Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR PETER
HOUSDEN, MR
CHRIS WORMALD,
MS HUNADA
NOUSS, MS
CHRISTINA BIENKOWSKA
AND MR
RICHARD MCCARTHY
22 OCTOBER 2007
Q80 Martin Horwood: No specific review
then resulting from the flooding?
Mr Housden: No.
Q81 Martin Horwood: I want to ask
you now about another area which is your responsibility. One of
the problems in the immediate aftermath of the floods locally
was the very complex web of responsibilities for the maintenance
not so much of the main rivers which are clearly with the Environment
Agency but things like culverts and drains and surface water drainage
where there seems to be a very complicated pattern between water
companies, local authorities, the Environment Agency and actually
individual householders who seem to be the ultimate people legally
responsible in many cases. Are you talking to Defra or is anybody
thinking about trying to resolve this complex web of responsibilities
and making it clearer for people to work out what is going on?
Mr Housden: There is a lessons
learned exercise that is being chaired by Sir Michael Pitt and
I am sure those factors will be within their consideration.
Q82 Chair: Can you confirm for us
afterwards that they are?
Mr Housden: Yes, I was just going
on to say that I am very happy to pass these concerns on directly
and then to come back to you.
Q83 Martin Horwood: Are you making
a submission to the Pitt Review as a department?
Mr Housden: Yes, I am sure we
will be.
Q84 Mr Betts: One of the things certainly
from own local authorities when we had really bad flooding in
Sheffield, is that the city council officials have come back and
said that the real problem for them was the confusion about who
was responsible—the Environment Agency, the local authorities,
the city council—and in one particular case no-one seemed
to have overall responsibility to make sure that things were not
falling between the different organisations.
Mr Housden: Under those very pressurised
circumstances where you are trying to respond you need absolute
clarity.
Q85 Martin Horwood: Would you support
giving someone like the Environment Agency sole responsibility
for flood prevention, a really clear responsibility so that it
is clear where the buck stops?
Mr Housden: I think there will
be a whole range of matters of that order to be considered. I
have not got a specific view on that particular issue.
Q86 Martin Horwood: One last question
on housing, clearly one of the implications that has been raised,
certainly in Gloucestershire, was about not just flood plains
but flood risk areas. We had areas that were very badly flash-flooded
because of their proximity to the Cotswold Hills. Some areas in
my constituency where there are outstanding applications for hundreds
of houses to be built, we still seem to offer up the prospect
that these houses are going to be either very difficult to insure
or perhaps even uninsurable, whether if they are sold the first
time round, subsequently very difficult to sell if they turn out
to be in a flood risk area. Is there any comprehensive review
that the Department is doing to look at housing in flood risk
areas and whether or not house building plans need to be amended
in the light of these floods?
Mr McCarthy: That review took
place and that is why you have the new planning policy statement
on flooding and the flooding direction. The Association of British
Insurers has actually expressed their satisfaction with those
flooding arrangements. We are looking at whether we have to change
any of the detail or the guidance in the light of the combined
lessons learned exercise. As far as I am aware the Association
of British Insurers and indeed the Environment Agency are pleased
with our new planning policy statement which has a proper sequential
test, it looks at flooding in terms of the release of land and
ensures that the Environment Agency is treated as a statutory
consultee when applications are made. We are required to send
to the government office from local government any applications
which the Environment Agency opposes and the local authority does
take that into account. There is quite a lot of protection built
into the system. That is the second time in about ten years that
the flooding policies through planning have been reviewed. We
are looking at any detailed consequences that might flow from
that lessons learned exercise. I really do think that it is important
to recognise the extent to which those key protagonists and stakeholders
have expressed satisfaction with out new planning policy.
Q87 Martin Horwood: What do you mean
exactly by "detailed consequences"?
Mr McCarthy: There is a range
of types of building that we ask the planning policy statement
to reflect. In terms of housing we think we have got that right.
It may be that other facilities should not be considered for more
risk areas of the flood plain.
Q88 Chair: Such as electricity generators.
Mr McCarthy: That is correct and
that matter is being considered as part of the lessons learned.
Q89 Martin Horwood: In terms of the
numbers and the locations that were being handed down to regional
spatial strategies, clearly the bar has shifted in terms of environmental
consequences because we were told first of all a `once in 80 year
flood' which left us 79 years of flood free dwelling and then
four weeks later a `once in 300 year flood'. Clearly these statistics
are becoming if not useless certainly in need of drastic revision.
This is presumably going to accelerate. The Environment Agency
have told this Committee that those figures will have to change
in the light of climate change and that floods of this nature
are going to get more extreme, are you handing down revised guidance
to government offices or to RDAs to say that regional spatial
strategies will have to be amended in the light of this?
Mr McCarthy: Not at this stage
because we have not received any revised guidance from the Environment
Agency. We may well find that through the lessons learned that
we have to review the cycle of potential risks of flooding areas.
That will feed straight into our sequential test. They may ask
us to consider certain areas but if you look at places like the
Thames Gateway we have already been working closely with the Environment
Agency and have a strategic review with them for the next 100
years in which this sort of data and experience will be taken
into account. I think the other thing that is very, very important
to recognise is that a significant proportion of our housing in
this country is already built on the flood plain. Indeed, a lot
our buildings where we sit today and around us sit on a flood
plain. We have built much of this country around our rivers. The
issue of protection is a crucial one for existing homes and businesses
and properties. We must make sure that our planning policy system,
through the guidance and advice that we issue, reflects our knowledge
and understanding of the risks concerned. We think that PPS 20
is standing up to test but flooding is an important issue and
with climate change we will have to keep a close watch.
Q90 Martin Horwood: I realise the
principle of the PPS is correct but in terms of the extent of
the flooding, I had constituents who were told they had a thousand
to one chance of flooding and because of the local geography they
now realise they are in a flood risk area. That implies that the
locations that have been identified in things like regional spatial
strategies and the numbers that are imposed in some areas which
are at higher risk of flooding than we realised before will have
to be revised. It does not sound as if you are actually contemplating
revision of those locations.
Mr McCarthy: All I would say,
as I said before, is that we are taking part actively in the lessons
learned exercise and I can assure you that planning officials
are involved in that. Secondly, we do have regular engagement
and we do take advice from both Defra and the Environment Agency
on these issues. When we receive that advice we will see whether
it requires any change in areas or in planning policy.
Q91 Chair: Just to clarify, to date
you have not received advice from the Environment Agency but you
may do in the future.
Mr McCarthy: Yes. Can I also assure
members in relation to that, when receiving proposals for eco
towns and receiving proposals for new growth points—as we
did before with previous growth points—we shall consult
with Defra and the Environment Agency before selecting those areas.
Q92 Anne Main: Moving on to staff
morale, we have had concerns in the past on numerous occasions
that staff are not always happy in their roles, often feel they
cannot complain and have been subject to bullying. Given that
a latest report suggests that not a lot has altered, can you say
what the Department is now going to do to get rid of this culture?
Mr Housden: You will have seen
the staff survey results which we are now doing quarterly. The
most recent ones have some positive indications in terms of people's
general perceptions about the Department, which is great. You
are right to say that the numbers on bullying, harassment and
discrimination are essentially where they were before. Let me
say just three or four things. All the objective measures we have
in terms of grievance, discipline, complaints are extremely low
so there is no noise like that. The general atmosphere in the
buildings that we have here which are the ones that have been
surveyed is good, positive and productive. It would be lovely
to host a select committee visit for you to come and meet our
people and see how we are actually working together. What these
responses signal, I think, is a group of people who are dissatisfied
for one reason or another with their working conditions. Our numbers
on this (which I think we made plain in our report) are actually
no different than the run of government departments and, I suspect,
public sector organisations generally. It is not that we have
got a pronounced problem but there is an issue. What is it about?
I think there are two things here. One is that there is no doubt
that the bar has been raised so we have raised expectations about
performance and about flexibility and some people find that uncomfortable.
I do not make an apology to my colleagues at work about that or
to this Select Committee.
Q93 Anne Main: I am sure you will
go on to explain some more and I am sorry to interrupt you, but
this does sound to me rather complacent. We have had some quite
serious criticisms and now you are painting it as if the staff
themselves were grumblers and the bar has been raised. We understood
there was quite a chronic and entrenched culture of unhappiness
that some people thought they could not voice through official
channels. Now you have that voice I was really hoping to hear
that there would be some even greater thrust towards trying to
solve it.
Mr Housden: The last thing I want
to sound is complacent because I am not; I was just coming onto
some of the issues. These are subjective measures, asking people
how they feel, and some of it I think is down to the fact that
standards are being raised and that is not comfortable for everybody.
There is no doubt also that there are some examples of management
practice, passive and active, that are not where they should be.
We know the examples where people have communicated poorly, issues
have not been nipped in the bud; all those sorts of things can
contribute to this. We are doing several things about this. First
of all in our performance management system (which of course determines
whether you can get bonuses or not in the organisation) we have
set a prime objective about the quality of management of people
so you cannot get the top box mark, the top bonuses unless you
can demonstrate effective practice around this. We, as a board—a
number of board colleagues are with me today—have given
a lot of profile to this and talked about it. We accepted our
leadership responsibility. We have done 360 degree feedback; we
have asked people what they think about the leadership we are
giving, we have talked about the results on all of that. We have
had independent people come in and do some focus groups with staff
to really get to the bottom of what these issues were about. We
will carry on with that research. Lastly, we are really invigorating
the network we have of colleagues within the Department at a variety
of different grades to whom people can go if they feel they have
a problem at work. They are not part of the line management structure.
I have met with them recently and talked with them about how we
can support their work effectively. We have an employee helpline
so if people want to talk on the phone to express concerns we
can actually do that. There is a multi-faceted set of responses
Q94 Chair: How many people use the
employee helpline?
Mr Housden: Hardly any so we are
going to publicise it more effectively.
Q95 Anne Main: Do you feel that the
courses you have provided have been the right courses? Are you
going to continue with providing them? Or are you going to do
something different?
Mr Housden: You are referring
I think to what we call dignity and respect and pretty well all
of our people at grade seven and above—so all our middle
and senior managers—have now been through those. The staff
survey results suggest that they have had some impact. We have
quite a good number—63 per cent in the latest survey—who
regard themselves as treated with dignity and respect and I would
like to see that go to a hundred. Yes, I do think they have had
some impact. I do not think we would repeat that course because
it is essentially the same group of people but we will continue
to press and give profile to these sorts of issues. I am really
concerned that we get some measurable improvements in this that
we will continue to share with you.
Q96 Chair: Can I just clarify the
nature of the data you get from these surveys? Does it enable
you to tell whether there is a significant proportion of people
across the whole of your organisation who are dissatisfied or
whether the dissatisfaction is concentrated in one or two bits
of your organisation?
Mr Housden: That is a very good
question. We will know as we get more data. We are two quarters
in and when we get a year we will be able to see if the issues
are localised. We will be able to relate it back not to areas
of the Department but actually to individual managers and leaders
and that is a very important issue.
Q97 Martin Horwood: I have a question
which may be a connected issue. I would love to claim credit for
it but it was highlighted in the Pendennis column of the Observer
last Sunday. It was the apparent budget last year for redundancy
packages of £26 million. There is a slightly different figure
given in a written answer on 8 October to our colleague Mr Hoban
which was £21.6 million. I struggle to find any reference
to this in the Annual Report, so the first question is why was
such an exceptional amount not highlighted? The second question
is what on earth was it spent on? It seems an enormous amount
of money.
Mr Housden: It does feature in
the accounts clearly. What we are talking about here is ways in
which we can reduce our head count because we are on a head count
target in the spending review 2004. In the spending review just
announced we are committed to a five per cent reduction in expenditure
year on year in each part of the spending review. Essentially
this is one of the ways in which we are managing that reduction
through voluntary early retirement and severance schemes.
Q98 Martin Horwood: So this is all
voluntary redundancy payments is it?
Mr Housden: Yes.
Q99 Martin Horwood: How many staff
are we talking about here that it should reach £26 million?
Ms Nouss: I think the number is
closer to the £21 million; I am not sure where the £26
million comes from.
| 
