleagues, the Minister has got other engagements to go
to so I would ask everybody to be crisp and sharp with the questions
and the Minister will no doubt be very precise, as always, in his
answers. What is your estimate of the cost of the floods as it
stands at the moment, individually and institutionally,
governmentally?
(Mr Morley) In costing terms of the cost to the Agency and the
Government expenditure or do you mean the overall cost of damage?
68. The overall cost of damage, if you have got that.
(Mr Morley) I have not seen a figure of the overall cost of damage,
as yet, primarily because in talks with the Association of British Insurers
they were saying that a lot of claims were not actually in, only a very
small proportion of claims have so far been submitted. My understanding is
that it will be a big cost but probably not quite as big as the hurricane
that happened, which is so far, I think, the biggest cost in relation to
insurance companies.
69. There have been over the last months a lot of stories
about people being told that they are now uninsurable or their
insurance will not be renewed. Are you able to give us a picture as
to where we are in that particular debate and how real those fears
are?
(Mr Morley) We are looking for examples of people who are having
difficulty in getting insurance after these floods. In our talks with the
Association of British Insurers, the Chief Executive made it very clear
that her members were not inclined to make hasty decisions about whether or
not they would cease insuring certain areas or certain individuals or,
indeed, whether they were going to make large increases in premiums. She
obviously added the caveat that in the end insurance companies are
commercial companies and they make commercial decisions. It is about risk
and risk management and risk assessment. What we have said to the ABI is
that from the Government point of view we are very willing to work with the
ABI in relation to what we are doing to reduce risk. It is worth making
the point, Chairman, in relation to these floods, which have been the worst
since 1947, something like 8,500 properties were affected in the floods out
of a potential number of 1.8 million which could have been affected.
Although it is not much consolation to the unfortunate people who suffered
floods, as a proportion of risk it is a small proportion and has
demonstrated that the investment that has been made on flood defences over
the years has generally worked and has actually defended an awful lot of
properties. Those are the kinds of calculations that insurance companies
will make.
70. So when we come to prioritising remedial works and
further works, are insurance companies having an influence in the
sense of they are indicating unless remedial work is taking place ---
-
(Mr Morley) They have not made that kind of approach towards the
Government quite as bluntly as that. They obviously know that there are
certain centres of population that were affected by floods in the course of
the recent floods that we have had. Some of those areas do have schemes in
the offing. Shrewsbury, for example, is one where there is a scheme which
is being prepared. Malton is another where there is a scheme being
prepared. With the extra resources which were announced by the Deputy
Prime Minister, the extra œ51 million, that does mean that we can bring
forward schemes, introduce new schemes and accelerate other schemes.
71. A seamless web, that was what the Environment Agency was
going to deliver according to its Action Plan. How do you rate its
performance?
(Mr Morley) I think its performance was much improved compared to the
Northampton floods, for example, in 1998. As you know, the Northampton
floods was a terrible disaster. It was not just Northampton - these were
the Easter floods - but Northampton was particularly badly hit with loss of
life, of course. The fact is, Chairman, following on from the Bye Report
we had the High Level Targets and we had the uprating of the national flood
warning system, which has worked generally very well. There are one or two
examples where we do need to look at what happened but generally speaking
it has worked very well, people got good warnings. The targets in relation
to exercises for local authorities and the emergency services, that was put
into place. In some cases some local authorities actually held exercises
this summer before this autumn's floods and that also meant that it helped
in relation to their response. I think the response from all the emergency
services and from the Environment Agency has generally been extremely good
and I think it is a great tribute to all those concerned in the sense of
their professionalism and their dedication, people who worked around the
clock in some cases in terms of giving people the services that they needed
at that time. As you probably will have heard, Chairman, I have asked the
Environment Agency that when things settle down, when they have more time,
and I do not expect them to do this at the moment, then we would expect an
evaluation of these floods, a look at what worked well, a look at what was
successful, a look at what perhaps could have worked better, and to try to
learn some lessons and draw some conclusions from that. We are constantly
trying to improve the responses and improve the structures we have in place
to protect people from floods.
Mr Marsden
72. Thank you for visiting Shrewsbury not once but twice
since the floods, the first time with the Prime Minister and the
second time just last week, that has been greatly appreciated. As
you mentioned, we can afford some new flood defences. You mentioned
the extra œ51 million over four years, which is very welcome, and
this is on top of an increase, as I understand, of œ34 million over
three years announced in the SR 2000.
(Mr Morley) That is right.
73. How was the figure of œ51 million arrived at? Has it
been allocated already to specific projects? You can mention
Shrewsbury at this point.
(Mr Morley) The œ51 million is an assessment of what could be spent
over the four year period, bearing in mind that because of design, planning
permission and engineering you will not get schemes started probably this
financial year, you will be looking at the next financial year when most of
the money comes on stream. Having said that, there is also money for such
things as whole catchment studies. There is œ2 million available right now
for doing that. That means that we can start to do some work in relation
to whole catchment study plans and I think there is a real need for that on
a number of major river systems in relation to a number of communities
which are sited upon them. Indeed, the River Severn is one of them where
there is a number of communities at risk along the River Severn. It was
really a professional assessment of what could be spent on top of what we
had already allocated in relation to programmes both which we know have
been formulated and programmes that can be formulated within that four year
period. It can in some cases, Chairman, take four or five years from
scratch to get a programme off the ground.
74. We have heard previously from the Environment Agency that
they have said part of the problem is literally under-funding. Can I
draw your attention to the National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from
Flooding and coastal Erosion, which trips off the tongue very nicely,
commissioned by MAFF. It estimated that in June 2000 an additional
œ100 million a year was needed in capital works and investment,
whilst continuing to invest at the current level would result in
"increasing annual average damage eventually reaching some œ1.8
billion a year". What is your response to that advice, which is
clearly calling for a lot more money and saying there is an awful lot
of risk as well attached in terms of damage?
(Mr Morley) That is a report which was commissioned by my own
Department as part of the commitment to looking at long-term flood defence
strategies. It was a report that was designed to evaluate what would be
the value of assets protected against the public expenditure in relation to
flood and coastal defence. It is a long-term figure, it is a long-term
study. It has been presented that we have to accelerate the programme
immediately in one year, and I am not even sure if it was talking about
œ100 million in one year. It is over quite a long timescale. It is
certainly true to say, Chairman, that the report did identify a need for
increased expenditure on flood and coastal defence. We accept that advice
and it is why we are on the rise in relation to our Spending Review, it is
why we have the additional œ51 million, and we are going to have to use
that report to guide future expenditure, there is no two ways about that.
75. So you would not agree with the suggestion that the UK is
running a grave risk through underfunding of flood defence?
(Mr Morley) If we do not increase expenditure then, yes, that is a
risk, but the fact is we are increasing expenditure and we do have to
address the serious points that were raised in that report about the need
for additional expenditure over time.
76. Following on from the Committee's report, which
criticised the existing funding arrangements for flood and coastal
defence and called for a review of the current mechanisms for
financing of works, there was a consultation in 1999 which has been
followed by a much more wider and deeper review of funding and that
is due to be completed by September 2001.
(Mr Morley) That is correct.
77. The question is then how is this review being conducted
and why has it taken so long?
(Mr Morley) The reason why it has taken so long is that it is a very
thorough review and, of course, it does involve more than one department.
It involves DETR, as you will appreciate, because one of the revenue
streams is through the Standard Spending Assessment so, therefore, we have
to work with DETR. It also involves bodies like the Association of
Drainage Authorities. There is a number of organisations involved in the
review. It has been interrupted. It has lost a month or so because of the
recent autumn floods and a lot of staff who would have been working on the
review have been switched to dealing with the flooding issues, as you would
appreciate, so it is difficult to accelerate it. I did ask officials,
following the statement I gave to the House, whether or not it would be
possible to bring forward that review. I think 2001 is a realistic date,
given the fact it is quite a major review.
78. Is there anything that could be done in the short-term to
simplify the funding mechanisms within MAFF's own remit in order to
effect a more speedy and more effective use of the funding?
(Mr Morley) One of the things we thought about was to move to a block
grant system for the Environment Agency, whereby we would give the Agency a
block grant rather than the Agency bringing forward schemes for us to
evaluate technically, environmentally and on cost benefit. That has been
held up because of the review of funding sources, because it does make
sense that if you are going to look at the way that flooding and coastal
defence is funded in this country it would be sensible to wait for that
report rather than to make decisions in relation to what has happened.
Mr Jack
79. Most of the current flooding has been river-based, what
is the split in terms of your grants and other expenditure as
detailed in your submission, L3 to the Committee, Table 1, between
coastal and river flooding?
(Mr Morley) I do not have those figures to hand, Chairman, but I
would be only too pleased to make sure the Committee has the split.
80. Whilst we are on that table, I see in the financial year
1996-97, expenditure reached over œ100 million, subsequently over the
next three years it declined and then went back up. Can you give us
any feel for the factors which led to somebody thinking that œ100
million was right in 1996 and then in subsequent years lower sums
were okay?
(Mr Morley) I am not quite sure which chart you are looking at.
81. Table 1 of document L3, the Progress Report on the
Implementation of Recommendations in the Sixth Report.
(Mr Morley) I suspect this is due to schemes which had been approved
in that year by the regional flood defence committees. Of course, if you
have a number of big schemes going through in any one year then there will
be a variation in relation to MAFF grants and other expenditure. You will
notice the overall expenditure has been increasing year on year. I think
that would explain the anomaly but if I am wrong on that, I would be only
too pleased to clarify it for the Committee.
82. In the Spending Review, the data that was given,
presumably by MAFF, to the Treasury convinced the Treasury at the
time that œ34 million was right, what suddenly changed to make you
suddenly say, "œ51 million on top of that"? I want to get a feel as
to how the decision-making process works, because things like extreme
conditions, climate change - you yourself, Minister, reminded us,
quite rightly, of Northampton - are not unknown, all the climate
people tell us that more extreme weather is likely to come, all of
that would be fed into the decision-making process which resulted in
the 34 million, yet one serious flooding incident which I presume
could have been predicted magically elicits another 51 million. Tell
us about the decision-making process.
(Mr Morley) A flood of the kind we have just experienced in this
country really could not have been predicted. Indeed we had the
Northampton floods, we had some previous floods, we have had a series of
floods in the last three years which are out-of-pattern in relation to the
kind of timescale you would expect for floods of that kind. Within that
period, MAFF has been thinking of the implications of long-term
expenditure, has been giving thought to the possibility that we may be
entering into a period of climatic change where we are going to see more of
this kind of weather.
83. What advice did you get after Northampton which was in
the general area for discussion of climate change? Did somebody say
to you, "Minister, this is such a long-odds event it will not occur
again" and yet two years later we have extreme flooding?
(Mr Morley) It was not quite like that. The assessment of flooding
and flood defence is based on predicted events of 1:50 years, 1:100 years,
1:200 years going up to 1:1,000 years, which is the predicted breach of the
London tidal barrier, for example, so there is a level of prediction in
relation to the events which is within MAFF's models and within the kind of
models of the institutes which advise the Ministry. The fact is we may
well be seeing situations where those assessments which have been made on
1:100, 1:50, may be wrong, it may be those assessments are now 1:30 and
1:150 instead of 1:50 and 1:200. We cannot rule that out. The reality is
that we do not know for certain and in fact we are committing money for
research and development into climate change - about œ11 million a year -
to try and understand the link between such things as global warming,
potential climate change and potential implications through to flooding.
The spend has been a rising spend but of course in the meantime we have had
reports, such as the one we have been referring to, and what we have seen
is this extreme of flooding, the worst since 1947, in some cases the worst
for 400 years, the wettest autumn for 330 years. With all those factors it
would be irresponsible if we did not take that into account and the
additional money is to reflect that and the fact we are going to have to
accept we are going to make more commitments to flood and coastal defence.
So that is what influenced the extra œ51 million.
Mr Drew
84. Can I look at the relationship between what is obviously
scheme driven, which is large capital sums of money, and planned
maintenance, inasmuch as there is a danger, with the best of respect
to the Shrewsburys of this world, that if you skew it all in terms of
the big schemes that even less is available to spend on planned
maintenance. Very often that planned maintenance is the only
defence those communities, because of the numbers of houses or
because of the relative isolation, are ever going to have and there
is a danger they will be flooded more regularly because of the
backwash and impact of the larger schemes. What is your opinion on
that?
(Mr Morley) There has to be planned maintenance and the funding that
we provide from MAFF is very much linked to capital grants, but the
Environment Agency budget of course is both capital and planned
maintenance. The Environment Agency themselves will draw up their
programme in relation to what they think is important for planned
maintenance and that does involve such things as river bank maintenance,
perhaps an element of dredging, of course they have to maintain screens and
there is a fair bit of work they have to do, both in relation to their core
functions and also in relation to contracting as well, but it is the Agency
which puts that scheme together.
85. Can I deal with one thing on the back of that which has
been put to me on a number of occasions, if we dredged our rivers
more regularly that would deal with the problem of flooding.
(Mr Morley) If only!
86. Can you put it on the record, once and for all, that is
not the case?
(Mr Morley) Yes. Let me make this very clear. It is true, wherever
you go and there has been a flood, people say, "If the river had been
dredged it would have solved the problem", it would not. In some cases the
difference dredging would make would be very marginal. I am not saying it
makes no difference in some cases, but in other cases, big water courses
tend to be self-cleaning, they tend to clean themselves out, and actually a
flood of the kind we have experienced tends to really clean them out, I can
assure you. Where you have tidal rivers, dredging does not make the
slightest bit of difference because the volume is filled up by the tides
and the level is determined by the tides. In some cases, if you dredge too
deep, the banks will fall in, and that will not do anyone any good.
Mr Mitchell
87. Why are you so opposed to institutional change? We
recommended some in our report and you turned it down, then the
Environment Agency and others recommended a kind of national joint
strategic flood group and you have turned that down too.
(Mr Morley) Yes, that is right. We did not think a national
strategic flood group would do a lot of good in relation to the kind of
services provided at the present time with the kind of structures at the
present time. I do not want you to think, Chairman, that we are
absolutely, implacably opposed to any kind of institutional change. In
this review which is coming forward from the Environment Agency, if the
Agency themselves think there is a role for some kind of joint flood group
of that kind, we are prepared to consider that. We thought very carefully
about the recommendations your own Committee made in relation to bodies
such as Drainage Boards, for example, and also streamlining the regional
flood defence committees which we accept there could well be a case for in
terms of reducing the number of local flood defence committees and perhaps
breaking up some of the big regions into two or three regional flood
defence committees, for example. We are certainly willing to consider that
but that would actually require primary legislation, you would have to
attach that to a Water Bill that was going through Parliament. We have not
closed our minds to any kind of institutional change. I was not
enthusiastic about the recommendations from the Committee last time
because, of course, they were removing some element of local accountability
and local involvement through the drainage boards and through local flood
defence committees which I did think, and I still think, was important. I
do think that there is a role for local involvement in terms of deciding
priorities and deciding local expenditure on flood and coastal defence. I
would be reluctant to move away from an element of local accountability and
democracy but we are prepared to consider the case for institutional change
if a strong case is made.
88. It must be messy with so many agencies involved.
(Mr Morley) It tends to work and it tends to deliver. I think also
this present situation has shown that the defences that have been put in
place have held, they operated to their design standard and in many cases
beyond their design standard, and the areas of need have been identified in
relation to the structures which are in place. I would not like to say
that there were huge failings in the present institutional system.
89. Are we to take it from paragraph 19 of your memorandum
that the proposed Water Bill would allow a move to a single tier of
regional flood defence committees?
(Mr Morley) That is right.
90. Would you be in favour of that?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I would not rule that out. I think there is a case
for streamlining the system in that way with the proviso, as I say, that
some regional flood defence committees, indeed the one covers that our own
area, Chairman, are very large. I think if you want to have the connection
with local people and accountability you probably have to divide some of
the regional ones up, a very big one maybe into three regional flood
defence committees, and at the moment they are restricted to ten by
statute, which is why you would need legislation to change it.
Chairman
91. Would you contemplate reviewing the balance of interests
in the committees for flood and water management, flood defence
committees, regional flood defence committees, internal drainage
boards and representation on them?
(Mr Morley) Yes. As I say, I have an open mind in relation to how we
address this. We have reviewed it once and we did consult widely on it.
As you know, there was a lot of response to your Committee's report, which
was generally well received, but of course there were bodies, like the
Association of Drainage Authorities, who had a difference of opinion as you
will remember.
Chairman: That is a surprise.
Mr Todd
92. In the evidence we heard from the Environment Agency they
drew out the implications of their lack of influence over the non-
arterial river courses, the drainage from fields and so on, which
often had very substantial impacts on the effectiveness of flood
defence in other parts of a mechanism defending a community, and
their weakness in gaining the co-operation of other people who may be
engaged, for example the local authorities who failed to co-operate
with them in inspecting flood defences. Does that concern you, that
this typically English ramshackle "well, it is a bit confusing but
somehow we muddle through" approach, perhaps just is not suitable for
this sort of set-up now?
(Mr Morley) It is a concern that non main river courses can be
responsible for localised flooding, that is certainly very true. In the
High Level Targets we have set, one of them is an audit of all the various
river defences both private and Environment Agency and local authority. We
have asked the Agency to do that audit and to put them on to a database
which will give us a clearer idea of what potentially needs to be done in
relation to doing this.
93. That audit will require the co-operation of a number of
other bodies, how are we going to achieve that?
(Mr Morley) I am not aware that there has been any problem in
relation to co-operation from other bodies. I think the problem comes when
it is determined who is to pay for some of these defences, particularly
when they are riparian owned.
94. We did hear that local authorities were not always
willing to even participate in the process of inspection of some of
these defences.
(Mr Morley) It is an ongoing process. All I can say is that problem
has not been brought to my attention and if it was brought to my attention
I would certainly take steps to do something about that.
95. That is in the Environment Agency evidence that we have
seen, 82 local authorities either failed to reply or blank refused to
take part in this inspection process. That does not bode well for
this process of getting this audit straight.
(Mr Morley) It is certainly true that if local authorities are not
co-operating on this it does not help in relation to the audit but that co-
operation is something which is essential and that is an issue which I will
address with the Environment Agency and, if necessary, I will take up
directly with the Local Government Association.
96. The targets that you have set, because we are beginning
to touch on those, how are we going to make sure that they are
actually implemented within this rather confusing mechanism that we
have and which the Committee criticised but you have defended?
(Mr Morley) There are dates set to actually complete these targets
and we would expect the Environment Agency to do that. It is true, as you
say, that obviously some of them are easier to achieve than others but any
way that we can help in relation to Central Government in terms of making
process on that then we are only too pleased to do that.
97. What consideration has been given to the inclusion of a
target for catchment-level flood management strategies and flood
defence planning, as recommended by English Nature?
(Mr Morley) These are the water level management plans you mean?
98. Yes.
(Mr Morley) There is a target for completion on water level
management plans. We expect them to be brought forward and there is a date
set for that.
99. From this questioning, I have to be blunt really, you
have given the impression that, firstly, you are not entirely clear
about the co-operative framework in which the Environment Agency is
operating at the moment, which is that it seems to be struggling from
the evidence we have, and also that while you are not averse to
institutional change, you certainly do not want to lead with it. My
difficulty is that the targets that you appear to be setting will be
achieved by the goodwill, by the sound of things, of a number of
disparate agencies rather than by the collective will of Government.
Is that right and is that reassuring?
(Mr Morley) It is certainly true that there are a number of agencies
involved in relation to the delivery of flood and coastal defence. I have
made it clear that we have not closed our minds towards institutional
reform or to try to make things more streamlined. What you seem to be
arguing for is a much more centralised system.
100. That is what this Committee argued for.
(Mr Morley) They did, but on balance I think that if you are
delivering flood defence there is a strong argument for local involvement
through local authorities. I do have to be honest and say that in relation
to the problems that the Environment Agency have been having in co-
operation, they have not particularly brought them to my attention so,
therefore, I am assuming they are overcoming those, but I will certainly
take steps to check that. It is fair to say, however, that there have been
other problems which have been brought to my attention and they are
primarily in relation to funding from the levy raised from local
authorities.
101. They raised that problem too.
(Mr Morley) That has been brought to my attention, Chairman, there is
no two ways about that, and I have intervened in a number of areas to
remind local authorities of their responsibilities in relation to their
role in flood and coastal defence and the fact that there is provision
through their Standard Spending Assessment which has been above inflation
in the last few years to actually provide resources for this. I would not
want to pretend that there are not problems with that. That is a
consideration that we will have to take into account but, of course, with
the review which is taking place on the funding mechanisms for flood and
coastal defence, it is an opportunity to think about those approaches.
Dr Turner
102. In paragraph 14 of the memorandum you describe MAFF's
Project Appraisal Guidance. Could I just ask the Minister where does
that fit within MAFF and within the Environment Agency? Is that
something you share with them, those procedures, or is that an
internal MAFF approach?
(Mr Morley) On the Project Appraisal Guidance?
103. Yes.
(Mr Morley) It is something which the Department lays down in terms
of the kinds of standards that we would expect the Environment Agency to
follow in relation to evaluating the particular projects which they are
putting forward. In the end it is partly a process which is based on the
Environment Agency in terms of assessments of its own needs. It is a
process which involves the Environment Agency in relation to the design of
the actual projects. There is an evaluation, of course, which we apply in
relation to the environmental considerations, the cost benefit analysis,
and also the social considerations of it as well.
104. So where does the point system, which I understand from
the Environment Agency earlier today does go right across the range
from flood to coastal ---
(Mr Morley) Yes, it does.
105. That seemed to me to cover a number of things - economic
assessment, risk, environmental considerations ----
(Mr Morley) That is correct. The point system which was introduced,
I think, in 1997, is a way of trying to have some priority within schemes
because of course in any one year you are always going to get more
submissions and schemes than you can actually fund, so therefore it is
quite logical that you have a scheme which is a proper, impartial way of
evaluating need which takes into account all those points which you have
raised and gives a point score, and of course those schemes with the
highest points are the ones which are brought forward. You can adjust
those points in relation to various factors. We have just recently
adjusted the points for urban river system defences because of the recent
floods and because we have to take into account that we may be seeing more
of this kind of weather, so the score for urban river systems has been
increased, so therefore that is part of the process of changing priorities
and bringing it forward. So you can adjust the scoring system to take into
account the kind of priorities that you want. Also in relation to
additional funding, the overall score is coming down, because we have more
funding available it means the score is being lowered and that means we can
embrace more schemes as well.
106. Are you sure you are not reacting after the horse has
bolted on the urban river system? If you are trying to see a balance
between coastal and river flooding, is it that we have not had the
coastal problems yet and you will change it again next year if there
is flooding in my constituency?
(Mr Morley) We have to take into account the situation as we find it
but there are priorities for coasts. We are well aware of the situation of
coasts. In relation to the point that Mr Jack was making, the actual
impact of climate change on sea level is much better understood than the
impact on rainfall, so in that respect we are already building in
projections on rising sea level, and that is being done now in relation to
future coastal defences. Again we have priority schemes and we know where
they are to be applied. As you will also know, we are thinking of a more
sustainable approach to coastal defences, which may mean re-aligning
existing defences.
107. Could I ask if you would be surprised to hear that the
Environment Agency told us a short time ago that they believed - I
think the present system has around a 20 point hurdle ----
(Mr Morley) It has just been reduced from 22 to 20, yes.
108. --- the appropriate level would be single figures? I
wondered what your reaction to that would be?
(Mr Morley) If I was the Environment Agency I would probably say the
same thing, Chairman, basically, because it does mean they would get more
schemes and more funding. Ideally that would be great although I am not
quite sure when the Environment Agency said to the Committee they would
like to see a single figure score, whether they have done a technical
evaluation and whether they could actually deliver the number of schemes
within that score, because you would have to have the available engineers,
the available plant, the available company; there is a physical limit to
the number of schemes you can design and build in any one year, depending
on the scale and the size and the technical issues. I am not at all sure
whether the Environment Agency has done that kind of evaluation.
109. A serious concern for the public will be that it may be
that we do have to put more money into coastal defences and flood
defences and, as you have just said Minister, you need to build up to
that capability, you are not going to be able to do it straight away,
and they will be worried you will be wanting to do it after the
damage is done. It does seem that this year in terms of the floods
and from what has been said to us that we have got away, very
narrowly, with some very major problems.
(Mr Morley) Yes, there were some floods ---
110. Are you yourself convinced that the Government is gearing
up sufficiently? It does show gearing up in terms of total
expenditure. Are you satisfied?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I am largely satisfied. I say "largely" because, of
course, there is always more you can do and there is always more money you
can spend, but we have to be pragmatic, and I have to accept I live in the
real world and there is a certain financial allocation which we have within
the Department for flood and coastal defence expenditure. It is an
increasing expenditure, it is going up year on year, and we have additional
money, but it still means that you have to have priorities, and in that
sense a priority scoring system is the fairest way in my opinion of
deciding which schemes should be brought forward. As I was saying to you,
you can change that scoring, you can change the priorities, you can build
it into the score in terms of developing priorities in different years and
different circumstances. So I do think it is the right approach.
Ultimately the score will continue to come down. As the spend increases,
which you have seen in relation to the memorandum, it will enable the score
to come down. In relation to the point you have made about preparing and
having sufficient engineering capacity, you cannot suddenly have a huge
jump in an area like that, it is more sensible to have a gradual increase,
and then of course you will have the facilities which are being made
available to do that, to bid for it, to tender for it. We are also looking
at some other schemes as well, such as some very big public/private
partnership schemes providing coastal defence schemes in partnership with
contractors who are doing it over a very long basis; major investment. So
we are looking at a number of ways of levering more money into flood and
coastal defences and also making sure the capacity is there to do it.
Mr ™pik
111. The NFU compiled a dossier of weather chaos, which I am
sure you have seen, and in fairness the Government has responded as
far as I can see by relaxing some of the regulations, for example the
latest sowing dates for Arable Area Payments and also more
flexibility in allowing flooded areas to be used in set-aside, which
is great. Are there any other schemes or ideas which the Government
has had to assist farmers?
(Mr Morley) Not as at this moment. Those are schemes where we have
some national discretion and we have used that national discretion to give
immediate support to farmers in flooded areas. As you say, we have offered
them the opportunity of 100 per cent set-aside for fields under water, we
have also offered flexibility on the green cover rule on set-aside which of
course you cannot apply, and we are also in consultation with the NFU and
we will be seeking variations from various rules in relation to schemes
such as planting dates, for example, which we may have to do if farmers
cannot get on their land until the spring, which is a possibility given how
water-logged the land is. So we are doing that now. The NFU has submitted
a dossier of damage to my Rt Hon friend, Nick Brown, and he has given some
thought to that, but in all honesty we do not have a financial facility
within the Department for giving major compensation for flood damage of
this kind, we just do not have those income streams. What we can do,
where we have discretion, is to use that as quickly and swiftly as we can
to try and help out.
112. One suggestion given by the NFU, potentially quite viable
in flood plains, would be to use their land as set-aside for water,
actually store water and then release it more gradually. Is that
something in principle you would be willing to consider?
(Mr Morley) Yes, in principle, I would be more than willing to
consider that. It may well be the case that in relation to our agri-
environment budget, which is also a considerable rise in spend, it might be
possible to look at ways of getting environmental gain and also using
agricultural land as winter flood storage areas and water management areas.
It is one of the advantages of having a whole catchment study because a
whole catchment study of course will identify that kind of approach. As a
very rough rule of thumb, where land is subject to regular flooding as part
of the natural consequences of the area, there is not financial support
available because that is the position which has been long-established, but
where land could be taken for flooding or water management, then there is a
case for some form of compensation or some form of management agreement.
So we are very willing to consider that in relation to water management.
113. Would your Department then be willing to consider more
detailed proposals and strategies which the NFU might put together
about how they see that working and giving examples?
(Mr Morley) Yes, we would, and indeed it is not just the NFU who are
interested, but also the wildlife trusts and the RSPB. We are very willing
to look at submissions to us. As you will appreciate, we have to apply
similar criteria of technical evaluation, cost benefit analysis and
environmental impact to see whether such schemes would have an effect. It
was brought home to me when I was going around flood hit areas in this
recent situation when I was in Leeds City Centre, which came very close to
flooding, and I was told that the effect of the washlands outside the City
and up river actually lowered the water level by a metre and a half. That
was the effect of the washlands. So you can have quite an effect by using
washlands in relation to both water management and also flood defence. I
certainly would be more than happy to consider that kind of approach.
114. That is a great idea for the future by the sound of it.
Moving on, the National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding and
Coastal Erosion, probably the worst ----
(Mr Morley) Not a snappy title.
115. Not yet, no, but I am sure they are working on it. The
statistic is snappy because they reckon that 61 per cent of England's
Grade 1 agricultural land is located in areas at risk of flooding or
coastal erosion. Is there a case for extra protection and would the
Government be willing to formulate a strategy if it feels that land
needs particular attention?
(Mr Morley) We have not at the moment got a particular strategy for
Grade 1 agricultural land. You are right to say that a lot of it is in
flood risk areas because a lot of Grade 1 land is on peat bogs and it has
been reclaimed land. It is very productive land although it has problems
with soil erosion, such as the Cambridgeshire Fens where there are
particular problems with it in relation to the pressure on the soils. We
are approaching that with such things as our soil codes in relation to
protecting the quality of soil. At the moment the priority has to be lives
and property and national infrastructure and while agriculture is certainly
a criterion, it is a lower criterion than those others.
116. I have got three last questions. One is, what research
have MAFF done to see if there is a connection between intensive
farming practice and flooding, for example, perhaps the removal of
peat tufts from hills and that kind of thing?
(Mr Morley) We have a number of R&D projects in relation to the
effect of such things as intensive grazing on soils and run-off. We also
have a number of research projects in relation to soil management, the
impact of a switch to autumn cereals, for example, which we have both
funded in the past and are currently funding at the present time.
117. Any practical lessons that you are planning to put into
practice?
(Mr Morley) Where you can see some of the biggest impact is where
some grassed downland has been ploughed up and turned into cereals. You
can get quite a lot of run-off, not just run-off, Chairman, you can get mud
slides in certain circumstances in relation to that. That is an issue of a
cropping regime and a management regime. One of the changes that I think
will help this is that we are bringing forward quite a long delayed
Environmental Impact Assessment which will be applied to natural and semi-
natural grassland. Before this will be ploughed up in future it will have
to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment and such issues as water
run-off and the effect of ploughing up grassland and slopes will obviously
be part of that EIA. That is one way of tackling that, although I do
accept it is something that should have been brought forward some years
ago.
118. Two very brief questions. One is would you be willing to
consider a strategy whereby if local farmers, or groups of farmers,
can think of specific projects which could help alleviate ploughing
problems, there could be a mechanism into the Department, perhaps in
partnership with the Environment Agency, to evaluate those? In other
words, to encourage those who really know the local areas to come
forward with useful propositions.
(Mr Morley) We very much value local knowledge and local views. Yes,
indeed, if there is a consortium of local landowners who would want to join
forces with the Environment Agency to bring forward a scheme, we would be
only too pleased to consider that. It would, of course, have to go through
exactly the same evaluation as any other scheme, which is the technical,
environmental and cost benefit, but subject to the normal evaluation we
would be only too happy to consider that approach.
119. Finally, a question you may not be able to answer. What
assumptions are you making for sea level rise in the plans that you
were discussing before? Do you happen to know how much you are
planning for the sea level rise?
(Mr Morley) I have not got the exact figures to hand but I can let
you have those. Basically there are two figures on the East Coast in
particular. The figures have just suddenly come to me. It is between four
to six millimetres a year, that is the assumption that is being built into
flood defences. On the East Coast we also have to build in an assumption
of the fact that the country is sinking. It is sinking in the East and
rising in the West.
120. Which of course means that we will be able to get more
hill livestock compensatory allowance on the West side and that is
good news.
(Mr Morley) Yes. I think you will be pushed in Cheshire, it is not
going to tilt that much.
Chairman: Montgomeryshire will be here for a while.
Mr Jack
121. Minister, the RSPB made recommendations about the
development of a floodplain. Can you tell us what MAFF's position
is on that? Would you be prepared to give an unequivocal
recommendation which says no more house building or development on
the floodplain?
(Mr Morley) I do not think, in all honesty, that there is a case for
an unequivocal argument to say that in no circumstances will there be any
kind of building within a floodplain. I actually do not think that is
necessary. MAFF have been involved in consultation with DETR in relation
to the new Policy Planning Guidelines 25 which themselves are being
reviewed in the light of these recent floods and also in the light of my
hon. friend, Nick Raynsford, the Planning Minister, who has been before the
Environment Select Committee.
122. Does the technical advice that you have received indicate
to you that extra development in floodplains to date has had a
detrimental effect on flooding?
(Mr Morley) There is no argument that there have been some very bad
planning decisions made over the last 20/30 years, there is no two ways
about that. Houses have been built in very vulnerable places, little
attention has been given to run-off or effects on water flows. I think
that is absolutely true. I think the approach in the future will be that
in some instances planning will have to be refused on flood plains; in some
instances. In other instances, you can have development within existing
structure plans which will not have an effect, and in other instances, if
you are going to have development there will have to be flood mitigation
measures. In those circumstances I think it will be the developers who
have to pay for that.
123. We have had an announcement in the last few days about
your Government's intention to make house buying easier, the
development of the so-called "Seller's Pack", lots of information to
help would-be purchasers. Do you think one of the pieces of
information they ought to have in this Seller's Pack in general terms
available to house buyers is some indication about flood risk? Do
you think the obligation for that should be on the Government, the
insurance companies or some other group? The Committee discussed
this in their report and you rejected the proposal but we have moved
on a bit since then.
(Mr Morley) We have moved on a bit since then. The Buyer's Pack is
currently a pilot scheme and there would be have to be legislation brought
forward if it was going to be applied nationally. It is designed at the
moment to speed up the sale process. They are primarily legal documents in
the Buyer's Pack but there is no reason in principle why you could not take
that further.
124. To use your words, to take it further, do you envisage
making recommendations, whether it be to insurance companies, house
builders, or any other body, about imparting information to potential
house purchasers about flood risk? We heard earlier, for example,
that the Environment Agency at the end of this week are going to have
on their website their map showing risk. Do you think, for example,
a householder automatically ought to have a copy of that presented to
them by somebody?
(Mr Morley) I think how far you take that is open to debate. If you
are asking me personally, I know the Environment Agency are discussing this
issue with the Law Society in relation to how you can develop this pack
further and, as part of that, whether there should be environmental issues
within the pack and what they should be. It is clearly obvious it would be
logical that one of the environmental issues within the Buyer's Pack should
be flood risk.
125. As you rightly counsel us, the pack is but a trial ---
(Mr Morley) It is.
126. --- and the generality of house sales will take place
whether or not a pack becomes reality. What recommendation is MAFF
going to give, either to the Department of the Environment or to
other agencies, about the question of availability of information on
flooding?
(Mr Morley) It is not really one for MAFF in relation to house sales
because, of course, it is more of a planning issue which is not one for us.
I would certainly want to see the information on flood risk mapping as
widely available as possible, which is why we were very keen to see the
Agency put it on the internet, we were very keen to see the Agency provide
the CD-disk to every local authority in the country, which they have done,
and of course it was one of the targets which we set in relation to flood
risk mapping from MAFF to the Environment Agency. I think there is a
debate on how far you take that and I think it is going to be part of the
consultation which will take place on such things as the Buyer's Pack.
There is a risk of blight, of course, in relation to this. The counter-
argument is that people need to know. The other concern is that once you
have a flood risk map, although it is helpful and useful in itself, what we
do not want to do is to think that people who are just over that line on
the flood risk are therefore guaranteed never in any circumstances to be at
risk from flooding. That is the other danger of being too prescriptive,
too definitive, in relation to saying whether a house is at flood risk or
not. I think the important thing is to make sure that the information is
available, that people are aware of it, that people can access it, and also
people understand that you cannot draw too definitive a conclusion from it
apart from, if you are in the flood risk area then of course you are at
risk. But it does not mean that if you are on the edge, you are not. This
is where you get into difficulties about how tightly you draw these things.
127. We discussed earlier in our evidence discussions which
the Environment Agency and the ABI had, and we talked about the
question of the uninsurability of some properties. In the context of
those who make their living on the land, they are in many cases more
vulnerable. You have just been talking about land being used as a
water storage area, what discussions have you had with the insurance
industry about ensuring they can continue to give cover, for example,
in the context of farmhouses, farm buildings, farm machinery, for
those people who are in potentially high risk areas, a risk which
could be enhanced by virtue of them saying, "Okay, my land is
suitable to act like a flood reservoir", indicating they are in a
risk area but increasing their own personal vulnerability?
(Mr Morley) We have had general discussions with the insurance
companies but what you are referring to is a very specialist subject. The
discussions we have had are on general properties - people's private homes
and people's businesses. What I take it you are talking about is if we
went a step further in relation to developing some land as flood storage or
washlands. In those circumstances in many cases the actual farm buildings
where land is washland have been deliberately built above the high water
mark because people knew, going back in some cases centuries, the patterns
of water in those areas and they tend to be raised. In other circumstances
if, speaking hypothetically, you wanted to introduce a scheme which would
involve flooding land periodically, perhaps not necessarily every year but
at peaks of flooding in the winter, if some properties were at risk as part
of the scheme you may have to defend those properties and that could be
done.
Mr Todd
128. I asked the Environment Agency when they gave evidence
whether they would welcome a similar right of direction to a local
authority to reject a planning application that the Highways Agency
have for developments where they believe these conflict with road
safety or matters of that kind. Would you support such a step?
(Mr Morley) My understanding is that the Environment Agency's advice
will be given greater emphasis in the new policy guidelines which will be
coming forward now in January, so they are going to have an enhanced role.
129. That may be so. We have certainly seen, as you have said
yourself, some extremely poor decisions by local authorities which
can continue to be perverse in spite of the apparent advice given to
them. Is that something where we just say, in the English way, "They
make those judgments, that is tough"?
(Mr Morley) It does come down in some ways to how far you have power
of direction and central control and how far you have an element of local
democracy and local autonomy. All local authorities have professional
planners and all professional planners know the kind of guidelines they
should be working within. They are going to get clearer guidelines in
relation to flood plain development under PPG 25 and that also includes the
role of the Environment Agency in terms of their recommendations. Just
bear in mind, even at the present time, as I understand it, 90 per cent of
planning applications which are objected to or commented on by the
Environment Agency are either rejected or adapted as a result of those
comments.
130. Further to that, would you then accept something more
modest which would be that there should be a standard condition on
applications in this sort of category which would oblige them to
produce proposals which would be acceptable to the Environment Agency
and if they did not then that application would not proceed?
(Mr Morley) You are talking about areas of responsibility which are
outside my own remit really in these but if you want me to venture a
personal opinion, which is always dangerous in this game, Chairman, I was
very interested in some of the discussions we held in the Cabinet Sub-
Committee which has been set up by the Prime Minister in relation to
dealing with the aftermath of the floods and making sure that people get
the help and support that they need and they are not forgotten about, even
when the floods are no longer in the national interest. I understand that
there is a Scottish system whereby insurance companies are consulted by
developers and, indeed, they need to know whether the insurers will
actually provide insurance in relation to the development before it goes
ahead. That is a very interesting idea and I only put that out as a
thought. That is something which could be considered.
131. That might deal with the idea of someone putting a
housing estate where it is going to be flooded, but it would not deal
with the possible consequences of that development on other areas
around it.
(Mr Morley) In terms of run-off you mean?
132. Yes. In my area I have seen cases where a housing estate
has remained dry in the last few weeks, however other people have
suffered as a consequence.
(Mr Morley) Yes. It can sometimes be quite difficult to measure the
effect of one development on another, although I do not doubt that it can
have that effect. That, again, is a job for the Environment Agency in
terms of the advice that they will give the planning authorities, and the
planning authorities do have a responsibility to take it into account.
Chairman
133. Thank you very much indeed, Minister, we will see you
again, I have no doubt, on whatever subject. We will no doubt want
to come back and see how things are panning out when you have had
your review and begun to see a little bit of dry land, as it were.
(Mr Morley) That is right. I will, of course, be only too happy that
when we have the evaluation from the Agency to make sure that your
Committee has a copy that you can consider yourselves.
Chairman: Thank you.
