What does trustworthy regulation look like? Not this.
Trust thought for today - What does trustworthy regulation look like and how does it work. The old and proposed new approach from the Environement Agency:
Staff blow whistle on Environment Agency that ‘no longer deters pollution’.
Front-line staff speaking here to the Guardian show the current approach is not working. Which we know.
* The CEO has been clear he will sack anyone who openly criticises the agency.
* Work that doesn’t generate income for the agency is deprioritised. So the department which gives out permits has lots more desk workers to generate revenue. The front-line workers who inspect sites and go out to pollution events have been ‘cut and cut and cut’.
* A % of the money generated is supposed to be used to tackle problems is going into management roles and doesn’t reach front-line staff. ‘Priority is given to the applicant not the environment’.
* Effective risk-assessment decisions in granting permits are increasingly harder to take because of the patchy nature of the data gathered by the depleted assessment function.
* When polluters are caught, tools to take action against them have been systematically removed, ‘officers are encouraged not to take action and find another solution.”
* The system doesn’t work. “those who adhere to the legislation are paying significant sums, whilst those that chose to ignore the legislation escape any charge or meaningful punishment,” according to one officer.
But a new approach to regulation has been outlined by the EA CEO James Bevan, published two days ago, with the aim of ‘being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it”.
https://lnkd.in/dB4dYMyx
It appears very sensible. It aims to be ‘proportionate, risk-based and outcome-focused. It assumes good intent but has a bigger stick with which to punish people who do not have good intent. This would work by making the industry pay for regulation and the full cost of repairing the damage they have done, with very large fines and jail sentences for those in breach.
So far so good. It will certainly need a dramatic improvement in funding for front line staff it appears. Perhaps it cold be one of the indicators for ‘evidence of trustworthiness’ in this new approach?
They should follow the lead of the Food Standards Agency of openness and honesty, publishing breaches and fines and being open about problems. And, of course, encouraging people to speak up about problems and not firing them when they do. That is table stakes.
They can start by getting a decent website to communicate with us better and to earn back the trust they have lost.
Garry Honey, Darrin Charlesworth, Ruth Steinholtz - any thoughts?
https://lnkd.in/dUf7myeW