Select Committee on Environmental Audit Third Report

The World Summit on Sustainable Development

17. The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) took place in Johannesburg, South Africa over the course of ten days in August and September 2002. World leaders, parliamentarians, United Nations agencies, multinational financial institutions, businesses, local authorities and non-governmental organisations and activists came together in the largest, most important gathering on sustainable development since the landmark Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro ten years earlier. It is not surprising therefore that the Summit has been a major strand of our work this year. In March 2002, we reported on the UK preparations for the Summit.[6] We are currently engaged in exploring the effectiveness of the Government's plans for implementing Summit agreements and will be making a further Report to the House early in 2003. A small delegation from the Committee, comprising: Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent), Sue Doughty MP (Liberal Democrat, Guildford) and Simon Thomas MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion), attended the first part of the Summit to observe the UK's role in the proceedings first hand and to participate in associated parallel events. Their report on the proceedings at the Summit formed the substantive part of our second report of this session.[7]

18. We approached the UN to seek accreditation as a major group but were rejected as the UN judged that there was adequate opportunity for Parliamentarians to attend as part of national delegations. We were not keen that our delegates to the Summit should attend as part of the UK Government's delegation as this did not seem to us consistent with either effective scrutiny or representation of the Committee. Our delegates gained accreditation through the NGO, Globe International and its UK branch, to whom were are grateful. For the future we would welcome clarification on the part of the UN on the contribution that it thinks Parliamentarians, distinct from national delegations, could and should play in international fora.

Auditing progress towards targets

19. Our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament recognised the difficulty of fulfilling its audit remit, partly as a result of the dearth of auditable targets, but more significantly because of the absence of adequate audit resources with rights of access to departmental information.[8] The Committee proposed a solution to this problem through the creation of an environmental auditor general within the National Audit Office (NAO), working in a manner analogous to that in which the NAO currently supports the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In its response the Government agreed "in principle that the Committee should have additional support to assist it in its investigations" but drew attention to a number of issues that would need to be resolved beforehand.[9]

20. We welcomed the introduction of the Environmental Audit Bill by Mr David Chaytor MP. Mr Chaytor had been and is currently a member of the Committee but was not a member of the Committee at the time that the Bill was before Parliament. The Bill, drafted and endorsed by the Committee in the last Parliament, had as its main purpose the creation of an Environmental Auditor General with the NAO. The Bill came up against one of the most common barriers for private members' Bills — a shortage of Parliamentary time; but we welcome the opportunity it gave us to further the debate and to increase the pressure on the Government to respond to the Committee's proposal more positively.

21. While the creation of an Environmental Auditor General remains our goal, we recognised early in the new Parliament that such was the importance of effective environmental and sustainable development audit that alternative, interim means of developing our audit activities within our existing resources were required. This was one of the main issues addressed at our strategy seminar in January 2002 where we agreed an outline process to broaden our reach. We agreed to regularly examine the Government's performance against the Sustainable Development Indicators, the primary reporting mechanism for sustainable development performance. Thus in May, following the publication of the Government's annual sustainable development report, we examined the Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment, Rt Hon. Michael Meacher MP, and subsequently reported to the House.

22. The second, and more novel, aspect of our interim approach to audit is to commission various memoranda from Government departments on a range of topics related to progress towards Government targets but not necessarily related to any of our current inquiries. On the basis of the content of the memoranda, the Committee will then decide whether and, if so, what further action is required. This might include, for example, requesting further information, examining officials or Ministers or reporting to the House. Our constrained resources have of necessity meant that progress in this area has been slower than we might have wished; the first such requests were made in August 2002.

23. As well as auditing the Government's progress towards sustainable development through policy development and implementation, we have also been concerned to monitor the impact of Government departments in operational terms. Greening Government has been a constant theme in the Committee's work since it was first appointed by the House and it has made several Reports to the House on the issue. We have not reported on this issue specifically in 2002, although in a number of our Reports on broader issues we have commented on the performance of Government departments,[10] but we have continued to keep a careful watch on progress. That we have been able to do so effectively is in part the result of the extensive, searchable information on Departments'performance that has been made available by DEFRA's Sustainable Development Unit on the internet and on CD-ROM. We welcome this. The information largely duplicates the questionnaire surveys which we ourselves conducted in previous years. In order to reduce the administrative burden on departments we have therefore agreed to liaise with the Sustainable Development Unit when they draw up their questionnaire.

Specific policy issues

24. We also examined specific policy issues. Inquiries of this nature included renewable energy and timber procurement.[11]

Government replies

25. The Government is normally expected to provide a substantive response to each Report from a select committee within two months of its publication. Not one of the Reports we have published in 2002 has received a response within the recognised deadline.

Report	Published	Government Reply Received	Days to reply1	Days overdue
Departmental Responsibilities for Sustainable Development	31 January 2002	23 May 2002	112	51
Pre-Budget Report 2001: A new agenda?	12 February 2002	27 May 2002	104	43
UK Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development	26 March 2002	24 July 2002	120	59
Measuring the Quality of Life: The Sustainable Development Headline Indicators	11 July 2002	6 November 2002	118	57
A Sustainable Energy Policy: Renewables and the PIU Review	22 July 2002	Not yet received	-	101 (as at 31.12. 2002)
Buying Time for Forests: Timber Trade and Public Procurement	24 July 2002	Not yet received	-	99 (as at 31.12. 2002)
Pesticides: The Voluntary Initiative	26 November 2002	Not yet due
Johannesburg and Back: The World Summit on Sustainable Development — Committee Delegation Report on Proceedings	18 December	No Government response is required for this report

Note:

¹ For the purposes of these calculations we have assumed two months to equate to 61 days.

26. We recognise that in some instances there may be circumstances that make it difficult for the Government to respond within two months. On our Energy Report, for instance, the Government has told us not to expect a substantive response until after the Government has published its forthcoming White Paper on Energy. Yet Government's overall performance in responding to our Reports is not acceptable. On average replies have been 68 days late. This severely undermines the power of the Committee to push for the implementation of its recommendations in a timely manner or to judge its own performance. In some instances, responses to particular recommendations are received so late that they are no longer relevant. We urge the Government to examine means of ensuring that it delivers its responses to our Reports in a timely fashion and in line with its own targets.

---

6   Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, UK Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Session 2001-02, HC616. Back

7   Second report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Johannesburg and Back: The World Summit on Sustainable Development - Committee Delegation Report on Proceedings, Session 2002-03, HC169. Back

8   First Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001-01, Environmental Audit: The First Parliament, HC 67-I, para 70. Back

9   The Government's Response to the Environmental Audit Commission (sic) Report, Environmental Audit: The First Parliament, March 2001, Cm 5098, para 71. Back

10   For example, Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001-02, on A Sustainable Energy Strategy? Renewables and the PIU Report, HC 582 and Sixth Report from the Committee, Session 2001-02, on Buying Time for Forests: Timber Trade and Public Procurement, HC 792-I. Back

11   Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001-02, on A Sustainable Energy Strategy? Renewables and the PIU Report, HC 582 and Sixth Report from the Committee, Session 2001-02, on Buying Time for Forests: Timber Trade and Public Procurement, HC 792-I. Back

---

Prepared 20 January 2003