Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 1999
THE RT
HON MICHAEL
MEACHER, MP, MS
GLENYS PARRY
AND MR
TONY BRENTON
Chairman
140. You are a member of it.
(Mr Meacher) How can I forget! So I think that is
for consideration. As Mr Brenton said, I do not think we have
really worked out within the Community how this co-ordinating,
monitoring, verifying, checking is going to be carried out, but
I certainly think at least the functions that you perform have
to be reflected somewhere in the European structure.
Mr Gerrard
141. Does that mean that we need to look at
some structural changes? That the current structures are going
to make it difficult to deliver the current system of having 23
councils who might be involved? Should we be looking for structural
changes in the institution? The Council, the Parliament, the Commission
itself?
(Mr Meacher) I think that is all for consideration.
Mr Brenton made this point, with regard to the number of portfolios.
Mr Prodi has proposed that, for example, the Energy and Transport
portfolio should be brought together under a single commissioner
and that the directorates be merged. That is something that I
think should aid integration. I repeat that I think the most important
way of improving integration is to ensure that the directorates,
as they begin the process of policy formation in their area, that
they talk much more to each other: what we call here joined-up
government meaning joined-up directorates. As I say, I think there
is a change but I still think it happens nowhere near sufficiently.
I do not think it is structural change. It is changes in working
practices, organisational procedures, rather than great new structural
formations.
(Mr Brenton) Just to reinforce that really. Changing
the deep Community structures is an extremely difficult job. I
would not want to understate how far we have got with this exercise
already through this process of strategies and European Council
monitoring and enforcement. A parallel process which is of course
going on, which I think can contribute valuably to our objective
of getting the environment integrated and everything else, is
what is going on in the Commission. As you know, Neil Kinnock
is engaged in pushing forward various reform ideas, which we hope
will include closer working between the various bits of the Commission
on this issue. Prodi coming in has established a Committee of
Commissioners on growth and environment and sustainable development,
which includes the Environmental Commissioner and which used rightly
can be a major force for integration within the Commission, which
will then spread out to the various councils within which the
Commissioner is involved. I would not push for the revolutionary
rebuilding of the whole house. That would be very difficult to
achieve. It is rearranging the furniture in a way that produces
a better result.
142. Does that mean though that we have to be
clear as to who is taking the lead? We have this structure of
23 Councils, Council of Ministers, Parliamentary Commission, a
lot of disparate bodies involved. Yes, we need them to work together,
but does there need to be a clear focus on who is taking the lead?
And, if so, who should that be?
(Mr Brenton) The answer to that question is yes. At
the moment, the lead lies very firmly with the European Council,
with the Heads of Government, through the Cardiff process and
the ongoing submission to the European Council, so it could not
be in a better place.
143. Do you think that is the best place for
it to be?
(Mr Brenton) This is all subject to what we can negotiate
in the next phase. At the moment, Helsinki is a quite important
moment from that point of view.
(Mr Meacher) I think Mr Prodi's new committee Mr Brenton
referred to, it is very important on growth, competitiveness,
employment, and sustainable development. He has taken four cross-cutting
themes and he has put those together in a sort of super committee.
He is very conscious that it is unwieldy, that it is fragmented.
He is trying to concentrate on absolutely key and central areas
and drive it forward through that committee. The fact that the
Environmental Commissioner is a member of that is extremely helpful
from the point of view of environmental integration.
Chairman
144. Who is the commissioner in charge of this
particular Committee of Commissioners, as it were?
(Mr Meacher) Mr Prodi.
145. Prodi himself?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
146. The point that Mr Gerrard was raising in
addition to what you are raising is that it is all very well for
the six-monthly review by the countries and so forth, but you
have to have some body, some person, who is monitoring this other
than the Environment Commissioner. This is because the whole point
of this is that other directorates should be taking these issues
on board. Who would this be? The suggestion has been made by some
of the NGOs who came to see us, for example, that Commissioner
Kinnock took on this responsibility or maybe the President himself,
Mr Prodi himself, should take on the responsibility for sustainable
development, whether it is in this little group of commissioners
or whatever. But someone other than the Environment Commissioner
should have a role in pushing through this integration process.
Without that, maybe it will not get the political leadership it
needs on a day-to-day basis between the six-monthly councils.
(Mr Meacher) I completely agree. That is why we are
very much in support of Mr Prodi's proposal. What is good about
this is that it is not bringing together commissioners to look
at how we are doing on sustainable development. It is linked in
with the great economic objectives and it is given equal place
with those economic objectives. It is fed through in terms of
economic policy and growth and competitiveness and employment.
I think the fact that he is directing it himself, that the key
commissioners are on it, and it is done on a regular managerial
basis and not just on a six-monthly review, is a very important
innovation.
Mr Gerrard
147. You made it very clear that you wanted
to see a Sustainable Development Strategy. But in your paper you
are suggesting that the Government's aim would be that we would
be giving consideration to the need for a comprehensive EU Sustainable
Development Strategy for the Rio Plus 10 Conference 2002. Is that
a timescale that you envisage is realistic for any new strategy?
(Mr Meacher) We have said that we would wish to see
an EU Sustainable Development Strategy by the end of 2000, I think
we have said.
(Mr Brenton) I do not know.
(Mr Meacher) Maybe that is aspirational but that is
certainly what I would wish. We are looking in the Rio process
to try to get other states to do the same. As always, Europe wants
to try to be in the lead, not just to preach to others but to
come forward with its own proposals. Certainly by 2002 I feel
sure that if there is an endorsement of a proposal of a comprehensive
Sustainable Development Strategy by the Helsinki Council, we will
have it in place by then.
148. May I turn to the question about the links
between EU strategies and Member States' own strategies. How far
do you think that the United Kingdom strategy addresses the EU
dimension? Do you think we do that adequately at the moment?
(Mr Meacher) We clearly pick up similar themes. Our
Sustainable Development Strategy is looking at the interlinking
of economic objectives, as we have indicated in terms of roads,
in terms of employment, the social objectives, so that social
equity is not for the few but it is for the many, it is for all,
as well as the environmental objectives. Now these clearly apply
at the European level. There are no formal links between the two.
The European strategy is not simply the amalgam of all the Member
States' strategy. Clearly we are picking up on similar themes
and they should be compatible.
149. What do you think the implications might
be of the EU strategy for Member States? Is the EU strategy going
to turn into something that drives the strategies for Member States,
or is it going to be rather more reflecting what is happening
at Member State level?
(Mr Meacher) I suppose that largely depends on how
pro-active a particular Member State is. For the laggard states,
(I will not name any of those), it will probably act as a driver.
It will press them to go faster than they would have otherwise
gone. But for the states who are already deep in this process,
that have already done a great deal of work, I would suspect that
they will go further than the European strategy.
150. It is not going to hold anyone back?
(Mr Meacher) No, it is certainly not going to hold
anyone back.
151. What about the process of expansion? We
have accession states coming into the EU. How far do you think
they should be taking on board Sustainable Development Strategy?
At an early stage of the accession process?
(Mr Meacher) Very much so. They will be expected to
do so. Most accession states are less integrated in institutional
policy terms than most European states but one of the great advantages,
of course, of the accession process is that it is concentrating
their minds very clearly and sharply on this issue. The report
of the European Environment Agency last year, 1998, concluded
that in some areas, for example, energy and industry, some of
the central European states—I would be thinking of Poland
and the Czech Republic and Hungary in particular—are as
advanced as many western European states in integrating environment
into their wider policies. So it is wrong to think that in every
respect they are all behind us. Some are matching what we are
doing. Those who do not will certainly be required to do so. They
will have to meet the environmental acquis in full. The
only issue is the length of the transitional period to enable
them to do so.
152. You foresee a transitional period when
targets may be set at different levels, if we have indicators
and targets?
(Mr Meacher) By the end of the transition period they
would be expected to meet environmental standards across the board.
Mr Robertson
153. Whilst accepting taxation is used as a
means of raising funds, the Government of course tries to use
it as a means of encouraging environmentally friendly policies;
yet you say, (quite rightly, in my view), that the Government
is not prepared to give up any veto on the control of taxation.
Is there a potential conflict there, particularly with regard
to the question, which was asked slightly earlier, about national
policies and European Community policies?
(Mr Meacher) Again, this has of course emerged as
a whole issue of tax harmonisation, which we have made quite clear
we do not regard as a way forward for Europe. But, as I said,
where there is a case for action at a European level, then we
are quite prepared to consider it. Over the Monte Directive on
Energy Products, one of the intentions of the Environment Council
is to seek common and co-ordinated policies and measures in order
to help achieve the Climate Change targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
Certainly one of those includes energy efficiency, liberalisation
of energy markets, R&D in these areas. That is a matter which
we are prepared to discuss and we are prepared to see a European
agreed level of tax, but not one that affects domestic energy.
Mr Savidge
154. May I move on to the Fifth Environmental
Action Plan which we understand is currently being assessed. I
wonder if you could tell us what our own Government's view would
be of the achievements of the Fifth EAP, and whether you have
encountered any barriers to progress or suggestions?
(Mr Meacher) I think the Fifth Environmental Action
Programme was a considerable achievement. I certainly remember
that in the British Presidency we had to deal with (I think) 32
areas of contention between the Council and the Parliament, so
I remember it with some feeling. But I do think that the Fifth
Environment Action Programme tried to embrace the concept of sustainable
development. The real problem is just picking up many of the questions
and the thrust of the discussions so far; that it was prepared
by the Environment Directorate and, therefore, it could not lay
out a programme which was going to be followed by the Commission
as a whole. That was its weakness. The Environment Council views
a comprehensive EU-wide Sustainable Development Strategy as more
than just another Sixth (or whatever) Environmental Action Programme.
It has got to be a genuinely cross-cutting strategy which all
parts of the Community can sign up to. So I think it had merit.
I think it was a very helpful exercise. It actually extended co-operation
between Council and Parliament in terms of co-decision making.
It was one of the first efforts to try and promote that. But I
think that if we are looking to a new one—one could spell
out what I think are the priorities for the environmental programme—but
it has to feed into a comprehensive Sustainable Development Strategy.
It is not a comprehensive Sustainable Development Strategy.
155. You fed into precisely my next question.
Do you feel there should be a Sixth EAP? If so, what would you
like to see in it? Do you think it should have the same format
as the fifth one or should we have a completely new approach?
(Mr Meacher) I think we should have a new approach.
As I said, the fifth had merit but it had its weaknesses and I
think we should take account of those. Margot Volstrom, who is
the new Environment Commissioner from Sweden, wants a short focused
document which concentrates on strategic priorities. I think that
is perfectly sensible. It will be a Commission programme but it
can certainly be associated with a co-decision of Council and
European Parliament. Now the question is, what should be in it?
There are two obviously major cross-cutting issues at the present
time. One is climate change and the other, with this up and coming
ministerial at Seattle, is trade and the environment. I would
certainly expect those to be the dominant features. There are
a number of other priorities at the present time which I will
just briefly allude to. One is, of course, biotechnology and the
need to press on with the outstanding stages of the Directive
90/220. Another is chemicals. There is an urgent need for an EU-wide
chemicals strategy because so few of the chemicals out there in
the environment have been subject to systematic assessment. On
fisheries, nearly half of the stocks which are fished by EU fleets
are now below the minimum biologically acceptable level. This
is nearly half, which is a stunning thought. In terms of waste,
I think whether it is waste or whether it is transport policy,
we have to break the link between economic growth and the growth
of waste or the growth of traffic emissions. It is that decoupling
which we are now seeking. If you like, the factor 4/factor 10
eco-efficiency idea to achieve twice the output on half the input.
Those seem to me to be central themes at the present time, which
I would hope that the Sixth Environmental Action Programme should
address.
156. Taking that answer together with your previous
answer, I take it what you are really saying is that there should
be both a sixth EAP and a European Union Sustainable Development
Strategy.
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
157. I wonder if you could just spell out in
slightly more detail how they would differ, but how they could
be interlinked.
(Mr Meacher) They would differ because what I have
just spelt out as the sixth possible model for a sixth Environmental
Action Programme does not take into account the economic and social
dimensions which a genuine Sustainable Development Strategy needs
to do. It is the environmental input into that process. It is
not the totality of that process.
158. Supposing the EU did not go for a sixth
EAP and just went for a European Union Sustainable Development
Strategy, is there any way that that could actually be given teeth
and made effectively enforceable?
(Mr Meacher) I think it would be a pity if we did
not concentrate our minds on what the environmental input should
be. That seems to me to be the role of a sixth Environmental Action
Programme and if we did go straight for an EU comprehensive Sustainable
Development Strategy, the teeth that it had would depend on, well,
I do not want to use a term like "enforcement mechanism"
because I do not think it would be that kind of strategy, but
it should have clear markers, it should have indicators with timescales
and the relevant bodies or councils or the relevant Commission
formations would be called to account on a regular basis. That,
I think, is the basis of enforcement. Implementation and enforcement
are absolutely crucial. We have now reached the point where, and
we keep on saying this, the structures are basically there and
it is now seeing that they are actually exercised, that people
take serious note of them, that they internalise the norms within
their policy-making and are held to account by regular quantified
targets within pre-determined timescales.
Chairman
159. That would still mean, would it not, Minister,
that the Sustainable Development Strategy would not have the same
legalistic basis as a sixth Environmental Action Programme?
(Mr Meacher) I think the exact status of an EU Sustainable
Development Strategy has not yet been firmly decided.
|
