Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2000
RT HON
JOHN PRESCOTT,
MP AND RT
HON MICHAEL
MEACHER, MP
Chairman
200. Why did you not, Minister? Why is there
no lead Minister?
(Mr Meacher) I think we have.
201. Not in this document.
(Mr Meacher) Which document?
202. In this Sustainable Development Strategy
document.
(Mr Meacher) The responsibility for delivering a Sustainable
Development Strategy in each department rests, of course, with
the Secretary of State. The actual responsibility for carrying
it through does depend primarily on the Green Minister. We are
now looking to extend that, to having a senior official at a top
grade level taking responsibility together with the Green Minister
for the implementation of that within the Department. I think
that is the best way to ensure that responsibility at ministerial
and executive level is carried through. In addition, the Green
Ministers in their first annual report have set out in a very
large table a baseline of where we are now, a series of targets
not just on energy but on other areas like waste and transport
impacts and we are looking to see on an annual basis the progress
which has been made by each Department. Again, we have a framework
in place. Some of it carries responsibility but at ministerial
and top official level and a baseline against which we can measure
actual progress in each department.
203. One thing which concerned us—and
you mentioned 15 headline indicators in the document and some
of those go across departments like ozone depletion, for example—is
that you do not assign responsibility for meeting those to a particular
minister or a particular department.
(Mr Prescott) You mean a kind of cross-cutting minister?
204. Yes. Would it not be better to spell out
in this document, which is your document, precisely who is responsible
particularly for crosscutting indicators like ozone depletion?
(Mr Prescott) I think that is a fair point. If we
look at the machinery of government we have talked about, basically
we have made a number of major changes—
205. I accept that.
(Mr Prescott)—not least following recommendations
from this Committee as well. I think the new Commission on Sustainable
Development will have extra powers reporting directly to the Prime
Minister with annual reports to monitor and report and show where
we are failing. The point you make is a sound one. I do not really
know what a proper response to it should be, but I will have a
discussion with Green Ministers about it. If we are talking about
cross-cutting, we will try to do what we can across departments
because we have a direct responsibility and, as in climate change,
we are the lead department. So if you want to achieve objectives
like in climate change it involves the DTI, ourselves and the
Treasury. That is the way we do it at the moment. It is an interesting
point as to whether we should designate a minister with a cross-cutting
role because the Cabinet has been doing it with these new policy
information units, for example, who look at cross-departmental
issues and this is becoming an issue in just about every area.
They have identified an individual minister to look at the broad
response of a particular policy. I am quite prepared to discuss
that with the Green Ministers and see if that is a way that might
be useful, but at the moment we are highly departmentalised and
the cross-cutting tends to be with the Cabinet Panel at No.10
getting those agreements, but we are making changes in these areas
as to who to give a direct responsibility to. I will have a look
at this and when I come back to you I will report back what the
result of that idea is.
Joan Walley
206. I think that is very welcome because we
do want to quantify how things can be done and where the responsibility
is. You have just mentioned the Sustainable Development Commission.
What resources has it got? Have you sorted out its remit? I understand
that the seminar that you proposed on the last page of the Sustainable
Development Strategy has now been organised.
(Mr Prescott) It has taken place.
207. Are there any extra resources and why have
we not got a chairman of it yet? What progress has or has there
not been on it?
(Mr Prescott) Michael has been dealing with this.
The seminar you referred to took place yesterday and we are now
putting more resources in to it.
(Mr Meacher) There has been a substantial increase
in resources. I think I am right in saying that it is more and
it replaces the Sustainable Development Commission, the Round
Table and the Panel. The resources we are proposing for the Sustainable
Development Commission are greater than the combined resources
of the two bodies it replaces.
208. By how much?
(Mr Prescott) It is 60 or 75 per cent more, is it
not?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, about 60 per cent more. With regard
to the chairman, we are in the middle of trying to secure that
appointment. Obviously top level appointments require very careful
handling.
Chairman
209. This has taken eight months so far. Can
we expect an appointment soon?
(Mr Meacher) I am well aware there have been other
examples involving us where we have taken an inordinate period
of time. I do not think that will happen, but there has to be
a proper trawl, there has to be head hunting. A lot of people
are approached, but we are in the middle of that and I hope that
we will have a chairman in place before the summer.
210. Is this a No.10 appointment?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
(Mr Prescott) Can I just give you the exact figures.
The two receive £320,000 and it is now going to get £450,000,
so it is about a 40 per cent increase.
(Mr Meacher) On the question of the terms of reference
of the Commission, again we have drawn these up and there is nothing
particularly surprising about it. It is done in order to review
how far sustainable development is being achieved, what are the
gaps and how they should be met in order to identify any unsustainable
trends that may exist and what action should be taken to reverse
them and to deepen an awareness of sustainable development, which
is what we have been talking about not only within local government
but within business and amongst the general population and how
we can progress that.
Mr Savidge
211. When the Committee visited Denmark we found
that they were supplementing the idea of bottle banks with bringing
back the returnable bottle that most of us probably remember from
our youth. I wondered if there were any thoughts of that sort
going on either commercially or in other ways in Britain at the
moment?
(Mr Meacher) By returnable bottle you do not mean
taking a bottle back to a recycling bank and popping it through
the hole because that exists all over the place and it is provided
by local authorities and in some car parks of major departmental
stores. I think you are probably referring as to whether the retailer
might sell the bottle at a slightly higher charge and then return
a proportion of the cost if the bottle is returned which is known
within the jargon as "producer responsibility". We certainly
are doing that in respect of packaging waste. We are looking to
achieve it and I think this will probably come from Europe in
terms of end of life vehicles, in terms of electronic and electrical
equipment, in terms of batteries, but there are a lot more regularly
sold domestic articles sold in the high street where many of us
believe that producer responsibility could play its part, not
only with sellers of food but a number of other products which
are sold in vast quantities every day and where the containers
could be returned. I would like to see an expansion of producer
responsibility. We are certainly looking at this in respect of
newsprint recycling whereby we will try to push up the rates substantially,
but there are many other areas. We will be making some proposals
in our Waste Management Strategy not least in regard to junk mail.
(Mr Prescott) We could make that part of the election
address!
Mr Loughton
212. I remember many of us supplemented our
pocket money greatly by bringing back bootleg beer bottles to
pubs. Can we just come back to business. The Sustainable Development
Strategy document puts an emphasis on business adopting more responsible
attitudes to environmental impacts and you are looking for systematic
reporting of progress made there. Was there no discussion of the
current review of company law going on as a possible avenue in
which some requirements could be inserted onto corporations?
(Mr Meacher) Yes. DTI is in the lead on this. We are
very keen and we have certainly been discussing with them whether
we should consider requiring an environmental performance report
in addition to the financial report to be part of normal reporting
by companies. This is a difficult issue. I have been very keen
to advance this on a voluntary basis on the grounds that you are
much more likely to get genuine commitment if people take on the
responsibility themselves. This has happened to a large extent.
Ninety per cent of the FTSE 100 companies and I think about 70
per cent of the FTSE 350 companies now report in some form on
environmental issues. That is quite high. The problem is the next
batch if you get below that total where the proportion falls off
dramatically. We are relaunching MACC, a corporate commitment
project in order to try and get this batch of companies below
the biggest companies to increase significantly their environmental
reporting not only on energy efficiency but on waste and water,
transport and the rest. We are also concerned not just to have
reporting but to try and get a common and adequate standard agreed.
A paragraph is better than nothing, but it is not a lot better
than nothing. Without dictating and without trying to control
it we would like to get some agreement on guidance as to what
is an adequate environmental report. So that is where the matter
stands. We would certainly like to see it regarded as a normal
expectation of a responsible company that it provides a significant
report on its environmental impacts.
213. That is a very valid point in terms of
second tier companies. There is the parallel of what is happening
to pension funds and ethical investment policy where they will
have to have a statement on what their policy is. It is those
sort of requirements across the board that could improve it. Can
you give us any progress reports on the establishment of sectoral
business strategies for sustainable development? I think six were
mentioned by the end of 2000 in the report. What has been done
there?
(Mr Meacher) I did indicate in an earlier answer to
Joan Walley that there has been progress in a number of areas.
I will not repeat them because I did set them out a few minutes
ago. I think only one or two have been produced, though I am certainly
aware that there are some which they are coming close to producing.
It has been slower than we expected. There is no doubt, there
is interest and more than interest. It is actually getting all
sections within a trading association to agree to do this and
to set meaningful targets. They do not have to do it, it is a
voluntary commitment and actually getting them gratuitously to
make commitments is quite difficult. One has to decide how far
we should persevere with this or simply slap down a requirement.
My whole instinct is to keep on trying to get agreement rather
than simply making it a statutory requirement.
Dr Iddon
214. This Committee was very pleased to see
that there was a focus in the SDS on the role that research could
play in delivering sustainable development until at a meeting
in May last year when John Adams was before us and said, "I
understand that the ESRC has not, after all, decided to construct
a new programme for delivering sustainability", and he apologised
to the Committee and said he would apologise to the ESRC for the
mistake in the document. As far as we are aware the ESRC did not
have a forward programme following the completion this year of
the Global Environmental Change Programme. I wonder whether we
could be brought up-to-date with the role of that major research
council in delivering sustainable development?
(Mr Meacher) You have put your finger on a slightly
embarrassing spot. I am aware that we thought there was that commitment
and subsequently, after making it public, it appeared that that
was not correct. I am not briefed on what has happened since.
Even though the official is sitting right behind me, I am not
sure whether he can come to the table and advise the Committee.
If not, we will certainly give you a note.
215. Could I turn now to the indicators.
(Mr Meacher) I have been given a note even quicker
than I had expected. Although the ESRC has decided not to mount
a full-scale replacement it will continue to fund much relevant
work. This includes a new competition for research centres on
environmental decision making and DETR officials are involved
in that selection process. That does fall short of what we originally
said, but I think it does indicate some further useful work in
that area.
216. Thank you very much. It is helpful to have
that information. This Committee found that the publication of
the Government's 15 headline indicators and more than 100 others
was a helpful addition to this debate. Is the current set of headline
indicators now complete or can we subtract or add to them in the
near future? Is that under consideration? Indeed, could I apply
the same question to the full set of indicators?
(Mr Prescott) We do have a statement of the indicators.
We inherited something like 144 indicators and we thought we needed
to bring them down to something that was much more manageable.
The previous administration did quite a lot of work in establishing
those indicators. We thought by bringing them down to about 15
headline indicators or so it would be much better if we could
get people to see what we were doing and to give them targets.
What we have set targets for is 12 of the headline indicators
and 41 of the supporting set of indicators. We think that is over
a third of the total number set have been given targets. We are
prepared to set more targets where it is sensible to do so, but
I think you need to have a proper basis for it and be clear that
the target you are setting is achievable. I feel politicians are
a bit target daft at times as you almost feel sometimes as though
you might be setting the criteria for your own failure or success.
In the end the balance of the argument must be that it gives people
an indication of something to aim for. It does discipline the
thinking. If you have many targets it defeats the purpose. What
we need to do is to get people focused in on those and the 15
that we have chosen are important ones, as we have identified
in the report and do affect the quality of life. We are looking
at other targets as well. At the moment I think more of my energy
is going into making sure the Government implements these targets
across Government as they just do not apply solely to my Department.
217. The Government has said that it would consider
changing its policies if a trend in a headline indicator is unacceptable.
If a trend in a headline indicator is unacceptable, might that
lead to a change in an aspect of Government policy or would it
be trends in the overall set of headline indicators? Exactly how
will that work?
(Mr Prescott) I think it is in the individual ones
and the trends as they present for us. The indicators are a good
example of whether you are achieving the targets you have set
for yourselves, but at the same time there are consequential effects
in other areas of policy. If you pursue one and you are very effective
in it it may have a consequential effect on another and Government
reserves the right to use these as indicators to affect its policy,
that is the whole purpose of it. We believe we want to achieve
this objective. If we find as we begin to develop the consequential
effect it is not exactly as we want it we would have to change
that. It has to be open and transparent. We would be criticised
if we moved off one because we were failing to achieve it or using
it as an excuse to pursue another target. Frankly, it is a difficult
one. As we have set it out in such a transparent way we could
not move from these targets without it becoming a matter of concern
for this Committee or a matter of public debate. The more transparent
it is and the more specific the targets the more accountable is
Government for its failure or success in those areas.
(Mr Meacher) We did consult very extensively before
we finally lit on this set of headline indicators and having done
that, I think it would be a mistake to add or subtract. That is
not to say that we cannot do so, but we have no intention of doing
so. This seemed to us the right package. If we subtracted or played
down the indicators everyone would smell a rat. I think it is
very important that we stick with what we have decided to do.
It is a rod to our own back and we have got to deliver and get
all the indicators moving in the right direction.
(Mr Prescott) A good example of that may have been
air quality where we were given about six or seven. We were failing
to achieve one largely because it had a European consequence.
We had to adjust that. We were attacked for the one that we changed
even though we had been successful in about six or seven of them.
The one that we changed was not our fault, we had to change the
target and we were criticised.
(Mr Meacher) That is a good example of it. We have
not backtracked on it. There are eight key air pollutants. We
have tightened the targets in respect of five pollutants, we are
retaining those for two as they are and another is for PM10s.
We have been obliged to accept that they are affected by extensive
shifts from Europe. They receive some of our particulates and
we get quite a lot of theirs and in those circumstances it is
impossible to guarantee that we can achieve a particular target
because so much of it is outside our control. So we are not backtracking
from it. We have simply resorted initially to the EU proposal
for a target in this area and we are reviewing very carefully
how far we can improve on that and we will be making a further
statement about it.
(Mr Prescott) We took scientific advice on this. We
said, "Look, here is the problem. What do you suggest?",
and they gave us a recommendation. We got blamed for it, but we
had to change it because it was an impossible target, it could
not be achieved at the time and we publicly had to declare it
to be so having taken proper advice.
218. If a single indicator or a group of indicators
are continuously going in the wrong direction, over what period
of time would you be considering a change of policy? Is it long
term or does it depend on the indicator? Have you given any consideration
to what would trigger a change of policy?
(Mr Meacher) The important thing is that we change
the policy not the indicator. There is always a temptation in
Government to move the goalposts. We do not propose to do that.
Clearly we should respond quickly. It is difficult to give an
answer in generalities. If it is a mere glitch then maybe we would
not need to change it, but if there is a significant short-term
change in direction, yes, we have to got to change policies and
we will do so.
219. Can we look at a specific example which
might illustrate the point and that is the farmland bird population
which we know has been badly deteriorating over quite a significant
period of time mainly due to pesticides, but there are other factors
like intensive farming. Where are the baselines drawn for something
like that? That deterioration has been going on for at least a
decade or more. Where is the baseline which would trigger a change
of policy? May I just say that we are disappointed about the dropping
of the pesticide tax with respect to the forthcoming Budget, although
we recognise that the Government have merely deferred it, hopefully
and not dropped it altogether.
(Mr Prescott) All we have said is it is important
to achieve the baseline and, indeed, it has been declining at
something like 5 or 6 per cent, quite considerably, since 1970
when it was identified as a trend. Clearly there may be a lot
of things that are affecting it. It might even be climate change
itself in some cases in regard to wildlife and in other cases
it may be chemicals. In that sense all we have said is that we
want to reverse that decline. On the other side we have said that
60 per cent of houses must be built on brownfield sites instead
of greenfield sites and we have set that target for 2008. We will
not really know until we get to that stage whether we have achieved
it, but we will set targets in between to see that we are on target
to achieve it. Some of them are medium term, some are long, some
are not so specific except to achieve the reversal because it
is very difficult to know precisely how we make the changes, although
some of the things we recommend in the Sustainable Development
Strategy coming from MAFF, ourselves and other departments hopefully
will achieve that.
(Mr Meacher) The main causes in terms of loss of population
of farmland birds are the reduction in grasslands, in hay meadows,
the switch from spring to autumn sewing of cereals so that there
are much more stubble fields to provide food during the winter,
the huge cut back in hedgerows and the over-use of pesticides
and fertilizers. I take your point on the last one, but the others
are being addressed by MAFF through the Agenda 2000 reforms, through
increased use of agri-environment measures which will come through
partly with the modulation money and the rural development regulation
over the next five years. That is a major change of direction
within agricultural practice and it has been reinforced by the
PIU report on rural economies. I do think we are going to see
significant changes which should reverse those causes of decline
in the number of birds and we should begin to see a steady increase.
The other factor is biodiversity action plans directed at priority
species which are in danger.
| 
