Annex 7
Letter to Board Level Contacts of Water
Service Companies and Water Companies in England and Wales from
the Chief Inspector, Drinking Water Inspectorate
DWI Information Letter 11/99
FEEDBACK FROM WATER COMPANIES ON DWI PERFORMANCE
IN 1998
PURPOSE
1. The purpose of this letter is to inform
water companies of the main conclusion of Bob Price's survey of
companies which was carried out to obtain feedback on DWI performance
in 1998, announced in DWI Information Letter 2/99, and to advise
companies on the actions the Inspectorate is putting in hand to
deal with the issues identified.
BACKGROUND
2. DWI operates on a total quality management
system of continuous improvement. It is essential therefore that
inspectors know what is expected of them and that we get constructive
feedback on their performance. We do this by:
— Our mission statement, our three-year
plan, our annual targets and by setting objectives and targets
for each inspector.
— Our Code for Enforcement which sets
stringent targets for all of DWI's main activities.
— Obtaining views from consumers on
their priorities through periodic surveys.
— Obtaining views from water companies
on our performance.
— Obtaining views from other relevant
organisations.
3. In previous years DWI has sought water
companies' views on its performance by means of a questionnaire.
This only covered part of the Inspectorate's activities and in
later years some water companies were filling in the questionnaire
mechanically. We considered that we were not getting fully accurate
feedback on our performance. Consequently DWI appointed Bob Price
to carry out the survey by face to face and telephone interviews.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
4. I thank water companies for the co-operation
they gave to Bob Price and for the helpful and constructive feedback.
I intend to use that feedback to improve DWI's procedures, performance
and efficiency. I hope this will bring benefits to DWI and ultimately
to water companies. A copy of the main part of Bob Price's report
is attached. A short annex which makes specific confidential references
to individual inspectors will not be made available to anyone
outside the senior DWI management.
CONCLUSIONS FROM
FEEDBACK AND
ACTIONS BY
DWI
5. The following sections set out the main
conclusions that Bob Price reached, broken down into general categories
of activity, and, where appropriate in italics, the action
that DWI has taken or proposes to take.
General
6. The main conclusions were:
— DWI is widely respected for its high
level of knowledge, expertise and professionalism, particularly
in areas of laboratory work and regulation. Knowledge of treatment
and distribution operations although adequate was not so well
developed.
*All Inspectors have attended training
courses on modern water treatment processes and the design and
operation of distribution systems. DWI will review the need for
up-dating of training in these areas.
— Widespread respect and recognition
of the role of DWI. It has made a major contribution to raising
standards. Some companies would like to see DWI more involved
in promoting good practice.
*DWI is involved in promoting good
practice; for example the Technical Guidance Notes associated
with the Principles of Water Hygiene. DWI will continue to promote
good practice when it is appropriate to do so.
— Some deterioration in relationships
between companies and DWI, primarily as a result of perceived
DWI regulatory initiatives on cryptosporidium.
*There is on-going concern to improve
the protection against cryptosporidium. Initiatives were made
by Ministers as a consequence of a prosecution which failed on
a legal technicality. DWI seeks a professional relationship with
water companies but it will always act in the best interests of
public health.
— DWI had been fair and objective in
its dealing with companies although some considered that there
had been inconsistency of treatment.
*DWI's aim is to be fair, objective,
and consistent and to treat all companies equally. Our quality
system is designed to facilitate consistency. We have adopted
a continuous improvement approach and we will continue to review
and improve our procedures.
General Inspection and Enforcement
7. Water companies considered that the arrangements
for the 1998 inspections were generally good and inspections carried
out in a professional manner. The main conclusions were:
— Some inspection reports were not
provided within the target times set in DWI's Code for Enforcement.
*This performance is unacceptable.
DWI is further standardising inspection reports and putting in
systems for better planning of inspections so that reports can
be delivered on schedule.
— Whilst most companies were satisfied
with the conduct of their inspections, a few companies considered
that there had been inconsistencies with previous inspections,
excessive pedantry, inefficient handling of audit trail queries
and some major differences between conclusions at round-up meetings
and the subsequent written reports.
*The Inspection and Enforcement
Unit set up in January 1998 has settled in and is reviewing its
procedures to improve performance in these areas. Breaches of
requirements missed in previous inspections cannot be ignored
unless they are trivial. New procedures have been put in place
to improve the efficiency of audit trails. There are no targets
for inspectors on the number of recommendations—the fewer
the better. Round-up meetings give preliminary conclusions which
may be modified as a result of further information from companies.
8. Water companies considered generally
that the annual compliance assessment was accurate and any subsequent
enforcement action appropriate. Most companies were supportive
of the new monthly compliance assessments introduced in 1998.
The main conclusions were:
— Many monthly assessments were not
completed within the target times set and subsequently feedback
to companies was delayed.
*This performance is unacceptable.
There were teething problems with the new system. The procedures
have been reviewed and revised which should enable greatly improved
performance in the latter half of 1999. We plan to give companies
preliminary feedback within 20 working days.
Distribution Systems
9. Most inspections and audits were carried
out by consultants under the Direction of a Principal Inspector.
Arrangements were good and most companies considered the conclusions
appropriate. There was a considerable improvement in meeting the
targets for inspection reports compared with previous years.
*DWI aims to improve to meet all
its Code for Enforcement reporting targets.
The Periodic Review (AMP3)
10. There was widespread criticism of the
Periodic Review process but most of this was directed at other
organisations than DWI. Companies had strong professional respect
for DWI's approach but believed that DWI did not have the resources
to carry out fully a task that proved considerably greater than
first envisaged. The main problems experienced by companies were:
— lack of clarity of information requirements,
particularly on lead, and difficulty contacting DWI to clarify;
— many preliminary opinion letters
were late arriving;
*DWI considers that the process
worked well and was delivered largely to time given the huge number
of schemes submitted. The feedback was obtained during the AMP3
process and was unable to record the final outcome. All decisions
were made in time for companies to prepare their draft business
plans. However, DWI intends to carry out a full review of its
procedures for AMP3 and its relationship with other organisations
with a view to learning lessons for the handling of a future Periodic
Review. DWI will consider proformas for data inputs.
Incidents and Complaints
11. Most companies considered that DWI had
reached appropriate conclusions and recommendations, but a few
did not and considered that there were inconsistencies. Some companies
considered that DWI was primarily interested in increasing the
number of prosecutions.
*DWI's aim is to get companies to
take appropriate action to prevent incidents happening so that
prosecutions are not necessary.
12. The main conclusions were:
— Some improvement in meeting the target
times for signing off incidents for which prosecution not being
considered, but still not met in many cases.
*DWI is continually striving to
make incident investigations more efficient against a background
of increasing notifications. 80 per cent of notifications in 1998
were completed with the Code for Enforcement target.
— Companies would like feedback on
whether an incident is being considered for prosecution before
the target time has passed.
*DWI is introducing a system in
which companies are advised when an investigation will not be
completed within three months of receiving the company's final
report. If a prosecution is under consideration the water company
will receive a formal letter advising that "the Inspectorate's
investigation may include consideration of an offence under Section
70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and this could lead to the institution
of prosecution proceedings".
Liaison Inspectors
13. There was widespread support for the
concept of the liaison inspector which was introduced in January
1998. Companies were generally satisfied with their contacts with
their liaison inspectors. A few companies considered that there
was lack of clarity about the role of liaison inspector and insufficient
contact with their liaison inspector.
*The role of the liaison inspector
was set out in a letter to companies on 26 November 1997. DWI
will review its internal guidance for liaison inspectors and where
necessary inspectors will clarify their role with companies. Liaison
inspectors will make at least one visit to each of their companies
in 1999 and, if possible, attend the final round-up meeting on
inspections.
CONCLUSION
14. DWI considers that this has been a very
positive and helpful exercise. DWI will be making the changes
to its procedures outlined above. I am confident that this will
result in improved performance and efficiency. I propose to carry
out a repeat survey at the end of 2000 to measure the effectiveness
of our continuous improvement programme.
ENQUIRIES
15. Enquiries on this letter should be addressed
to me or to Owen Hydes (Zone 2/E4, telephone 0207 890 5960).
16. Copies of this letter are being sent
to Pamela Taylor, Chief Executive, Water UK; Bob Dinwiddy, Head
of Water Supply and Regulation Division, Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions; Bob Macey, Environment Division, Welsh
Office; and Bob Price.
17. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter
using the enclosed slip and envelope.
28 June 1999
| 
