Recommendations
The Ministry’s targets and commitments
1.Increasing numbers of domestic flights are not in line with the Ministry’s environmental commitments. We welcome the Ministry’s commitment to review its authorisation processes for domestic flights. It should set out, in its response to this Report, the outcome of the review and how it intends to reverse the upward trend in flights. (Paragraph 11)
2.Only two out of the Ministry’s 1,483 vehicles are ultra-low emission vehicles. Significant improvement is needed to meet the Government’s aspirations in this area. The Ministry should set out in its response to this report how it will improve the uptake of low emission vehicles in its purchasing, leasing and rental arrangements to meet the Budget target of 25% of its fleet to be ultra-low emission vehicles by 2022. (Paragraph 15)
3.Whereas the Ministry expressed confidence over sustainability in its contracts, we have not seen any evidence that this is the case for the vast majority of its contracts. We expect the Ministry in its response to set out how sustainability is embedded in the 785 contracts which the Government Buying Standards do not apply to, providing us with an overview of the standards that apply to these contracts. (Paragraph 17)
4.The Ministry’s Government Greening Commitments on carbon and waste for 2019–20 lack ambition. We would like to know why the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) allowed the Ministry to set such easy targets. We recommend that the Ministry review and publish a set of ambitious targets for 2019–20 alongside its response to this report. (Paragraph 20)
Sustainable policy-making
5.We are concerned that the Ministry does not routinely assess the environmental impacts of its new policies. We agree with the Ministry that its guidance for policy makers on environmental sustainability is lacking. It needs to improve this as a key area. We recommend that the Ministry include a “green check” criterion in its impact assessments to ensure it has considered all possible environmental impacts, including the long-term and less visible impacts. We recommend it publishes the environmental costs and benefits of its new policies annually, and demonstrates which actions it will undertake to mitigate the environmental costs of each new policy. (Paragraph 25)
6.The fixed cost cap on environmental justice cases was introduced after criticism from the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. It was replaced by the Ministry without a proper impact assessment or any attempt to address the concerns raised during an overwhelmingly negative consultation. The number of environmental justice cases being brought since then has fallen. In the face of such a flawed policy development process, the onus should be on the Ministry to demonstrate that the variable cap is not having a “chilling effect” and harming environmental justice. We recommend the Ministry of Justice publish an annual analysis of the number of cases on environmental justice that have been brought forward per month. It should review the variable cap two years from the date it was introduced. Unless the Ministry can demonstrate that the variable cap is not having a chilling effect on environmental justice, it should reinstate the fixed cap. (Paragraph 33)
7.It is important that all Government departments are seen to be acting in a sustainable way. We expect the Ministry of Justice to publish all its sustainability strategies by April 2018 to increase transparency over its guidance and objectives. (Paragraph 35)
Managing the estate
8.We question why the Ministry has not implemented more renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels or biomass boilers, which have the potential to reduce its carbon footprint even further. Cost savings could also be achieved and the Ministry should make more use of available funding support such as the ongoing Renewable Heat Incentive. We recommend the Ministry assess within the next two months how it will implement renewable energy technologies, including in new prisons, and how it will maximise funding for the uptake of renewable technologies. (Paragraph 41)
9.We are concerned that the Ministry did not collect BREEAM certificates for 64% of its refurbishment and new build projects since 2010, and that 14 projects did not meet the required standard of excellent. The Ministry already faces difficulties, having an old estate and the particular challenges associated with prison management. Not knowing the condition of its estate could lead the Ministry to make decisions that do not maximise environmental and economic returns. We recommend the Ministry routinely assess all its projects, and publishes annually the rating of its new building projects and refurbishment projects. Where it fails to meet the expected standards of ‘excellent’, it should set out how it will ensure compliance with BREEAM and what costs it has incurred to rectify the situation. (Paragraph 46)
10.We are concerned that the Ministry does not know which of its court and tribunal estate fall in conservation areas and that it does not monitor the condition of its sold courts and tribunals. Derelict buildings pose risks to society and impact negatively on high streets and town centres, and local authorities which are already stretched for finances, have had to step in to rectify the situation. We found gaps in the governance arrangements in the disposal programme for courts and tribunals. We recommend that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) publish a list of which courts and tribunals it sold off have become dilapidated and how it will support local authorities in dealing with these buildings, including whether it will provide financial support. We further recommend HMCTS report to us how it has improved oversight over the maintenance and disposal of historic assets on its court and tribunals estate, including what measures it has set up and reporting systems it has developed to ensure that historic assets are managed sustainably. (Paragraph 51)
11.While we recognise that each prison faces unique challenges, we would like to know why the Ministry has not set sustainability targets for each prison and what incentives prison governors have to achieve high sustainability performance. We are particularly concerned about the expired prison service instructions which should have provided guidance to governors on how to deal with hazardous waste and packaging waste. This includes the sustainable development policy, introduced in September 2003 and marked as expired in September 2004; the disposal of hazardous waste, introduced in February 2007 and expired in August 2008; and the Reporting on packaging waste from February 2010 and expired in December 2010. We recommend that the Ministry publish the results of its benchmarking exercise on energy usage, including a comparative analysis across its estate, and develop targets for each prison. It should tell us how it will support prison governors to meet sustainability targets and how it will monitor performance. (Paragraph 53)
Sites of Specific Scientific Interest
12.While we recognise that the Ministry has improved the status of three of its ten Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs), eight of them are still in an unfavourable condition. We urge the Ministry to set out in its response to this report a plan that will lead to 50% of its SSSIs being in a favourable condition by 2020, and a long-term plan for the rest. (Paragraph 57)
13.Given the importance of managing SSSIs properly, we support the Ministry’s plan to improve oversight and governance of SSSIs. We recommend it publishes its guidance on the management of its SSSIs, and develops a clear documentation system so it can track the performance of each site over time. It should report to us how its Senior Estates Board has overseen the management and review of the condition of each SSSI, and what interventions it has undertaken to ensure that staff and contractors are held accountable for the management of the sites. (Paragraph 61)
Oversight and accountability
14.Neither we nor the NAO saw much evidence that the Ministry’s Sustainability Champion was taking a proactive approach or demonstrating leadership in this aspect of his role. We support the changes in the Ministry’s oversight and governance structure, and the fact that the Minister will have direct insight into the Ministry’s environmental sustainability performance. We recommend that the Ministry explain to us in its response how it has implemented the changes in its governance structure and demonstrate how it improved oversight of sustainability matters in its key plans and documents, including how it has staffed its sustainability team to deal with a set of challenges across its estate. (Paragraph 65)
15.Overheating has been identified as a major risk from climate change. We are concerned by the Ministry’s lack of participation in cross-governmental groups tackling this issue. Overheating in prisons is a serious issue, as evidenced by the 497 complaints the Ministry received in 2016–17, and has implications for health and security. We are pleased to see that the Ministry has followed our previous recommendations and is sitting on the Domestic Adaptation Board. We recommend the Ministry of Justice report to us in its response how it will engage in the relevant cross-government working groups on estate management and sustainability. (Paragraph 68)
16.The Ministry should improve its oversight and governance arrangements of contractors’ performance and agree that sustainability should be embedded more in its contracts. We recommend it incorporates environmental KPIs in all its contracts, and set up a robust monitoring system to measure performance. It should develop clear terms of reference of its oversight groups. This is all the more important following the collapse of Carillion, who managed approximately 50 prison service sites. (Paragraph 72)
29 January 2018