Adequate consultation
30. The Department published a consultation document
on the proposal on 15 May 2002. The document was sent to 92 individuals
and organisations, including water companies, local authorities,
development agencies, environmental interest groups and regulators
and other relevant interest groups.[13]
The document was made available on three government websites.
Those consulted were given until 16 August 2002 to respond, although
the Department took account of all representations received. Forty-four
responses were received to the consultation document.[14]
The Department states that the majority of respondents were in
favour of the proposals or had no comment.
Concerns raised in response to consultation
document
31. Several of the environmental groups who responded
to the consultation raised concerns about the adequacy of the
consultation process.[15]
English Nature asked the Department to undertake further consultation
on the environmental implications of the proposal:
This consultation does not address the environmental
implications of water transfer via the waterway network and there
has been no opportunity to comment on the potential impacts of
a water grid or the sustainability of such an approach ... we
would welcome the opportunity to comment on the environmental
implications of developing the PPP, before it becomes a fait
accompli ... the proposal to develop a water grid based on
the waterway network has significant potential to cause a number
of major environmental problems and, as such, should be subject
to consultation with all interested and affected parties ... more
sustainable alternatives to water transfers, such as controlling
demand, reducing leakage and more efficient use of existing water
resources [should be considered].[16]
32. The Wildlife Trusts, a partnership of local wildlife
trusts, described the consultation process as being "fundamentally
flawed by the failure to address the potential impact of the proposed
Water Grid on the environment".[17]
Further information requested from the Department,
English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts
33. We were not satisfied with the Department's response
in the explanatory statement to the concerns raised by English
Nature and The Wildlife Trusts. We therefore asked the Department
whether:
- it considered that the passage of the proposed
draft order would make the establishment of the joint venture
company a "fait accompli", as English Nature suggested
would be the case
- it agreed that there has been no opportunity
for interested parties to comment on the environmental implications
of developing the PPP
- if the proposed draft order were made, future
proposals to exercise the Board's additional powers would be subject
to further consultation.
34. We also provided English Nature and The Wildlife
Trusts with a copy of the Department's response to their comments
and asked them whether they were satisfied with the response or
whether they had further concerns to bring to our attention. We
specifically asked English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts whether
there was any reason why the proposed additional powers should
not be assigned to the Board given that, in exercising them, the
Board would be subject to the same regulation as any non-statutory
body. The comments we received from English Nature and The Wildlife
Trusts were subsequently forwarded to the Department, for further
comment.[18]
35. The concerns raised by English Nature and The
Wildlife Trusts related to two different stages of the Water Grid
project:
- concerns relating to the adequacy of the statutory
consultation process undertaken by the Department on the proposed
draft order
- concerns relating to an apparent lack of consultation
at the planning stages of the Water Grid project.
36. Both English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts drew
our attention to the Department's consultation document on the
present proposal. This states that:
¼ this consultation
does not concern, and comments are not invited on, the substance
or merits of the Water Grid PPP itself, the promotion of which
is already settled Government policy. Rather, the consultation
relates to the proposal, explained in this paper, to make such
legislative changes as will enable implementation of that project.[19]
Both bodies were concerned that the Department had
actively discouraged comments on the desirability of the policy.
English Nature considered that the environmental risks inherent
in canal water transfers needed to be examined at the strategic
policy level, before a decision was made to set up the commercial
infrastructure and to define environmental responsibilities.
37. More broadly, both English Nature and The Wildlife
Trusts were concerned that there had been no consultation on the
proposal to set up Water Grid for public and private supply using
the canal network, nor any appraisal of the potential environmental
impacts. Both bodies considered that, if the proposed draft order
were made, the only environmental appraisal that would take place
would be when Water Grid was ready to implement a particular transfer
scheme. English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts considered that
such a process would be inadequate to deal appropriately with
their concerns about the environmental implications of the intended
use of the Board's network.
38. The Department's response to English Nature and
The Wildlife Trusts' concerns stated that the establishment of
Water Grid was not dependent upon the passage of the proposed
draft order; its establishment had already been agreed by Ministers
and took place on 19 November 2002. The Department considered
that the proposed draft order would merely give the Board "the
powers to develop Water Grid successfully by removing technical
obstacles".[20]
39. The Department also told us that the transfer
of water via the waterways network was an existing activity and
was not dependent on the new powers being sought. It believed
that the new powers sought under the draft order would enable
British Waterways "to participate in more of the supply chain,
and thus enable the public sector to derive a greater share of
the economic value created by the use of the inland waterways
for this purpose".[21]
Nevertheless, the Department fully acknowledged the need to consider
the environmental implications of any development of the Water
Grid business, given that the planned business of Water Grid will
result in a significant increase in current abstraction levels.
Oral evidence from English Nature and the Minister
40. On the basis of the submissions received, we
resolved to invite the Minister responsible for inland waterways,
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, and Dr Andy Clements, Director of Designated
Sites for English Nature, to give evidence on the proposal. We
note that, on 6 March, following our requests for further information,
the Board met with English Nature to discuss its concerns about
the proposal, shortly before the date on which we took evidence.
41. In the course of the evidence session, we discussed
issues arising from the two areas of concern identified by English
Nature and The Wildlife Trusts, relating to the two different
stages of the Water Grid project (set out at paragraph 35 above).
In addition to the matter relating to continuation of necessary
protection, as discussed in paragraph 26 above, we focussed on
the following two questions:
- whether the proposal was the subject of adequate
consultation, given that the consultation document explicitly
excluded responses commenting on the policy of using British Waterways
canals for water transfers by Water Grid
- more broadly, whether it would be appropriate
for us to comment on the apparent lack of opportunity at the planning
stages of the Water Grid project for groups such as English Nature
and The Wildlife Trusts to raise environmental concerns.[22]
42. In relation to the first question, the oral evidence
session on the proposal satisfied us that the proposal was the
subject of adequate consultation. We consider that the Department
was justified in excluding from the consultation process on the
proposal those matters related to the substance or merits of Water
Grid itself. Our conclusion is based on the Department's statement
that, if the proposed draft order is made, it will merely enable
the Board to participate in the joint venture company and derive
profits from the final supply of water. Such water transfer as
it is proposed Water Grid would undertake could proceed, regardless
of whether the proposed draft order is made—the difference
would lie in the nature and extent of the Board's involvement
with Water Grid. Consequently, the Department did not need to
include in its consultation on the proposed draft order the policy
of using the Board's waterways for water transfers by Water Grid.
43. In the course of giving evidence, Dr Clements
indicated that, as a consequence of meeting with the Board on
6 March, English Nature had no further objection to the proposal
proceeding.[23] Consequently,
and given that we consider that the Department was not required
to include consideration of the use of the Board's waterways for
water transfers by Water Grid in its consultation process, we
are satisfied that the proposal has been the subject of an adequate
consultation process and that the Department has taken appropriate
account of the consultation responses.
44. In relation to the second question, however,
we wish to comment on the apparent lack of opportunity at the
planning stages of the Water Grid project for groups such as English
Nature and The Wildlife Trusts to raise environmental concerns.
We agree with English Nature's suggestion to us that there is
a useful lesson for all government departments contemplating similar
projects to take from the outcome of this process. At the planning
stages of the Water Grid project, an environmental appraisal was
carried out by independent environmental consultants. Had the
Department provided information about the outcome of this environmental
appraisal to English Nature, The Wildlife Trusts and other interested
environmental bodies, and given them the opportunity to comment
on the scope and the findings of the appraisal, it is likely that
their environmental concerns could have been resolved at an early
stage. We consider it unfortunate that English Nature's concerns
were properly addressed only when a parliamentary committee chose
to seek further information about the adequacy of the consultation
process. We expect the Department to make information about
the outcome of the environmental appraisal of the Water Grid project
available to any other environmental body that requests such information,
and we trust that the Department and the Board will seek to address
any outstanding environmental concerns that may arise as a consequence
of such a request.
8 
