| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Mar 2003 : Column 642W—continued
EU Environment Council
Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council on 4 March 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting records; and if she will make a statement. [101747]
Margaret Beckett: I represented the UK at Environment Council on 4 March 2003, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. The Council reached a political agreement on one legislative measure, and also considered a number of other important issues.
The Council reached a political agreement on the Forest Focus Regulation, which concerns forest monitoring, with the UK among its supporters. Italy, Spain, and Portugal would have preferred greater support for fire prevention measures, and therefore abstained. The Commission also withheld its support.
We debated the Commission's proposals to revise the Bathing Water Directive, which would raise the required bathing water quality standards across the EU. There was general support for high standards where this would benefit the public, but widespread concern that the measures should be proportionate to the public health benefits sought, and flexible in their application. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment expressed concern over the soundness of the Commission's cost benefit analysis, and explained that, in the UK, illness related to bathing in sea waters is not a problem serious enough to feature in the public health surveillance system. Most bathing waters in the UK would already meet the higher standards proposed, but there would be high costs involved in ensuring compliance at all times for about 15 per cent. of beaches in England and Wales. There was a risk therefore that the proposals as currently drafted would incur disproportionate costs of compliance for comparatively little benefit. Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Germany, France and Austria all expressed similar concerns. There was wide support for more flexibility in the use of management measures to
18 Mar 2003 : Column 643W
implement the Directive. Most states also asked for greater clarity of definitions. There was no support for extending the scope of the Directive to waters used for other recreational purposes, and this was accepted by the Commission. The Presidency concluded that Council had given a sufficient steer for further progress to be achieved by the next Council, in June.
Council also debated the proposed Environmental Liability Directive, and in particular the issues of financial security and biodiversity. I made it clear that the UK insurance industry did not support compulsory financial security. It would make little sense to make financial security compulsory if the market is unable to provide the necessary cover. There was support for this line of reasoning from Ireland, France, Italy, Netherlands, the Commission and Germany. There was also some support for a compromise proposed by the Greek Presidency, that compulsory financial security should be phased in. This was not an option I was able to support. On biodiversity, I put forward the view, also supported by France and Germany, that to be insurable and provide certainty, the scope of the Directive should be site-based. The remaining Members favoured extending the scope of the directive to cover all EU-protected biodiversity wherever it may, with an option to include nationally protected species too. The Presidency concluded that progress had been made towards reaching political agreement in June.
We agreed Council Conclusions calling for a community strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment. The Commission reported on action taken in relation to the Prestige incident, and will present a full report to the European Council later this month. Council accepted a Spanish request asking the Commission to consider liability and sanctions in relation to the safety of marine transport. France and Spain also reported on the progress of clean-up operations.
We also discussed the Council's contribution on Sustainable Development for the Spring European Council, and agreed a lengthy set of Conclusions, which included an emphasis on the need for implementation of the commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last September, and on the importance of encouraging the development of environmental technologies.
Council also adopted Conclusions on the Fifth Pan-European Ministerial Conference "Environment for Europe", to be held in Kiev in May.
The Commission gave an update on approvals of Genetically Modified Organisms, and their co-existence with conventional crops. It was announced that an option paper on co-existence by Commissioner Fischler would be released on 5 March, and a Round Table discussion would follow at the end of April.
On approvals, Commissioner Walstrom noted that there are currently 19 applications in the process, which should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I supported the position of the Commission, along with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Ireland, that existing legislation is adequate for an orderly return to decision making. A number of other member states continued to argue against proceeding with authorisations until the
18 Mar 2003 : Column 644W
new traceability and labelling rules come into force. The Commissioner explained that it was unlikely that any authorisation would complete the process before the traceability and labelling rules came into force in any event. She emphasised the need to move the process forward, and that there is no justification for further delay.
Denmark sought clarification from the Commission concerning its guidelines on the presence of metabolites in groundwater. The Commission confirmed that these are not legally binding, and that the expected groundwater directive will look into this issue.
The Commission reported that it was on track with its long-awaited chemicals package, with an early interim consultation, followed by adoption by the Commission in early summer. It also formally presented its proposals on ozone depleting substances, a monitoring mechanism for greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds in paints.
Over lunch we discussed progress towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Fairtrade
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made and representations she has received regarding the application of Fairtrade status to British farmers; and if she will make a statement. [102441]
Mr. Morley: We have seen a report that the Soil Association and the Fairtrade Foundation were planning to announce an extension of the Fairtrade mark to British produce but I am unaware of any representations to government on this matter. For its part the Government are striving to rid agriculture of the constraints of price protection and production-related subsidies and to reconnect farmers with their markets. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food launched last December aims to help deliver this objective and sets out how Government, industry and others can work together to secure a more positive future for the food and farming industries. It contains a number of measures to help farmers reconnect with their customers and the rest of the food chain, to improve co-operation and performance, and to enhance training and opportunities to learn from best practice. The Government also remain determined to secure market-oriented reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy and through the WTO.
Fallen Livestock
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to provide guidance to farmers on the disposal of dead livestock after 3 April. [103454]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Guidance on the disposal of fallen stock is available from local Animal Health offices and on the Defra website. In addition, the Department will shortly be writing to livestock farmers explaining the changes to the legislation, and to provide advice as to what disposal routes are available.
18 Mar 2003 : Column 645W
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that alternatives are in place for all farmers to deal with fallen stock when on-farm burial is banned. [103011]
Mr. Morley: The situation regarding Government funding in other member states is complicated. Based on data provided by each member state, the European Commission issued a paper on 20 November 2001. It showed that the level of Government support varies across the Community, with farmers in some countries paying the full cost of disposal while in others the Government or local authority provides support.
The collection and disposal industries for fallen stock have stated that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock when the ban on burial comes into effect.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she collates in respect of the policy in other EU member states concerning financial support for farmers to deal with fallen stock. [103012]
Mr. Morley: The situation regarding Government funding in other member states is complicated. Based on data provided by each member state, the European Commission issued a paper on 20 November 2001. It showed that the level of Government support varies across the Community, with farmers in some countries paying the full cost of disposal while in others the Government or local authority provides support.
The collection and disposal industries for fallen stock have stated that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock when the ban on burial comes into effect.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |