Examination of Witnesses(Questions 20-27)
TUESDAY 11 MARCH 2003
RT HON
ALUN MICHAEL
MP, MR COLIN
JONES AND
MR ROBIN
EVANS
Brian Cotter
20. Minister, we would like to clarify the adequacy
of the consultation for the record. Was any consultation carried
out at the planning stage of the Water Grid project?
(Alun Michael) I think we have to be clear about what
consultation would be about. I think it is quite clear that the
concerns of English Nature were about what might have been, but
were not actually part of the programme, this idea of large-scale
transfers. Should there have been a proposal for a large-scale
transfer, that would have come into the process that has just
been mentioned, which includes the regulation by the Environment
Agency, public advertising, and therefore an opportunity for consultation.
But you cannot consult on what you are not proposing to do, and
I think that is where some clarity needs to be focussed. There
was certainly a lot of thought and a lot of discussion and consultation
with the Environment Agency as the regulator, but I do not know
if my colleagues would like to add anything.
(Mr Jones) There was an advisory committee that oversaw
it. The proposed transfer of water already happens, so that was
nothing new. The setting up of the joint venture with the private
sector partners was new, and there was a process that went through,
but we involved the Environment Agency in overseeing all of that,
to take account of the environmental issues to do with water resources
that we have touched on.
(Mr Evans) The only thing I would add is that the
whole process was an open process, and it was run through OJEC,
so there was a very public advertisement and discussion about
it. It was very open in the press that we were doing it. So there
may not have been a formal consultation process with a lot of
people, but it certainly was not a closed-door process. There
was a lot of discussion, a lot of press comment, and we were promoting
it publicly.
Brian Cotter: Thank you for that, because it
has been very concerning that sometimes consultation is talked
about and it does not really mean anything; it just means certain
people and not others.
Mr MacDougall
21. Following on from that point, probably a
lesson we can learn from that, Minister, is the fact that what
we believe needs to be consulted on probably can be misunderstood,
on the basis that we do not clearly state what the implications
are, and if there is a lesson we can learn from this, it is probably
that we should try and anticipate any fears that would emerge
from such a proposal and try and make it very clear in the early
stages what the limitations are of that proposal and therefore
avoid unnecessary concern. I think it would be fair to say that
even English Nature would admit now that they probably misunderstood
the proposals in the early stages, and may possibly have not been
in the position that they are in today had they understood clearly.
(Alun Michael) I think that is a very helpful comment,
and I think it is true, and I think there is a better understanding
of the inter-relationship of the different bodies that are involved,
and that that relationship can be positive and helpful to the
process. I think it is worth making the point that DEFRA has quite
a wide range of bodies which are concerned with the social, economic
and environmental interests of the countryside, and indeed towns,
because obviously the canal network is very important in some
of our towns. I visited British Waterways projects in Birmingham
recently, but I have visited projects in rural areas as well.
Since I have taken over responsibility for this part of the portfolio,
one of the things I have been very impressed with is the way that
British Waterways has sought to turn round what was seen in some
ways as a public liability, the canal network and all the costs
involved in its maintenance, into something that actually works
for the public and for the public good, both in terms of not being
a drain on public resources and being a public good. I think it
is worth noting that as well as turning round finances and the
canal network, with very strong support from the Department, they
were also recently identified in the top 100 companies as a good
place to work. I find that quite encouraging, and to have an organisation
which is working with the other regulatory bodies, the Environment
Agency, English Nature and so on, that is looking to the social,
economic and environmental advance of the areas under its responsibility
is quite positive.
22. You could say that there would be some benefits
that would be forthcoming from the proposal, rather than the fears
that emerged in the early stages.
(Alun Michael) I think that is very true, and as far
as English Nature is concerned, I think they are very swift to
make sure that the right questions are asked, and quite rightly
so. I also find them an organisation which is very constructive
on a variety of issues like, for instance, sustainable tourism.
I think having organisations that recognise the importance of
overlaps and cooperation as well as proper scrutiny is taking
us in the right direction.
Brian White
23. We have talked about the impact on the existing
network. Where new canals have been built—and I say that
because British Waterways are proposing a new canal from Bedford
to Milton Keynes—what is the impact on the development of
new canals of this?
(Mr Evans) With the Bedford And Milton Keynes link,
one of the greatest benefits is that it may well act to help drainage
in the area, and that is something that may well create the economic
advantages to help us pay for it. British Waterways will decide
whether any new canal forms part of Water Grid. They are not in
there automatically. We will decide whether it goes in. I have
to say I foresee no reason why it should not go into it, but again,
it is for British Waterways to decide whether that becomes part
of the JV network.
(Alun Michael) It is very important both in terms
of getting it right for the environment and as part of a joined-up
approach to things like tourism and recreation in those parts
of the country. So it seems a very positive development.
Chairman
24. I take it it would be your view that some
of the concerns expressed by English Nature and the Wildlife Trust
about risks associated with water transfers were because at that
time they both had a fear that this proposal was going beyond
what is actually proposed.
(Alun Michael) Yes, I think that is true, and I think
it is right for those concerns to be voiced. The fair point to
make is that British Waterways and DEFRA would share those concerns
were that sort of large-scale transfer to be proposed.
25. They would not be doing their job if they
did not express concerns.
(Alun Michael) Exactly, and that is why we are very
relaxed about it, and pleased that proper scrutiny is taking place,
and even though it may not have been needed for regulatory purposes,
it does not hurt for the questions to have been asked and for
reassurance to have been given.
(Mr Evans) We are slightly a victim of our own success,
in that the publicity that surrounded Water Grid, whatever we
said, what was printed was the idea of transferring huge amounts
of water. We thought Water Grid was rather a good name, but of
course, it implies something different, and I think that that
has caused a lot of people who are not involved in the project
to have greater concerns than actually exist.
Mr Havard
26. I understand what you are saying about the
various checks and balances in the system, but they are all predicated
largely around the environmental concerns, and the Board itself
is in part a regulator in that process, and now you have a separate
commercial relationship. Are what are largely checks and balances
predicated on protecting environmental interests sufficient to
deal with a potential conflict between them and any commercial
interests?
(Alun Michael) I believe they are. I think you are
quite right to say that one needs to look at that aspect and be
convinced about it in supporting this scheme, but the point I
made at the beginning is the important one, that the joint venture
does not create rights to do anything; those rights remain with
British Waterways, they remain regulated by the Environment Agency,
English Nature remains a statutory consultee in relation to any
abstraction. So I think the checks and balances remain every bit
as powerful as they would without this order.
(Mr Evans) I think the crunch point comes when the
joint venture asks British Waterways to transfer water or do something
it does not want to do. The joint venture has no rights and no
powers; it can only ask us to then participate in doing it, and
if those things are against our statutory interests, we are not
empowered to do them; we cannot, and of course, if they in any
way affect our wider remit, the environment, then we would not
wish to do it. So I think that the whole PPP, the whole partnership,
has been set up to ensure—and it was fundamental from day
one—that British Waterways did not absolve any of its authority
and did not give away any of its powers on any part of its system.
(Alun Michael) But it is true, is it not, that if
British Waterways were to disregard its statutory responsibilities,
have a rush of blood to the head under less benevolent leadership,
and think of doing something because it saw a commercial advantage,
that is the point where the very clear separation of responsibilities,
and the responsibilities as regulator of the Environment Agency,
are a powerful reassurance, and the fact that they have to look
to English Nature as part of their processes I think does provide
the sort of reassurance that you are looking for, and indeed which
I think is very important.
Chairman
27. I think all the members have asked everything
they want to. Is there anything you wanted to say before we finish,
Minister?
(Alun Michael) No. I am grateful for the opportunity
of exploring it. I think very often it is only when there is a
major conflict that interest is taken in these issues, and I think
it is quite constructive to explore the way that it has worked
and has actually enabled questions to be asked and answers to
be given. I take a very positive message from your invitation
to be here today.
Chairman: It is useful sometimes to have it
on the record. Thank you for coming along.
|
