Examination of witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 23 JUNE 1998
SIR ANDREW
TURNBULL, MR
JOHN BALLARD,
MR BRIAN
LEONARD and MR
RICHARD HILLIER
Mrs Ellman
100. In Chapter 10, Environment Protection,
you list a number of international areas where we are involved.
Would you like to distinguish those areas where we were prime
movers, others where we may have been passengers, and others where
we may have been reluctant; are they all equal?
(Mr Leonard) These are primarily subscriptions
to a range of international organisations, several of them under
the United Nations, such as the UNECE, and on the Climate Change
line, for example, the Convention, the Secretariat of the Climate
Change Convention; in all of these cases, the Department tries
to play the most positive role it can, and I think its work on
Climate Change has been a particular example of that. But there
is a large number of subscriptions involved there, and I do not
have a complete list with me.
101. Can you not say a little more?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) You asked us whether, in
all the various levels at which we act internationally, are we
equally an enthusiastic player in each of those.
102. Yes, with specific reference to the
various items mentioned here; were we the movers in all of these,
how important were we to the agreements?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) Brian can give the details
of it, but it has been an aim of the past four or five years,
under the old DoE and now the new Department, for the UK to be
a prominent and positive player, that for many years we were characterised
as the people who always said "No", ended up agreeing,
reluctantly, sometimes not agreeing at all, and now we like to
think that we are enthusiastic and constructive players, at the
Kyoto Conference, the UK played a major part in bringing about
the agreement that was eventually secured. And, likewise, in Europe,
that we have been instrumental in getting in much earlier in the
process of the development of an idea or a Framework Directive
and being more positive about it, and less foot-dragging, and
I think the result, we get two results from that. One is you get
a better influence on what eventually comes out of the Directive,
and, secondly, your whole perception is that you are no longer
regarded as the laggard, and our influence as a country in various
UN fora and various European fora has undoubtedly risen in the
last few years.
103. So are you saying you were positive
in all areas?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) We are a positive player,
yes, but there are certain issues, for example, the Landfill Directive,
where there are certain national interests we have sought to defend,
but the general approach has been to recognise the case for a
Water Directive or a Landfill Directive and then try to establish
the particular UK interest in it, rather than try to say, "We
don't want a Directive of this kind at all" because, by and
large, we have found that that is not a very successful way of
proceeding.
104. So you are saying then that we took
a variable approach?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) We take a positive approach
in recognising that in Europe there are many environmental issues
that are better decided at the European level. If you take water,
for example, you could say, "Well, what's water got to do
with Europe?" We have our own water environment and, on kind
of subsidiarity grounds, we could have argued against any kind
of Water Directives. We have not done that, partly because we
find that this is a way of helping to create the political pressure
and acceptability for a rise in water standards, it ensures that
where there are costs being passed on to business there is some
co-ordination between the costs that UK businesses are accepting
and the costs that other European businesses are accepting. And,
finally, there is the recognition that we have the major players
in the water industry; their position abroad is not going to be
helped if the perception is that we have run a kind of second-rate
water environment, and so we want to recognise that we aspire
to a first-rate water environment, and that is not only good for
the water customers, good for the water environment, but is actually
good for the UK water industry.
105. You have spoken at some length about
the water industry and what we might aspire to, but I do not get
much of a feeling, from the Report here, of what we are prepared
to do to achieve those ends. How do you equate discussions on
subsidiarity with the achieving of high standards?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) I think I was saying that
we have deliberately not played the subsidiarity card, and you
could say, Drinking Water Standards, those should be entirely
nationally determined, but we have engaged in discussions about
drinking water, waste water, ground water, all that, we have accepted
the premise that this is best developed on a European basis. Now,
if we were somewhere like Belgium, or The Netherlands, you can
do nothing about your water environment on your own, it is a transboundary
problem. Therefore, many countries in the rest of the Community
see water as a transboundary issue, just in the same way that
we look at air quality, acid deposition. The fact that we could,
in the UK, because we are a bit more remote, try to hive ourselves
off, well it is possible but we have gone along with the view
that this is an issue which it does make sense to deal with at
a European level.
106. I must say, you sound extremely defensive.
You are telling us how really you do not have to do this, which
really goes against what is being advocated, that we are enthusiastic
proponents of change?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) No, I am saying the opposite,
that five years ago we were very defensive, for example, five
years ago, we did not sign up to certain Sulphur Protocols, we
then found that we managed to reduce sulphur by at least as much
as was in those Protocols, that all our opposition to it turned
out to be pointless and all we got was the bad publicity and the
bad reputation of opposing it. So now we are positive players
in these various environmental initiatives and we try to ensure
that they are carried out in ways that take proper account of
the science, take proper account of costs and benefits, and proper
account of the particular UK needs. Now it is perfectly legitimate
to try to defend a UK position and try to negotiate derogations,
time limits, and so on, while being fully committed to the idea
that this is a subject which is best dealt with at a European
level.
107. When I asked you about subsidiarity,
the only reply you gave is in relation to national government;
does subsidiarity have any other meaning to the Department?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) It does, we tend not to
use the term subsidiarity in relation to the whole effort of transferring
power from central government, we tend to use the term decentralisation
rather than subsidiarity, but it is really the same concept; so
you have got a creation of London government.
108. Do you not find it strange that you
are a Department, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs,
yet in the list here of means of delivery and in your replies
you do not refer to regions once, you have made a reference to
London, you have not referred to English regions; does that play
no part in the thinking on subsidiarity?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) I do not think I have been
asked questions on the regions. It is a very important part of
the Department's work. It is significant that the Department is
not simply the merger of the two old Departments, that we have
added this question of a regional dimension, and in the process
have taken two major steps. We have had a referendum in London
and then now will introduce a London Bill to give effect to that;
and we are in the process of setting up Regional Development Agencies
and Regional Chambers. There is also a great mass of documents
on the recasting of the relationship between central and local
government. So it is a big part of the Department's work. The
fact that I have not mentioned it is just that I did not have
a chance to mention it.
109. It does seem strange, if that is a
major perspective, it is not put forward as part of the thinking,
but we will pursue that elsewhere. What has actually been achieved,
in terms of Environmental Protection, during our Presidency of
the European Union?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) I will ask Brian to deal
with that.
(Mr Leonard) I think that there are several levels
at which achievements have been gained. Overall, the Government
set itself some objectives; one of those was integration inside
the European Council, integrating the environment work with that
of other policy areas. A second was the development of and the
forwarding of very significant environmental policies, and particularly
that of Climate Change. And the third was the advancement of the
very important programme of business and the professional conduct
of that business in the Environmental Council itself. At the integration,
the Department has supported the Commission in producing a new
Strategy, which was published a few weeks ago, for integrating
environment into other policy areas; and at the Cardiff Council,
the European Council, that Strategy was welcomed and, to a large
extent, endorsed by the Heads of Government and will now be implemented.
The Department has set that Strategy under way, in practical terms,
by bringing together the Environment and Transport Councils in
the Joint Council, which was held last week, and preceding informal
Council, and Ministers in the Department held discussions with
the three succeeding Presidencies, up to the year 2000, about
how they would continue that process of integration, by bringing
action and reports into their Presidencies for environmental integration.
At the level of advancing policies which were of great significance
to the European Union as a whole, in which Climate Change has
been the dominant one, the Department's Ministers have taken all
their achievements through during the Presidency on Climate Change,
including by agreeing last week, at the Environment Council, conclusions
on the sharing of what is called the burden of the greenhouse
gases and conclusions on how policies and measures should be taken
forward. And that was a major achievement, I think, for Ministers,
with the support of the Department. At the level of business,
virtually all the Department's objectives for carrying forward
the dossiers which were outstanding, as you know, a six-month
period of Presidency means you fundamentally pick up work which
is left you by the previous Presidency. I think there is a general
feeling in Europe that all the objectives which the Department
and its Ministers might have achieved in the Environmental Council
have been achieved during the period of the Presidency; several
common positions, several Council Conclusions on important policy
areas, several initial discussions on policy areas, that many
people thought would never come forward for discussion, and that
has been conducted in a professional way which has attracted quite
considerable praise in the European Union. In addition, the Department
and its Ministers have carried forward the Presidency role in
international conferences and events, including the one in Denmark
today.
Dr Whitehead
110. On the question of EU Environmental
Directives and Regulations, what is your general feeling about
the extent to which those Directives which concern the Department
are being complied with, currently?
(Mr Leonard) There are over a hundred Directives
which have some kind of environmental component to them, and I
think in most of the main areas the Department's performance has
been reasonable, or good, and it is an area where there has been
some renewed rigour and positive thinking recently, which is now
going to be carried on. And I think the leadership that the Department
has shown during the Presidency, in achieving new standards in
areas like air quality, in securing agreements on the auto-oil
Programme and in Climate Change, raising those standards is going
to be now followed up with a renewed activity on the implementation,
the achievement of those standards through the various delivery
mechanisms. At the moment, I would say, the performance is reasonable.
111. The problem is, we do not actually
know any of this in the Report?
(Mr Leonard) We have presented the Report primarily
in relation to the environmental issues, which, of course, include
action at international, European, national and local level. If
you would like to see more detail of the European component of
that, we can certainly do that.
Mr Gray
112. There was a very good way of doing
that, until recently, of course, which was This Common Inheritance
and, indeed, Rural England, so why have you stopped them?
(Mr Leonard) This Common Inheritance was a ground-breaking
document, which started, more or less, with a blank sheet of paper
and it set out a series of achievements and outputs and performance
indicators which were measured year by year since it was published.
In the end, I think we were up to about 600 items, which took
150 pages, and there was a feeling, when we came to look at this
last year, that that process, valuable as it had been, had perhaps
begun to reduce its value; if you see the same 600 items year
after year it gets rather heavy. And so, in launching the new
Sustainable Development Strategy,——
Mr Olner: You are
able to track them though, are you not?
Mr Bennett
113. Do you mean people could understand
it?
(Mr Leonard) Yes.
Mr Olner: Is that
a problem for you?
Mr Gray
114. It is heavy stuff, you are quite right
in saying it is heavy, of course it is heavy, any statistical
analysis of anything is heavy, naturally; but, surely, the entire
principle behind setting out This Common Inheritance, in the first
place, which is to say, "Here are our targets for the next
year, and a year from now we will analyse how well we have done
in achieving them", surely, that principle applies for all
time, it is not a question of doing it for a few years and stopping
it?
(Mr Leonard) Yes, indeed, and it is not a principle
that we want to abandon. In launching the new Sustainable Development
Strategy, which is a replacement on a broader scope than This
Common Inheritance had, one of the most important issues has been
how to carry that forward, but on top of it we have wanted to
introduce measures which actually specify action at a strategic
level and we want to introduce indicators.
115. I am sorry to interrupt, and, you and
I are very old friends, I am particularly sorry to interrupt you,
but, nonetheless, quite honestly, that is a lot of Sir Humphrey
waffle, is it not? We used to have some nice targets, "Here's
what we're going to do in biodiversity; here's what we're going
to do this time next year", and as recently as last year's
Report, 1997, the DoE said, black and white: "To maintain
the momentum, annual progress reports will be published."
That was the last Report, and the DoE committed the Government
to publishing annual reports. You are now telling us that, instead
of these firm commitments, identifiable statistical analysis,
what we are going to have is sort of the generalities that you
were describing?
(Mr Leonard) No. I am sorry if I gave that impression.
What we are doing is reshaping the strategic framework within
which this is going to be considered, and that will be in the
Strategy that will be published about the end of the year. In
the course of representing that framework and what it means, monitoring
of targets and achievements at several levels, including some
new broader Sustainable Development targets, will be introduced.
During our consultation exercise, one of the comments that has
been made many times, in the several hundred detailed responses
we have had, is "What are you going to do?" that very
point you made; that is why we are going to take it very seriously
over the next few months. The Round Table on Sustainable Development
has agreed to act as an adviser to the Department on how it can
best show this information, it is having a first discussion later
this summer on that, and it will be engaged throughout the next
few months on exactly how to most effectively present that. In
addition to the points you make, the force of which I accept,
there has been a feeling in some areas that having so many targets,
on so many pages, has been, despite the value of them, a little
obliterating to progress that has been made on key targets.
116. And so do you regret the commitment
which you made this time last year, in the last Report, to continue
them? That was a mistake, in retrospect, was it not?
(Mr Leonard) No. The commitment remains, in principle.
What we are doing is, in this transitional period, reshaping the
strategic framework which will carry it.
117. Let us move on to a more important
point then, which is this. In that case, given that This Common
Inheritance has bitten the dust, will you publish some of that
statistical information in next year's Annual Report, because
this Report is very light indeed on what you are going to do in
some of these areas; if you have not got This Common Inheritance,
how about publishing it in the Department's Annual Report?
(Mr Leonard) We will publish any information which
is valuable and in a form which is valuable. We do wish to tie
it into the Sustainable Development approach.
Dr Whitehead
118. Could I draw your attention to page
79, which is the Figure 10.b, International Work: Departmental
Support. On the line on international work on Climate Change,
and if you compare the 1996-97 outturn with what it was estimated
would be the outturn in last year's Report, you seem to have undershot
very considerably, by about £200,000, I think. Why was that
so?
(Mr Leonard) This is a line which represents five
subscriptions, the majority of which to international bodies,
the most significant of which is the Secretariat of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change. What this represents is a lower
call on that subscription than we had anticipated. There were
substantial new developments in that Secretariat around 1995-96
which coincided with the renewed international commitment to Climate
Change. Our best understanding at the moment is that in the estimates
that were made, because the Government wished to pay any reasonable
subscription, whatever the subscription was, provided it was reasonable,
it wished to pay it, it set an estimate which turned out to be
higher than was called for by the United Nations. So it is not
a decision by the Department to pay a lower amount, it was the
amount that was called upon for us to pay. There are several factors
involved there, which we are still looking into, including, for
example, that the subscriptions are payable in dollars, and so
the exchange rate affects it. And we are still looking at what
turns out to be several factors involved in that lower call. But,
if I could emphasise, it was not a decision to pay less, it was,
we paid everything we were asked to pay, we just——
119. So you could pay subscriptions in yen
and save even more money perhaps?
(Mr Leonard) I do not know. The United Nations
works out its own formulas and we comply with the formula.
|
