Examination of witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2000
DR PAUL
LEINSTER, MR
NIGEL READER
and DR MARK
KIBBLEWHITE
Mr Marsden
220. If the owner of an installation had a certificate
in ISO 14001, would that be the perfect basis by which to overcome
these new regulations?
(Dr Leinster) No. They are based on different requirements.
ISO 14001 does not necessarily mean that you are in legal compliance.
I have introduced 14001 type systems in different organisations
and the Agency itself has 14001 in a number of installations.
221. Fine, thank you very much. You said they
are going to need a plan in order to demonstrate compliance.
(Dr Leinster) Yes.
222. So what is the basis of this plan other
than what you are saying is a tick list that you are going to
provide?
(Dr Kibblewhite) I think the possibility is there
that the plan that we require could form part of an ISO 14001
accreditation but not necessarily in reverse. So, hopefully, those
who come into IPPC will find it easier to get a variety of accreditation
because they have a management plan already.
Mr Mitchell
223. We shall have to make faster progress but,
having said that, I just want to ask a supplementary. The regulations
apply to current installations for poultry to 2003. Is that not
unfortunate in the sense that the European regulations on the
welfare of caged birds come in on 1 January 2003, which will require
poultry producers to reduce the number of birds in cages by a
quarter? In other words, there is going to be a sudden drop in
the size of many installations and a big cost in re-equipment
just as your charges and regulations come in.
(Dr Kibblewhite) I do not think that—
224. It is going to be messy, is it not?
(Dr Leinster) It will have to be managed.
225. It seems a curious time to bring it in
when you could postpone it for a year to take account of the changes.
(Dr Kibblewhite) I think we need to be clear that
we cannot postpone it for a year on our own authority, the Agency
cannot postpone it for a year.
Mr Mitchell: Okay, thank you. Michael Jack.
Mr Jack
226. We have heard a lot about the general binding
rules. Will you have to have a different set for poultry and for
pigs?
(Dr Leinster) Yes, because they are installation specific.
They are rules which apply to specific impacts and specific activities.
227. But in terms of the output of animal wastes
and emissions of gases, just help me to understand what is different
between pigs and poultry?
(Dr Leinster) If we are talking about things like
covering of slurry tanks, that would be the same, so those would
be very similar. The only place that we need to be different is
where we need to be different. If there is commonality then we
will use those common approaches. So the control of diet would
be the same but emissions from particular installations, because
of the structures, might be different.
228. Just try and help consolidate in my mind
exactly where we are in terms of progress on general binding rules.
We have hopped about a bit. Just focus me on where we are.
(Dr Leinster) We have had extensive discussions, we
are continuing to have those discussions. We would like to be
in a position to have agreed draft general binding rules by early
summer that both we agree and that the industry agrees.
229. Just so I understand it, if you had a system
of these general binding rules would that give a position where
somebody could apply for an IPPC permit, look at the general binding
rules and say "okay, I have done everything on the list"
and then you would go in to make an assessment as to whether they
complied or not?
(Dr Leinster) Yes. What we will have to do, even under
general binding rules, is make sure that the people are operating
because some of the general binding rules will be procedural and
we will need to make sure if they say they have covered tanks
that they do in fact have covered tanks, that if they are managing
inputs into diets that they do have procedures in place, they
can demonstrate that they are doing that. We would carry out those
checks.
230. You say in your evidence that you have
been asked by the Government to develop proposals for determining
when an installation in any sector is to be regarded as having
a low impact on the environment. Can you give us a flavour, therefore,
of how these arrangements will be streamlined under the general
binding rules in the light of low impact activity as opposed to
more normal?
(Dr Kibblewhite) Low impact installations are ones
which within the meaning of the directive have a negligible impact
on the environment, shall I describe it as, but our advice is
that thresholds that have been set stand above those which would
be defined as— We cannot go below the thresholds that we
have currently got and have an installation that falls inside
these low impact installation rules. Basically that is a non-runner
I am afraid.
Mr Marsden
231. Can I just turn back to charges, the detailed
charges. The Government told us that "the Environment Agency
is under a duty to recover the costs it incurs in carrying out
its regulatory functions. The Agency has recently consulted on
options for an interim charging scheme whilst it develops a longer
term scheme that should be in place from April 2001." Under
the published proposals "an initial application charge of
up to £18,000 and an annual subsistence charge of around
£7,000" would be levied. However, when we compare that
to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, they proposed
charges of "a minimum of £7,894 for registration plus
annual charges of at least £2,764". The question is
why are they proposing to charge less than half of those of the
Environment Agency?
(Mr Reader) We are going to compare notes with the
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and do a comparability
study to make sure that we have got it right as best we can. You
should know that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
has a much higher level of grant support than the Environment
Agency.
232. Is that a plea for more money?
(Dr Leinster) Yes.
(Mr Reader) It could be an oblique plea for more money,
but I think it is influential in the way in which SEPA is putting
costs into the charging scheme compared to what the Agency is
putting into the charging scheme. Before we do the detailed study
I would only put it on the table as an issue that needs to be
looked at.
233. So what do the charges cover, the £18,000
application charge and the £7,000 handling charge? Sell it
to me.
(Mr Reader) It is an interim charging scheme. As I
say, it covers the period to 31 March 2001. We have consulted
on the basis of fairly simple proposals which are time and materials
or based on existing charging schemes. The time imperative that
was around us at the time when we went out to consultation was
on the basis that the regulations were likely to be coming into
operation from the autumn of last year. That forced the pace as
far as the consultation process was concerned. Since the regulations
are not in force there has been a delay and we have had the benefit
of the consultation process and that has helped inform our current
thinking. We feel that the proposal is reasonable for those sectors
already under IPC charge.
234. Forgive me, time is very short here. I
come back to it: what do the charges cover?
(Mr Reader) They cover the cost of the inspector in
the work that he does in relation to both inspecting the site
and the work off site, preparing for and following up the licence
determination, the technical support in relation to that, technical
guidance, the development of new regulatory regimes, policy development
and research and development costs as well as the on-costs associated
with that.
235. So is it possible to give us a breakdown
of the £18,000 figure and the £7,000 handling charge?
(Mr Reader) It is. I could do that now or I could
submit additional evidence.
236. At a later date will be fine. It will be
intriguing to know how you manage to get it up to £18,000.
There is no profit element, is there, it is just charges?
(Mr Reader) No profit, just charges.
Mr Mitchell
237. If you could give us a paper on that, it
would be very helpful.
(Dr Leinster) Can I just clarify though that this
is one of the reasons and one of the drivers for general binding
rules. Having had the responses to consultation we then went back
and looked at our costs and it was one of the drivers for this
development of general binding rules. General binding rules are
not the great panacea of all ills but we do believe that if we
can use and introduce general binding rules then we should be
able to have a reduction in these level of charges.
Mr Marsden
238. That was my next question. What progress
has been made towards establishing a long-term charging arrangement?
How much lower do you think the charges will be where GBRs are
applied?
(Mr Reader) In relation to the long-term charging
arrangement we have just had a general consultation on the principles
of a charging scheme, the focus has been in terms of getting an
interim charging scheme ready.
239. So you do not know?
(Mr Reader) Undoubtedly if we are able to apply GBR
it will reduce the current numbers that are on the table.
| 
