Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 1999
MR MIKE
CHILDS and MR
RAY GEORGESON
20. With some big rottweilers of their own.
(Mr Georgeson) I think so. I think there are some
real issues about how the Agency can train its staff and equip
its staff sufficiently to regulate and inspect those difficult
customers more effectively.
Christine Butler
21. In its regulatory role do you think that
it has a correct relationship with industry? Is it striking the
right balance there?
(Mr Georgeson) Again, I come back to this question
of customers and the regulated. I think there are many who see
the Agency as perhaps being a bit too cosy with many other elements
of industry. I think the accusation is made that industrial competitiveness
in many cases needs to override a number of environmental concerns,
not something that is shared by your Committee or indeed Environment
Ministers but a view that may well be shared by other parts of
Government which do not necessarily prioritise environmental protection
in the way that we would like. The Agency reflects the general
tone of Government not, I think, the general tone of Environment
Ministers.
22. How does what you have just said square
with the "Hall of Shame" and the league tables?
(Mr Georgeson) I was disappointed with the "Hall
of Shame", not least because as a league table it used fines
imposed by magistrates as its basis for producing its league table.
For me there is a real contradiction and this is to do with culture
again, I suspect. There is a contradiction between an approach
which appears to be about short-term publicity "Hall of Shame"
style and an alternative approach which is seen in parts of the
Agency which is about, for example, job-swapping within the waste
management industry, putting Agency inspectors into waste management
sites to help them gain experience and taking a much more collaborative
and perhaps more measured approach. Those two approaches seem
to me to be very contradictory. As far as the "Hall of Shame"
is concerned, certainly in the waste area I think those companies
that featured in the "Hall of Shame" are generally speaking
those who receive more attention from inspectors and therefore
when they do make mistakes they are exposed more quickly. The
real "Hall of Shame" is the one that needs to be produced
based on a fresh look at lots and lots of badly regulated and
even unregulated waste management sites.
23. Do you think that the "Hall of Shame"
is more a bit of an advert for the Environment Agency, a bit of
a PR exercise that failed?
(Mr Georgeson) I feel it was a PR exercise that failed.
I do not think that it did the reputation of the Agency any good.
I have certainly attended meetings at which it was quite explicit
from the Agency that the prime objectives of the "Hall of
Shame" were to gain publicity for the Agency. Whether that
has done anything to enhance relationships with the industry I
question.
24. May I take you up on something you said
earlier which was a bit concerning. You said that the way it might
approach various sectors could depend upon the view of the DTI
or Ministers at any one time. It smacks a little of favouritism,
does it not?
(Mr Georgeson) I feel in general terms you get the
Environment Agency you deserve. If we choose not to give environmental
protection and environmental improvement the priority that perhaps
we would like to see then we have an Agency which broadly reflects
the much wider priorities of Government in which the environment
does not necessarily figure as one of its top priorities.
25. Do you think that it has a credible prosecution
policy? I think you could pick up on some of the things you have
already hinted at when you answer that question.
(Mr Georgeson) Certainly from my understanding a lot
of the waste related prosecutions are generally small operators
with fairly small amounts of materials, small breaches of regulations.
Frankly, I am not entirely clear what the prosecution policy is.
If somebody is more clear I would be grateful for an explanation
because I do not believe that it is clear.
Chairman
26. Do you want to add anything, Mr Childs?
(Mr Childs) If I can comment on the prosecution policy.
I think certainly where we see the Agency regulating the larger
industrial processes then we see them reluctant to take prosecutions,
it is very much the last hurdle and it does take a lot of community
concern, a lot of community action, to lead to a prosecution.
I think they need to be ready to prosecute earlier to send the
right signal across industry. If I can move briefly back to the
question of the "Hall of Shame". From Friends of the
Earth's perspective we welcome naming and shaming of those industries
who are performing to the lower standards. Perhaps a better example
of where the Agency has carried that out successfully was the
launch of their Pollution Inventory using data on releases from
industry and creating a league table to show who is performing
best and who is performing worst.
27. Do you think that the Environment Agency
is sending the correct messages to industry in terms of enforcement
policy and industry is respecting that?
(Mr Childs) On the ground I do not see industry respecting
it and I do not think the messages that industry on the ground
is getting from the inspectors on the ground is one of "we
will be tough, we will follow through if you do not deliver on
the improvement timetable we have given you". For example,
we looked at ICI in Runcorn 18 months ago to see how well they
are performing there and got consultants to look through all of
their documentation there. Almost acres of forest must have been
destroyed to make those documents. What was clear was that the
Agency were continuing to allow the industry to miss improvement
timetables, to breach discharge consents and releases to the atmosphere
without prosecution. Again this year we have carried out some
more work there in terms of looking at Castle Cement in Clitheroe,
which I know the Committee is very familiar with, and again we
see the Agency allowing timetables to slip and not being tough
on the ground, so I think we have a mixture there. At the national
level we see the Agency wanting to appear to be tough by producing
the "Hall of Shame" and by producing the pollution inventory,
which I think are good ways forward, but on the ground we see
different behaviour and I think that is the whole challenge for
the Agency.
Mr Donohoe
28. Do you think that there is maybe some collusion
between the Agency and industry?
(Mr Childs) I do not think it is collusion in terms
of trying to hide information or trying not to improve to the
degree that they need to. I think there is a culture which has
developed over the years where the Inspectorate is extremely close
to the industry. They have worked very closely together, they
are on first-name terms and that sort of culture has developed
which has enabled them perhaps, the regulators, to be sucked into
industry's primary concerns and not step back and say, "Okay,
we need to take on board community concerns as well as industry
concerns" as well as some of the international obligations
which the UK has signed up to, so I think we do not see the industry
acting independently at local level and I think that is a problem.
I do not think it is as strong as collusion, but I think the culture
is there which does not enable tough regulation.
29. Is it down to a lack of resources?
(Mr Childs) I think that lack of resources may be
part of it, but I think it is more a cultural problem. I think
the Agency has resources and if it is given leadership from both
government and from the new Chairman of the Agency and from inquiries
held within the House of Commons and elsewhere, then we can see
the Agency shape up. I think they have got a couple more years
to do it really given that they have got the backing of the Minister
of the Environment and they will soon have a new Chairman who
will hopefully give them leadership and then I think they will
have two years to prove themselves.
Dr Whitehead
30. Before we move on, can I just quickly come
back to the "Hall of Shame". Are you saying that the
"Hall of Shame" is, in principle, a good idea, but you
do not like the way it is done or are you saying it is a bad idea?
(Mr Childs) I think we are saying the former. If industry
is taken to court and is found guilty of breaking the law and
is fined by the court, then I do not think there is anything wrong
with publishing that information and making it widely available.
That can only deter others from breaching regulations, so I think
from that point of view it is valid. One of the difficulties of
the "Hall of Shame" has been that the fines levied by
the courts have been inconsistent across the country and that
is one area where I know that the judiciary are looking at the
moment to see how they can better standardise fines for environmental
offences and yet again that is where the Minister, Michael Meacher,
has been concentrating to try and improve that, so better consistency
in terms of giving fines and I think it is appropriate that the
public are made aware of who has been fined and why they have
been fined.
31. What about accountability of the Environment
Agency? Do you think it is accountable for its decisions within
the context of the fact that it is not a directly democratically
accountable body, and do you think that the way it deploys its
decision-making process is reasonably transparent?
(Mr Childs) I think it is trying to be accountable
through its regional committees, through now moving to open up
its board meetings and the minutes of its board meetings, through
trying to make sure that people can look in and see what is happening
and through its annual general meetings which it does not have
to have, so I think it is trying to make moves in that direction.
To an extent, I still think at this stage that the Agency is using
those as a public relations exercise rather than publishing, if
you like, a warts-and-all evaluation of where it is at and in
areas where it certainly is not accountable. Some research has
been carried out in terms of where Britain's biggest factories
are as Britain's biggest polluters and they are predominantly
based in areas of poverty. There are 662 IPC sites in areas where
the average household income is less than £15,000 a year
and only five in areas where the average household income is over
£30,000 a year. I think in areas where you have a relatively
well-educated, middle-class population, the Agency is more accountable,
but in those areas of poverty where they are suffering multiple
depravations, I think the Agency has to do lots more work to speak
to the people who live in those areas.
32. You seem to have warmed a little to the
Agency since you put your evidence in. In your written evidence
you talk about the established role of secrecy, the decision-making
process of the Agency.
(Mr Childs) I think we are trying to be fair on the
Agency. There are areas where it is beginning to perform well—
Chairman
33. Does that mean you are not fair occasionally?
(Mr Childs) I like to think we always try to be fair,
Mr Chairman. Whether we always succeed in being fair, I do not
know. I think there absolutely are areas for improvement and I
think that is what we are trying to illustrate in our evidence.
They can be more open and they must be more open. They must improve
in terms of, for example, their regulation of the nuclear industry
and we have concerns about them in terms of reaching conclusions
without publishing the evidence. So there are some specific examples
where they are failing. What I think we are trying to say is that
given the new leadership and given political momentum, they can
be turned into an independent and fair regulator and what we do
not want to do is lambast them at this stage when I think it is
a crucial stage with a new Chairman about to be announced.
Dr Whitehead
34. You mentioned the AGM which you say they
do not have to hold. What is your assessment of the actual organisation
of that meeting itself? You said it was not quite warts and all,
but in comparison with other agencies, do you think it is a well
conducted and reasonably transparent occasion?
(Mr Childs) I think so. I have attended the last three
annual general meetings of the Agency and whilst perhaps the beginning
of the meeting has very much been about, "This is what the
Agency has achieved over the last year" and it is a very
positive look at what the Agency has been achieving, there has
always been adequate time, I think, for questions where you have
had people standing up who have raised very difficult questions
for the Agency and given that is a public forum with the media
in there, I think that is a good step forward. It could be much
more public relations based and it has not been, so I think that
is something for which the Agency can be patted on the head, if
you like.
35. So it is a sort of silverish star?
(Mr Childs) Yes.
36. What about the view of outsiders, the public?
What is your view of how the general public now looks at the Environment
Agency where it looks at it at all?
(Mr Childs) My view is that it would differ for the
different functions, so historically the National Rivers Authority
have always had a very good reputation, or not always, but generally
has had a very good reputation with angling groups, with river
conservation groups as being very open, wanting to listen and
to take on board their concerns and I think that is still the
case. I think they have still got a very positive relationship
there. I think in areas around industrial processes, then they
still have the same old problems really and as people living around
those plants, they have very little say and their views are not
listened to. I think there are parts of the country where there
is real environmental damage happening again in areas like Teesside
or Ellesmere Port, areas where the big industrial processes are,
but there is a lot of poverty as well where frankly I think people
do not know about the Environment Agency and certainly from our
experience of working at Teesside and Avonmouth near Bristol,
the Agency is not seen very much and people do not understand
what their rights are in terms of getting information.
37. What do you say from the Waste Watch point
of view?
(Mr Georgeson) From the point of view of those involved
in the waste sector, obviously the Agency certainly has a high
profile, but in terms of the public's relationship with the Environment
Agency, I think it is very limited and I think the Agency has
a very low profile in terms of the public and where it does have
a profile, it is almost certainly seen as an arm of government
and that may or may not be a good thing. The Agency has a network
of regional committees which, I believe, are primarily government
appointees and I think they perform a useful function, but there
is enormous scope, I think, for strengthening the role of those
regional committees and certainly for making them perhaps more
accountable to the public on a regional basis so that there are
many more opportunities for interested members of the public to
engage with the way that the Agency operates. I think at the moment
you have a system of regional committees which is frankly relatively
comfortable and I do not believe is really communicating with
the public in any strong way. Certainly, as Mike has said, in
areas that are primarily affected by heavy pollution there is
practically no engagement, I feel, on the part of those regional
committees with the communities in those areas. I think that is
an enormous gap.
38. How might that engagement with the public
be improved?
(Mr Georgeson) It could be improved in terms of direct
communication. The days of public meetings are long gone, as you
well know, but there are other ways of communicating with the
public nowadays that can be meaningful. It certainly means having
opportunities for Agency staff and the regional committees to
meet community organisations and make the effort to visit and
meet the community on the community's terms and not on their terms.
That means out of hours meetings, external events and the like,
putting the Agency at the point where it can communicate directly
with the public rather than expecting the public to come to it.
I think that is a change of culture which is not yet there.
Mr Brake
39. A question to Friends of the Earth. You
referred to Castle Cement earlier, can you very briefly outline
what your main environmental concerns are on that particular plant
and what you feel about the way that the Environment Agency has
responded to those concerns?
(Mr Childs) Castle Cement is a plant that has had
a lot of attention over the last few years clearly with this Committee
producing reports on it. I believe the Committee visited the area
so you will know, therefore, that the location of the manufacturing
plant is in the bottom of a valley and you would not build a manufacturing
plant there now anyway. There has been a history of plume grounding,
emissions from the factory hitting the side of the valley and
where people live. Then, of course, the Agency allowed Castle
Cement to begin to start burning wastes rather than just fuels
which led to increased concern within that area. The public we
have spoken to there, the people, have a view that the Agency
has been given the right prompting, pre-eminently from the Environment
Committee, but its response to that prompting has been to carry
out research, carry out monitoring in places where the plumes
are not grounding and trying to put in systems to record public
concerns but not doing that in a way that actually captures public
concerns. So, they see the Agency very much as trying to deflect
the criticisms of the Committee rather than trying to engage openly
and honestly with the community about what the problems are. We
still see plume grounding in that area and we still see local
concerns with the way that the site operated by Castle Cement
is being operated. They do not see the Environment Agency being
tough and independent. In that area I think we now have such a
break down of trust between the local population and the Environment
Agency that the Environment Agency are almost in the impossible
position of trying to win back their trust. On that particular
site it is not clear how that can be overcome without perhaps
bringing in some people externally to try to get all sides together.
It is an area where the local population believe that the Agency
has been trying to improve the public perception of what it is
doing without improving the practice of what it is doing. I think
in reality the plant is in a difficult situation and it may be
that the best thing to do is not to let it operate at the bottom
of a valley where plumes are going to be ground on the side of
the valley.
|
