House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Second Report

GREENING GOVERNMENT REPORT

Policy Appraisal

88. The Treasury evidence to the Committee commented that "ordinary" policy appraisal techniques, if properly carried out, should cover all economic, environmental and distributional (that is social equity) issues.[109] However, since 1991 departments have also had specific guidance on taking the environment into account in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". This advice was for appraisal of environmental policies and policies in other areas which have significant environmental impacts.[110]

89. This Government, and in particular Green Ministers, confirmed their commitment to policy appraisal and the environment from the outset.[111] As Mr Prescott put it to this Committee "departments must ask themselves what are the environmental implications of this, right from the start in setting their departmental policy"...... "if you have a policy which will impact significantly on the environment you have to do a policy appraisal".[112]

90. Mr Meacher told the Committee that the Government was keen to "strengthen and make robust environmental appraisal systems".[113] He identified three strands to this effort: the publication of new supplementary guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment by DETR to provide a "simpler guide for policy makers" than the 1991 guidance;[114] the requirement in the Cabinet Office Procedure for Ministers to give details of significant costs and benefits to the environment of policies requiring clearance by Cabinet or Cabinet Committee; and efforts to instill [it] into departmental and cross-departmental thinking.[115]

91. In support of this drive to improve environmental appraisal the Treasury has revised guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government and it is revising Government Accounting, to ensure that all advice to civil servants on policy appraisal refers to the need to consider environmental issues.[116] And DETR is reviewing the detailed technical guidance on environmental appraisal and considering the need for further technical guidance on appraising sustainable development impacts of policy.[117]

92. The Committee welcomes the new guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment and the renewal of government commitment to environmental appraisal. However, despite clarification in the new guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment it appears to the Committee that there remains some debate about when environmental appraisal is required. The new guidance applies to policies or programmes which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. However, it is not clear whether it should apply to framework-setting policies, such as the policy to establish a Strategic Authority for London and a Mayor, as well as to programme development decisions such as in MAFF reviews of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

93. In their evidence to the Committee several non-governmental organisations expressed their concern that the government guidance on environmental appraisal, including the new guidance, gives too much weight to the use of economic valuation techniques for valuing environmental costs and benefits. Their concerns are that these techniques are difficult to employ and so environmental appraisal may not be carried out if such a formal methodology is required; and that costs and benefits which can be valued more readily are likely to be given greater weight in the appraisal.[118] We understand these concerns but consider that the guidance does attempt to show that a common-sense approach should be adopted with valuation where possible. The important thing is to use available techniques for quantifying costs and benefits where possible, but not to rely solely on such techniques in coming to decisions. Many of the figures obtained by such methods may be uncertain or debatable; and other significant factors may not be quantifiable at all. So such quantification should always be regarded as an aid to judgement, not as a substitute for it.

94. The Council for the Protection of Rural England argued that the Government's commitment to environmental appraisal should be further strengthened by pushing for the adoption of the draft European Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment which provides a framework for the way the environment is considered in the development of certain public plans and programmes. They argued that it would provide greater structure to the appraisal process.[119] Mr Meacher told us that his view was that Strategic Environmental Assessment is already carried out in the UK.[120] DTI considered that in a fast changing field a directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment might hinder changes in practice aimed at developing sustainable development assessment.[121] If Strategic Environmental Assessment is already carried out in the UK we see no reason for not proceeding with the draft Directive. We think it important that the UK is a leader in this area within the EU. We were therefore pleased to see the UK host an international seminar in May 1998 on Strategic Environmental Assessment, which the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning described as "one of the most important policy areas which governments will need to develop further as we move into the new century." We believe however, that the Government missed an opportunity in not pursuing agreement on a suitable draft Directive during its Presidency of the EU during 1998.

95. The Committee considers that for change to occur, the new guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment needs to be reinforced by training of the staff concerned. The Green Alliance told us that when the guidance was first introduced in 1991 the Department of the Environment had held seminars for staff in other departments. But their view was that this training effort was not followed through or maintained and that overall "there has been insufficient investment in the time and money that is required to train people".[122] We note Mr Meacher's view that there was a willingness across departments to move towards environmental objectives.[123] In memoranda to this Committee some departments set out how they were beginning to address these needs through formal training, in particular in induction courses, and informally through making information available through their intranets and encouraging staff to attend seminars with speakers from the environmental movement.[124] We are disappointed not to have found evidence of more concerted efforts by departments to identify training needs, particularly in the light of the Government's commitment to the Investors in People approach. We were also disappointed that the Green Ministers Committee had not launched a training initiative with the new guidance. We consider the Green Ministers should provide leadership on this and departments should make a commitment to a programme of training for the relevant staff.

Reporting of environmental appraisal work

96. The environmental appraisal guidance does not require government departments to publish information on environmental appraisal work they have carried out. However, DETR told us that its presumption is that environmental statements and appraisals will be published unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so. It considers this is fully in line with the freedom of information proposals in 'Your Right to Know' which themselves are broadly along the lines of the current Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.[125] The Code says that departments and public bodies will publish the facts, and analysis of the facts, which the Government considers relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions; and that they will normally be made available when policies and decisions are announced. We welcome the fact that the freedom of information proposals do not make the same explicit presumption against early disclosure of policy appraisal information but we are concerned that the test of "harm" in the new proposals could have the same effect .

97. We note that the guidance on policy appraisal and the environment and the Government's repeated statements of commitment to this process have generated a considerable weight of expectation on improved environmental appraisal as the key to greening government policies. NGOs who gave evidence to this inquiry all stressed the importance to them of being able to see how environmental issues have been addressed in the appraisal of policy.[126] However none of them cited particular cases where they had made requests for facts and analysis on environmental impacts, under the Code of Practice, which had been refused.

98. Departments do not currently routinely publish environmental appraisals although potential environmental impacts may be set out in consultation documents. However, in evidence to the Committee Green Ministers appeared to indicate a willingness for greater openness while explaining the constraints that they considered affected their ability to publish environmental appraisals. MAFF said that it planned to create an explicit presumption that new environmental appraisals will be published and to require justification in submissions to Ministers where publication is thought inappropriate.[127] Mr Rooker explained that the department would not be publishing submissions to Ministers but that for policy announcements and Bills the presumption will be to publish the environmental appraisal. He considered this was important because if there was something wrong with the environmental appraisal they would need to be addressing it.[128] DTI said that the integration of environmental appraisal in wider policy appraisal does not always lend itself to separate public reporting but that it is continuing to work towards establishing how best to publish environmental appraisals.[129] MOD said that appraisals may contain sensitive security or commercial information but that where they did not they would be able to publish the appraisals.[130]

99. The Committee considers that openness in environmental appraisal work is crucial to the Greening Government agenda and to meet the expectations raised by the Government's commitments. Early consultation on possible impacts of new policies allows input from interest groups to ensure that all impacts are identified and explored. Later in the policy development stage openness allows contributions to be made to the difficult weighing up of costs and benefits and we consider this inclusive approach is particularly important for sustainable development issues which often require commitment and action by the wider community not just government. Openness also demonstrates the degree of commitment to the Greening Government Initiative.

100. The Committee notes the difficulties there might be in establishing blanket rules for the adoption of a consultative approach to appraisal work and the publication of environmental appraisals. We therefore welcome the signs that departments are themselves reviewing how they can best pursue the principle of openness and accountability. We consider that it should not just be left to departments to decide their own policies with regard to openness. The Green Ministers Committee should make a commitment that all public statements on new and substantially amended policies and Explanatory Memoranda on Bills will include a summary statement on their implications for sustainable development. In addition Green Ministers should agree to the principle of setting out options and their potential impacts on sustainable development in consultation papers whenever possible and making initial appraisals available at an early stage of policy development under Freedom of Information procedures.

Departments' practices in carrying out environmental appraisals

101. The Committee has found that in the absence of a general trend to publish environmental appraisal work there is no firm evidence on the extent to which departments have been appraising the environmental implications of their policies and programmes. A CPRE analysis of responses to Parliamentary Questions to the last Government found no evidence that policies had been subject to formal environmental appraisal.[131] A study of experience with the Policy Appraisal and the Environment initiative commissioned by the last Government was not an audit of the extent of environmental appraisal work as it was based on interviews with departmental officials and detailed work on only 20 selected case studies.[132]

102. However, that study and the memoranda submitted by Green Ministers to this Committee suggest that departments consider they have been undertaking environmental appraisal where appropriate albeit perhaps not in every relevant case and perhaps less formally than recommended in the guidance. The study of experience stated that "in broad terms, departments are conducting policy appraisals according to the spirit, if not the letter of the approach set out in the guidelines" and that "more is being done now [1996] in terms of environmental appraisal than five years ago". Most departments in their memoranda to the Committee stated that they had been undertaking environmental appraisals, or had undertaken them informally or in particular circumstances.[133] A minority of departments considered there had not been a need to undertake an environmental appraisal.[134]

103. The Committee considers it is important for departments to have systems in place to ensure that environmental appraisal is undertaken. In their written and oral evidence to the Committee the Green Ministers from DETR; MAFF; and DTI indicated that they had requirements and systems to ensure that advice to Ministers identifies environmental impacts.[135] However, DETR added that it would be a long-term project to ensure that integration is carried out thoroughly across the full range of its activities; and that it is reviewing arrangements for bringing together information on environmental appraisals so that its Green Minister can assess how well the department is doing.[136]

104. The Committee was encouraged by a number of examples provided by Ministers of cases where their departments were working to reduce environmental impacts or were looking afresh at policies and their impacts: for example Mr Spellar described work to clean up contaminated land;[137] and Mr Battle described a review of Regional Selective Assistance guidelines and efforts to identify and specify tools for affecting the share of the energy market, in particular from renewable energy sources for which he has set a higher target of 10 per cent by 2010.[138] However, the Committee also noted examples where insufficient effort had been devoted at an early stage, for example regarding the contract for air-conditioning in the New Millennium Dome which involves the use of a hydrofluorocarbon.[139]

105. We took up one example of policy appraisal with DETR — its review of the roads programme. We were pleased to learn that it is developing a new appraisal framework for use in this review which is intended to result in the presentation to Ministers of the environmental, economic and other consequences of options to be considered in a fair and unbiassed way using criteria for environmental impact produced in consultation with the Countryside Commission, Environment Agency, English Heritage and English Nature.[140] However the inadequate responses to the Committee's questions gave us little assurance that the Government has moved on from what we would see as an unsustainable predict and provide approach to road traffic divorced from creative work to identify and fund alternative solutions. The Committee stresses that in deciding between schemes for the next five year programme and those transport problems for which more strategic development work needs to be done the Government should adopt the precautionary principle: it should only go ahead with schemes for which the benefits are certain and unlikely to be significantly affected by changes brought about by the forthcoming integrated transport policy and by on-going work to improve the appraisal techniques.

106. The Committee considers that it will be important for examples of new appraisal work to be made public to show how the guidance is being implemented and to provide models of practice to be considered by other departments. As an example we look forward to the publication of the appraisal work on the Roads Review and to seeing what account was taken of this work in the decisions made.

107. We welcome the initiatives that many departments are currently taking to review their practices. We consider that departments should set out publicly and much more clearly what their policy is on when, and in what way, they undertake environmental appraisal; when, and in what way, the environmental appraisal and the results are available to Parliament and the public; and what management systems they have in place to ensure that this policy is carried out.

108. The appraisal of policies which cut across departments involves an extra degree of difficulty. The Committee discussed a number of such cases with Green Ministers, for example energy — where the DTI has policy responsibility for energy supply matters and DETR for energy efficiency and planning matters in relation to the mining of coal; and genetic engineering — where MAFF has responsibility for consent to the release of genetically modified organisms, DETR for research into potential impacts on the environment and the Health and Safety Executive into working conditions in the buildings where genetic engineering work is carried out. Mr Battle and Mr Rooker assured us that they and their officials worked closely on relevant policies with other departments.[141] Mr Battle considered the Green Ministers Committee will be the forum for joining together themes as they impact on policy but also stressed the importance of bilateral discussions with relevant Ministers and joint working between officials.[142] We consider the Green Ministers Committee, with support from the Sustainable Development Unit, could play a key role in identifying policy areas where "joined up thinking" is required and ensuring that Ministers address the policy review work together where necessary.

Review of environmental appraisal

109. Mr Meacher told the Committee that the Green Ministers are committed to doing regular collective reviews of the quality and scope of environmental appraisals in their departments. He explained that he would expect departments to draw up a list, revised every six months or so, of important new policies which have significant environmental impacts where environmental appraisals have been done. The Green Ministers Committee would then discuss them and share experience.[143]

110. The Committee welcomes the intention of the Green Ministers Committee to review experience of policy appraisal in the departments and to spread best practice and experience of appraisals that have not gone so well and we look forward to receiving copies of these reviews in accordance with the Minister's undertaking to this Committee. We consider that the Green Ministers Committee should commit itself to regular reviews of departments' experience of environmental appraisal and to reporting the results and outcome in its annual report to ENV.

111. We expect to be calling regularly on departments to provide explanations of what environmental appraisal work was carried out on particular policies. However, there will still remain a gap for a periodic independent audit of government practice in appraising the implications of policies for sustainable development on a sample basis along the lines of the recent study of experience with the 'Policy Appraisal and the Environment' Initiative. We call upon the Green Ministers Committee to sponsor such audits regularly.

109 Ev p376 paragraph 23 Back

110 Policy Appraisal and the Environment, 1991, Department of the Environment Back

111 DETR Press Release, 31 July 1997, 315/ENV Back

112 Q12 Back

113 Q23 Back

114 'Policy Appraisal and the Environment - Policy Guidance' was published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in March 1998. Back

115 Q23 Back

116 Ev p375 paragraph 11 Back

117 Ev p246 paragraph 40 Back

118 Ev p139 paragraph 33, Ev p97 paragraph 32 & Ev p288 to 290 Back

119 Q281 Back

120 Q47 Back