Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680
- 699)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
680. Should utility regulators have to continue
considering biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) They certainly should. They of course
have a major impact on biodiversity, particularly water, but also
the other utilities.
681. Do you think they are exercising that responsibility?
(Mr Meacher) I think the water industry increasingly
is but, again, there are some dramatic failures.
Chairman
682. Such as?
(Mr Meacher) Where there is over-abstraction. Sometimes
river courses run dry and, of course, pollution, and pollution
does have absolutely drastic effects. Sometimes it is an unavoidable
accident. All too often it is because someone acted very selfishly
and negligently and the consequences are drastic. I want to increase
the penalties sharply to prevent that happening, to provide a
real deterrent.
683. Rail regulators and leaves on the track—you
have already sorted out the Highways Agency but the railway lines
do have a huge amount of wildlife along them. Should the regulator
not have more of a duty to actually pursue biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) That is an interesting consideration.
You talk about chopping down trees which shed leaves on the line,
and that is perhaps a rather separate issue and to do with safety.
That is an interesting question and maybe I should raise that
with the rail regulator. I am making it clear that I have not
pursued that so far.
Mr Gray
684. How important, in advising government departments,
is English Nature in all of this? What role would you ascribe
to them?
(Mr Meacher) It is our statutory advisor and is obviously
an extremely important body by any standards.
685. That would include advice about the biodiversity
impact of GM crops?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
686. In that case, when Advanta advised the
government on 17 April that there had been GM contamination, why
was it the government failed to consult English Nature at all
until the public announcement on 18 May?
(Mr Meacher) This is an issue which has been discussed
I think pretty exhaustively in other places. The information we
received from Advanta on 17 April was exceedingly sketchy. They
did not know themselves which particular lines of modification
were involved; which shipment deliveries; how many farmers it
had been sent to. It took a great deal of time and, I have to
say, contrary to the general view that we rather leisurely sat
on this, we tried very hard to get that information as quickly
as possible. We did not have sufficient detailed accurate information
until approximately 10 May in order to put the matter to ACRE,
and in order to put the matter to English Nature to get a considered
view from them.
687. You did not put it to English Nature at
all. Barbara Young said you did not consult her at all, and a
moment ago you said they were vitally important advisors on biodiversity
and a terribly important organisation; but here we have the government
sitting for a month and a day on a piece of information about
the contamination of British crops by GM and you did not even
consult English Nature. Was that a mistake? Mo Mowlam said it
was a mistake, would you agree with her, or not?
(Mr Meacher) I did not say (in fact I said the opposite)
that we simply sat on it. I made clear that we did not do that,
and I would be grateful if you would take account of my words.
We tried to find out exactly what had happened. It was a tragic
and pretty extensive accident with enormous ramifications.
688. Exactly.
(Mr Meacher) This was Hyola RT73—we did not
know that for a considerable time. We did not know how many farmers
were involved. We did not know where the shipment came from. We
did not know what was the cause of the contamination and how far
it went. I do ask you, if we are serious about this and not just
point scoring, it is important to try and establish the facts
before you go to our advisors. No, we did not formally consult
English Nature. English Nature always feed into the key body,
which is the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.
We were able to reach them with the relevant information, if I
recall, around 10 May, and we could not before that point. English
Nature were perfectly well aware of this because it had been all
over the newspapers, and of course they were involved in discussions
with ACRE. It is not as if they were excluded, but they did not
have the basis on which to take a considered view until well into
May.
689. I accept the point you make about not knowing
the facts. If you have an advisor like English Nature who have
responsibility for biodiversity impact of GM crops, surely it
is reasonable to ring up your Labour colleague, Barbara Young,
to say, "Look, it's all very informal at the moment but what
would you advise us to do about this problem? Would you please
give us early advice on the matter". You chose not to do
so until later when it became public. Mo Mowlam said it was a
disgraceful delay and should have come out much sooner than that
and you should have consulted them before that. Surely you would
agree with that? Surely what you are saying at this stage to the
Environment Select Committee is, "Good heavens, maybe we
haven't got this right and should have consulted with our statutory
advisors sooner"?
(Mr Meacher) I have made clear twice already, and
I hope I do not need to repeat it, that there was very great uncertainty
about what had actually happened. We tried as quickly as we could—maybe
we could have done it more quickly. If you wish me to say that,
I will accept that. Maybe we could have done it more quickly.
Since I was not actually involved in all the negotiations directly
myself, it was my officials, I cannot speak with certainly. I
do believe that they did face a very difficult and uncertain situation.
I do believe that they tried to deal with it expeditiously. Maybe
it could have been done more quickly. We could not be in a position
to consult either ACRE, which is the relevant body here, let alone
English Nature until around the middle of May. As soon as we were
able to do so we did. ACRE considered the matter. They then, at
their full meeting on 25 May, confirmed their initial response
and at that point it was published.
(Mr Morley) Can I add a point to this, Chairman, in
relation to the issue that has been raised. There was a question
of priorities when the information was given to government, as
you will appreciate. The top priorities were: what are the risks
to human health, and was there a risk to the environment? In the
consultation which took place both in relation to MAFF and DETR,
who have slightly different responsibilities here, it was very
quickly established by the government's own independent advisory
bodies like ACRE that this particular strain Hyola had already
been given release consent for the field scale trials, and it
had gone through the procedures on which English Nature had been
consulted. It had also been given consent for food as well. It
was established quite early on that there was no risk to health,
and there was no risk to the environment, which has not been challenged
by English Nature. Therefore, the priority was established, and
English Nature is the statutory body on nature conservation and,
although you could argue about when they should be brought in
(and they were ultimately brought in) it was established quite
early on that there was not an environmental risk. English Nature
were consulted in due course, and that was in such things as dealing
with crops and looking at the impact on nature conservation in
relation to any of the seeds that were left over, of which the
risks are negligible. That is the English Nature position.
690. The Environment Agency was here last week
and they said that land-use policies will almost certainly be
the deciding factor, the key factor, in biodiversity. Do you agree
with that conclusion?
(Mr Meacher) Land-use policies are obviously very
relevant, yes.
691. In that case, what are you going to do
to incorporate biodiversity into planning policy?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, the publication of PPG9
on nature conservation, or at least the consultative draft on
the revised PPG9 (because it is already there) on nature conservation,
will be published as soon as the Countryside and Rights of Way
Bill has been passed. There is also the PPG (I do not remember
which one) issued on regional planning guidance, and that stresses
both the importance and the means of integrating biodiversity
into regional planning guidances. We are also ensuring that biodiversity
advice is included in revisions of mineral planning guidance.
I agree, it is extremely important and these are areas where we
are trying to get these considerations fully taken into account.
Chairman
692. You say PPG9 will be published?
(Mr Meacher) The revised draft, yes.
693. Why do we have to wait for a draft until
the legislation has been completed?
(Mr Meacher) Because there are aspects, as you well
know, of the Bill, particularly with regard to SSSIs and wildlife
protection, which are relevant here; and until Parliament has
actually agreed it we cannot give advice on how those proposals
shall be implemented.
694. It would only be a draft, would it not?
To get a draft you have to have consultation on the draft, and
then you get a final version so it does mean quite a bit of time
will go by before we actually get it incorporated clearly into
planning law?
(Mr Meacher) I agree with that. I think it would be
seen as presumptuous if we put out a revised draft for consultation
which presumed that Parliament was going to pass the relevant
sections of the Bill. I think we do have to wait until that is
passed and we know the exact form in which it is drafted and formulated
in the Bill. We do need to be prompt, I agree with you, and I
will again put down a marker to make sure we do get the draft
out as quickly as possible after that and the consultation is
not indecently short but no longer than it needs to be. I am keen
that we do move on this, but there is a proper procedure which
I think we do have to adhere to.
Mrs Ellman
695. How are you going to deal with conflict
in planning policy in relation to environment and biodiversity?
We have received evidence that a significant number of wildlife
sites are on brownfield areas. How do you deal with the need to
protect those sites which presumably you agree with, with the
need to release brownfield areas for building?
(Mr Meacher) That is a classic example of the tension
between objectives within planning policy, which is what planning
is about. How do you hold the balance between perfectly proper
and worthy objectives which may be in conflict? I do not think
you can set up general rules which will formalistically determine
all these cases—that is what planning inquiries are for,
and a judgment has to be made on the merits of the case by the
planning inspector. I agree, it is difficult and it is, in the
end, a balance of judgment. I would be keen, of course, that the
wildlife implications were fully and formally taken into account.
This is not just going through the exercise, but that they are
seriously considered and the planning inspector, whatever judgment
he makes, answers the question that you have just raised: if you
have not given priority to it, why not?
696. Should there be specific guidance in situations
of conflict?
(Mr Meacher) This is what the PPG notes are all about.
It does try, without precluding the details of every individual
case, and give advice about how this is handled. They are constantly
revised to take account of new experience in order to try and
guide the inspector better. In the end, there is nothing to get
round the individual judgment of the man on the spot.
697. Should wildlife sites have better protection?
(Mr Meacher) I think my answer must be, yes. They
have not been adequately protected in the past and, yes, I do
think they should be better protected. Nothing is completely sacrosanct.
You have to make a judgment between conflicting objectives. Whilst
I do think that wildlife provision has been overridden rather
too easily in some cases in the past, some notorious national
cases, I think that is beginning to change, or changing (since
you picked me up on that word before); it is changing but, again,
all that one can do is look at every case as it appears: have
we learnt the lessons properly and is the PPG implemented as it
is intended to be?
Chairman
698. A register of brownfield sites, does that
actually tell you how many have got nature conservation on those
sites?
(Mr Meacher) I do not think it does. Local wildlife
sites, first of all, there is identification, support for them,
monitoring, funding for them, research into their protection.
These are all issues (and precisely the questions) which the local
wildlife sites group—which was set up by my department,
chaired by officials within the department, representatives from
both statutory and voluntary bodies—were looking at. We
do need to have these identified a lot more clearly and we do
need, I agree, a national register of them.
Mr Donohoe
699. How do you overcome the problems there
are between national and local schemes within the plans? What
role within that do the Regional Assemblies have?
(Mr Meacher) That is again a relevant point. My department
did set up a series of workshops earlier this year between local
biodiversity action coordinators and the lead partners of the
national action plans in order to try and improve liaison between
them. That is going to be repeated annually—we are keeping
an eye on that. English Nature have also been trying to translate
the national objectives in national Biodiversity Action Plans
into a more consumer friendly form for those advising local biodiversity
action plans. The England Biodiversity Group is trying to increase
involvement of the RDAs with regard to biodiversity. This is another
key area. I do not think it is sufficient. I do not think many
of the RDAs take sufficient account of biodiversity, but we are
trying to stimulate that. My department is discussing with English
Nature what I think is very important which is the appointment
of a full-time officer who would be responsible for coordinating
the implementation of local Biodiversity Action Plans. So many
of these plans are really in the hands of volunteers on a shoestring.
|
