House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary Memorandum submitted by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)

GREENING GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. There have been a number of developments in the field of greening government since CPRE submitted its written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in January 1998. It is for this reason that CPRE wishes to provide supplementary evidence. This complements what has already been sent to the Committee, and seeks to elaborate on areas where we believe action is required.

GREEN MINISTERS

2. CPRE believes the Green Ministers have a useful role to play in ensuring the environment is considered in policy decisions made in their department. Our original evidence highlighted a number of ways in which we believe this could be done. We commented that the Green Ministers network comprises mainly junior Ministers. We are aware that designating Green Ministers who are less senior within a department has the advantage that they may be able to meet collectively more frequently. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Green Ministers have only met twice since 1 May 1997, and on the second occasion five departments were represented by officials (House of Commons, Hansard, 29 January 1998, colomn 324).

3. The evidence provided to the Committee by Green Ministers, Jeff Rooker MP (31 March 1998) and John Spellar MP (7 April 1998) leads CPRE to believe that there is considerable confusion over the role to be played by the collective meetings. In particular, the statement by the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher MP, that "we shall certainly be checking . . . through the Green Ministers Committee that those environmental appraisals are fully undertaken" (House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee Session, Meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, 28 January 1998, paragraph 8) though welcome, does not reflect the view of other Green Ministers. Jeff Rooker MP, for example, was explicit in saying that Green Ministers did not need to report on appraisals undertaken at their collective meetings.

4. The work which Green Ministers undertake within their own department is just as important as their collective work with others. CPRE is concerned that some Green Ministers do not see important policy papers which might have environmental effects. For example, the Green Minister for MAFF, Jeff Rooker MP, highlighted that most policy papers produced by the Department on sustainable development are dealt with by other Ministers. In our view, procedures should be established to ensure Green Ministers are able to scrutinise and screen all papers which may have significant environmental effects before a decision is taken at a more senior level (when required) and allowed to raise concerns on these issues where they arise. We would ask the Committee to enquire whether the Green Ministers in different Departments have sufficient responsibility to screen policies for their environmental effects, and press the Government on the role to be played by their collective meetings.

POLICY GUIDANCE ON POLICY APPRAISAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT

5. The DETR issued guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment in April 1998. This reminds Ministers and officials of the need for environmental appraisal for policies and programmes which have significant environmental effects. CPRE supports the Government's intention to strengthen existing arrangements since we have already highlighted that there is considerable scope for improvement in appraisal processes.

6. The guidance sets out a clear approach in an accessible manner. CPRE wishes to highlight, however, ways in which the guidance could be improved. We hope the Committee will assess the extent to which, based on the evidence presented by Green Ministers, such changes would improve the environmental appraisal processes operating within Government. A number of recommendations were made in our original evidence (paragraphs 29-35). The points below supplement these:

— it is unfortunate, given that the guidance has been agreed by all Green Ministers, that the document has emanated from the DETR and not from the Green Ministers collectively;

— the guidance envisages little or no role for environmental authorities (such as the Countryside Commission or Environment Agency) or the public in the appraisal process. In our opinion this is a major omission from the current guidance and one which needs to be addressed;

— it should be made clear that the guidance applies to Government Regional Offices, Next Steps Agencies and non-departmental public bodies, as well as Government departments. We would be interested to know whether the guidance has been circulated to these organisations and how it is being used;

— the guidance should require a copy of all environmental appraisals to be sent to the Sustainable Development Unit, the Environmental Audit Committee, and made publicly available. The guidance only suggests that individual departments might "consider" if publication would be beneficial;

Paragraph 6.3

— the guidance should highlight the benefits of commencing an environmental appraisal as soon as possible in policy formulation, rather than at the end after major decisions have already been made.

7. CPRE would urge the Committee to investigate the options for strengthening the guidance produced by the DETR on policy appraisal along the lines set out above.

DRAFT EU DIRECTIVE ON STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8. In our original evidence, we referred to the draft Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as an important mechanism for better integrating environmental considerations into decision making. CPRE has been disappointed to see the UK Government decide not to pursue the Directive, despite making the environment a key priority for the UK Presidency. The Minister for London and Construction, Nick Raynsford MP has said, "the Government have decided not to put the proposed directive on environmental assessment of plans and programmes to the Council of Ministers during the UK Presidency. However, we support the principle of environmental appraisal at all stages of decision making. Guidance has been published to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account by government departments and agencies" (House of Commons, Hansard, 12 February 1998 column 318). CPRE believes this is a major lost opportunity to further SEA within this country. Experience to date of guidance, in the form of Policy Appraisal and the Environment, provides little confidence that such an approach is preferable in environmental terms and this is supported by DETR's own research on the issue.

9. Furthermore, in giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher MP stated: "Our view is not to disagree with the objective [of SEA] but to say that we already carry out SEAs" (House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee Session, Meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, 28 January 1998, paragraph 47). Unfortunately, CPRE believes that the UK does not adopt the systematic examination of environmental impacts which would be required under the draft Directive. Annex A (attached) illustrates a number of plans and programmes which are produced in this country, and highlights the degree to which existing arrangements incorporate the basic requirements of the SEA Directive. It is apparent in many cases that consultation with environmental authorities (such as the Countryside Commission or Environment Agency) is not required, and that there is usually no need to explain how the appraisals have influenced the final decision. Research undertaken by Oxford Brookes University, for example, found that local authorities (who are required to undertake environmental appraisals of their development plans) were undertaking the appraisal after the plan had been written in 60 per cent of cases. Disturbingly, the appraisal only led to changes in planning policies in just over half of cases. In addition, other important Government policy statements, such as Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Minerals Planning Guidance notes (MPGs) do not benefit from an appraisal at all.

10. We are encouraged that the Environment Minister went on to say that "if you could give me some examples where there have been failures to carry out strategic environmental assessment or a failure to implement it effectively then we would look at it again". We hope that the Committee will raise current deficiencies (highlighted in Annex A) with the Minister directly.

COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW

11. CPRE has already outlined in our original evidence, how important we see the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) process as a means to ensure environmental considerations are built into the workings of Government departments. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he will be using his influence to ensure Departments do incorporate sustainable development in their Departmental CSRs. "This is precisely what the Green Ministers should be doing" he said (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Session, Meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, 28 January 1998, paragraph 34). CPRE welcomes this commitment and the role which will be played by the Cabinet Committee on the Environment. We hope the Committee will seek clarification from the Government on how this will be done.

12. It would appear, from a number of answers given to Parliamentary Questions that different departments are embracing the Deputy Prime Ministers statement in different ways. Annex B reproduces the answers given. While it is difficult to ascertain how each Department is considering sustainable development in its CSR, from the evidence presented it would appear that only the Scottish Office has developed a specific mechanism to ensure this occurs in practice. In contrast, the Department of Social Security would seem to adopt a very narrow view of what sustainable development entails.

13. It is worrying to note, that Government Departments seem to have contradictory interpretations of what the Government's cross cutting objective of sustainable development actually is? Annex B also highlights the variety of terms used by Departments to describe this objective. While not particularly significant in itself, CPRE believes this is symbolic of the fact that the promotion of sustainable development is not yet seen as a Government wide objective. CPRE urges the Committee to inquire how the Deputy Prime Minister will ensure that all Departments share the same goal of promoting sustainable development in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BUDGET

14. The Treasury published an environmental assessment as part of the Budget 1998. CPRE warmly welcomed the fact that the Treasury has attempted to examine the environmental implications of some of its decisions and has published the assessment. To our knowledge, this is the only tangible example of an assessment being published by a central Government department.

15. Notwithstanding this, CPRE believes the process will need to be substantially strengthened if it is to prove effective in informing Ministers of the environmental implications of policy decisions. As an example, the assessment undertaken provides no indication of different options being tested for their environmental implications. This might include what the environmental effects would be of setting economic instruments (such as the fuel tax escalator) at different levels, or of introducing new measures such as a greenfield levy or an aggregates tax. The absence of this information gives an impression that the assessment was merely examining the effects of decisions already made, rather than helping to inform and shape the Budget's content. Indeed, there is no indication of how the assessment was actually integrated into the decision making process. This is in contrast, for example, to the EC draft Directive on SEA which includes a requirement that decision makers publish a record of decisions detailing how the SEA report was considered before reaching a decision.

16. We were also disappointed to note that, according to a press statement issued by the Treasury on the day, the environmental assessment undertaken only provided "a quantified assessment of the impact of its main environmental measures" (CPRE's emphasis) (HM Treasury 13, 17 March 1998). While it is, of course, important to ensure the "green" economic instruments adopted are appropriate and contribute to the desired results, it is equally important to assess other aspects of the Budget which will impact on the environment. The need for a wide approach to policy assessment is clearly set out in Policy Appraisal and the Environment, which states that assessment is relevant "across the whole range of policies and programmes, and not just those with direct environmental objectives". As an example, the fiscal regime for the North Sea oil industry which could have important environmental implications for carbon dioxide emissions. From the published material, it would appear that this did not form part of the environmental assessment.