Memorandum by Ms Pamela Castle, Chair,
Thames REPAC (EA 84)
I would like to take this opportunity of making
the following points in addition to those made when giving evidence
to the Sub-committee on 14 December 1999. They are:
(a) it has been extremely difficult over
the past year to obtain information from the Environment Agency
in an understandable form, although (as emphasised when giving
oral evidence) the situation appears to be improving. It is not
evident whether this is due to a defensive culture from within
the Environment Agency or whether the information in the form
requested is not available. The type of information needed relates
to over-arching strategy decisions relating more to outcomes (for
protection and enhancement of the environment) than to process—for
example, the number of licensed waste sites visited. It is also
extremely difficult to persuade the Agency to consult REPACs on
the early stages of strategy proposals, which if REPACs were being
used efficiently would be the time to consult, in order to obtain
feedback from particular areas of the Region or from certain areas
of industry.
Bearing in mind that, at a maximum, the consultation
process for the whole year is probably no more than 12 hours (that
is, four sessions), for REPACs to be of any use the consultation
process should be relevant and concise.
(b) Following on from the previous paragraph
and not absolutely pertinent to REPACs but of general concern
is the quality of public registers of environmental information.
In my experience the public registers contain a great deal of
information (possibly in the form of computer printouts), which
is incomprehensible to the user. Again, it is not clear whether
this is deliberate policy on the part of the Agency or simply
that the effort required is beyond the capacity of the Agency.
Whatever the reason, the outcome is that the Agency, unfortunately,
gives the impression of being opaque and muddled.
(c) The Sub-Committee during the oral evidence
session raised the question of inconsistency across Regions (and
also inconsistency between Regions). I think the former issue
is more pertinent to REPACs and in my view this is just the sort
of matter that REPAC members can bring to the REPAC Agenda for
consideration by the Regional General Manager and his team.
(d) I have read the letter sent to you by
my colleague, Ian Bonas, Chair of the North East REPAC and support
his comments. I have particular concerns about the AEGs, which
have no statutory basis. It is clearly beneficial to the Agency
to hear concerns on local issues but it is my impression that
each AEG is working to its own Agenda leading to fragmentation
across the Region and adding to the burden of the Agency with
regard to the number of committees it has to support.
Pamela Castle
Chair, Environment Agency REPAC Thames Region
December 1999
|
