Examination of witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY 1998
RT HON
JOHN PRESCOTT,
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
AND MR
JOHN ADAMS
Mr Grieve
40. Can I come back to your last comment
about the government setting objectives and the local authorities,
as agents, delivering? They are the ones who will have to take
different decisions in a different context.
(Mr Prescott) We can help them deliver.
41. Of course. I just wanted to marry that
up with the comment which came from Mr Meacher about, for instance,
waste disposal. Here we have certain parameters set down for reducing
the use of landfill sites, increasing recycling and with it, as
a concomitant, probably increasing incinerators. Because of my
background, I know a little bit about incineration and the problems
associated with it, but also its potential advantages. I slightly
detected the impression, from the answer we had earlier, that
the government was rather relieved that it had pushed the targets
back so that landfill could continue. Presumably therefore, the
local authorities would have to be continuing to identify their
landfill sites and get their planning permission for them?
(Mr Prescott) I do not think you should draw that
conclusion about deferring targets.
42. At the same time, perhaps there is a
slight reluctance over moving down the road of incineration. Is
that not an area where, unless the government starts getting its
objectives sorted out, it is going to be a bit hard on the local
authority, having to make decisions, often very controversial
decisions, about how they are going to approach a problem of that
kind?
(Mr Prescott) Precisely. We all have a policy
view about what the balance is between us. There is a raging debate
going on. As you have already pointed out, there are environmental
problems whichever way you go. Michael is very much involved in
negotiations in Europe. It is equally as controversial there as
it is here. Like you, I think you cannot rule out these problems.
That is where the hard choices are and if we ask the local authorities
to do something we have to be fair about where we stand on the
argument. I shall certainly do that. It is the same with road
traffic targets and with all things that the government sets.
It is far better that it is a clear target and together we can
implement it. That is what the new arrangement and partnership
with local authorities which we are now developing is all about.
43. How long do you think it will be before,
within your strategic review, on an issue like that, you can come
up with conclusions as to how you are going to proceed?
(Mr Prescott) The problem itself is developing
in such a way that it will have to be very quickly.
(Mr Meacher) Can I first of all pick up Mr Grieve's
slightly curious misinterpretation of what I was actually saying?
44. I apologise.
(Mr Meacher) We entirely accept that incineration
should be increased in this country. I think that is inevitable,
but it is the size and cost to public authorities of an increase
in incineration that we felt was extremely damaging. It was for
that reason that we were seeking an extension of timescales. We
want to move away from landfilling as fast as we can, but it has
to be practical and feasible. To achieve the kind of targets which
were originally in the draft Directive of the EU was frankly impractical
for this country. That is the only reason that we were seeking
an extension, not because we want local authorities to look for
new sites and to extend the whole process. It is the minimum that
we felt we could practically achieve. That was the purpose of
it. I do not think there is any conflict.
(Mr Prescott) As a very good example, you can
have an environmental objective which is a judgment between using
these ways of disposal of waste. The economic argument that might
be referred to is whether you can afford to do it. Again, that
is a matter of how you treat the public finances and whether you
are into private financing. There are different ways you can actually
handle those matters if you can change some of the Treasury rulings
in regard to investment in these areas. After all, the local authority
has to pay a charge to dump; therefore, there is an income stream.
An income stream allows you to be guaranteed over a period of
time to provide a capital facility. That is an area where changes,
if you like, in the public and private financing and the rules
that apply can deal with that economic problem of resources, which
a local authority itself cannot provide but, in paying for the
waste disposal charges with an income stream guaranteed from local
authorities, you can provide a capital facility. We have to look
at new ways of doing things and we certainly are doing so.
Mr Baker
45. I was involved in a debate on the floor
of the House which is why I was not here when you started. Can
I ask the Secretary of State about the European perspective particularly,
because what you want to do in your department is not simply governed
by the Treasury but also by what happens in Europe. How do you
intend to use your presidency to further environmental aims within
Europe? Secondly, are you committed in principle to a carbon tax?
If so, what is the position in Europe? How are you able to move
that forward and the general move of taxation away from employment
to pollution? Thirdly, what about these trans-European networks
which it seems to me necessarily encourage road transport by providing
a European subsidy to move cargoes from one point to another much
more cheaply and therefore work against what I believe your policy
is?
(Mr Prescott) I will just make an opening statement
and Michael can complete it. The Prime Minister made clear that,
in our presidency, we did want to make environment a major issue
alongside jobs and crime. Indeed, some of those issues I was explaining
to a meeting of prime ministers in Latvia last week. He made very
clear there, as in his statement, that the areas we have identified
are climate change—we have talked about some of the problems
associated with that—air pollution and the biodiversity
issue. We have even included the Fisheries Council where we can
talk about the issue of high seas drift nets that we want to see
phased out. We are also making it clear in the enlargement of
the European Union, which comes under our presidency, that the
environmental considerations are to the fore in those discussions
about accession. Indeed, transport is absolutely critical. What
I have done there—again, I think it is the first time in
the European Community—is, for the first time where we normally
have council meetings of the Community held in the host country,
in this case Britain, to bring the two together. It will be held
in Chester in April. The Transport and the Environment Councils,
with the two commissioners, are being brought together to look
at the joint implementation of policies to achieve environmental
objectives, here in particular in regard to some of the transport
matters. That is the overall framework. I think it is quite an
ambitious environment for them. It is the one the Prime Minister
spelled out. It is what we are doing now under our six months
of presidency and I hope we will have some success in it. To be
honest, you can always claim a lot more success than the six month
period of time has allowed you, but at least if you can change
the decision making process and try to get a greater focus in,
particularly on Kyoto—again, Kyoto will be absolutely critical
because we will be negotiating those legal targets. It is all
right negotiating legal targets; the most important thing is the
raft of policies that goes to achieve those targets. We already
have a draft document from the Commission and we will be using
that to support our analysis of the priorities that we set for
environment. Kyoto gives us a very good way of establishing targets
as something to be measured against. On the trans-European networks,
that is a very important part. If you can come over the Pennines
via Hull and go on to eastern Europe, it would be a very useful
development in that area. The trans-European networks are crucial.
Quite a lot of money comes into this. There is a lot of controversy
at the moment about one of them. We will wait and see what is
going to happen. We are very supportive of that. We think it is
a very important part in the environmental development, bearing
in mind the strictures we make about road and rail investment
programmes.
(Mr Meacher) John did answer that pretty fully.
With regard to the six key points, climate change is going to
dominate the March and June Environment Councils. On the whole
issue of transport and air quality, we are putting forward the
first air quality daughter Directive under the framework Directive.
There are the three other issues which he also referred to: biodiversity,
where I think the UK has a good record, and where we want to see
the kind of framework which we have established in this country
extended throughout Europe; the whole issue of enlargement—in
what timescale will the six acceding countries be expected to
reach our environmental standards; and the whole question of fisheries
which he referred to, drift nets and the impact that that should
have for dolphins, for example. If I can just add one more point
which we do think is very important and I think would interest
this Committee, that is, having established the greening of Government
as a major flagship policy of this government here in Westminster,
we are also regarding the greening of Europe as a key target for
our presidency in Brussels. There are four main mechanisms—
I can think of some more ways—but these are, first of all,
to ensure that, in the Environment Council itself, we will monitor
the manner in which the Commission is carrying out an environmental
appraisal across all the Commission Directorates, exactly what
we are doing here in London. Secondly, we will be asking colleagues
who chair other councils to ensure that environmental appraisal
is properly carried out in those areas. They are very important
areas for the environment, which I do not need to say, and for
industry, agriculture and energy. Thirdly, I am not sure whether
it is an innovation but it certainly has been done rarely before,
bringing together environment and transport in a joint council,
as John was saying, which I think is very important. It sends
a very important signal. Fourthly, which perhaps is the most important
thing of all, to ensure that at the Cardiff head of state council
at the end of the presidency in June there is an item on the agenda—and
the Commission will be producing a paper on this—on how
environmental appraisal is integrated throughout the Commission's
and the Council's work. That of course is an innovation which
we are putting down. It is for other Member States following us,
Austria and Germany, to decide if they take it up but I hope and
believe that they will. We will be leaving a long term mark in
terms of environmental objectives within Europe.
46. That is a very full answer but you did
not actually deal with the carbon tax point. Can I also ask you
to address what I believe is an inherent contradiction in European
policy? The EU has been very good at bringing forward environmental
legislation, better than we have been historically in the last
20 years, in my view. On the other hand, there is a belief, as
I understand it, at the centre of Europe which is that, because
of free trade and everything else, it is important to be able
to transport goods as cheaply as possible, as far as possible
within the European Union and beyond. Now of course we are seeing
an extended European Union and I am concerned that, at a time
when this Parliament is looking at road traffic reduction either
by the Bill on Friday or by whatever means you come forward with
in your White paper, we are going to see an increase in traffic
movement in Europe because it is now becoming economical to move
an empty pot from one end of Europe to the other, fill it with
yoghurt and bring it back again. It seems to me that the whole
way transport is costed in Europe is totally at odds with what
you are trying to achieve and at odds with the European environmental
agenda.
(Mr Meacher) If I could take the first of those
points which is the carbon tax, in general, I think a great deal
of environmental regulation, which is very effective both in the
UK and elsewhere, does now originate in Brussels. It is subject
to unanimous decision within the Council, although there are some
elements which are agreed by qualified majority voting, that is
true, but they are certainly matters which are having a strategic
impact on a whole range of issues. With regard to the carbon tax,
whilst recognising and agreeing the objective behind it, namely
that we need to bear down on carbon emissions and that will be
absolutely central to the consultative paper which we will put
out on the post-Kyoto agenda on climate change in around the middle
of the year, our view has been that there are disappointments
with the carbon tax which have been hinted at earlier. One is
the social distribution effect, the social equity impact. We have
to be aware that whilst VAT on fuel, for example, can be a desirable
environmental mechanism, it also has disadvantages in terms of
its social impact. Secondly, there is low elasticity of demand
when it comes to many of the items on which a carbon tax would
fall and what we have therefore chosen is to find a variety of
other ways of achieving the same objectives, as we will certainly
be indicating in our consultative paper. On the Road Traffic Reduction
Bill and your wider point with regard to traffic, again as John
Prescott was saying, our concern is to ensure that our objective
to see an intermodal shift away from road on to rail is one of
the issues we shall be strongly pressing in the Transport Council.
We strongly support the view which you expressed which is that
there should be freedom of movement as rapidly and quickly as
possible across Europe, but there are a variety of different ways
of achieving that and a multiplication in the number of cars with
all the environmental consequences that would bring is something
that I think Europe is going to have to consider at our insistence.
We are in support of the general principles of the Road Traffic
Reduction Bill, as I think we shall be making clear. I think there
has been agreement between the authors of the Bill and ourselves.
I do not believe that there is a necessary conflict. I think it
is possible to finesse both objectives, i.e. the greater freedom
of movement and the freedom of travel, but in forms which are
more environmentally sensitive.
Mr Robertson
47. I happen to agree that there are a number
of contradictory policies coming from Europe. Can I ask something
that was in your booklet Modernising Planning. You have
spoken about the European context of everything but I do not think
you mentioned planning because it actually says, "There needs
to be a significant European dimension to our planning system."
What does that mean exactly?
(Mr Meacher) It is a vexed question and you have
put your finger on an issue on which there are different views,
in particular the whole issue of the strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) which certainly some of the non-governmental organisations
are keen to pursue. Our view is not to disagree with the objective
but to say that we already carry out SEAs. That is already something
that is written into the government's system. Secondly, we are
concerned that if you put a new and further layer into the consents
system, a further stage which planned development had to pass
through, you would be at risk of substantially extending what
is already a very long drawn out planning process. For those reasons
we have decided not to pursue this as one of the main aims of
the British presidency. Frankly, the agenda is packed. It is a
very ambitious agenda that we are putting forward for the Environmental
Council, but we recognise that this is an issue on which people
do have genuine differences of view and we are proposing (I do
not think we have yet got agreement from Mrs Bjerregaard as the
Commissioner ) that there should be a workshop, a conference or
a seminar in Britain in the course of these six months to thrash
it out, so that there could be a lengthy and public discussion
of these issues and it would be for other Member States following
us to take it up if they wished.
48. Your booklet on modernising the planning
system that came out recently says, "We fully recognise that
there needs to be a European dimension", but you seem to
be saying you are not convinced that there does need to be.
(Mr Meacher) What I am saying is that we believe
that that strategic environmental dimension is already there in
the planning procedures. There are different views within Whitehall,
but our general view is that that is not a priority. I accept
that there is a case for extending it. I think my view would be
that if you could give me some examples where there have been
failures to carry out a strategic environmental assessment or
a failure to implement it effectively then I think we would look
at it again. I think this is a matter on which the Government
has a relatively open mind.
Mr Savidge
49. I wonder if I could move the subject
on to Green Ministers given your specific responsibility for Green
Ministers. Could you give us your views on the relative seniority
of the departmental Green Ministers? If it is the Secretaries
of State is there not a risk that their environmental responsibilities
will get swamped by their other concerns? On the other hand, if
it is a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in a very large
department is there not a risk that they have too little departmental
clout?
(Mr Meacher) The responsibility is absolutely
clear, it lies with the Secretary of State in each department.
They are the ones who are accountable and I imagine that they
are the ones who you will be calling to account here if you feel
any reason for dissatisfaction or for the clarification of policies.
Secretaries of State cannot do everything within their own departments.
I sometimes wonder, even with the very large team we have in DETR,
whether we can know more than a fraction of what is going on,
but hopefully we know the most important fraction of what is going
on. Many of these matters have to be delegated. I think it is
inevitable and right that that is delegated to junior ministers
who then see themselves as having a prime responsibility in this
area. I do not have the clout, I accept, as was said earlier,
of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I do intend to use my influence
to ensure that they are kept to their commitments. I have carried
out 14 bilaterals with colleagues who are Green Ministers in other
departments; I have got four still to go. That is less of a case
for identifying specifics and saying, "I am going to call
on you in a year's time and check that you have done it";
it is much more a case of trying to get people to think creatively
about how they can ensure environmental thinking goes on in their
departments. I cannot police other departments, but I have to
say very honestly that I have had a lot of fruitful co-operation.
There is a positive will amongst colleagues around Whitehall to
ensure that this issue of environmental objectives is given the
highest priority we can. Again, as John said earlier, I am not
expecting that we will have difficulties or reluctance, but I
certainly believe that where we can set targets we should. We
will be monitoring those on a six- or 12-monthly basis and certainly
wanting to know good explanations why they have not been achieved,
if they have not. That is what we will be doing and I am sure
you will also be deciding what you want to do as well.
Chairman
50. Following Mr Savidge's point about Green
Ministers and their responsibilities, I was concerned to read
paragraph 10 of the paper which you sent to the Committee which
appears to have a certain amount of confusion as to who is responsible.
It says, talking about Green Ministers: "Their main role
is to ensure that appropriate systems are in place." It then
says: "Responsibility for ensuring that the environment is
fully taken into account in particular policy areas rests with
the Minister who has policy oversight and who may not, of course,
be the Green Minister."
(Mr Meacher) Correct.
51. What is the situation? Who is going
to monitor? Or are the Green Ministers going to put the mechanisms
into place in their departments?
(Mr Meacher) The responsibility lies with the
Secretary of State.
52. The Secretary of State always has total
responsibility for his department.
(Mr Meacher) He has responsibility for all areas
within his department, including this particular area. Where he
has delegated, as I think is almost always the case—although
there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not attend
a Green Ministers' meeting if he/she chose—it would then
be for the Green Minister to achieve the objective which has been
set by the Secretary of State and he/she will be accountable to
his/her Secretary of State.
53. That appears to conflict with what is
said here. What it says here is that the Minister with policy
oversight will be responsible for the monitoring of the environmental
policies, not the Green Minister.
(Mr Meacher) I accept that. I am not clear where
the confusion lies. It is the Secretary of State who sets the
policy objective. It is the Green Minister who is given the responsibility
for ensuring that it is achieved.
54. No, not according to what you put down
here. What it says here is that "the responsibility for ensuring
that the environment is fully taken into account in a particular
area of policy rests with the Minister with oversight of that
policy area."
(Mr Meacher) Sorry, I think the confusion is
that the setting of that environmental objective lies with the
Secretary of State and it is the Secretary of State's responsibility
ultimately to ensure that that is achievable. However, the responsibility
of achieving that is delegated to the Green Minister. It is the
Green Minister who therefore has to ensure that that is carried
out and he/she will then be accountable to the Secretary of State.
55. He is the man who is responsible for
monitoring the whole environmental sustainable development element
within his department, not the minister who is responsible for
a particular area.
(Mr Meacher) That is right.
Mrs Brinton
56. Could I take the questioning on to governmental
funds. Is this Government satisfied with the level of advice and
the type of advice provided by the previous government's advisory
bodies, some of whom this Committee will have met, such as the
Round Table and also the Government Panel? Are you going to stick
with them or are you monitoring them as well, or are you going
to add to them?
(Mr Meacher) All institutions are subject to
review under the comprehensive spending review, including the
two that you have mentioned. Our view is that they do a good job.
I have a high regard for many of the reports that they have produced.
They have a different function. It is the role of the panel to
engage in forward or visionary thinking, to be looking in a visionary
way at areas before perhaps more pedestrian governments actually
get their minds round some of these issues and to point the way,
whereas the Round Table on Sustainable Development's role (which
has a much wider membership, the panel has only five people and
the Round Table 30 or so, perhaps slightly less) is to ensure
not only that they produce reports which look at specific areas
of policy but to seek consensus in the implementation of those
policies and to use the range of interests, business, NGOs, local
authorities, academics, to look at ways in which they can advise
how these policies will actually be implemented. We support them.
Dr Iddon
57. I think we have hammered out how the
green policy is going to work within the departments, but my concern
is to know how the general public and, in particular, this Committee
who are auditing the work, are going to be provided with information
which will allow us to do that. I mentioned earlier the Annual
Reports and I hope those are going to be clear in terms of targets
and indicators and the success or otherwise in meeting those targets
and indicators but that is on an annual basis. During the year
what evidence will be provided for us to allow us to monitor progress?
(Mr Meacher) I hope we will work with you on
this. We are feeling our way as you are too and if you have your
proposals we will certainly consider them very seriously. If there
are additional programmes that you want monitored on a regular
basis then, subject to the detail, I am sure that we would seek
to do so. It is already our intention to ensure, as we have said
comprehensively in the discussion we have already had, to establish
targets wherever we can and indeed, to ensure that they are monitored.
I think we are working together. If there are gaps in the programme
or areas that you want strengthened, I am sure we would be happy
to oblige if we can.
58. And you will provide us with the information
on paper so that we can monitor the progress as time goes by?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
Mr Truswell
59. A little while ago you used the term
clout and I suppose my question is about the degree to which you
are prepared to use that clout. I was hoping to get in a little
earlier when the question of local government was raised. I am
glad that you see the important role that local government has
got to play, but I think it was the Audit Commission last year,
when it looked at what local authorities were doing, who found
something like two-thirds were making some palpable progress on
addressing issues of stability but that one-third were not. When
exhortation and consensus perhaps has failed how tough are you
prepared to get in the final analysis to get some local authorities
on board?
(Mr Meacher) Again as John said, although there
may be some backsliders—out of a very large number of local
authorities that is not entirely surprising—I do think the
vast majority are only too willing to co-operate and when we publish
"Opportunities for Change" on 4th February, which is
our consultation paper on our strategy for sustainable development,
there will certainly be sections in that which are relevant to
local authorities and I would anticipate that they would be paying
close attention to new procedures which are necessary in order
to meet those objectives and to widen the areas of environmental
appraisal which already take place. I accept your point that in
the end there has to be means of enforcement. The point we are
trying to make is that we are trying to achieve a culture change.
We are not trying to bludgeon people over the head and force them
to do things. We want them to accept what we are saying to them
as sensible and desirable; it is widely discussed; it is a major
government flagship programme and they have a responsibility and
a role within it and we expect them to co-operate not just to
the minimal degree to meet a target but wholeheartedly. I think
that is the approach that we want to see, but that does not exclude
certain key areas, for example the air quality objectives for
2005 which are going to be mandatory.[10]
A local authority could be taken to court if it has not tried
to meet those objectives. If there are hot spots which air quality
management has not tried managed to reduce sufficiently in time
then they could technically be taken to court. I hope we can avoid
that, but there are final points of last resort beyond which they
will not be able to go. What I want them to achieve is not just
the objectives but to enter into the spirit of the policy and
go a great deal further than what we in government are telling
them to do.
10 Note by witness: Under Part IV of the Environment
Act 1995, local authorities have a duty to undertake periodic
reviews and assessments of air quality, and where prescribed air
quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the end of
2005, to declare air quality management areas and draw up action
plans. Back
|
