House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Second Report

GREENING GOVERNMENT REPORT

Leadership and institutions

10. The new administration took office committed to the pursuit of sustainable development. This reflects the manifesto pledge that "concern for the environment will be put at the heart of policy-making" and the words of the Prime Minister at the United Nations last year "We must make the process of government green. Environmental considerations must be integrated into all our decisions, regardless of sector. They must be in at the start, not bolted on later".[4] We applaud the Government's objectives on sustainable development. We believe that political leadership from the very top is absolutely vital for the implementation of this agenda. Active leadership from the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues on these issues, including elaboration in major speeches, will be crucial to building momentum and commitment for the changes needed. This must also be reflected and repeated throughout the ranks of Ministers and senior civil servants in every department, to empower those who are putting the ideas into practice in the face of some inevitable degree of institutional inertia.

11. According to the Government itself sustainable development involves integrating "environmental, economic and social goals to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come, through: social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".[5] In one sense the concept poses no more than a commonsense framework for the consideration of policy. Working within this framework however, requires strenuous efforts to keep the broader context continuously in mind. We believe that this approach to the way government goes about its business, from strategic decisions at Cabinet level to pencil purchase in the smallest executive agency, represents an exciting challenge and opportunity for policy-makers taking the UK into the 21^st century.

12. Given these commitments and challenges an important task is to establish adequate machinery to channel this leadership and implement this integrated approach across a structure of government characterised by vertical divisions of responsibilities and strong traditions of departmental practice.[6] Mr John Battle, Green Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), described the problem as "a danger within government...of being locked into silos, that one department does one thing, another does another, and they can actually undermine each other and never talk to each other".[7] The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Prescott, said that change is needed in the "whole culture of decision-making which goes right through the system" and we note his assertion that "We are embarking on that".[8]

A new department

13. Part of the Government's approach to this institutional difficulty has been to eliminate one such divide with the creation of the Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (DETR). The Deputy Prime Minister described this as "in itself... a very important step towards achieving the environmental objectives".[9] A particular advantage of putting environment and transport together in England is that it should help to achieve better policy integration at one of the crucial conflict points for sustainable development. It will be important to try to secure or maintain similar integration in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as constitutional changes evolve there. It is obviously not practicable nor desirable to merge all subjects related to sustainable development into a single department since sustainability should be a shared objective of all departments and not the exclusive preserve of one. Nevertheless departmental reorganisation can sometimes be valuable in overcoming entrenched conflicts on key issues, and opportunities for making such breakthroughs should be kept under review.

14. An additional advantage of the environment/transport merger is that it has created a powerful department with substantial political clout in Whitehall. This has been reinforced by the fact that DETR's Secretary of State is also the Deputy Prime Minister which gives him the scope and authority to give a strong lead on sustainable development issues, both within his own department and throughout the Government. We welcome the creation of the new department and the opportunities that this provides for securing better integration of the transport and environment agendas. We also consider it very valuable for the sustainable development agenda that DETR's Secretary of State also has a strong co-ordinating role throughout the Government in his role as Deputy Prime Minister. In order to maintain these advantages the Committee believes that whenever the boundaries of relevant government departments are changed the opportunities for reinforcing sustainable development and integrating relevant policy areas should be taken into account; and whenever relevant Ministerial responsibilities are changed explicit arrangements should be made to ensure that high-level political leadership for sustainable development is maintained, preferably at the level of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

The role of the Cabinet Committee on the Environment

15. The Government emphasised the importance of the role of the new Cabinet Committee on the Environment (ENV) in evidence to us. DETR stated that the Committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister "is the principal decision-making body for government policy on sustainable development and environmental protection issues"[10]. Mr Prescott described the Cabinet Committee to us as "...a powerful instrument to make sure that the commitments we have given on the environment will be driven through" and said that as Deputy Prime Minister and Chair of ENV he was in an excellent position to ensure that the commitment to put the environment at the heart of policy-making throughout government was achieved.[11]

16. That sustainable development has a dedicated forum for strategic policy decisions at this high level with membership from across government is to be heartily welcomed. We spent some time with various witnesses discussing what exactly this meant in practice. However, being within the traditional Cabinet structure, the proceedings of the Committee, including the subjects of its meetings and attendance, are not disclosed and therefore it has been difficult for us to make an assessment of the Cabinet Committee's effectiveness at this stage.[12]

17. The Cabinet Committee conducts the majority of its business through correspondence and does not meet on a regular basis. By mid-June 1998 the Committee had only met twice with the first meeting looking at its remit and the existing institutional framework.[13] The Minister for the Environment, Mr Meacher, suggested that its not meeting was a performance indicator given that such an event would signal divisions between departments on significant issues[14] and that it should be interpreted as a measure of the consensus around Whitehall that the environment should be at the heart of decision-making.[15] A different interpretation was given by Ms Julie Hill of The Green Alliance, who said that "if there is no disagreement between departments then nothing is changing. That may seem slightly cynical but that has certainly been our experience in the past. If you can get complete agreement then really business as usual is what is happening".[16] This is a view with which we have some sympathy. Ms Fiona Reynolds, Director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, emphasised the need for the role of the Cabinet Committee "to be more visible and transparent as a vehicle for engaging all government departments".[17] She identified a concern that some of the identifiable progress on environmental issues under this government, on housing for instance, had been 'almost wrung out of controversy' rather than from proactive commitment by the Government.[18]

18. In pursuit of a sense of the Cabinet Committee's approach we asked Mr Meacher whether ENV, for example, had discussed the integration of the economy and environment in the preparation of the Budget. The Minister's response was that it had not, because that process was one of individual departments putting bids in to the Treasury, which in the case of DETR had "a very strong environmental tinge".[19] In terms of a commitment to the environment across government outside of DETR, Mr Meacher said that he would certainly like to see other departments seeking changes in fiscal and other economic measures which affect the environmental impact of their policies.[20] We feel that developing this agenda could for instance be a useful task for the 'supreme policy making body on environmental issues'.

19. We understand that the operation of traditional Cabinet Committees is designed to produce efficiency of decision-making.[21] However, we also believe in the necessity for active discussions to involve those who might otherwise regard themselves and their departments as peripheral to the sustainable development programme. An early test for ENV will be the creation, launch and implementation of the Government's new Sustainable Development Strategy for the country. The Cabinet Committee's positive engagement in this process is likely to foster leadership and ownership of the strategy at the top of each department and could enable a fundamental revision of departmental aims and objectives in line with the strategy's goals. We agree with Mr Meacher that the ultimate test of success is whether "we are seeing policies from government which do more systematically and deeply reflect environmental criteria" [22] and that is a test that we shall certainly want to apply. But we would emphasise our understanding that a principal aim of this Government is to minimise the chances of discovery, at the end of the pipe, that policy fails this test.

20. Given the weight placed on the strategic function of the Cabinet Committee by the Government, we were disappointed to discover that it did not appear to have a proactive role. To this end we urge the Government to review the operation of ENV and consider the following: -

the specific inclusion within the Committee's remit of sustainable development and the environmental impact of policies which may not have specific environmental objectives;

a more active role aimed at increasing leadership and ownership of the sustainable development agenda throughout government departments, particularly the twin tasks of creating the Sustainable Development Strategy and revising departmental aims and objectives;
publication of significant decisions and consequent requirements for supporting action by Green Ministers; and

consideration of regular published reports from the Green Ministers Committee.

21. We welcome the re-statement in the new Ministerial Code of the requirement that all Cabinet memoranda should include any significant costs or benefits to the environment. However we feel that the rigour of the requirement with regard to expenditure implications, involving Treasury consultation, an estimate of costs and a statement of how these should be met, could serve as a model for improving the guidance to departments on reporting environmental impacts.[23] We would endorse the recommendation, proposed to us by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, that a monitoring programme be instituted by DETR in conjunction with the Cabinet Office into the effectiveness of the environmental statements accompanying Cabinet papers.

The Green Ministers Committee

22. The identification of 'Green Ministers' was an innovation of the last Government. We welcome the new administration's continuation of them, both individually within each department, and collectively in the Green Ministers Committee under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment. We also highlight and welcome the commitment to openness contained in their remit. Their terms of reference are now:

"Collectively, to ensure that each learns from the best practice of the others and to establish an effective programme across government to deliver our sustainable development aim of an improved and lasting quality of life for all. They shall be clear and open about the progress which they make on this.

Individually, Green Ministers will review the management of their departments to ensure that they operate as sustainably as possible in terms of energy efficiency, waste minimisation and so on. Even more important, they will also consider the environmental impacts of their departments' policies and programmes."[24]

23. The identification of the Green Minister is a matter for each department and there is no common theme. In rank Green Ministers range from the Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, through Ministers of State in 5 cases, to the most junior ministerial rank in 12 departments. We noted that the Green Ministers Committee had met only twice in the Government's first year and had held one further meeting by the time of writing in June 1998. Ministerial attendance at these meetings was 15, 11 and 14 respectively. In most cases of ministerial non-attendance departments were represented by officials.

24. The relationships between the Green Ministers Committee and the Cabinet Committee and individual Green Ministers and departmental colleagues and officials were the subject of some discussion in evidence. We welcome the clear identification of Green Ministers' responsibilities with regard to greening operations within their departments and the intention to use the Green Ministers Committee to share best practice. With regard to their collective and individual responsibilities on policies and programmes we found less clarity. There would appear to be some tension between the Green Ministers' task of "establishing an effective programme across government to deliver sustainable development" and the evidence we received on their precise responsibilities. The memorandum from DETR stated that the responsibility for ensuring that each department met the commitments set by ENV rested with the relevant Secretary of State not the Green Minister and that responsibility for ensuring that the environment is fully taken into account in a particular area of policy rests with the Minister with oversight of that policy area.[25]

25. Mr Meacher stressed that Green Ministers were not a set of green policemen and nor could he himself police other departments.[26] We agree with the Environment Minister on the importance of enabling and encouraging departments to green themselves and to take ownership of the Initiative and we see Green Ministers as important catalysts for change in this process. However a system of monitoring and holding to account must be part of the process and we detected a somewhat inconsistent attitude on the part of Mr Meacher in this regard. He told us that his bilateral meetings with Green Ministers were "less of a case for identifying specifics and saying I am going to call on you in a year's time and check that you have done it" but shortly thereafter he said "I certainly believe that where we can set targets we should. We will be monitoring those on a six or 12 monthly basis and certainly wanting to know good explanations why they have not been achieved if they have not".[27]

26. We examined a small number of Green Ministers from departments other than DETR. We encountered an impressive grasp of departmental issues and a great deal of enthusiasm for the sustainable development agenda but it did not appear that much progress had been made with the collective role of the Green Ministers Committee. Mr Rooker from MAFF told us that at the first meeting "we did not go into a great deal of depth about our role" and Mr Battle of DTI said he "got the impression we had a rudimentary outline agenda at the first meeting". Mr Spellar of MOD stressed the potential for the exchange of experience and information on the Committee.[28] All three Ministers confirmed that no arrangements had yet been established for reporting back to the Green Ministers Committee on environmental activities or appraisal work.

27. These impressions do not do much to support the tone of the Chairman's report of the first meeting of the Green Ministers Committee that it had "agreed to establish a programme of work to support the strategic decisions taken by the new Cabinet Committee on the Environment...considered ways of building sustainable development into policy formulation at the highest level and looked at ways of ensuring that departments consider sustainable development and the environment in implementing their policies and programmes".[29] We have sympathy with the argument put to us that the process is an evolutionary one and that it is the early days of a long term project. However, over a year in government has passed and it will surely be 'early days' for a good deal longer without an agreed programme of action and further ministerial attention to that programme.

28. The views of witnesses from NGOs on the Green Ministers Committee centred around the need for more detailed progress reports from meetings than had to date been on offer in the parliamentary questions and news releases. More importantly there was whole-hearted endorsement for Mr Battle's appreciation of the need to "strengthen the agendas, get more focussed, get away from words and talking to plans and action".[30] An effective programme of action was called for, underpinned by an appropriate meeting schedule and there was a consensus that a timetable of three or four meetings a year might strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the momentum of the initiative and keeping demands on Ministers' time reasonable. To this end we look forward to the announcement of the Green Ministers' main programme of work on policy integration, environmental appraisal and green housekeeping, that was heralded for autumn 1998 in the report from the Green Ministers' Committee meeting held on 8 June 1998.

29. We considered the status of the Green Ministers Committee. Some witnesses felt that a formal relationship with the Cabinet Committee would be an advantage.[31] We note that the Minister for the Environment did not appear to be sure whether the Green Ministers Committee was a formal sub-Committee of ENV or not.[32] On balance, while we believe that the authority and status of the Green Ministers Committee might benefit from a clearer statement of its relationship to the Cabinet Committee, we agree with those witnesses who highlighted the advantages of a location outside the formal Cabinet Committee structure in terms of openness, creativity and focus.

30. We conclude that Green Ministers can make a significant contribution to the Government's pursuit of sustainable development as champions of it within their departments and government as a whole.

31. With more frequent substantive meetings and a commitment to openness about its progress, the Green Ministers Committee is a useful complement to the Cabinet Committee, ENV. However, it can do more. We recommend that:

the Deputy Prime Minister should chair some meetings of the Green Ministers Committee whilst the Minister for the Environment retains responsibility for taking forward the Committee's programme;

the authority and status of the Green Ministers Committee should be further underpinned by a clearer statement of its relationship to the Cabinet Committee;

the Green Ministers Committee should report to the Cabinet Committee on progress on an annual basis and that this report should be published;

the Green Ministers Committee's forthcoming programme of action should contain concrete objectives and targets for advancing the take-up of best practice with regard to greening operations, environmental appraisal and policy integration; and