Institutional
change
71. Taken together, these funding, strategic and
administrative issues prompted some witnesses to call for sweeping
change in the national institutional framework of flood and coastal
defence policy[87]. As
we have mentioned already, we are less convinced of the merits
of such an approach. However, we believe that there is scope within
the present administrative structure for rationalisation of the
number of institutions delivering policy at the local level. The
activities of RFDCs, LFDCs and IDBs are all supervised already
by regional staff of the Environment Agency, and we heard evidence
on the performance of these organisations which was, by turns,
both highly praiseworthy and extremely critical.
72. Some witnesses - particularly those closely involved
with RFDCs and LFDCs - claimed there was no need for any change
in the operation of Flood Defence Committees[88].
Others suggested that these Committees, in particular LFDCs, did
not reflect the breadth of local community interests[89]
and failed to address adequately the Government's national flood
and coastal defence priorities[90],
and believed that they should be divested of their executive powers
and given advisory responsibilities instead[91].
A similar, variable, picture emerged for the overall national
performance of IDBs, with groups including the Association of
Drainage Authorities, the Central Association of Agricultural
Valuers and the National Farmers' Union commending their activities[92],
while stern criticism came from other quarters, including proposals
for the abolition of all IDBs[93].
73. It is, of course, impossible for us to make an
authoritative pronouncement on the fate of individual institutions:
some appear to be performing excellently, others, according to
the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are "very, very heavily steered
[with]...the benefits [of local level policy decisions] accruing
to private landowners"[94].
Some general points emerged, however, from evidence on the operation
of Flood Defence Committees. While the strength of these Committees
lies in their ability to address local concerns directly, with
activities financed through their local precepting powers, there
is a danger that this admirable self-reliance can develop into
parochialism - a tendency noted among certain LFDCs especially[95],
where agricultural interests can become dominant[96].
Nonetheless we do accept the National Farmers' Union's comment
that there is "a fine line" between adequately representing
local community interest on LFDCs and their "being parochial"[97],
and that in the past the consent and support of the farming community
has been instrumental in securing an effective national flood
defence policy, for example by granting access to farm land to
facilitate the maintenance of flood defences.
74. We also heard evidence that the administrative
boundaries of some Flood Defence Committees may not coincide with
the Environment Agency's own regional boundaries, leading to omissions
or duplication in national policy delivery[98].
The Agency's own view was that there were inconsistencies from
region to region in the inherited provision of FDCs, and that
the present arrangement was "inconsistent and may not be
an efficient use of resources. Clearly, this could be addressed
by some rationalisation"[99].
This comment was echoed in evidence to us from the Independent
Review Team into the Easter Floods[100].
75. It is clear that the implementation of flood
and coastal defence policy presents substantial problems in attempting
to address the often catastrophic consequences of naturally-occurring
coastal and fluvial processes through an administrative system
which takes no account of the scale of operation of these effects.
Both inland and at the coast, the scope of local authority responsibilities
seldom coincides with the vagaries of accretion and erosion, often
greatly exacerbating the potential risks posed to people and property.
With this in mind, we propose a reorganisation of institutional
and administrative responsibilities for flood and coastal defence
which we urge the Government to consult upon with relevant parties.
We describe these changes in the following paragraphs and summarize
them in diagrammatic form in paragraph 95.
76. It is evident to us that some LFDCs and IDBs
execute their duties in an effective and expeditious manner. Nonetheless,
we are firmly convinced that the functions of these bodies
would be more appropriately discharged by RFDCs, which should
be responsible for the delivery of all inland flood defence policy
nationally working under the guidance and supervision of the Environment
Agency. The decision on how policy should be implemented in particular
regions - for example, by bodies represented within the RFDC,
or by letting contracts - would be the responsibility of the relevant
Committee in consultation with the Environment Agency and, where
appropriate, Regional Development Agencies. This does not necessarily
imply the abolition of IDBs, although the decision whether or
not to devolve duties relating to the implementation of inland
flood defence policy would rest with the appropriate RFDC. As
we make clear in paragraph 95, they would remain in existence
and would retain, at the very least, an important consultative
role. We believe a higher proportion of RFDC funding should be
provided from central Government, which need not necessarily involve
higher expenditure: indeed, it might provide some savings though
reducing the convoluted bureaucracy of the current financing system.
An element of local level funding should, in our view, be retained
for permissive projects agreed by the RFDC. Membership of RFDCs
should be vetted to ensure they fully reflect stakeholder interests
and that the levels of democratic accountability offered by the
existing administrative arrangements are not in any way compromised.
77. At the coast, we believe that there is, if anything
a stronger need for regional policy delivery to take account of
the ceaseless natural cycle of deposition and erosion. We therefore
advocate conferring formal powers on coastal groups to assume
the responsibilities and resources of constituent local authorities
for coastal defence, and the sea defence duties presently undertaken
by RFDCs and LFDCs. As in the case of RFDCs, these new responsibilities
would be supervised by the Environment Agency. Both sets of proposals
would grant greater strategic responsibility to the regional level,
while ensuring local level accountability is still strongly represented.
While our model still falls short of a perfect system, we are
convinced that it represents a major improvement on existing arrangements
and would ensure that policy effectiveness and efficiency is advanced
with the least possible diminution of local political accountability,
while ensuring the institutional structure more closely represents
the natural processes with which it deals.
78. A recurring theme in our evidence sessions was
the possible policy benefits which might arise from the introduction
of a single national agency with responsibility for all aspects
of flood and coastal defence. A variety of arguments were advanced
on this topic by witnesses, but, for us, the most important centred
on weighing the likely potential benefits of such an agency in
terms of improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of national
policy delivery[101],
against any reduction in democratic accountability offered by
the new institution compared with that under the current administrative
framework[102]. In
this context, the Wildlife Trusts/WWF-UK and the National Association
of Flood Defence Chairmen recommended that the Environment Agency
take on the mantle of the responsible national agency[103].
After being initially reticent to us on this subject[104],
in a subsequent written memorandum the Agency noted its willingness
to take on these powers, providing the extra resource implications
of its new role were recognised by MAFF[105].
79. Clearly the arguments for and against the introduction
of a single national agency create a difficult institutional knot
to untie. We are in complete agreement with English Nature's assessment
that any proposal for " ...a new...institution...needs very
careful thought"[106]
to ensure that the advantages of the present system are not compromised
or lost in any way. We are aware, of course, that the Ministry
has already carried out preliminary work on this subject as part
of its input to the Comprehensive Spending Review. On balance
however, we think it inappropriate to introduce a single agency
with sole responsibility for policy in this area, taking into
account the Government's plans for enhancing decision-making responsibility
at the regional level and the implications that this will have
for the delivery of flood and coastal defence. Our general view
is that, with the appropriate mechanisms to ensure local level
accountability, flood defence responsibilities should instead
be enhanced at the regional level and through the Environment
Agency assuming new powers, for example to discourage inappropriate
property development on land liable to flooding.
73 
