Examination of Witnesses(Questions 402-419)
MS JULIE
HESKETH, DR
PHILIP CHOWN
AND PROFESSOR
DAVID TAYLOR
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER 2002
Chairman
402. Welcome to the Committee. For the record,
Julie Hesketh is the Head of Environmental Policy at the Chemical
Industries Association, Mr Philip Chown is the Team Leader at
the Water and Environmental Consultancy HSE Group, BP plc, and
Professor David Taylor is the Head of Environmental Strategy for
Astra Zeneca. Is all that right?
(Ms Hesketh) All present and correct.
403. Your submission to us sort of says that
this Directive is the end of the world, as we know it. Am I exaggerating
or are you really so apocalyptic in your mood?
(Ms Hesketh) I think "apocalyptic"
is really not a word that we would use. I think the Water Framework
Directive offers a lot of benefits for society as a whole and
indeed the chemical industry in terms of the level playing field
and so on. On the whole, we welcomed the Directive when it was
first published. We very much supported the common position that
went through. I think the problems that we see with the Directive
were inserted at the very last minute during the conciliation
process and there are a number of, I think, ill-thought-through
amendments that were made at the very last minute during that
conciliation process that do cause us problems. Some of them are
potentially insurmountable and some of them, depending on the
way that the Directive is interpreted, could prove impossible,
but I think with the Common Implementation Programme which is
going on in Europe, we might find a way through them.
404. You say they are insurmountable, but nobody
is going to find a way through them, are they, by definition?
(Ms Hesketh) True, but—
405. Would you like to tell us which the insurmountable
ones are.
(Ms Hesketh) If you might allow me actually to go
back, I will take your question and tell you which are the particular
problems for us, but I would like, if I may, to say a little bit
about the process which got us into these difficulties in the
first place just by way of background. The last-minute changes
which were inserted in the Directive came in during the conciliation
process, right at the very last minute. The conciliation process
is the process in Europe by which the European Council, Parliament
and the Commission get together—
406. Yes, we know.
(Ms Hesketh) We found it a very difficult process
to become engaged in and to influence and to understand exactly
what was going on and we understand that the key players in that
process found the same too. It was a very short process which
added a number of very ill-thought-through, last-minute changes
to the Directive. Now, the conciliation process is really the
point at which this Directive started to become a very difficult
Directive to implement. It is our view that we really need to
start, and perhaps the UK Government needs to start, thinking
about how we can effect that conciliation process and perhaps
come up with a better format for agreeing directives in the first
place.
407. That is a procedural point, but for good
or ill, this Directive is now agreed, so we have all got to find
a way of living with it. Could you spell out which you think are
the bits of it which, for whatever reason, now are uncopable with
and could you spell out the bits which can be coped with and how
the coping may take place?
(Ms Hesketh) They are three-fold. The particular problem
with the chemical industry now is that the list of priority substances
which was agreed in draft when the Directive was prepared and
which was arrived at by a scientific process has had an additional
tier included at the last minute of priority hazardous substances.
Secondly, there were a number of phrases which were inserted in
the Directive and the main one causing us problems is "cessation
or phase-out or ceasing of emissions of particular substances".
That was inserted with no indication as to what that meant. Finally,
another provision was shoe-horned into the Directive at the last
moment and that was to include a provision for a new Groundwater
Directive which must be brought in very quickly by the end of
the year.
408. You have described these as insurmountable,
so what do you do about them then? They are in the Directive and
we are going to have to deal with them. Now, if you say they are
insurmountable, I do not see how we sort of deal with this.
(Professor Taylor) If I can give you an example, Chairman,
of an insurmountable problem with the Directive, the Directive
specifies a number of priority hazardous substances and the wording
of the Directive implies that emissions of these must be reduced
to zero with a relatively short timescale of 20 years. One of
those substances is a naturally-occurring material called polyaromatic
hydrocarbon. Those appear as a result of all combustion processes.
If they have to be reduced to zero, the only way to reduce them
to zero is to eliminate all combustion processes. That is quite
a challenging and insurmountable problem. The only way around
that is to find some mechanism within the subsequent directives,
the daughter directives, which will allow some leeway within that,
but that appears to us in the chemical industry to be a very difficult
issue.
409. But one of the characteristics of the Directive
is that the Commission has set up a series of sort of controlling
substances, as it were, which are there to manage the implementation
and to manage the interpretation and indeed the Commission has
made quite a point of saying that the UK shared more than anybody
else on these. Do you think that perhaps if everybody in every
other country is discovering that there is an insurmountable problem
here, because presumably this phenomenon is not unique to the
United Kingdom, therefore, presumably everybody has got to get
together and find a way through it? Do you not believe that there
is a mechanism built in which might be able to find a way through
this?
(Professor Taylor) I do not believe there is a mechanism
built into the Directive, Chairman. You are quite right to say
that there is a Common Implementation Strategy developing in the
Community whereby the Member States get together actually to achieve
a sensible interpretation, that is fine where there are things
that you can interpret within the Directive, and there are a number
of those where there are uncertainties about what things actually
mean. In the case of the zero emissions process, it is not exactly
uninterpretable. We know what it means and indeed the European
Commission's legal opinion tells us what it means, the difficulties
arise in putting that into place. As for making changes to the
Directives when we find out that something is impossible. Well,
the answer shown by the Groundwater Directive passed in 1980 is
no, it does not. It just means that most European Member States
fall into default, so that is not a very satisfactory way to pursue
European law.
410. So insurmountable at the moment and you
think probably going to remain insurmountable unless a means is
found to revisit in some shape or form. What about the ones which
are surmountable, but will actually be a bit of hard work and
a hard slog doing it?
(Professor Taylor) There are a number of areas where
debate will need to take place within the Community about the
meanings of certain phrases within the Directive. With goodwill,
most of those can be achieved, although there will be a cost to
doing so. Of course the difficulties then become as to where those
costs are actually apportioned. The control of diffuse sources
will be an issue in that area. Everybody recognises that diffuse
sources are now one of the most significant parts of the pollution
we have left in the environment, but controlling those sources
will be difficult and will require agreement from all the stakeholders
as to where the costs should lie.
Mrs Shephard
411. Now that we have actually got a Directive,
what contacts are you making with our Government about your concerns
over these insurmountable problems because clearly one route is
to work via Member States? My second question, which follows on
from that, is what contact do you have with associations and organisations
like yourself in other Member States and what are they doing about
these insurmountable problems?
(Ms Hesketh) The Chemical Industries Association has
a good relationship with DEFRA on many issues and we are in contact
with them over a number of issues. We have been working with my
opposite number in the water team looking particularly at priority
hazardous substances. They have involved us in their first consultation.
We are involved in a second consultation and their Stakeholder
Forum which meets at the end of the month and which brings together
organisations like the chemical industry, the water industry,
RSPB and other environmental groups. In terms of what is going
on in Europe, we have a European association, CEFIC, which the
CIA is a member of and that is for most Member States and some
outside of Europe too. CEFIC have tried to engage with the Commission
on the Water Framework Directive and in fact they have been involved
all the way through the negotiations on the Directive and fairly
successfully, so we have had a good relationship there. I think
now that the Directive has been passed, we have a place on one
of the Common Implementation Strategy working groups, but we have
found it quite difficult to engage in areas on priority hazardous
substances, for instance, but we do have people around the table,
although we are just one voice amongst many.
412. It is one thing having a nice relationship
and being part of the stakeholder group, but it is another achieving
something and being heard. From what you have said, you have not
been heard because you have described these obstacles as insurmountable,
which must mean they have not been surmounted, so is there much
point in being part of this good relationship with the stakeholder
group because that, I think, is your only way through?
(Ms Hesketh) No, I agree. I think the Stakeholder
Forum is a useful forum. The issues that it is dealing with at
the moment are issues around identifying catchments, the geography
and the topography of the country, looking at monitoring programmes
and perhaps the things which affect other stakeholders more than
us. The work that is going on on priority hazardous substances,
I think, is happening more in the Commission and, with them, we
are looking at setting quality standards. I think our time for
more active participation in the DEFRA Stakeholder Forum will
perhaps come a little further down the line.
413. It seems a waste of your expertise and
the extremely clear views that you have when we do not always
have such clarity of views expressed in front of this Committee.
It seems a pity that those things are in a sense being wasted
because apparently you are not being heard if the problems are
insurmountable still.
(Ms Hesketh) I think when DEFRA decides that it is
time to tackle the issues in that Stakeholder Forum, we will be
there. We have a place at the table and we are engaged in it already.
I think having become involved in the process early on will make
it easier for us to be heard at the stage at which we want to
make our points.
David Taylor
414. In your submission, at the start of paragraph
11, you note, in your view, "It is presently impossible to
estimate the total potential costs to process industries of implementation
of the Water Framework Directive", but then in 17 later on,
you do acknowledge that the `Polluter Pays' principle ought to
lead to some contribution from the CIA members towards their share
of the environmental emissions and the associated costs. Have
you not made any attempt at all, even if it is a range of costs,
from the minimalist to the gold-plated, as to what the impact
on your industry might be? No attempt at all made?
(Dr Chown) The problem really with that is sort of
the issues my colleagues have already raised about the issues
brought into the Directive towards the end of the process at the
conciliation stage. There are a number of areas which make it
very difficult to come up with a realistic estimate of cost, particularly
in these issues of zero emission or cessation of discharge, some
of the issues around groundwater and under the requirements for
groundwater, if we really are, for example, talking about turning
all areas of groundwater into quality drinking water, which could
be an interpretation, and the monitoring which then might need
to go with that. I think it is entirely right and proper that
the chemical industry sees itself in a situation where it should
be contributing to the costs and we fully acknowledge that. We
entirely support the Polluter Pays principle from that perspective.
What is difficult for us is to come up with a realistic estimate
of what the costs involved may be, for the reasons that I have
suggested. The business that we are in, I am a scientist and I
try to work as best as I can on fact and it is very difficult
for me to work on fact when there are so many imponderables in
trying to come up with an estimate.
(Professor Taylor) If I can add to that, one of the
difficulties here is that we talk glibly about a list of priority
hazardous substances, but of course this is not a list. So far
we have eleven substances which are identified as priority hazardous,
but that list is an open-ended one and every four years it is
going to be reviewed by the Commission and additional substances
added to it. Therefore, to come up with a cost at the moment for
removing all those to zero is quite an impossible task.
415. Is that always going to remain so though?
You have described it as very difficult, but is that really a
code for saying, "Impossible, we can't do it"?
(Dr Chown) I do not think I would say that it was
impossible. It will improve and become easier to do so as the
definition becomes clearer. If you look at some of the estimates
which have been made by others, DEFRA have a number ranging from
one billion to four billion and they caveat that with, "This
is an approximate estimate". The Commission themselves, in
looking at the costs, bringing in consultants who look at the
same issues, have come up with a number of statements which basically
say, "It might not be very much, but it could be a very large
sum of money".
416. Is there a fair and accurate method of
allocating these costs in two broad areas to identify the point
sources and diffuse sources?
(Dr Chown) I think in terms of point sources, the
issue is reasonably clear-cut, that there are mechanisms already
in place both in the UK and other Member States through regulatory
charges and through various discharge and control charges which
enable that to be done. Where it becomes more difficult is this
source issue. There are a number of issues there which make it
much more difficult to handle. I would say no, I do not think
there is an effective mechanism in place to do that at present.
417. Will there be some household emissions
which are linked to the use of your industry's products and, if
you agree with that, should the consumer pay at the point of use
or should the industry pay at the point of production? One which
springs to mind immediately is that which my namesake, Professor
David Taylor of Astra Zeneca would know about, which is the non-use
in a sense of pharmaceuticals as well as those which are passed
through the human frame.
(Professor Taylor) It is an interesting question as
to whether the consumer should pay and, as you quite rightly interpret,
at the end of the day the consumer pays for all environmental
costs, whether that starts out by the producer paying and passing
it on down the supply chain or the consumer paying at the point
of use. Which one you choose, I think, depends upon what outcome
you want and what there is controlling what you exert. If you
are talking about waste pharmaceuticals, then clearly waste pharmaceuticals
should not be going into the drainage system, but they should
be, as we encourage people to do, returned to the pharmacist so
that they can be disposed of properly.
418. But they do?
(Professor Taylor) We try to encourage people not
to do that, but, as you know, changing the behaviour of individuals
in society is quite difficult, as we find with recycling.
419. Yes, that is wasted in the sense that you
define it, but then the proper use of pharmaceuticals still leads
to waste products entering the water system.
(Professor Taylor) Yes, and that is an inevitable
consequence of the use of pharmaceutical products.
|
