29. Generally, the evidence provided to the Sub-committee suggested that there were insufficient resources available to those agencies charged with enforcing current regulations. In their written evidence the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) did not pull any punches when it said:

"EIC is concerned that the Government's measures to stop companies polluting for free are being undermined in practice by failures to enforce the environmental protection policy measures that are in place. This is the message we receive daily from Members working on the front line of environmental protection. Whether it is the part IIA regime in the contaminated land sector: LAPC in the industrial air pollution sector; the Building Regulations in the climate change sector; or Oil Storage Regulations and discharge consents on the water sector; the message is the same: under-funded and inconsistent enforcement, coupled with derisory fine levels by the Courts, is undermining environmental policy objectives."[31]

30. The concerns expressed by EIC about "under-funded and inconsistent enforcement" have also been echoed by others. EEF, the Manufacturers Organisation, pointed to a widespread resource crisis, claiming that, "The Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Environment and Heritage Service and local authorities all face increasing pressure on their resources with the escalating volume of environmental legislation that is being implemented in the UK."[32] We will return to the matter of the level of fines and the increasing number and complexity of, in particular, EU Regulations, in later sections of this report.

31. We also received written evidence from the Environmental Services Association which, if accurate, we felt would seriously compromise the Agency's ability to function effectively and deliver against all of its objectives. The ESA spoke of a cut of £4 million in the Grant in Aid (GIA) budget from DEFRA to the Agency for 2004/05. It is this money, ESA claim, which the Agency uses to fund policing and enforcement of illegal waste activity. This cut would come at the same time as the Comprehensive Spending Settlement commits the Agency to making efficiency savings of over £75 million.

32. During the oral evidence session the Agency was candid about the resource difficulties it faces. It admitted it was committed to achieving efficiency savings but that, "the bottom line is that the GIA for regulation which we get from DEFRA is not increasing, it is not increasing with inflation and there are still discussions on-going at the moment".[33] It is, of course, looking for alternative sources of funding but admitted that this was proving difficult:

"There is an issue here about resources and funding and we have been saying we need more resources, firstly for our own capacity on things like fly-tipping, illegal disposal, illegal dumping […] we are trying to get more resources. I do not know where it comes from. We are trying to get it through the landfill tax to some extent and we have support around the place for that, but nobody is bringing the money forward."[34]

33. Given that, according to Environment Agency figures, the number of substantiated environmental incidents is holding steady at around 29,000 a year, and that the vast majority of these incidents related to unregulated, un-permitted sites, it seems incredible that DEFRA would cut so dramatically the Grant in Aid funding to the Environment Agency. This decision must be reviewed quickly if the Agency is to continue to deal effectively with this important area of its work.

34. As part of its drive for efficiency savings, and in an attempt to eke out its reduced funding, the Agency is, it said, "directing [its] resources where the greatest priorities are."[35] To that end it has reviewed how it uses its existing enforcement officers and has now started to put them into special enforcement teams; there are currently twelve teams across eight regions. This adjustment appears to be paying dividends for the Agency and, using the Thames regions as an example, it told us that, following the creation of a special enforcement team, prosecutions went up five-fold and fines imposed rose from a total of £20,000 to £100,000. The Agency is also looking at ways to work more effectively in tandem with local authorities. For instance, it stated that a new agreement was about to be concluded with local authorities which would further clarify the role of local authorities in dealing with the smaller incidents of illegal waste disposal and fly-tipping, leaving the Agency to deal with the larger and more serious incidents. We commend the Environment Agency and the local authorities for continuing to work together and for developing a partnership which, if successful, may go some way to effectively handling incidents of illegal waste disposal and fly-tipping and look forward to seeing a review of the initiative in due course.

35. The scope of this inquiry has allowed us only limited opportunity to establish exactly what resources are used by individual companies or organisations in actually trying to comply with environmental regulations, over and above that money they set aside to pay any fines they incur. Clearly, if we are being told by organisations, such as the FSB, that as far as their members are concerned, "environmental legislation is not top of their list,"[36] it is not unreasonable to suppose that these companies do not spend much, if any, of their money on environmental compliance.

36. The water companies, however, do devote significant resources to try to ensure environmental compliance. Anglian Water, for example, say that they have spent £1.5 billion of capital investment in the water and waste sector in the last five years.[37] This is a large sum of money and it would appear that at least some of that investment, combined with what Anglian Water refer to as their telemetry and instrumentation systems, has paid off. The Agency has acknowledged that, whilst still identifying Anglian Water as a repeat offender, the number of incidents involving Anglian Water were reduced in 2003 because they, and Wessex Water and Dwr Cymru, have "continued to direct management and operational attention at reducing their number of serious pollution incidents".[38] We commend Anglian Water, Wessex Water and Dwr Cymru for reducing pollution incidents in 2003 and look for a similar commitment and achievement from all other water companies.

32   EC4-03 Back

33   Ev15 Back

34   Ev16 Back

35   Ev15 Back

36   Ev43 Back

37   Ev30 Back

38   "Greener business is good business, Spotlight on business, Environmental performance in 2003", Environment Agency Back