TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Andrew F Bennett, in the Chair
Mr Hilary Benn
Mr Crispin Blunt
Mr John Cummings
Mr Brian H Donohoe
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody
Mrs Louise Ellman
Mr James Gray
Mr Bill Olner
_________
RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER, a Member of the House, (Minister for the
Environment), MR ELLIOT MORLEY, a Member of the House, (Minister for
Fisheries and the Countryside), MR ROGER PRITCHARD, Head, European
Wildlife Division, and MR JOHN OSMOND, Head, Conservation Management
Division (MAFF), examined.
Chairman
651. Ministers, can I welcome you to the session on UK
biodiversity, and ask you to identify yourselves and your team for the record.
(Mr Meacher) I hope I am known as the Minister for the Environment.
If I could introduce on my left Roger Pritchard who is Head of the European
Wildlife Division in DETR.
(Mr Morley) Good morning, Chairman. I am responsible for agri-
environment programmes and countryside programmes within the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On my right is John Osmond who is our
official responsible for these areas.
652. Would you like to say anything by way of introduction, or are
you happy to go straight into questions?
(Mr Meacher) I always think it is best to go the questions so that
attention is not lost whilst we wander through a prepared statement.
Mrs Dunwoody
653. We hang upon your every word!
(Mr Meacher) Not if I have brought in a statement!
Mr Olner
654. Good morning, Minister. Given the need for the long-term
commitment to the BAPs from a range of bodies, does it make sense to put them
on a statutory footing?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, that is a central issue.
655. Is that, yes, it would?
(Mr Meacher) You have put your finger on the key issue straight away.
There are two levels at which this could be done: first of all, the national
Biodiversity Action Plan implementation level; but, secondly, the local
authority responsible for local Biodiversity Action Plans. On the national
level, we do already of course have an international obligation under the UN
Biodiversity Convention to prepare national biodiversity strategies. We have,
in fact, already produced, speaking from memory, 391 species action plans and
45 habitat action plans, which I think stands pretty good comparison with any
other country. On the local authority side, let me say I have a great deal
of sympathy with the objective behind the question. The issue is: what is
the best way to achieve it? I have had lengthy discussions with the local
government minister, my colleague Hilary Armstrong, and she tells me (which
I could well believe) that I am one of a small army of ministers going to her
door requesting that there be further statutory responsibilities placed on
local authorities. The question is whether that is the best way to do it:
do you want to have a statutory responsibility which is discrete, separate and
compartmentalised for biodiversity (which presumably means appointing half a
person or one person responsible for this); or to integrate the responsibility
for biodiversity into all other local authority plans. On that, I do think
that that is a better way. What we are proposing is: under the Local
Government Bill, there will be community strategies; there will be statutory
guidance which will require local authorities to take full account of
biodiversity in the preparation of all of their activities within the
community strategy.
656. Minister, could I say, this does seem a little one-sided at
the moment when we talk about Biodiversity Action Plans. We seem to have the
biodiversity and we have a plan but the action seems to be missing. Surely
if it is put on a statutory basis that would ensure the action follows?
(Mr Meacher) I am very keen that it should. As I say, I fully support
the thrust behind the question. The issue is: do you have a requirement on
a local authority to take action in this area when they have N number of other
responsibilities; and we have tried (and this is a very important
consideration) to devolve responsibility for expenditure to local authorities
- they make their own decisions about their budgets. You may give them a
statutory responsibility, but they may decide that given the limit on
resources, which is always there, their priorities are X, Y and Z and I am
afraid biodiversity does not feature, or it features rather weakly. The
reality is, I think it is much better to say that all of your activities
(whether it is with regard to housing, planning or social services) have to
take account of the biodiversity implications. That is likely to give a far
wider breadth of application.
657. That is a very honest answer, but how does it move forward
biodiversity and all it means to future generations? If we do not grasp the
nettle and do something then the opportunity will be lost.
(Mr Meacher) I think the answer to that is, there are going to be
community strategies if this is agreed, because of course the Countryside and
Rights of Way Bill is currently going through the Lords and will presumably
come back to the Commons. If it is agreed we have these community strategies
and the proposal I have made is implemented, we have to see how it works and
I think it will work. If you are right, and it is working rather feebly or
inadequately, then I think we are going to have to return to the question of:
do you need a statutory underpinning? I repeat, even if we did that, I think
it is very easy to think once you have imposed a statutory obligation on a
body, such as a local authority, it will happen. The truth, I am afraid, is
that that is not so. They will plead either lack of resources, lack of
personnel, lack of support from government and it does not actually happen.
658. Given you have mentioned the lack of resources, would you be
prepared to fight your corner with Treasury to ensure local authorities have
got specific ring-fenced resources to pay due attention to this very important
thing?
(Mr Meacher) We have already done that. We have increased the
resources to English Nature. I think it is by œ11 million.
659. So English Nature ought to be the statutory body?
(Mr Meacher) English Nature is the statutory advisor to DETR. We have
increased their resources by œ11 million over the last two years -
œ3.3 million of which is for biodiversity. Of course we have the Spending
Review, and of course we have made a bid for significant extra resources for
the countryside. We will have to wait and see what the Chancellor reports in
two or three weeks' time.
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 their
specific national account 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 have
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.
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 of 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.
700. If you breakdown your bid, say œ18 million in the Spending
Review, how much is going to the Regional Assemblies and how much is going to
English Nature?
(Mr Meacher) I cannot answer that, firstly, because those decisions
have not been made. The Regional Development Agencies are extremely
important. They have been lobbying us very hard and saying they are under-
funded considering the targets, the objectives we have given them and, of
course, local authorities, local wildlife sites and biodiversity. As we all
know, it is the oldest cliche in the book, politics is the art of making
choices between priorities, and it is extraordinarily difficult as all
ministers find.
701. What is the coordination between yourself as Minister and
that of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament on this issue?
(Mr Meacher) That again is a very relevant point because of course the
devolved administrations have responsibility for environment and biodiversity.
We all know as sensible people that environment and biodiversity does not know
national boundaries. It is far more sensible that we have agreed plans; that
we work together and coordinate. I, of course, have regular contact with my
opposite numbers. At this moment there have been no issues on which I can say
that there are glitches in agreed countrywide/UK-wide proposals on the
environment, but it is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.
702. How do you see the reaction in terms of what you have
identified to poor coordination as to who is going to solve it? Who do you
see as a key player in that respect?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, those which put at risk the achievements of
UK national targets - and we have got national targets under the Biodiversity
Convention and under some of the EU Directives, for example, the Habitats
Directive - then there is an override, of course, and I would have the
authority to require the devolved administration to carry out their
responsibilities. I hope that never happens; it certainly has not happened;
and at the moment there is no sign of it happening. On matters where the UK
does not have international obligation it is by negotiation and by agreement.
Obviously, if there is serious disagreement I would speak to the minister
concerned, and we would have to try and reach an agreed position. As of now
that, again, has not happened but that is how we would handle it.
703. It is not then more likely, given that where there is
obviously tension or potential for obvious tension, were we to get to the
stage where we were dealing with different forms of government in a different
party within power, would that then make your job almost impossible? We are
not talking about Tories, we might be talking about Nationalists.
(Mr Meacher) I hope not. I think it would be extremely unfortunate and
unwise for a political party to play politics over biodiversity. I think this
is an issue which is not basically party political. People do see it as an
issue on which everyone has a stake. I think point scoring, being difficult
and being intransigent, would actually rebound. If that happened, and no
doubt it will happen sooner or later, we do have to seek cooperation, but I
would expect to receive it.
Mrs Ellman
704. Regional Assemblies and Regional Chambers are the indirectly
elected party, the regional structure in England as we have it now. Certainly
in the north-west environmental groups are very much involved there. Do you
feel the government could use the Regional Assemblies and Regional Chambers
perhaps more positively to support biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I do. I immediately wonder whether in fact we have
issued guidance, and it would only be guidance to regional assemblies, but I
think it is the case that we have not. Unless I am advised otherwise, I think
it is something I will take up and pursue in line with your suggestion.
Mr Donohoe
705. 70 per cent. of the farms in the country will not be covered
by the agri-environment scheme even after expansion of that scheme. What
steps should be taken to protect the countryside in these farms?
(Mr Morley) First of all, Chairman, I would like to emphasise the fact
that we have committed œ1 billion over the next seven years to agri-
environment schemes, which is probably the biggest expenditure on biodiversity
and environmental management of any department or any organisation in this
country - it is a very large amount of money. It is true there are a lot of
farms who are not within the stewardship scheme, but of course there are other
aspects of management where we encourage voluntary and statutory. It is also
the case, with that significant increase in money, we will be able to double
the stewardship scheme. For example, last year there were 1,600 applicants
to go into stewardship that we accepted; this year we plan to accept 3,000
applicants. Also, in areas where there has not been an uptake yet - and we
do recognise within agri-environment schemes there are gaps in it, for
example, the arable areas in the east have a lower uptake than some of the
more mixed farms in the west, central and upland areas - we do have schemes
such as our pilot arable stewardship scheme, which has been a very successful
scheme, it is very promising. With that extra funding we do have the
opportunity now for extending this in other parts of the country. It is one
of the areas we want to look at as a priority when we draw up our future
spending.
706. Why should more funds be given to farms. There are those who
think they are junkies for subsidy and here we come along with something else
and you are having to pay them to take control of an issue that they tell us
themselves they undertake. That is one of the strengths of argument made in
the past. Here we are again giving further monies to the farms. Why are we
doing that? Is it necessary?
(Mr Morley) Yes, it is necessary because there is no doubt that
changes in agricultural practice, intensification of agriculture - much of it
driven, I have to say, by the way the Common Agricultural Policy works which,
in some cases, encourages damaging intensification - has had a very
detrimental effect on biodiversity within this country and we must tackle
that. The concept of agri-environment schemes is to make up income foregone.
If you apply measures which benefit the environment but reduce the income of
the individual farmer or landowner then that is supposed to be reflected in
relation to the payments. There is the issue which you are touching upon that
there are huge sums of money going into production subsidies - there is no
doubt about that - it is something like œ3 billion a year in the UK alone, and
our position from MAFF and the government is that this is not sustainable.
707. Much of that money is probably doing damage to biodiversity,
and then you are giving them further money to correct that situation. Is
there anybody sitting there working in an audit of the biodiversity within a
particular farm and saying, "Wait a minute, you are getting [whatever it is]
in one direction, when in the opposite case we are supposed to fund you for
the protection of the biodiversity". There is something wrong in there, is
there not?
(Mr Morley) There has been something wrong there, you are absolutely
right. No-one would deny that we have a situation, particularly in the past,
whereby the Ministry of Agriculture was actually grant-aiding drainage of
wetlands, it was grant-aiding the ripping up of hedgerows, and we are now in
a situation where we are grant-aiding putting hedgerows back and grant-aiding
making areas wet. You are quite right, there is an illogical approach to
this. What we are trying to do is grasp the issue of biodiversity. We have
built it into our whole mission statement as a department in terms of
environmental improvement and environmental management. We are building it
into our whole approach as a department right across our policy objectives in
terms of achieving biodiversity outcomes; and we are strongly arguing for
complete reform of the CAP; and that complete reform must be a move away from
these production subsidies - they just cannot go on in their present form.
Mrs Dunwoody
708. How much effect are you having, because it does not really
matter how many plans for biodiversity you announce if somebody in Brussels
says, "Tough, we are going to actually change the way people are paid and that
means wiping out all things you have been trying to do"?
(Mr Morley) Brussels can also use that influence to actually influence
things and the way people are paid for the good, for the better.
709. Yes, but how much effect do you happen to be having? You
have been there three years, and that is not just something you have suddenly
thought of.
(Mr Morley) I think we are having an effect. Although I would admit
that the outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations in reforming the CAP did not
go anywhere near as far as we would want to have seen it from the UK position
(and I absolutely accept that, Chairman), where we were successful, and I
think significantly so because it is a quantum leap in the whole structure of
agricultural policy in Europe, is to get agreement on the so-called second
pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy which is the framework we are now
implementing in the UK (in the case of England the English Rural Development
Plan), which is the framework for shifting those production payments away from
the production side and over to the agri-environment and rural management
site. That is a significant breakthrough, and that is where the œ1.6 billion
is coming from through that scheme, which includes modulation, which itself
is the beginning of a shift in this country of production payments over to
agri-environment payments, which we are implementing. We do have more to do
on this and I absolutely accept that; but the framework has been put in place.
That was very much driven by the UK who argued for that very strongly, and I
think that is a significant change within the CAP.
Mr Donohoe
710. So the œ1.6 billion is coming from Europe, is it, not the
Exchequer?
(Mr Morley) It comes from four areas. Part of it comes from Europe
in relation to funding; part of it comes from modulation, which is shifting
some of the production subsidies over into agri-environment payments; and part
of it comes from matched funding from the UK Treasury, so for every pound we
take in modulation the Treasury puts a pound in as well.
Chairman
711. Field margins, this battle with the EU and their auditors.
Where are we up to?
(Mr Morley) We are waiting for a response from the Commission in
relation to the proposals that we have put forward. We thought we had a very
sympathetic response from Franz Fischler, who is the EU Commissioner
responsible, and what we are arguing for is that there should be a change in
the regulations that would allow Member States the flexibility of actually
dealing with issues such as field margins. We have also discovered it is not
just the UK which is affected by this; there are other Member States which
share our concerns, and of course, that is helpful in terms of pressing for
changes.
712. So if I am ploughing up some land this autumn, do I leave the
margin or do I plough the margin?
(Mr Morley) The situation is that we have managed to get a one-year
moratorium on this.
713. I thought that was this year.
(Mr Morley) Yes, it is for this year, but the decisions in relation
to ploughing and planting were not at the stage where those decisions have to
be taken. That is more for round about October. But it is a fair point,
Chairman, and we do have to try to get this resolved in time for the next
planting season so that farmers are aware where they stand.
Mrs Dunwoody
714. But that will only presumably affect spring planting, and the
question you were being asked was what to do in the autumn. We all know, with
the extraordinary way in which the Community organises its meetings and
affairs, no major decisions of this kind will be taken until well into
November, possibly the beginning of December.
(Mr Morley) The Commission are aware that there is a timescale on this
in terms of people planning. They know that, therefore we expect to get that
decision in time to advise farmers.
Mrs Dunwoody: Famous last words.
Chairman
715. That was one of the things that applied to all farmers, was
it not?
(Mr Morley) Yes, those in receipt of arable subsidies.
716. What about trying to make sure that there were some minimum
conservation measures which actually applied to all farmers in return for a
lot of money?
(Mr Morley) I think that is a very fair concept, Chairman, and we are
giving consideration to that as part of cross-compliance measures. The DETR
commissioned a study on various options and we are looking at those options
at the present time. What we have to do though is look at any kind of
environmental measures that are easily understood and easy to enforce. There
may well be opportunities for doing this in relation to the field margins
issue, but there is still work being carried out on that.
717. Do you agree with the Game Conservancy Trust that shooting
birds improves biodiversity?
(Mr Morley) I think the management that goes along with game shooting
certainly does improve biodiversity, yes.
Mr Olner
718. Do you think Ministers will apply cross-compliance to meet
the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the common rules Regulations to ensure
environmental protection?
(Mr Morley) It is possible that we would apply it on that basis. As
I say, what we have to look at is the kind of measures.
719. Possible? Probable? Will do?
(Mr Morley) There are a number of issues to resolve on this, Chairman,
which are not easy. First of all, you have to decide just what measures you
would want to apply, what kind of environmental benefits you would get with
those measures, how you would enforce those measures to ensure that they were
being complied with, and there are a number of complex issues there - issues,
however, that are not insurmountable, in my view. I think it would be
possible to have some form of cross-compliance that would bring environmental
gains. The issue is what form that would take and how you would apply it.
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.
Mrs Dunwoody
740. Are you saying they are still not in agreement?
(Mr Meacher) I have not recently checked, but my understanding is that
there is now a report which is being prepared, and to that extent must have
the agreement of all the parties. I do know that there has been an amendment
of some of the initial proposals in order to get the agreement of all sides.
Mrs Dunwoody: I think you should have a prize for the conditional tense,
Minister. I do not think I have ever heard so many in one sentence. It is
nice that we have someone who knows how to use the English language, even to
obfuscate.
Chairman
741. So if the House of Lords were more sympathetic to hedgerows
than the Legislation Committee, again, you would not be upset?
(Mr Meacher) I would not be upset because I do seek legislation, but
I do not think it will be ready in time, and I repeat secondary legislation,
ie use of regulations, is the way to proceed here. When we came into office,
as I recall, on 30 May 1997, the hedgerow regulations left by the last
Government came into force. I condemned those in opposition as being weak.
I said that they needed to be strengthened. That is still my view. I repeat,
it has taken far longer than I expected, but we will be coming forward with
proposals substantially to strengthen those by the end of this year.
Mr Benn
742. A number of witnesses said to us that the National
Biodiversity Network does not have enough funding to do its job properly. Do
you agree?
(Mr Meacher) It remains to be seen. I announced the œ0.25 million
which is going to go to it not very long ago. The purpose is to centralise
the information collected by volunteers all over the country, in a very
fragmented and dispersed form, using Web technology and making sure that that
information is available to hand all over the country. I think that
enormously increases the effectiveness of local Biodiversity Action Planning.
That is its purpose. The judgment my officials made was that œ0.25 million
is sufficient to stimulate this. If it is not, we will have to review it
further.
743. How are you going to keep it under review?
(Mr Meacher) We will certainly be looking to see whether it is working.
Governments do not give even œ0.25 million without checking on the
consequences. We will give it a year to run and then we will be asking the
organisers to justify the outcomes, the information that has been made
available, and how it has been used to get feedback from the users at local
points. It will be incorporated in the normal departmental review when we
look at expenditure regularly.
744. The local record centres are obviously essential to the
success of the commercial biodiversity network.
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
745. What does your research tell you so far about who in the main
is running those, making sure that there are local record centres that can
pull the information together?
(Mr Meacher) I have to say that it is extraordinarily fragmented.
These things are absolutely dependent on the good will of certain volunteers,
people who care passionately about the subject and who, unpaid, give time,
either in the evenings or at weekends, to do a lot of this work, and who do
record it because of their own enthusiasm. Often that information, as I say,
is not utilised as effectively as it could be. I do not think that is
satisfactory. I think they should be assisted and supported. I am not
suggesting they could be paid. I think that is perhaps not even desirable.
It is certainly not possible. But they can be seen to be part of a network
which I think would enthuse them, stimulate them, and make them feel that
their work was valuable.
746. Given the remarks you made at the beginning of your evidence
about local authorities and the obligations placed upon them, do you see a
role for local authorities, not necessarily running record centres themselves,
but taking the lead responsibility for ensuring that there is a network of
support and that in each of the areas that they cover arrangements are in
place for local record centres to operate?
(Mr Meacher) It could be, but I would expect voluntary groups. If we
take one, I happened to be launching the Regional Action Plans for butterflies
and moths yesterday.
Mrs Dunwoody
747. I hope they know which region they belong to.
(Mr Meacher) They are extremely well aware of which region they belong
to and they are very committed to improving the lepidoptera populations in
their area. The point I was making is that the butterfly conservation is a
voluntary network. It is quite small but it is quite effective. They are the
ones who are really enthused about this. They have a very limited number -
I do not know how many - of paid staff, and it tends to be those paid staff
who try to activate people in the neighbourhood. I think they will be better
able to do that through the Biodiversity Network that we have set up. I
personally believe that they are likely to be the most effective. There are
500 local authorities. I do not know how many, but there may be a number of
those, almost certainly a minority, who have individuals within them who are
really keyed up on this, but many will not, and it is better, I think, to
stick with the NGOs, who, by definition, are full of active and enthused
people. They are much more likely to do a good job.
(Mr Morley) It might be worth noting as well on this point in relation
to the overall spend on the National Biodiversity Network that while, for
example, we in MAFF do not contribute to the National Network, we do
contribute to groups, for example, on butterfly conservation - we actually
give some grant aid - who are doing work which is feeding into the National
Network. We also spend œ2 million a year on biodiversity research,
information which also feeds through. There is lots of money coming in from
different areas which head towards the national coordination.
748. Where would that be published to help local authorities?
Supposing a local authority is well-meaning but has no money, where would they
find automatic access to that information and research?
(Mr Morley) All the information that we have is published, and we also
put it on our internet site, which is accessed by all local authorities.
Mr Gray: Point of order, Chairman. Can I be reassured? I was surprised
by the Minister's remark a moment ago, "We will be moving on to National
Biodiversity Network in a moment." Can I be reassured that witnesses are told
an outline of what they might be asked, but they are not told the order and
all the questions?
Chairman: Can I make it absolutely clear? First of all, we tend to give
witnesses some idea of the topics that are likely to be covered because it
helps them to be prepared for it, but I would also point out that this is the
end of the inquiry and I assume, I think rightly, that government departments
have been following the inquiry and therefore have been able to brief
Ministers on the topics which come up.
Mr Gray
749. I am content with your reassurance, Chairman. In that case,
they will all be ready to talk about invasive alien species, by which I do not
mean old Labour backbenchers. What are you going to do to stop things like,
for example, American crayfish, which are invading the Avon in my own
constituency, and Japanese knot weed, which we read about in the Times this
morning?
(Mr Morley) There are two issues here. One is controlling the species
coming in and the other is dealing with them in the country. We deal with a
lot of the species in MAFF, but I think it is an issue for Michael for those
coming in.
(Mr Meacher) It is a serious issue. Japanese knot weed, the grey
squirrel, and the North American mink are good examples of species that have
done a great deal of damage to our biodiversity. We are having a review on
this early next year, a full-scale review, building on the work of the JMCC.
The JMCC has already done work on this. I have to say that there are already
powers under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act under Schedule 9 to add to
the list in that schedule of species whose release should be prohibited. That
could be done through secondary legislation. It is not as though we are
powerless to act but I agree that there does need to be further examination.
It is actually a very complex issue. The interactions are not simple. They
are quite complex.
750. No further release is an easier one to deal with, because it
is quite easy for scientists to say, "We can't let that thing out." It is
more difficult for those things which are already out there and are seriously
threatening our biodiversity. The particular one I am thinking of, because
I was shown it last week by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, is the American
crayfish, a very large crayfish, which is massively growing throughout the
United Kingdom, and the Wildlife Trust said that so far as they were
concerned, they could think of nothing that would stop the obliteration of the
British native crayfish. Something like that would require a huge amount of
money to put right.
(Mr Morley) The problem is, Chairman, that once species are well
established within the UK, there comes a point where we have to accept it is
virtually impossible to eradicate them completely. We have that problem with
mink, for example. MAFF has spent œ4 million over the years trying to
eradicate escaped animals from fur farms. It is one of the reasons, though
not the only reason, why we are bringing in the fur farming prohibition bill,
which I am sure members will want to support. On the issue of crayfish, as
I say, it is probably impossible to completely eradicate them, but through
some of our schemes, such as the 5b scheme, we have grant-aided river
management for a variety of biodiversity objectives, one of which is to
protect our native white-clawed crayfish. That includes both making sure the
habitat is right for them but also trapping programmes and removing the
American crayfish which threatens them with disease. The strategy would have
to be, where we have pockets of indigenous species, to protect them to make
sure that the invading species do not threaten them. A complete eradication
programme is almost impossible.
Chairman
751. So the red squirrel can just give up, can it?
(Mr Morley) No. Again, through the Forestry Commission we have a very
detailed programme, both to protect the red squirrel and also to control the
grey squirrel as well.
Mrs Dunwoody
752. Unless you arm them, it is not going to be very effective, is
it, really?
(Mr Morley) We know from the work that we have done, Chairman, that
red squirrels prefer conifer woods and grey squirrels prefer broadleaf, as
they are a bigger, heavier animal. One of the things that we have been doing
through the Forestry Commission has been removing some conifer trees in areas
where there are red squirrels because that makes it more difficult for the
greys to get established. There is also a research programme on contraceptive
feed for grey squirrels which controls the population which is quite well
advanced, although not operational.
Mr Donohoe
753. Is there not also a red squirrel strain that is stronger than
the grey squirrel somewhere in the country? I think it is Stirlingshire.
(Mr Morley) I am not an expert on this, but I did read a paper saying
that there is a pocket of squirrels in Freshfield nature reserve which over
the years have been very well fed and they have developed a much more robust
red squirrel than a lot of native red squirrels. There is a theory that if
you have this robust "super-squirrel", you can release it into the areas to
improve the genetic code. How successful that will be I do not know.
Mr Donohoe: That and all the other methods you are talking about will
be quite useful, I am sure.
Mr Gray
754. Lastly, the other side of this question is this. There has
been talk about reintroducing native species of one sort and another. The two
big examples are beavers and even wolves. Are there not biodiversity
downsides to doing that, because, even though they were native originally,
they have been gone for a long time and they may well predate, for example,
on something else which is perfectly natural?
(Mr Meacher) One example where it has worked is the red kite. It can
work successfully.
(Mr Morley) Yes, the red kite is an example, although there had always
been a remnant population of red kites in Wales. What is being done is to
extend that by introducing it into England and Scotland. But there are
species which were completely extinct in Britain, and the white tailed sea
eagle is one of them that has been introduced in a joint programme between the
RSPB, English Nature and Scottish National Heritage. I think if an animal was
part of the biodiversity in this country, the risks of reintroducing it are
obviously lower than introducing an animal that has not been part of the
biodiversity. But I quite agree that there will be consequences, and any kind
of reintroduction scheme would have to be thought about very carefully, as
indeed the beaver scheme has been thought about very carefully. I think in
some cases there is an argument for particularly threatened species that were
once native in the UK being reintroduced. The wolf is a bit of a
controversial one, but one of my responsibilities, Chairman, is these reports
of big cats that people come across from time to time, sometimes on a Friday
night, in my experience. Nevertheless, I think there is sufficient evidence
to suggest that at the very least there have been releases of a range of wild
cats within the UK. I was talking to a shepherd in my constituency at one of
the village shows who said that he goes and rounds up sheep in Derbyshire to
bring down to Lincolnshire for fattening, and he said, "I come across these
Manx cats up there." I said, "What Manx cats are those?" He said, "You know,
these big cats, no tails, funny little tufts on the ear. They are really
fierce when you corner them with a dog." I do not quite know what he is
talking about there, but it is possible that you could have a range of species
which could be reintroduced in this country with minimum impact on
biodiversity, but each case would have to be considered on its merits.
Chairman
755. Does that mean that we will get wolves in Scunthorpe?
(Mr Morley) I think Scotland is the best place for wolves myself
actually.
Mr Olner
756. Minister, you spoke before about active and enthused people
in Biodiversity Action Plan processes. Do you think industry have been
sufficiently active and enthused about these plans?
(Mr Meacher) Not sufficiently, but again, I express gratitude and pay
tribute to a number of champions, as we call them. I think there are more
than a dozen, but rather a small number - it could be much larger - who have
taken responsibility for championing particular species, often connected with
their own work. Water UK took up the otter.
757. They are usually all over their advertisements afterwards.
(Mr Morley) That is fair enough.
(Mr Meacher) Indeed. This is a display advertisement for the wider
environmental and social interests and concerns of the company. There is
something in it for them, and of course, they often provide money and they do
provide that championship. ICI had butterflies, as I learned yesterday, the
large blue. But there are a lot of smaller creatures that are not
particularly attractive which are also taken up by companies. The fact is we
have tried to interest them and we are still trying very hard. DETR and Earth
Watch together with Round Table have published a booklet which does tell
business, if they want to read it, how they can incorporate biodiversity into
their environmental management systems better. But I agree we need to do a
lot more, and it certainly is not sufficient.
758. But in your own words - I do not want to misquote you but I
am sure it will be on the record - "if they want to read it." How do we
ensure it? We had the CBI here to give evidence, but they mainly focused on
the aggregates industry to the exclusion of all others. There is the leisure
industry, the supermarkets, a lot of industry that we could get switched on
to this, but how do we make it more positive?
(Mr Meacher) I think that is a question we continually ask ourselves.
We did circulate these booklets. I speak with innumerable business gatherings
where I raise this issue, whether I am talking more widely about the
environment or more specifically about biodiversity. My officials I know
certainly press industry. There is a good deal of this material on the
Website. As I say, it is in industry's own interest. It is part of their
advertising campaign to show that they are a good corporate citizen. We want
to encourage that, but I do not think it is something that you can enforce.
Mrs Dunwoody
759. Think of the large estates of the water companies or any
other large industry. There are some industries which control large acreages.
Assuming that they are going to have the intelligence to respond to your views
is really being a little over-optimistic, is it not? Is the Government not
at some point going to have to think of a way of saying to these people, "You
have got to do it"? There are very large estates in private water hands, all
the utilities have very large acreages, and just to hope that they are going
to catch up with you seems to me is wildly over-optimistic.
(Mr Meacher) There are 26 or 27 water companies, of which 10 are major
ones, water and sewage. I am not sure how many of those have a specific
biodiversity commitment to a particular species, but I think they all include
biodiversity in their action plans. I do not think you can require a company
to undertake a biodiversity responsibility. What we could do, and I have
repeatedly said I would consider it, is ask whether there should be mandatory
environmental reporting. Nearly all the best big companies already report on
what they are doing environmentally, what their environmental impacts are in
terms of climate change, wastewater consumption, energy efficiency, etc. If
we were to make it a mandatory requirement, which I am certainly considering,
we could include impacts on biodiversity. That I think is probably the best
way of dealing with it.
Mr Olner
760. You have spoken about that, Minister, but what about stick
for some of these industries? If they cause damage to the environment and
damage the biodiversity of any particular area, should they not be fined, and
perhaps those payments go into an environmental pool that could be used for
other worthwhile projects?
(Mr Meacher) I entirely agree. Of course damage to the environment
should be remediated. We have just set in place, I think on April 1st, the
Contaminated Land Regime, which requires any company, or indeed individuals,
who contaminate the land to make it good at their expense. If you damage a
SSSI as a result of the Countryside Bill currently going through, you can be
required to restore it to its pristine state, again at your own expense. In
regard to pollution which damages habitats for biodiversity, as I have already
said, I am keen substantially to increase penalties. There has been talk in
other areas that those should be linked to turnover or profits, and I think
they have to be significant penalties which are actually going to deter
serious and gross damage to the environment. I think we have to prize the
environment more, all of us - individuals and companies.
761. I can fully understand and appreciate the grand scale of
pollution that sometimes happens, but I am more concerned about the creeping
damage that is done to the environment and to biodiversity in certain areas.
It is not one great big thing but a number of small, interlinked ones. Do you
think people who do this should be better policed, and if they are found to
be damaging the environment, they should be fined?
(Mr Meacher) The Environment Agency is, if course, responsible. It is
our eyes and ears, if you like, for examining damage done to the environment,
and not only requiring it to be made good, but prosecuting where they see fit.
The Environment Agency have recently appointed a chief prosecutor. I was
pleased about that, and I have certainly encouraged them to take a tough line.
No-one wants to have a penal attitude, but there is a very small minority of
both companies and individuals who behave extremely badly, and they have in
the past believed that they could get away with it, and that the likelihood
of being caught or the size of the penalties were so derisory it was worth the
risk. I think we have to change that mindset.
Chairman
762. "Biodiversity" is not a term that really grips the public
imagination, is it?
(Mr Meacher) No.
763. What are you going to do about it then?
(Mr Meacher) Ask you, as an august Committee, to come up with a better
phrase. We have thought long and hard about this. I agree, biodiversity is
notoriously sometimes seen as a washing powder. It is famously regarded as
something very different to what it is. But I cannot think of a phrase.
Mr Gray
764. What about "nature conservancy"?
(Mr Meacher) You takes your money and you makes your choice.
Chairman
765. So you are not offering us a better solution. What about the
Biodiversity Action Plans? Are they not pretty bureaucratic? Are they really
going to grip the public's imagination?
(Mr Meacher) You are absolutely right, Chairman, that getting the
public's imagination and support behind them is extremely important.
Biodiversity, or indeed the environment in general, is classically one of
those things that cannot be left to a few individuals and the rest of the
people just carry on as they are. It has to be meaningful and relevant and
important to everyone in order for it to be respected. I would not have said
that the Biodiversity Action Plans were bureaucratic. I think quite a lot of
the things I encounter are fairly bureaucratic but I would not have said that
about BAPs. I think they are under-funded, they are fragmented, they are not
connected up, and they are not followed through, and it is to underpin them
and make them more effective which I think is very important. I do agree we
need to get across, particularly with regard to local plans, to local
populations. Again, how do you do that? By having demonstrations,
exhibitions at the Civic Centre, local Agenda 21, which is hopefully organic
development, not bureaucratically orchestrated by the local authority, but all
the relevant interests, including business, NGOs, interested individuals,
meeting to look at the environment and the contribution that they can make.
You could almost do this infinitely. We are certainly by no means doing
enough. How we strengthen and underpin local Agenda 21 is the answer to your
question.
766. You have been telling us all morning that a lot of this has
to be left to the enthusiasm of volunteers. How do we get the volunteers to
have some sort of scientific base for it? My impression is that in this
country birds do pretty well. It may be that certain Ministers have an
interest in birds, but are you really satisfied that algae or ticks or the
liver fluke get as good a look in in biodiversity terms?
(Mr Meacher) You are right. Some creatures, of course, are much better
for the imagination and childlike fondness really than others. Issues like
algae and eutrophication, ticks with Limes disease which is beginning to
appear in this country because of climate change, are very serious. Your
first question was, I think, about the position of volunteers.
767. You told us that you rely on volunteers for a great deal of
this.
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
768. I am suggesting to you that the problem with that is that
volunteers tend to like certain groups, of which birds seem to get very good
coverage and other things do not have as much public appeal. So we have, I
understand, a very good count of birds in this country, and yet we do not have
a clue about mammals, do we? We do not know what the state of dormice is and
things like that.
(Mr Meacher) I think it is a hard fact of life. We are dependent on
volunteers. It is true that the Heritage Lottery Fund has made available
revenue grants in order to improve the capacity and skills of volunteer
recorders, which I think is important. We should not under-estimate that
people who do give of their time freely and extensively are not driven by
simple ideas about biodiversity. They have a much better and deeper
understanding of the nature of the whole network and the importance of, for
example, eutrophication and its damage to habitats in which they may be
interested. They are interested in mammals. I do not know how much we know
about the habitats or populations of dormice, but I do not think they are as
uninterested as you indicate.
(Mr Morley) I think there is a wider issue that you have raised there,
Chairman. You mentioned birds, and indeed, birds attract a lot of attention.
But there are still problems in that where you have quite a scarce bird, a
threatened species, we have some Biodiversity Action Plans targeted through
MAFF for birds such as sail bunting and stone curey, and we have had
tremendous success. We have achieved the target of increasing the breeding
populations. I do not think that is a problem. Where you have small
populations of species under threat, you can turn them round because you can
pour the resources in and you can do it on a small scale. Where we have a big
problem is farmland birds, for example, where there is a significant decline
right across the board. Therefore, the biodiversity approach has to be very
broad-based to address some of those very big declines of a wide range of
species.
Mr Donohoe
769. Surely it is a previous administration's fault that that
happened. They introduced a heavy fine for stealing eggs, where schoolboys
were nicking magpies' eggs because they were colourful. Now we are in the
position where we have no song birds because the magpies are stealing all
their eggs. Therefore we should not, should we, become involved in doing
that? We should let it all go to nature.
(Mr Morley) I do not think collecting eggs is part of nature, and I
think the relationship between things like magpies and song birds is quite a
complex one, which is not quite as simple as some people think. But there is
also the issue of mammals. I think there is a lot known about dormice. It
is a special species, but there is very little known about other species like
yellow neck mouse, which is a very rare species and we do not know its
distribution and we do not understand it. There are issues of wider
biodiversity rather than targeted biodiversity.
Chairman: On that note, unless you can tell us what a yellow neck mouse
looks like, we had better finish this session. Thank you very much indeed.
