Examination of witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 9 MAY 2000
MR JOHN
BALLARD, MR
HENRY DERWENT,
MR MICHAEL
GAHAGAN and MR
MARK LAMBIRTH
40. You did not give me the impression in the
answers to Mr Blunt or to Mr Olner that we were actually moving
very fast here. You are saying it is going to be even slower as
far as the ozone from Europe is concerned?
(Mr Derwent) I think we have made a great deal of
progress on the other seven pollutants which are identified in
the National Air Quality Strategy. As for ozone, we are at the
moment in the last stages of a debate over the National Emissions
Ceilings Directive, which is hoped to be concluded by the end
of the current Portuguese presidency, which will set national
ceilings which will be relevant here and which should start reducing
the overall ozone problem. I have not forgotten your invitation
to say how many warnings we will have in the summer. I feel that
rather depends on the summer weather, because another tricky feature
of ozone is that it depends on what the weather is like before
you can be sure just how bad the problem will be.
41. But you are not confident that it is going
to be good this summer?
(Mr Derwent) No, I could not say that.
Mrs Ellman
42. Do the current projections on CO2 emissions
mean that the 20 per cent reduction in the manifesto might not
be achieved?
(Mr Derwent) The straight answer to the question is
that I do not think there is that doubt. We published our Climate
Change Strategy on 9 March. The heart of it is a table which shows
how we are going to meet our international obligations. It also
shows how we think we will be able to meet the domestic goal,
which has been confirmed by the policy document. We have produced
a table of impacts of various policies, which adds up to broadly
17.5 per cent of the 20 per cent. We have also identified a number
of policy areas where we have not actually been able so far to
put quantification, mainly because we have not talked enough to
either local authorities or, in some cases, other government departments.
Given that we have until 2010, given that there is quite clearly
something significant going to be produced by those unquantified
targets, it seems reasonable to conclude that the 20 per cent
goal can be met.
43. If there were any concern about meeting
that, would you be thinking of any new measures?
(Mr Derwent) We are obliged to examine the success
of our domestic programme in achieving our international target
by the terms of the Convention and Protocol. We have said that
we will review our climate change protocol itself in a few years,
but most particularly, we are at the stage at the moment of only
having put out a draft programme. We hope to finalise that, probably
in October or November. What we are trying to do at the moment
is get reactions from people as to whether they think that the
sums we have done and the expectations which have been put on
the table are believable.
44. What if people think they are not? What
are you going to do then?
(Mr Derwent) I think we will see how many of them
do and how many of them do not in the consultation process we
are going through at the moment. We have not just put forward
a table and asked people to work out for themselves how we got
there. We have issued a large number of supporting documents,
including energy projections and some quite complicated modelling
work, to take anybody who wants it through the calculation of
each one of the elements of the quantified policies which lead
to CO2 reduction. Clearly I was too modest before; we would not
have published it if we did not think it was clear that we were
going to achieve that. If anybody wishes to say, "We don't
believe you", we are open to counter-arguments and will take
them into account in finalising the programme.
45. You will take them into account, but you
do not have any contingency plans?
(Mr Derwent) We have put down a large number of quantified
areas and some unquantified areas. The unquantified areas are
by definition capable of being looked at again in terms of how
much they ought to be able to produce in the light of somebody
saying that this or that element of the quantified calculation
looks as though it is over-estimated. Others, I am sure, will
be saying that the estimates which we have put forward for other
parts of the quantified list are probably conservative. I can
think of quite a number of areas where people have said, "We
think, frankly, we can do better than that", but there are
areas where people say, "We don't think you are going to
do as well as that." It is open for discussion and debate.
46. Will you be counting carbon reduction credits
purchased from overseas?
(Mr Derwent) It is quite difficult for us to say definitely
that we will at the moment, because there are not any rules for
the Kyoto mechanisms which would give rise to the opportunity
for both the Government and individual firms to purchase carbon
reductions achieved aborad. However, in principle the Government
is very supportive of the maximum use being made of the Kyoto
mechanisms to achieve the objective of the mechanisms in the first
place, to reduce emissions cost-effectively. We have not made
any assumption in the quantified part of the work we have done
so far that this or that amount will be bought from abroad rather
than produced domestically. Our calculations are on the basis
of what is here in the UK. However, if there were to be rules
and agreement on how the rules should be used in sufficient time
for parts of the UK industrial sector with targets to meet to
say, "We would sooner buy those than meet them domestically",
that would be a legitimate satisfaction of their domestic target,
and there is always the option for the UK as a party to the Convention
to purchase as well.
Mr Donohoe
47. Turning to allotments, you will be aware
that the Committee published a report in June 1998 in connection
with the whole question of allotments, and in particular demonstrated
concern at the number of statutory allotment sites that the local
authorities with responsibility were shedding to developers. On
the basis of a parliamentary question to the Minister in November
1999, there was a clear demonstration that that figure is accelerating,
which is of great concern to me and, I am sure, to the Committee.
At what point would you start to act to stem the level of statutory
allotments that we are losing?
(Mr Ballard) I would say that we have already begun
to act. Firstly, in response to the Committee's report, we did
introduce further steps which required local authorities to demonstrate
when they sought the Secretary of State's consent that they had
actually made quite clear to the people in the area that allotments
were available.
48. I have not seen any of that demonstrated
in real terms as far as local authorities are concerned. I have
not seen any promotion of allotments by any local authority. There
has been no information of that nature come to hand, yet I have
asked for it in some of the publications.
(Mr Ballard) If you have examples of authorities which
have moved into disposal and not actually done that, we would
obviously want to know about it.
49. You should examine that.
(Mr Ballard) Indeed. I was going to say that, in relation
to applications that are made to the Department seeking the Secretary
of State's consent, they do need to demonstrate and we will be
looking for evidence that they have actually carried out investments
and so on in conformity with the advice that we gave.
50. How many applications have the Department
turned down, given the new spirit and intentions of the Department?
(Mr Ballard) I do not have that figure to hand. Obviously
we know how many we have approved.
51. Could you also supply that to us?
(Mr Ballard) Yes. If I could go on as to what else
we would propose to do, having set out this further guidance saying
that we would be looking at it in terms of how it is implemented
in the quality of what comes to us, the other steps that we would
want to take is to give firm guidance in the revision of PPG17,
which is, as you know, Sport and Recreation. That is under development.
The other thing that is actively being carried forward is clearer,
better advice, which is being developed by the Local Government
Association. They are carrying out consultation to ensure that
that advice is as well-founded as possible. On the question of
PPG17, we would hope that that would be out again by the summer
recess.
Chairman
52. That is much worse than we were told. We
were told "shortly". You think the summer recess is
shortly?
(Mr Ballard) You have been told "shortly"
for some time. I was attempting to be more positive by giving
you a date because I thought you might take me to task on that.
Mr Donohoe
53. What stages do you still have to go through
as far as the formulation of PPG17 is concerned? What is going
to take you until the summer?
(Mr Ballard) It is a question of writing it and putting
it to ministers in terms.
54. That should have been done before now. We
presented that report to you and you gave the response two years
ago.
(Mr Ballard) If you were dealing simply with this
issue and no other issues, clearly that would be the pattern that
we would follow, but in terms of carrying this forward, it obviously
has to be carried forward taking account of the other things that
have been carried forward.
55. Why not have a moratorium on the releasing
of any of that land until that is in place? It is clear that it
is still accelerating.
(Mr Ballard) At the moment we do not feel that the
figures are such that that would be justified, but as I say, the
guidance that will come out, hopefully in the summer, will make
quite clear that allotments are part of good informal recreational
facilities. It will give clear advice on what should be done in
Local Plans and how they should be prepared and how local communities
should be consulted, and it will encourage a much more strategic
approach to provision. One would expect that to be very positive
in its effect.
56. You must understand that it is clear that
an official circular has gone round the local authorities to tell
them that they have a period of time in which to get rid of these
allotments before these guidelines come into play which will make
it much more difficult. That is the impression given to me by
the 172 sites which have been lost since 1997. That is something
that is fundamental in terms of the whole process, which is flawed.
That is the problem that I see as far as this is concerned, without
any further delay.
(Mr Ballard) I think that goes back to the quality
of the scrutiny of the applications that come in. That scrutiny
should be satisfactory. Obviously, the people carrying out the
scrutiny are aware of the general policies being developed for
ministers.
57. It was promised to us that a change would
be made in that every single one of those releases would be run
across the desk of a minister. Is that now happening?
(Mr Ballard) I would have to check that, but if that
assurance was given, I would expect it to be honoured.
Mr Donohoe: Could you check that, please.
Chairman
58. In a morning of bad news, can you tell us
anything encouraging about field boundaries?
(Mr Ballard) I am sorry you feel it is all bad news
so far. I hope some of it is good. On field boundaries, basically,
we are confident as a result of the announcement made by the Minister
of Agriculture in December, which was, as you know, a major switch
of farm spending from production aids to support for the broader
rural economy, with about £1 billion being made available
for agri-environment schemes. Clearly, that has cascaded down
in different ways, and one of the main programmes that would affect
field boundaries is the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, for which
there will be £500 million available, as Nick Brown announced.
We would expect that money to be used, obviously, for a range
of objectives, but clearly to improve field boundaries. I cannot
give you a figure as to the extent, because this is clearly partly
a product of what comes through the agreements that are a product
of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, but we would, for example,
expect those agreements to double over the next seven years. So
a substantial change both in terms of the funding and the number
of agreements that come through.
59. So 100 yards of hedges that are going to
be protected as a result of this, and perhaps half a mile of stone
walls?
(Mr Ballard) I think that is unduly pessimistic.
| 
