Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)

DR ANDREW SKINNER, MR MARTIN BROCKLEHURST AND MR ARWYN JONES

25 MARCH 2004

  Q80 Chairman: Could I ask quickly about waterways. Your memorandum said there was a particular problem with waterways and I think Defra have said the same thing. We are all familiar with the old swansong about bedsteads in village ponds. Why is there a particular issue with waterways? What are you doing about it?

  Dr Skinner: First, waterways, be they rivers or canals, particularly in urban areas, are obscure and inaccessible places that have not been used or accessed very much. All that is changing, of course, because one of the glories of inner city development is the way in which canals/rivers are being made more accessible. In many urban areas, the price of new accommodation on the banks of the canal is at a price which 20 years ago would have seemed absolutely flabbergasting. So that is changing, but there is still a history of canals and rivers being inaccessible places where not many people go, and they are therefore seen as prime sites for illegal disposal. Because they are waterways, there is a wider impact, both in terms of environment and public health, because toxic substances or even non-toxic but polluting substances can dissolve and flow in with the river. Thirdly, there is an issue about drainage. An accumulation of bedsteads, trolleys and pressure cylinders from gas cylinders can actually be a flood risk. Because we are a flood management agency, we are a water quality agency, we are a waste regulation agency, it touches our business in many more places than does disposal to land. It is an issue for all those reasons and one to which we therefore have to give good attention and certainly British Waterways identified it as one of their prime problems in terms of amenity of the waterway and in terms of the usability of the canal system.

  Q81 Chairman: Presumably local authorities have a major input into this as well.

  Dr Skinner: Yes, absolutely.

  Q82 Mrs Clark: Let us take a cultural look at things, perhaps. Antisocial behaviour—that very phrase—and fly-tipping are hitting the headlines more than ever before, not only nationally but more properly locally. You say there has been a change in this prominence in the Government's eyes over the past 12 months or so. Is this coming from governments, local authority and the agency or is it actually responding to public demand?

  Dr Skinner: I think it is a complex issue. There certainly is a reduced tolerance from the public and from landowners in terms of the issue and the use of land and the damage to amenity. When we quote pollution incidents, we are actually quoting public reaction to damage of the environment. We do not have a huge police force of environmental inspectors over the country; our police force is the general public. They are the people who ring us up, and we mobilise quickly, depending on the scale and threat to public health and the environment. When an issue is going up, in terms of reports that is a measure of how it is perceived as well as how it is seen. Indeed, one of the reasons why we so much want better data is because you can get noise in our information—because if we run a campaign, as we sometimes do, jointly with local authorities and the police, then the issue is raised in profile and we get more reports, so it is hard to unravel. Undoubtedly there is greater public concern and less public tolerance of fly-tipping or illegal waste dumping. We are also pushing the issue. We were pleased to get involved in debating with government in the Antisocial Behaviour Bill because it was an opportunity to bring the environment issue into a piece of legislation that was primarily about social issues—and that is important for us because we do not think the environment should be in a little bubble with its own little legislative toolkit. The fact that we have had excellent dialogue with the Home Office—indeed some of our staff have been seconded there for periods of time to help work this up, because it is a social issue as well as an environmental issue—we thought that was a very positive step so it had our support. So there is push and there is pull.

  Q83 Mrs Clark: Is it not fair to say that there has been a bad time-lag between the general public expressing concern and action actually being taken? Why is this? Is this because it has been almost embedded into the system; that people are used to nothing being done so it becomes almost culturally acceptable? It is okay to put your supermarket trolley in the lake—as we have in Peterborough quite a lot.

  Dr Skinner: There is acceptance. It is very clear to us as we are going about our job that a little bit of illegal dumping can easily lead to a lot as an area becomes almost accepted as a place where this might happen and where people are not concerned. Certainly when we have been involved in clean-up operations—and these often relate to watercourses because of our other duties on drainage and flood protection—we have been very keen to keep the environmental quality of that particular area maintained because it does not stimulate a repeat of action. People seem to be reluctant to throw the first black plastic bag, but if one goes and stays then the car and the construction waste and the hazardous materials may well follow.

  Q84 Mrs Clark: In your memorandum you very much put an emphasis on catching them young, catching them at a vulnerable time, children: education, education, education. You are talking about environmental citizenship. Is this really going to help, so that if we get them young and make them responsible then they will not do it? Or is this a very, very naïve view? Are the pressures outside in society just too great and are we just kidding ourselves?

  Dr Skinner: We did say that but we did also say that it was not exclusively relevant to the issue. I do not think we see this as a youth culture issue as it relates to the hazardous end of the illegal waste dumping market. It relates to attitudes which lead to the degradation of environmental quality of an area, which then makes it a place where the more hazardous wastes that we are more concerned about are attracted. So it is an issue about education but I do accept that it is a small part of a complex problem.

  Q85 Mrs Clark: You have mentioned before about antisocial behaviour. I was actually on the bill stage of that committee. I personally think there is a problem with the phrase "antisocial behaviour". Why do we not use the phrase "environmental crime"? Or why not just "crime"?

  Dr Skinner: We do use the word "crime" and we do use the word "illegal" and, as I said in my opening remarks, we would much rather and do talk about illegal dumping rather than fly-tipping because we believe that has the right connotation in terms of the motivation and the impact. Fly-tipping is a word which does not carry that. Antisocial behaviour was a bill developed by the Home Office. We were pleased, for the reasons I mentioned, to be invited to respond because of the link we see between environmental crime and other forms of social injustice, but in our business and in our publicity and consultations we do not play heavily on that issue for the very reason you have said: it does not carry the gravitas about the nature or the motivation of the issues.

  Q86 Mrs Clark: In terms of the safety of your staff when dealing with these issues, do you find offenders are increasingly resorting to violence or—just as worrying, perhaps—the threat of violence?

  Dr Skinner: That is the case and it is a concern for us. Indeed, it was discussed by the agency's board yesterday. But I will ask my colleague Arwyn Jones, who is the enforcement manager, to describe that in more detail.

  Mr Jones: Thank you. Certainly that is the case. Certainly since 2000 we have noted an increase of about 25% in the reported events of threatening or intimidating behaviour against our own staff. In the last 12 months there have been 128 reported cases on our own safety system. The vast majority are burglary but within that there are some very serious physical assaults that have occurred on our own staff, even where our own staff have been followed home and assaulted in their own premises. Fortunately they are rare, but they are there, and although the trend overall is quite modest over four years—

  Q87 Mrs Clark: Is it increasing?

  Mr Jones: It is increasing, but what is increasing more is the number of serious assaults on staff. That is clearly something we have taken very seriously and we have begun to put measures in place to improve the protection of our own staff, both within our own procedures and also through putting in place better working relationships with police to support staff. We have even had one incident within the last few months of a member of our own staff having to have 24-hour police protection for a period of some weeks.

  Q88 Chairman: Where was that?

  Mr Jones: That was in the North East.

  Q89 Chairman: How does an issue like that get resolved?

  Mr Jones: By working through with an interest in the whole case. When it gets to that kind of stage we clearly need to involve the police to help us with the investigation. Once the police get involved, sometimes the issue can be diffused a little, because the police clearly are seen to carry more authority than ourselves. We are not a police force, we do not pretend to be, but, equally, as we deal with the more serious end of crime, the characters we are dealing with are actually involved in other forms of criminal activity as well with which the police are more familiar. We certainly see that in fisheries offences and crossing over into waste offences, but also people are known to the police to be involved in theft of construction plant, for example.

  Q90 Mrs Clark: You clearly welcome the consultations of Defra. Any surprises in the documents—or all what you were expecting? Are you expecting anyone to lobby against any of the agreed proposals in the consultations? Are you pleased? Did it get the thumbs-up from you? Is there anything which you wanted to see in there which is not in there?

  Dr Skinner: We welcomed the consultation. It contains a lot of good sense. We were pleased to see a lot of the ideas that we have been developing from our own experience incorporated. We have yet to go through the fine detail. Probably the only point I would mention—and it relates very much to the discussion we just had—is the very good support we get from the police when we are in serious issues but perhaps a little bit more difficult as issues are developing, and we would like to see some of these issues being made more reportable offences so that they are actually loggable by the police force and they can count them as activities in which they should be involved. I think that would be very helpful to us. It may actually help to diffuse some of the more serious incidents getting as bad as they are if we could count on earlier involvement of local police services. We do have very good cooperation, but, like everybody else, they have resources and priorities and we think that would put it up their priority list. That will no doubt be one of our responses to the document, but, broadly, we welcome it, and we think it is a very positive way forward. It will give us and local authorities extra armoury which we would need and welcome, although one has to say that all these good ideas imposed upon businesses-as-usual funding will fall short of expectation, and, therefore, I associate all that with my remarks earlier about the comments we have made and you have kindly supported in terms of extra resources.

  Q91 Mr Thomas: If we can develop a little bit around the consultation and the current arrangements as well. First of all, I understand there is a protocol that deals with this between yourselves and local authorities.

  Dr Skinner: There is.

  Q92 Mr Thomas: Is that a protocol between yourself and individual local authorities or worked out between yourselves and the Local Government Association (LGA)? Does the fact that we have a consultation on statutory guidance point to the failure of protocol at the present arrangements? If so, where does that failure mainly happen?

  Dr Skinner: The protocol is a longstanding arrangement—well, as longstanding as the Agency—which very shortly after the Agency was formed in 1996 we developed with the local government through the LGA (and there is a parallel process with the Welsh LGA) and it was because illegal waste dumping was a live issue then and needed collaborative arrangements. That has worked in principle well, but patchily, I think would be a fair description, and some of the comments earlier would underline that. One of the reasons why the original protocol was perhaps less effective was that it was not as clear about who did what. What has now emerged as a commonly held view about the division of responsibility needed to be clarified. But also, because circumstances vary very much locally, there was a recognition that if we made the thing too prescriptive it may actually just not hit the button in some particular area. The new protocol, which is in a very advanced state of discussion and will be supported by statutory guidance if procedures go—which would be welcomed though hopefully not something which is widely needed—is a document which is clear about the basic principles but also involves procedures for local discussion, so that at local level the Environment Agency, local authorities, police, other campaign groups can work out their own arrangements. I think that is a step forward. It sets some national principles which would be endorsed effectively by the secretary of state but recognises that it is entirely proper for them to be local arrangements. That will be a stronger protocol, based on the experience of five or six years of use.

  Q93 Mr Thomas: How may the public perceive this? I can see how you as the Agency and local authorities can perceive of the difference between fly-tipping and organised disposal of waste or more than one van load, but the member of the public just sees items that should not be in the place that they are in. That is it at its most simple. Is there not also a concern, if you have this protocol and statutory guidance but also this local flexibility, that if there are some local authorities which, perhaps for resource reasons, are not feeling particularly up to it, they may think, "Well, we have a little problem here but let's wait until that problem gets nice and big so that the Environment Agency deal with it rather than us." Are there not some difficulties here? I suppose I am approaching it from the point of view of why there has to be more than one body dealing with illegal disposal of waste. If it is illegal and it is waste, then over to you, or over to the local authorities—it does not matter who—but why have a two-pronged approach when perhaps a dagger would be more effective?

  Dr Skinner: It is a question of scale. Many of these issues are very local and they are about local community involvement, local self-help. There are many excellent examples where community groups have been the driving force, who have changed perceptions and expectations in an area, who have tackled the issue of the first black bag that I described.

  Q94 Mr Thomas: That is not universal, is it?

  Dr Skinner: It is not universal but there are good examples. I would like to see more. I think that is very much in the remit of local government. It is not what we are staffed to do. We are happy to help where appropriate but, as we described, we are talking about many issues where the crime is organised, the scale is big, the people are moving between different forms of environmental crime and organised crime. They are dealing with red diesel one day, into construction waste the next day and fisheries poaching on the third day, they are operating over a wider area, and it is pretty difficult for the local authority and even sometimes the police force to cope with that scale. The rationale behind the division of responsibility is based upon (a) our statutory duties, (b) our scale of operation, and (c) the accumulation of experience that we have jointly gained. But, of course, sizes are all different sizes, and they meet in the middle, and that is where the local arrangements and the shared practice—

  Q95 Mr Thomas: It is about that meeting in the middle that I wanted to ask you. I can well understand the large-scale approach. I can understand your views. I can also appreciate at the lower end of the scale—you referred earlier to the high end of the market and we are now at the low end of the market—if you have a proper approach in terms of public education, accountability and awareness, then you can deal with a lot of those problems without enforcement action. But there must be a middle ground where you do have small builders who dump here and dump there or where it has been known for businesses not to be too hot on how they get rid of their packaging and things in the past as well. Are you confident now that the consultation and the new worked out protocol will deal with that and we will not find this awful thing that happens with public bodies—and I am not particularly putting you in this any more than any other public body—of buck-passing, of: "That's not our problem, it is somebody else's problem"?

  Dr Skinner: First, there are sufficient examples of excellent practice of working together—local authorities, police, ourselves, others—to convince me that the issue you are describing, the sort of demarcation dispute, the transition area, can be dealt with. There are plenty of examples, Birmingham, London, Swansea, where there are good examples and many more besides. We are saying that where arrangements are not working as well as we would like, and if they persist in that way, we will try our best, but we are going to stick to the high end of the market (to use the phrase I started with), and we will have to leave local authorities to deal with what they have agreed to deal with and stand by the consequences of the information that comes through on the database about what they may not have done. We do not have the resources to range right across the pitch. For reasons I have explained, I do not think that it is appropriate we should anyway. We will be setting procedures to be more clear to our own people about what we do, where we do it and where we help do it. The protocol underlies that in some significant detail. I think it is a positive step, based on experience. I am optimistic that it will work better. It will not work perfectly, but the power of the data that we have collected will enable us all to see the issues and deal with them better.

  Q96 Chairman: But there are grey areas. I know from my own constituency experience that there is room for confusion.

  Dr Skinner: Yes, there is.

  Q97 Chairman: Take, for example, a single field which has been occupied by travellers, who have been there for several weeks and the council has attempted, using the tortuous processes available, to move them. They go. They leave behind a few tonnes of building waste, hardcore and stuff like that, as well as a lot of more squalid material, and yet there is in that circumstance some doubt as to whose responsibility it is. Of course, in the end, it is the landowner's responsibility to get rid of it, which strikes many people as being very unfair. Could you comment both on how you see your involvement in a case like that and also on whether or not you share the view that it is unfair that the landowners end up paying the bill for other people's waste.

  Dr Skinner: I will ask Arwyn to elaborate. Based on the experience we have of these cases, which, I agree, are more common than we would like, the legal position is that it is the duty on the landowner. It is easy to see how that is perceived as unjust but it is also easy to look at the situation that would arise if it was a call upon the public purse to deal with all these issues all the time. You described a situation which occurs in rural areas but we also have it in urban areas and we have lots of issues about not even knowing who the landowner is. So it is a really complicated issue. Yes, there are situations where there has to be debate between the agencies to try to work out what is the best way forward, but, in the case of the protocol, the sort of description you are making of a site would not be a situation where the Agency would normally expect to be involved or active.

  Mr Jones: The particular example you have described is probably one of the most difficult for both ourselves and the local authority to deal with, in terms of transient offenders. The best examples we have had in the organisation is where we have worked in close collaboration with the police, because getting the offenders' identities clear and being able to track the vehicles is a real issue, because using powers to maybe seize the vehicles until the owner is established is quite difficult because they have moved on before you can actually get there. The best way we have found is actually to work very closely with the police and the local authorities and ourselves, but, by and large, I would actually endorse Dr Skinner's comments there that it would be more of a local authority issue but we are quite happy to help and support and particularly to help if we know that those groups are maybe travelling around and moving across local authority boundaries.

  Q98 Chairman: For most people it is very strange that it is so hard to track these people because most of the vehicles have large mobile phone numbers printed on the outside of them. They are in business.

  Mr Jones: They are. If I could comment on that, we actually have processes in place now within the Agency, within the constraints of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, to access that kind of subscriber information. But with a lot of those numbers it is not immediately obvious which telephone provider the subscriber is using. It can actually take several weeks, in our own experience, to go round all the telephone providers to pin down the numbers, and quite often they are pay-as-you-go so you do not often get very far with that either. They are probably one of the most difficult parts of the community who are engaged in that kind of criminal activity to track and pin down. The police themselves have difficulty in actually dealing with them and we suffer from that as well.

  Dr Skinner: You are talking about some of the most intractable problems in public order. Although I acknowledge that these are issues which show there is lack of clarity, it is not unique to the issue of illegal waste, and all enforcement authorities find these very difficult situations. I would emphasise that there are lots of areas where the arrangements are working very well and, if more of that best practice could be followed, I think we would see good progress from the protocol we have.

  Q99 Chairman: You do not have any specific proposals that you are canvassing with government in order to improve matters?

  Dr Skinner: We are advocating, with the agreement of the Local Government Association, the procedures which are included in this quite detailed document which deals with circumstances and issues   and legal responsibilities and support responsibilities, the sharing of information. As I say, there are many examples where it is done very well.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 28 July 2004