Spending Review 2002
70. Spending Review 2002 (SR 2002) introduced
a new requirement for departments to submit a Sustainable Development
Report (SDR) with their bids. In our Pre-Budget Report 2001:
A New Agenda? we welcomed this development, while expressing
our frustration that the Treasury was apparently not going to
grant us access to these reports. We were therefore surprised
and pleased that, in its response to our report, the Treasury
should state that "the decision to divulge the content of
their SDR after the spending review to the EAC is at the discretion
of each department".[105]
We subsequently wrote to every department in July to request a
copy of their SDRs, but were met with a clearly orchestrated blanket
refusal.[106]
71. In its memorandum, the Treasury described the
process underlying SR 2002, emphasising the importance of allowing
departments flexibility to consider sustainable development in
a manner most appropriate to them. They went on to state that
"the Government would be interested in the Committee's views
on the question of the appropriate balance between flexibility
and central direction".[107]
It is with a certain irony that we view this invitation —
given the fact that the Treasury has refused us access to departmental
SDRs. We are in no position to assess the effectiveness of the
SR 2002 sustainable development requirements without such access.
72. Our difficulties are compounded by the fact that
the 'mock SDR' which the Treasury included in its guidance to
departments, suggests that sustainable development has been considered
in a rather compartmentalised manner within each department—on
a programme by programme basis.[108]
Environmental considerations, in particular, may only impact indirectly
on individual programmes and may therefore not be reflected in
an individual department's Public Service Agreement headline targets.
As an example of this, one only has to examine the first departmental
priority within the 'mock SDR' which the Treasury provided to
us as an annex to their memorandum.[109]
This relates to the provision of four large geriatric care units.
Environmental considerations—in terms of construction, transport,
and carbon emissions—are discussed in terms of their possible
contribution to the overall suite of 150 sustainable development
indicators, but are not reflected in the PSA targets cited in
relation to this programme. No amount of scrutinising the outcomes
of the Spending Review process will therefore enable us to assess
whether environmental considerations have been adequately taken
into account.
73. Taking the same example, one might also question
whether the treatment of environmental considerations in itself
is adequate. It is interesting to note, for example, that there
is no requirement for the buildings to attain a certain level
of overall energy efficiency (bearing in mind the PIU Energy Review
recommendation that we should consider moving towards near-zero
space heating buildings[110]);
while no actual targets are set for the contribution to other
sustainable development indicators. Nor would these aspects be
monitored, other than through the annual departmental questionnaire,
instituted initially by us, which forms the basis of the Greening
Government series of reports.[111]
74. We are concerned that economic and social
objectives are reflected in departmental Public Service Agreement
targets, whereas environmental objectives are not. The latter
also have a far more tenuous relationship to the overall sustainable
development indicators. This imbalance is reflected in our analysis
of SR 2002 outcomes. The table opposite sets out the number of
objectives and targets for each department, together with the
number of these which are environmentally related. It shows how
few departments, other than DEFRA, include any environmentally-related
objectives or targets within their PSAs. In this respect, our
analysis also suggests that there is little improvement in this
respect over the previous spending review.
75. We have two other concerns about the processes
underlying the incorporation of sustainable development in Spending
Review 2002:
- Each department appears to have been given the
flexibility to address sustainable development in its own way,
and appears to have done so in their Sustainable Development Reports
on a programme by programme basis.[112]
It is unclear how such an approach could adequately address cross-cutting
issues where synergies could be achieved by coordinating the policies
and targets of several departments;
- Unlike some other departments, the Treasury has
no Sustainable Development unit or division. Primary responsibility
for analysing both departmental bids and Sustainable Development
Reports lies with the various expenditure divisions which shadow
each department. These teams will be swayed by similar priorities
to their host departments, and are therefore unlikely to champion
adequately environmental issues.
Conclusion
76. The scale of environmental challenges
facing the developed world is daunting.[113]
Fiscal policies can play an important role in altering over time
both values and behaviour. In our view, the Treasury have set
an excellent objective—over time, to reform the tax system
to increase incentives to reduce environmental damage—but
have yet to back this up with an adequate strategy. We hope that
they will take full account of our comments and recommendations,
and that the Government will display greater commitment in taking
this agenda forward.
Spending Review 2002: analysis of objectives
and targets
Department
|
Total number of objectives
|
Total number of Targets
|
Environmental objectives
|
Environmental targets
|
| DFES | 6 |
10 | 0
| 0 |
| DH | 2 |
12 | 0
| 0 |
| DfT | 1 |
7 | 1 (note 1)
| 1 (note 2) |
| ODPM | 3 |
7 | 1 (note 3)
| 1 (note 4) |
| HO | 6 |
10 | 0
| 0 |
| LCD | 3 |
7 | 0
| 0 |
| CPS | 1 |
3 | 0
| 0 |
| MoD | 3 |
7 | 0
| 0 |
| FCO | 6 |
12 | 0 (note 5)
| 1 (note 6) |
| DFID | 5 |
5 | 0 (note 7)
| 0 (note 7) |
| DTI | 5 |
12 | 0
| 0 |
| DEFRA | 6 |
10 | 2 (note 8)
| 6 (note 9) |
| DCMS | 3 |
4 | 0
| 0 |
| DWP | 5 |
10 | 0
| 0 |
| NIO | 6 |
4 | 0
| 0 |
| HMT | 10 |
10 | 0
| 0 |
| C&E | 2
| 4 | 0
| 0 |
| IR | 1 |
5 | 0
| 0 |
| CO | 5 |
6 | 0
| 0 |
|
| |
| |
| Sure Start, Childcare and Early Years | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 |
| Criminal Justice System | 3
| 5 | 0
| 0 |
| Action against illegal drugs | 4
| 4 | 0
| 0 |
| Local Government | 0
| 15 | 0
| 0 |
|
| |
| |
TOTAL |
86
|
170 |
4
|
9 |
TOTAL
(non-DEFRA)
|
80 |
160
|
2 |
3 (note 10)
|
Notes:
1. DfT has only 1 objective - "reliable,
safe and secure transport which respects the environment".
2. Target 6. This is a joint target with DEFRA to
improve air quality.
3. Objective III. The objective is to help raise
the quality of life but the supporting targets are primarily social.
4. Target 5. The target refers to protecting the
countryside and to the sustainability of existing towns and cities,
though the main emphasis is on achieving a better balance between
housing availability and the demand for housing.
5. Objective III. The objective is "increased
prosperity and a better quality of life in the UK and worldwide,
through effective economic and political governance."
6. Target 7. This refers to making globalisation
work for sustainable development and also to promoting environmental
governance, but is rather wider in scope as it encompasses political
and economic objectives.
7. The objectives and targets of DFID are focused
on poverty reduction and health improvements. While these are
important components of progress towards sustainable development,
they are not per se environmental.
8. Objectives I and V. These are overtly environmental.
Not included here are objectives III and IV (which include the
word 'sustainable' but primarily emphasise other objectives such
as competitive markets0; and objective VI (which is primarily
health related, though it has a strong environmental component).
9. Targets 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Targets 2, 3, 6,
8 are overtly environmental. Target 7 can be included because
of the direct impact on energy demand. Target 5 refers to EU support
for environmental conservation and rural development, though it
also emphasises a customer focused and competitive farming system.
Not included here are target 1 (which relates to promoting sustainable
development as a whole), target 4 (productivity related), target
9 (animal health and public welfare) and target 10 (VFM).
10. Of these 3 targets, 1 is a shared target with
DEFRA (note 2 above), while the extent to which the remaining
two can be classed as environmental is arguable (see notes 4 and
6).
(Source: Environmental Audit Committee).
105 Second Special Report of Session 2001-02, Environmental
Audit Committee, HC 1000, pages 8-9. Back
106
See paragraph 3 and footnote 8 above. Back
107
Ev 3 paragraph 18. Back
108
Ev 10-14. Back
109
Ev 10-11. Back
110
The Energy Review, Cabinet Office, February 2002, paragraph
7.25. Back
111
The term "Greening Government" was coined by the Environmental
Audit Committee to refer to the process of incorporating environmental
objectives in both the policy and operations of all departments.
The Committee has itself published a series of reports in this
area. As a direct response to the Committee's recommendations,
the Government's Green Ministers Committee has itself, since 1999,
published an annual report. The latest report in this series
(November 2002), Sustainable Development in Government: First
Annual Report, has been renamed to reflect both the changed
status of the Green Ministers Committee and a wider focus on sustainable
development. Back
112
See paragraph 72 above. Compare also Ev 3-4, paragraphs 17-20
and the following case studies. Back
113
See, for example, the recent speech by Michael Meacher at Newcastle
University on 10 February 2003, entitled: Earth, Wind, Fire,
Water, God - A statement of concern. A full text of the speech
can be found at:
http://www.gci.org.uk/speeches/Meacher.pdf Back
| 
