Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660
- 679)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
Mr Donohoe
660. What is the bid?
(Mr Meacher) It is a good try to get us to reveal
our bid, but I think it is convention, which I think I accept,
that I cannot reveal the actual figures. I do assure you, it is
a considerable sum.
Chairman
661. The Local Government Association point
out that non-statutory activities tend to lose out to statutory
ones in the battle for funding. In a sense local authorities are
in a mess, are they not? They have got some statutory and some
non-statutory, and as long as they have got that situation is
not the temptation for them to emphasise their spending on the
statutory one?
(Mr Meacher) That is true, subject I think to two
considerations: one is that that is in accordance with their own
priorities. Remember, they do actually control their budget. It
is difficult—I will not say for the Cinderella areas like
biodiversity—but it is the big popular areas like housing,
social services and education which get the overwhelming proportion
of the funds, and it is the smaller areas around the edge that
tend to get squeezed. That is one issue. Secondly, there is this
new factor in consideration, which is that we are proposing community
strategies. All local authorities will be required to draw up
community strategies to spell out how they are going to meet all
of these requirements on them in an integrated manner. Biodiversity
is going to be up there upfront, and I think that is a better
way of trying to ensure that it is fully taken into account. We
will be monitoring that and seeing the effectiveness in future
years.
Mr Cummings
662. How are you going to monitor this, Minister?
There are no new resources available, and you indicate that local
authorities might be very hesitant in providing staff time to
carry out a comprehensive plan. From where are you going to receive
your information to judge whether it is a success or not? It does
appear to me that this is going to be at the front of the agenda
and everyone is immensely enthused in the Department and other
organisations are immensely enthused and yet we try and operate
this on a shoestring by not providing adequate resources. If the
resources are not made available where is everything going to
come from to support any inadequacies in the system over the course
of the next two or three years?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, I did not say there would
be no new resources. I am saying there are bids within the Spending
Review and we will have to say what conclusions are finally reached.
The community strategy concept is a new one. I hope that we can
look at it sympathetically and try and make it work. We will be
monitoring it, because we will be setting targets, or local authorities
will have targets to reach, and we will be checking on how far
those targets are actually reached.
663. If local authorities decide they are not
going to do it because it is not a statutory obligation, where
do you go?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, there is statutory guidance
to them requiring them to take full account of biodiversity in
the drawing up of their community strategy of biodiversity. They
cannot simply ignore it; they have to indicate how they are proposing
to meet the biodiversity objective. I think that is very important.
I think you used the key word yourself "enthuse". You
can give people statutory obligations until the cows come home—it
does not have a lot of effect. The important thing, I think, is
actually to enthuse people—to make them committed, and to
make them keen to reach those targets. It is not just local authorities,
it is also the private sector and its voluntary bodies. I do not
think we should just leave it to local authorities. Involving
business, involving voluntary organisations in biodiversity is
just as important.
Chairman
664. Do I take it you would not be heartbroken
if the Lords came to the decision to make it a statutory duty?
(Mr Meacher) I can fully accept, Mr Chairman, that
an amendment will be put down along those lines. I think the government
spokesman in the Lords will be responding along the lines of what
I have said. I take your point, and let us see what happens.
Chairman: I am not quite sure how we get on
the record the smiles around the table!
Mrs Ellman
665. Minister, we have been talking about responsibility
for local government in promoting biodiversity, how would you
account for the severe criticism of government given by the Environmental
Audit Committee in a report in March this year for failing to
deliver biodiversity. It is a very strong condemnation in the
Environmental Audit Report; why do you think that should be; and
what are you going to do to put it right?
(Mr Meacher) I agree with you that there is nothing
like enough to satisfy me, and probably all of us, that biodiversity
is sufficiently integrated. I think it is unfair though to take
the view that biodiversity has somehow been ignored—it has
not. There are increasing signs of policy shifts. If I could mention
agri-environment schemes that Elliot will be speaking to; forestry
policy, it certainly takes biodiversity very strongly into account;
the Asset Management Programme No. 3 (which is this huge water
quality investment programme we are now embarking upon) has significant
biodiversity targets; and ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment, our advisory body on GM, has set up a sub-group
on biodiversity impacts of GM crops. It is beginning to more than
filter in—it is beginning to be integrated in a number of
areas. We have made biodiversity in the form of a number of farmland
birds against a baseline figure—one of the quality of life
headline indicators. We are rolling those out on an annual basis
so that we will see progress, or otherwise. MAFF, MoD and the
Forestry Commission have already explicitly engaged in biodiversity
targets in certain specific national biodiversity action plans.
Let me say, the MoD (not always seen in this light) actually have
produced a rather good report, if I may say so, on strategic environmental
assessment of the strategic defence review. We have got Green
Ministers, for which I am responsible, drawing up a biodiversity
checklist for all other government departments to take into account.
We had Barbara Young along who is the Chair of English Nature;
and when she gives a lecture people tend to jump to it; and I
hope that is going to have an impact on other departments looking
at their estates. We are trying to do within national government
what we want to happen in local government. It is not enough but
there are signs of real movement, in my opinion. In DETR the Highways
Agency has specific biodiversity targets written into its plan.
I have talked about AMP 3—the whole issue of water abstraction
and its effect on biodiversity is a key issue; the effect of sewage
effluent impact on biodiversity is written into AMP 3; the whole
question of whether or not there should be a pesticides tax. One
of the big issues is exactly the effect of excessive use of pesticides
on biodiversity. It is beginning to be an issue for policy-making
right across the board.
666. Who is going to monitor what actually happens
and what impact it has? You said this is beginning to be an issue.
It was supposed to be an issue two years ago. Who will monitor
what actually happens?
(Mr Meacher) When I say "beginning to be"
I am being modest. I think it is already becoming a serious issue.
The long list I have indicated I think shows that. I agree, it
could be extended further. You will find other areas where biodiversity
is not yet fully taken on board when decisions are made, where
the biodiversity concept and biodiversity goals are not within
the mindset and that is what I am continuing to—
667. Who will monitor?
(Mr Meacher) Green Ministers.
668. Do you accept the conclusion from Environmental
Audit that the Green Ministers Committee is settling for progress
at the pace of the slowest and are sending out the wrong messages?
(Mr Meacher) Green Ministers are responsible for this.
We have agreed to take on board this particular area, following
this discussion with English Nature. We published one annual report
which was last summer; we are publishing another in the summer
or autumn of this year; and we will start to give the national
figures where we have them. We will be building on that and monitoring
it year by year. We will be criticising departments which are
not doing it, which is exactly what we did last year in other
respects, like energy, water use and waste.
Mrs Dunwoody
669. Where does the DETR report actually say
that?
(Mr Meacher) Green Ministers I was talking about.
670. You have already told us the Highways Agency,
for example, has a special responsibility. Where in the annual
report is there a comment on what they have been doing?
(Mr Meacher) I have not got the annual report in front
of me, nor in my mind. I have been told that biodiversity targets
are written into their—
671. That is not actually what Mrs Ellman asked
you. We all accept that motherhood and apple pie are excellent
but she asked you something different—monitoring. Where
does it say (because you are telling us they have had nearly a
year) what they have done?
(Mr Meacher) I do not know whether their latest annual
report states the change that has happened to biodiversity, indeed
whether they have measured it in the last year
672. You do not think it is an oxymoron—the
Highways Agency and biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) No, I do not think it is an oxymoron.
I think the Highways Agency is changing. I think they are becoming
more conscious.
673. They are not building roads?
(Mr Meacher) They are responsible for building roads
but doing it in a way which is more environmentally sensitive
and taking more account of the biodiversity consequences. It is
for us and for you as parliamentarians to require of them that
they make these measurements, and that they publish them. I will
try to do that, and you through questions, or calling them before
this Committee (and I am sure I do not have to encourage you)
will also do the same.
674. You would ask us to put a bit in your annual
report, which you have not noticed is not there?
(Mr Meacher) You have encouraged me, as you always
prompt me when we have these discussions, that there is more I
could do and should do, and one of the things will be that I will
check up with the Highways Agency what their precise proposals
are, having produced their own Biodiversity Action Plan, what
are they doing to monitor it and when are they going to produce
the first figures about how far it has been carried out or not.
I will check on that.
Mrs Ellman
675. Should government departments have a duty
to further biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) All other departments? In a way
we are back to question number one, which I suppose is so fundamentally
to underline them all. Again, I appreciate the purpose behind
that. I want all government departments to think about biodiversity,
where it is relevant, in their policy-making. The problem is that
there are so many other areas. There are issues about equal rights,
issues about the disabled, issues about the young, the old, issues
about the poor, issues about the countryside and rural areas,
and all of these need to be taken into account (proofed as we
like to say) when making policy. The question is how far you actually
carry that process. If you have 12 counts which have to be taken
into account when you are making policy, is it really effective,
is that actually the way to do it, by requiring them to check
lists all the time and publish that they have gone through this
procedure and ticked all these boxes.
676. Are you satisfied with the current situation?
(Mr Meacher) No, I am not.
677. How would you change it?
(Mr Meacher) I do think that biodiversity is increasingly
on the radar screen when policy is being looked at—I repeat,
not enough.
Chairman: What, to be avoided?
Mrs Dunwoody
678. Little flashing lights. Beware! Beware!
(Mr Meacher) Maybe my metaphor was inappropriate.
I think my point is clear, that I think it is increasingly taken
into account by key bodies but, I repeat, not quite all of them
and not sufficiently. They say they have done it, but then when
you actually look at what has happened on the ground it has not
been done as thoroughly or as comprehensively or as effectively
as one would like.
Mrs Ellman
679. Who does the looking on the ground?
(Mr Meacher) Again, it should of course be they themselves,
but if they do not then quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who
will guard the guards themselves? Ultimately it is their responsibility,
but what Green Ministers do is continually through the sustainable
development unit, which is in my department, is keep checking.
We are not the police, but we keep monitoring, keep pressing and
keep asking questions; and where there are failures we keep asking
for explanations that it will not happen again. It is like pushing
water up hill; it is a constant never-ending task but I think
we are making progress.
| 
