Examination of witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
TUESDAY 31 MARCH 1998
MR JEFF
ROOKER, MP
AND MR
DUDLEY COATES
Chairman
120. Going back to the point Mr Dafis made
earlier about the CAP regime, we were talking in terms of abolishing
it but it exists and it is going to be there for some time. Given
that constraint and the severity of that, which you have emphasised,
what is the scope for greening agricultural support programmes
realistically at the moment? For example, I note that the agri-environment
scheme budgets are only three per cent of total UK CAP budget
and yet you have a lot of enthusiasm there. 700 farmers attended
the launch of arable stewardship, a very encouraging thing, but
you only have enough money to fund 150 of them. To what extent
can you and will you push forward programmes of this kind?
(Mr Rooker) We are certainly pushing them forward
but we have to do it within the constraints of our overall budget,
in any event. We have to look at the criteria and the balance.
We put schemes up, some of which may be not acceptable to everyone.
Farmers may turn up but they may not all want to join. I visited
a 1500 acre LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) farm in the
Gloucester area about a month ago where I saw what I thought should
be quite normal farming practices with planted and seeded strips
around the fields. In fact, one area I saw was where I was told,
"there are enough bugs in that strip in the summer to nip
out of the strip, into the field, eat all the aphids off the crop
and go back again", and no pesticides have been used on that
crop in that field for four years. They have deliberately done
this. This was in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. It was at
Guiting Power; there is no secret about it. A third of the visitors
are farmers from all over the country. They come and have a look
at practices that could be used on their own farms. I suspect
they cannot all be paid and subsidised, particularly probably
if they are outside the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, but they
are good farming practices. Farmers can see them first-hand in
these experimental farms, if I can call them that. They can deploy
them on their own farm without necessarily looking for CAP handouts
because they are good things to do in themselves.
121. You must have got some impression from
your discussions under the Comprehensive Spending Review etc.,
of the scope that exists to push these sorts of programmes forward.
Is it a very, very limited scope?
(Mr Rooker) Yes, it is. It is minimal because
the arguments about cross-compliance within the CAP—we are
intrinsically opposed to the production subsidies. We want to
stop somehow having the production subsidies. It does not make
sense for us to build an edifice of——
122. Does that mean you are against cross-compliance?
(Mr Rooker) In so far as where it does work we
will keep it but we are not pushing for it. If we push for further
cross-compliance based on existing production subsidies, it will
undermine—it is more important for us, as we see it, to
get rid of production subsidies and dislocate that link, than
it is to build on an edifice, that we wish to see go away, for
the sake of a bit more cross-compliance. If there is a scale of
priorities, that is where the priority lies.
Chairman: There is
also a potential conflict in MAFF between sponsorship and responsibility
to protect the environment. I know Mr Baker wants to come in on
this subject.
Mr Baker
123. Could I turn to the subject of genetic
engineering which I have discussed with you, Minister, across
the floor of the House? Given the potential revolution that is
occurring in agriculture with genetic engineering, what is your
department's strategic view of the place of genetic engineering
in agriculture, say, in five years' time? How are you forming
that strategic view and how are you coordinating your view with
that of other colleagues in government who equally have responsibility
for genetic engineering in other senses?
(Mr Rooker) It is a very important issue, as you
are aware. There is public interest in genetic engineering. In
terms of UK science, we certainly lead Europe on this issue. I
do not think it is something that we take a view the United Kingdom
can opt out of, for a start. It just is not possible for us to
put up the shutters and say, "We are not interested in this
advance of science". That presupposes all advances in science
are bad. I do not subscribe to that view. In terms of driving
it forward in the way you put it, I am not sure we are in the
driving seat. We have our science and our laboratories. Industry
itself is applying that science and it is our job to regulate
their outturn, their products, and to make sure that every conceivable
check and balance and a very stiff regulatory approval process
is in place for these new products that come along. In five years'
time, I cannot say—simply on the scale of change in the
last five years, for a start, things are moving very fast, as
you appreciate, and I do not think I can forecast where we will
be in five years' time. What I can say is that, operating as we
are at the moment, we are having for example a very thorough examination
across Whitehall of the genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
crops on which we had a consultation paper out last summer. For
the uninitiated, these are crops that are not subject to the use
of extra weed killers. What we do not want to do is to have problems
caused if those crops come on to the market. We are still considering
at the moment our decision. We cannot stop, as a UK government,
those crops that have been already approved in the European Union
from being planted. What we can do of course is influence industry
in its code of practice as to how they will be managed and used.
This is a matter not just for MAFF, for the Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods; it is a matter for the committee on toxicity;
it is a matter for the committee on releases into the environment;
it is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive because of
the actual buildings where the work takes place. There is a whole
series of regulatory authorities involved in looking at what changes
are being made and, as you appreciate, the benefits that can be
obtained from genetic modification could be very substantial.
It is not just a question of making things taste better or last
a bit longer. It may be that we can develop crops—maybe
grow soya in Europe or maybe enable the Third World, which is
drought-stricken, to grow crops that do not require so much water.
This is using science for the greater good of humankind.
124. Thank you for that answer. I will come
back to one point in a second. You were very firm in the House
on the question of beef on the bone, for example, when you said
that even if the risks may be minuscule you were not prepared
to let the public have that risk and you took action at that point.
Equally, I have a quote here from Frank Dobson who was concerned
about the theoretical risk from UK blood products. I will just
read it to you. He said, "We have no evidence to show that
the new variant CJD can be transmitted via blood products or blood.
The risk remains only hypothetical but we must proceed on the
principle that it is better to be safe than sorry." On that
basis, with those two examples, are you concerned that the risk
to biotechnology is not of that same ilk which should have action
taken on the same basis? In other words, do you feel that the
risk presented by genetically engineering crops to the environment,
and indeed possibly to food, is less of a risk than beef on the
bone, in which case it is okay for it to proceed as it is, or
is it more of a risk and it is simply that you are not, to use
your own words, in the driving seat?
(Mr Rooker) That is a very fair question but I
do not think the comparisons are fair. To come back to beef on
the bone, that was a question of not knowingly allowing infectivity
into the food chain, even though it was a very small amount. We
are dealing here with perceptions. We still have the problems
of our European farmers having imposed the ban on beef and we
are not prepared to knowingly allow even the tiniest amount of
infectivity into the food chain. Therefore, that is why we took
that precautionary view. We would say that is consistent with
the precautionary principle, as I believe Frank Dobson's view
was. Coming to the issue of genetic modification, this is not
an issue where Britain stands alone. Our regulatory approval system
for genetic modification in this country has had the seal of approval
from the World Health Organisation. It is not something where
we have a few scientists in a cupboard, doing a bit of work and
then letting all these products loose on a public that is not
defended, and where the regulatory process has not been quite
hard. The one point that I will concede—and I freely do
this because I am responsible for the initiation of it—is
that I need to know that our regulatory authorities, independent
advisory committees etc., are going to have a mechanism for monitoring
for the future the changes in food that come about from genetic
modification. Therefore, it is not a question of approving a product,
allowing it on to the market and never looking at it again. I
want a mechanism whereby the issue can be visited, if you like,
on a regular and constant basis. Now, at the present time, both
officials and members of the Advisory Food on Novel Foods are
actually discussing this, and indeed there was the first meeting
of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods the other week on this
where we, as Ministers, have encouraged them to have open meetings,
where outsiders were able to listen to the discussion as to how
a mechanism can be set up for the monitoring and the surveillance
of these foods. It is not easy simply because the checking of
whether GMOs are in some foods is not an easy thing to do, although
I have to say that when I visited the Central Science Laboratory
some weeks ago, the food side of the laboratory, work was already
taking place by our own scientists before anything had been commissioned,
using their own seedcorn money, on methods of checking all the
made-up foods, the supermarket foods, as to how checks could be
made as to whether or not there were products in there with genetic
modification going down the DNA route, and I was very gratified
to see that our own scientists were doing that, using their own
seedcorn money, in advance of knowing they would be asked in due
course to bid for such work and surveillance, so there is work
going on. I have asked, I do not say all the questions because
I will never be in the position of having asked all the questions,
but I have been asking the questions to make sure that I have
got the comfort myself of knowing that we are checking this and
that there is a constant system of monitoring. Now, at the moment
we are looking at how that can be set up and I will report on
that in due course.
125. You have said you are committed to
the precautionary principle, Minister, as indeed is your Department.
I wonder if you have seen this NFU document, the report of the
Biotechnology Working Group.
(Mr Rooker) No, I have not.
126. The NFU, who perhaps could never be
presented as the loony left by any stretch of the imagination,
list a whole range of concerns about biotechnology in genetically-engineered
crops and they say that these lead to a profound or complete misunderstanding
of the natural ecosystems, insufficient requirements for monitoring
produce sent to market, potential reduction in natural biodiversity,
and so it goes on. Others of course, such as Greenpeace, have
listed their more stringent concerns, such as their concern, for
example, that once you have a GM crop out there, it is uncontrollable
in terms of what may or may not happen to it in the same way that
once you release rabbits into the environment, you cannot then
suddenly get rid of the rabbits, they are there for ever, and
there are unwanted effects which may take a long time to show
up and so on. There is a whole range of concerns which people
have. Surely the precautionary principle means that if we are
to apply that properly in the same way that you have for beef
on the bone and everything else, if we apply that principle properly,
there should be a moratorium on the use of GM crops being planted
in this country, and English Nature have requested a three-year
moratorium and I wonder if you are happy with that moratorium,
and, secondly, there should be a ban on the use of genetically-modified
material in food in this country.
(Mr Rooker) Well, I honestly do not accept those
claims. I am as sceptical, I have to say, as anybody else. I am
an engineer by background, but I am sceptical and I genuinely
try and put myself in the position, if you like, of a reasonably
informed, alert person, naturally suspicious of being fed the
line by Ministers, scientists or officials, and that is the way
I try to approach my task in some ways as a Minister. I am as
satisfied as I can be that the precautionary principle has been
applied in this case in the same way as beef on the bone. It is
a fair question, but, as I say, it is not a fair comparison. We,
by the way, coming to your other specific question, are in no
position, as I understand it from legal advice and we have asked
about this, actually to insist on a moratorium of the planting
of these crops. They have received approval within the Member
States of the European Union and, as such, we are in no position.
What we can do and what we are actively doing in Whitehall at
the moment is making sure that the industry, including the NFU
of course, have got a very robust code of practice about the way
these crops are handled and dealt with and I can tell you now,
and I can tell everyone, that MAFF will not be prepared to put
its imprimatur on the industry code of practice on this unless
we are satisfied that it is wrapped up, watertight. Now, at the
present time I have not seen the draft industry code of practice
on this. We have put to the industry a series of questions about
the issues that we want that code to deal with and answer to our
satisfaction, otherwise, we will not be able, as Ministers, to
say, "Yes, MAFF agrees to this industry code of practice".
Now, they may not like the tone of the questions and they may
not be able to answer them all, in which case we may have to take
a more robust line, but it cannot be a line, I am afraid, that
insists on a moratorium on the crops. We may be able to request
it if we are not satisfied with the code of practice, but we cannot
insist on it. Before I conclude on this, because this is not an
unimportant point, I would like to say that it has also been decided
that every single pesticide that is used on these crops has got
to go from the beginning right through the pesticide regulatory
process. We are not going to allow pesticides that are used for
a particular crop simply to be okayed on a genetically-modified
version of that crop. We are going to require thorough regulatory
approval, which could take a considerable amount of time, it is
not done for delay, but it is done because we are applying the
precautionary principle.
Dr Iddon
127. Can I refer to the DoE guidance policy
document, Policy Appraisal and the Environment, published
in 1991 and ask you how widely has that been circulated in MAFF?
(Mr Rooker) It has gone down, and I say "gone
down", but I should not use terms like that, it has gone
around officials and, to the best of my knowledge, it has been
widely circulated throughout the Department.
128. So most of your staff would be aware
that there is great pressure now to deal with environmental appraisals
within the Ministry?
(Mr Rooker) Yes. It did not include of course
notes on submissions to Ministers. We are ourselves putting further
instructions to take account of these considerations to require
submissions that come up to Ministers to state specifically whether
the policy proposals have gone through an impact assessment in
respect of the environment. To that extent, we are going to do
things which have not been done in the past and I think that,
if you like, is a point where we are going to get revised guidance
on this in the near future, but we do not have to wait for that
and we are taking action within the Department already. We are
going to create for our own officials a presumption that a new
environmental appraisal will be published and will require justification
in submission to Ministers on points regarding the environment,
so that there is a separate paragraph and I would hope that it
would be up at the front and not put in the back so that it is
up there at the front. I did ask earlier on, I have to say, when
I had submissions and I went on some visits and talked to some
of our scientists out in the countryside and I was concerned that
not all of the submissions I was getting had gone through, if
you like, some of our own scientists in terms of areas of the
Department and I asked whether I could have a CSL, Central Science
Laboratory, impact study and I was assured that everything had
been gone through and I am amazed by the Whitehall machine now
where everybody sees everything, it is amazing, even sometimes
when they are not supposed to. The environment thing I think is
important and to have that statement in submissions, to give that
extra comfort to Ministers to know that this assessment has been
done I think is important and, as I say, I would want it up front
at the beginning of the submission and not at the end.
129. Your estate, as you have already stated,
is very widely spread across these 240 locations and across the
entire length and breadth of the country.
(Mr Rooker) Yes.
130. How do you communicate policy with
the people at the chalk-face?
(Mr Rooker) Well, of the 240, some of them, I
will not exaggerate, are very tiny and some of them are an office
with a couple of people, maybe plant inspectors, in some location
in the country. Others of course are our agencies. I am not sure
how they go in ascending order, but certainly in terms of actually
looking at an environmental assessment, to make it meaningful
we have selected 24 sites which are essentially laboratories and
of those 24, 14 of them are the veterinary investigation centres
around the country. Weybridge counts as one site. Now, Weybridge
has probably got 60 laboratory buildings on it and it is a huge
complex for the veterinary laboratory. In terms of communication,
the chief executives of the agencies obviously have operational
freedom, but I have to say that in MAFF we have got, if you like,
how can I put it, I am sure I shall say this wrong and have the
people sitting behind me cringe, but we have policy people concerned
with that area of policy who seem to have a very hands-on approach,
if you know what I mean. In other words, I do not have to have
the discussions with the chief executive of the agency, but with
the policy lead officer in MAFF it is almost as good as. In other
words, you can make things happen in the agency by discussions
with the policy lead officers in MAFF, and I have not used the
correct title and I regret that, but that applies as much for
the Meat Hygiene Service as it does in the other areas, so I do
not think there is any difficulty. When I have gone round in my
own areas of responsibility to try and get around the MAFF estate,
I have not had the slightest doubt that the agency chief executives
and the heads of departments I have been with were not fully on
board with exactly what had been said by Ministers and which had
been decided in head office.
131. That brings me to my next point. In
your memorandum you make no mention of training with respect to
environmental appraisal techniques.
(Mr Rooker) I thought we did.
132. Could you perhaps elaborate on that
and assure us that the whole of the estate is aware of what the
Government's intentions are?
(Mr Rooker) Far be it for me to contradict you,
but I thought we had because I have seen the issue of training
because we actually include it in our induction for new staff,
the environmental aspects, and if that is not in the memo, it
is certainly in my brief here.
Chairman
133. We do not think it is in the memorandum,
no.
(Mr Rooker) In that case, I would be happy to
do you a separate paragraph on this, but I can assure you that
in terms of induction of new staff and in terms of training on
environmental aspects, we do cover that. I am not sure if we do
it enough, but it is certainly a part of our induction process
for new staff and that I do know.
Dr Iddon
134. You mention something about the publication
of environmental appraisals. Are you able to say whether this
will be a separate document at the moment or will it be included
in some other document that you publish, and perhaps you could
tell us when we will see the first environmental appraisals published
by MAFF?
(Mr Rooker) Well, what I have just been discussing,
in terms of that, we will only get environmental appraisals, if
you like, as part and parcel of submissions to Ministers and of
course we would not be publishing submissions to Ministers, so
in that respect I do not think that area would be. The environmental
appraisals we will do in respect of public policy when we make
policy announcements and Bills and all that, we will make sure
that those are published documents, and I make no bones about
that, and we will presume that these will be published because,
as far as we are concerned, the presumption is that there will
not be anything secret and if there is something wrong with our
environmental appraisal, we need to be addressing it and actually
letting people know why we are addressing it. My original point
was the fact that in the submissions to Ministers, we would check
that this issue, whatever it may be, had been subject to environmental
appraisal without us necessarily asking about it.
135. Can I be a little specific finally?
You are probably not aware, but I am from the farming and market
gardening industry and I was born, bred and worked in it in my
youth and then became a chemist and when I became a chemist, I
was horrified at the number of chemicals and the consequences
of handling them which I had been involved in, such as formaldehyde
and methyl bromide to sterilise soil, for example, without any
precautions taken within greenhouses in a closed environment and
all kinds of sprays for greenfly on tomatoes and lettuces and
even burning nicotine openly in the greenhouses. I have done all
of that without any health warnings given and when I became a
chemist, I got rather alarmed, so could you say something about
the monitoring of these chemicals, the environmental appraisal
and monitoring of the use of chemicals, and I am talking, for
example, about sheep dips, which are very controversial at the
moment, the wide use of pesticides, to which you have referred
already, particularly things like the organophosphates, as distinct
from biodegradable pesticides like pyrethrins of which I am very
much in favour, and about the over-use of nitrates to which you
have already referred, all of which of course affect the biodiversity
within the environment? Perhaps you could also say something about
the way that your Department is monitoring biodiversity and with
regard to Norman Baker's point on genetically-modified organisms
and crops, we believe that these might affect biodiversity in
that insects that feed on crops at the moment will not be able
to feed on genetically-modified crops. Who knows? We do not know
and not enough research has been done, but perhaps you could just
open up and say how you are appraising all of these things in
the environment.
(Mr Rooker) I think you touch on some really important
points. Going back to what I said about the CAP, the one thing
I have found which has been good as a consequence of a CAP policy,
which has been phased out now of course, was set-aside where there
was an incredible re-emergence of some bugs and wildlife on set-aside
land. It is a very important aspect and it is a positive aspect
that we need to keep, if you like, and nurture. So far as your
specific point about sheep dips is concerned, there are two aspects
in a way: the use; and then the disposal. Now, there is a lot
of concern regarding organophosphates (OPs) and I freely admit
that and indeed I suppose in some ways we shared it as a group
of Ministers when we entered MAFF. All four of us were asking
questions about OPs and we were saying that we should see the
manufacturers of these and have a chat about it and the use of
it, but we were told that it was nothing to do with us, that they
are regulated, they are lawful products, they have gone through
the legal process and we have no right to do this, so there is
a legal constraint in some ways. This is very early days and we
have moved on a bit since then, but I am just putting to you the
kind of approach that we took. Since then of course there are
at least three separate—I am not supposed to use the word
"review"—but review discussions, I suppose is
the term, on OPs, two being done outside government and one inside
by officials which is due to report to Ministers quite soon which
is a review of the current system really, security and everything
else. In terms of the alternatives, I know that synthetic pyrethroids
offer this great alternative, but it turns out of course that
they are 100 times more toxic to the bugs in the watercourses
than organophosphates, so we have got a real problem here. If
they are not disposed of properly, we have real problems, and
if the OPs are not used properly, we have got damage of course
to the individual. If we look at the other alternatives, the injectables,
we have got the problem of people wrongly, by mistake, injecting
themselves, so we have got the problem of operator-safety. There
are some real dilemmas and at the same time of course we have
to get the bugs off the sheep. We have just reissued our guidance
booklet for the use of sheep dips as the dipping season starts—I
am told it never ends—to encourage sheep dippers to use
and follow the instructions. Now, I know that there is some anecdotal
evidence, but the instructions are virtually impossible to follow,
particularly in high summer when you have got to dress yourself
up in a rubber suit, with goggles, a mask, the lot; people do
not do it. There is the disposal then of the containers, the disposal
of the dip itself. I cannot even tell you that we know where all
the dips are; we do not. It is amazing, but we do not know where
the dips are. We are taking steps of course along with DETR actually
to do some work on this so that we know where the dips are. Obviously
our vets who visit farms and other people who visit farms are
aware of dips, but there is no central register of where dips
are, and some farmers these days use portable dips as well, but
we have got a model, we have sketches and leaflets for the design
of dips so that they can be used in the most safe way for the
operators and for the disposal of both the products and the containers.
We will be meeting the manufacturers quite shortly and one of
the issues we will be putting to them is the design of the containers
and canisters, but we do have some serious issues to face up to
and we have to make the system as safe as possible. However, as
I say, the alternative product which looks okay, which was regulated,
which went through the Veterinary Products Committee, the synthetic
pyrethroid if misused is more damaging to the environment than
OPs, so we have to face this as well. So far as the point you
make about pesticides is concerned, I have visited and sat in
on meetings of both the Veterinary Products Committee and the
Advisory Committee on Pesticides as well—not by way of intimidation,
that would be wrong but basically these are independent experts
who come from a variety of backgrounds, and they are not Ministry
scientists in that we do not pay them, though they get their expenses,
but they do not get paid—but by way of saying thank you
to them and also to explain MAFF's new policy of openness, to
explain why we are asking them to publish more information about
their work as a committee, to publish their agenda, their minutes,
to explain why we are placing lay persons on each of these committees.
We are virtually within days of being able to say that every single
independent scientific committee that advises MAFF, which must
run into double figures, nine or ten, will have independent lay
persons on them and the latest one will probably be the Veterinary
Products Committee on which we will also have someone there who
is a specialist in occupational health or hygiene and so there
is a new post on that committee. I have gone to the committees
and have gone there also, as far as I am able as a lay person,
to look at their regulatory process which can take a long time
before these products are allowed on the market. I will also add,
and I speak from memory now, that something like 200 pesticides
have been taken off the market since last May, not because I struck
them off, and I think about half a dozen have been brought to
my attention, but as part and parcel of our normal process of
products that have reached the end of their life, products which
are no longer on the market for the producer, so the licence has
been withdrawn, or products that our officials and, if you like,
the police people of the system have said, "No, that should
not any longer be used". It is never perfect, but I assure
you that it is something, it is a part of my responsibility as
a departmental Minister, which I take damn seriously and I am
convinced also that our officials do as well and also the independent
scientists on the committees take very seriously and the practices
that you were doing as an amateur gardener really are very dangerous,
and look at what happened to you.
Chairman
136. You did emphasise this question of
openness in your remarks, Minister, and you did say that you will
be publishing your environment appraisals. Could you let this
Committee have an example of an environmental appraisal?
(Mr Rooker) I will do it as quickly as I can.
Mr Baker
137. Can I just follow up on the point Brian
was making, and I think it was a very important point about pesticides
and going back to the precautionary principle? It seems to me
that if there is a significant doubt about the safety of anything,
and I am thinking of lindane, for example, surely the benefit
of the doubt must go to those who use it in the environment and
that product should be withdrawn. Now, lindane has been withdrawn
in other countries and I know you have had reviews or reassessments,
but if there is significant doubt, at what point does your Ministry
say, "Well, the doubt is such that really we have got to
give the benefit of the doubt to the people that use it and withdraw
it" rather than having to accumulate overwhelming proof that
it is unsafe before it is withdrawn?
(Mr Rooker) I certainly do not take the view that
we have to wait until there is massive evidence before something
is withdrawn. To be honest, I will do you a note on that because
I require notice of that particular product. There are products,
particularly for the amateur gardener, where there has been a
review of some products going back on the market, but I was not
satisfied that the amateur gardener would be prepared to take
all the necessary precautions that would be required to use the
product safely, ie, the goggles, the mask, the gloves, and so
I said no, I would not allow them back on the market. Now, that
would be different for what I call the professionals. I have to
expect that farmers and farm workers are professionals and they
are trained to follow instructions, but I also accept the impracticalities
sometimes of that and that is why I raised the issue about OPs
and the sheep dips, so in terms of the precautionary principle,
it will weigh heavier, or if you like, to a different degree,
looking at the amateur gardener than it does the professional,
and products would be allowed of course on a farm with someone
who has got a certificate to use the product, but the amateur
gardener would not need the certificate and I would be asked to
expect people to use their common sense, but people do not do
that in their own back garden and that is why I have said that
the precautionary principle on this one is such that the answer
is no, the product should not go back on the market. I will do
you a separate note on lindane.
138. I think that is also in domestic products.
(Mr Rooker) I will do you a separate note on that.
Mr Dafis
139. I have something on the procurement
policy and I was very interested to see in the paper that you
have prepared for us that "the Government's current policy
of not using procurement to achieve policy ends other than value
for money limits the extent to which the Department may have recourse
to contract compliance on environmental considerations".
I was not aware, and I do not think perhaps the Committee was
aware, that the Government had a policy of that kind, and perhaps
it is not surprising, but it is certainly significant. Then I
note in your second paragraph that there is a note currently being
prepared by the Treasury and DETR on environmental issues in purchasing.
You say that "The further incorporation of environmental
consideration in the Department's costing strategies will be reviewed
in the light of this guidance". Now, I was wondering whether
you could tell us the extent to which the existing policy does
constitute a constraint and does oblige you to procure in a way
other than what you would like and what you are looking for in
this reconsideration of procurement policy because I suppose that
green principles oblige us to take into consideration far wider
issues than value for money in the conventional sense when we
are making purchasing decisions.
(Mr Rooker) Yes, I too was surprised to find that
policy, one which has been around for quite a while. We have inherited
that policy and, like in many other areas, you would expect us
to be having a look at it. At the moment we are constrained. You
have got to balance the criteria of course. It would not be green
at any cost and there has to be a balance, but you also referred
to the note by the Treasury and DETR on environment issues in
purchasing and in preparation. Yesterday I actually asked where
is it and how long has it been in preparation. You will be astonished
to know that the answer I received was five years. You may wish
to pursue that. I will.
|
