Examination of witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 1999
MS PAMELA
TAYLOR, MR
BRIAN DUCKWORTH
and MR PAUL
WOODCOCK
180. I was thinking of regional differences
in a rather wider sense. What do you think the Environment Agency
could learn from the regulatory bodies in the other parts of the
United Kingdom, SEPA, for example?
(Ms Taylor) It is interesting you raise that because,
as I said in my very brief introduction, we represent the whole
of the UK water industry, so we would not be having this discussion,
for example, regarding our three members in Scotland and their
relationship with SEPA which is very much based on sharing the
need to develop certain things in order to achieve particular
outcomes and working successfully in partnership. We have specifically
asked the Environment Agency at a national level to work in partnership
with us and they specifically refused to do so.
Mr Donohoe: The difference surely, as far as
your members are concerned in Scotland, is that these three boards
are not profit-making?
Mrs Dunwoody: A minor difference!
Mr Donohoe
181. And that is why the relationship in Scotland
is by far better.
(Mr Duckworth) I think we could still work together
very closely, as we do—
Mr Donohoe: It works far better in Scotland.
Mr Gray
182. And in Northern Ireland too where they
are profit-making.
(Mr Duckworth) I think we do work very well locally
in regions quite frankly. I think the sort of lack of working
together probably comes at national level through the EA headquarters
and that is, I think, where we as Water UK could sit down and
help promote some better thinking.
Mr Olner
183. You have heard evidence that the Committee
received earlier today from the Environmental Services Association.
Are you, as an industry, concerned about the quality of the inspectors?
Do you want to train them?
(Mr Duckworth) I do not think we want to train them.
I think we have some very good people in the Environment Agency.
I think they have got quality people as regards some of the water
and waste water activities, but I think the Environment Agency
is still a young organisation. I think that coming, as it did,
out of the National Rivers Authority which came out of the water
companies, you would expect them to still have quite a lot of
the expertise that was around probably ten years ago. In terms
of some of their other regulatory responsibilities, perhaps it
is a bit early in its existence to be able to comment on the overall
quality of the people.
Mr Cummings
184. According to your evidence, you are obviously
not content with the way in which the Agency consults with the
water industry. Could you comment on where you see the deficiencies?
How do you believe that better consultation could take place in
the future and how do you believe the Agency can improve its consultation
with industry?
(Mr Woodcock) I think that at the local level the
consultation processes work reasonably well. There is a process
in train called the "local Environment Agency planning process"
which involves a number of stakeholders from each of the regions
contributing to the way in which a catchment develops, where are
the problems in a catchment, where do we need to invest money
to solve them. I think when you move away from that local situation,
and I think this is the point you were making, the consultation
processes get a little more indistinct in terms of the national
links. Certainly the consultations that we have with Bristol are
very difficult to relate to the local picture as translated to
us by the regional offices and I think the example is the one
I have just given that local Environment Agency plans work very
well in terms of the local environment, but they are very little
influenced, I think, by the kind of consultation approach we have
from Bristol.
185. Is there a perceived arrogance within the
Agency in relation to consultation?
(Ms Taylor) I would not say it is arrogance.
186. What is it? Can you be more specific?
(Ms Taylor) I think it is the lack of successful communication
within a large organisation and I think that they still have a
lot of things still to sort out within the organisation.
187. Have you put this to them? What has been
the response from the Agency to yourselves?
(Ms Taylor) At a national level not a lot.
188. Is not responding to reasonable submissions
from a national organisation showing arrogance?
(Ms Taylor) It is unfortunate that we have not got
the response that we would like in terms of offering to sit down
and work more successfully in partnership. Whether it is borne
out of arrogance or whether it is borne out of "Oh, God,
I can't cope with anything else right now" or whatever, it
would be tough of me to be able to decide and I would not want
to mislead you, but certainly we are disappointed that our offer
to sit down has not been taken.
(Mr Duckworth) I think one of the greatest opportunities
that we have as organisations, the water industry and the Environment
Agency, is to sit down and think about the long-term strategy
for resources in this country. Someone has got to own the big
picture on water resources and no one is doing that at the moment.
In terms of the consultation process, what happens is flimsy documents
like this creep out from the Agency and land on different people's
desks about sustainable water resources for the future. I am afraid
it does not lend itself to taking on that big picture responsibility
and I think that is what we want. In fact, we often see the local
regional people taking more of a responsibility in thinking about
the longer-term strategic direction and perhaps some of the people
at Bristol ought to be doing so.
189. Your evidence is quite damming of the Agency
in terms of consultation. You say that it is often seen as imposing
these policies with little concentration, it is unwilling to enter
into dialogue with customers and the public consultation documents
are published too late to have real influence.
(Ms Taylor) That is right.
190. And having made an observation to an Agency
and not having had a response, you just sit back on your hands.
(Ms Taylor) Not at all. We continue to sit forward,
we continue to request meetings and we continue to say that we
wish to sit down—
191. And you are continually getting rebuffed.
(Ms Taylor) We are continually not getting the response
we would like.
(Mr Woodcock) We get a negative response. Through
partnership with the regional offices we have delivered huge environmental
improvements and river water quality, biologically, has improved
by 40 per cent in the Anglian region since 1990 as a result of
the investment made by the water company, but we are not seeing
Bristol deliver consistent messages around a sustainable approach
to the environment, for example, and that is where we need to
strengthen and develop those partnerships.
192. How would you strengthen consultation with
industry?
(Mr Woodcock) I think Pamela has just said it really.
We are open to approaches and to further communication with the
Environment Agency at Bristol and we have made those offers and
we would like them to be taken up.
(Mr Duckworth) I think something like this, where
both organisations have probably got the major responsibility
to think about the long-term future of water resources. We just
happen to be a consultee to a fairly ill thought out piece of
literature.
193. You must have been aware that we would
be discussing the Agency today because I have just received a
letter from the Environment Agency wanting its officers to come
along and brief me in the greatest of detail as to what is happening
in my area. That is the first time that has happened.
(Ms Taylor) That is a good start.
Christine Butler
194. You mentioned in response to a previous
question that you felt there was a high degree of expertise within
the Agency regarding your industry. Are there any caveats to that?
(Mr Woodcock) Yes, I think there are in that increasingly
the way regulation is extending into sewage treatment, for example,
means more of the integrated pollution control legislation is
moving into that arena and I think there is a lack of understanding
on the part of some waste inspectors, for example, about how a
sewage treatment plant operates. I think we are addressing that
at local levels by taking inspectors on to sites and showing them
how that works, but generally speaking I agree, the quality of
local inspection is quite high.
195. And you also seem to be quibbling about
cost-benefit analysis and some of the environmental aspects.
(Mr Woodcock) I think that is a big issue for me in
that the Environment Agency look at things in a sectoral way.
For example, they asked us to improve the quality of the effluents
we discharge, which is quite right and proper, I am all for that,
but at the same time that has a cost to the environment in terms
of the extra energy that we need to use in our processes to produce
those better quality effluents. We do not see the Environment
Agency looking holistically at environmental impacts. They look
at improvements to river water quality in isolation of other environmental
issues.
196. Are you suggesting they are looking too
narrowly at regulation and as a result of European Directives
and not at a wider picture? Of course you talk to them about this.
(Mr Woodcock) We have talked to them about this.
197. And they say it is not within their remit,
do they?
(Mr Woodcock) They do. They are really trying to get
to grips with this issue. I do not think they are there yet. I
think this is where the big steer from Bristol comes from essentially
in terms of the local offices clearly having their focus in particular
sectoral areas. Bristol needs to take this overview and provide
a more holistic approach to the way in which the environment is
managed.
198. Time and again you seem to be pointing
your finger at Bristol rather than the regions. Could I move on
to another aspect and that is your relationship with the Agency.
Do you see yourselves as customers?
(Mr Duckworth) To a large extent we are customers
of the Agency in that we take some services from them. I think
at the end of the day we feel we are regulated customers and we
cannot move away from that relationship where they are the regulator
and they make some tough decisions.
199. Do any of you think that "customer"
is not the right word and, if so, could that person describe what
the correct relationship ought to be?
(Ms Taylor) Customer is the right word for part of
the relationship.
| 
