1 Government response
Introduction
This Memorandum is the Government's response to the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's Report on the
Environment Agency (hereafter the 'Agency'). It reflects the views
of the sponsor Department (the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs - Defra), and of other Government Departments
with an interest in the Agency's work. The Welsh Assembly Government,
which sponsors the Agency's activities in Wales, has also been
consulted, though the terms of the response reflect the position
and views of the UK Government. The Environment Agency is submitting
a separate Memorandum.
The Government welcomes the Committee's report. The
Committee has identified a number of key areas where the Agency
is performing well, including in its partnership work with Government
and other stakeholders. Where improvements can be made the Committee
has offered helpful recommendations, which will inform Government's
thinking as it takes forward its environmental priorities. Some
of the recommendations are already being progressed, for example
on enforcement, the use of Programme and Project Management (PPM),
and the Agency's role in the planning system.
The Government has carefully considered the Committee's
report and its response is set out in detail below. This is structured
in line with the Committee's 25 recommendations.
The Agency's role as a regulator and 'Champion
of the Environment'
Recommendation 1
The Agency's involvement in environmental protection
and conservation has increased considerably over the past ten
years. We note the concerns of some stakeholders that the Agency
is experiencing difficulties managing its wide range of responsibilities
and, in particular, that the Agency is struggling to combine its
regulatory role with that of 'Champion of the Environment'. In
this context, we were disappointed that Defra, in its written
evidence to the Committee, did not include any robust appraisal
of whether the Agency had achieved the objectives it was designed
to achieve. Neither did the Minister set out the Government's
ideas as to whether the role and responsibilities of the Agency
should change to take into account the Government's commitment
to the sustainability agenda. Given the range of cross-cutting
environmental issues faced by Government, we strongly support
the Agency's role as a 'Champion of the Environment'. However,
it is important that there should be clarity between all the Agency's
different functions, particularly between its regulatory and environmental
champion roles. (Paragraph 17)
The role and responsibilities of the Agency regarding
the Government's sustainability agenda are clearly set out in
Statutory Guidance: 'The Environment Agency's Objectives and Contribution
to Sustainable Development'[1],
which followed wide consultation.
The Agency has two roles in contributing to the achievement
of sustainable development. These are:
- to protect or enhance the environment
in a way which takes account (subject to and in accordance with
the 1995 Environment Act and any other enactment) of economic
and social considerations; and
- to be an independent advisor on environmental
matters affecting policy-making, both within Government and more
widely.
These roles are an integral part of the Agency's
normal business.
The guidance was updated in December 2002 and was
intended to cover at least 5 years. Government will take into
account the findings of the EFRA report on the Agency when it
next revises the guidance.
The statutory guidance provides a broad framework
for the Agency's roles and responsibilities. Within this framework
the Government has considered the Agency's objectives for the
next 5 years as part of its approval of the Agency's new Strategy,
'Creating a Better Place', and will continue to keep under review
year-on-year as part of the approval of the Agency's Corporate
Plan.
A performance management system is in place to ensure
that there is robust appraisal of the Agency's work. In year,
Government monitors Agency performance against Corporate Plan
targets, using the Agency's balanced scorecard. This forms the
basis for biannual performance reviews between Defra Ministers
and the Agency Chairman and Chief Executive. At the end of the
year delivery against Corporate Plan targets are recorded in the
Agency's Annual Report.[2]
Where the Agency's objectives risk not being delivered, Government
and the Agency agree to put mechanisms in place to ensure progress.
In relation to 2004/05, Government made clear in
its evidence that that the Agency had broadly met its objectives.
Government is currently considering the outturn information for
2005/06.
Recommendation 2
We recommend that Defra examine whether the Agency
is adequately equipped for the cross-cutting environmental challenges
facing it today, not least its important role as environmental
champion and how it balances this with its regulatory role. In
particular, the Agency's capability to address the challenges
that climate change poses for its areas of responsibility should
be fully explored. As part of this examination, Defra should also
hold a series of stakeholder workshops with the Agency's main
contacts and customers to critically appraise the Agency's ability
effectively to deliver its current regulatory functions. (Paragraph
18)
Government agrees with the Committee's support for
the Agency's role as 'champion' of the environment. Government
sees no contradiction with the Agency's regulatory role, although
it agrees that in terms of resources and prioritisation the two
need to be appropriately balanced. As part of the Government-wide
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR07), Government expects the
Agency to provide the evidence required to demonstrate that existing
resources are effectively used, and to confirm that the ratio
of benefit and cost are proportionate and consistent with strategic
aims. This will inform any necessary reprioritisation and will
help to ensure the Agency is adequately equipped for the challenges
it faces.
In line with Cabinet Office guidance, Government
is committed to reviews of its delivery bodies at appropriate
intervals. The Hampton Review (2004/05) provided Government with
an opportunity to hear the views of the regulated community about
the functions and structure of Government regulators, including
the Agency. The Hampton Review[3]
recommended the consolidation of regulators into seven thematic
bodies, including an 'expanded Environment Agency'.
The Government is also committed to effective engagement
with the regulated community. Defra Ministers have regular contact
with major industry trade groups who are regulated by the Agency
(e.g. the water industry, the Confederation of British Industry),
as do Defra senior officials. In addition the Agency reports the
results of its customer satisfaction surveys in its balanced scorecard
and in the regular performance reviews (as discussed in the response
to recommendation 1). The Agency's record against Customer Charter
standards is published in its Annual Report.
In relation to the challenge of climate change, 'Limiting
and adapting to climate change' is one of the Agency's nine key
themes and is incorporated, along with detailed commitments, into
its new Corporate Strategy and Corporate Plan. Government will
continue to monitor the Agency's performance against plan regularly.
The Agency has a role in mitigating climate change
by regulating the emissions of CO2 from the sites it
is responsible for and for implementing the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS). For 2004/05 the Agency met its objectives for its
climate change mitigation work. Government will be considering
the lessons learnt from the first year of ETS and will review
roles, responsibilities and resources required for implementation
of the EU ETS in the longer term.
The Agency also reports to Government on the adaptation
of its policies and processes in order to cope with the impacts
of climate change. The Agency has a dedicated unit which operates
internally to embed adaptation strategies into the work of their
teams. Government provides guidance on specific climate change
impacts. For example, on flood risk management the Government
will further develop its response to the potential impact of climate
change through the Making space for water[4]
programme. In particular, Defra is working on revised policy
guidance on appraisal of flood risk problems for those implementing
measures to manage flood risk, primarily the Agency. This updated
guidance will take account of latest research and developments
of good practice to ensure that adaptability to climate change
through robust and resilient solutions and full consideration
of all economic, environmental and social impacts continues to
be an integral part of all flood and coastal erosion risk management
decisions. Government is aiming to publish the guidance in 2007.
Recommendation 3
We note the views of business witnesses that the
Agency should focus more on providing advisory services for companies
trying to comply with legislation. Small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in particular often require greater attention, especially
in areas where there is new environmental legislation. We were
concerned, therefore, to hear that some SMEs are discouraged from
approaching the Agency for advice because they fear prosecution.
The establishment of the NetRegs web-guidance tool is one effective
means by which SMEs can obtain advice, as it can be accessed anonymously
and for free. We recommend that the Agency continue to develop
its NetRegs web tool and to increase awareness amongst SMEs about
its existence. The Agency should also remember that not all small
businesses will turn automatically to the internet for information,
and therefore consider other forms of dissemination as well. This
would also improve its image amongst SMEs. We recommend that Government
provide additional ring-fenced funding for the development of
NetRegs and other advisory services aimed at SMEs. (Paragraph
24)
Government is supportive of the Agency's work on
NetRegs, and has worked closely with the Agency and stakeholders
in establishing it. Ring-fenced funding from the Business Resource
Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme has been secured for 2006/07.
BREW funding for 2007/08 is yet to be determined. Whether NetRegs
is funded by BREW for 2007/08 will depend on whether any proposal
from the Agency adequately meets the criteria to be set for successful
proposals. Government will consider the Committee's recommendation
as it determines the criteria and evaluates proposals submitted
for BREW funding for 2007/08.
The Agency's Performance as regulator
Recommendation 4
Proper implementation of environmental legislation
is the antidote to prosecution. Therefore, we further recommend
that the Agency undertake survey work with a representative range
of SMEs to ensure that the right balance is achieved between the
Agency's roles as an advisor and as a prosecutor. (Paragraph 25)
Government welcomes the Committee's recommendation
for the Agency to continue its work to engage with the business
community, including SME's in particular to seek views as to the
right balance between advice and prosecution. This is consistent
with the Hampton Review recommendation that all regulators should
judge the effectiveness of their advice by monitoring business
awareness and understanding of regulations.[5]
The Government has accepted the Hampton Review recommendations
in full. The Agency's new Corporate Strategy recognises the need
for more partnership working with the business community and Government
welcomes this approach.
Recommendation 5
We strongly support the Agency's commitment to
a risk-based approach to regulation. Not only does such an approach
target those operators with the worst environmental records, it
also reduces the regulatory burden on compliant operators and,
by providing financial incentives to companies to improve their
environmental performance, improves standards across the board.
However, we recognise the force of the criticisms from some operators
that the full benefits of this approach are still yet to be realised.
We recommend the Agency continue to hone its risk-based approach
to regulation. In particular, it should emphasise the financial
benefits businesses can gain by improving their environmental
performance. (Paragraph 31)
Government welcomes the Committee's support of the
Agency's risk-based work. This reflects the Government's Better
Regulation priorities. Government is keen for the Agency to continue
to develop its risk-based approach to regulation to ensure regulatory
effort is proportionate to the level of risk. It is important
that the Agency strikes the right balance between rewarding good
performance, reducing administrative burdens and taking enforcement
action for those who fail to meet the standards or act illegally.
Inconsistencies in approach
Recommendation 6
We welcome the measures taken by the Agency over
the past six years to improve consistency in its regulatory and
enforcement functions. Real progress has been made with initiatives
such as the establishment of Strategic Permitting Groups in respect
of issuing waste permits. However, we remain concerned that inconsistencies
still occur because of poor communication between the policy centre
and the inspectors on the ground. Variations in policy and practice
between the different regions of the Agency should be limited
to those areas where they are a result of a genuine need for local
differences in approach, rather than a lack of policy clarity
or a failure to communicate national policy and standard working
practices to local staff. The Agency must continue to improve
its communication processes to ensure a consistent approach across
the country to regulation and advice. It should also publish a
work plan to indicate what steps it plans to take to further address
the problem. (Paragraph 38)
Government agrees with the conclusions of the Committee
with regards to any inconsistencies in the Agency's approach and
looks to the Agency to continue to make improvements in this regard,
whilst taking into account the need to be sensitive to variations
in local conditions.
Specialist staff
Recommendation 7
We are extremely concerned that the Agency is
experiencing difficulties recruiting specialist staff, such as
flood risk engineers, hydrologists and geomorphologists. By its
nature, much of the Agency's work requires a high level of specialist
knowledge. It is therefore essential that the Agency employs staff
with the necessary skills to undertake its work. We understand
that, to some extent, these difficulties are indicative of a more
general industry-wide problem relating to a decline in the number
of engineers and opportunities to study specific technical environmental
courses. We welcome the Agency's attempt to improve this situation
by working with the Institute of Civil Engineers and with universities,
and encourage the Agency to continue this collaboration in order
to encourage more young people to take engineering and technical
environmental courses, and to seek employment in the Agency. As
part of this work, the Agency should consider a system of bursary
payments to encourage young people to study in the disciplines
which it needs but where graduates are in short supply. The Agency
should also be discussing with the Department for Education and
Skills further measures to increase the number of graduates in
these areas. (Paragraph 44)
Recommendation 8
It is clear from our evidence that the credibility
of the Agency depends largely on the performance of its specialist
staff in the front-line, such as its inspectors and flood risk
engineers. The importance of such specialist positions should
therefore be reflected in the pay structure of the Agency. If
the Agency is not able to offer more pay, it should ensure its
own generalists acquire appropriate technical skills as part of
their training. We therefore recommend the Agency expand the opportunities
available for Agency trainees to take a foundation degree in the
first stage of engineering. (Paragraph 45)
Recommendation 9
Our evidence showed that witnesses regarded lack
of specialist staff as one of the Agency's most significant drawbacks.
The Agency should therefore issue a work plan with specific deadlines
to set out how it aims to solve its recruitment problems, and
publish details about its future graduate requirements. (Paragraph
46)
The Government agrees that the Agency should ensure
that it has access to an appropriately skilled workforce now and
in the future. Problems recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers
of specialist staff potentially affects all the flood and coastal
erosion risk management operating authorities - local authorities
and internal drainage boards - as well as the Agency. The Institution
of Civil Engineers' report[6]
in 2004, produced in response to a request from the Government,
concluded that there were considerable doubts over public sector
capacity, especially in relation to the Agency's ability to perform
the role of intelligent client in managing inputs from the private
sector. The Government continues to view this as a risk to successful
delivery which is monitored under the delivery plan for Defra's
Spending Review target relating to flood risk.
The Agency's charges
Recommendation 10
The provision of clear and comprehensive information
to businesses and companies about their regulatory charges is
crucial. In evidence, we heard contradictory opinions about the
current degree of transparency provided by the Agency in this
area. The Agency believes it provides adequate information about
its charges and how they are reached, through its website, leaflets
and the establishment of a Charges Review Group including Government,
trade associations and partners and representatives of SMEs. We
support such initiatives and encourage the Agency to take particular
note of the comments made by representatives of charge-payers
on the Charges Review Group so that it can truly demonstrate that
they are, in the Agency's words, "fully involved in the process".
(Paragraph 50)
Government agrees with the Committee that clear and
comprehensive information to business and companies about their
regulatory charges is crucial and it encourages the Agency to
continue to ensure that charge payers are fully aware of the availability
of information regarding charges and that representatives of charge
payers are fully involved in the processes of development and
review.
Recommendation 11
Our evidence showed, however, that a large number
of charge-payers are still dissatisfied with the information they
receive from the Agency, particularly in relation to where the
money received from charges is being spent. The problem here could
be a lack of communication with stakeholders about where they
can obtain information about charges. We recommend that Defra
examine how the Agency calculates its charges to satisfy itself
that this process is conducted in the most transparent way possible,
so that all stakeholders understand why they are charged as they
are. (Paragraph 51)
Government agrees that charges need to be transparent,
and has already asked the Agency to establish a programme of work
to ensure that effective communication on charges is developed.
The Agency should set out work that needs to be undertaken, the
costs, how they are calculated and how performance is measurement.
Recommendation 12
Business witnesses are concerned that revenue
raised from charges on legitimate operators is being used for
the policing of illegal operators. We believe that the risk of
this occurring should be minimised. Business charges must reflect
the costs of regulatory effort. The Agency should make clear how
much of the money derived from charges it is currently using for
enforcement and produce a plan to show how it intends to end this
practice. Enforcement of illegal and poor-performing operators
should be funded by Grant-in-Aid or from environmental fines.
If the Agency is struggling to fund its enforcement duties, Government
should provide additional resources ring-fenced for this purpose.
(Paragraph 54)
Charges from business only fund enforcement action
against charge-paying businesses; for example against licensed
businesses, which fail to meet the conditions of their permit.
This reflects the key principle of 'polluter pays' and the aim
of full cost recovery. The Agency calculates these charges on
the basis of a risk-scoring methodology, which reflects operator
performance, and therefore ensures that the businesses most likely
to incur enforcement action (e.g. poor performers) are charged
the most (to cover additional services such as inspections).
Any prosecution costs and costs incurred in enforcement
of illegal activities e.g. fly-tipping, and activities which should
have been permitted but were not, are funded by Grant-in-Aid.
The exception to this rule is the enforcement of Producer Responsibility
(Packaging Waste) Regulations where an element of the charge was
specifically approved by packaging waste businesses for enforcement
of 'free-riders'.[7]
Where prosecution of illegal activity or permitted
businesses is successful any costs awarded by the court against
the defendant will off-set Grant-in-Aid used in the prosecution
process.
Government is currently undertaking a review of environmental
enforcement, to develop options for improving its effectiveness.
Once the mechanisms for more effective and proportionate environmental
enforcement are established Government will be in a better position
to address funding requirements, including those of the Agency.
Prosecution of environmental offences
Recommendation 13
We believe a strong case exists for placing more
of the burden of enforcement costs onto fines, rather than charges.
Fines for environmental offences are still relatively small and
often do not reflect the severity of the offence. We also believe
that consistency in sentencing of environmental crimes should
be improved, and therefore support the Agency's proposal that
a team of magistrates be trained specifically to deal with environmental
cases. Consideration should be also given to the Agency having
the ability to propose payment of a fixed penalty by the offender
as an alternative to court action. We welcome the fact that discussions
are taking place within Government about the prosecution of environmental
cases. The Environment Agency and business representatives should
be closely involved in such discussions. Defra should, without
delay, publish a Green Paper detailing its proposals on the roles
to be played by other branches of Government in devising ways
to fundamentally improve the system by which courts administer
environmental prosecutions. (Paragraph 60)
The Government agrees that environmental enforcement
must be effective and proportionate. The enforcement issues raised
by the Select Committee are being considered in two reviews currently
underway. Defra is leading an interdepartmental review of the
effectiveness of environmental enforcement. The Better Regulation
Executive is reviewing the use of penalties by a range of bodies
including, but not limited to, environmental regulators. The Agency,
business and other stakeholders are participating in these separate
but complementary initiatives.
The Reviews will conclude by the autumn. The Government
will then decide how best to proceed on the basis of the evidence
presented about the weaknesses in the present enforcement system
and options for improvement. This will include finding ways to
ensure criminal sentencing, including fines, adequately supports
environmental protection. Government will also be in a position
to consider how this might affect Agency funding. However, as
stated in response to recommendation 12, charging within
regulatory regimes reflects the key principle of 'polluter pays'
and the aim of full cost recovery.
Recommendation 14
At present, money received from environmental
fines goes directly into the Consolidated Fund, and is recycled
to the Agency through Grant-in-Aid. If the amount of fines increases
significantly, the Agency should receive the full value of any
additional revenue either through retaining fine income or through
the present arrangement. Our preference, however, is for the Agency
to be able to retain income directly from fines. We recommend
that the Treasury examine the case for allowing the Agency to
keep the fines which result from successful prosecutions and report
to Parliament about its conclusions on this matter. (Paragraph
61)
The rules governing the proposal that the Agency
should be able to keep the fines that result from successful prosecutions
are covered under Paragraph 239 of the Consolidated Budgeting
Guidance for 2006-07.[8]
Paragraph 239 identifies that fines and penalties, in the nature
of a punishment, are compulsory unrequited payments to general
Government. However in exceptional cases, the Chief Secretary
to the Treasury may agree that fines and penalties be netted off
budgets. Whether the Agency meets these latest criteria will
be reviewed in light of the conclusions of Defra's interdepartmental
review of the effectiveness of enforcement.
The Agency's relationship with Government
Recommendation 15
Business representatives are concerned that the
Agency appears to be increasingly involved in the development
of policy. The Agency acknowledges that, due to incoherence and
inconsistencies in legislation, it occasionally fills a "policy
void" in order to apply regulations at an operational level.
This is partly caused by poorly defined and broadly written European
Union legislation. We agree with the Agency that a common EU regulatory
code for the environment—covering such issues as definitions,
permitting, consultation periods, and monitoring arrangements—would
facilitate the effective implementation and transposition of EU
environmental legislation by the Agency, comparative agencies
in other Member States and other EU governments. We therefore
task the Government with publishing proposals to address these
problems and committing itself to raising its conclusions in the
Council of Ministers within the next six months. (Paragraph 70)
Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation
17 that it is essential for the Agency to be involved on a regular
basis at every stage of policy development to ensure that policies
can be implemented and delivered in the most effective and least
burden-some way.
Common approaches to the implementation and transposition
of environmental regulation by EU agencies have been tried in
specific areas such as environmental inspections.[9]
However, common approaches to implementation and transposition
must balance the desire for consistency with the principle of
subsidiarity. There is no guarantee that the UK's preferences
for a code would be those favoured by other Member States or that
the benefits of a compromise would out weigh the costs. Currently
issues such as consultation and permitting are left to Member
States to decide what works best within national systems.
Recommendation 16
We agree with the Agency that developing legislation
at the national level within separate regulatory 'silos' can create
problems for the effective interpretation and enforcement of policy.
It can also complicate matters for businesses and individuals
affected by that legislation. We welcome the moves to develop
a common regulatory framework for the Pollution Prevention and
Control and waste management licensing regimes. We recommend that
Defra and the Agency seek to extend this common framework to other
regimes and EU directives, ensuring that business interests are
kept fully informed of developments. (Paragraph 72)
Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation
and anticipates that, once successfully implemented, the integrated
permitting and compliance system established through the Environmental
Permitting Programme will be extended to other permitting regimes
in England and Wales.
Recommendation 17
We strongly believe that it is essential for the
Agency to be involved on a regular basis in the early stage of
policy discussions with Defra. If it is not, effective assessment
of the feasibility and costs of proposed regulations is hindered.
We note Defra's reluctance in the past always to involve the Agency
in such discussions, and we hope that recent initiatives—such
as the programme and project management (PPM) approach and the
Concordant on EU and International Relations—are indicative
of a more collaborative relationship between Defra and the Agency
at the initial stages of policy discussion. In particular, we
believe PPM has considerable value in promoting systematic engagement
with the Agency. We recommend Defra expand the use of the PPM
approach throughout its work. (Paragraph 77)
Government agrees that the Agency needs to be involved
on a regular basis in policy development discussions. This is
reflected in Defra's 5 key Partnership Principles, one of which
is 'deliverers inform policy development and decision making'.
Defra has worked closely with the Agency in developing policy,
for example in the preparation for the start of the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme and in development of the Whole Farm Approach.
The Government is pleased by the Committee's endorsement
that the PPM approach is working. Defra is seeking to strengthen
and formalize partnership working by considering extending the
mandatory use of PPM (including engagement of delivery bodies
and other stakeholders) from transposition of EU Directives (for
which use of PPM is established) to negotiations (for which a
pilot for PPM use is currently underway).
The Agency's role in the planning system
Recommendation 18
We are concerned that the Agency's advice on development
in areas of flood risk has sometimes been ignored. In some instances,
the Agency has not even been consulted. Along with the majority
of our witnesses, we strongly support the proposal in the current
consultation on the revision of PPG25 to grant the Agency statutory
consultee status for planning applications involving development
in flood risk areas. We are aware, however, that this new status
will not necessarily ensure the Agency's advice will be accepted:
only that its advice is considered. We recommend that, where the
Government allows development to go ahead against Agency advice,
the Government should publicly explain the reasons for not accepting
the Agency's advice. We believe this would significantly improve
transparency in this area. (Paragraph 82)
The Government aims to prevent inappropriate development
in areas at risk of flooding, but recognises that it is not realistic,
or indeed desirable, to prevent all development in such areas.
Planning applications are determined by local planning
authorities taking a balanced view based on all relevant material
considerations. The Committee is correct that the Agency is not
always consulted on planning applications within flood risk areas
and that a small percentage of planning applications are approved
against advice from the Agency on flood risk grounds.
As the Committee notes, as one of the projects under
Making space for water, the Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG) is currently considering responses
to its recent consultation[10]
on revised planning policy guidance, that is on a draft Planning
Policy Statement (PPS) 25 to replace Planning Policy Guidance
Note (PPG) 25, Development and Flood Risk, which was published
in 2001. Among other things, the consultation proposed:
- making the Agency a statutory
consultee for all planning applications for non-householder developments[11]
in flood risk areas and for major developments in other areas
(in recognition of such effects as the impact of increased run
off on surface water levels), and
- introduction of a standing planning Direction
on flooding to require planning authorities to refer applications
for major development that they are minded to approve against
sustained objections from the Agency to the Government Office
to decide whether to call-in the application for decision by the
Secretary of State; such decision would be made public through
a decision letter, which would include reasons for the decision.
The DCLG are considering the responses to public
consultation with a view to publishing revised guidance, and related
changes to the planning system, in Autumn 2006.
Recommendation 19
We are concerned that the Agency lacks adequate
resources to respond appropriately to many planning applications.
This situation will only worsen if the demands on the Agency increase
considerably, as a result of it being granted statutory consultee
status in the revised PPG25. At present, the Agency receives no
income for the provision of its advice in relation to planning,
despite estimated costs of £8 million per year in this area.
We recommend that the Government re-examine the way the Agency
is funded for its work in providing information for development
and planning applications, and assess whether some of its work
in this area should be funded by the developer concerned. (Paragraph
85)
The Agency's performance in responding to requests
for guidance on development proposals is monitored as part of
Defra's flood and coastal erosion risk management High Level Target
5.[12] The Agency has
reported occasions when it did not provide timely advice. The
introduction of clearer planning guidance in the DCLG's new policy
guidance to planning authorities, along with the issue by the
Agency of standing guidance to assist planning authorities with
smaller planning applications, as part of its more strategic risk-based
approach to regulation, should help to reduce these delays.
Funding of the Agency for this activity will be considered
further in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR07). Developers
do bear the costs of carrying out flood risk assessments in support
of planning applications.
Recommendation 20
Even if, as expected, the Agency is granted statutory
consultee status for planning applications involving development
in flood risk areas, we believe action will still be necessary
to reduce the number of planning applications made in such areas
in the first place. To help achieve this, the Agency should further
improve its provision of information to developers regarding the
environmental and financial consequences of development in flood
risk areas. In doing so, the Agency should spell out to developers
and other stakeholders the extent to which flood risk is likely
to increase in the longer term. (Paragraph 87)
Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation
that the Agency should improve information provision and spell
out likely increases in flood risk. Government supports the Agency's
increasingly risk-based approach to planning, directing its efforts
towards strategic planning documents and concentrating its advice
on those developments most likely to pose environmental risks
or to provide significant environmental benefits.
Flood defence and management
Recommendation 21
We welcome the Government's recent funding increases
for the Agency in relation to its flood defence work. However,
flooding risks can only increase in the future, due to the effects
of climate change. The Minister has acknowledged that spending
in this area will consequently also have to increase. We expect
him to listen closely to the Agency's advice in this area before
decisions are made in advance of the next Spending Review. We
agree with the Agency that Government should aim to increase the
Agency's funding in this area to £1 billion per year in the
long term. (Paragraph 93)
Recommendation 22
With such a large budget comes increased responsibility
to ensure the money is wisely spent. As part of its zero based
review of flood risk management in the next Spending Review, Defra
should examine how effectively the Agency is spending its flood
management funding. (Paragraph 94)
The Government's Foresight Future Flooding report[13]
in 2004 recognised the potential for flood risk to increase as
a result of climate change and sea level rise and also the increased
value of assets at risk. However, this forecast covered a long
time period. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about
the impact of climate change and the resources which will be needed
to manage this and over what time period.
The Committee has noted the marked increase in Government
funding for flood risk management in recent years. Government
is working with the Agency to better define the investment that
will be needed in future years to manage flood risk effectively
as part of Making space for water and preparatory work
for the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007 which
will set Departmental spending limits for 2008-09 to 2010-11.
This will take account of work being done to ensure Government
gets best value from its investment. The Zero Based Review is
currently being discussed and will identify ways in which the
pressures on the flood risk management budget might be managed.
It is important to note that effective flood risk
management will be achieved through a portfolio of measures not
all of which require significant public funding.
Recommendation 23
The provision of information and advice to households
in areas of flood risk is a crucial element of the Agency's work.
The Agency has achieved much in this area with relatively limited
resources, through initiatives such as the flood map available
on its website and its 24-hour telephone helpline. If the Agency
is to maintain and improve its work in raising awareness about
flood risk amongst the general public, Government should review
with the Agency the funding available for this work and jointly
publish proposals showing how this part of the Agency's work will
be further developed. The Agency should also consider other innovative
ways to reach out to the general public in these areas of work,
bearing in mind that not everybody uses the internet as their
main source of information. (Paragraph 99)
The Agency is leading a project to develop stakeholder
and community engagement as part of Making space for water.
This will look at ways of increasing participation by the public
in the overall decision making process and developing a better
understanding of how people perceive and understand risk. The
findings will be published in a report in 2007 that will be publicly
available.
Allied to this, another Making space for water
project, also being led by the Agency, is looking at continuing
development of the flood warning service which currently focuses
on flooding from rivers and the coast. The Agency will continue
to develop the most effective mechanisms for delivery and ways
to increase coverage, reliability and accuracy. Defra will work
with the Agency and other relevant bodies to explore the feasibility
of developing a warning service for urban drainage, sewers and
groundwater flooding.
The Government's agri-environmental budget
Recommendation 24
We welcome the progress made by officials in the
Agency and the Natural England Partnership in establishing a close
and constructive working relationship. Due to the overlapping
nature of some of the Agency and Natural England's responsibilities,
it is essential that these good relations continue once Natural
England is established. We are concerned, however, that—even
before the new body has been created—tensions already exist
relating to the potential use of the agri-environment budget.
This budget will be controlled by Natural England but, in effect,
used to deliver both organisation's objectives. We therefore agree
with the Agency that, in order to avoid potential disputes, Defra
should provide Natural England with clear guidance on using the
agri-environmental funding to achieve both organisations' objectives.
It is also essential that any budget constraints that arise do
not hinder the Agency's performance in relation to its core shared
outcomes, such as the Water Framework Directive and SSSI responsibilities.
(Paragraph 105)
Agri-environment schemes are critical levers to help
secure the protection of England's natural resources. However
incentives are only one of the levers available. Regulation is
needed to eliminate worst practice, whilst incentives encourage
action to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Natural
England and the Agency must work together to combine these levers
to achieve the best outcomes for the environment.
Government has decided that, as announced in the
Rural Strategy 2004, Natural England will administer the agri-environment
schemes, working with the Forestry Commission to deliver woodland
schemes. These schemes are designed to cover a range of environmental
outcomes. The Agency therefore has an important role to play in
advising Defra on national priorities and working with Natural
England to achieve flood risk and water quality benefits.
Agri-environment schemes form part of the Rural Development
Programme for England. Consultation on the priorities for the
next programming period (2007-13) has just concluded and Government
is reviewing the responses before finalising the National Strategy
Plan and Programme. In its consultation, Government made clear
that national policy must have the flexibility to respond to regional
and local priorities. However, the National Strategy Plan will
require this regional approach to respond to major national challenges
such as implementing the Water Framework Directive and improving
SSSIs. Defra will work closely with all its delivery bodies to
ensure that the programme is developed in a way which will ensure
the desired outcomes are achieved.
Biodiversity
Recommendation 25
The current arrangement between the Agency and
English Nature—soon to be Natural England—in relation
to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan is complicated. Each organisation
has lead responsibility for certain Habitat Action Plans, depending
on its type. However, the two organisations are often required
to work together on specific Habitat Action Plans, as can occur
with the restoration of SSSIs. Evidence suggests that all the
parties involved believe that the current arrangement is the most
logical one and, more importantly, that it is delivering results.
We believe that rules and regulations defining responsibilities
and boundaries are important, but ultimately it is the people
involved in these collaborations that are vital. Provided the
Agency and Natural England continue to work closely—with
the lead organisation for each Biodiversity Action Plan Group
providing the necessary lead and vision—and deliver results
in this area, we are satisfied that the present arrangements should
continue. (Paragraph 110)
Government welcomes the Committee's recognition of
the current close and effective working relationship between the
Agency and English Nature with regard to the UK Biodiversity Action
Plan process and considers there to be an effective working relationship
between the Agency and English Nature on all biodiversity issues.
Government supports the committee's recommendation that current
arrangements in relation to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan should
continue and agrees it is vital that the Agency and English Nature,
and in future Natural England, work closely together to ensure
results continue to be delivered. Results indicate that stakeholders
recognise the value of their participation in the delivery of
UK Biodiversity Action Plans co-ordinated by various leads.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
June 2006
1 See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ea/sustain/index.htm Back
2
See http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/275292/234823/
Back
3
Reducing Administrative Burdens: effective inspections and enforcement',
Philip Hampton, March 2005, HM Treasury Back
4
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm Back
5
Recommendation 4 from 'Reducing Administrative Burdens: effective
inspections and enforcement', Philip Hampton, March 2005, HM Treasury
Back
6
Engineering Skills for Flood Risk Management, http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/action_report_pdf_995192.pdf Back
7
The charges for Packaging Waste are set in the regulations and
following consultation with packaging waste businesses allow for
the recovery of costs for the enforcement of 'free-riders'. Bringing
'free-riders' into the regime has clear benefits for regulated
packaging waste businesses as EU targets are then shared between
more businesses which lowers the individual burden. Back
8
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/915/8B/consolidated_budgeting_guidance-dec05-chap2-9.pdf Back
9
'Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council
providing for minimum inspection criteria for environmental inspection
in the Member States' Back
10 http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162059 Back
11
'Householder' development comprises for example sheds, garages,
games rooms etc. within the curtilage of the existing dwelling
in addition to physical extensions to the existing dwelling itself.
This definition excludes any proposed development that would
create a separate dwelling within the curtilage of the existing
dwelling e.g. subdivision of houses into flats. Back
12
The Agency report to Defra and DCLG on High Level Target 5 Back
13
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/previous_projects/flood_and_coastal_defence/index.html Back
| 
