Examination of witnesses (Questions 300
- 317)
TUESDAY 21 APRIL 1998
MS FIONA
REYNOLDS and MR
PAUL HAMBLIN
300. But it is too late.
(Ms Reynolds) I do not know. The Bill is still
in the process. We are disappointed that the Government has not
amended this clause. It is never too late in a sense to make that
point and if you felt that as a result of this inquiry that was
a point you could make, we would certainly be glad to see that
recommendation. The RDAs ought to be a great force for good. We
are not against the RDAs, I should stress at the outset. They
ought to be a great force for good, but they need to be thoroughly
committed to sustainable development to avoid the kinds of conflicts
that we have been discussing.
301. In terms of other agencies who share
your concerns, are you aware that there are other agencies who
share your concerns and, if so, who are they?
(Ms Reynolds) Certainly the NGOs share those concerns.
There has been a lot of discussion among the environmental organisations
about that. The local authorities—I do not know how clearly
they have articulated it—are worried about the relationship
between RPG and the RDAs because of the potential for gaps opening
up because of the ambiguities in these statements of purposes.
Chairman
302. Do you not think the RDAs are a bit
of a symbol of local government and also rather dangerously undemocratic?
When I say "local government", I am thinking myself
of the South Downs, which is a lovely area, and, as the Minister
said, there were 18 different authorities concerned so we cannot
make it a national park. It was just left because it was impossible
to get agreement among all these various bodies.
(Ms Reynolds) On the South Downs the decision
has not been made yet and we live in hope that the decision will
be made to bring that into the family of national parks. The recommendation
is going to be made on Thursday by the Countryside Commission.
Mr Loughton
303. Unofficially it has been made.
(Ms Reynolds) Maybe, but again, never too late
until the end. There has been concern expressed about creating
yet more quangos. We have taken the view that if the RDAs have
the right sort of purposes and they are committed to working with
and through the democratically elected structures at local government,
then they ought to be a force for the good but, as I say, our
worries are that there will be gaps and inconsistencies and therefore
there could be real problems, but we do not start from the assumption
that they are a bad thing by any means.
Dr Iddon
304. May I turn to the Budget now? You were
very gracious in your opening remarks, talking about the greenest
manifesto ever that the Labour Party put forward to the public.
We are of course only in the first year of what might be a five
year Government, we hope. May I ask you to comment on whether
you saw the Budget as realising some of those manifesto promises
and perhaps comment on what you saw as the goods and bads of the
Budget?
(Ms Reynolds) Overall the Budget did contain some
useful and important steps forward, particularly in the transport
sector, but it was a bit of a disappointment, I have to say. We
had hoped that more progress would be made on the issue of aggregates,
and on water. We had hoped to see something on the housing issue,
for example parity on VAT, which is at the moment payable on refurbishment
and not payable on new building, which is a crazy inconsistency,
and we had really hoped for more progress on that. Overall I think
there was a sense that the Government could have done more with
the Budget than it did. Perhaps Paul could deal with the issue
of the environmental assessment of the Budget. That was an interesting
first step and I do not think we want to let that go unnoticed
although of course we have greater aspirations for it in the future.
(Mr Hamblin) The fact that an assessment was published
alongside the Budget is important and it is a first. But we have
serious concerns that when you go through what turned out to be
one side of A4, it was only looking at the environmental aspects
of the Budget, and did not look across the board in terms of all
the environmental implications which might stem from the Budget.
And there are some very big proposals contained within it. For
example, there was the regulation of North Sea oil, where one
would anticipate an appraisal looking at, not only the way to
avoid negative impacts, but also how you can enhance the environment
through alternative means. That was lacking and is a real problem
when it comes to making sure that the environment is integrated
into other areas of policy.
Mr Savidge
305. I wonder if you would like to expand
a little on any suggestions you have on how the fiscal regime
for North Sea oil might be made more environmentally friendly.
(Mr Hamblin) We think that this is an important
question that the Government needs to be asking.
(Ms Reynolds) A Government committed to sustainable
development might at the outset have exploited that slightly more
slowly and with a longer term view in mind, but we are a long
way down the road on that particular issue. Paul is absolutely
right. This is the kind of thing that we would expect to see in
future Budget appraisals.
Mr Blizzard
306. Do you see the promotion of economic
development and sustainable development as opposites?
(Ms Reynolds) Not as opposites, no. Sustainable
development encompasses economic progress but it is not driven
by narrow criteria of economic progress as has often been the
case in the past. Sustainable development is based on the integration
of environmental, social and economic goals and certainly the
challenge that is before us is to find new ways of demonstrating
what that means in practice. At the moment we are so governed
by a conventional set of measures and indicators for economic
progress that sustainable development appears a very loose and
difficult to pin down phenomenon. We actually think that there
are ways (and the use of indicators is one) of helping us move
from one definition of economic progress to a sustainable development
commitment. That is very much what we hope from the Sustainable
Development Strategy.
307. One of the principles of sustainable
development is social equity which addresses poverty and people
without jobs and so on, alongside, quite correctly, all the environmental
issues. You do not seem to emphasise that very much in your notion
of sustainable development that comes through in your documents,
your news releases or your activities in my area.
(Ms Reynolds) Perhaps I should ask you which your
area is. Our branches on the ground are very much engaged in the
business of supporting appropriate development. We are often in
the news as saying no to things, and I make no apology for that
because there is a lot going on which we think could be done better,
and saying no to things is an important part of the process of
getting things right. Of the planning applications that are made,
and I do not know which part of the country you are from, I am
afraid (my apologies), our branches support the majority of those,
70 or 80 per cent, without any question. That does not get to
be in the news but there is a process going on there of looking
at what sort of development is appropriate and what is not. The
difficulty at the moment is that we find that a lot of the development
that is taking place could be better done in another way. A lot
of footloose development in the countryside would be better happening
in the towns to promote urban regeneration and to help stimulate
activity including the pursuit of social goals in urban areas
which are badly needed. I do think we need the shift of direction
that I spoke about earlier.
Mr Loughton
308. Resisting the temptation to come back
to you with the unofficial good news from the Countryside Commission
that we are not going to be burdened with national park status
for the Sussex Downs, I completely agree with your points about
the housebuilding programme. It was extraordinary I think that
after all the hoo-ha we had over the last four or five months
on the housebuilding figures and for the Deputy Prime Minister
to announce the 60 per cent. target, then to have not a word in
the Budget that signalled even an intention to come up with proposals
to match that rhetoric with action and one would hope that we
are going to see something at the latest at the next Budget. I
have not seen any firm proposals from the CPRE other than a general
intent as to formal fiscal measures or whatever that could encourage
that status to be achieved with a higher target than 60 per cent.
Have you published anything we have missed? Are you about to publish
anything? What are you doing about this?
(Ms Reynolds) If I may, I will send the Committee
our detailed submission on the previous Government's Green Paper
and response to the new Government's White Paper which does set
out some of the fiscal mechanisms we would like to see. We are
working very closely with the Civic Trust on the idea of a greenfield
tax which needs further work on it but is quite well developed
in terms of what the Civic Trust has already done. We are also
holding a seminar later this summer with a number of august bodies
including those responsible for financial aspects of land use
to thrash out some of the details on these issues, so we have
put forward some proposals. We have not worked them all up in
all the necessary detail but some of them are rather simple. The
VAT point I do not think requires huge intellectual effort to
recognise that we are sending the wrong signals at the moment
and can quite quickly put that right. Some of the other things,
like a greenfield land tax, I think we recognise would take time.
Like you, we have been disappointed that the Chancellor did not
say, "We are committed to exploring the case for this and
we will come back to you with further work in due time."
That would have been a very welcome announcement.
Mr Dafis
309. I would like to say in relation to
what you said earlier about economic development that your sister
organisation in Wales has yet to support a single proposal for
renewable energy development. It has opposed a great many, including
some very good ones, and put a lot of misinformation about in
the process. You mentioned the importance of the Sustainable Development
Strategy process in bringing about the fundamental shift towards
sustainable development. Have you got any comments about the relationship
between the Government's progress on sustainable development and
the "This Common Inheritance" documents that it has
been publishing? Do you know whether it intends to bring those
two strands together in this coming year as far as part of the
consultation process on Sustainable Development Strategy and the
opportunities for the "This Common Inheritance" document?
Do you think it is important to bring those two things together?
In connection with that, some people have expressed disappointment
at the fact that there is something of a mismatch between so-called
indicators of sustainable development and the way in which the
"This Common Inheritance" documents have been structured.
(Ms Reynolds) First of all, the "This Common
Inheritance" series has been going now since 1990, since
Chris Patten's first White Paper, and I have to say, having watched
it every year, it has got more and more dull and less and less
informative as each year has gone past. I for one feel that it
is probably time for a bit of a re-think of that process. In a
sense, if all you are ever doing is reporting on past commitments
and the past commitments that sounded quite good at the outset
each year get a little bit more difficult to achieve, by the end
of it you have really got very little to say except you have looked
at last year's commitments and decided why you cannot do them.
That is a harsh criticism but I think to some extent a fair one.
Whatever happens, I think the "This Common Inheritance"
series needs a fresh look. We have not heard formally what the
Government is intending to do about that. We have heard of course
that there is going to be a new Sustainable Development Strategy
and we feel that is where the opportunity lies to do something
really important and impressive. If that picks up the "This
Common Inheritance" agenda, provided it does so explicitly
and explains that it is doing so, then that seems to us to be
a feasible way forward. What I think we want to see, and it runs
as a thread through our evidence, is good, effective reporting
by all Government Departments through their annual report, through
collective mechanisms, through the green Ministers, through all
these devices, of what is going on and how progress is being made,
and setting better targets and using indicators to monitor progress
towards them is all part and parcel of that process. Lots and
lots of thick White Papers may not be the best way forward. We
do want a good Sustainable Development Strategy, whatever else
we have. If the "This Common Inheritance" series has
run its course, so be it.
310. Would you see it as being subsumed
then within the Sustainable Development Strategy?
(Ms Reynolds) I cannot really answer that in the
sense that I do not know what the Government's intention is. That
is one option.
311. What would you recommend?
(Ms Reynolds) I think the case for it being subsumed
is quite strong. What I would not want to lose is really good
reporting by DETR on its own environmental performance and equally
good reporting, which we have not yet got, by other Government
Departments as a complement to the Sustainable Development Strategy
on how they are moving forward as well. That is the bit that is
missing at the moment. We are very thin on departmental reporting.
In a way, the "This Common Inheritance" was a substitute
for that. If we are going to lose that we have to have something
else in its place, so you need to be sure you are going to get
it in one or the other.
312. Have you thought about the possibility
of having an annual Sustainable Development Strategy document
within which "This Common Inheritance" would be subsumed?
The Government of course has to produce a report as well, has
it not, for the CSD as part of the reporting back process. It
is the report to that. I sometimes do feel that you have various
documents for different functions which have to be read and which
might be of significant benefit for all of us who are trying to
keep up with the process in the first place, and have the whole
thing in a single documentary series.
(Ms Reynolds) I am inclined to agree with you.
What I think would probably be impractical would be to have a
complete re-write of the Sustainable Development Strategy every
year, so maybe what would happen is a big effort this time to
produce a document that would have a long life span, and then
annual reports, briefer, more focused, demonstrating achievement
but also being honest about failures. As I say, that does not
substitute for better annual reporting by individual Government
Departments as a contribution to that process.
313. In which case of course the strategy
that is going to be published at the end of this year or the beginning
of next year really has to address the major issues.
(Ms Reynolds) Yes, absolutely.
Chairman
314. Could we focus on those? There is too
much complexity about much of the paper which is produced at the
moment. Should we not simplify this and perhaps focus on, say,
a dozen of the indicators of sustainable development which are
properly chosen and validated and monitor those?
(Ms Reynolds) We like the idea of headline indicators
that Michael Meacher has proposed and we are very keen on the
idea of tranquillity so if you can give that a plug we would be
very grateful. We think though that we must be honest and say
that that will not capture the full range of public concerns.
The point about headline indicators is to choose things that are
resonant with the public and that people can connect with. But
that might not be true for all time. Maybe over time we would
actually choose different ones and have a programme of bringing
in other dimensions, so the headline indicators do need to be
backed up by a more authoritative and complete picture of all
the dimensions (which are a great number) that contribute to sustainable
development. So long as that is clear, and that nobody pretends
that the headline indicators are "it", that they are
a contribution to our understanding of whether we are going forward
or staying still or perhaps going backwards, then I think that
would work rather well.
Mr Savidge
315. On the general theme still of effective
reporting, I was interested in some of the comments you made on
the Government's document "Policy Appraisal and the Environment",
and particularly your suggestion that environmental appraisals
ought to go to both the Sustainable Development Unit and to come
to the Environmental Audit Committee as well as having wider public
examination. I was really wondering if I could ask you to expand
on that point.
(Mr Hamblin) Underlying that recommendation is
the point that in all the greening of Government mechanisms we
do need to have effective monitoring. That needs to be done both
internally within the Department, within Government, and externally
as well. We see an extremely important role for this Committee
in that respect, in terms of broadening out greening of Government
mechanisms so that the public are able to see how Ministers are
actually considering the environment. Not only that appraisals
are being done but that they are being considered, and how decisions
are changing as a consequence—and then to provide that information
in an accessible way. That would be an important boost to the
greening of Government mechanisms.
Dr Iddon
316. Do you think it is important that the
Government should force the environmental agenda by taking what
might be unpopular decisions over a short period of time, or do
you think it is more important that we educate the public and
bring them along with us, which obviously would take a longer
period?
(Ms Reynolds) I think it is difficult to say that
it is one course or the other. I think it will be a mix of things.
We are quite intrigued that some of the things the Government
thinks are unpopular may turn out not to be. I always think the
public is rather ahead of the Government, "the Government"
not meaning this Government but "the Government" on
these issues. For example, it was said in the past that one could
not conceivably stop building roads. Actually we did stop building
roads and in terms of the public reaction to that it has been
largely favourable. There have been some interest groups that
are unhappy but the public has been very supportive of that decision.
I suspect that if options other than car travel were available
then a lot of people would be all too happy to leave their car
at home and use good, safe, efficient public transport because
driving can be pretty intolerable in some congested areas. It
may be less a matter of choosing an unpopular route versus a popular
route than providing people with a picture of how society might
improve under this agenda. I think there are real opportunities
for that. What you cannot do is take away with one hand without
actually recognising that things have to be put in with the other.
Transport is a classic example, and the urban regeneration agenda
is hugely popular. I think public transport and opportunities
to get away from car dependency will also be very popular indeed.
Mr Shaw
317. Can I just take issue with you there.
I think that when talked about in the round people say, "Yes,
I agree with the notion of more public transport. Yes, I agree
that we should not continue building roads", but when it
affects people, when they have got terrible congestion in their
towns, they say, "We do not want to build roads but we need
a bypass here", and, "Yes, we need to cut down using
our car but I do not want the fuel tax to go up". That is
not wrong; it is right, but it is not popular. It is how we move
from a position of people agreeing things in the round to actually
agreeing how it affects them in their daily lives which is not
going to be easy. As my colleague said, it is going to be a gradual
thing and that means putting in the infrastructure to replace
it.
(Mr Hamblin) Perhaps I could respond. In terms
of the case for or against bypasses, it is obviously a contentious
issue in a number of villages. The key issue is what are the questions
which are being put to members of the public, and indeed are members
of the public being given an opportunity to comment on what is
important for them. It is actually traffic which is the problem.
And how you define the problem defines the solutions which are
available. At a national level I think that is one of the benefits
of undertaking environmental appraisal, that in asking some of
those questions, alternative solutions will become clearer for
further investigation. If that incorporates public consultation,
then all the better.
Chairman: Thank you
very much indeed. We can draw our session to a close now. It has
been extremely stimulating and interesting. Thank you very much
indeed. We have enjoyed it very much.
|
