Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-225)
MR MARTIN
HARPER, MR
ROBERT CUNNINGHAM,
MR TOM
OLIVER AND
MR PAUL
HAMBLIN
18 JANUARY 2006
Q220 Mrs Moon: So you are saying
yes, they should be, but there is not enough money for them to
actually do the job effectively?
Mr Hamblin: Well, money and human
resources.
Q221 Lynne Jones: Talking about human
resources, you referred to the Environment Agency as having the
technical expertise. When we were talking to the industry representatives
yesterday they expressed concern that the Environment Agency had
lost experienced staff or that there was a high turnover of staff
and it was dependent upon fairly inexperienced graduates (it was
recruiting people who had just graduated), and also an inconsistency
of expertise and sometimes an inconsistency of advice which was
given as a result of that. I do not think you have mentioned that
in your evidence. Is that something which you would identify with
or not?
Mr Harper: I do not think we are
aware of the human resources figures which the Environment Agency
has and I do not think that necessarily rings true with our experience.
I will let Rob come in in a moment, but I think there may be a
broader issue about equipping people for the skills to effectively
embark upon an environmental career, which I think is perhaps
more of a subject for the Education and Skills Select Committee.
I think maybe Rob has some experience.
Mr Cunningham: As a hydrogeologist
who left the Environment Agency, I sat yesterday listening to
the evidence when they were saying, "We need more hydrogeologists,"
so I was quite interested in that. The real issue is that I do
think there has been evidence from the Institute of Civil Engineers
about flood risk management and the engineering base required
for that, and thinking of hydrogeology and the number of courses
doing hydrogeology I think there is only one now left in the country
where previously there were three or four. So the number of graduate
hydrogeologists has dropped significantly. I think it is an industry-wide
problem in terms of getting new blood in and also getting people
in who have the appropriate skills, because I would say that what
we want in terms of flood risk management engineers for the 21st
century is that although they will need the core engineering skills,
we are actually asking them to do a different job from the one
they were doing 50 years ago. So they are going to need a much
broader base, or at least an understanding of the much broader
issues which they are being asked to address when they are designing
schemes and fulfilling their statutory obligations. It is really
finding those people, and I think that is a much wider issue than
the Environment Agency; I think it is a skills-based issue.
Q222 Chairman: Could I just conclude
this section of questioning by just probing you a little bit about
the planning role because in the CPRE evidence at paragraph 7
you say: "While we welcome the stronger role for the Environment
Agency in advising on development and flood risk, it has a key
role to play in providing independent advice on the wider environmental
implications of proposals for major development." Then you
conclude by saying, "It is not clear that it has been the
case in relation to recent debates over housing supply."[19]
At a national/regional level the debate about the Thames Gateway
project, for example, rages on and it is clear that the Environment
Agency has expressed concern, but the observation I have is, how
much weight does that concern carry? Do you think that in asserting
its independence it should be in the position which a permanent
secretary finds him or herself in where a minister directs against
civil servants' advice a particular course of action and to cover
himself the permanent secretary requires a letter from a minister
saying, "I absolve you from responsibility; it is down to
me"? Added to that, do you think that the minister, for example
ODPM, Thames Gateway, in that kind of strategic environment, should
be forced to say in public why he disagrees with the Agency's
advice?
Mr Oliver: I think both of us
have something to say on this, but I would say that it is a very
refreshing suggestion for one particular reason: one of the things
which paralyses progress in terms of understanding environmental
limits is the sort of ballet which goes on where people are trying,
on the one hand, to defend their position (which may be quite
legitimately held for whatever reason) but at the same time passing
off any responsibility if what they suggest does not happen. This
happens with both sides; it happens with agencies and it also
happens with Government. I agree, I think that at the heart of
this is, if you like, a lack of honesty and process. I would agree,
I think that is a very good suggestion in principle. How it would
work in practice and at what point you would do that my colleague
will know more—the SEA, for example.
Mr Hamblin: I think the key is
in the transparency of the process and making sure that the advice
which the Environment Agency and other agencies provide to ministers
is open and available to members of the public and to other interested
parties. Where ministers either ignore that advice, or choose
not to, I think it is helpful if decisions need to be justified.
After all, ministers have made a lot of attaching importance to
evidence-based policy-making and therefore if decisions are being
made which go against the evidence which is being provided it
only seems appropriate that there needs to be additional justification
given. As Tom has said, the Environment Agency is a statutory
consultee in the process of strategic environmental assessment.
When a public body produces a plan or programme which is subject
to SEA one of the important parts of the legislation is that in
adopting that plan or programme they need to justify the decision
they have taken, taking into account the results of the strategic
environmental assessment. The Environment Agency is going to be
providing guidance in a whole range of different areas which are
beyond the remit of the SEA Directive, but I think that process
has a lot of merit to it.
Q223 Chairman: Finally, on that at
a more specific project level, for example on localised development
applications which the Environment Agency will have commented
on but which might, for argument's sake, go on appeal, do you
think the law which surrounds the operation of the Planning Inspectorate
enables inspectors and the Inspectorate to give sufficient weight
to the Environment Agency's observations when determining an application
on appeal?
Mr Hamblin: I am perhaps not best
placed to answer that directly now. We may be able to find out.
Chairman: By all means reflect on it,
and I will bring in David Lepper.
Q224 David Lepper: The question I
have from the written evidence of both your organisations and
from something Mr Cunningham said earlier is that both of your
organisations agreed with Lord Haskins in his report two years
ago that there should be a separation of roles between the Environment
Agency having responsibility for regulation and Natural England
having the responsibility for advice, incentivisation packages,
and so on, and yet certainly the impression I have is that that
is not the way things are going. Why, briefly, does each organisation
feel that that separation of roles is so important and do you
feel (as I suspect you do) that it is not necessarily what is
going to happen under the arrangements which are soon going to
be in place?
Mr Oliver: I think we say in our
evidence that it is important that one sole body does not do both,
all of both. I think there is a difference between saying that
and saying that each body should only do one of those functions,
and I think the clever thing which emerges about the relationship
between Natural England and the Environment Agency, which is perhaps
a matter of chance as much as design, is that both have a preponderance
of one over the other but they also do a bit of the other one.
So there is a mutual understanding when it comes, for example,
to English Nature's experience of its regulation of biodiversity,
and similarly the Environment Agency has a very interesting role
sometimes in designing habitat and landscape as part of its flood
defence role. So there is mutuality there where each feeds off
the other's experience. In the future, my expectation is that
climate change will demand far more from both organisations as
well as, as I was alluding to earlier, the business community
and the rest of us in understanding and taking initiatives which
are commensurate with what is happening. I would be very glad
if both organisations became better at doing all that they do,
and a part of that is not being reformed too often but at the
same time being carefully scrutinised by people like yourselves.
Mr Harper: Just to elaborate a
little further, one of the reasons why CPRE and RSPB are broadly
singing from the same hymn sheet on this broad area is because
(a) we have been working together for so long, but also (b) particularly
through the Defra modernising rural delivery programme we would
be very anxious about what comes out at the other end. I think
what Tom quite rightly said was that there are going to be regulatory
powers which Natural England will have to enforce, particularly
with regards to SSSI measures, and at the same time there are
going to be some advisory measures which we would expect the Environment
Agency to be responsible for delivering. But in your question
I think there was some anxiety that there was a drift in the wrong
direction, and I think one example we picked up in our evidence
was the Environment Agency's involvement in field-based advice
and you heard a little bit more about that from the Natural England
representatives earlier. In a sense, Mr Cunningham alluded to
this earlier by saying that diffuse pollution is one of those
areas where the Environment Agency does not currently have all
the regulatory tools it requires in order to prevent nutrient
pollution-type problems upstream. That may be the reason, being
generous to the Agency, why it is investing in the advisory role.
We do not believe that diffuse pollution can be cracked in a voluntary
way on its own.
Q225 David Lepper: Just one final
point then. Thank you for that clarification of your position.
The underlying theme of the Haskins Report—and I dwell on
it because Natural England's relationship with the Environment
Agency stems from it—was making rather more simple what
he saw as too complex a system of delivery on rural policy. Do
you think the way things are now turning out satisfies that aim
of simplifying, making things easier, particularly for the customer?
Mr Oliver: I think it raises an
interesting question as to who the client is. Yesterday it was
very apparent that some representatives of business and industry
think of themselves as the client. I think that is questionable.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Agency is
the client representing society. I think there is probably a bit
of both going on, and as a consequence it is important to remember
that there are mutual responsibilities in any of these relationships.
Specifically, to try and answer your question about the ultimate
end result, I think I would suggest that in the end the Environment
Agency's wide remit means it has a rather different perspective
from Natural England's rather more concentrated one on specific
landowners or customers.
Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed.
There is plenty of food for thought there. If, on any of the points
we have discussed, you want to drop us a further note after reflecting,
please do so, and thank you very much indeed for your written
contribution also.
19 Ev 91 Back
|
