Select Committee on Agriculture Sixth Report

APPENDIX 30

Memorandum submitted by Cornwall and Devon County Councils (F46)

  Devon and Cornwall County Councils welcome the opportunity to comment on current issues of concern relating to Flood and Coastal Defence.

A.  FLOOD DEFENCE

1.  CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS: REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES

a.   Membership: statutory responsibility of County Councillors

  Regional Flood Defence Committees are under the general supervision of the Environment Agency, and to all intents and purposes, are arms of the Agency. In Devon and Cornwall the committee comprises 16 members, six appointed by MAFF and two from the Environment Agency, from whom the Minister appoints the chairman, and nine Councillors. Regulations prescribe that their budgets must be approved by a majority of County Councillors where the levy imposed exceeds a rate of 3.3 pence in the pound (as nowadays it invariably does). This specific reservation of budgetary policy to local government is extremely important and of long standing. In discharging their responsibility Councillors on Flood Defence Committees would not be doing their duty if they did not balance the needs of flood defence against their assessment of their councils' other spending priorities and ability to pay. The need for Councillors to balance their various responsibilities is often not properly appreciated by members of Flood Defence Committees or officers of the Environment Agency.

b.   Representation at the Committee

  The Environment Agency has general oversight of Flood Defence Committees but there is an imbalance in the advice offered to the committee. Officers of the Environment Agency and MAFF are invited to attend and often speak at the Committee whereas officers of the constituent councils (who are providing much of the funding) can only attend as members of the public and are not invited to speak. Consequently, the County Councils' case is not supported by advice from council officers. Current arrangments make for a very one sided partnership.

2.  FINANCIAL ARRANGMENTS

a.   MAFF Grants

  MAFF grants for capital projects have been steadily reducing (from £3.6 million in 1991-92 to £1.04 million in 1998-99). This decline has put pressure on budgets and has introduced uncertainty into forward planning.

b.   Degree of MAFF support for capital works

  MAFF supports capital works by funding a percentage of the total cost of each agreed scheme. This percentage differs from tidal to fluvial schemes. The percentage grant levels are reduced if the overall local authority contribution towards flood defence is reduced. The levels at which the percentage contribution is changed is not transparent—indeed MAFF have declined to disclose to the County Councils what the parameters are.

c.   Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) and Budget

  Recent capping rules have not allowed councils to increase their budgets in line with any increase in the SSA for flood defence without a corresponding reduction in the budgets for other vital services. These capping rules have not been fully understood by the officers of the Environment Agency, the civil servants at MAFF or the non-Councillors on the Flood Defence Committee. This issue has caused a deal of friction as County Councils have been accused of not spending the money on flood defence which was specifically allocated by central government for that purpose. If universal capping is abolished then this issue may decline in importance but the recent history should not be forgotten.

d.   Value for Money

  Clear evidence is needed to show that the Environment Agency provides value for money. The services of the Agency have not been subjected to Compulsory Competitive Tendering to the same extent as those of local government. The accounts of Flood Defence Committees and the Environment Agency themselves are not subjected to the same level of detailed and open public scrutiny as are those of local government. Councillors on Flood Defence Committees have found this a difficult area to penetrate.

B.  COAST PROTECTION SCHEMES

1.   Current Arrangements

  Arrangements for considering and progressing Coast Protection Schemes in Cornwall and Devon are well established and involve regular consultative meetings between officers of the County Council, the maritime District Councils, MAFF, English Nature and the Environment Agency.

  These Groups have established coastal protection priorities and commissioned Shoreline Management Plans for each county. These are long term strategic plans agreed by all parties.

  District Councils then promote individual schemes as part of a five year rolling programme. Those schemes accepted by MAFF attract MAFF grant and Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCA). The County Councils' contributions are backed by SCA transferred from the District Council.

C.  CONCLUSIONS

  The current constitutional and financial arrangements for Flood Defence are unnecessarily complex and consequently mask accountability for setting budgets and priorities. MAFF, the Environment Agency, local authority elected members, MAFF appointees and the levied constituent councils are all engaged in varying degrees but no one element accepts full responsibility. This is particularly important in consulting with and responding to the community in terms of priorities and forward planning.

  A better model would be one where a new separate body is set up which has representation from each of the constituent local authorities but which receives its total funding direct from Government. The new body would be accountable for how funds allocated to flood defence are spent on the priorities of the area. Both County Councils acknowledge that this would require some adjustment to the Other Services Block in the SSA. This proposal is subject to the effect of this adjustment being neutral on the local authorities' SSA and spending on flood defence.

27 April 1998

---

---

Prepared 5 August 1998