|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 780 - iii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Wednesday 18 January 2006 MR JAMES MARSDEN, DR ALASTAIR BURN and MS ALISON TYTHERLEIGH MR MARTIN HARPER, MR ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, MR TOM OLIVER and MR PAUL HAMBLIN
COUNCILLOR MICHAEL HAINES and MR LEE SEARLES Evidence heard in Public Questions 156 - 245
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Wednesday 18 January 2006 Members present Mr Michael Jack, in the Chair Mr David Drew James Duddridge Patrick Hall Lynne Jones Daniel Kawczynski David Lepper Mrs Madeleine Moon Mr Jamie Reed Mr Dan Rogerson Sir Peter Soulsby David Taylor Mr Roger Williams ________________ Memorandum submitted by English Nature
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr James Marsden, Head of Policy, Dr Alastair Burn, Head of Water and Wetlands Team, English Nature, and Ms Alison Tytherleigh, Rural Development Service Partnership Team, Natural England partnership, gave evidence. Q156 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I apologise for the late delay in starting. It was partly due to the earlier division and some rather extended Committee business, so my apologies for the fact that you have been kept waiting. Can I welcome the Natural England partnership. We feel that having debated the birth in the previous Committee of Natural England, it is quite interesting to see that you are now part-way delivered and we look forward to eventually seeing the whole of Natural England emerge with the right label, but nonetheless you are very welcome. Your delegation is led by Mr Marsden, who is the Head of Policy of English Nature, supported by Dr Alastair Burn, the Head of the Water and Wetlands Team from English Nature, and Alison Tytherleigh of the Rural Development Service Partnership Team. You are all very welcome. I hope you do not mind my saying so, but when I read your very comprehensive evidence I began to think that you were having a sort of personal love-in with the Environment Agency because I kept reading your eulogies of praise on all the work they were doing and I laboured very hard to find almost a scintilla of doubt or criticism that the Agency were doing anything which was wrong or might cause you a problem, or even just a flicker of the eyelid in terms of lost sleep at night! Have I gained the wrong impression, or is there underneath that something which you ought to make the Committee aware of about the work of the Environment Agency, or is everything so beautifully sweet and tranquil and untroubled that we should believe everything in your evidence? Mr Marsden: Chairman, may I start by thanking you for the opportunity, before I turn to answer that question, for joining you in your deliberations this afternoon. I am rather pleased that was your reaction to our evidence because I think it is true to say that more so than at any time in my career in English Nature we are now working extremely closely with the Environment Agency. I think in the last week I have probably spent two or three days with Environment Agency colleagues. I am due to spend considerably more time with them in the current weeks ahead. We are working jointly on looking at our corporate plans, on the strategies of the two organisations. It is an extremely close relationship and it is a relationship based on shared outcomes, and indeed one of need. Q157 Chairman: That is it, is it? So you are all buddies together. Part of our attempt is to explore the remit of the Environment Agency and to discover whether there are ways in a positive sense in which its performance can be improved, so have you got a little list, perhaps, of things which you can tell us where in spite of the very cosy relationship you now have developed with them there are things which they could do better? Mr Marsden: There are one or two things, and I am sure we will talk about them in the course of this discussion. My starting point, I think, would be the breadth and depth of the organisation. It is of necessity a broad and deep organisation. Its remit is vast, the integration of air, water and land. That is a daunting agenda for any organisation. The challenges it faces now and in the future are staggering in their scale. On the point of complexity, sometimes a little is lost in translation, and I think you will find that in our evidence, from what is agreed nationally to what is delivered on the ground. If there is one thing I would point you to, that is an area where we would like our relationship to be closer, stronger, better and more efficient, which is how you translate the sorts of things which we talk about in our evidence, the Memorandum of Understanding, the collaborative programmes. We need to see those translate into our corporate business plans, which we are working on, as I have said, and then to see that translate into action on the ground in a consistent and comprehensive way. That is the area where there has been some tension, I think it is true to say. Q158 Chairman: You do not think that because of the enormity of the remit of the Environment Agency what resources it does have are spread a bit thinly on the ground? Mr Marsden: We would all like to have more resources, and I am sure that is true of the Environment Agency as much as it is of English Nature, or indeed of the future of Natural England. They are very heavily stretched, yes, that is absolutely right. Chairman: Okay. Let us move on. As you say, I am sure there will be points which will come out. Q159 Mr Williams: In environmental terms, probably the Water Framework Directive is going to be one of the most important pieces of European legislation in the coming years and it is the Agency's duty to handle the implementation, but as I understand it Natural England is going to work jointly with the Agency through the Catchment Sensitive Farming Programme to tackle diffuse pollution, agricultural surface water issues? Mr Marsden: Yes. Q160 Mr Williams: What are Natural England's priorities for implementing the Catchment Sensitive Farming Programme and how do they fit in with the Agency's priorities, and who takes precedence in a case of conflict? Mr Marsden: If I could start by saying there are some differences in timeline here, which is a fact we have to work with. The timeline for delivery of the Water Framework Directive is 2015. Natural England will have some rather shorter time horizons, around 2010 for the delivery of the public service agreement on SSSIs and for Natura 2000 under the Habitats Directive. However, all of those protected sites exist in catchments. That, too, is a fact. So one will contribute to the other and in drawing up jointly the list of priority catchments - and there are 40 which the Minister, Elliot Morley, announced on 21 December - we work very closely with the Environment Agency to look at the juxtaposition of the characterisation exercise which was done and published for phase one of the characterisation under the Water Framework Directive and our own prioritisation of which protected areas were most affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture and needed urgent attention ahead of that 2010 timeline. The result of that is that the vast majority, but not all, of those special sites are included within the 40 catchments. That is how we are proceeding and we are about to start recruiting next week. We start recruiting the team of staff jointly which will deliver the Catchment Sensitive Farming initiative announced by the Minister before Christmas. Q161 Mr Williams: We have been told in previous evidence that sometimes the Environment Agency has a difficulty in getting a balance between its policing role and its advisory role. What advice would you give the Agency about how they are going to handle these issues and still keep on board the commitment and support of the stakeholders? Mr Marsden: Could I start on that, and then I am going to pass over to Alison. This is an area where the Environment Agency would clearly like to do some more work on the advisory side in terms of the mix of advice, incentive and regulation. The incentivisation is for Natural England to deliver and the balance in that troika, which is a partnership across the two organisations, is a very keen one. There are going to be some areas where in the longer term we are going to need to see some regulation, and diffuse pollution is one of them in the longer term. In the short term, we need to give advice and incentives. The advisory role through the Catchment Sensitive Farming officers will be a shared one. We have integrated some of the Environment Agency's recently appointed farm advisors into the cohort of Catchment Sensitive Farming officers who will be appointed, hopefully in March. We have also integrated the four Catchment advisors who are doing the pilot work on the multi-agency scheme which we kicked off in April. So that has happened; that is done. In addition, the RDS, as it comes into Natural England, has an existing programme of farm advice. That comes into Natural England, and I will pass over to Alison now, who will talk about how that will be integrated with the Environment Agency. Ms Tytherleigh: The key certainly for RDS's work is liaising with farmers and getting farmers to take up schemes and agreements, and we need to work very closely with the Environment Agency to have that balance between the incentive and regulation. There are plenty of really good examples of where we currently work on that and through the Farm Demonstration Programme, RDS have had regional farm coordinators who have been working in the Environment Agency to liaise with farmers on looking at how to tackle the issues of diffuse pollution, both using agri-environment and the issues around regulation and the use of regulation. So there is a good balance there. Q162 Mr Williams: So you think that by integrating staff in the model you have described, there are not going to be different messages from either organisation which might confuse farmers? Mr Marsden: Could I be very clear on the point about the Catchment Sensitive Farming initiative, where you started, Mr Williams, the integration is such that we are jointly appointing these staff. They are coming from the Environment Agency, RDS and English Nature, and maybe some from the Countryside Agency, and they will come together to form a group of 40-odd staff who will deliver this initiative. In addition, there will be about four of the Environment Agency's own agriculture advice team outwith that programme but working very much alongside. Then there will be some associates from other bodies, such as FLAG, the Rivers Trust, and so forth, working in a joined up, coordinated way under the auspices of this to deliver the initiative. So that is the Catchment Sensitive Farming initiative, which is a big new advice programme. There are existing advice programmes, which Alison has touched on, and those, too, will be under review very shortly by Defra. Mr Williams: Thank you. Q163 Chairman: In your evidence, in paragraph 5.3, you say: "It is important that this Directive" (meaning the Water Framework Directive) "is used to achieve real benefits for people and the water environment, and that the administrative burden it will place on the Agency should not detract from commitment to that vision and purpose." What is going to stop the objective of that sentence happening? Dr Burn: I think there are two points to make here. One is that the Water Framework Directive is a mammoth task. It puts requirements on a vast range of the Environment Agency's activities, including the need to monitor what is going on over large areas, and the extent of resource which is going to be needed to tackle the process of the Water Framework Directive is itself a mammoth objective which the Environment Agency has got to face up to. In addition, the Water Framework Directive is a huge opportunity and there is still a lot to play for. To give you a concrete example, the way in which the Water Framework Directive will be implemented is through river basin management plans. The types of activities which will take place within river basin management plans will be determined by programmes of measures addressing water bodies in particular, and the way in which water bodies are defined becomes quite important there because if you have not got a water body then the measures are not going to be there to do it. So the discussions at the moment between ourselves, the Environment Agency and Defra about how broadly to cast that definition of water body are quite pertinent and significant. What we are anxious about is that concerns about the scale of the process here should not interfere with the breadth of opportunity which a real vision behind the Water Framework Directive should drive. Q164 Chairman: Given those discussions, when do you believe it will be possible to make a judgment as to whether the Environment Agency has sufficient resources to realise the vision and potential of the Water Framework Directive, because from what you are saying things have not crystallised in such a way that you could make that judgment at the present time? Mr Marsden: I referred to timelines earlier on. There are some pretty critical ones coming up ahead and they are not all closely aligned. I have mentioned 2010 and the PSA and Natura. In 2008 we hit the initial programmes and measures, river basin management plans, and so forth. We have then got another periodic review, which unfortunately comes in 2009, and those timelines are not as well juxtaposed as one would wish and one has got to work with what we have got. Those are the processes we are in. So I think we will know once we see the first drafts of river basin management plans, which we and others will be heavily engaged in helping the Environment Agency to draft. We will be sharing data derived, hopefully, from a shared database through a geographical information system platform. Alastair and I were joking earlier on about sending disks by courier during the last periodic review. We do not want to be in that place; we want to be in a modern, IT-driven place whereby we have a shared IT platform which can allow us to share data across, to develop the river basin management plan, to develop the programmes of measures, to align the programmes of measures with the schemes required under PRO9. That is when we will start to see how well this is working. That is the test. Q165 James Duddridge: Is there a danger that funding to either the Environment Agency or Natural England will be cut and the excuse given will be that the other is doing it? Mr Marsden: You have given me an open goal there, I think. Obviously the funding for ourselves and the Environment Agency comes ultimately from the same pot. We are all aware, I think, of the rather tight fiscal environment coming up ahead of us, both now and looking towards SRO7. We were told by our sponsor last week that there is a possibility that the Treasury might look to national resource protection as a priority area of Defra's for a zero-based review. We would find that very uncomfortable if that were to happen. Added to that, at the high level we have had a recent EU budget settlement which places the agri-environment budget under some pressure and we will be relying on modulation. The agri-environment budget, dare I remind you, is one of the main tools in our toolkit, both now and going forward as Natural England, to deliver our outcomes, so any pressures on those areas are going to be very painful, not only for Natural England but also for the Environment Agency. Q166 James Duddridge: Those are really financial constraints. The other constraint, particularly within the Environment Agency is the human resource constraint. To what degree do you think they can outsource either to the private sector work, or alternatively to yourselves? Mr Marsden: They already outsource a considerable amount of flood defence work, for example. That is already the case. If you are hinting at delegation, and I will read into what you have said that you are - Q167 James Duddridge: There is no hidden agenda. Mr Marsden: Let me say a little about delegation then, perhaps, because whilst Part 8 of the Bill currently in the House, the NERC Bill, does allow Natural England to delegate, we are not vested yet and we will not take any decisions about what, if anything, we will delegate or who we will delegate to until after we are vested and a new top management team is in place. Our understanding of the Environment Agency's position vis-à-vis delegation to Natural England is comparable. Q168 Mrs Moon: Going back to the issue of funding and the pressures which you were talking about facing, I wonder whether what sometimes happens is that when there are funding pressures people revert back to their statutory responsibilities, which then leaves a lot of the growth in the initiative and developmental work, and it just does not happen? Is that something which you have particular potential for when you are describing your enclave and the Environment Agency's enclave and somewhere there is a gap in the middle? Is that a risk we are facing? Mr Marsden: I mentioned earlier shared outcomes. Many of those shared outcomes - and we have touched on a few, the Water Framework Directive, the delivery of the public service agreement targeted on special sites - are so core to the Agency's respective agendas that it is unthinkable we will cut those. We may have to slow the progress in delivery if funds are really very scarce, but I do not think those things will disappear. Some of the areas which potentially could be threatened are some of the nice to do, the desirables as opposed to the mission-critical. Nobody is going to cut mission-critical. It would be an extreme settlement that led us into that position. Q169 Chairman: I think we could do with a bit of guidance. Looking back at your evidence, there is a number of areas where you highlight financial constraints. You have just made an important statement that there are some things which are the "must do" and there are some things we would like to be done. Can you try, for the sake of time, to tease out in a little note to us which are the "must do" and which are the "desirable" and just put a little commentary about where the financial pressures come? The question I would like to ask is, do you think the Environment Agency should say loudly and publicly if it does think it is under pressure on any of the "must do" in terms of the finance which it gets, because obviously ultimately it reports to the Secretary of State, it is the servant of Defra, but it does have a very powerful role, as you have outlined, in protecting the natural environment and working with other partners who are similarly tasked? Is there a need for really strong spokesmanship (i.e. stand up and be counted time) if there really is pressure put on the "must do"? Mr Marsden: I am sure the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency would respond forcefully and robustly with a very strong evidence base, as would her Chairman, if that were the case. Q170 Chairman: You would want them to respond that way? Mr Marsden: We would wish them to do so and would wish to make common cause; indeed, that was the nature of the discussion I had with my counterpart last week when we heard about the possibility of a zero-based review on natural resource protection, and I would go further and say that we would expect to work not only with the Environment Agency but with our respective sponsors in the Department, in Defra, to work on that across government, because it is an across-government issue which needs to be addressed. Chairman: Thank you. Q171 Mrs Moon: The evidence which we had from Baroness Young mentioned the "very rich" relationship and the need for that to be the nature of the relationship between the two Agencies, but she also talked about boundaries and for those to be "written down very carefully" otherwise there could be treading on corns and toes. There is a perception, I know, because I talked quite extensively with my local authorities and the voluntary sector agencies, that the Environment Agency deals with land, air and water and Natural England is divided as to landscape and access. Is that a fair assessment or just a simplification of your different areas of priority and expertise? Mr Marsden: It is a good high level assessment. Natural England will have five strategic outcomes. I will not list them all in full, but if I can summarise, at high level for Natural England will be about an enhanced natural environment and better access for more people from more diverse backgrounds to enjoy. That is what we will be about. In terms of the outcomes, clearly an enhanced natural environment is number one, increased opportunities for access to people to enjoy the coast and the sea, from the inner-city to the sea, more understanding of our natural world and the pressures upon it and more sustainable use and management of the natural environment. The fifth I always struggle to remember, which is really fundamental, an enhanced quality of life for all, the underlying links across the natural environment and economy. Much of that which I have outlined in terms of our programme outcomes which we want to achieve as Natural England is within the warp and weft of air, land and water. So Baroness Young is absolutely right when she calls for clear and distinct roles and responsibilities. That is what we have mapped out through the Memorandum of Understanding which we attach to our evidence. The next step from that, which we are currently engaged upon, is developing some really quite detailed collaborative programmes in the priority areas which are signalled in that Memorandum of Understanding. That will translate into how we deliver those specific areas jointly and severally and who else we will work with and through. Q172 Mrs Moon: So you would not say there was a tension between the two Agencies and their respective stakeholders? Mr Marsden: No, actually I would not. I think there are tensions between the two Agencies and I have alluded to one already. Another one clearly is around the agri-environment budget, because we both want a slice of the action. There is not enough of the agri-environment budget. It is Natural England's job to deliver through our advisers on the ground, but the targeting of that will be done in partnership with others, of which the Environment Agency will be one. Q173 Mrs Moon: Am I right in understanding that a lot of the tensions are around budget and the constraints of budget and who has got the capacity to actually move things forward, and in particular who you see as responsible for biodiversity action planning and Habitat Action Plans? Dr Burn: The biodiversity action planning process is again very much all about partnerships. There is a wide range of biodiversity action plans for species and habitats and there is quite a wide range of lead organisations for each of the individual Habitat Action Plans and Biodiversity Action Plans, so the fact that you have the Environment Agency leading on some and Natural England or English Nature leading on others should not be really a surprise and I think it is an important part of it. Biodiversity Action Plans will only deliver if organisations make things happen on the ground. The Environment Agency has particular responsibilities and is able to deliver specific things, specific areas of work in certain areas. Take, for example, coastal and flood defence. It is the Environment Agency which has the capacity to construct or remove sea walls, for example, which is a massively important part of preparing for more natural coastal processes. So the fact that the Environment Agency is a lead in that area is a good thing, and the fact that there is a mix of organisations leading on Biodiversity Action Plans is also a good thing. The important thing is that within each Biodiversity Action Plan group you have the right constituent parts and that the lead organisation can provide the lead and the vision necessary for the constituent parts to then do what is necessary within each of those organisations. I think the split between English Nature on water and wetland issues and the Environment Agency is a good thing and we certainly hope that will continue under Natural England, under our new role. Q174 Mrs Moon: The Agency has got the role of "Champion of the Environment"; its website describes itself in that way. One of the things which people have consulted me about is this issue of the overlap between the responsibilities. As you have just said, different people take different leads, but it is where the resources come from to actually fund that lead which is the issue I was trying to get at. It is the resource issue, because there has certainly been a concern that there is a lack of dedicated resources and it is a case of who has got a pot of money, and nobody is quite sure who is actually going to fund this work. Mr Marsden: The flood risk management budget clearly goes to the Environment Agency, but Defra expects (and we share that expectation) that wherever possible the delivery of schemes to protect human health, life and wellbeing through flood risk will also deliver other benefits, and biodiversity is now recognised very clearly as one of those, and access where possible as well. So there are ways of using budget streams to deliver multiple public benefits. That is the game we are in. So far as the agri-environment budget is concerned, that is a multi-objective scheme and flood risk management is a second order objective of that, so there are no absolutely hard lines any more around those funding streams in the way you seem to suggest there are. What we are about is integration but with, in the case of the flood risk management budget, clearly very much the primary objective up front. But if we can deliver some biodiversity as well through the Environment Agency working in partnership with ourselves and others, that is what we will try and do. Q175 Lynne Jones: We have just been mentioning the importance of partnership. In your Memorandum of Understanding you also mention the risk of duplication. One area which might highlight this is responsibility for saltmarsh and mudflat Habitat Action Plans being with the Environment Agency and English Nature leading on wetland Habitat Action Plans. What is the rationale for this split, what are the problems, and could it be organised differently? Mr Marsden: Perhaps I will start with the saltmarsh and then ask Alastair to deal with the wetland. We have been talking just now about flood risk management and flood risk management schemes. If you build a hard sea defence, typically if there was a saltmarsh in front of it before there will not be for much longer because it will erode. Q176 Lynne Jones: We actually visited and saw that. Mr Marsden: Indeed, and thank you for reminding me that you did. I am sorry I was not with you that day, but I hear it went very well. What we need to do is to realign and to make better use of soft defence. In that way we can recreate some saltmarsh if the topographic conditions allow. Indeed, the Environment Agency has a target to do so in the Defra guidance. More often than not, it is actually an Environment Agency scheme which is required to deliver saltmarsh habitat because we are either walking away from or doing managed realignment in a considered way with an existing flood defence structure. More often than not, that is the case when we need to recreate saltmarsh. We are moving the line back. In wetland recreation the circumstances are slightly different. I am sure Alastair will wish to talk about the vision work we are doing at a strategic level with the Environment Agency as well as the specifics. Dr Burn: Just to pick up on the point about why English Nature should lead on wetland Habitat Action Plans and the Environment Agency on others, I think it is logical. Obviously there is a big distinction between the types of habitat we are dealing with under the wetland Habitat Action Plan, which includes things like reedbeds and grazing marsh, fens and bogs. Those are quite different habitats with quite different needs and very different pressures from saltmarsh and mudflats. I think this gets to one of the nubs of the difference between English Nature's responsibilities and those of the Environment Agency in this area, and that is when it comes to assessing technical habitat requirements (and particularly technical habitat recreation requirements) in those quite tricky areas the expertise and weight of knowledge sits with English Nature and the partner organisations on the wildlife and biodiversity side. So it is fairly natural that we should take the lead on that. But again, as I said before, the Environment Agency sits on the same Habitat Action Plan group and it has a role in delivering on that. The Environment Agency leads on, I think, about five different Habitat Action Plans so its responsibilities here are not confined to saltmarsh. One where it has another lead responsibility is on lakes, and there again the logic in the Environment Agency having the lead there is that in contrast to the sort of wetland habitats we have just been describing where most of the problems are to do with the need to recreate and restore, in the case of lakes we are not by and large seeking to create new lakes but we are seeking to restore existing lakes to a good or even better condition. The nature of the actions which are needed there again fall to the sorts of activities which the Environment Agency is engaged in, so things like water quality issues and water resources issues are the things which need to be tackled. The need for vision there is exemplified through the evidence we gave you in relation to the Water Framework Directive, where at the moment relatively few lakes are listed as water bodies under the Water Framework Directive and one of the things we need to see is engagement by all parts of the Agency to bring the importance of the lakes Habitat Action Plan, for example, up the agenda so that it is equally there amongst those who are dealing with, say, the Water Framework Directive and setting objectives and visions under that. Q177 Lynne Jones: So you are entirely satisfied that there is a logic in arranging that? Dr Burn: I think there is a logic. Q178 Lynne Jones: There is not a risk of duplication? The fact that you are working in partnership avoids duplication? Dr Burn: I think it is because of the differences in responsibilities that we have. We have a role to play in the saltmarsh Habitat Action Plan and the Environment Agency has a role to play in the wetland Habitat Action Plan. The important thing is making sure that all parts of both organisations take on board what they need to do to achieve those. It is worth just mentioning, if I could, Chairman, the fact that we are, with RSPB and the Environment Agency, developing a vision for water and wetlands, which is essentially our collective view as to what the water and wetland environment should look like in 50 years' time. Q179 Chairman: I am sorry, I am a bit confused. Just help me to understand. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting her thought process, but if you take an SSSI which includes a wetland, a saltmarsh and a river estuary and you have a responsibility for SSSIs, do you then have to work with the Environment Agency on the other bits which may be included in that area because they have primary responsibility for those? Mr Marsden: Absolutely, and it would be very strange if we did not. The situation which you describe is, I should think, daily played out across England in our own routine. It is routine for us. The Environment Agency and ourselves are very clear about what we have to do to help us help Defra deliver on the SSSI/PSA target. We meet regularly, we discuss the remedies required which are going to switch the condition state of those SSSIs from red (unfavourable) to green (favourable). We discuss that regularly, routinely. The Environment Agency knows what it needs to do, it has a plan to achieve it and it is working with us and reporting through to a director in Defra, through the major landowners' group, to achieve that. That is on the land they directly own, which is actually rather small. They have a far bigger influence, as you rightly point out, through their regulatory role and there we have a parallel set of processes which are part of the same governance I have talked about. The first and possibly the most important is the review of the consents process under the Habitats Directive where you may, I am sure, know that the Environment Agency has a duty to review, modify or revoke its consents which may have an adverse effect on the integrity of those Natura 2000 sites, the highest level of protection for biodiversity. We are well into that process, and indeed this year I think the first tranche of key decisions on the priority sites over that review of consents will come to light. So that is at the strategic level, but in terms of their routine operations they need to consult us and we have a discourse. It is not an overlap, it is not duplication, it is how we do our job. Q180 Lynne Jones: It all sounds quite complicated. Mr Marsden: It is complicated. Q181 Lynne Jones: You do not think that English Nature or Natural England eventually should have responsibility for all habitats? Mr Marsden: That is a rather difficult question. In one sense we do in that we are now, as English Nature, the champion for the natural environment and we will be that as Natural England, and it will be Natural England which will have the responsibility for designation and the protected sites network. It will also have the role as the champion for biodiversity across England, and indeed in the sea. So in that sense I do not see how, in delivering that, either Natural England or any other body (were it given to any other body) could deliver that in isolation; it has to work with and through others and at the top of the list of people we need to work with to deliver on that agenda for wildlife is the Environment Agency. There are one or two others which run a close second, but the Environment Agency is by a long way the most important one. Q182 Lynne Jones: So in effect you are sort of delegating responsibility for saltmarsh and mudflat to the Agency? Mr Marsden: Let us give you another example. Your Chairman, Mr Jack, talked about rivers in his example and let us talk about rivers. Under the Water Framework Directive we are going to need to look at whether or not we need to restore some rivers, or parts of rivers which have been canalized and do not have the characteristics which will be required under the Directive. Let us assume that one of those is an SSSI, or perhaps not. The actual work required to restore a more natural quality to the river to achieve the Water Framework Directive requirement will have to be done by the Environment Agency. It has the powers and it has the people who can do that. It has the chaps who sit on diggers who know how to do that stuff. Natural England will have the agri-environment budget and the incentive and the advisory tools to help persuade the landowners and farmers on either side of the river that this is a good thing which needs doing and there is a target out there which the two Agencies need to work together to deliver. Q183 Lynne Jones: Moving on, you mentioned in your evidence that there are some inconsistencies of approach. Why have those arisen and are they going to be addressed soon? What are the barriers to addressing them? Mr Marsden: I talked about the scale and complexity at the outset of our evidence and I think to some extent that is inevitable, but we have, as we have at a national level, very, very good working relationships at an area team level, at the point of delivery. Sometimes the priorities are rather different. We can try and make it better, but it is almost inevitable, I think, that there will be those disjoints when you have two organisations with the sort of breadths and depths of the agendas which we have, but not always at the same time will the same people in respect of teams be as aligned around a particular task as they need to be to deliver it. Q184 Lynne Jones: You also say there is no single organisation with responsibility for managing or advising on the control of the invasive non-native species. How significant a problem is this and which organisation should fulfil that role? Could I just add on that, is the issue of GM crops or GM species an issue there as well? Mr Marsden: Non-native invasive species is a very significant problem; it is getting worse. The Water Framework Directive requires us to address it, and Alastair will say a little bit about how we are going to tackle that and put a bit more flesh on the scale of it. Dr Burn: I think the first thing to say about non-native invasive species and the governance of tackling the problem - and it is a big problem; from the biodiversity point of view it is cited as a threat in about a quarter of all the Habitat Action Plans, so that is a significant problem, and about 12 per cent of the action plan species, so it is a big biodiversity threat - is that it is a problem across a wide range of sectors. So it is a biodiversity threat, certainly, but it is also a problem for fisheries, for recreational activities, for flood defence and for horticulture; in other words, this problem of non-native invasive species is one which is shared across a wide range of sectors. When we talk about no single body coordinating action, I think what we want to home in on is action in relation to biodiversity, and particularly action in relation to biodiversity in the water and wetland environment. In that environment, as I mentioned, you have got problems relating to things like fisheries, flood defences and the condition of wetland habitats. There is certainly governance. Defra has set up a process, along with JNCC, for harmonizing research and setting an overview of priority needs across the piece, but when you come down to looking at what is needed, for example within a particular catchment or in a particular river to tackle an invasive species in a coordinated way, we have not got a body which is able to take or which currently takes the overview in that way. There are some good examples. There is some really good practice going on. In relation to the River Tweed there is a collaborative programme between SEPA and the Environment Agency, which conservation agencies are enjoined in negotiating as well, aiming to prevent the further spread of two invasive species, Giant Hogweed and Japanese Knotweed, but there is not a kind of overall process. Q185 Chairman: Dr Burn, I am sorry to interrupt this flow of fascinating information, and you have very clearly identified that there needs to be something done. Would you like to just tell us whether you think this is a role which the Environment Agency should play? Dr Burn: I think it probably is an important role for it to play, and certainly under the Water Framework Directive we would look for it to play that role. Chairman: I think my colleague David Lepper wanted to come in here. Q186 David Lepper: Thank you, Chairman. I have been listening carefully this afternoon and I have not intervened in the discussion before, but as far as I recall one of the main and probably the main conclusion of Lord Haskins back in 2003 was that rural delivery arrangements were too complex; hence we have a number of changes put in place, one of which led eventually to the creation of Natural England. Do you really think that that issue of the complexity of rural delivery arrangements is going to be dealt with through the kinds of responsibilities and roles you have been talking about this afternoon which you will share with the Environment Agency, or, if I were a customer, would I end up being even more confused about who I go to for what if I want advice or to make sure I am not breaking the law? Mr Marsden: There is a number of things going on in that regard - the Hampton review implementation, the better regulation agenda - and the creation of Natural England is part of the Hampton implementation. Both we and the Environment Agency are heavily engaged in the Defra teams which are working on the implementation of those two strands, so this is a journey which we are travelling on. It is a long-term journey. The creation of Natural England is a milestone on that journey. Natural England coming up to full steam - and do not expect to see it within the first year because there will be some transition costs - will be another milestone. Delivering on its outcomes in a joined up way with its partners will be another. This is not going to happen overnight. Q187 Patrick Hall: It would actually be helpful, to me anyway, if we could maybe have some information with regard to the mapping of SSSIs, which I believe have been around for 40, 50 years or so. We have now got Natura 2000 sites, I do not know what they are, and various UK Biodiversity Action Plans, which I gather must be geographical and territorial? Mr Marsden: They are. Q188 Patrick Hall: We have got a number of bits of territory which are variously defined and I think it would be helpful if we could have a map showing the distribution around the country and where these consents and authorisations apply. It is very complex. Trying to understand how various bodies work on all these things which exist on the ground is not easy. I guess most of these bits of territory are in private ownership? Mr Marsden: Yes. Q189 Patrick Hall: They are in economic use in part? Mr Marsden: In most cases. Q190 Patrick Hall: Therefore, there is monitoring. Standards have fallen over the years in nearly all of these? Mr Marsden: No, it is getting better. Q191 Patrick Hall: They have been falling for many decades in SSSIs, have they not? Mr Marsden: They have been getting better for a number of years. If I may say, our website contains an interactive map and you can not only see the location of all of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest but you can see the location of the sites designated under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, which is what Natura 2000 relates to. You can also see the condition state of individual parcels of land within those sites, and on 21 February we will be publishing the second condition state report. We published the first report in 2003. We publish the second one at County Hall at four o'clock on 21 February, the second cycle. That will show that the condition state of the series has improved considerably and continues to improve for some of the reasons we have been talking about this afternoon. Q192 Patrick Hall: But all of those small bits of territory have enforcement issues, voluntary agreements, public subsidies, all sorts of things which a number of bodies are responsible for, including at some point Natural England. The Environment Agency made local authorities deal with the planning and development of the series as well. Then there is the rest of the country, which is not included in any of those areas. So in terms of getting a picture of the scale and the implications of all of this, you say you can go to the website and do it but I am not sure that is really the answer I am looking for. Mr Marsden: What would you like? If you would like a paper copy of the map, we can provide you with that, but it is there for you to see and to interact with on the website. Patrick Hall: It says who is responsible for dealing with all these things? Q193 Chairman: You had better invite Mr Hall to come round for a chat so that he would be able to look at the map and he can pour over the whole thing and get into the detail of it. Mr Marsden: I would gladly offer you an hour, or two if you can spare that, with our special sites team at our head office, or indeed at London - we can access it from there - and we can talk you through it. Q194 Chairman: There you are, a mouth-watering opportunity; a voyage of discovery. Mr Marsden, just before you depart from us, I was intrigued by the nearest thing to criticism of the Agency I could find in your evidence, at section 6, paragraph 6.3: "The Agency has been involved in the design of Environmental Stewardship and now in its delivery both at national and local levels," and you go on about that. Then you say: "Overall the Environment Agency engagement at a national strategic level has been good but there is an acknowledged deficit in the target statements with regard to natural resource protection - due in part to a lack of available information on priorities." What on earth does that mean? Mr Marsden: I will give it to you in very straight black and white language. It is around the characterisation process for the Water Framework Directive. The Environment Agency has published the first stage of that. When, as I hope he does, Mr Hall takes up the invitation which you so kindly prompted, we will share with you the way in which we analyse biodiversity data and other data at an area level outside of the protected areas network. We need to be able to join up our data with the Environment Agency's data in a common GI (geographic information) platform, such that we can then have a shared approach to targeting of what is, as we discussed earlier with Mrs Moon, a limited agri-environment pot. When we have that, it will make the job a lot easier than it currently is. That is the point we are making. Q195 Mrs Moon: I get the picture of these two agencies working wonderfully in harmony, there is wonderful cooperation, both of you are champions, both of you have a commitment to moving forward in partnership with the other agencies in the field, et cetera. I just wonder what would be lost if you were actually one body? If, instead of having two bodies, there was one what would be lost? It is almost that you get sort of two heads or two minds thinking as one, so what are we going to lose? Mr Marsden: I think what would be lost in an organisation of the scale you are intimating would be the sharp focus which we currently have on the distinctive roles and responsibilities. The Environment Agency is large now. Natural England is going to be quite a large beast, considerably larger than English Nature. Put those two bodies together at some stage in the future and you have a really pretty unwieldy agency, potentially, and as to the sharpness of focus which we currently have (and which on Natural England's part we will carry forward into the new Agency) on the primary purposes of which we are about, there is the risk that that will be diluted in an agency of the scale you are talking about. Q196 James Duddridge: Can I just throw out a possibility? Abolish the Environment Agency, set up a separate body which looks at flooding, a separate body which looks at waste and has a complete focus on those two elements and give the rest to yourself. Would that work? It depends who is asking the question? Mr Marsden: No. It is an inordinately challenging question and it would be a challenging agenda. I think the answer is, probably not, because - Chairman: There was a thought there, Mr Marsden, I could see it forming in your mind, as the Chief Executive of such a colossally powerful body, but then you rolled back at the thought of having to do all the work to get there Q197 James Duddridge: I sense if I was a Minister, Chairman, the answer would be "Yes". Mr Marsden: I think not. We are most effective, and I will cite an example from the recent past. The way in which we worked together from our several and different positions to achieve the outcome we achieved in the last periodic review of water pricing from different perspectives, coming together jointly around a shared agenda to achieve better environmental outcomes, is a very good example of why not. We have achieved potentially a £500 million benefit for the natural environment out of that; the water resources side of the agenda will deliver more. I would argue strongly that we would not have achieved the same had we been one single agency. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We are going to draw stumps there and move on to our next set of witnesses. Thank you very much indeed for your contribution so far, both written and oral. Thank you for being able to supply certain additional pieces of information and the opportunity for Mr Hall to study your detailed maps, if he so wishes. If there is anything else which occurs to you which you would like to put in writing to us before we draw our conclusions on this then we would, as always, be delighted to hear from you. Thank you very much indeed. Memoranda submitted by RSPB and CPRE Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Martin Harper, Head of Government Affairs, Mr Robert Cunningham, Senior Water Policy Officer, RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), Mr Tom Oliver, Head of Rural Policy, and Mr Paul Hamblin, Head of Transport and Natural Resources, CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), gave evidence. Q198 Chairman: My apologies that you have been kept waiting, but let us move on. Representing the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds we have got Martin Harper, the Head of Government Affairs, and Robert Cunningham, the Senior Water Policy Officer; for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Mr Tom Oliver, the Head of Rural Policy, and Mr Paul Hamblin, the Head of Transport and Natural Resources. Just before I ask Mr Drew to move into our more detailed questions, I want to ask the RSPB, you do not seem to have a word of criticism about the Environment Agency at all in your evidence? It looks like a sort of proverbial love-in between your organisation and the Agency. Is it really all so much sweetness and light? Mr Harper: I should firstly say thank you very much for inviting us along here. I am stepping in for my boss, Mark Avery, who sends his apologies. He is laid up in bed. He has got a very bad back. He would love to be here, but unfortunately he cannot. Fortunately, I am alongside Rob, who is very good on the water matters. Q199 Chairman: Well, with the Parliamentary broadcasting he may be locked in to our every word! Mr Harper: I hope he is, and I am sure that he will be very pleased with what we are about to say. Unfortunately for your Committee, I am afraid we will not be giving you the nuclear option of wholesale reform, principally because we feel the Environment Agency is delivering a good job in terms of the regulatory responsibilities it has. I think it is very apt that CPRE and RSPB are on this panel because it was back in the mid-80s when we clubbed together to produce a report called Liquid Assets, which outlined the reasons why the regulatory responsibility of Government with regard to water should not be privatised. We think it is therefore completely appropriate that the Environment Agency over the last ten years has evolved principally as a regulator of water abstraction, pollution, and indeed of flood risk prevention. That will help to complement the principally incentivising responsibility of Natural England, its partner body. Patrick Hall: Chairman, could I just comment on that point? Chairman: I want to bring David in, but then you can, of course. Q200 Mr Drew: Obviously as a natural sequitur to that, in terms of what criticisms you made is there not a resource issue, because you can have all the wonderful words, you can have all the good intentions, but as a constituency MP my one criticism is that sometimes they do not actually get translated into action? So where is the beef here? Mr Harper: I will kick off and then pass it on to my colleague Rob, and then maybe the CPRE would like to chip in. Essentially, on the question of resourcing I think it is two-fold. Does the Environment Agency currently have the necessary resources to do its job? I think more often than not what it is trying to do is to actually come up with complex solutions to increasingly complex problems and trying to learn from those experiences. It may not always have the right tools at its disposal, courtesy of central Government, to allow it to do its job. In a sense, there is a whole plethora of little niggles which we would probably wish to table at the door of Defra in terms of improved guidance and clarification of responsibilities, but I do not think that is necessarily the responsibility of the Environment Agency to fix itself. Maybe Rob would like to come in with a couple of examples. Mr Cunningham: On the issue of resourcing, it is quite important to think of the Agency because it is such a complex beast. It comes from a background of many different sets of legislation and a number of predecessor bodies and the underpinning legislation of those quite often sets the funding arrangements for that. So for water resources, abstraction, for instance, the hydrology function of the Agency recovers its costs through its abstraction licensing and it has very strict rules on where it spends that money, which will be on water resource related projects. Flood defence, probably the biggest element of the Environment Agency budget, comes from a grant from Defra. Again, there are very strict rules on where it spends that section of money. When it comes to things like biodiversity, access and recreation, on those very pure biodiversity schemes, recreation schemes, there is a grant and aid from Defra. So although you might see a monolithic body with a budget of £1 billion, or something like that, actually the freedom to spend that money across those underlying administrative boundaries is limited. Q201 Mr Drew: Are you saying your want less ring-fencing, that is a significant problem, or do you welcome the fact that you have certainty in the knowledge that what comes from central Government actually gets spent by the Environment Agency on what it should be spent on? Mr Cunningham: It is partly less ring-fencing. If you look at the flood risk management budget, for instance, there is quite a move within the policy development. Making Space for Water is the new Government strategy for flood risk and coastal management to actually look at multi-functional approaches to flood risk management, so looking to get biodiversity gains from flood risk management spend. There is less clarity on exactly how you do that and there are schemes where the Agency has achieved that, in particular some of the coastal retreat schemes where there is multi-functional benefit from reducing flood risk, but there are still internal barriers and difficulties in how you do that. But under Making Space for Water the Agency and Defra are actually working to identify where those problems lie and adjust policy. So it is partly a problem of ring-fencing, but it is also party a problem of working around that and how to be creative about how you spend your money. Q202 Patrick Hall: Could I just pick up on the relationship, Chairman, which you mentioned, which appears to be between RSPB and the Environment Agency. I remember when I visited Sandy a few years ago and had discussions there that the impressions I gained were that the relationship was not a very happy one. Therefore, I say now, what has changed? What are the significant changes which have improved that relationship? Mr Harper: Again, I will kick off. I think one of the things we should say is that it is not surprising, given the visions which are outlined in the Environment Agency documents and the emerging visions from Natural England, that we share a lot of those aspirations for the natural environment. So in a sense I think over time we have probably found the Environment Agency increasingly occupying territory which we are very comfortable with. I think certainly at the national policy perspective we have a very healthy constructive working relationship to try and come up with these complex situations to these complicated problems, and they translate down into projects on the ground. I think, possibly, as both organisations have matured over the years we have invested more in that partnership relationship. So I would hope if you came to Sandy now you would probably get a better impression of the working relationship we have. I will not say anything about the fact that we happen to have indirectly passed on the Chief Executive of RSPB into the hands of the Environment Agency. In a sense, I think it is a long-term investment in that relationship to deliver shared objectives. Q203 Lynne Jones: The RSPB operates across the whole of the United Kingdom and there are different arrangements in the devolved authorities. Are there any lessons to be learned from how it operates in Scotland - Scotland is obviously the most distinct - and also other authorities? Mr Harper: Of course, we have a relationship with SEPA in Scotland. We do not have an equivalent body in Northern Ireland and that is why we are campaigning at the moment to try and establish an equivalent body in Northern Ireland, because there is no body responsible for some of these regulatory functions. It is left in the hands of central Government, and that is actually possibly quite informative because in an area the size of Northern Ireland, where you would expect central Government to be both the regulator and the incentivisor, it is failing in so many of the deliveries of its environmental objectives. So we are strong proponents of the need for a strong, independent champion and regulator of the environment. I do not know whether Rob can think of any specific examples. Q204 Lynne Jones: Are there two bodies in Scotland such as there are in England and Wales? Mr Harper: Yes, there is SEPA and there is Scottish Natural Heritage up in Scotland. Q205 Lynne Jones: So there is a sort of mirror image there? Mr Harper: Indeed, yes. Mr Cunningham: Yes, although SEPA do not hold the responsibility for flood risk management; that is dealt with by the local authorities. So it has slightly less responsibility. Q206 Lynne Jones: Which do you think is the best model then? Mr Cunningham: I think there is a very strong argument for the Agency to have the flood risk management control, because there is a very clear need for a national approach to setting priorities and identifying. There is also such a huge overlap between the adaptation and the modification of coasts and rivers and the environmental outcomes for wetlands, for rivers and for our coastal environment. So I think there is a very clear need for the Agency to hold that role. Q207 Chairman: Could I just ask you on that point, in paragraph 30 of your evidence you comment on the strategic planning and stakeholder engagement in this area and you say: "Unfortunately, there are also examples where strategic planning and stakeholder engagement has been less successful, for a range of reasons." You go on to comment about the Broads PFI and you conclude by saying, "We have fundamental concerns about this approach, because contractual agreements cannot easily respond to shifts in policy, legislative requirements and improved understanding of future risk. As a result, we fear that the gap between Government policy and PFI delivery will continue to grow over the life of the contract." Whose fault is that? Where did the problem originate? Mr Cunningham: There appears to be some enthusiasm to use the PFI funding mechanism for flood risk management and it is mentioned specifically in Making Space for Water as a potential future way of funding large-scale regional flood risk management options. I am not sure how you would apportion blame in terms of the setting up of the original PFI, but the concerns we have are that Making Space for Water, for instance, has established a new Government aim and objective for flood risk management which quite clearly states that flood risk management, while it is primarily about reducing risk to people and their property, is also about delivering sustainable development on the environment, social outcomes, et cetera. The PFI pre-dates that, so in relation to the standards and objectives set in the PFI how are we going to align that to what we want for Making Space for Water? Q208 Chairman: Can I just stop you before we get too discursive? Really I was interested to know, just on that point, is it a Defra policy problem or is it an Environment Agency problem? Who is the master and who is the servant? Mr Cunningham: Certainly the policy is very clearly that Defra had divorced themselves from the delivery side of flood risk management, and that is quite clear. They abolished their regional engineers and they have set themselves very clearly as the policy-setters and the Agency is the delivery mechanism. I was not involved at the time of the inception of the Broads PFI - Q209 Chairman: But you have written it down here. Mr Cunningham: Absolutely. I think what we are concerned about is that Defra, in Making Space for Water, highlight the PFI as a potential mechanism for the future. Q210 Chairman: Let me tell you why I am asking the question. In terms of establishing the independence and advocacy role of the Environment Agency, if this was a bad policy, in your judgment, do you believe that a body like the Environment Agency should have had the courage - because you will have told it that it is a bad policy, I am sure - to stand up and be counted, or is it in such a position that if Defra has set the policy, that is it, it has got to do what it is told? Mr Cunningham: I think there is a very clear need for the Agency to make it clear where policy is failing because they are the people who know at the delivery end. I think there is clearly a healthy discussion between Defra and the Agency. Q211 Chairman: Okay. Let me move to this next point on that then. If that is one of its key roles, do you have any examples where you think it might have failed in that duty? Mr Cunningham: It is very difficult, because flood risk management is something which I deal with quite a lot in my day to day work and quite clearly the Agency has the delivery role but also has the role of informing Government about the technical issues and about what the outcomes of its policy will be, but ultimately the Government has the clear role on setting policy. It is a Government issue. So if PFI is a Government tool for what it considers to be a more rational way of financing flood risk management, ultimately that is a political decision. In essence, the Agency can tell them it thinks it is a bad idea, but it is a Government decision ultimately what the policy is. Q212 Mrs Moon: I want to take up this issue of the Environment Agency's close involvement with policy-making, because a number of people who have submitted evidence to us have felt that the Agency exceeds the purpose for which it was established. There has been a lot of discussion around the championship of the environment role for the Environment Agency. How much of a conflict is there between the Agency's role as a regulator and adviser and its involvement in the development of policy, whether or not that is a vacuum, because the policy is not going down to almost make it on the hoof? Again, taking up the issue which Lynne Jones talked about, is there a difference between the devolved administrations? Is there a difference in terms of the involvement in policy of the Environment Agency in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in England? Mr Harper: I know my colleagues are itching to get started, as it were, so maybe if I allow Paul to kick off. Mr Hamblin: I can give a CPRE perspective, because I think we attach great importance to the policy advice role which the Environment Agency provides to Government, but given our remit as CPRE perhaps I will keep my comments restricted to England. I think we have seen a growing distance between government departments and statutory bodies in particular, such as the Environment Agency. I remember in 1998, when the Government was developing the assessment of its roads review, that clearly the implications of its roads programme on the water environment was a very important consideration and the Agency was very much involved, as were other agencies in the development of that assessment process. This was done before decisions were being made. What I think we are witnessing now is that increasingly a number of reports are being commissioned by Government and announcements are being made where the Environment Agency, if you like, is providing advice but post hoc, after decisions have been made. Examples I would use for that would be the Barker Report on the supply of housing, where there was no strategic environmental assessment undertaken of that, the Eddington review on transport and productivity, where Rod Eddington had been asked by the Chancellor and the DfT to examine this issue and quite explicitly has been told not to examine the environmental considerations. That is being thrown back as, "This is an issue which Government will need to consider but it is not for him." I think our concern is that when these studies are being undertaken, when announcements are being made, they are undertaken within the climate of, and the priority which is being given to, sustainable development. The Government has published its sustainable development strategy. It has said that we must work within environmental limits, and that is something which CPRE, and I am sure RSPB, would very much wish to support. In my mind, this would mean that the pressure on the Agency to provide advice, early advice to feed into policy is simply going to grow, which comes back to the resourcing point about making sure there are sufficient resources for the Agency to do that, and equally that the Government is able and willing to listen to the advice which it then receives. Q213 Mr Rogerson: The RSPB has said that the Agency is "hampered in its work by a lack of Government support" in terms of powers, resources or guidance, a steer in some areas. How do you think that should be addressed? Mr Harper: I will kick off by saying something which I wanted to raise when Natural England were speaking. I think the Environment Agency, and indeed Natural England, should be judged on the delivery of their environmental objectives and environmental outcomes and increasingly I hope that is the way in which Government wishes to take assessment of environmental delivery. In a sense that should be the starting point for determining whether the tools they have at their disposal are fit for the job. I think one of the best examples of the way in which the agencies of central Government have worked together recently has been on the attempt to try and ensure that 95 per cent of triple assigns are in good condition by 2010, one of the public service agreement targets. That is very much a shared Government agenda with the Agency, whereby Defra plus major landowners, plus English Nature are being challenged not only to come up with solutions but also possible remedies to try and take forward action. That sort of collaborative, very sensible approach is now being adopted, as Rob alluded to in the Making Space for Water venture, where there is a recognition that in a sense there are these major obstacles out there but we need to actually discuss what are the key remedies to actually fix them. I do not know whether Rob wanted to elaborate particularly on the Making Space for Water? Mr Cunningham: On the Making Space for Water, if, for instance, one of the BAP targets and one of the Government targets for flood defence is to create 140 hectares of inter-tidal habital a year. That is proving very, very difficult. You would be able to manage the realignment sites, but there is not a huge number of those in existence and if we are to get anywhere near meeting that target then progress will have to accelerate. There is a lot of barriers to the creation of managed realignment sites. You have to acquire the site through purchase. There can be a lot of local opposition and there is a lot of things which will need to be tackled to accelerate that and Making Space for Water has a range of projects, some led by Defra, some led by the Agency, including a project to look at the barriers to that delivery, whether it be financial, whether it is institutional or whether it is a lack of appropriate legislation. Those will be looked at, and it is also in collaboration with ourselves and English Nature carrying out a public stakeholder kind of trial up in the Humber to look at that. So there is no simple answer, but in certain areas clearly there is a failure. For instance, on diffuse pollution I think there is a very clear failure at the moment to get a clear steer about what mix of advice, regulation and incentive will be at the disposal of the Agency and Natural England to deliver the Water Framework Directive objectives. That is a large area of uncertainty because the Water Framework Directive targets are meant to be achieved in 2015. We do not want to be in the situation where we are looking back and thinking we should have acted a lot earlier. So there is a whole range of issues. Mr Oliver: Could I add to that? I think there is a risk that we forget what is at stake in terms of the effective management of the environment and the responsibility of the Environment Agency. There is a number of people who are at risk from flooding at the moment, for example five million. The number of businesses at risk is two million. The capital value of those businesses is in the hundreds of billions. These are serious issues which are not just about the numbers of dunlin or Redshank or the numbers of pretty landscapes, though those are important, and it is crucial to recognise the need for the Environment Agency to harness wider society's input and capital investment and intelligent decision about strategic planning. I am mindful of the evidence you heard yesterday where there was talk of difficulty with mission-creep with the Environment Agency and I think the term was used, "What is the Agency doing being involved with sustainable communities?" While that mentality prevails in parts of the business community, we are in dire trouble unless we are able to harness and lead wider society to recognise the need to avoid flood plains, to take water management seriously both in use and in conservation. So although these issues are fundamentally important and are very technical, as you heard from previous witnesses, it is important to raise our game and to realise that the Environment Agency has a very significant role to play for everybody. Chairman: Jamie Reed, I think, wanted to follow up on that. Q214 Mr Reed: I am very interested in the potential for duplication between yourselves and Defra and potential conflict and overlap. Do you think there is any, and if there is could you give any examples of where there have been potentially duplicated efforts between the Environment Agency and Defra? Mr Harper: Just quickly on the Environment Agency and Defra, we were talking about its role as regulator and its role as advisor. One thing we did not talk about is its role as technical support as well, particularly as regards the Water Framework Directive. Those who know it well - and this Committee knows it pretty well - will be aware of just how complex it can be and it is absolutely vital that the specialists who are employed by the Environment Agency are on hand to be able to provide the technical support and advice to Defra colleagues when they are in negotiations in Brussels. Our understanding is that that relationship works well. I think, as a previous witness suggested, it is important for policy to be informed by practice and of course the Environment Agency has (as indeed do the RSPB and Natural England) a lot of experience of practice and that is why we, as the RSPB, contribute detailed submissions to policy consultations and that is why I also fully endorse what Paul said about the role of the Environment Agency to try and ensure that what is essentially a cross-cutting issue is dealt with in a comprehensive way. Q215 Mr Reed: I am grateful for the response. In that respect, though, do you think that there are some functions which Defra perform, which perhaps you might deal with, which we could strip away from Defra? This Committee, and I believe all Members of the House are very interested in stripping out unnecessary cost and barriers to speedy regulation and effective government. Is there anything you think Defra currently does which, frankly, you think you could do better? Mr Hamblin: I think there is a number of areas where the Environment Agency and Defra need to work in partnership. There is advice and there is information which the Environment Agency can provide and which Defra requires. Frankly, I think that sort of advice needs to be provided to other government departments, which need to seek it from the Environment Agency so that not all information is through Defra. That raises the question of whether there is duplication of effort. I do not see duplication of effort but I think, having heard the previous witnesses being questioned on this point, clearly a concern is whether there are two champions of the environment. I suppose what I would say in response to that is, how many champions of the economy are there? How many champions are there for other particular areas? The environment is broad, it is interconnected, and it is important that we have the knowledge which the Environment Agency can provide in terms of monitoring the state of the environment. But we also have a very important strong department within government which is able to integrate environmental concerns across government. Q216 Mr Reed: With regard to planning issues, do you have a sufficient relationship with other Whitehall departments, in your opinion, as you do with Defra when it comes to advice and expert advice? Mr Hamblin: CPRE has a good liaison with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other government departments. I think the relationship which the Environment Agency has with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is mixed and certainly there are policies which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been at the forefront in pursuing, such as the Communities Plan, which are raising very significant issues for the resources which the Environment Agency is trying to monitor, not least water consumption, and proposals for massive housebuilding in the east of England, one of the driest regions in the country, I think highlight that problem. Clearly, the Environment Agency needs to be feeding into these discussions at a regional level - and I believe it is, although the resources available to do that, I suspect, are insufficient - but really the key issue is about making sure that these challenges are addressed higher up the decision-making tree before the Communities Plan is produced. Q217 Mr Drew: That is the ODPM. How about the Department of Health, the DTI and other departments? Is there sufficient scope for their advice to be taken? Are the relationships adequate, do you feel, in order for environmental aspects of policy-making to be considered properly? Mr Oliver: I am sorry to ask a question, but when you say "you" do you mean CPRE or - Q218 Mr Drew: My apologies. I meant the Environment Agency. Mr Oliver: There has been a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environment Agency and the Department of Health and that is a good step forward. One of the most significant issues which arises in terms of overlap between the Environment Agency and Natural England is the scale of operation, and I think probably one of the most significant points is that, for example, if you take the Water Framework Directive, at least 80 per cent of the surface area of England is implicated in needing significant change to catchment, whereas the total SSSI area of England is only seven per cent. So although Natural England has a remit in terms of improving and enhancing the landscape and access to it on a wider basis, it is dealing with, relatively speaking, smaller areas than the Environment Agency. That difference in the scale of operation, leaving aside all the questions of waste management and flood prevention, means that it is actually quite helpful to have two bodies because they do operate at different scales and there is, if you like, a sort of binocular vision which actually also benefits NGOs because there are two sources of authority. That is actually quite helpful. It helps you get the range. That is my analogy. For example, with the NERC Bill it has been very helpful to have the Environment Agency giving advice on the process and not being directly implicated in the legislative process. That has been very helpful. Q219 Mrs Moon: You have made it quite clear that you feel perhaps the Environment Agency is not being consulted sufficiently early enough and robustly enough in terms of central Government planning. I think we have got that message. What about in terms of planning within local authorities? Do you think the role of the Environment Agency gives them sufficient influence when they are consulted on local planning applications? Are they robust enough and do their reports carry enough weight? Mr Oliver: They are a statutory consultee with LDS, of course, as well as RSS, so technically speaking that is a good situation. Part of the problem is I think they deal with tens of thousands of planning application queries every year. CPRE itself looks at roughly 100,000. I think we are probably quite unique amongst the NGO community in having that sort of scale of operation, but I think there probably is a question of resource allocation there because it depends on how many applications are coming in. There is no rule which says that the number of applications coming in will be more or less controversial in any one year. I would have thought it is probably, from CPRE's perspective - I am not sure whether RSPB would agree with this - very helpful if there is a greater attention to planning applications than where they are of great consequence because of course otherwise the NGOs are left to do that job themselves, as does sometimes happen. CPRE does not own land, of course, so we do not have the particular question, but I remember when I worked for National Trust I was quite concerned that planning and development issues which affected the estate I ran were not necessarily always receiving the degree of attention I wished them to have. Mr Hamblin: If I may just add to that, the changes which have been brought about by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act have meant that we are now in a situation where rather than simply looking at land allocation in plans we are looking at the management of land through spatial planning and that provides lots of opportunity for the Environment Agency to try and integrate messages about resource management right at the heart of the planning process at the local level through local development frameworks, and because the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act has generated significant changes through the planning system all at the same time I think there is a phasing issue and a resourcing issue in terms of the extent to which the Environment Agency is able to respond to all of the proposals which are coming forward and really ensure that its wider messages about managing water are incorporated at the plan level and not simply addressed through individual planning applications. 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 the 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." 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 Mr Oliver 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 in saying that and saying that each body should only do one of those functions, and I think the clever thing about the relationship between Natural England which emerges 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 triple assign 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 questioned. 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. Memorandum submitted by Local Government Association Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Councillor Michael Haines, Deputy Chair of the LGA's Environment Board, and Mr Lee Searles, Programme Manager, Local Government Association, gave evidence. Q226 Chairman: Gentlemen, I am sorry you have had to wait rather longer than anticipated but we are grateful to you for your patience. Can I welcome from the Local Government Association, Councillor Michael Haines, the Deputy Chair of the LGA's Environment Board. Which Council, for my interest, are you on? Councillor Haines: Teignbridge District Council in South Devon. Chairman: I hope it has not been too arduous a journey for you to come and join us today, and Mr Lee Searles, who is the Association's Programme Manager. I am going to ask Sir Peter Soulsby if he would be kind enough to start our questioning. Q227 Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you, Chairman. We have heard quite a lot of evidence already about the wide range of functions which the Environment Agency has, and indeed the increase in the number of those functions. I think the Local Government Association has suggested to us that the Agency is struggling to cope with that range of functions. I wonder if you can give us some general thoughts on that and perhaps some specific examples? Councillor Haines: I can give you a specific example straight away which I think will illustrate a number of points. In the area I represent I actually chair the Teign Estuary Partnership Committee and there was a flood defence scheme being proposed for Teignmouth, which is the seaward end of that. The Environment Agency was promoting this scheme, but they ran into difficulties because it did not really have the ability to carry out the communications and the public relations as far as that scheme was concerned, and the local public there were becoming very agitated and in the end the scheme was pulled. So it has been shelved, to the detriment of, as I see it, the people of Teignmouth, who really need a flood prevention scheme in the very near future. So I think as an illustration of something which I could develop further, that is something which has been the result of perhaps not having the resources it might have had. Mr Searles: I think also there has been a gradual development in the complexity of a policy framework, largely emanating perhaps from the EU Directives, of more integrated approaches nationally, which actually starts to create questions which are for all of us, not just for the Environment Agency to decide. I suppose that may be an area where there is also a capacity constraint, in that dealing with the challenges which might be caused by the Water Framework Directive, as an example, really demands all of us to actually have that discussion locally and with our local people and to understand what it means for the way our areas develop and what we need to do. I think they are realising that where they have the capacity technically to do that there is a wider issue about engaging with the wider local society, i.e. the local bodies, about what needs to be done, and I think there is an area of capacity constraint there. I think that is probably what we meant by that. Q228 Lynne Jones: The example you gave, Councillor Haines, was a resource issue, a particular function, that of flood management, but you are saying that they are taking on additional functions. Have you got examples of additional functions which perhaps they should not be taking on which are perhaps detrimental to their core functions? Councillor Haines: The example I was trying to put forward there was the fact that it is the local authority which is better placed to carry out the public consultation side, the sort of democratic representation, which clearly, although it is their core function, they are unable to achieve that already. As an example of where they are overstretched, they cannot carry out the consultation in the same effective way as a local authority could because it has got its elected members locally who can then respond to what the public are saying in the local area. That is where I was coming from with that example. Q229 Sir Peter Soulsby: I would just like to follow that up. I think the words used to us yesterday were that there was a lack of transparency about the roles the Environment Agency was performing at any particular time. I think it was suggested to us that there was merit in seeing some separation of the roles, whether within the Agency or between the Agency and others. To what extent is that borne out, in your experience? Councillor Haines: Yes, certainly it does have a number of roles and certainly in the eyes of the public they do find that difficult. I can give another for instance. Again in the Teign Estuary, there was an area which was being flooded or there was a risk of flooding to the local people, but the Environment Agency was able to come up with a stewardship scheme which enabled a marsh area, a stream there, to be managed to reduce that risk of flooding. People saw that as the Agency doing it because they were doing works about flooding, but in fact they were doing it because of their environment stewardship side of things. So there is this complete misunderstanding on the part of the public as to which role they are doing things for in some instances. Mr Searles: If I could elaborate also, following my previous point, the Agency is obviously being asked and sometimes wants to take on roles and responsibilities and coastal protection has been mentioned by previous witnesses. In a way it is kind of a good example because you have a pressing need to address an issue which is only going to grow in scale if you believe in the effects of climate change and a feeling that it is so urgent that something must be done about that. If you are the Agency, you have your primary purposes and clearly that is protecting people, and people's lives and property is going to be a core function you are going to carry out, but to do that job properly and address that issue is actually a bigger problem and one which will affect the economy, communities, and is really something which, as I say, we all should be involved in. It is really something which local government should be more involved in. So in a way you might also be asking, if the Agency is hitting buffers which are actually related to the fact that it has not got the remit or the accountability and transparency to carry out the kind of debates we will need to have, then what is local government doing about that? I suppose that is where we have some things we would like to say about the role of local government in developing capacity in that area. Q230 Sir Peter Soulsby: Could I once more pursue this point? To what extent are these examples you are giving us ones which illustrate difficulties of communication in terms of the Environment Agency explaining what it is doing and why it is doing it as against organisational problems within the Agency, or perhaps something which is inherent in the range of responsibilities which have been given to the Environment Agency? Is it communication, is it organisation, or is it some inherent problem in the way in which the Agency is established? Councillor Haines: Obviously there is a problem in terms of their organisation, as I understand it, within the country. At the national level, the liaison between the LGA and the Environment Agency is very good. Certainly in my area there is very good liaison with the Environment Agency and I am very pleased with that, but because of its boundaries not being similar to local authority boundaries clearly there are sometimes communication difficulties which do show itself up because where authorities have got two different parts of the Environment Agency dealing with them then inconsistencies between those are certainly things which show up, which would tend to illustrate the communications difficulties. I think areas in Hampshire would be ones which could be looked at as examples. Mr Searles: In terms of relationships between local authorities and the Agency, I think the last set of points really move it into that kind of arena. There have been issues resulting from the way the Agency has rolled out certain things which has had practical implications on local authorities in either cost terms or in skills and human resource terms. That is really as a result of a lack of dialogue, a lack of forewarning and a lack of involvement in certain areas. I do not think that would be considered as a conscious policy decision of the Environment Agency, I think it is probably more the effect of the structure of the organisation and the remits of the people who work in it and trying to find the right people to have conversations with, for example local authorities, and to have that dialogue going I think is probably a function of a number of things about the organisation. It is just a sort of communications breakdown which definitely needs to improve. Q231 Mr Rogerson: I want to ask you about the shoreline management plans. I understand the LGA has concerns about the Government's intention and signal to move that to the Environment Agency. Why do you think Defra has sought to do that, and do you think it shows a lack of confidence on the part of Defra in local authorities' abilities in that area? Councillor Haines: Yes, I think you might have perhaps answered it in the second point there. It may be that they are not confident in the local authority's ability. Perhaps having one organisation which is dealing with it nationally they might see as an attractive way of achieving that. I think you have had submissions from the various coastal groups, people around the country, from the local authorities where local authorities have split the coast up into groups and then obviously they liaise. That is the model which the local authorities are putting forward as being the alternative and what it does, of course, is it means we retain our engineers in the local authorities, which I think is a very important thing we need to do for various reasons which I can elaborate on if you wish. Clearly, our view is that the local authorities are best placed to do this. We know the areas already. It may well be that if consultants were brought in to look at these schemes by the Agency then they will not have the same local knowledge which our engineers have. If I take my own local authority as an example, we have got a number of engineers who have been there certainly, I can recall, from the late eighties or early nineties, so they are very knowledgeable of the area. It will not be those people who would necessarily be drawing up those management plans, and I feel it should be because they have the knowledge. Q232 Mr Rogerson: With that in mind, do you think a model might be that if it moves the responsibility to the Agency then it should perhaps seek to outsource some of that work back to the local authorities? Councillor Haines: I gather there are potential difficulties with that because if the local authorities retained the staff then there is the short-term nature of those agencies, which would be a difficulty, so we cannot guarantee to keep them thereafter. That is the concern I would have with that. Mr Searles: I think in general this is a kind of a fundamental point. Following on from the first set of questions where we are talking about the Environment Agency going into areas which it cannot adequately handle, we are very keen to try and show some leadership on behalf of local government and try and encourage local authorities to see the management of the environment in the round and the delivery against things like climate change at one end and cleaner, greener, safer neighbourhoods at the other as a core and important part of their responsibilities. We feel we are in a bit of a - not a spiral going down, but a bit of a circle because leadership, funding and performance frameworks are at the moment not really creating the kind of virtual circle where we can actually show that leadership is then delivering up performance which is being rewarded with resources. So we are making a start by trying to say to local authorities at leadership level that we really need to build capacity in local authorities to manage the environment, to actually build it and have embedded good practice and have that capacity to handle the things which cross agendas, not to try and compartmentalise things the way our regulatory approach managed by central government might do but actually to see how economy, leisure and community activities can actually link together with the management of the environment. It probably can be seen as a tall order to try and convince people that is where we need to go when you look at the way in which some local authorities are resourced to deliver this agenda at the moment, but we really think it is important to make a start and we would see it as a wrong signal to move away and take capacity from local authorities when actually they probably are going most of the way on coastal erosion and coastal management at the moment, and it would really diminish our resource. Councillor Haines: Could I just follow up on the point about the management plans being done by local authorities instead of the Environment Agency? As I said earlier on, you have still got the democratic accountability of the local authority when such plans are being drawn up. If they are being drawn up by perhaps consultants on behalf of the Agency, the local people will not feel they have got the same democratic input and certainly there could be implications for even yourselves in that respect, those who have got coastal resources, depending on what the recommendations might be. So there needs to be a democratic input into this. Chairman: We will probably return to that theme before our session is over, but I would like to call David Lepper next. Q233 David Lepper: Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of your evidence. My apologies for that. The LGA does say in its evidence that despite working together with the Environment Agency on protocols to ensure closer working, the quality of the relationship between your members and the Agency tends to vary from place to place. Is that a substantial problem? What do you feel could still be done to improve the relationship between Agency staff and local authorities? Mr Searles: It is an historic problem and I believe it often varies between different elements of activity also. It has been particularly evident on the planning side. I believe it is not so evident in some other areas. I can speak from what I have found on the planning side and I can preface what I am going to say by actually saying I think the Agency has put in place quite a lot of things to actually improve that. Historically, the issues have related to the kinds of issues which any national organisation with a kind of regional structure and a very large local presence has, which is whatever you agree in a room in central London (and the LGA has much the same problem) is not necessarily what happens when someone interprets that on the ground in dealing with another party. It is the consistency, therefore, between regions and often between cases within regions, and often the interpretations by specific officers in certain areas have been partly the problem in relation to making the protocols at national level seem real and credible on the ground. In response to those issues, the Agency, in tandem with many other statutory consultees, has put in place a range of standing advice which for all but the most important cases actually tells local authorities clearly what to expect from the Agency and what they expect the Agency's response will be in a variety of circumstances, and that has been put in place for the flood issues, for example. I think some things could be considered to improve matters and I think part of the problem - and this goes back to my first comments again - is that the Agency obviously has a narrower set of purposes than the local authorities do. The local authorities consider the economic, the social and the wider issues in deciding, for example, a planning application and they have to take all those things into account. We are not saying the Agency should abandon its views, because clearly they are important and indeed may have regulatory backing, but we feel that sometimes Agency staff could have a little more appreciation of the facts the local authorities are actually considering and we would probably favour some kind of swapping mechanism, some secondment mechanism, to give people more experience of the issues of local authorities. It partly goes back to the points made on recruitment. I do not think the Agency has a problem recruiting people, but sometimes they are very junior and very full of zeal and it is a question of how you not necessarily dampen that down but make it work in the real world. Q234 David Lepper: You did say in your written evidence - and I think you put it a little bit stronger than you might have done just now - that there is sometimes limited understanding from Agency staff about the functions and responsibilities of local authorities. That is a bit worrying, and maybe it relates back to what you are saying about junior members of staff? Mr Searles: I did not write that, but it sounds like code for what I have just said really. Q235 David Lepper: All right. I thought that was a bit stronger than what you have just said. It suggested they are not just over-zealous sometimes but it sounds like they are not actually understanding the legal functions and roles of local authorities when the Agency gives advice? Mr Searles: There may well be cases of that, and I am sure with a little prodding I could provide some examples, but as I say, I think the Agency is recognising these issues as long-standing ones and realises that if it wants to be effective and get its voice heard then it needs to be pragmatic as well as assertive in its advice. Q236 David Lepper: We have heard similar things said on behalf of the Planning Officers' Society's mineral and waste committee, I think, about the relationships there. I do not know whether you have any? Mr Searles: We do and when we develop these protocols we always try and engage the Planning Officers' Society and all the local authorities on consultations, and to be honest it has become increasingly more difficult to do that, reflecting the authorities' feelings about the worst of the protocols on the planning side. I think on other areas it is a lot better. David Lepper: Thank you. Q237 Lynne Jones: Would you say that the Environment Agency is an organisation which listens to concerns and does its best to act on them? That is the impression I have got from what you have been saying, that they have moved to improve things, or could they do more? Mr Searles: From my own personal experience, they do listen to concerns. I think often it is the case of trying to find the right people to have the right conversation with and how that is embedded throughout the organisation. As I say, sometimes you can agree things at national level, but trying to get that actually delivered through every interaction on the ground when you are not involved is obviously quite difficult and authorities so far have found that is not the case. Councillor Haines: In my own local authority we have had a good experience with them for a long time now, so I have not got any examples. You have got the wrong person here to give you examples, I am afraid, where there has not been harmonious working. Following on from what Lee said to the earlier question, I feel that obviously sharing best practice across the country would be a good way forward because clearly I feel that in my authority we would be quite happy to have people coming in from the Environment Agency and from other authorities where there are no conflicts to learn how we were getting on. Q238 Mr Rogerson: There are perhaps feelings, certainly in my constituency following the Boscastle event - not from the point of view of the local authority or from the Environment Agency but from the point of view of those people trying to get their businesses up and running again - that there were tensions in terms of what the planning process wanted them to do in terms of replacing their buildings, in terms of what the Environment Agency wanted them to do to decrease the flood risk. Do you think there could be more in terms of protocols to make sure - excuse me going on at length, but the example of disability access issues which the council wanted to see and the complete opposite in terms of location because of the flood risk. We had people sort of running between the two trying to find the solution which would satisfy both sets of requirements. So could there be protocols agreed, do you think, which would help ensure that that did not happen again? Councillor Haines: I do not know much of the exact detail about the buildings in Boscastle in terms of the status, but I think as you have explained it, it is always thus. I am Chairman of a development control committee, I have chaired planning since the nineties on and off, and inevitably you are going to get conflicting requirements from different groups and it will be the job of the planning committee or development control committee at the end of the day to weigh up those different requirements, including what its own officers might be saying to it if we are talking about things which would have to go before a committee, but at the same time there is a time constraint on that example because people want to get on with their lives. So I think it would have been pretty difficult to have had protocols in place before seeing such a situation. That would be my reaction. It is always going to be difficult and we just have to be thankful that those sorts of things happen very rarely. Mr Searles: The new planning policy statement 25, up for consultation now, and the Associated Practice Guide which should come out with it, will hopefully clear up some of the issues around the smaller scale development and what is required in terms of flood risk assessment or specific measures, and maybe clear up some of the issues about the Agency's views when development is occurring on top of something which is already there, which has actually been the nub of many of the issues between local authorities. It is that sense of realism about the guidance, and hopefully the review PPS25 is acknowledged by all sides, the Government, communities, local authorities and the Environment Agency, as an opportunity to clear up a lot of the confusion which has existed throughout the existence of PPG25 and led to many of the small-scale local conflicts between the Agency and local authorities. So I am hoping, also, the situation could be covered in that process. Q239 Chairman: Could I just ask you, because in terms of the planning side there are some people outside the local authority, members of the public, who might actually rather like somebody outside to be a whistleblower and say, "You shouldn't be developing there because technically speaking we think there are dangers," I noticed in your evidence under the Waste Planning section you have a little punt at the Environment Agency where you say, "There is a body of evidence that the [Environment Agency] is not investing appropriate in the Planning Liaison business of responding to consultations from Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities." So you have a pop at them there. Then you have another go at them over this question of flooding here. You sort of imply almost that the Environment Agency ought to be getting off your turf because you comment, "Resources would be better used trying to improve relationships at a local level in these cases, rather than opting for removing the local democratic aspect and indeed 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'." Are you just saying, "Get off our turf"? Councillor Haines: The issue does not actually personally relate to me, as I have already said. We have not approved something where the Environment Agency has said they are against it, so on my authority I can speak for them. I am just saying there is a preface, but coming on to the LGA as a whole, clearly it comes back to the issue of trying to extend better practice across the country between the Agency and some local authorities, which if that is achieved then that is the only nut you have to crack. That is it. So if you get there without having to have the sort of call-in issue then you retain local democratic accountability in a much more straightforward way. I think that is what it is trying to say, but I will hand you over to someone nearer to the author. Mr Searles: Yes, I did actually realise that - Q240 Chairman: You cannot walk away from it now! Mr Searles: Yes, I know. I did say the words "sledgehammer to crack a nut" and subsequently wrote it down. You actually raised a question before about whether the Agency actually speaks its voice and tries to get itself heard in Government. Our view is that it does. We actually have to really watch out for the Agency sometimes in our dealings because we feel that it is very effective at trying to get its voice heard in Government, and I suppose that comment was actually motivated by the fact that we have got the proposed flooding direction in PPS25, which we feel is unnecessary. We have got nothing to fear from the Agency scrutinising local planning applications. To take flooding as an example, there is a new report on last year's performance of local authorities on high level target 12 and it basically just continues to show a very much improving picture in relation to local authority performance, in terms of deciding applications in the flood plains. Over 95 per cent of applications are decided in line with Agency advice. The Agency's views are often upheld in what appeals then take place; something like only three were decided against the Agency. So the system is actually working. It began with a fairly low level of coverage in local plans of the Agency's views, and PPG25 issues are now gone. They are mainly affecting all plans which have been progressed in the last year. The development of standing advice has removed a lot of the small-scale issues, leaving the more significant ones, and still the number permitted has gone down. So generally speaking we feel, and we will be making this clear in our response on PPS25, that further directions are all that is necessary really on that area. So we would question why it is being sought. That is that point. On the waste point, there has been a longstanding issue about whether waste planning material considerations end in terms of deciding a proposal for a waste planning application and where the integrated pollution and prevention control issues start. We would very much like to see a common approach in terms of trying to address issues in an integrated way, because the community does not distinguish between what is a waste planning issue and a waste health issue, and we want to try and ensure that resources are aligned and that involvement takes place at the appropriate stage. I think that comment was motivated from the fact that quite often that does not happen in the way we would like and therefore the two issues become divorced. You cannot get the information. Q241 Chairman: Does that not raise in fact a very big issue, because in my part of Lancashire, nearby to Preston, there has been a fearsome debate about proposals to build a series of waste transfer stations. The policy which deals with waste very much involves the Environment Agency, Defra, the county council, the waste authority and the local authorities, and it is quite difficult when you have the juxtaposition between a national desire to deal appropriately and in accordance with European legislation and national legislation with waste as a collective and the frictions which then come locally in trying to work out a plan which local people will acknowledge as acceptable. It does need somebody to try and hold the ring. Do you think that is a role which should be advanced for the Environment Agency in trying to bring parties together, including the public, because you mentioned the importance of consultation earlier in your remarks, to try and resolve some of these very big and difficult issues where, if the reports, for example, last night on the television were anything to go by, the Government appears to be going to change its policy on waste, where issues of incineration are going to become extremely important and where the public under those circumstances will seek some dispassionate advice to enable them to come to an informed decision about all of the planning matters which might be associated with such a development? These are very big and complex issues. Do you think the Environment Agency should be playing a stronger, more central role in trying to help people solve the solution to such issues? Councillor Haines: The advice to the Government, presumably, will be on the health aspects related to incineration. Is that what you are saying? Q242 Chairman: I can only comment on what was revealed on the television, but I just make the observation that in relation to the waste policy the Environment Agency is right at the heart of it, whether it be in terms of good practice and following all the national and European legislation or dealing with the bad practice, fly-tipping, illegal disposal of dangerous substances, and so on and so forth. They are right at the middle of the whole of the waste policy of the United Kingdom. Councillor Haines: Yes, but at the end of the day the actual waste management policy which is introduced for that area is going to be one which has gone through all the democratic processes. The local authority may come to a decision and it would then be up to the relevant Secretary of State, if it is taken to that extreme, which I presume it would be, to come to a decision. It is not dissimilar to the example you gave about the Thames Gateway earlier on. At the end of the day, the decision is going to be made at minister level. So the role of the Environment Agency will be just as one of the participants, together with the local authorities and the public in the discussion which takes place in the area where it is to happen through the regional spatial strategy and the local government framework system which we now have. I cannot see that the Environment Agency can step outside of that. Mr Searles: We basically have concerns on three levels in relation to the Environment Agency. I think the answer is, yes, it needs to play a stronger role. The core issue is, of course, PPS10 on waste, which was introduced last July. There is a real need for a very strong information base to underpin the development of both regional, submission regional, and local policy. An information base which is notoriously bad leads to endless conflicts because it can be interpreted in many different ways. We have views we are developing about the role of local authorities in relation to strategic waste management which we will send you separately. So the Agency needs to play a role in that, formulating plans, securing an information base at a wider level. Then there is this issue I have mentioned, which I think is actually the role of the Agency, in terms of responding to specifics and being there with the local authority and being a partner. It is there in some places and it is not in others. Lastly, there is a general sense of frustration, probably through a lack of Agency staff, on the more local issues around licensing, enforcement issues, on a day to day basis, and I think there has been a perceived lack of coverage by Agency staff there. I think overall it points to perhaps a lack of Agency planners in that area. Q243 Mrs Moon: You talked about not minding the Environment Agency scrutinising planning applications. I do not know that they actually scrutinise them. Their responsibility is to comment on them. What we have here is an Agency which is described as an environmental champion. For many people - and indeed the CPRE and the RSPB made it quite clear today that they feel there are not that many environmental champions around and perhaps sometimes the pressure is on planning departments in particular to go with the developer and also to not risk costs by turning down an application if it is going to appeal. Would you not see, therefore, the Environment Agency as a critical partner for planning departments in actually flagging up the environmental issues, the environmental concerns and the long-term risks, again as pointed out by the CPRE and the RSPB, and the environmental risks to the planning developments which are proposed? Are they not actually critical to a holistic analysis of a planning application? Councillor Haines: I would not think you would have the risk of costs awarded against you now if the Environment Agency is saying no and the local authority then actually - Q244 Mrs Moon: That is why I am saying the Environment Agency is a critical partner for you? Councillor Haines: Yes, exactly, compared with what it was like five or ten years ago, when if the Environment Agency said, "No, there's a risk of flooding," you actually did think, "Oh, we will lose that one on appeal." But now it is a much stronger guidance, so that is good. Could I just say that, taking their partnership, my local authority has got a strategic flood risk assessment in place now for its local development framework with help from the Environment Agency and its own engineers, which we have got in-house. So again it comes back to the importance of there being the two bodies, each with their experts on flooding, so that we can be advised by our own experts as well as the Environment Agency, which agrees in our case. So I think that is a good balance and then that can be seen by the public, that the Environment Agency is agreeing with the local authority at the strategic level as well. Q245 Mrs Moon: Just in terms of democratic accountability, the environment is one of those things which can easily be a cost-saver, "Let's not do that bit of work because it's not education and it's not social services," whereas if you have an outside agency like the Environment Agency coming in and saying, "No, this must be done," it justifies for the Department and the local authority that spend? Councillor Haines: Yes. Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, very much indeed for your evidence. If there is anything further which occurs to you, do please let us know and thank you again for your written evidence. |