Examination of witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2000
DR PAUL
LEINSTER, MR
NIGEL READER
and DR MARK
KIBBLEWHITE
180. So what assessment have you made so far
in terms of looking at the overall cost to the agriculture industry
of the implementation of these proposals?
(Mr Reader) If I may answer that question, both the
DETR and MAFF of course have undertaken regulatory impact assessment
studies, DETR in their fourth consultation document last August.
Three broad areas of cost were identified—preparing the
application, the Agency's charges and investment and cost to ensure
compliance—and also the benefits were assessed in terms
of environmental improvement, but both, I have to say, in fairly
general terms.
181. So you could not say, if I asked you the
next question as to how much under each one of those has been
given a figure?
(Mr Reader) I think there are some preliminary numbers
which are set out in the regulatory impact assessment prepared
by the DETR—I think.
182. Pig and poultry farmers would be very interested
to know how much a pig and how much a hen at this stage. Are we
at that level or not?
(Mr Reader) No, we are not.
183. So we have got no idea?
(Mr Reader) No.
Mr Mitchell: Let us come to the detailed charges
later.
Mr Jack
184. Give me a feeling of how you have consulted
with the industry on this. How many mechanisms are there? Who
has been involved?
(Dr Kibblewhite) We have actually been in discussion
with the industry certainly since May of last year, and I am talking
here of formal meetings. So we have met with the National Farmers'
Union, the British Pig Association, the CLA, the Poultry Meat
Federation and others from May. We have had meetings to discuss
general binding rules, and I think it is worth mentioning that
in our minds general binding rules have been a possibly very good
solution for more than a year. We have been trying to progress
them as a good way forward for more than a year with the parties
I have just mentioned and, indeed, others. We have had specific
meetings on those last autumn. Those have gone on. We had one
in January, and we have another meeting tomorrow with the industry.
185. What is the nature of these meetings? Is
it just a question that the representatives come along and make
a presentation to you telling you about the doom and gloom and
the worry of the industry, and you sit there and soak it up, or
has it been a proper dialogue in terms of evaluating concerns?
Have you developed any new approaches as a result of these consultations?
(Dr Kibblewhite) I think there has been a very proper
dialogue. I think we, however, have been struck, and certainly
people returning from those meetings have definitely been struck,
by the forcefulness of the concerns which have been brought to
those meetings. I think all of us would want to impress upon you
that those do not go unnoted. However, they have been proper discussions
about what are the possibilities—for example, for different
types of general binding rules, are they practically feasible,
how will they work? As my colleagues said, we need to work with
the industry in order to understand what is feasible, what will
work, because otherwise the regulation will not work and it will
not achieve the end which we all seek, which is a better environment.
I think they have been constructive, proper dialogue. Certainly
they have brought us in close dialogue with the real concerns
of the industry.
186. We have been advised as a Committee that
some form of implementation trials have been carried out so you
have got some practical feeling. Could you give us some details
of how many of these trials have been carried out, when did they
begin, what is the nature of the trials, when will they be evaluated?
(Dr Kibblewhite) We have two trials, one for a pig
farm and one for a poultry farm. The results of those are still
being worked through. I would like to say, though, that they are
not the final statement in terms of trials. We still have more
work to do practically, not just with one or two farms but with
a large number of farms, so that we are able fully to understand,
as I say, what is feasible and what is not.
187. I think those who look at our proceedings
will be very interested to have some kind of timetable. You have
given me a general statement about what you are trying to do do
now, but the fact is that you want to roll out one in each sector
to others. Could you give us a feel as to the timetable which
will be involved? How will these others be selected, how will
they be monitored? Give us a bit more detail.
(Dr Leinster) To put it in context, we have carried
out these detailed application trials, so this was how would an
installation apply for an IPPC permit, and they went through the
process. That information is also feeding into these discussions
which are ongoing, and in fact we have some further discussions
tomorrow with these sectors to look at how we will take this information
forward. So these discussions are part of an ongoing process and
will continue as we work together with the industry to develop
the site-specific—and they are site-specific—and industry-specific
procedures for implementing IPPC on a pig or a poultry farm. So
the discussions are ongoing, and there are a number of people
from the industry actively involved in those.
188. That is the kind of language, when one
talks about something being "ongoing", which could go
on into perpetuity.
(Dr Leinster) No.
189. The question I asked was, can you give
us some idea of a timetable as to how it will roll over? People
would like to know what is going on.
(Dr Kibblewhite) We expect to have targeted trial-standard
conditions ready by the early summer. Those are internal targets.
Those will not necessarily form general binding rules, because
for one thing it is the Minister not ourselves who will have to
take the decision in the final analysis.
190. Let us be clear. In evidence to us, Sun
Valley told us that the charges which are going to be involved—because
this is causing a great deal of consternation in the farming industry—in
preparing the permit application (you discussed some of the evaluation)
are based on a time commitment, as I understand it, of between
10 and 15 working days for each permit application, but then they
go on to point out that when Agency staff visited their company
it actually took them one morning to go round two farms. I am
not entirely certain what it was they were doing going round those
two farms in one morning, but clearly Sun Valley's perception
is that it is not going to take 10 to 15 days to do this type
of trial. Therefore, are you gentlemen in a position to give us
any kind of estimate of the amount of time it will take to go
through this process of inspection prior to the application and
granting of a permit?
(Dr Kibblewhite) I think that first of all we must
distinguish between the time which is spent on the farm and the
time which is spent by the Agency preparing to go on the farm
to be efficient and effective while they are there and then to
come back. So I would not like the impression to be left that
it is only the time that our people spend on the farm.
191. So farmers are going to be required to
do some kind of pre-information exercise and send it to the Agency,
are they?
(Dr Kibblewhite) I think that that is, on the whole,
a helpful thing, because it should help to reduce the amount of
time that we need to spend and will need to recover through charges
under the current arrangements.
192. At this juncture, though, you have no feel
for how long it is going to take?
(Dr Kibblewhite) No.
193. That is not right?
(Dr Kibblewhite) No.
194. This is the whole basis on which the charging
regime is going to be levied, as I understand it—the amount
of time it takes. Is that not right?
(Dr Kibblewhite) No, I would like to correct that.
I think that we went through a consultation exercise in August.
That has certain numbers of data attached to it. Since August—which
is some while ago—we have been working very hard to understand
how we can do this more effectively. Whilst I am not going to
be comfortable, I think, saying it is six days, or eight days
or nine days, I do feel that we are making good progress towards
a more efficient figure for everybody.
Mr Mitchell
195. We shall come to the charges and running
costs later on. Are you saying there, in relation to this 10 to
15 days which was talked about, that a lot of that is preparation
within the Department? It does not take that long to put on a
pair of wellingtons, does it?
(Dr Kibblewhite) No, it does not take long to put
a pair of wellingtons on, but it takes a good time to consider
the scope of an operation and its potential emissions.
196. So the actual visit to the farm is the
tip of the iceberg, you are saying, or the tip of the wellingtons?
(Dr Kibblewhite) Yes.
(Dr Leinster) To clarify this again, as Mr Jack was
saying, farmers or installations—it does not matter what
type of activity is applying for an IPPC permit—will have
to fill in an application form which details a certain amount
of information. If general binding rules are not used, so if a
standardised approach is not used, then the applicant must give
sufficient detail so that we can understand from the detail both
what the environmental impacts are from that installation, plus
how those impacts are currently being managed, and any future
improvement programmes which are in place on that farm or installation.
From that information, which can be quite comprehensive, we will
then assess the impacts and we will make up our minds as to whether
the controls which the operator has in place are adequate or not
adequate to control. When we carry out the inspection pre the
issuing of the permit, what we are going to do is to check against
the permit application and make sure that the information which
is provided accords with the information provided in the impact
assessment so that the information provided on the permit application
accords with what is happening in practice. So we are checking
that. Then we have to go back again and determine what conditions
we will apply—improvement programmes, monitoring conditions,
assessment conditions—within that permit. If, however, we
can move to general binding rules, then the great advantage of
that is that the application process will be much simplified.
The operator in that case will be able to say, "I operate
this type of activity in this location. Here is a broad description
of it." Then there will be no determination required of that.
What will happen is that the standard conditions will apply. For
example, it could be that if a slurry tank is not covered, it
must be covered. However, if the slurry tank is already covered,
then no further action is required. There will be those specific
conditions which will then apply to that. So that the whole process—that
is one of the reasons why we are so keen to go this way—is
so we can simplify and standardise this process.
197. Which saves you time and them money?
(Dr Leinster) It saves us and them time and money.
Mr Hurst
198. Am I right in saying that any new or substantially
altered installations require a permit as from the end of October?
(Dr Leinster) Yes.
199. Would it also be right to say that you
have had no such applications so far?
(Dr Leinster) At the present time the regulations
are not in force. The Department just now is preparing for consultation,
so that is the fifth consultation. We understand that some time
after that—maybe around March time—the regulations
will be laid, and then in due course the regulations will come
into force. There will then be a period, once the regulations
are in force, of three months whereby any installation which would
have fallen within the scope of IPPC from the date that the IPPC
Directive came into force to that period will then have to apply
for a permit under IPPC. So whenever they come into force, there
is a three-month period after that, and anybody who has fallen
within the scope of the IPPC Directive then will have to apply.
|
