Examination of Witnesses (Questions 720
- 739)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
720. What about cross-compliance on set-aside
land?
(Mr Morley) We already have an element of cross-compliance
on set-aside land which relates to when it can be sprayed and
when it can be cut to minimise damage. We apply that now.
721. Will you do so in the future?
(Mr Morley) Oh, yes.
722. You mentioned earlier a pesticides tax.
Do you think there is a role for it?
(Mr Morley) I think there is a role for taxes which
relate to damaging activities within the environment, basically,
taxes which you would use to try to discourage certain kinds of
activities which are regarded as damaging, and, ideally, recycle
the money within the same sector to encourage what you would regard
as positive aspects of management. With a pesticides tax, like
any other tax, you would have to think very carefully about the
outcome of such a tax and whether or not it would actually result
in the environmental gains you would want. There are arguments
for and against whether you would achieve beneficial outcomes
with an approach like that.
723. So if there were a pesticides tax, you
would want it to come back to biodiversity and into the countryside?
(Mr Morley) I would argue very strongly that the money
raised by any kind of financial instrument of that kind which
is applied to a particular sector should be used within that sector.
So it is a recycling, in the same way that there is an element
of recycling with the Energy Levy.
724. So you would not argue with the Treasury?
(Mr Morley) A pesticides tax is not going ahead at
the present time.
725. But should it do so, you would win the
argument with the Treasury, you think?
(Mr Morley) I think in relation to putting together
a pesticides tax you would have to take those aspects into consideration.
Chairman
726. What rights do pests have under biodiversity?
(Mr Morley) You certainly have to recognise that in
some cases what are regarded as pests are part of the food chain
in biodiversity. There is no doubt that the increasing efficiency
of pesticides and herbicides has had an effect on biodiversity
generally—not by poisoning or killing birds and mammals
and invertebrates, but just by the efficiency, simply removing
weed seeds and invertebrates, which has a knock-on consequence
within the food chain. We do recognise that, and it is an aspect
that we take seriously.
Mr Donohoe
727. Do you not think that if somebody had a
pesticide that eradicated midges in Scotland, we would all support
that?
(Mr Morley) I certainly think some people who go on
holiday in Scotland at this time of year would support that. But
you do have to look at the consequences of any kind of new pesticide
or herbicide. They are evaluated at the present time through various
government bodies in relation to their effects on the environment,
but what we are talking about here, in this Committee, is a much
wider, philosophical approach, in that all pesticides and herbicides
used in the UK have gone through the proper evaluation, the proper
regulation, and they are not harmful to individuals or even directly
to non-target species. It is the wider effect, the efficiency
of them, that does have an effect on biodiversity, and that is
why we need to give some thought to this, both in terms of how
we can tackle this in-agri-environment terms, and possibly how
it should be tackled in relation to future developments in these
fields of technology.
Mrs Dunwoody
728. Does that not get you into a very interesting
area where we will always have the right to interfere at every
level in agribusiness because we are looking at not the interest
of producing food for an island race, not at the interests of
the particular farmer who is trying to run an agribusiness, but
because we as a nation want to have a direct involvement in everything
that you do that might have an impact in the long term? Does that
not get you into having to take responsibility for every individual
farm? At a certain moment, if you are not prepared to pay for
it and you are not prepared to consider what the community are
prepared to pay for it, what are you actually doing?
(Mr Morley) We are back to the point that was raised,
what we are paying for. If we accept that these environmental
goods are important to the community, and if it affects the profitability
and the income of the modern farmer, it is legitimate that you
make payments to, for example, reduce the use of chemicals, to
have conservation headlands, to have wider field margins, all
of which we are doing and we want to extend. That is where the
money should be used. To come back to the original point, that
budget, I am quite confident, will continue to rise, because production
subsidies will continue to fall, and as those production subsidies
fall, I think the money available for that kind of compensation
to achieve the environmental goods will increase and there will
be more available.
Mr Benn
729. Are GM crops a threat to biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) That is exactly what the farmscale evaluations
are designed to find out. It is a hypothesis that they may have
some adverse effect on the environment. There is a prima facie
case; many people have made it. There has never been a systematic
testing of it. That is why we set up the farmscale evaluations,
as we proceed from the contained use of GMs through to small plots,
perhaps 10 m2, to now farmscale evaluations, but very carefully
designed, and with research contractors and with a separate scientific
steering committee to ensure that the conclusions drawn from it
are legitimate in order to test the hypothesis that there is no
effect.
(Mr Morley) There is also an argument from the advocates
of GM that theoretically GM could help biodiversity because it
could reduce the amount of inputs in terms of sprays, pesticides
and herbicides, which have the damaging effect which I have already
identified. Of course, that is a hypothesis that has to be tested.
I am not saying that is right or wrong, but the field-scale trials,
of course, are a way of identifying whether or not these arguments
are correct.
Chairman
730. Presumably you could also produce blue
robins, could you not?
(Mr Morley) Theoretically, Chairman, yes.
Mr Benn
731. When are you going to bring in legislation
to implement the obligations under the Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive?
(Mr Morley) Consultations will go out at the end of
this year, this autumn, so the process will start then.
732. So something will be published?
(Mr Morley) Yes. The draft proposals will be published
and they will go out to consultation with a view to bringing regulations
in in 2001.
733. Given that we have lost so much semi-natural
habitat in recent decades, do you think there should be a presumption
against any further loss, and if so, how could that be achieved?
(Mr Meacher) That is a matter primarily for the Habitat
Action Plans. As I say, we have published 45. Each of them is
prepared on the basis of considering how further loss can be prevented,
but not only that, of course; how there can be a recreation and
a restoration of sites that have been lost. Just to give an example,
perhaps the best example is lowland heathland. Particularly in
the South, a great deal of it has been ploughed up over the years,
and there is now, gradually but steadily, a restoration of some
of that lowland heathland. So the Habitat Action Plans are not
only about preserving that which remains, but also trying to extend
it, and in fact, the target is an extra 6,000 hectares, which
is about 15,000 acres. Another example is saline lagoons, which
have decreased in this country quite substantially over the last
50 years. Again, some Habitat Action Plans are trying to restore
them. If you are saying should they have a principal in them of
no further loss, the view we take is that that is rigid, because
there may in some overriding circumstances be good reason to allow
a loss, so long as there is at least an equivalent restoration
in other places. So no net loss rather than no further loss. I
would not agree with that, but I certainly feel the overall national
baseline is something that we do not want, in terms of biodiversity
and its requirements, to reduce.
734. You are satisfied that we will be able
to measure that no net loss with sufficient accuracy?
(Mr Meacher) I hope so, and I do believe we can. I
believe that the biodiversity mapping of the country is certainly
not comprehensive, but it is pretty comprehensive, and we may
be coming on to the National Biodiversity Network in a moment,
because that seems to me to be relevant. That, of course, is looking
at the systematic preparation of what is recorded by individuals
all over the country, and it makes sure it is centralised and
known. That should help the mapping, the "knowability"
of what is on the ground.
(Mr Morley) In relation to some of the semi-natural
habitat, a lot of this habitat is already part of Biodiversity
Action Plans and, as a Department, for example, in MAFF, we work
towards those plans right across all our policy areas, which includes
coastal defence, flood defence, and agri-environment programmes.
For your information, Chairman, we are actually making very good
progress on some, such as calciferous grassland, where we are
on target to exceed the Biodiversity Action Plan target. We are
also on target to achieve the BAP targets on cereal headlands,
and also in our forestry policies, where we have the opportunity
when felling is taking place of restoring some habitats, such
as heathland, for example, or raised bogs. The Forestry Commission
already has that within its targets and is taking action. So we
are making very good progress in reinstating a lot of fragile
habitats, and if there are habitats which are designated as Special
Areas of Conservation, for example, in our coastal defence policies,
where we may have to damage an area such as fresh water grazing
marsh, we try to reinstate to make sure there is no net loss in
relation to habitat. So we are building those into our policies
right across the board.
Mrs Ellman
735. What about links between valuable habitats,
hedges, banks? Do you think they should have greater protection?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I do. Ancient species-rich hedgerows
and cereal field margins are a very important area for biodiversity,
and I think they do need more protecting. Notoriously this has
again not happened in the past. We have been examining the Hedgerow
Regulations.
Chairman
736. You told us you were doing that urgently
two years ago.
(Mr Meacher) I did. You are quite right, Mr Chairman,
and I am embarrassed by how long this has taken. It has taken
so long because of the severe difference of view between the parties,
between the NGOs on the one side and the farming community on
the other, as to what constitutes an "important" hedgerow.
It might be seen to be a relatively small issue, but it is certainly
is not, and the exact description used, and how far landscape
is part of the definition of importance and how you judge landscapes
is very much a subjective matter. It has taken a long time—I
accept too long, if I can bow to Mr Gray and make another apology.
It has taken too long. We are going to publish this year the results,
I am glad to say, of that work by the Hedgerow Group. We are also
examining legislative protection for other field boundaries in
the light of the Countryside Survey, which is a massive, very
voluminous survey, which again we hope we will publish later this
year. Having said all of that, there is a question as to whether
these ecological corridors are as essential as your question suggested.
They are in some cases, but in other cases they are not. They
do not apply to all species, and they can actually be a barrier.
I know that English Nature have been taking the view that a rather
different concept, namely the Lifescapes Initiative, is better
because what it tries to do is to target habitat improvement by
reducing the fragmentation and isolation of species and Habitat
Action Plans. So there are different approaches to this, but interconnecting
by various means I think is important. We are trying to redress
that.
(Mr Morley) We build that into our stewardship schemes.
Part of them can be wildlife corridors, where you have fragments
of important habitat. As part of our stewardship schemes we will
pay for reinstatement of hedges as links to join up those habitats.
As Michael says, it is more important for some species than others.
For example, dormice, where some of the research being done says
that it is essential for dormice to be able to move down a wildlife
corridor from one area of woodland to another.
Mrs Ellman
737. Should English Nature have the power to
make management agreements to protect valuable areas outside the
Sites of Special Scientific Interest?
(Mr Meacher) The power to enforce them? There is nothing
to stop them approaching, of course, a land owner or land manager
in order to make an agreement for the preservation of biodiversity
or for the preservation of particular habitats. There will probably
have to be some financial agreement, and there is, of course,
provision within English Nature's budget for limited sums to be
used for that purpose.
738. Do you have any view on English Nature's
preference, as you state it, to look at whole areas rather than
just linkages?
(Mr Meacher) I think the holistic approach is the
right one, but your question about hedgerows and field margins
is clearly important. It is not the only issue; it is part of
a general landscape, using that term in the general sense, the
wider structure in trying to address the problem. They are important.
They have been dramatically reduced over the last 10-20 years
for a variety of reasons, as we know: partly road building, partly
housing development, very often through neglect, but also because
of the pressures of the CAP for the farmer in terms of being able
to increase his commercial returns by removing these hedgerows
and borders.
Chairman
739. Given your commitment to the precautionary
principle, and given that you told this Committee that you might
need new legislation to deal with hedgerows, would it not have
been logical to have put something on hedgerows into the Countryside
Bill as it passes through either the Commons or the Lords?
(Mr Meacher) I would have liked to have done so. I
do repeat that the Hedgerow Group that we set up representing
all the relevant parties has taken much longer than I initially
expected, and I have to say I am not in a position to publish
it at this time. However, that does not mean that the conclusions
of the Group will not be translated into law, because I believe
it can be done through secondary legislation.
|
