Supplementary Memorandum by the Institution
of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS) (EA 58(a))
IPMS referred in its original submission (section
3.1) to the unresolved issue of the job specification and grading
of Agency's field inspectors dealing with the process industries—IPC
and radioactive substances. The delivery of these functions operates
well currently to judge from other evidence submitted to the Committee
and a number of articles in the environmental press including
the ENDS magazine. The Agency's Director of Operations (with,
presumably, the advice of the Director of Personnel) has sought
to resolve this issue recently by unilaterally issuing a job specification
which appears to leave unchanged the job undertaken by field inspectors.
The fly in the ointment, however, is that the job has been evaluated
at a score (using the Hay system) some 30 per cent lower than
it was when the Agency evaluated it in 1997.
The immediate effects of this move would be
as follows.
(i) The recruitment salary for jobs of the
proposed score (£19,646 to £22,325) are insufficient
to attract candidates of the right calibre: they would have neither
the relevant industrial experience nor the stature required to
regulate major industry effectively.
(ii) Some 80 per cent of the present inspectors,
including many recruited since Agency's formation, would require
salary protection as their current salaries lie above the proposed
grade maximum.
The latter point is largely a matter for internal
trade union negotiation and scarcely of interest to the Committee's
enquiry. However, IPMS believes that the sheer illogicality of
the Director of Operation's action in attempting to downgrade
a job whose content and complexity are increasing (with COMAH
and IPPC) supports its argument that Agency is poorly managed
in this area.
The real impact of the move, however, lies in
the reduction in the recruitment standard and is far-reaching.
A reduction in the calibre of staff at the point of delivery to
external "customers"—the major industries in the
economy—will require greater reliance on the hopelessly
inefficient and ineffective matrix management system. Ironically
an Agency Board member has recently suggested an examination of
matrix management to see if it is getting in the way of effective
regulation. The Agency is seeking to deflect criticism of its
IPC inspector charge rate that is currently £1,215 per day
(but with a 20 per cent rise proposed for IPPC). These charge
rates would be the equivalent to 12 to 14 times the rate the Agency
proposes to pay the inspectors carrying out the work. The double
whammy for the Agency would be the fact that its industrial customers
would continue to pay charges that are already unpopularly high
but they would not receive the appropriate level of experience,
expertise and quality of service from the inspectors regulating
their activities. IPMS believes that this is further evidence
of lack of clarity in the Agency's funding streams.
The Agency has refused to engage IPMS in the
debate on this issue despite repeated requests from its elected
and full-time officers. The Director of Operation's decision was
cascaded through management chains with no opportunity for consultation.
IPMS believes this to be further evidence of Agency's poor internal
communications and poor treatment of professional staff.
IPMS
Environment Agency Branch
December 1999
| 
