House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

STRUCTURE

25. The DETR told us that the Environment Agency was established " to deliver a more coherent, consistent and integrated approach to the protection and enhancement of the environment"[60]. Industry in particular welcomed it for that reason, envisaging a 'one-stop-shop' for environmental regulation.[61] Despite the fact that, as we have noted above, there is a considerable amount of disappointment about the progress the Agency has made since its formation, the Environment Agency, in its current form, continues to receive support from industry on the basis that a "one-stop-shop" approach has a better chance of bringing a coordinated approach and a measure of consistency to environmental regulation than did the previous multi-agency approach.[62] Other witnesses also noted the benefits to be achieved from the creation of a single body combining environmental protection with integrated catchment management and responsibilities for collecting and making available environmental information.[63]

26. However, we have also heard evidence that the Agency is not yet acting in a fully integrated fashion. One of the 'key findings' of the CBI's Report of its survey on the performance of the Agency, published in June last year, was that "the Environment Agency is not yet a 'first-stop-shop'. The lack of functional integration acts as a 'barrier'"; it recommended that "the Agency should take steps to achieve better integration of its separate functions".[64] Little progress appears to have been made in improving integration since that survey was conducted. As we were told by Doug Roger of the Chemical Industries Association, "One of the messages which came out of the CBI survey was lack of functional integration and I think most people would nod and say yes when they heard that. They have to pay more attention to making sure that the individual bits of the Agency work together, work cohesively ..."[65] Nor is it just industry which has its doubts about the Agency's ability to act in an integrated fashion. Lord Moran, Chairman of the Joint Fisheries Policy and Legislation Working Group, in answer to a question on how successful the Agency had been in providing "integrated catchment management", replied, "I think it has been partially successful. We do very strongly support the concept of having integrated management of each separate catchment, we think that is extremely important and should be preserved, but there are instances in which we think it has not worked as well. I think I would give them six out of ten on that."[66] The Wildlife Trusts, too, commented, "there is a lack of cross-functional working in the Agency and this is hindering delivery of its core objectives."[67]

27. There appear to be two reasons for the Agency's failure to act in a fully integrated fashion. The first is that the Agency is quite simply not yet operating as a coherent, fully 'joined-up' entity, as the quotations above demonstrate, and as we have already suggested in paragraphs 13 to 18 above. However, we also note the fact that the Agency operates under and is responsible for implementing a large number of different pieces of legislation, many of which are themselves not conducive to integrated implementation. A supplementary memorandum from the Agency notes that there are two possible levels of legislative reform which could go some way towards overcoming this difficulty:

For example, most of the inherited legislation requires the Agency to maintain a public register for the particular regime and all the provisions impose somewhat different requirements - the Agency only needs one set of provisions about maintaining a public register or, if differences are still required, these would be better imposed in secondary legislation. Again it ought to be possible to have one framework licensing system rather than different systems for each functional area. [...]

The second level of possible reform would be a far reaching review of environmental law looking at the different approaches and philosophies of existing legislation and examining different methods and tools for achieving environmental change. An example of this would be to allow the Agency to regulate industries in a more flexible way on a sector or cross sector basis or companies on a company wide basis instead of or in addition to the existing site-specific basis. The review should utilise the experience of industry, academia, relevant professions, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) as well as the experience of the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Government. Comparative law studies of the legislation of other Member States and countries would be useful. Since much environmental legislation is derived from the EU it would be valuable to utilise bodies such as IMPEL where the Agency plays a leading role.[68]

We note that the DETR is currently undertaking a review with the purpose of identifying significant barriers to integration, and establishing whether administrative or managerial action could overcome them, or whether legislative change is merited.[69] The DETR's review of barriers to integration must result in speedy resolution of those barriers which can be overcome by administrative or managerial action. We also recommend that sufficient Parliamentary time be allocated to enable the equally speedy resolution of those areas which require legislative remedies.

28. However, we note that this review specifically excludes "the philosophical approaches underlying different regulatory regimes"[70], the second level of reform identified by the Agency. Clearly such a review would involve a significant amount of work on the part of a large number of different bodies. However, we consider that it has the potential to bring very substantial benefits not only to the work of the Agency, but to the whole of environmental protection across the United Kingdom. We have some sympathy for the problems of a supposedly 'integrated' Agency which derives its regulatory powers from different regimes which, for no reasons other than historical accident, take substantially different approaches to the details - and in some cases the philosophy - of regulation. Some of the drafting used in modern statutes can be traced back to the Victorian era and its fitness for purpose ought to be reviewed.[71] We recommend that the Government instigate a review of the different approaches and philosophies of existing environmental legislation, with a view to establishing a more efficient and effective regulatory regime.

29. In addition, it appears that, at present, some parts of the Agency do not demonstrate concern for environmental issues in areas which are not their direct responsibility. One of the Members of this Committee, on pointing out to an Agency rivers employee a problem with fly-tipped waste, was told it was not his problem, but that of a different section of the Agency. The problem was also noted by other witnesses: the Moran Committee, for example, told us, "Fisheries staff are prompt to address problems which fall well within their sphere of activity, but with issues involving other Agency functions co-operation seems to be less forthcoming."[72] This is further evidence of our contention that insufficient emphasis has been placed by senior Agency management on instilling a coherent overarching ethos into the entirety of the Agency's functions, such that all parts of the Agency are working towards common goal.

30. Our main concern, however, is that Agency management is not approaching the process of integration in the right fashion, particularly in its environmental protection functions. Up until now, the Agency has attempted to effect integration of its functions in regulating emissions to air, land and water by asking all Agency inspectors to assimilate expertise in, and making them responsible for, all aspects of environmental pollution. Particularly when regulating the complex processes which are the subject of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime, inspectors must have some expertise in specialisms other than their own, at least to the extent of understanding the issues involved. However, we are concerned that the effect of the Agency's policy has been to dilute the expertise available in specific fields, risking both the development of Agency inspectors who are 'jacks of all trades and masters of none', and the impression that the Agency does not sufficiently value its specialist staff and their expertise.[73]

31. Instead of the present 'generalist' approach, it would be preferable for the Agency to create teams of specialists in particular fields who would be responsible for the Agency's environmental protection duties. Such teams would work together within a properly coordinated framework to provide an integrated approach without diluting the available expertise. This approach might involve the creation of a team leader, or 'lead inspector', for the process or activity concerned. However, the Agency's attitude towards specialist inspectors has itself been the subject of some criticism, and we are aware that it may be necessary for the Agency to undertake a considerable shift in the way it manages its inspectors for such a policy to be implemented. These problems are examined further in paragraphs 36 to 63 below.

Boundaries

32. We heard evidence from the Local Government Association, representing the local authorities which work closely with the Environment Agency in a number of areas, that the Agency's structure of internal boundaries was causing them considerable inconvenience in their dealings with the Agency. These boundaries are based on the river catchment areas used by the Agency's predecessor body, the National Rivers Authority. They therefore tend to cut across the political boundaries of local authorities, meaning that a single council may have to deal with as many as 12 different Environment Agency regions on matters such as waste regulation or planning issues.[74] Similarly, we were told that one of the Agency's Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs) covers as many as eight different local authority areas.[75]

33. The LGA's concerns were based mainly on the premise that "the future success of the Agency ... depends on it being readily understandable, accessible and relevant to the public. Wherever functions are placed, they need to be accountable to the public. In our view, this demands regional organisation that respects existing and understood local authority boundaries."[76] They were supported by UNISON, who suggested that a reconfiguration of the Agency's areas along the lines of regional boundaries "would make a big contribution to bringing the Agency closer to the communities it serves, and will avoid a lot of public confusion about which Agency office deals with particular areas."[77]

34. The response of the Chairman of the Agency was to say that the concerns of the LGA were "[not] particularly well founded in fact".[78] He told us, "I take the view that it is environmentally right for us to consider our operations at environmental boundary level and to communicate with the public and the political world at a political boundary level."[79] He and his colleagues went on to assure us that, by the use of modern technology and by internalisation within the Agency of any conflicts which may arise out of the use of environmental rather than political boundaries, the use of such boundaries need not present a problem to local authorities.[80]

35. We have already noted how important we believe it is that the Agency become more recognisable, approachable and accountable to the public.[81] However, we also note that the Agency has undergone a number of significant reorganisations since it was formed, and we are doubtful of the value of undertaking yet another wholesale reconfiguration of boundaries.[82] Our conclusion is that the Agency's own internal boundaries are a matter for it to determine. However, the Agency must ensure that, whatever administrative boundaries it works to, it is able to demonstrate sufficient flexibility to ensure that those who work on different boundaries, particularly local and regional authorities, are able effectively to work with them, and should invest in manpower and information technology accordingly.[83]

60 Ev p.67 (EA31) Back

61 See, for example, Foreword to Shaping up: Report of the Environment Protection Survey, Confederation of British Industry, June 1999, page 4; First Report from the Environment Committee, Session 1991-92 (HC55), on The Government's Proposals for an Environment Agency, op cit, para 18 Back

63 Ev p.123 (EA58); p.131 (EA59); Q93; Q168; Q382 Back

64 op cit, pp. 5 and 6 Back

65 Q317 Back

66 Q382 Back

67 Ev p.46 (EA23) Back

68 Ev vol II p. 124-125 (EA62(c)) Back

69 Ev p.69 (EA31) Back

70 ibid Back

71 Some of the wording in the Water Resources Act 1991, for example, can be traced back through the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1876. Back

72 Ev p.25 (EA15) Back