Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-214)
LORD SMITH
OF FINSBURY
AND DR
PAUL LEINSTER
CBE
19 JANUARY 2010
Q160 Chairman: Good morning and a
warm welcome to the Committee. Our apologies for keeping you waiting.
May I say that not only are you extremely welcome here this morning—and
I know that we all appreciate the fruitful, informal dialogue
we have had with you and indeed many of your staff in the last
few months; but we also appreciated the use of your nice boat
to go and visit the Thames Barrier just before Christmas, with
some of your staff, which was an extremely interesting visit.
I am afraid everyone got rather cold because I insisted on sitting
outside at the back of the boat all the way down there. Welcome.
Can I ask you a general question to start with: how well placed
do you think Britain is to manage the very significant impacts
which climate change is going to have on the country?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Thank
you very much, Chairman, for your kind remarks and for the opportunity
to meet the Committee. In answer to the question: I think reasonably
well placed but we need to remain vigilant. The policy framework
which is in place—the Climate Change Act, the adaptation
reporting requirements, the work that the Environment Agency is
charged with doing on flood, on water resources and on biodiversity,
all put us in a reasonable place to understand what is coming
down the track at us from climate change and how we are going
to have to respond. Having said that, it does require a continued
engagement from government and parliament and it requires sustained
funding, especially in the area of flood risk management and flood
defence, in order to make sure that we continue to meet the challenges.
Q161 Chairman: What, for example,
did we learn from the lessons of the floods in Cumbria last year?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
we learned some positive lessons and also some lessons that we
need to develop further. The positive lessons are that the new
flood forecasting centre, which has brought the Met Office and
the Environment Agency together in one place—the meteorologists
and the hydrologists working in the same place and at the same
desks—was very successful in identifying the event two or
three days in advance; putting the warnings in place in good time
and so on. The work that we had done to protect Carlisle was very
successful and the temporary work which we did to fill the gap,
which was not yet ready in Carlisle, did ensure that there were
no properties affected by the flooding in Carlisle—in great
contradistinction, of course, to what had happened in 2005. The
lesson, though, I think that we do need to learn—and everyone
needs to learn—is that the Cumbria event was a very extreme
event; the highest concentration of rainfall in one location in
England over a 24-hour period since records began. What we know
from the science of climate change is that weather patterns are
going to become more extreme, and we are going to see more events
of this kind—very concentrated rain. What that means is
that some of the traditional ways we have talked about preparing
for flood defence—one-in-100-year events, one-in-1000-year
events—will cease to be as meaningful as they perhaps were
some years ago. The risk is going to get greater and we need to
up our game in response to that.
Q162 Chairman: That is very interesting.
It is clear that the profile of adaptation has risen and no doubt
the recurrence of extreme weather events will ensure that profile
remains high, certainly not just within central government but
I guess amongst the public generally. How do we make sure that
with a higher profile that actually feeds through to making more
progress on tackling adaptation issues, and particularly in the
context of what is clearly going to be a period of very, very
severe restraint on all areas of public spending?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: We have
to try and square a circle with ever greater constraint on public
funding and maintaining a good forward programme of flood defence
work and flood risk management work. All the time we are looking
at ways of achieving savings, making our flood defence work more
efficient; we are learning all the time about new ways of doing
flood defence; so upstream flood storage is much cheaper than
building huge great concrete walls and sometimes more effective.
We need to look in each particular location at what is going to
work best and how we can achieve the best value for the public
purse. Just one other thing I would say is that is we need also
to look beyond just relying on the public purse and the more that
we can bring other partners into the funding of flood defence
work the better.
Q163 Chairman: Like developers and
so on?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Like developers,
local authorities, Regional Development Agencies, as long as they
exist, and indeed others.
Q164 Joan Walley: Can I just add
to that? You are talking about a change in the way that we see
things and there is a lot of talk just now about the new green
economy, but for the purpose of investment in the infrastructure,
which adaptation would need, are you saying that there needs to
be a change in the way, for example, the Treasury, BIS Department
and other departments view public investment so that there needs
to be a step change away from GDP towards the more sustainable
definition of GDP?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: On the
big question at the heart of what you ask there my personal response
would be yes, absolutely; we need to have a much better understanding
of the true nature of individual citizens and communities' well
being, and GDP does not always reflect that. However, we are stuck
with making the case at the moment under a system where the Treasury
look at GDP.
Q165 Joan Walley: But if where the
Treasury looked at GDP changed and it really revised the so-called
Green Book, to be a truly Green Book, would that not make it possible
for you to find other means and sources of funding that would
fund the essential work that you are saying is necessary, where
we have to be innovative?[1]
Lord Smith of Finsbury: It would
transform an awful lot, including the way in which we were able
to make the case. But the key thing I would say is that even under
the present system of GDP the case for flood defence is very strong.
The cost-benefit of any flood defence work that we do—the
benefit is at least five times the cost. The average cost to a
home of being flooded is £20,000 to £30,000. The average
cost to a home of being burgled is about £1000. So the damage
that flooding does in terms of its impact on people's livelihoods
is huge and the more that you can protect against that then the
economic savings is enormous.
Q166 Joan Walley: Just to complete
on this, my point as well was that if we are talking about prevention
and if we are talking about the precautionary principle, how are
you saying that that should be given a weight within the investment
decisions that have been made by other government bodies in terms
of public expenditure? Is this not giving less focus on the precautionary
principles, which is not really where it should be at the moment
if we are really going to tackle this agenda?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
the more that we can make the case about the prevention of potential
damage, which is the precautionary principle writ large, the better,
yes.
Q167 Chairman: What role do you think
the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee is
going to play in all this?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
it has the potential to play a very positive role and it has made
a good start. It is early days yet, of course, but we as an agency
very strongly supported the proposals that emerged from Parliament
for including the Adaptation Sub-Committee in the mix alongside
the main Committee on Climate Change. Putting upfront the need
for adaptation which the Committee will enable to happen is a
very positive thing. You and your colleagues will know only too
well that even if, as a world, we stopped emitting all carbon
dioxide tomorrow climate change effects would carry on happening
for 20 or 30 years; and even with a two degree rise in average
global temperature, which we hope we will be able to hold things
to, even with that, there is going to be a need for adaptation
to take place. The more that fact can be put up in front of the
public, the better.
Q168 Mr Caton: In your work is there
a trade-off between investing in adaptive capacity by developing
skills and knowledge on the one hand and taking action to adapt
to specific climate impacts by addressing identified risks on
the other? How do we get the balance right?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: We obviously
need to do both. I am going to ask Paul to answer this.
Dr Leinster: On the skills agenda
we are working with local authorities and with others on a foundation
degree for flood risk management. We recognised that there was
a need for people with additional skills, specifically in civil
engineering, which address flood and coastal risk management.
We have established a course with the University of West of England
and we are putting people through that course and we also have
people going through it who are sponsored by local authorities.
So that is one strand of the work, making sure that that capacity
is there. Then there is the work that we do, which looks at particular
flood risk and water resource stresses and strains and what needs
to be done to address those. Then there is the work that we also
do, which is again working with things like the utilities and
getting the utilities to take adaptive measures to protect critical
infrastructure, and on that work we are working closely with the
Cabinet Office.
Q169 Dr Turner: Lord Smith, your
agency has come up with some fairly large round numbers for annual
expenditure needed to invest in flood defence work. How difficult
was it to arrive at these figures, which are obviously measured
against future risk? But then risk is something which is changing
and, as you have already pointed out, with the unprecedented volume
and the concentrated period of the Cumbrian rainfall hazard it
appears to be entering into a new and totally unpredictable dimension.
So how certain are your predictions?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: The predictions
we made in the long-term investment strategy work that we have
done, we have looked at the UKCP09 figures,[2]
which are the best that we have to go on as far as likely impacts
in the UK are concerned, and we have worked very carefully through
those, assuming the impacts that are likely to arise from that
in order to determine what levels of investment we would need
over a 25- or 30-year period in order to maintain the current
level of protection for properties across England and Wales. We
have then gone and talked to the Treasury and the Treasury have
crawled all over our figures and have agreed that our working
is absolutely in order and have agreed with the conclusions that
we have reached. What they have not done, of course, is commit
the actual figures and that is unlikely to happen this side of
an election or, I suspect, the other. But the working of the best
predictions we can make—and of course these are predictions,
we cannot guarantee them—they are predictions about what
we believe is going to be needed in terms of investment going
forward to provide the right levels of protection. If I might
add one other thing. One of the most interesting pieces of work
we have done as an aside from the long-term investment strategy
is the Thames Estuary 2100 work where what we have done is taken
a number of different possible scenarios and we have said, "This
is how policy would need to adapt depending on what actually happens
on the ground." What I think we need increasingly to be able
to do is to come up with strategic responses for investment going
forward that can adapt to actual impacts on the ground as we find
exactly what is happening as a result of climate change rather
than just relying on predictions.
Q170 Dr Turner: As you have already
pointed out, you do not have Treasury commitment to providing
your figures and, knowing the Treasury, you may never. If you
do not get the doubling of spending up to 2035 that you want to
see, what do you think are the implications for the country and
for the country's economy, especially given the financial impact
of flooding to which you have already referred? Multiply that
to a national scale and what do you think are the implications
for further Cumbria-type events possibly covering even a bigger
scale, bigger areas? Just how bad could the financial damage be
if you cannot get the investment that you need?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: If the
investment does not go in then fewer properties will be protected.
It is a very clear equation that when each Government comes along
we will have to make and spell out to them, "Here is the
level of protection you get for a particular quantity of investment.
If that investment is not put in place then you are going to have
to be honest with people and say that the level of protection
will be lower."
Dr Leinster: What we found in
the long-term investment strategy is that currently about 500,000
properties are at a one-in-75-year risk, so they are at significant
risk of flooding. If you want to keep that number steady, so maintain
the level of risk over the next 25 years, then you would have
to, as you say, double the amount of money that is going in to
construction of new defences. If you do not and you hold it at
the same level as it is now, then the number of houses at significant
risk doubles. As a country if it is thought that 500,000 properties
currently at significant risk is too great then the amount of
money required is even greater. So one of the things we are proposing
with our long-term investment strategy is to keep it under review
so that as we see what is actually happening with climate change
then we are able to adjust those figures.
Q171 Dr Turner: If investment is
delayed does it mean then that necessary flood defence works become
more expensive?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Inevitably
the cost of construction rises in normal circumstances. We have
been through a rather odd patch over the course of the last year
and a half but, on the whole, things will be more expensive the
more they are delayed. Of course climate change marches inexorably
on, so the need is going to become more urgent as we go further
into the future.
Q172 Dr Turner: How helpful are the
latest climate change projections? How do they help you and how
do they help other organisations that need to be involved in the
planning?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: The UKCP
figures that emerged six or seven months ago are helpful in providing
an agreed benchmark to which everyone is able to work. As we have
said, they are the best predictions that can be made but they
remain predictions, which is why, having adaptability built into
policy making as you go forward, and into the strategies that
you put in place so that you can adapt to what actually happens
on the ground is, I think, a very sensible way to proceed.
Q173 Dr Turner: What helpful changes
can you see in the way that climate change is projected?
Dr Leinster: If you look at the
previous UKCP it was at a very broad scale. The current UKCP09
has provided detail which enables us to look at a regional basis,
and I think that the further development will be able to predict
at a sensible but more local level because we work on catchments,
so we need to understand what is happening at a catchment level.
But it is always important to note that rainfall falling in slightly
different places spatially will have significantly different impacts
on communities.
Q174 Joan Walley: In respect of the
spending on flood defences and how you are going to ensure that
there is sufficient funding there to pay for all that is needed
for that one-in-75-year risk, can I ask what kind of pressure
the insurance companies are bringing to bear, because presumably
they have such a huge interest in this and so do they have any
say? What sort of engagement do you have with them because I would
have thought that that was an important element of all of this?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: We have
a very close dialogue with the insurance industry. Following the
floods of recent years they put in place a Statement of Principles,
which they agreed with the Government and, effectively, what that
is is a bargain that says provided the Government, through the
Environment Agency, invests properly in flood defence work across
the country they, the insurance industry, will continue to insure
existing customers. Even where a property has been flooded or
is at flood risk they will continue to provide insurance cover
to them. That agreement lasts until 2013 but it does provide an
added bit of pressure on the Government and the public purse because
if there is a sudden diminution or withdrawal of money for flood
defence work then the insurance industry will understandably say,
"Sorry, the bargain is being broken."
Q175 Colin Challen: You have mentioned
already the need to identify extra sources of income in the light
of the austerity programme that we are all facing over the next
ten years, and local beneficiaries of flood protection work clearly
might be a suitable case in point. Do you have any proposals in
mind about how to extract more money from the local beneficiaries
of flood protection work?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I would
put that into two potential categories. One is the people who
will directly benefit in terms of protection for their properties.
This is particularly important where you have perhaps a very small
number of properties which require some form of protection but
where any cost-benefit analysis would simply not provide sufficient
benefit for the cost of providing defence, and in those circumstances
on a number of occasions in the last couple of years now we have
worked very closely with the property owners concerned and tried
to put together a package of funding which enables them to put
some money in. They may seek some funding from the local authority
as well. We can put a bit of money in but not the cost of a whole
all-singing, all-dancing permanent defence. Because we help the
self-help process of the property owners concerned we are able
to come up with a good scheme with which they are happy and which
they have been part of putting in place. Increasingly, in the
small and scattered communities around the country that is an
approach that we will want to develop. The other way in which
this can happen is where putting flood defences in place enables
development to happen behind the defences. Recently in the centre
of Ipswich, for example, we put some new harbour defences in place
and that has enabled the development of a university campus, some
commercial properties, some residential properties to happen on
Ipswich Harbour which would not previously have been possible.
What happened was a combination of Environment Agency funding,
funding from Ipswich City Council and funding from the developments
that was put in place in order to provide the protection. Increasingly
I think we will see that sort of approach happening as well.
Q176 Colin Challen: Are you having
discussions with the insurance industry? I am sure you are. Are
they proving to be effective partners in tackling this problem?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: In one
or two specific localities they are. We have also had some quite
fruitful discussions with some of the insurance companies about
the degree of resilience which is enabled to be put in place for
properties that have been flooded and are being restored back
into a habitable condition, rather than just putting them back
as they were; building in very simple resilience measures like
protection for the door threshold, covers for air bricks, electrics
up at a higher level, waterproof plaster and so on, relatively
simple things which can make a world of difference if there is
another flooding event.
Q177 Colin Challen: Where local authorities
have in the past approved housing developments, say, on floodplain
areas or areas of known risk and then that area suffers a flood,
should the authority pay any kind of retrospective penalty, do
you think, for having committed what was a risky development in
the first place?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I do not
think we would be thanked by local authorities for insisting that
they paid a penalty. However, we would want to make it increasingly
clear to local authorities that there will be some locations where
it would be very foolish to permit development to take place.
There may be others where the pressure for development is so great
that a local authority will nonetheless decide they are going
to go ahead, but my second best option in such circumstances would
be to say, "Okay, if you are going to permit the development
to go ahead then for heaven's sake insist that the developer builds
in resilience to the properties that are constructed." Where
we would absolutely maintain our opposition in undying fashion
would be if a development created additional flood risk for other
places, which sometimes, of course, the creation of a development
can do.
Q178 Colin Challen: In finding new
sources of funding do you think that the Environment Agency needs
any additional powers?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I do not
think so is the answer to that.
Q179 Colin Challen: So it is a very
cooperative world out there then, I guess.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: It is
cooperative and there are times when I wish, for example, that
the insurance companies would be readier to adjust premiums in
order to reflect levels of resilience in properties and in order
to encourage better resilience to be put in place. I think the
insurance world has a bit further to go on that. I would much
rather work by cooperation and persuasion with them than by seeking
new powers.
Q180 Colin Challen: Finally, given
the fact that we are all responsible for climate change, to what
extent should local people in particular areas have to face much
higher costs themselves? Should it not always be spread out across
the whole country, as it were, the finance requirement?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Of course
the great bulk of expenditure on flood defence, on water resources
and so forth is indeed spread out across the entire country because
it is funded through general taxation. There are also places where
there is a very particular impact and a very particular benefit
to be derived and in those circumstances I think some contribution,
especially where development is taking place that is new and that
would not otherwise be possible, is fair.
Q181 Chairman: If I could press a
little on the question of where development is planned in areas
where there is a degree of risk. Since the cost of reacting afterwards
to flooding problems is at the moment at least partly borne by
the taxpayer or by you, therefore in terms the general taxpayer,
would it not be helpful to be able to say that if development
did take place in an area where you were particularly concerned
and you have got a role as a statutory consultee the costs of
any remedial work would then have to fall upon the authority which
gave the consent for development in this rather risky location?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: If a development
has taken place against our express advice the first thing that
will potentially happen is that it will be impossible to insure
the properties against flood risk and that, of course, immediately
imposes potential extra costs on the owners of the properties.
Again, I think focusing on the authority that gave the permission
rather than, for example, on the developer who insisted on going
ahead and doing the building might not be the right place on which
to focus.
Q182 Chairman: On both of them perhaps
in that case?
Dr Leinster: One of the issues
that we also come across is pre-existing planning permissions,
so these are historic. That is a particular issue.
Q183 Joan Walley: Picking up on this
whole issue of existing land use and what was just said by the
Chairman, one of the issues would be that it would assume that
the Environment Agency had been properly consulted in respect
of planning applications or even change of use and my experience
is that quite frequently the Environment Agency is not fully formally
consulted and it is very much an ad hoc process. Certainly that
has been the case in some cases in Stoke-on-Trent. Would you feel
that there should be greater emphasis on the role of the Environment
Agency as a formal consultee in respect of all planning applications?
Do you see what I mean? It often gets overlooked or comes in as
an afterthought.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: We are
a statutory consultee. What I am not sure about is if it is not
in a floodplain: if there is no perceived flood risk I am not
sure that there would be a particular point in insisting that
we were consulted because we would simply say "We do not
believe there is a flood risk here", but if there is a potential
flood risk we have to be consulted.
Q184 Joan Walley: I was really just
trying to focus on the relationship between planning and the Environment
Agency and I feel sometimes that is a process which needs to be
firmed up. It is a bit too ad hoc on occasions.
Dr Leinster: I think it has developed
well over recent years and I think if we were to look historically
I would agree with the position; but I think that we have worked
very closely. We now have standing advice that we give out to
all local authorities and our relationships with all local authorities
now, their planning departments, are very good. The latest figures
we have are that in 96% of cases local authorities have taken
our advice into account and have followed the advice that we have
given. We also have a call-in provision where we can get the planning
permission called in for scrutiny by the Secretary of State and
we have done that on occasions.
Q185 Joan Walley: And you are monitoring
the effects of that especially in respect of the 4% where the
96% has not applied it. Can I just move on to the new planning
guidance? I know that the Environment Agency has been very focused
on the new arrangements which have come in as a result of the
legislation that has just gone through Parliament in respect of
regional spatial planning and that new legislation requires attention
to be given to climate change. I am very much aware that that
guidance has not yet been issued as to how the Regional Development
Agencies will take on board a regional strategy and I just wonder
what you hope will come out of the new planning guidance insofar
as it relates to adaptations.
Dr Leinster: We have worked very
closely on the regional spatial strategies. We are a consultee
within the process and in a number of regions we actually chair
some of the sustainability or climate change panels that have
been set up.
Q186 Joan Walley: In which regions
do you chair that?
Dr Leinster: We are chairing the
South West, but we sit on all of them. Our voice is heard at that
level and I think that we are being quite successful in making
sure that climate change is now being taken into account. How
far that will then get embedded within the spatial strategies
we will yet see.
Q187 Joan Walley: So what aspects
do you think should be embedded in the new regional strategies
and planning guidance? You mentioned the South West and I know,
because of Jonathon Porritt's involvement, that that perhaps is
state of the art in respect of sustainable development. Do you
have best practice that has arisen out of your involvement in
chairing that which would apply to the other regional areas under
new legislation?
Dr Leinster: One of the things
that we do is actively share our experience across the Environment
Agency, so we pull together all of the people who work on climate
change at a regional level and make sure that the lessons learned
from one place are applied to another.
Q188 Joan Walley: But, specifically,
is the Government recognising that in its preparations for the
new planning guidance that is about to come into effect? If that
planning guidance is not absolutely encapsulating what needs to
be included in terms of adaptation we will all have missed the
boat, will we not? What needs to be in that planning guidance?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: You are
right to identify the need for adaptation to climate change to
be embedded in the guidance and that means, amongst other things,
flood risk, changes to the coast—erosion, flood risk and
so on from coast—levels of water resources, what is likely
to happen to flows in rivers regionally, water efficiency standards,
codes for sustainable homes and sustainable building, green infrastructure.
There is a range of elements which are essential aspects of adaptation
to climate change that need to be absolutely embedded in the regional
strategies, and that is the case that we are making very strongly
both at regional levels on the committees on which we sit, but
also to government more generally.
Q189 Joan Walley: You submitted an
additional piece of evidence on the Total Place, which is a new
government initiative that is looking to pool resources and to
join up places. How does that relate to the need for adaptation
and also the precautionary work of the Environment Agency as well?
How do you see you having an input into that, given that in its
pilot early stages that programme appears not to have included
the issues that we are discussing here?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: The Environment
Agency has not been labelled as part of the Total Place programme,
but we had been involved in the pilot.
Q190 Joan Walley: Should it have
been? Is it an oversight that it has not been? Would you have
liked it to have been?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: There
are some aspects of our work which absolutely, yes, must be part
of the Total Place approach. It is, however, slightly more complicated
than in relation to some other public services. The most obvious
example is a river will flow from one Total Place to another Total
Place and what happens to that river in one may have an impact
on the other. We have to look both in terms of what happens in
a specific location but also what happens over a much wider catchment
area and try and relate the two together. In terms of engagement
we have been engaged in the various pilot projects that have been
happening.
Q191 Joan Walley: Are you confident
that any future announcements about Total Place will have regard
to the need to ensure your key involvement in it?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I am optimistic.
Joan Walley: We will watch this space
then!
Q192 Mr Chaytor: Can I move on from
flood risk to coastal erosion and ask if the same principles of
cost-benefit analysis apply or is coastal erosion completely different?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: The same
principles apply and what that means is that whilst our wish is
to try and defend as much of the coast as we can there will be
some parts of the coast where probably we will not be able to
use hard defences to defend in perpetuity.
Q193 Mr Chaytor: In that cost-benefit
analysis what are the respective weightings given to economic
factors or environmental conservation, biodiversity issues or
simple issues of social justice, people losing their homes for
example?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: People's
homes tend to be absolutely at the top of the list with economic
benefit fairly close behind; and biodiversity fairly close behind
that, partly because of the legislative framework in which we
have to operate with the Habitats Directive and other Directives.
Q194 Mr Chaytor: Is there a rigid
methodology that is statistically robust and publicly available?
It is a little behind economic factors, but how far behind them?
Dr Leinster: The weighting is
according to Treasury guidelines and there is a methodology that
they lay out which gives you those various weightings, and we
could give information.
Q195 Mr Chaytor: Could you give us
some concrete examples? If you are comparing, for example, the
need to protect two houses on the cliffs above Scarborough as
against an enormous area of wetland in the Fens with great biodiversity
importance, where would you invest your resources?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Without
the absolute specifics in front of us it would be very difficult
to answer the question. I suspect that the value of the wetland
would be rather well represented by the framework of Directives
in which we have to operate. Let me give you perhaps a more exact
example. The town of Southwold in Suffolk has a large number of
properties of a very substantial economic benefit. We have recently,
together with the local authority, done quite a lot of defence
work in order to assist the protection of the town of Southwold
and I suspect for many years to come the same imperatives to defend
the town of Southwold will be very strong because the cost-benefit
analysis is very clear. Just to the south of the town of Southwold
is the Blyth Estuary, which also faces very substantial threat
from the sea. There are, I think I am right in saying, 24 properties
in the immediate risk area around the Blyth Estuary. It would
cost something like £32 million to provide robust 100-year
defences for the Blyth Estuary; and the cost-benefit analysis,
fairly obviously when we are talking about rather precious public
resources, simply does not work there. So what we have done instead
is we have sat down with the residents of the Blyth Estuary and
we have worked out with them a way of moving forward with a bit
of funding from the Environment Agency, but nowhere near £32
million, together with some of their own resources, together with
some self-help, together with some work from the Highways Agency,
so we can find a way forward with them. Increasingly we are going
to have to take that sort of approach where the very obvious cost-benefit
calculation that might apply with Southwold does not apply.
Q196 Mr Chaytor: Those are two very
interesting examples, but is that generally understood by all
communities on the vulnerable east coast? You have mentioned the
Treasury guidelines and the cost-benefit analysis, but is there
a map of the east coast identifying the areas most vulnerable
to coastal erosion?
Dr Leinster: Not yet.
Q197 Mr Chaytor: And indicating which
communities will have to be sacrificed and which communities will
be supported?
Dr Leinster: Just now we are carrying
out a programme of shoreline management plans. A number of those
are out for consultation. The vast majority of those are, in fact,
being led by the local councils, not by ourselves. There are 22
which cover England and Wales; we lead on four and local councils
lead on 18. Those plans have extensive engagement with local communities,
but these are very difficult issues and cause a lot of discussion.
Q198 Mr Chaytor: Do you feel that
there will come a point, once this process has been completed,
where it will be necessary to be absolutely upfront and put a
map in the public domain?
Dr Leinster: As part of that process
what we are looking at is on a plan-by-plan basis and as the plans
come out for consultation there is a map associated with the plan.
It is an interactive map and people are able to look at it and
interrogate it and get further information about what is going
to happen in their particular circumstance. Again, as we were
talking in terms of forecasting and predicting, it is not possible
to say that there is going to be this amount of erosion in this
place and it is going to affect these streets, it does not happen
that way, but it gives general indications of the sort of amount
of erosion that we think will happen.
Q199 Mr Chaytor: Finally, on the
question of individual properties, the Defra figures suggest that
maybe 2,000 properties will disappear through erosion over the
next 20 years and that is about two a week over a 20-year period.
Dr Leinster: There are 2,000 at
risk, of which we believe 200 might be impacted, but it is not
possible to say which 200 out of the 2,000.
Q200 Mr Chaytor: So impacted means
destroyed.
Dr Leinster: Destroyed, yes.
Q201 Mr Chaytor: Of the 200, what
is the public liability to the families living in those 200 properties?
Is this entirely an issue for them and their own insurance policies
or do you think that there is a public responsibility here?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I am afraid
that at the moment as public policy stands it is their risk and
their responsibility. Defra have recently started consulting on
a coastal change programme which envisages that there might be
some financial assistance—at the moment in their view of
very limited nature. It has long been my view, certainly personally,
that especially where a property has been in the ownership of
an individual or a family for a very substantial period of time
and when it was originally bought without any obvious threat from
coastal erosion, but where coastal erosion has now come to a point
where it might well remove the entire property and the livelihood
of the family concerned, there ought to be some means for providing
compensation. Whether the development of an idea that Defra has
floated of a sale and leaseback arrangement in the interim might
be one of the ways forward is something that I will keep on pressing
ministers to consider, especially as we are talking about a relatively
small number of properties. Obviously where a property has been
purchased very recently in the full knowledge of the threat from
erosion then the same should not apply.
Q202 Chairman: Southwold, which is
in the constituency next door to mine, is very appreciative of
your decision and support and I think has perhaps already identified
some additional investment going in as a result of that. Perhaps
even more appreciative of that than it was of the decision of
the Prime Minister to take his holiday there recently. Can you
tell me whether your decision to support Southwold was taken before
or after the Prime Minister's holiday?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
both before and after because this has been a developing process
and, indeed, it is not a subject that I have discussed at all
with the Prime Minister. I have, however, discussed it in great
detail with the residents of Blyth, the residents of Southwold
and your colleague who represents them in Parliament.
Q203 Joan Walley: Can I press you
a little further on this because I am very much aware of the huge
posters, "Gord help us", which were there in Southwold
and which presumably were there to support the people of Blythburgh
as well, and it is clearly important that Blythburgh gets the
investment as well as Southwold because there is a link between
the town and the surrounding marshland area. I am also very conscious
that that is a very, very articulate, very confident, very resourceful
community. I compare that with other parts of the country where
there is not the same amount of resourcing capacity, and I wonder
what the Environment Agency is doing to make sure that people
elsewhere in the country, where there is not that capacity, can
actually learn from the way in which Southwold and Blythburgh
put forward their arguments to the Environment Agency in this
most successful way.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Just to
be absolutely precise, the village of Blythburgh itself, because
it is up on a slight hill, indeed with one of the most gorgeous
churches in the entire country—
Q204 Joan Walley: I know it well.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: --- is
actually not at risk. It is down below Blythburgh where the properties
that are at risk are. But you are right, the general point that
you make is absolutely right.
Q205 Joan Walley: I am sure that
the Parish Council of Blythburgh would be very appreciative of
that clarification, but do go on.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: The residents
of the Blyth Estuary are indeed articulate; they know how to make
their case and they have made it very effectively. There will
be other communities which are not so articulate where we need
to help them to be articulate and share with them the knowledge
that we have and the issues and help them through the decision-making
process. Increasingly I am keen that the Environment Agency should
take that approach at a local level, working with communities.
Q206 Joan Walley: Do you have dedicated
resources for that? Have you identified where those communities
might be where you need to be putting in extra resources specifically
for that capacity building programme?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Yes, it
is an absolutely fundamental part of our new corporate strategy
going forward. I have made it very clear that it is a real priority
for the agency to put resources into working with communities
in facing some of these environmental challenges.
Q207 Joan Walley: I think the Committee
would like to see where those resources are being put in.
Dr Leinster: We have appointed
in the last year coastal engagement officers and there are a number
of staff whose specific task is to engage with communities around
things like the shoreline management plans to make sure that people
are aware. If you look further down that east coast to a place
called Jaywick, where again we put defences in, that is an entirely
different community, that is quite a deprived community. So we
are working both in deprived communities and those which are better
off, but engaging fully with local communities and developing
plans for their communities.
Q208 Colin Challen: You have argued
that adaptation should form a key part of sustainable development
frameworks. What are the benefits of putting adaptation in that
context?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: What it
does is to help to embed adaptation issues in the planning of
companies, organisations and government departments. One of the
things that are quite helpful in this is that there is now going
to be a requirement for adaptation reporting from something like
100 major companies and organisations, and as a new aspect of
sustainable development I think that is going to be very valuable.
Q209 Colin Challen: One of the unintended
consequences of doing this might be that we start identifying
costs that previously we had not identified and that then inflates
the funding demand. What are we going to do then if we have this
embedded in SD frameworks but then find that we do not have the
resources to do as much as we would like to about it? Is that
a problem that we are just going to have to live with?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I would
rather—and I suspect the chief executives of major companies
too—know exactly what the likely challenges they were going
to face were rather than pretending they did not exist, even if
that makes the decision-making tougher going forward.
Q210 Colin Challen: People may think
that policy makers are being negligent then if they are prepared
to identify the risk but then do not have the capacity or the
will to match it.
Dr Leinster: But if the risk crystallises
so that there is an impact then I think policy makers who knew
that there was a risk but had not informed anybody there was a
risk would be in an even worse position.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: It might
also help to concentrate a few minds on the need for mitigation
as well as adaptation.
Q211 Colin Challen: Can we take it
that the Environment Agency itself has now embedded adaptation
in its own SD frameworks?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: Yes, absolutely.
Dr Leinster: We have to write
an adaptation report, as you would be aware, and a number of other
authorities have to write adaptation reports. We are going first
and will be using it as a learning experience with Defra to actually
work out what should be contained within a report such as that.
Then what we hope is that we will be able to provide additional
guidance to help others as they come behind us.
Q212 Colin Challen: Do you feel that
the Government and its other agencies are doing the same thing;
that they are actually rising to the challenge?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
they are perhaps waiting for us to go first. I am absolutely sure
that they will follow on well, behind. I think they are anxious
to see us do the template.
Q213 Chairman: We are getting a bit
short of time so could I just wind up with a general question?
It is clear that the adaptation issues are relevant to as wide
a range of government departments as the mitigation issues, it
is very much a cross-cutting area which goes much, much wider
than just Defra. Do you think that the Cross-Whitehall Programme
Board is strong enough and does it have enough levers to drive
the changes and to get the buy-in at a senior enough level to
ensure that all departments that have to are actually addressing
adaptations sufficiently seriously and urgently?
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I have
to be honest and say that I think it is a livelier issue for some
departments than others. Preparation is more advanced in some
parts of Whitehall than others. I think there is a general recognition
across government at Cabinet Office and Number Ten level that
this is serious and needs to be seen as a priority; but there
probably needs still to be a little bit of encouragement in places.
Dr Leinster: I think the test
of that will be in the adaptation reports that they have to prepare.
Chairman: It may be too much to tempt
you to indicate which departments you think are less enthusiastic
in their consideration of the issue, but any help that your staff
are able to give to mine in enabling us to write a report which
might identify some of the slower movers would be much appreciated,
even if it was off the record.
Joan Walley: I do not see why we could
not have them named.
Q214 Chairman: If there was a naming
of course we would be delighted.
Lord Smith of Finsbury: I think
we would prefer to have a subsequent discussion.
Chairman: That is fine. Thank you very
much for coming; it was a very interesting and useful session
from our point of view.
1 HM Treasury, The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation
in Central Government (and Supplementary Guidance) Back
2
UK climate projections Back
| 
