Examination of witnesses (Questions 300
- 311)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
MR EDWARD
HYAMS, DR
NIGEL BURDETT,
DR BRIAN
COUNT and DR
JOHN MCELROY
Christine Butler
300. Yes, a charter agreement.
(Mr Hyams) Some sort of charter. I think the overall
thrust in terms of joined up thinking and output orientated relationship
combined with the professional approach is the answer.
301. Within the Agency's own memorandum they
recognise what you are saying. They say that "... Charges
related to the environmental burden caused by a company's activities
should replace them. ..." that is them meaning the present
system of charging "... These charges should be incentive
based, so companies who pollute more pay more". Would you
agree with that at all?
(Dr Count) I suppose that I might have difficulty
because if we happen to have a large power station, is it the
volume of pollution rather than the improvements we have made?
Are we then going to get a burden of charges because we are doing
the right things and going in the right direction? I believe it
comes back to the view that everybody would support, whether we
are in business or in Government, of what is the best value for
money. I think some sort of performance measures which gives a
transparency that both the industry and I think the public can
see that the Agency is providing value for money.
302. Now, would you like to see or learn more
about the way that the Agency's scientific and technical people
think and that should be more exposed to you or is it that you
do not have confidence in their calibre in any case?
(Mr Hyams) I think we definitely would like to see
more openness and more access to what underlines some of the thinking
in terms of some of the things. It does appear to us at times,
and we are tempted to question some of the calibre, that it may
be that it is more related to—
303. Do you often question some of the calibre?
(Mr Hyams) No, we do not.
304. You do not?
(Mr Hyams) I said we might be tempted to. If I give
you an example of the process. We would make a submission, there
is a lot of technical detail. That would go away and there would
be some period of purdah. It would come back later with a response,
sometimes we might question the basis of that response, sometimes
we might not understand, it does not make sense to us technically
or scientifically. There is no transparency about that. The responses
are not subject to peer review. They are not consistent and the
quality is quite variable.
305. From region to region, would you say, is
it variable?
(Mr Hyams) Case by case and area by area and technicality
by technicality. I think it is an issue of transparency. I still
believe that it should be possible to develop an approach where
there is an agreed technical analysis, an agreed range of technical
possibilities and then we would propose and they would decide
on an implementation focused on the output. Getting into more
and more technical detail, I do not believe is the right way forward.
306. Is there a dialogue? Supposing they come
back in time, at that point, could there be a dialogue between
the industry and the regulator?
(Dr Count) Can I add our view? We have said that we
are asking the Agency to give us the broad framework on the objectives
they wish to achieve and allow us the innovation and to come forward
with proposals. I think we would like to do likewise to them.
We do not want to micro-manage the Agency. I think we would like
to have some performance measures. For example, if we are improving
our environmental performance, would I expect my cost to go up
in real terms; I might say why? For example, if I got a quick
response on submissions then that is a good performance target.
Is the industry getting equitable treatment? I think there are
a number of performance measures. I think I would rather keep
the dialogue at that level, I do not think it is right for us
to second guess whether their scientists are the right scientists,
I think that is for the management of the Agency. What I want
to see is it manifested in its performance and what it delivers
both to myself but to other stakeholders in the Agency, such as
the public.
Mr Brake
307. Do you believe the Agency gets the balance
right between implementing Government policy and influencing its
formation?
(Dr Count) That is difficult for us to answer. There
are clearly a number of areas where the Agency and other Government
Departments will have to have dialogue and it is not for us to
judge which is the best. If we look at Kyoto going forward, one
of the things we do not quite understand is whether this is this
going to be an environmentally led position, that we will need
certain environmental targets and we will be free as an industry
to choose whatever technologies, whatever fuel types we like,
or is it going to have an overlay of a legitimate energy policy?
That is for the Government to decide. I think what we would ask
for, and it is for the Agency to decide whether it gets that,
is a very clear transparent overlay of what are the parameters
that we are all working within. I do not think I can answer on
behalf of the Agency. All I can say is, from our perspective,
we do see areas where there are perhaps conflicting signals. If
you start at one point you get a different answer from starting
at another point.
308. You accept, for instance, that the Environment
Agency should have a role in formulating policy or influencing
the formation of policy?
(Dr Count) Indeed.
(Mr Hyams) Yes, I think our view is very similar.
It is very hard from our position to judge how much of a role
they take in influencing or developing Government policy. I do
think they have a legitimate and clear role there because they
have the overall remit in terms of environmental standards. I
would have thought that in terms of moving towards sustainable
development and perhaps more of a joined up approach to the environment
and some of the social and economic areas, the ability to join
up the ideas and develop more coherent policies can only be improved
if the Agency and others are proactive in formulating and guiding
policy.
309. In your company's view do you think it
would be better for the Environment Agency to be seen to be further
away from Government or closer to Government?
(Mr Hyams) I would think that the Agency has two distinctive
roles. There is the one we have just been referring to in terms
of overall objectives and formulating the environmental responses
to pressures and policies and influencing Government. In that
area clearly it needs to work closely. There is then, if you like,
the results of that overall policy which we would like to see,
as output driven approach as we have already said. I think that
output could be effective if it was perhaps more distant but I
would prefer to see that it had a clearer remit in terms of taking
into account economic and social effects as well as very narrow
environmental interpretation as interpreted through BATNEEC, which
we sometimes see.
(Dr Count) I think we would not judge whether closer
or further apart is best, I think that would be a matter for Government
to decide. What we are looking for is clarity so that industry
can compete on a fair basis in its sector and it can make sensible
long term decisions, particularly where it involves large amounts
of capital. It can plan its business within the context of what
Government and environment and all the policy positions which
are the legitimate role of Government.
Chairman
310. I can appreciate that you do not really
want to upset your regulator too much. My impression is that your
evidence and what you have said this morning has been tactfully
saying that they are really not coming up with the goods. Is that
unfair?
(Dr Count) There are areas where we would be very
critical: response times, clarity, going forward and too many
changes. I think, on the other hand, we believe that in the overall
context that they are trying to develop in, we would say that
there has been very good dialogue for us and we welcome the dialogue
that we have and we believe the judgments are being well founded
there. Rather than what we are trying to achieve—let people
who know how to achieve it deliver the best, that is the context.
Critical in some areas but not every area.
311. You would agree with that, Mr Hyams?
(Mr Hyams) I would agree with that. We agree with,
and support, the overall objectives. Our concerns are mainly around
the management systems and structures and processes that you use.
Even within that there are people who work extremely hard and
diligently. How effective that is is another matter. We would
want to be criticising where there is not a positive approach.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
