TUESDAY 18 JANUARY 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Andrew F Bennett, in the Chair
Mr Hilary Benn
Mr Tom Brake
Christine Butler
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody
Mrs Louise Ellman
Mr Bill Olner
_________
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER, a Member of the House, (Minister for the
Environment), and MR BRIAN GLICKSMAN, Head of Environment Agency
Sponsorship & Navigation Division at the DETR, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, examined.
Chairman
668. Minister, can I welcome you to the Committee. Could I ask
you to introduce your team?
(Mr Meacher) I have with me Brian Glicksman, who is the Divisional
Manager responsible for liaison for the Environment Agency within the
Department.
669. Do I assume you do not want to say anything by way of
introduction?
(Mr Meacher) Correct.
Mrs Ellman
670. How do you see the role of the Environment Agency developing
over the next decade?
(Mr Meacher) I do regard the Environment Agency as an extremely
important organisation - I suppose, the eyes and the ears as well as the arms
and legs of the Department in terms of its dealing with industry, and in terms
of protecting the environment. Obviously I look to it to be a high quality
regulator. It has had its problems bringing together separate and different
cultures over the last three years. I think it has done well to do that.
I think it is now bedding down very well. I want to see it achieve high
standards of compliance. I want it to pursue vigorously those companies which
are certainly a minority, who breach consents or break the law; and I
certainly want it to be open and transparent and accountable not just to DETR
and to Parliament but also to the constituency it serves, i.e. industry and
the local communities. If it can do all of those things it will be doing
extremely well.
671. How can accountability outside the DETR be achieved?
(Mr Meacher) The role, of course, of the Agency is to be responsible
to Government. Parliament set up the Environment Agency at arm's length from
Government, and I think that is right. Its management has a responsibility
for day-to-day administration, the day-to-day exercise of its responsibilities
and I would not want to interfere in that. Ministers, however, appoint the
Board. Ministers are responsible for setting the policy framework, largely
through our agreeing the corporate plan. We agree annual priorities and
targets, again through that corporate plan. We pay the grant-in-aid, which
is considerable even after the income from charges, and I am keen to see that
increase; and of course we approve most of the charges which are levied.
There is day-to-day responsibility but the overall supervision remains with
the Department and ultimately with Parliament, and I think that is a correct
balance.
672. Minister, you said a minute ago that the Agency should also
be accountable to its "constituency", and you then defined that as industry
and local communities. How is the accountability to those people outside of
the DETR to be achieved? Do you think it is being achieved?
(Mr Meacher) As I say, the charges are set. We want to see full
recovery of cost and we have made efforts in the last year, particularly
following the discovery in the last comprehensive spending review that charges
fell well short of full recovery of costs. We have changed that; we have
increased charges. At the same time, we believe the Agency should be
responsible to industry in terms of setting up how it calculates those charges
and how the money is spent. I also believe that in discussion not just with
industry but with local communities there are many controversial decisions
that the Environment Agency needs to take, and I have strongly encouraged the
Agency, and they are doing this, to discuss and consult in detail with these
constituencies (and by that, as you rightly understand, I do mean local
communities, local authorities and relevant industry sectors) how those
decisions are made, why they are made and how they need to be carried out; and
certainly to listen to those constituencies and to respond where appropriate
to those constituencies - it is not just a matter of deciding what you are
going to do and explaining to them, it is having a genuine dialogue.
673. How should the Agency develop its role in carrying out
sustainable economic development at a regional level as well as a statutory
responsibility?
(Mr Meacher) At regional level we of course have the regional advisory
structure, in particular the REPACs, the Regional Environmental Protection
Advisory Committees. In fact, we are rather overdone with them because at
regional level as well as the REPACs I have referred to we have also got the
Regional Flood Defence Committees, and the Regional Fisheries Committee, and
whether we need all three I certainly think is something the financial
management and policy review might care to look at. I think it important that
those REPACs be given a more positive role and in future they are actually
going to give a public annual assessment of the performance of the Environment
Agency. That, I think, is quite an important part of accountability. I
certainly think they should focus their advice to the Agency in the future on
enhancing its relationship with its constituencies in the regions and its
communications with them.
674. Do we need REPACs as well as the regional assemblies and the
links with them?
(Mr Meacher) I do think the REPACs perform an important role, I
certainly would want to retain them and extend them, but of course we do need
also a good working relationship with the regional chambers which cannot be
achieved through the REPACs. That is a matter for the Agency to achieve just
as we have strongly encouraged them, and they have responded, to improve their
relationship with local authorities. They need an input into the RDAs, they
need an input into the planning bodies, and indeed in that whole regional
dimension of the Agency's work I think the five yearly financial management
and policy review is something which needs to be looked at. It is working
better than it did before.
675. Are there any areas where the Agency has influenced
Government policy?
(Mr Meacher) Unquestionably. There are important areas where we have
sought their advice about the introduction of integrated pollution prevention
and control, the whole question of groundwater monitoring, particular changes
we have been seeking this year, advising farmers about agricultural waste, and
the whole issue of emissions control, how that is to be achieved, relations
with particular industries - the waste management industry is an area where
I know they have been putting in a lot of examination of how that can be
regulated more efficiently - and of course we do listen to them. They have
that technical and detailed specialised knowledge and they do clearly
influence us in the preparation of legislation and in policy support and in
research and development as well as promoting the work they are doing.
676. Do you listen to them if they are saying something which
conflicts with the advice of your own advisers?
(Mr Meacher) We do not always agree on everything, in which case we
would discuss the matter, of course. I am not saying that either side would
necessarily prevail. If we had their advice and it was different from ours
and if in the light of dialogue we believed it was right, we would accept it
and I am sure the reverse applies.
Mr Olner
677. You mentioned earlier, Minister, hearts, arms and legs, could
you tell the Committee how much you have spent on the headhunters to reach the
conclusion that the best person for the job of the new chairman of the Agency
was the previous deputy chairman?
(Mr Meacher) œ25,000.
678. Do you think that was money well spent?
(Mr Meacher) I am sure it seems a lot to many people in the public but
I am told that is normal for this kind of work. Headhunters are important if
they can secure the right person. Having the right person in an absolutely
key slot in I think the Government's biggest quango is an extremely important
issue. If it is the right person, and I think it is the right person on this
occasion, then I think it is money well spent, yes.
679. Do you think that the new chairman, because he was deputy
chairman before, is going to bring any new life to the Agency?
(Mr Meacher) Each person has their own particular personality, their
own strengths and weaknesses. I do think Sir John Harman is someone who
unquestionably has a powerful vision. I think he has a lot of experience, as
you say he has been deputy chairman. He has a distinguished record of course
in local government, he has a long-term interest in the environment and
unquestionably he is a person of very high ability.
680. I have nothing against his personal ability, that is probably
well-proven, but all I am seeking to winkle out is that he was the deputy
chairman and has now become the chairman, do we expect a change in direction
and a change in focus within the Agency?
(Mr Meacher) There is a difference, of course, between being a deputy
chairman and a chairman. It is the top post at which people are able to
reflect in full the particular values and objectives that they have and to
ensure those are more fully realised. As I say, I believe that he will make
a very important contribution and there may well be some change in direction
within the Agency. I am sure that will be discussed in full with us but I do
think he will bring great new impetus and extensive vision to govern that
impetus.
681. That leads me on to ask you what you will do to help him in
that task.
(Mr Meacher) Everything I can. With the previous chairman, Lord de
Ramsey, I had regular meetings and those will certainly continue. I would
expect to discuss with the chairman his thoughts as to how he was proposing
to make changes within the Agency. I would certainly tell him if I had any
criticisms, concerns or queries about the direction, so I would expect and
intend that we work very closely together.
682. Can I ask how public will those discussions be?
(Mr Meacher) They will not be.
683. How do we get these things on the public record?
(Mr Meacher) They will not be public, not because there is anything
particularly top secret about them ---
684. So there is no reason why they should not be then?
(Mr Meacher) I certainly think it would be very odd for it to be in
Hansard, otherwise it is impossible to have a personal and detailed and frank
discussion. If I thought there were things going wrong, I would say that to
him straight, and I would not expect that to be on the public record although
I would expect him to take note and to deal with it. I am just thinking, if
you put down a question, which is your prerogative, to ask when I last met the
chairman of the Agency and what we discussed, I am sure we would tell you the
broad issues which we discussed.
Mr Olner: I am sure you would!
Chairman
685. If we take the Today programme, at the moment every time an
environment story crops up you are the man answering it so in a sense you are
perceived as "Mr Environment". Ought the chairman of the Agency to be much
more perceived as "Mr Environment"?
(Mr Meacher) I certainly think it would be totally proper for the
chairman of the Agency to be asked, for example, to go on the Today programme
or a public affairs programme of a similar kind. I would encourage that.
After all, I only go when I am invited, I certainly do not press my presence.
If the BBC or other broadcasting channels thought it appropriate, I would
strongly support that. I am certainly not trying to hog it, I believe it
would be good if we had key personnel, for example, in the Environment Agency,
and of course there are other agencies such as English Nature and HSE, where
appropriate going public and talking to their brief.
686. Even if they were criticising you or the Prime Minister?
(Mr Meacher) I have always taken the view - and I have to be careful
because I am not sure this is necessarily shared by all my colleagues - that
I do believe in open discussion. I would not expect the chairman of the
Agency to make an outright attack on the Government. If he felt the need to
make that kind of criticism, I would expect him to come to me and say it very
frankly to me. If any of these public officials at a high level wish to take
a view which was different from the Government's, perhaps particularly where
they had given forewarning that they wished to do that, I see no reason why
they should not do so. I think the important thing is the genuine frankness
of public debate and there are issues, as we all know, where there is more
than one view, which is perfectly reasonable.
Mr Brake
687. Pursuing this line of argument, how would you, for instance,
resolve any differences of opinion that there might be between the DETR and
the Environment Agency over contaminated land, for instance, and the re-use
of contaminated land if there were differences of opinion?
(Mr Meacher) This is, of course, a very topical question because we are
now implementing a regime under s.57, Part IIA, of the Act and the manner in
which this is done, the technical detail, is of course largely a matter for
the Environment Agency, but of course it is subject to guidelines and
statutory guidance which has been set down by the Department; set down by the
Department as a result of extensive dialogue and debate with the Environment
Agency. So we are working extremely closely together and I would not expect
differences to come to light because they have already been exhaustively
ironed-out privately. That is not just to conceal differences, it is the only
sensible administrative way to work.
688. Earlier you said that you wanted the Environment Agency to
pursue offenders vigorously, do you think that the Environment Agency is doing
that currently and do you approve of the "name and shame" approach?
(Mr Meacher) I do think the Environment Agency has now pursued
offenders more vigorously than it has done in the past. I have strongly
encouraged that. I am aware, as you say, of their hall of shame, a record in
terms of polluters. I think it is quite right that they have recently
appointed a chief prosecutor, I think in this last year. There have been
1,700 successful prosecutions, although one has to say that prosecution is not
the only way of enforcing their will, notices to prevent or remedy
environmental damage or to vary or revoke licences may be just as effective.
But I think the fines are too low to be effective deterrents. I know the
chief executive of the Agency has repeatedly made the same point that I have,
that they need to bear some relationship to turnover or profits if they are
going to be an effective deterrent. The average fine for waste cases last
year was œ1,600, for water cases œ3,250. That is pathetic. I have to say
that is pathetic. It is not a serious impact on offending companies at all
and those fines need to be dramatically raised, in my view. The Environment
Agency is trying to do that and I strongly support them.
689. Do you think that someone should be in the "name and shame
hall of shame" for the poor air quality levels in rural areas at the moment?
(Mr Meacher) We did not construct the hall of shame, the Environment
Agency did, and it is their prerogative to do that. It is not for me to tell
them who should be in it or who not. I certainly do not want to put everyone
into the hall of shame who in a fairly minor way may breach permitted levels.
It is the biggest offenders which I am concerned about because it does send
an appalling message across industry and society and we need to use every
instrument we have got - regulation, publicity which may affect their image
which I hope they will be responsive to, as well as the level of fines - in
order to stop it. But I am not seeking to bear down on every breach, it is
just the worst offenders which I think we need to bear down on more tightly.
690. I was thinking that perhaps the Government should be in the
hall of shame for rural air quality.
(Mr Meacher) You certainly disguised your question quite well! That
had not occurred to me. I am not exactly sure what you are referring to. I
think you are referring to the fact that the report which I am about to make
tomorrow has been well-leaked and indicates that the number of days when air
pollution has been at moderate or higher levels has remained in rural areas
and not dropped much in the last decade. It has gone from 50 days in 1990 to
46 days last year after a fall in 1998 to 28 days. So there has been a slow
fall but an increase last year. I think you are making a political point, and
I am not sure that it necessarily reflects on the way in which the Environment
Agency organises its hall of shame or its pollution inventory, but I take your
point.
Mr Olner
691. Could I ask, Minister, whether the Agency ought to have more
discretion in how it allocates its funding?
(Mr Meacher) In its allocation of funding?
692. Yes, should it have more discretion on the funding it has and
how it allocates it?
(Mr Meacher) Funding is to a large degree a matter for the Agency.
693. How can that be a matter solely for the Agency when a lot of
the money they get is ring-fenced? Are we going to see any of the fences
coming down so they have a little more opportunity to vire within their own
budgets?
(Mr Meacher) I think they do have considerable opportunity for
discussion within their own budget. Can I make it clear their income comes
from grants from the Government and from charges and that income has been
rising quite rapidly in recent years. It was 562 million in 1996-97, this
year it is 623 million, next year we intend it to be 650 million, of which the
Government gives a grant of 150 million. Those are substantial increases.
Within those budgets, subject of course to the requirements laid down by
international obligations, by UK legislation and by agreement with Government,
there is a great deal of discretion for the Agency. I have not had complaints
from the Agency that they do not have the opportunity for discretion in the
handling of their budget.
694. But there might be complaints from the REPACs where their
discussions do not result at the end of the day in any action or any priority
being given by the Agency to bringing in particular schemes.
(Mr Meacher) The REPACs of course are entirely free to make suggestions
or criticisms about the way money is spent, about the cost effectiveness of
it. I have not read all the reports, I have had a meeting with the recent
chair persons and none of them raised this issue, but if they did raise it we
would take it seriously and I am quite sure the Agency would.
Christine Butler
695. We have just now had an evidence session with the Environment
Agency themselves and they did say there were real bureaucratic constraints
to enabling them to be more flexible in the way they used their income streams
on some of these 70 targets because there are legal constraints to do with the
implementation of European directives and so on. They are saying that
presently they would need a change in primary legislation and they are
actually talking to the Government about this and they said, and I quote them,
"The legislation now is cumbersome and disconnected" and they would
desperately like to have some change there. Have you had personal
conversations with the chairman and the chief executive of the Environment
Agency to this effect?
(Mr Meacher) I have not had my first meeting with the new chairman
apart from discussion over the appointment, and I look forward to that early
on. If the Environment Agency believes that there is a need for change in
primary legislation or in the regulations in order to assist a desired
flexibility in carrying out a European directive, of course we would listen
to that, and subject to the legislative timetable I am sure we would want to
try and assist. That is exactly the kind of issue on which there is regular
liaison at official level, and I know that Mr Glicksman is in regular
discussion with environment officials, and of course if the matter is
sufficiently pressing and sufficiently urgent it will be raised at ministerial
level by the chairman.
696. Could you help the Committee by giving a note in due course
should the Environment Agency put forward proposals for various changes which
they would require to be more flexible and, in their terms, more efficient and
effective? Could we get to know about that, were it to come to pass?
(Mr Meacher) I am certainly not trying to conceal the fact ---
697. No, but you do not seem to have got this on your desk yet.
If you do get to know about it, could you drop a line to the Chairman?
(Mr Meacher) I certainly can. I can do even better, I can probably ask
Mr Glicksman to speak to it directly because he is whispering in my ear that
this matter has been raised with us and we have been encouraging to put in
proposals. Why does he not speak to it himself?
(Mr Glicksman) We have to appreciate, Chairman, that some of these
funding streams are for quite distinct activities - for flood defence, for
fisheries, for environmental protection - and I do not think, as was being
suggested in the earlier part of this morning, that one can necessarily say
to a Flood Defence Committee, "We want some money from you, we are not going
to spend it on flood defence, we are going to spend it on environmental
protection." The Agency has to be open and transparent about the way in which
it is going to spend its money. Having said that, I think the Department does
recognise that perhaps the system within the Agency has got a little over-
cumbersome and the Agency has raised this with the Department and we have
invited them to put forward proposals to the Department on how it might be
simplified, bearing in mind, as I say, the reasonable expectations of the
people who are providing the Agency with its income, and we are awaiting
proposals from the Agency.
698. There is about œ350 million-worth of their money which is
nothing to do with flood defence and they want to use it in other ways. We
have had a question about air pollution, and if you go along the Thames
Gateway towards my constituency on the north side of the Thames, you often get
a strong taint of mercaptan, which is a flaw in the distillery process in the
production of gas and petrochemicals and so on. I do not think the
Environment Agency pays enough attention and puts in enough resources to
looking at these sorts of installations and making sure we have clean air from
them and that they are completely up to scratch. Do you think that is
something you would like to pursue further with them?
(Mr Meacher) There are two issues there. This question arose out of
the question of funding and it is certainly the case, as Mr Glicksman said,
that those funding streams are allocated for particular functional areas.
They cannot be given for one area and then just used for another. There would
have to be agreement with Government for a change in the regulations before
that could actually occur. On the point that your question moved on to, of
course the Environment Agency should be expected to regulate that particular
industry effectively. I have not got the details. If you are saying that you
think the regulation is not tight enough, that the effects in terms of odour
beyond the process boundary, for example, are not acceptable, this is a matter
to raise with the Agency.
699. Do you think the Agency works well enough with local
authorities? Have you any ideas on how you might like to see things improved?
Perhaps we could pin that down to one particular area - planning consents.
Should planning and licensing be put together within the process instead of
giving it to entirely different points?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, the question of relationships with local
government, I have certainly been keen that the Agency strengthens its
relationship with local government. I think it has done that, I think it is
working more closely with the Local Government Association and I think there
is good progress being made there. For example, there was the signing only
a few months ago of a five year plan between the Agency and the LGA about how
they could work better in future, including for example a proposal to ensure
that member level contact is made with every local authority by April 2001.
That does show a degree of specific commitment to that relationship which I
strongly support. And, of course, the appointment of Sir John Harman, given
all his local government background, obviously is likely to cement that
relationship. On the question of planning and consents, if you are talking
about whether there should be a single consent which would also cover various
regulatory regimes - for example, pollution and planning - that does raise
much wider issues. I certainly think it could create more problems than it
solved. I am aware of it, it is something we are looking at. It could have
radical implications for the way regulation is organised. At the moment local
authorities are also responsible for planning, and the interface between them
and the Agency would be raised by that whole issue. But we are happy to look
at it.
Mr Benn
700. Just coming back to the hall of shame, if I may, for a
moment, the Agency in its evidence to us said that for all the criticism they
were quite confident it had led to a change in behaviour, people had done
things different and, in their eyes, better as a result. Just so we can be
clear, do I take it that the Government supports the Agency in publishing
environmental performance information and sees that as an important way in
which it can improve the environment in the years to come?
(Mr Meacher) Not just supports it, strongly encourages it. I have
been, in all my public statements since I was appointed, a very strong
advocate of a pollution inventory which gives extensive and, I hope,
increasing access to relevant information on the state of the environment and
which is readily accessible to people living in local communities. The
Pollution Prevention and Control Act of last year enables the number of
pollutants and the number of sectors to be increased. Of course, we have to
take account of the cost of doing that as well as the benefits, but we are
certainly looking to extend that information. I am a very strong supporter
of making this available, for the very simple reason that I think it is the
harnessing of public opinion which has a very beneficial effect here. I think
large companies in particular have an image which is very important to their
sales and their success and they want that image not to be tarnished by being
fingered as an environmental offender. I think we should use that influence
as leverage on them.
701. So you see no problem in it being published in the form of
league tables to enable those very direct comparisons to be made?
(Mr Meacher) No, none at all. I think that is perfectly fair. The
only point I would make is that all of those who appear in such lists or
league tables, particularly most prominently, will almost certainly have some
explanation that it is not fair, that it does not take account of X or Y, and
there may be something in that. What I do say is that if we are going to
finger important companies, we have to be very sure of our evidence, we have
to be quite sure we get the facts right, and of course we need to give them
plenty of warning. But if all of those conditions apply, I am strongly for
pressing the case.
Chairman
702. If I am thinking of buying a house, ought I to be able to
find out simply whether it is liable to be flooded?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
703. Would you have a look at this issue and the fact that it
appears the Environment Agency is not able to put post codes on to their web
site for properties which are liable to be flooded?
(Mr Meacher) I was not aware of that and I am not sure if Mr Glicksman
is aware of it.
(Mr Glicksman) I am.
(Mr Meacher) Fine, you can answer then. I am well aware of the whole
issue about flood plains but you are asking a much more specific question.
Would you like to reply?
(Mr Glicksman) The Agency has been in touch with the Department about
problems it sees as a result of taking legal advice in relation to the Data
Protection Act and making available to the public at large information that
relates to the property of individual people and the impact this might have
on the value of those properties and then what implications this might have
for the Agency. So the Agency has drawn this to our attention. It is a legal
matter and I am not a legal expert but we are discussing it with the Agency.
704. The Countryside Bill: in the past quite a lot of the issues
which involved the Environment Agency have been dealt with in the Countryside
Agency and they made this morning a couple of pleas to us at least for new
legislation. Is some legislation involving the Environment Agency going to
be involved in the forthcoming Countryside Bill?
(Mr Meacher) The Countryside Bill has four parts. One is the access
legislation, the so-called right to roam, and the statutory provisions to
ensure that that takes place. Secondly, the modernisation of rights of way.
The third is a strengthening of sites of special scientific interest, and the
fourth is wildlife protection and seeking to fill some of the gaps or
loopholes in the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Protection Act. The main
statutory adviser to us on all of those issues is the Countryside Agency but
certainly I would expect the Environment Agency to be involved in at least one
or two of those areas.
705. What about something like groundwater abstraction? Clearly
groundwater levels are extremely important as far as natural sites are
concerned, and I think this Committee reported that the whole question of
abstraction licences was a shambles. Obviously the Agency is trying to do a
little bit of work but I think it claims that it needs a change in
legislation.
(Mr Meacher) We agree with that and we did issue a consultation paper
on water abstraction licensing and we have made what I think are quite radical
proposals about the time limiting of consents, and those which were issued
originally without time consents should be time limited at about 12« years
from the time at which the regulations come in.
706. That needs legislation, does it not?
(Mr Meacher) It does, yes, but there is an intention I assure you to
promote those regulations and to put them through.
707. While we are on regulations, the Agency was not too happy
about your regulations being joined up. Do they give you good advice on
regulations?
(Mr Meacher) I am not sure what you are referring to by "the
regulations being joined up". This is joined-up government?
708. They suggested that some of the regulations were in conflict
with each other and were difficult to implement and that they could be
generally improved. We asked them for an example but I just wondered whether
you were happy with the advice they give. For example, the contaminated land
regulations, which you have just issued, was there a good consultation process
with the Environment Agency on those?
(Mr Meacher) The consultation process I think has just concluded, I
think it concluded about 6th December, if I remember, and we are now very
carefully going through the number of submissions we had which were quite
considerable. Obviously, we would listen to the Agency where they say that
the regulations somehow are cross-cutting or conflicting with each other or
are not entirely consistent. That is exactly I think their role and we would
certainly take note of it. If there is a particular instance outstanding, I
would be interesting to hear of it. Do you need to add to that?
(Mr Glicksman) I could just mention, Chairman, that there is a review in
progress with the Agency of the legislation which it inherited. When the
Agency was established the old water legislation, the waste legislation and
the air legislation, were left largely untouched, and the Government has a
review going on with the Agency about whether it would be possible to
integrate some of this legislation and whether that would bring benefits.
That review is in progress.
Chairman: What sort of timescale is there for the review? We are used
to vague phrases like "spring" or "late spring" ---
Christine Butler: Or even a year!
Chairman
709. It is very difficult for the record-taker to take into
account two witnesses smiling at each other!
(Mr Meacher) I was about to tell you, Mr Chairman, the consequences of
that smiling exchange and I was about to say that I am being advised it should
be sometime in the course of this year. I think that is rather too loose and
I take the point that you wish it to be, and I would wish it to be, earlier
than that, and I will enquire about this afterwards, where it has got to, and
I will try and ensure it is speeded up.
710. One last question. The Environment Agency in the North West
has been working very hard to try and improve the quality of the water in the
Mersey Basin, which obviously affects your constituency and mine. I think the
majority of the storm overflows and discharges are going to be treated in the
next price round but there are five sewage works which appear to be still able
to pollute the Mersey. The Environment Agency has made strong representations
and I understand the whole question is back up in the air. Would it not be
better to back the Environment Agency and get those last five discharges
treated?
(Mr Meacher) I am sure, Mr Chairman, you will know that prior to the
publication of the periodic review statement by OFWAT there was considerable
discussion which certainly reached the media about differences of view between
OFWAT and the Environment Agency about a number of projects at the margin.
Obviously, the vast majority of this œ7«, œ8 billion was not in contention,
but at the margin there was a view that the Director General of Water Services
held that some of those projects were not as cost effective as they might be
and that they should be left out of the periodic review. I, of course,
listened very carefully to that advice and in some cases I accepted it. In
the case of the North West, I did not, and I insisted that a full programme
as required by the Agency should be in the periodic review, 2000-2005. That
remains my position. I am not aware that new combined sewer overflows or
storm water management was now at issue. If it is, I will certainly look into
it, but it remains my view that the North West, particularly in its bathing
water quality in and around Blackpool, on which we are now having infraction
proceedings taken against us by the European Union, is an area of absolute
priority where we must meet our international obligations and improve those
bathing and river waters up to the full standard of the rest of the country.
That remains a central priority for me in this next year.
Chairman: On that note, thank you very much for your evidence.
