House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Defra response to the Efra committee's preliminary questions. (Committee original questions are in italics.)

Q1. Have the department's five strategic priorities now entirely replaced the six "objectives" set out in the 2004 Departmental Annual Report?

Has the Treasury given approval for this change? Can the department explain how the strategic priorities support the agreed objectives?

1. The six objectives set out in the 2004 Departmental Annual Report provided a way of brigading Defra's PSA targets and reflected the variety of objectives set under the 2002 and 2004 Spending Reviews and the developing identity of the new Department. However, the objectives were more a description of activity than a framework for setting priorities or for performance management of the Department; nor did the objectives adequately reflect those considerable areas of Defra responsibility not covered by PSA targets. When Defra was created, the Prime Minister said that his vision for the Department was that it should "transform the separate elements that make up the new Department into a single, distinct and integrated whole, with a markedly new culture". The development of a set of five clear strategic priorities, underpinned by strategic outcomes, was part of the of developing Defra's submission for the 2004 Spending Review. This followed the invitation of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to prepare five year strategies, setting out the 4-5 key priorities and the key specific outcomes to be achieved by 2008.

2. The strategic priorities were based on analysis both of the earlier six objectives and of the outcomes which Defra must achieve if it is to make progress in achieving its aim. These "strategic outcomes" describe the intended results of Defra's activity and are grouped under the five strategic priorities; the earlier "objectives" described the activity rather than the outcomes sought. Defra also recognises that one of its functions is to maintain readiness to deal with a variety of emergencies. he full set of strategic priorities and outcomes, together with information about the overarching aim of sustainable development and Defra's responsibility for emergency preparedness, is described in the Five Year Strategy, Delivering the Essentials of Life.

3. Since the 2004 Spending Review the strategic priorities and supporting strategic outcomes have been embedded across the Department as a tool for managing performance; they have replaced the six objectives. The Strategic priorities now form part of a common language between Defra and HMT. The 2004 Spending Review submission, which was particularly praised by HM Treasury, was focused around the strategic priorities. The current Departmental Annual Report, which makes clear reference to the strategic priorities, was cleared by the Treasury prior to publication.

Will the objectives or the strategic priorities be reported against in the 2004-05 resource accounts?

4. The 2004-05 resource accounts will report against objectives. As part of the continued development of the Department's financial reporting, Defra is working to harmonise reporting against strategic priorities in the Departmental Report, Resource Accounts and the Estimate for the Spending Review period.

Q2. Can the department explain how the reported areas set out in Tables 2 to 5 underpin the six objectives and five strategic priorities?


	Six objectives	Five strategic priorities (under overarching aim of sustainable development)

Environment
Environment Quality and Waste	5—"promote sustainable management and prudent use of natural resources domestically and internationally"	Sustainable consumption and production
Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk	1—"protect and improve the rural, urban, marine and global environment, and lead integration of these with other policies across government and internationally"	Climate change and energy; emergency preparedness1
Environment Strategy	1, 5	Sustainable consumption and production
Water (including Drinking Water Inspectorate)	1, 5	Protecting the countryside and Natural Resource Protection
Animal Health and Welfare
Animal Welfare	6—"protect the public's interest in relation to environmental impacts and health, and ensure	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (and other Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy)	high standards of animal health and welfare"	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare; emergency preparedness
Disease Prevention		Emergency preparedness
Endemic Disease and Zoonoses (including Bovine Tuberculosis) National Scrapie Plan		Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare; emergency preparedness
Sustainable Farming, Food and Fisheries
Food Industry, and Crops	3—"promote sustainable, competitive and safe food supply chain which meets consumers' requirements"	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare
Sustainable Agriculture and Livestock Products	4—"promote sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming through domestic and international actions"
Fisheries	1, 3, 5	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare; Protecting the countryside and natural resource protection2
Natural Resources and Rural Affairs
Land Management and Rural Development	1, 2—"enhance opportunity and tackle social exclusion in rural areas"	Protecting the countryside and natural resource protection; Sustainable rural communities
Wildlife, Countryside and Land Use	1, 2, 4, 5	Protecting the countryside and natural resource protection; Sustainable rural communities
Rural Policy (including Rural Development Service)	1, 2	Sustainable rural communities; Protecting the countryside and natural resource protection
Departmental Operations
Over 30 Months Scheme	6	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare; emergency preparedness
Direct Payments under Common Agricultural Policy	4	Sustainable Farming and Food, including Animal Health and Welfare

1 Defra has five strategic priorities under its overarching aim of sustainable development and alongside its role of emergency preparedness.

2 Several of Defra's workstreams support more than one strategic priority.

Could the department provide a breakdown of expenditure by objective and by strategic priority, showing how these figures relate to final allocations in the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2004-05 (HC 325)?

5. The Department is continuing to develop its financial reporting systems to harmonise such information across the various published documents that contain financial information. The Department expects to be able to provide this analysis of the 2004-05 Spring Supplementary Estimate by the end of October 2005.

Q3. A large number of strategies are referred to in the DAR. Could the department provide a comprehensive list of all live strategies and explain how it ensures that the competing priorities of the different strategies do not conflict?

6. Many policy areas used the Five Year Strategy as an opportunity to re-iterate and build-on existing strategies. In this sense the Strategy draws many of the existing strategies together and creates a framework for them.

7. The Five Year Strategy and associated strategic priorities and outcomes also sets the framework for the development of future strategies and planning documents. Since the 2004 Spending Review, Defra has been working to align its business more clearly to the strategic priorities and the strategic outcomes detailed in the Five Year Strategy.

8. This approach will ensure that any teams developing new strategies or other plans for developing new areas of policy will have to frame their objectives, targets and milestones in terms of the impact they will have on the delivery of the strategic priorities and outcomes. Annex A shows how the strategies mentioned in the Departmental Annual Report and elsewhere support Defra's strategic priorities. In some cases one strategy supports more than one strategic priority.

EFFICIENCY AND REGULATION ISSUES

9. Page 19 of the DAR implies that "at least" £610 million of efficiency gains in 2007-08 will be required for Defra to achieve its priorities. What contingency plans do the department have if these gains do not materialise or are delayed?

10. Current forecasts indicate that Defra is on track to deliver efficiency gains of a little under £10 million more than required (against the target of £610 million) by the end of financial year 2007-08. These efficiency gains will be delivered through the existing efficiency portfolio, as set out in October 2004 in Defra's Efficiency Technical Note.[1] Therefore, the Department has effectively identified some £9 million of contingency from the programmes and projects that make up the efficiency portfolio.

11. Defra is actively managing the portfolio of projects comprising its programme and monitoring delivery carefully. The Efficiency Programme Board meets monthly to review forecast and actual efficiency gains as well as regular reports to the Management Board. The Department is also in the process of identifying contingency: procurement is perhaps the best example and the Departments recent track record of value for money returns shows potential to secure further cash-releasing savings.

12. The Delivering Efficient and Effective Procurement Solutions (DEEPS) Programme was launched in late 2004 as the means by which Defra will deliver its challenging procurement efficiency targets. As part of the DEEPS Efficiency Programme, the central procurement group reported cash savings of £13 million (out of £20 million for Defra) for the financial year 2004-05. Defra's value for money return for 2005-06 is currently £6 million over the annual target and further opportunities are being realised. As an example, the re-tendering of the Warm Front Programme has been concluded and will contribute efficiency savings of £26 million during the 2004 Spending Review period. Category Management is a key facet of the procurement strategy and is being implemented across the Defra family. Under the microscope for 2005-06 are Professional Services (£160 million per annum) and Travel (£15 million per annum), which represent significant spending patterns for the Department, and should realise substantial value for money savings by the end of this financial year.

13. The Department is also the Change Agent for delivering efficiencies in waste procurement across the public sector. It has concluded a joint waste procurement study with the Greater London Authority (GLA). The result of the study is a set of recommendations, which can yield substantial efficiency savings and contribute largely to Defra's Gershon efficiency target for waste.

14. The Department has also developed, and recently improved, its public sector waste procurement toolkit. This is designed to help focus local authorities to achieve the efficiency savings required under Gershon and also provides a standardised reporting mechanism for reporting such efficiency savings.

What impact will any shortfall in efficiency gains have on the department's activities?

15. Defra has reduced the impact of any shortfall by stripping out cash-releasing savings from baselines. The Department runs the risk that if these areas do not deliver the efficiencies, they will require additional funding to continue with delivery of their work. Given that the Department has a tight budget over this spending period, non-delivery of efficiencies will add a further pressure.

16. Because some of the areas of the efficiency programme are key to Defra's strategic objectives and PSA targets, the Department has the risk either to delivery of services or to other activities if Departmental resources are diverted to plug the gap that these programmes leave if they do not deliver on efficiencies. While this applies particularly to cash-releasing efficiencies, it is also relevant to "productivity" efficiencies where the target is that the same resource delivers more. Failure to do this is also likely to see bids for additional resource.

17. The Department needs to consider any such bids in the overall financial context, the context of its strategic objectives, and also the context of the justification for "reimbursing" any particular part of the efficiency portfolio.

18. The identification of contingency will enable the Department to minimise any such threat.

The £610 million planned efficiency gains include £300 million to be achieved by local government. What power does Defra have to enforce action to secure these gains from local government?

19. Defra—in common with all other departments involved with local government—has no power to enforce action. Cabinet Office, HM Treasury, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and Office of Government Commerce have made it clear that responsibility for achieving the efficiency gains rests with the local authorities, and that departments are expected to adopt a low-key, non-interventionist, approach when dealing with the local authorities.

20. In addition, the local authorities have been left to achieve their target efficiency gains in any areas that they may choose. Although the first Annual Efficiency Statement[2] returns give grounds for optimism, there is no mechanism for guaranteeing that efficiency gains in any given functional area (eg Environmental Services) will sum to the overall targets for that area.

21. As Change Agent for Environmental Services, Defra has nevertheless developed a number of powerful efficiency levers:[3]

(a) a strong set of enablers from its Waste Implementation Programme, including a dynamic Local Authority Support Unit, direct consultancy support, the development with the Public Private Partnerships Programme (4Ps) of a local authority procurement pack and tool, the development of standard waste procurement contracts, and market shaping through the adoption of Environmental Services as the second Kelly market;

(b) the development of an Environmental Services Efficiency Toolkit, to enable local authorities to measure and report their efficiencies in a defensible and consistent manner; and

(c) close work with the Regional Centres of Excellence for tighter and more wide-ranging engagement with the local authorities.

22. While the adoption and use of these efficiency levers does not provide power for Defra to enforce action, they should provide the local authorities with every opportunity to meet their efficiency targets, and thereby Defra's Departmental target for local government.

Q5. Why have 23 out of the 77 entries relating to Defra in the Regulatory Reform Action Plan slipped?

23. The Regulatory Reform Action Plan (RRAP) is being superseded by Departmental Simplification Plans. The 23 outstanding entries from the RRAP will form part of Defra's Simplification plan which is due to be sent to the Better Regulation Executive in January 2006. These entries have slipped due to external timetables outside of the Department's control, such as reaching agreement with other Member States, or when further research has been required to support the proposed reform.

Q6. Could the department provide details of those seven entries which were dropped due to: (a) the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme; and (b) other factors?

The seven entries dropped and the reasons for this are:

— RRAP 1.27—Simplification of Agricultural Livestock Schemes (Beef Special Premium Scheme, Extensification Payments Scheme, Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and Slaughter Premium Scheme). Following the announcement of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) the proposed simplification of the existing Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) schemes (which ended in 2004) was stopped. The Rural Payments Agency's Change Programme shifted its focus to concentrate efforts on the delivery of the SPS;

— RRAP 1.25—Agriculture Census and Survey, collection of data—reduced time spent on completing agricultural census and survey forms. The proposal was dropped as other policy initiatives have overtaken it. These include the Whole Farm Approach Appraisal where data entered as part of the appraisal may be shared with the survey, the sharing of data from the Single Payment Scheme and the sharing of data from Livestock and Land repositories (Animal Movements Licensing System (AMLS) and Spacial Information Repository (SPIRE));

— RRAP 1.33—"Single Window" approach to notification of imports and plants and plant produce. Following consultation a decision was made to use the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate's (HMI) Procedure for Electronic Application for Certificates from the HMI (PEACH) system for plant health controls, avoiding a separate notification route;

— RRAP 1.177—Review of Waste Permitting. Defra had hoped to deliver the permitting requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive by means of a wider review and modernisation of the Waste Management Licensing System. However, due to the need to transpose the Directive in a timely fashion, Defra decided to do so under the current system. However, the work done for the review is now informing the Environmental Permitting Programme which is a wider review of environmental permitting, including waste recovery and disposal operations;

— RRAP 1.184—Controls on the supply of veterinary medicines available only on prescription (POMs). This was subsumed into the review of veterinary medicines legislation (RRAP 1.158);

— RRAP 1.185—Repeal of Section 118 of the Medicines Act on the disclosure of information and Regulation 14 of the Marketing Authorisation Regulations 1994. This is now being achieved by overarching legislation in relation to the Freedom of Information Act which is being taken forward by the Department of Constitutional Affairs; and

— RRAP 2.23—Remove burden of Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) seeking Ministerial approval of its staff pension schemes. The proposal was dropped as originally dependent of outcome of quinquennial review which did not take place. It was replaced by an independent economic assessment which resulted in only minor changes to be made. Insufficient benefit to industry to justify the use of an Regulatory Reform Order or Parliamentary time. Also in March 2005 UK and Devolved Administration Agriculture Ministers announced an independent review of levy bodies, including HGCA. The review is due to report by end of October 2005.

FINANCIAL QUESTIONS

Q7. The 2006 Spending Review has been postponed until 2007. What impact will the postponement of the 2006 Spending Review have on Defra's spending plans as outlined in the 2005 DAR?

24. There should be no impact. HM Treasury has said that it will honour the 2007-08 spending plans that are outlined in the 2005 DAR. These would otherwise have been under review as the first year of the 2006 Spending Review.

Q8. Can the department explain the discrepancies between:

the 2004 DAR estimate of total public spending costs for 2003-04 (£4,353 million) and the actual total public spending costs that year (£4,996 million)?

25. The £428 million of the total difference of £643 million related to increased expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Principal or Pillar 1 farm passed programmes by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The 2004 DAR used pre-CAP reform expectations for 2003-04 whereas the 2005 DAR reports the post-CAP reform actual figures.

26. As a consequence, the earlier DAR does not include the Dairy Premium Scheme for which £104 million was accrued that year in preparation for the scheme becoming part of the national ceiling for the CAP Single Payment Scheme. Further significant increases in payments over the expectations in the 2004 DAR were also seen in the Arable Area Payments Scheme, the Slaughter Premium Scheme and the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme. Correspondingly, the receipts from the EU also increased, leaving the net position little changed from a UK PLC perspective.

27. In addition to the increased CAP payments, the UK disallowance levied by the EU on RPA following their validation of expenditure chargeable by member states under the CAP rules was £57 million for 2003-04 (of which £38 million relates to the Devolved Administrations for which Defra has to account). This was 0.6% of the total CAP payments compared to the EU target of no greater than 2.5%. This item was not included in the 2004 DAR.

28. RPA also increased investment in IT systems during the year, compared to the 2004 DAR, by £33 million as it began to modernise its information systems to cope with the introduction of the Single Payment scheme and it's own internal Change Programme.

29. A further £297 million of the difference was caused by the expected receipt from the winding up of the Water Industry closed pension fund included in the 2004 DAR being delayed. Defra decided after the 2004 DAR was published that the remaining investment funds would continue to be used to make pension payments until the level of remaining investments reached around £100 million, after which contributions would then be required from Defra to support the pensions. This position will be reached by the end of 2005-06. The difference is partially balanced by the funding of those pension payments (around £95 million per year) included in the 2004 DAR in turn not being required because the funds investments were used instead.

The 2004 DAR estimate of total net administration costs for 2003-04 (£349 million) and the actual total net administration costs that year (£317 million)?

30. The actual total net administration costs were £287 million for 2003-04. The difference of £62 million from the 2004 DAR estimate was largely caused by the following items that were not included in the Estimate: a £36 million reduction in capital charges resulting from the creation in 2003-04 of the provision for the Water Industry closed pension scheme;[4] a re-alignment of the external independent indices used to bring fixed assets up to their estimated current cost in accordance with Defra's published accounting policies[5] to a new base year which reduced depreciation charged to administration in the year by £9 million; and a £9 million profit on disposal of fixed assets.

The 2004 DAR estimate of total public spending costs for 2004-05 (£4,952 million) and the equivalent 2005 DAR estimate (£5,662 million)?

31. The difference of £710 million is made up of the following items:

— £629 million of additional CAP Pillar 1 expected expenditure largely caused by the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme following CAP reform plus £64 million additional England Rural Development Programme (CAP Pillar 2) costs. Expected receipts from the EU rose by a similar amount, leaving only a small net change which is not shown by the expenditure only tables;

— £131 million of additional expenditure expected on the Over Thirty Months cattle culling scheme because the scheme remained in place throughout the year rather than coming to a close as originally expected. The decision to remove the rule preventing such animals from entering the food chain rests with the Food Standards Agency (part of the Department of Health (DoH)), not Defra. The 2004 Spending Review settlement provides for DoH contributing financially in 2005-06 should the relaxation of the Rule be delayed further, resulting in additional costs for Defra. The retention of the Scheme resulted in a huge increase in animals put through the scheme compared to original expectations in the 2004 DAR. This increased was also exacerbated by end of the Slaughter Premium Scheme in December 2004, which encouraged farmers to bring animals forward whilst additional compensations from this scheme was still available;

— additional expected costs on the RPA Change Programme of £13 million;

— additional expected administration costs of £11 million developing the Farm Industry and Crops area and extra expected costs supporting further work on Sustainable Livestock Farming of £12 million;

— £95 million reduction following the surrender of the funds to cover payments to the Water Industry closed pension fund, as explained further in the first bullet under question 8 above; and

— £42 million reduction in expected expenditure in Natural Resources and Rural Affairs reflecting the restructuring of budgets to cover pressures such as the Over 30 Month Scheme, whilst still funding ministerial priorities in the rural area.

the 2004 DAR estimate of total public spending costs for 2005-06 (£2,084 million) and the equivalent 2005 DAR estimate (£5,504 million)?

32. The 2004 DAR estimate of total public spending costs for 2005-06 was £5,084 million rather than £2,084 million in the question, giving a variance of £420 million against the 2005 DAR estimate for 2005-06. This increase in expected costs was caused by:

— OTMS cattle culling scheme continuing into that year as previously discussed (£64 million);

— an increased level of CAP Pillar 1 (£475 million) and ERDP Pillar 2 (£53 million) expected payments following the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme;

— £18 million additional expenditure expected on the waste and recycling programme, in line with ministerial priorities;

— the £95 million reduction in expected payments to the Water Industry closed pension scheme, following the decision taken after the 2004 DAR to continue to use the gradual liquidation of the fund's investments instead - see further details in the response to question 8 first bullet point above;

— £47 million reduction in expected expenditure in Natural Resources and Rural Affairs reflecting the restructuring of budgets to cover pressures such as the Over 30 Month Scheme, whilst still funding ministerial priorities in the rural area; and

— £45 million reduction in expected expenditure on the Developing Defra programme as conditions attached by HM Treasury to the funding meant that it was not guaranteed.

Q9. Can the department now provide the actual outturn figures in 2004-05 of:

total public spending costs?

33. As soon as the 2004-05 resource accounts for Defra and the associated non-departmental public bodies are all published, the total public spending cost can be derived from the audited figures. Defra expects to forward this analysis later in the Autumn. In the meantime the unaudited total public spending cost is £5,516 million.

total net administration costs?

10. These figures will be provided as soon as the 2004-05 Resource Accounts are published in the Autumn.

RESOURCE BUDGET FOR THE RURAL PAYMENTS AGENCY

Q10. Could the department clarify the reason for the very large increase in the Rural Payment Agency's planned resource spending in 2004-05? Is the increase due to CAP payments or administrative costs? Is the Single Payment Scheme a factor?

34. The increase is largely caused by the expected accounting impact of the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) following the launch of CAP reform. The accrual point for the new scheme is earlier in the fiscal year than the accruals points of the predecessor schemes. This meant that 2004-05 included an accrual for part of the 2005 SPS expected payments in addition to the expected expenditure on the predecessor schemes for the whole of their 2004 scheme year. This creates a once off peak in the CAP payments when they are shown in fiscal years—the scheme years set by the EU are calendar years.

35. Increased payments were also expected in the Bovine area resulting from the announcement of the end of the Slaughter Premium Scheme with effect from December 2004. There was also a peak in the Rural Payment Agency's administrative costs in 2004-05 as a result of their change programme.

RESOURCE ACCOUNTS

Q11. What steps have been taken to ensure that, in the future, any significant planned spending changes are identified earlier, so that they can be reflected in the estimate?

36. £816 million of the £1,174 million underspend against the Request for Resources in the 2004 Spring Supplementary Estimate was caused by a change in the expected accounting treatment of the provision for the Water Industry closed pension scheme between the time of the 2004 Spring Supplementary Estimate and the preparation of the 2003-04 resource accounts. In the Estimate it was expected that resource cover would be required for the full extent of the provision that Defra would need to raise to cover the future payments under the scheme. By the time of the preparation of the accounts, with further guidance from the National Audit Office, it was recognised that the provision should be treated as if it had been in place since Defra was created in 2001—and so £816 million was charged against the General Fund in the accounts. This meant that that the only net resource requirement was for the movements in the provision in the years since then (£116 million) less the reduction in the capital charges caused by the large provision balance (£36 million). This is covered in the notes below Schedule 1 of the 2003-04 Resource Accounts.

37. The remaining £322 million variance was then the result of planned corporate underspends to support pressures in the following year on the Over Thirty Months Scheme, for example. To ensure that such underspends are identified earlier and so be reflected in a Supplementary Estimate, the Department has successfully implemented a new Oracle-based integrated financial control system and invested heavily in staff training and education since the end of 2003-04.

38. This work has allowed Defra to forecast the out-turn for the whole of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) expenditure 2004-05 at the internal Third Quarter review before the Spring Supplementary Estimate at £162 million against a budget of £3,481 million. This forecast compares favourably with the actual out-turn figure, subject to audit, of £146 million.

39. In addition, the Department identified £180 million of Non-budget grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency that was not required by the time of the Spring Supplementary Estimate. After allowing for some costs within the Annually Managed Expenditure part of the Request for Resources that had emerged since the Winter Supplementary Estimate relating to the CAP Intervention Board (£57 million) and the Water Industry closed pension scheme (£30 million), Defra would have been able to reduce its Request for Resources in the Spring Supplementary Estimate by up to £271 million.

40. It would not have been prudent to surrender all of this figure at the Spring Supplementary stage in case of unforeseen events, especially in respect of the Annually Managed Expenditure (mostly the CAP payments) or within the net cash requirement, for fear of incurring an excess vote with the attendant automatic qualification of the annual resource accounts.

41. However, it was not possible under parliamentary rules, as advised by HM Treasury, for Defra to seek parliamentary approval for negative Supplementary Estimate to reduce its Request for Resources to reflect any amount of these identified underspends. Instead, the Department kept HM Treasury and the National Audit Office informed from the Third Quarter onwards such that there was no surprises at the end of the year.

Q12. Can the department explain how these differences between estimates and net totals arose, linking them as appropriate to items identified in the text in schedule 1?

42. There is no direct link between the items identified in the text of Schedule 1 (which picks out only the most significant items causing the difference between the Estimate and the Out-turn) and these two particular variances against objectives within the Departmental Expenditure Limit part of the Request for Resources, which are the result of many much smaller variances at an individual programme or scheme level. Defra is continuing to refine its methods for allocating Estimates and Out-Turns to specific objectives with a view to providing more detailed explanations of such variance in the future.

Can the department explain what steps it has taken to ensure that such significant under and over spends do not occur in the future?

43. The Department has continued to develop its financial management approach so that significant underspends and overspends are identified and dealt with earlier in the year. For example, the new integrated financial reporting system which applies consistent reporting of budget variances across the whole core departments was successfully implemented at the beginning of 2004-05. This has supported the introduction of a new monthly finance report for the Management Board which highlights the financial position on the Department's Top 25 Programmes, which constitute over 80% of the total DEL budget. Significant investment has also been made to increase the resource accounting knowledge and skills across the Department's business areas to support the use of the new systems.

Q13. What are the reasons for the planned decrease in administration costs between 2004-05 and 2005-06? Is it related to the implementation of the Defra Change Programme? If so, will there be related increases in the administration costs of Defra's Executive Agencies?

44. The 2004-05 planned administration costs include £40 million to fund the Department's change programme (Developing Defra), aimed at making the Department more efficient. This funding was included because it had already been provided by HM Treasury via a Supplementary Estimate by the time the 2005 DAR was prepared. This sort of annual funding has to be negotiated each year with HM Treasury such that the future years are not guaranteed. Therefore funding for Developing Defra could not be included in the plans for 2005-06 at the time the 2005 DAR was prepared. Since then, as a result of Defra's improved financial management, the Department only required £25 million funding for Developing Defra in 2005-06, and this has been agreed with HM Treasury and will be included in the Winter Supplementary Estimate.

45. The remainder of the decrease in administration costs across the two years reflects reduced expenditure planned on accommodation and other property costs as Defra's estate rationalisation programme moved to completion.

PSA TARGETS

Q14. Can the department clarify whether any reported figures for their PSA targets were within known margins of error?

PSA 1—Sustainable Development

46. Reporting for PSA 1 is based on the indicators supporting the UK Government sustainable development strategy, which are mainly from published National Statistics sources from across Government. The reported figures are therefore as accurate as the original sources allow. In determining the colour of the traffic light assessments used to summarise change in the indicators, a uniform percentage change threshold has been applied, which has then been consulted upon with the departments who are responsible for the data. This approach meets the National Audit Office recommendation to devise a documented and consistent way of assessing change and is a good way of adding clarity to the decision process regarding significance of changes in indicator values.

PSA 2—Climate Change

47. The reported figures used to assess progress with the PSA2 target are both within margins of error estimated using the methodology developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are reported annually as part of the UK's Greenhouse Gas Inventory which can be accessed on the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory website[6] (as mentioned in the 2005 Departmental Report, page 305 footnote 160). The most recent inventory shows that in 2003 CO2 emissions were between 4.2% and 7.8% below the 1990 level with 95% confidence (central estimate 5.6% below the 1990 level). Greenhouse gas emissions as a whole weighted together using global warming potentials were estimated to be between 11% and 16% below the 1990 level at 95% confidence, with a central estimate of 13% below. Compliance with the PSA targets is on the basis of the central estimate made using internationally agreed methodologies and is subject to international review.

PSA 3(a)—Farmland Birds

48. The PSA target will have been achieved when the long-term trend in the index and the associated upper and lower confidence limits (using a 95% confidence interval) are all positive.

PSA 3(b)—Sites of Special Scientific Interest

49. Reports on progress towards PSA3b reflect data on all SSSI land, and are not extrapolated from sampled data. There is therefore no question of margins of error deriving from such a process. This is not to say that the data is perfect. In response to NAO recommendations, an explanation of the origins of the reported data was included at pp 307-8 of the Departmental Report. This pointed out that data is collected over a six year rolling programme, and that components of it will therefore be anything up to six years out of date, and sites might either improve or deteriorate in the interim. This situation is unavoidable. The condition assessment process is thorough, and needs to address 7% of England's area—to do so more frequently would divert scarce expert resources away from actions designed to bring about improvements in condition.

PSA 3(c)—Access to Countryside

50. This does not apply to the PSA3(c) access target where Defra's key performance measure, as stated in the annual report, is the publication dates for the draft, provisional and conclusive maps and the regional commencement milestones.

PSA 4—Rural Productivity and Improved Access to Services

51. In the case of PSA 4 no figures were provided so the margin of error is not relevant. However, this will become relevant for future reports, as data becomes available, and Defra will take this comment into account in reporting on PSA4.

PSA 5—Sustainable Farming and Food

52. The reported figures for PSA 5 within the 2005 Departmental Report reflect genuine change rather than the impact of statistical variation and margins of error.

53. The Production linked support target is derived from the definitions articulated in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture which classified agricultural support into Amber, Blue and Green Boxes, with Amber the most and Green the least distorting. The indicator is the sum of Amber and Blue Box notified by the EU to the World Trade Organisation. The estimates include both market price support and production-linked direct payments. Estimates of market price support are calculated by multiplying the volume of production (subject to a limited amount of statistical variation) by the difference between the domestic support price and an historic world price. Estimates for production-linked direct payments are calculated by summing administrative information on expenditures on direct payment budget lines which are deemed to fall under the Amber and Blue Boxes and so are not subject to any statistical error. The estimates for this indicator (as shown in figure 21, Chapter 2 of 2005 Departmental Report—page 142) do accurately reflect genuine changes seen in production linked support as a result of reform of the CAP.

54. The measure of UK agricultures GVA is derived from the Economic Accounts for Agriculture. It is compared with the equivalent measure for the EU14 produced by Eurostat based on contributions from Member States. The Economic Accounts for Agriculture is compiled according to national accounts conventions, but the nature of these calculations means that is not possible to derive formal estimates of the margins of error. However, they are designed to provide an accurate measure of the economic performance of the agriculture sector and to measure annual changes for the sector. The trends seen for this indicator (as shown in figure 23 in Chapter 2 of Departmental Report) do therefore reflect genuine changes in the relative performance of UK agriculture.

55. The Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy (SFFS) range much more widely than enhancing economic performance. They are founded on the three pillars of sustainability and take an holistic approach encompassing environmental and social sustainability as well as economic development. Agreement has been reached with the Treasury to extend the PSA 5 target to reflect the wider range of SFFS headline indicators. There will be a greater level of statistical uncertainty for a number of these additional measures and plans are in hand to publish details of the methodologies underpinning each indicator when the SFFS indicators website is launched this Autumn.

PSA 6—Waste

56. Measurement of progress towards the PSA 6 target (household waste recycling and composting) is based on data from the Municipal Waste Management Survey (MWS). The Survey is a National Statistics publication produced by Defra. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. From 2004-05, the Municipal Waste Management Survey will be replaced by a new web-based system, WasteDataFlow, for collecting and reporting on data.

57. This MWS provides national and regional statistics on the collection and management of municipal waste by local authorities in England, based on information supplied by those authorities. Actual tonnage information underpinning the PSA 6 Recycling Target is collected from each local authority in England via the survey, as such no margins of statistical error occur as a result of sampling. The response rate to the survey is in the region of 96%. Estimates are made where information is not supplied. Some information is available even for those few authorities who do not respond and the impact on the overall recycling rate is likely to be negligible.

58. Waste management is a key service provided by local authorities and a number of Best Value Indicators have also been set for waste management services. These data provide further evidence on local authority recycling performance and are cross-checked with the PSA6 MWS based figures. The Audit Commission visits local authorities to determine if BVPI targets have been met.

59. The National Audit Office's (NAO) 2004 Memorandum on the Validation of Data Systems Underlying Defra's 2003-06 Public Service Agreement targets noted that the data system used for waste and recycling "is relevant to what Defra is aiming to achieve, is well-defined, and significant risks are generally appropriately managed". However, the NAO believe and Defra agrees, that it would be prudent for a further check to be implemented ensuring that the validation checks on survey forms provided by the contractor Entec are robust. Additionally, to aid transparency the percentage of forms returned by local authorities and an estimate of the variability of the data should be included. These recommendations were put in place for the 2003-04 MWS survey, and the NAO are currently reviewing the new WasteDataFlow collection system for 2004-05 data.

PSA 7—Fuel Poverty

60. Defra use the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) as the basis for fuel poverty statistics. Further work is conducted on this data to produce some of the variables needed for the fuel poverty calculations. Other energy price data is brought in from Department of Trade and Industry and Salkent to finalise the calculations. Because of the modelling of EHCS variables and use of other data sets, more standard survey methods to calculate margin of errors are not possible, however the Department has undertaken uncertainty analysis based on a Monte-Carlo simulation methodology to produce a broad confidence interval around the EHCS estimates for 2003. Results of this work will be available by the end of this year.

PSA 8—Air Quality

61. The Air Quality Strategy sets different dates for achieving targets for each air pollutant between 2003 and 2010. The targets are expressed in terms of the concentrations of individual pollutants in air to be achieved by a fixed date. Performance, in terms of progress towards the targets, is assessed annually by means of data from the national air quality monitoring networks.

62. The level of accuracy sought by the Department for the data is to meet mandatory monitoring and modelling requirements in European air quality directives which have been transposed into UK regulations. These provide uncertainties for measured individual data points of between <15% to <25%, depending on the pollutant, and less than 50% for modelled data. The most recent calculations for pollutants recorded at sites in the UK national monitoring network gave an accuracy range of 8% to 11%. Data uncertainties at monitoring sites will be recalculated following publication of guidance documents from the European Standards Institute.

63. Uncertainty in the modelling is much more difficult to quantify. The national model used to inform progress on PSA8 and European air quality directives estimates pollutant concentrations for every kilometre square in the UK. It is impossible to compare model results with actual measurements in every grid square. The national model is calibrated to actual measurements and model results are expected to be within plus or minus 50%.

PSA 9—Animal Health and Welfare

64. The reported figures for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) have no margins of error because of the way in which the BSE PSA target has been defined, ie it reflects the absolute incidence of the disease detected by both passive and active surveillance. The Department know these figures exactly.

PSA10—Reducing the Unit Cost of Administering CAP Payments

65. The basis for measuring the unit cost reduction of administering Common Agricultural Policy payments is the Agency's audited Resource Accounts which provide a true and fair view of its expenditure. The financial statements within the Agency's Resource Accounts have been prepared in compliance with the 2004-05 Resource Accounting Manual (RAM) and the Accounts Direction issued by HM Treasury.

66. The second element of the target is closely tied to the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS). Delays in delivery of the on-line/e-channel aspects of the SPS mean that the target of 95% e-capability by 31 March 2005 was not met. However the e-capability will be available in 2006.

PSA 1—SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Q15. How can Defra justify the claim that it is "on course" to meet its PSA 1 target given that fewer than 60% of the indicators show positive trends? How many indicators should show a positive trend for the target to have been met?

67. Defra's assessment of progress towards meeting its PSA1 target is based on both an assessment of trends in the sustainable development indicators and general progress measured at six-monthly intervals using a standard set of delivery criteria which have been agreed with HM Treasury. This target is aspirational and as such is highly challenging. However, the recent launch of the new UK Sustainable Development Framework and UK Sustainable Development Strategy has helped to define clearly the shared priorities for action that need to be developed over the coming years to create the best conditions for success.

68. A key commitment in the Strategy is the creation of a sustainable development "watchdog". From 2006 a strengthened Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) will act as advocate, adviser and "watchdog" for sustainable development. SDC will report on progress and provide assurance on implementation of the Framework and the commitments in the Strategy. The SDC will use a range of evidence to reach its conclusions. Its findings and recommendations will be made independently of Defra but will influence the assessment of progress towards achieving the PSA target.

69. The Strategy includes a specific commitment for Government bodies to produce Sustainable Development Action Plans. These plans will help to define more clearly the specific contributions departments, and their associated bodies, will make towards delivery of the Strategy. Action Plans will be subject to scrutiny by the SDC and will form a key component of the evidence they use to assess progress in priority areas under their "watchdog" role. All departments should have action plans in place by December 2005.

70. A senior level officials Sustainable Development Programme Board has also been created to oversee delivery of the Strategy and progress on the priority areas, promoting the principles and practices of sustainable development across government and where appropriate encouraging departmental action to reverse unsustainable trends in the headline indicators. The Programme Board draws its membership from the Departments with key involvement in delivering the Strategy. It is also charged with monitoring progress and identifying risks, considering actions appropriate to manage risk and facilitate cross-departmental delivery. To help achieve this role a detailed assessment of progress in each of the key work areas helping to deliver the Strategy is produced for each Board meeting.

71. The Strategy also introduces a revised set of 68 sustainable development indicators of which a subset of 20 "Framework" indicators have been adopted by the UK government and the Devolved Administrations. These 68 indicators reflect more closely the areas and activities that will need to show progress in the coming years. It is intended that the 2005-08 PSA 1 target will now use this set of indicators as a measure of its progress. However, there will remain a long and complex chain between the actions that Defra and other departments take and delivery of any demonstrable progress in the indicators. It will therefore be important to consider all the progress made rather than focus on the indicators alone. The revised indicator set was formally launched on 30 June 2005 and published as Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket.

Can Defra explain how it will ensure continuity of measurement given the change in the indicators for this target?

72. In selecting indicators for the new strategy, Defra was aware of the need to maintain broad continuity with the old set of Headline indicators. Indeed, 11 of the 15 Headline indicators continue in the new set either unchanged or with added information. For the remainder:

— two of the four series in H4: selected indicators of poverty and social exclusion, have been retained as indicators in their own right, and closely related information is provided for one of the remaining series;

— related but not identical information is available for H7: households living in non-decent housing;

— H11: Road traffic has not been continued in its old form, but closely related information about the impacts of road transport are given by three indicators in the new set (these include an indexed series for car-kilometres, which make up about 80% of the total road vehicle kilometres reported in H11); and

— the definition used for the river water quality indicator (old H12) has been tightened to reflect good rather than good or fair water quality.

73. It is also important to note that in most if not all cases, the data used for the old 1999 Headline indicators will continue to be published routinely in other statistical publications by the departments which collect them.

74. Not all of those indicators in the new set which match the old Headline indicators are in the high level set of 20 Framework indicators, but they are included within the overall set of 68 indicators supporting the Strategy. The indicators in the Framework set were selected so as to best reflect the priorities of the new strategy and of the Devolved Administrations. A comparison of the former Headline and revised indicator sets is available on the sustainable development website.[7]

Q16. Which of the 2004 Spending Review targets are related to sustainable development? Do any key departments not have targets focused on this issue?

75. The question raised identified that "the Departmental Annual Report states that a number of the targets set across Government in the 2004 Spending Review were related to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). However no specific details are given".

76. In March 2005 the Environmental Audit Committee published a report (including a briefing by the National Audit Office)[8] which included consideration of the extent to which departments have embedded WSSD commitments into their 2004 Spending Review targets. They concluded that Defra had explicitly included its main commitments in PSA 1. Other WSSD commitments had been incorporated either partially or in part but not explicitly by the other key departments (Department for International Development, Department of Trade and Industry, Defra, HM Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

77. The relevant 2004 Spending Review targets are:

Defra's

Foreign and Commonwealth Office's

Department for International Development's (DfID)

Department of Trade and Indusrty and DFID

78. More detail on the UK's international Priorities for Sustainable Development and the associated high level targets or aims can be found in the summary table published in the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy.[9]

PSA 2—IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Q17. What progress has been made on developing indicators to measure energy efficiency, relating to Public Service Agreement 2? Have baselines been set?

79. Defra has embarked on a comprehensive technical programme to develop energy efficiency improvement indicators12[10].

80. Energy indicators for UK households have now been developed to illustrate how consumption and carbon emissions depend on the demand for the various services that require energy, and the efficiency with which these services are delivered.

81. As an aid to tracking progress towards Climate Change Programme goals, the analysis underlying these indicators potentially provides links, both with policy measures—past, present and planned—and with projections of future energy demand and carbon emissions.

82. The top level indicators of energy consumption, carbon emissions, efficiency and service demand are built on a simplified framework comprising of:

— four energy services:

— space heating;

— hot water;

— lights and appliances; and

— cooking.

— the range of technologies that affect efficiency:

— housing construction standards;

— insulation;

— heating systems;

— glazing materials; and

— lighting and appliance specifications.

83. Work on developing indicators for the commercial and industrial sectors is ongoing.

PSA 3—PROTECTING THE COUNTRYSIDE

Q18. Have standards been produced to assess Sites of Special Scientific Assessment, as set out in the technical note for 2002 PSA targets? If so, could the department provide details?

84. Common Standards have now been agreed and signed off by the Joint Nature Conservation Council for all categories apart from Invertebrates which are expected to be agreed and signed off by the end of 2005. The table below shows the date of agreement of the standards:

PSA 4—RURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND IMPROVED ACCESS TO SERVICES

Q19. Defra states it is "not yet fully able to assess progress for this target" (p 123) and adds that it is "too soon to assess results on the ground" (p 300). When will assessment of Public Service Agreement 4 take place?

85. In relation to the productivity gap between the bottom quartile of rural areas and the English median, the Department published a headline indicator in 2003. However, data to support this—from the Labour Force Survey and Survey of Personal Incomes—are only available retrospectively nearly two years after the date they refer to. For this reason, no data were available to set a trajectory for this part of the target at the time of this report.

86. Since the Departmental report was published, Defra now has sufficient data to establish a baseline against which progress can be measured. Figures and graph are set out below. It will be noted that—to date—figures are only available up to 2002-03, with the SR2002 PSA target coming into effect from April 2003. The Department will only be able to make a realistic assessment of progress against the baseline once two years' data is available to make a comparison with the trajectory. This should be by the end of 2006.

PRODUCTIVITY PROXY INDICATOR FOR THE 42 INDICATOR DISTRICTS AND ENGLAND MEDIAN

Productivity Proxy Indicator for the 42 Indicator Districts and England Median


Year	Average productivity PSA 4 Districts	England median	Average productivity gap

1999-2000	£10,067	£12,344	-18.4%
2000-01	£10,823 (+7.5%)	£12,748 (+3.3%)	-15.1%
2001-02	£11,388 (+5.2%)	£13,874 (+8.8%)	-17.9%
2002-03	£11,460 (+0.6%)	£13,898 (+0.2%)	-17.5%

Q20. Would the department please clarify the reason for this change in the target deadline and provide the Committee with any interim assessments of progress towards the target they have made?

87. The target deadline for the productivity element of PSA4 was revised in line with the shared Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury regional growth PSA target, to which Defra's target relates. Defra's target is intended to ensure that lagging rural areas make their full contribution to achieving wider improvements in regional and national economic growth.

88. The Revised deadline also reflects the time-lag in the availability of data to measure progress (as noted above). Under the target, Defra is still committed to showing progress by 2006.

Q21. Given the Department for Transport is still developing its own indicators to measure access to services for local transport, how will Defra assess this aspect of its PSA 4 target?

89. Defra officials have agreed an accessibility indicator for Defra's PSA 4 indicator, which includes a combination of Department for Transport's (DfT) core accessibility indicators, locally appropriate accessibility indicators and targets developed as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. Defra will discuss measurement further with DfT officials in Spring 2006 once final LTPs for 2006-07 to 2010-11 are received, but in the meantime provisional LTPs will allow a preliminary assessment to be made of how many LTPs are likely to include relevant indicators.

90. Defra will follow a similar measure to DfT's access to services measure, combining six "core" accessibility indicators with locally appropriate accessibility indicators and targets developed as part of the LTP process. Together these will be used to build up a national picture of accessibility in rural areas, and monitor change.

91. The six "core" indicators are all based on total journey time (walking, cycling (where appropriate), public transport) to a set of key destinations (schools, further education colleges, GPs, Hospitals, jobs and supermarkets).

92. Further discussions with DfT are needed in Spring 2006 once final LTPs for 2006-07 to 2010-11 have been received from local authorities. Provisional LTPs (already available) will enable Defra officials to make a preliminary assessment of how many LTPs are likely to include accessibility indicators that are relevant to rural areas.

PSA 9—ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

Q22. Can the department clarify whether the change in the target relating to the spread of BSE relates to the form of surveillance (active or passive)? How was the new target arrived at?

93. The 2002 Spending Review target for BSE was based entirely on the expected number of clinical cases detected by passive surveillance (clinical cases reported to Defra). A major programme of active surveillance to detect cases before cattle exhibit clinical signs was introduced in 2001 and later expanded. The increased surveillance resulted in a significant increase in the number of cases being detected and it was agreed that future targets should include forecasts of such cases. The new target was based on the then ratio of passive to active surveillance cases ie the number of cases set out in the original target (30 by passive surveillance) was doubled to take account of the active testing. However, more recent surveillance statistics suggest that active surveillance accounts for around two-thirds of BSE cases.

REQUESTS TO DEPARTMENT

Q23. Three reviews have recently taken place with an impact on the administration and financial management of the department. None of the reviews are to date externally published. Could the department provide the Committee with any recommendations or conclusions resulting from:

the National Audit Office and Audit Commission's review of the department's efficiency technical note;

94. The National Audit Office (NAO), HM Treasury, Office of Government Commerce and Audit Commission have been closely involved from the outset in the development of Defra's Efficiency Technical Note (ETN) and provided comments on the draft. The NAO/Audit Commission comments are attached in Annex B though it should be noted that it was not part of their remit to endorse or approve the final version of the ETN. All these external organisations took part in a workshop in August as part of the exercise to revise Defra's ETN. They gave the Department good feedback on the first draft but also provided useful pointers for refining it further. The NAO is not planning to prepare a separate report on Defra's ETN. The culmination of this work will be the publication (on Defra's website) of the revised ETN at the end of October. The NAO will, however, be undertaking a cross-cutting study on progress of the overall Efficiency Programme which will involve some high-level work in Defra. The NAO has also recently been in discussion with the Department about the possibility of a VfM study of the Defra Efficiency Programme, for publication in 2007-08.

the National Audit Office and Treasury's review of the department's adequacy of financial management;

95. This review is intended to be the first stage in a continual improvement process rather than a "one off" exercise. It was carried out using the financial management framework which forms the basis for similar reviews across Whitehall. The review was conducted at a relatively high level; it was not an in-depth audit. The review, carried out from February to April 2005, was a collaborative exercise that commenced with Defra's self-assessment, itself based on the review framework. The main findings of the report can be found in Annex C.

the National Audit Office review of the data systems underlying the department's PSA targets.

96. The National Audit Office (NAO) undertook a pilot review of the data systems underlying Defra's PSA targets and a draft memorandum was sent to the Department in Spring 2004. Since then the Department has been working to follow up the recommendations. The review was not externally published but Annex D outlines the recommendations that were made.

97. Following the study, NAO's key conclusions were:

— there is good separation of duties and appropriate allocation of responsibilities for each target. Staff also appear to have good knowledge and understanding of the subject area relevant to their targets;

— much of the data is from well established sources with information going back several years;

— where external data is received controls could and should be strengthened but weaknesses found were not so severe that they undermine the entire data system; and

— limitations and uncertainties of the reported data are not disclosed and this reduces the transparency of the information provided on the progress against the targets in the Departmental reports including the Autumn Performance Report.

98. The NAO then went on to say that, following on from these key conclusions, its key recommendations are that Defra focus on the following areas:

— consideration of means of strengthening the data systems for targets 1, 3.1, 3.2, 6, 7 and 8 by identifying potential uncertainties/weaknesses in externally provided data and by assessing what controls may be implemented to mitigate these; and

— production of a clear policy regarding disclosure of data uncertainties/weaknesses for each target and subsequent appropriate disclosure within future Autumn Performance and Departmental Reports.

99. The NAO published a compendium report in March 2005[11], which included examples relating to Defra's targets and was based on the finding from the pilot study.

100. The NAO are currently undertaking the same exercise to assess the Department's response to the recommendations and the final report will be made publicly available in Autumn 2006.

1 www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/busplan/efficiencynote-0410.pdf Back

2 Available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at: www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/divisionhomepage/038244.hcsp Back

3 More information can be found at: http://lasupport.defra.gov.uk Back

4 Refer to Note 18.B in the 2003-04 Resource Accounts for further detail. Back

5 Refer to Note 1.4 in the 2003-04 Resource Accounts for further detail. Back

6 www.naei.org.uk Back

7 www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/performance/documents/Formerheadlineindicatorsinnewset.pdf Back

8 The World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002: A UK Progress Report is available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvaud/cmenvaud.htm Back

9 www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/delivery/international/index.htm Back

10 The paper, published on 21 July alongside the Sustainable Energy Policy Network second annual report, can be found here: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/environment/jwgee/jwgee.shtml Back

11 www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/04-05/0405476es.pdf Back