Examination of Witnesses (Questions 116
- 139)
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 1999
THE RT
HON MICHAEL
MEACHER, MP, MS
GLENYS PARRY
AND MR
TONY BRENTON
Chairman
116. Good morning, Minister. Good morning, Ms
Parry and Mr Brenton. Welcome to the Committee. Thank you for
coming together. It will certainly help our Committee to have
a preview in regards to questions, although obviously some of
them may be directed to one of you rather than the other. I am
sure that will be clear. In your memorandum to us you said that:
"The information in this memorandum is up-to-date as at the
beginning of October." and indicated that you might want
to add something to it. Have you something to say at the beginning?
(Mr Meacher) Mr Chairman, I will, if
you wish, but my feeling of Parliamentary events is that when
Ministers come with prepared statements like the opening of questions,
there is not a great deal of interest because people want to engage,
and so perhaps we should move straight to the supplementaries.
117. That is a fascinating argument I have never
heard before. The Minister willingly giving up a slot. I do not
know whether to congratulate you on your benevolence or your subtlety!
(Mr Meacher) I think we should wait till afterwards!
Chairman: We will carry straight on then.
One thing we do want to look at—and it may be that our questions
may be more directed to Mr Brenton than yourself to begin with—is
the Helsinki Summit and exactly where the environment fits into
this. I know Mr Blizzard wants to lead on that issue.
Mr Blizzard
118. I wondered if this approaches a new cross-Governmental
initiative—to get to the nitty-gritty. We have Helsinki
coming up, of course. Can you tell us what exactly is going to
be on the agenda at the Summit and what the United Kingdom's top
priorities are going to be for it? Where do you see environmental
policy integration initiative fitting in? How will it link to
other parts of the discussion on enlargement or external trade?
(Mr Meacher) I will start on that but I think Mr Brenton
is possibly the main person to respond to that. The Presidency
has certainly indicated that the Helsinki Council will review
overall progress on integration and we are very keen that it should.
Of course, it does include the great issues of enlargement and
the IGC. I think it is not clear at this stage whether there will
be substantive discussion on the question of environmental integration
but it will certainly be addressed in the conclusions. On the
wider agenda, perhaps Mr Brenton.
119. Will you be pressing for it?
(Mr Meacher) Yes. We are very keen that Heads of Government
should get their minds round environmental integration and the
whole issue of the sustainable development. I think to be fair
to Heads of Government we cannot expect them to engage in the
details of Council reports but, of course, they will have been
discussed by Member States and they will certainly be fed in to
the deliberations from Member States.
Chairman
120. How can you say there can be no debate
but possibly conclusions?
(Mr Meacher) There will be conclusions, of course,
at the end of the Helsinki Council.
121. But will those include conclusions on environmental
integration?
(Mr Meacher) We anticipate they will. As I say, the
conclusions at the end of Heads of Government discussions are,
I think, pretty exhaustively worked over before by people I think
called "sherpas". There is, of course, a debate of Council.
We are keen that Heads of Government should seriously consider
these issues.
122. But not optimistic, from that you say?
(Mr Meacher) No. I believe there will be some discussion
but there is no doubt that the emphasis is going to be on enlargement
and the IGC.
(Mr Brenton) I do not really have very much to add.
Enlargement and the IGC are the two big items for Helsinki but,
as the Minister has also said, we see the environmental integration
dossier as an important part of the likely output of the Council,
not least because we, the United Kingdom, launched this dossier
back at the Cardiff Council two years ago. The amount of time
that Heads of Government will devote to it is likely to be limited
because the Heads of Government tend to devote most time to items
on which there is likely to be disagreement amongst them. One
of the good things about this dossier is that, on the whole, there
is a substantial measure of consensus among members of the EU.
So while they will certainly go over the draft communication on
this issue and will give their weight to those conclusions in
adopting them, most of the drafting is likely to have been done
at a lower level for them.
Mr Blizzard
123. So we are due to have papers from, I believe,
nine councils who are all at different stages of looking at the
EPI. They are due to be presented at Helsinki. How will they be
handled then and where do you want to see them go from here as
papers on the nine central councils?
(Mr Brenton) As I understand the process, only three
councils' strategies are going to be coming to Helsinki: transport,
energy, and agriculture councils. There are strategies for the
other six. There have been successive waves of these things. Three
now come up for Helsinki, three come up in a year's time, and
three come up the year after that. So the first three come up
at Helsinki together with the Commission's proposals on how they
are going to be doing the integrating process in the general manner
in the Community. That is quite an important bundle of documents
which are obviously, on the whole, too long and complex for Heads
of Government to digest. I am not suggesting that the Heads of
Government are not capable of digesting them but I am suggesting
that they have very limited time. So they will be taken and digested
at a lower level in the EU machinery and there will be conclusions
which we hope will point forwards and give new impetus, integration
and enterprise in the EU, which will come out of the Council.
(Mr Meacher) That is a very fair statement of what
we expect. The first three reports on transport, energy, and agriculture
are mixed. The transport one is probably the best; very largely
meets our requirements in terms of setting out specific targets
for integration and timescales. The energy one is not quite so
precise or detailed. The weakest is agriculture, which largely
reflects the shift towards integration objectives, which were
encapsulated within the Agenda 2000 project. But there are specific
problems there. I think there is also good progress, if I may
say, in respect of the Development Council report. I think it
recognises that project cycle management procedures are not always
followed. Environmental impact appraisal procedures and guidelines
are not always followed and that they should be. The industry
and internal market reports[5],
which are the next wave, the second tranche, also do have some
useful material in terms of recognising that environmental costs
and risks should be included in company reports. Development of
EMAS.[6]
It has a market based tool. The proposal of the Commission to
have a Green Paper on integrated products policy. These are all
important detailed micro-level environmental integration objectives.
So the matter is being progressed at that level and we expect
the broad conclusions of that to be discussed at Helsinki.
124. Will Helsinki get the other councils going,
the other 14 or so?
(Mr Brenton) I would expect Helsinki to inject a new
political impetus into the whole process. I do not think the machine
has capacity to take on 14 strategies simultaneously, so I think
the process of doing it three by three in a sort of wave process
is probably the best way of ensuring an even flow of work and
maintaining that work in the right direction.
125. So on the EPI, what particular outputs
is our Government looking for from Helsinki? What specifically
do we hope to get out of it in terms of moving things forward?
It has been called a milestone or a staging post. Is there anything
more specific you would like to think of after Helsinki will be
here?
(Mr Meacher) The Amsterdam Treaty, of course, laid
down that environmental integration and sustainable development
was the over-arching objective of the Community and a central
goal for the European Community. Now, we would certainly expect
the Helsinki Council to review progress that has been made; to
take cognisance of these reports, their general conclusions; possibly
some recognition of some of their deficiencies; and to give a
strong steer to the councils and to the Commission that environmental
integration is making progress. However, there is still some considerable
way to go. Nine councils, that is three tranches of three, is,
of course, only some of the councils. The key one which is so
far not included is ECOFIN. There has been, of course, the request
that this particular council which is so important should also
reflect environmental objectives.
(Ms Parry) May I interject there. Minister, ECOFIN
is in the third tranche of councils, along with fisheries.
(Mr Meacher) We are getting there faster than I realised,
obviously.
(Mr Brenton) In answer to your question, could I step
back a little bit. One of the problems that the Community has
had in its general approach to Community business is that the
individual councils, and indeed individual bits of the Commission,
tend to operate Chinese walls and tend to get very focused on
their own subject matter: on agriculture, or economic matters,
or energy, or whatever. What we are engaged in here is really
quite a major departure from the way the Community traditionally
operates: a breaking down of those walls and an injection of substantial
outside interests into the very concentrated wall say in agricultural
matters that the Agricultural Council traditionally focuses on.
Against that background, what I see as being the key output that
we hope to get from Helsinki is the fact that we have a strategy
from the Energy Council, which they have been persuaded to construct,
which injects environmental concerns into their on-going activity
and the Community on-going activity on energy matters, which has
been approved by Heads of Government; so in that sense they are
constrained not to lose it, not to forget it, not to put it on
a back-burner, and to maintain that attention to environmental
concerns in their on-going business.
126. How can Helsinki play a part in stimulating
public interest in the European Union? There is evidence from
the past that the public have some time ago looked quite positively
at the European Union as a vehicle for making environmental progress.
Can that be rekindled at Helsinki?
(Mr Meacher) I think there is a reasonable expectation
that it can. As I say, this is going to be one of the key issues
at the Summit. It will certainly get coverage in the communication
arising from it, and it will reflect the fact that environmental
integration is now entrenched within the workings of the Community.
Also, that we do expect it to be taken further in specific areas.
Now, that is not a particularly sexy subject, I have to say. The
whole issue of integration—because it is rather high level
and structural and framework orientated—it is not concrete.
It does not hit people between the eyes in terms of their every-day
life. But we all know it is extremely important and those people
who want to see environmental considerations taken on board have
to feed them into policy making and the preparation of policy
right across the board. That is what we are trying to do in the
United Kingdom with the greening of Government here and that is
our similar objective for the greening of the EU. I think good
progress is being made and I think we should make a flourish out
of it. How much impact it has we will see.
Dr Iddon
127. Could we look at the two Treaties, Amsterdam
and Rome. How important is the shape of these two important Treaties
in driving forward policy development in this area within the
EU?
(Mr Meacher) Maastricht—
128.—Amsterdam and Rome.
(Mr Meacher) I think very important. Amsterdam, in
particular, corrected what I do not think was a fault in the Maastricht
Treaty, but it was an unfortunate consequence that environmental
integration was set in the environmental section of the Treaty,
so that those people handling other policy areas were often unaware
of it. That was corrected by the Amsterdam Treaty which moved
the provision outlining the principles of the Community and, as
I say, it made sustainable development one of the objectives of
the European Union and an over-arching objective of the Community.
I think it is difficult in the light of that to see what further
Treaty changes could be made which would take this further. I
think the framework is there now in place. What we need is the
continuous political dialogue, not within the councils, but within
the Commission where there are real problems. What Mr Brenton
was saying about Chinese walls between the directorates: breaking
those down and getting them to talk to each other in the preparation
of policy I think is the single most important area of improvement.
129. The views of some of the NGOs we have taken
evidence from so far is exactly that. That the over-arching Article
VI in Amsterdam is probably adequate and that they would like
to see it made to work. I presume from what you have just said
that this is also your view rather than any tinkering with the
Treaties at the moment.
(Mr Meacher) That is my view. It is very similar,
as I say, to the structures which we have in the United Kingdom.
We have a Green Minister's report which we have just published.
We have Green Minister's meetings. You quite rightly are repeatedly
saying to us: It is all very well. You have the framework, but
is it working? Are you doing enough? What about this area? What
about that area? It is exactly the same in the case of the EU.
We did at Chester, in the British Presidency in April last year,
have a Joint Environment and Transport Council. I think it worked
pretty well but it is pretty unwieldy to have 30 Ministers at
the same time together with officials. I do not think it is a
model for how we can do these things generally, but I do think
that you could get joint working between officials at a lower
level to a much greater degree than exists at the present time.
It is that sort of micro-organisational change which I think will
channel this improvement, this infusion of environmental considerations,
right across the spectrum. That is where I think the task now
lies.
130. It is our feeling that the individual directorates
and councils probably do not have enough ownership of the process
at the moment. Is that a fault of the Treaty or a fault of what
you have just said, the political will is not driving it in that
direction?
(Mr Meacher) Well, I think it is important, as you
have said, that they have ownership. I think that is a very important
idea. It is all very well for the European Council to ask nine
of its formations to prepare strategies for environmental integration
and sustainable development; that is an iterative process and
it is one where they produce a draft, it is criticised, they change
it again and it is widely discussed. That is the basis of the
process, that it should not be imposed, but that they should internalise
the objectives that we are trying to achieve through this process,
and I do think there is some evidence that the Ice Age is gradually
melting and there are talks between councils and between officials
to a greater degree than before. There is still a long way to
go, but it is happening. We have invited, for example, at the
Environment Council the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Frans
Fischler, to come to our Council and to talk about the environmental
aspects or environmental integration into agricultural matters.
He did so and we had an exchange. I attended the Energy Council
when I was the President of the Environment Council and I took
part in a debate on environmental considerations in energy policy.
Now, we could do this a lot more and I would be strongly in favour
of doing so.
131. Will there be time for discussion at the
next meeting about how the process is working or will we be considering
the results of the Agriculture, Transport and other councils?
(Mr Meacher) Those reports are of course taken on
board by other councils and, in particular, by the Environment
Council, and I would certainly expect that we would have debates
and discussions about those reports and that we would consider
what further representations to make in order to try and ensure
that environmental considerations were further taken on board.
132. Unanimity is still required in the area
of fiscal instruments, including environmental taxes of course.
Bearing in mind that such taxes are a useful tool in driving the
environmental agenda forward, do you think that qualified majority
voting should be extended to economic instruments?
(Mr Meacher) That is obviously a very sensitive issue
and we have made clear that we are happy to look at an extension
of QMV on a case-by-case basis and we have made it clear, as have
other Member States, that we will not accept QMV in taxation matters.
Other Member States regard, for example, defence issues or border
controls as matters again which should be left to an individual
state where they should not be overriden by majority views. The
fact is that almost all environmental policy of course is now
subject to QMV and I think very little is now unilateral, and
I think that is basically issues of a fiscal nature, but the answer
is that we are prepared, for example, in the case of the Energy
Products Directive, to take account of fiscal measures at a European
level and we are prepared to discuss that, provided there is an
understanding that we will not change our policy on its application
to domestic energy taxation.
Mr Shaw
133. I just want to talk a bit about the EU's
Sustainable Development Strategy. Whilst there is no overarching
EU Strategy for Sustainable Development or measurable framework
for action, the UK intends to monitor the impact of our Sustainable
Development Strategy and indeed we are seen as one of the world
leaders in our Sustainable Development Strategy. In the conclusions
in your memorandum, you say that you hope that the Heads of Government
will consider the need for an EU Sustainable Development Strategy,
so do you think there is a need for such a strategy?
(Mr Meacher) I do and I was prominent in proposing
it at the Environment Council just a couple of weeks ago and it
was a decision of the Environment Council. We adopted conclusions
about the need for a comprehensive EU-wide Sustainable Development
Strategy. We also noted the importance of indicators and I feel
this very strongly, that it is so easy to come up with the rhetoric
of the grand frameworks, but the question is what it actually
means on the ground, what actually happens as a result that is
different from what would otherwise happen. I do think that indicators
and targets, where again the UK has been in the lead, our 14 headline
indicators which we published and which I hope we will soon roll
out and begin to apply are, I think, a model. The European Environment
Agency has also been very good at preparing a report on the changes
in the European environment and again setting out the number of
targets as a benchmark for future improvement. There have been
improvements in some areas, but in other areas we continue to
go back. The Environment Council also noted the need for all major
Commission proposals to have an environmental appraisal. That
again is something that we need to keep a check on, that we need
a continual rain-check on as to whether that is so, but yes, we
do need a comprehensive strategy, we have recommended it, and
I do hope, partly as a result of Helsinki, that we will move strongly
towards that.
134. So indicators, targets and timetables?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, and timetables. Certainly targets
must include timetables.
135. And you will be pushing the UK model for
the EU to adopt? You will say, "This is the blueprint"
and pushing our banner forward?
(Mr Meacher) I think we would say, and this is what
we have said, that the UK has done this, that we are not only
recommending it, but we have actually done it ourselves. We will
obviously offer that data and the manner in which it was put forward
for their consideration. I do not think we want to try and force
absolutely our model on them; after all, the EU is different from
the UK and different criteria may well apply. What we have tried
to do with targets is to make them resonate with public consciousness
so that when people hear about an indicator or a target, it has
an impact on them and they realise that things are going right
or things are going wrong and, therefore, action needs to be taken.
That is what the British Government have said and that is what
we think the EU should do.
136. What do you think the scope and focus for
this core set of indicators should be? Are you in a position to
say?
(Mr Meacher) I cannot answer that at this point. It
does need very careful consideration. We did find, when we proposed
our 14 headline indicators, that it was as a result of months
of analysis because it, first of all, has to be an indicator which
is meaningful, which reflects a slice of the environmental dimension
which is relevant and meaningful, secondly, as I say, it has got
to impact on people's minds and it has got to seem realistic and,
thirdly, it has to be measurable so that over time, say, a year,
there is a measurable change and one can see the direction in
which you are going. Now, when you try actually to determine concrete
indicators which meet those three criteria, I do assure you that
it is harder to do than you think, so I think if you want it,
we can certainly come up with suggestions and I have no doubt
that the EU can do that and I do think the European Environment
Agency based in Copenhagen has done some excellent work and they
could certainly come up with a set of indicators.
137. Who do you think should be responsible
for monitoring or reporting on progress? Whatever the indicators
are, if they are finally agreed, we have got the strategy which
we have agreed would be an important stepping stone and we have
agreed the indicators, but who is going to be responsible for
monitoring them?
(Mr Meacher) Well, basically the Commission and of
course the appropriate council. I do think both should be involved
and I would like to see regular reports to each of the relevant
councils about the progress which is being made in its area so
that they can take account of that and decide what changes in
policy are needed.
138. Leading on the strategy, hopefully that
is agreed, and you talked about the Ice Age melting and Mr Brenton
talked about Chinese walls being broken down, but who should take
the lead on the review of the strategy? Should it be the over-arching
General Affairs Council or the Environment Council? Or is there
a need for the creation of a Sustainable Development Council that
can have a flexible membership, so rather than you going to put
in guest appearances at other committees, there is actually a
body which is delegated to discuss it?
(Mr Meacher) I would not favour a Sustainable Development
Council. I cannot see that this could conceivably be created.
Even if it were, it would be undesirable because everyone would
say, "That is fine, that is a matter for the Sustainable
Development Council, it is not a matter for us." What we
have to do is to make all the relevant councils think in this
way. To internalise this value system and to translate it into
policy. To translate it, as they prepare policy, to take real
cognisance of these concerns. I do not think it should be the
Environment Council because the Environment Council again has
the same problem, I have just referred to, as the Sustainable
Development Council. "That is a matter for the environment,
it is not a matter for us." And, of course, it is for all
these other councils. Whether it should be the General Affairs
Council, or whether one does look to the six-monthly Heads of
Government Councils to keep a regular rain check on integration,
I would prefer the latter, the Heads of Government, to co-ordinate
this.
(Mr Brenton) It is worth taking two things here. First
of all, we are actually engaging in the process of trying to cut
down the number of councils as EU business is fragmented, which
is quite a strong argument against creating yet a new one here.
The Minister is absolutely right that if you want to maintain
a strong political impetus behind this, the logical place to put
the monitoring is with the European Council itself at the Summit.
However, this is going to be a matter for discussion within the
EU instances as the idea of a Sustainable Development Strategy
gets carried forward.
Dr Iddon: If we had a European Environmental
Audit Committee, this might sharpen up the act?
Mr Shaw
139. He is not going to say no!
(Mr Meacher) I think there is a very real case for
consideration for a European Environmental Audit Committee. I
am not quite sure how it would fit into the current structure
of councils. I do not just say it when I am in your presence,
but I have a great regard for the achievement of this Committee.
5 Three more council formations (development, industry,
internal market) though not required to produce strategies will
report to Helsinki. Reports from ECOFIN, Fisheries and General
Affairs are due by the end of 2000. Back
6
Eco-Management Audit Scheme Back
|
