31/7/07 - Detailed response by Ewan Larcombe to Sir John Harman’s defence of EA bonuses (on BBC R4 broadcast and Times-on-Line)  (Sir John in black type, Ewan in red)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

The Environment Agency chairman today defended the five-figure bonuses paid to some of his senior staff, after an outcry from residents affected by the floods who complained that defences were inadequate.

No matter what Sir John thinks, he is obliged to defend these bonuses in public, but it is true that current defences are both inadequate and poorly maintained.

Claiming that the agency had responded "wonderfully well" to the floods, Sir John Harman rejected calls for staff to rescind their advances, which included a 15 per cent bonus of £24,000 for chief executive Baroness Young on top of her £163,000 salary.

The Agency may have responded ‘wonderfully well’ to the floods, but I am concerned about the neglect of watercourse maintenance over a long period of time that made the flood events worse.

The Sunday Times yesterday disclosed that performance bonuses had been paid to senior executives at the agency shortly before the recent floods, which saw more than 10,000 people driven out of their homes, and 340,000 people left without a mains supply after a water treatment works flooded. More than a week on, 120,000 homes remain without running water.

The situation could be far worse next time.  Time to make some changes I think.

Asked whether he thought the money should be repaid, Sir John told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Well, no, I don’t really. I know absolutely that staff, not just my staff in the Environment Agency, at all levels have responded wonderfully well."

Personally I cannot see the logic of justifying bonuses on the basis of response to a flood event.  Surely the bonuses should be paid for the execution of flood defence works that reduce the probability of flooding.

Sir John added that bonuses were paid for "measured" performance targets. "They were paid for delivering new defences, which they did, improving the maintenance of existing defences, which they did, extending flood warnings, which they did, and managing all that at a time when there was some reduction in funding," he said.

Sir John states that his workforce is improving the maintenance of existing defences.  In my opinion, the reduction in watercourse capacity over time due to silting and aggradation has been ignored, and maintenance dredging for flood defence purposes abandoned, thus exacerbating recent flood events.

"I think actually, from my very close experience of how they have performed, it is really unfortunate this story is running."

I cannot agree with Sir John.  I am actually happy that the truth has been revealed so promptly.  The Environment Agency are responsible for flood defence, and these people are being paid with your money and mine.