Examination of Witnesses(Questions 560-579)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
DANIEL INSTONE
AND MR
STEPHEN REEVES
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2002
560. One of the other issues which concerns
us and has been expressed to us about the Environment Agency is
about the possible conflict of roles. Its purpose in one respect
is to advise on a range of environmental issues and now it will
also become the enforcer in relation to those same issues. For
instance, on the river basin management plans, as I understand
it, the Environment Agency will both help to draw up the plans
and will also presumably, as competent authority, further down
the line make decisions about the effectiveness of them.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
561. Are you troubled at all about that possible
conflict of roles?
(Mr Morley) Not really because of course that applies
now in a range of issues, such as the work it does on advising
on water quality, water management, abstraction and discharge,
where it provides advice to a range of people, but it is also
the regulatory body as well and provides regulation and, on occasion,
enforces it too, so there is nothing different in that respect
about how the Agency works and I think that works reasonably well
at the present time, so I see no reason why it should not work
in relation to the implementation of the Directive.
562. A concern that Severn Trent in particular
expressed in their written evidence to us related to that was
this: they say, "We believe strongly that the Environment
Agency should not be involved in taking decisions which are of
a political and economic nature. While they are clearly experts
in the environmental field and are thus well placed to support
the Government in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive,
their role cannot extend into areas for which they have no democratic
mandate". Now, that was the view of Severn Trent. I know
you have explained to us earlier the sense in which there is a
democratic accountability, if not mandate, but could you comment
on that?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I am a bit puzzled about some of
those claims because the Environment Agency does not take political
decisions. The Environment Agency's job is to work within the
agreed framework laid down by Parliament within the Acts of Parliament
and European Directives, so in that sense what the Agency does
is work within the framework which is set democratically and is
democratically accountable. Of course the Agency itself does consult
very closely with the various stakeholders, with ourselves in
relation to DEFRA, and there is a very close interchange. It does
not work in a vacuum or in isolation and its job is to work within
the framework set out by Parliament.
Mrs Shephard
563. Could I just bring you back to what David
Lepper suggested and that was that there might be a conflict between
the roles of adviser and enforcer on the part of the Environment
Agency and can you not see the practical implications of this,
for example, for a farmer who might well invite somebody on to
his farm to give advice and then finds that he is jumped on from
a great height because the same office, not necessarily the same
officer, has had reported to it a situation on the farm which
deserves some sort of punitive action? Do you not see that as
a practical application?
(Mr Morley) I can see the point that you are making,
but it is not unique, is it? If you take the farming example,
the SVS is there to advise and support, but on occasion the SVS
will bring a prosecution in terms of enforcement.
564. Well, perhaps I could draw your attention
to another analogy which I think might work better and that is
the case of OFSTED. OFSTED has the task of analysing problems,
but not the task of advising how to put them right—that
is delegated to local authorities—and that works much better
and there is no reason why you should not have that model if you
want to have trust and actually cooperation from agriculture.
What you are saying is that this is working fine as it is. Well,
maybe it is, but we are also talking about a new ball game in
terms of the Directive. Do you not think you ought to look at
a different model which already exists?
(Mr Morley) It is a new ball game in the sense of
the range of the Directive, but I think the logic of what you
are saying is that there would have to be some new kind of organisation,
and I think what we also have to be a bit wary of is duplication
of bureaucracy and structures, having parallel organisations,
having more committees, which are not giving you very much in
relation to added value, but just increasing costs and bureaucracy.
That has to be a consideration as well and I am not saying that
we should not look at structures because I think it is quite right
and proper that we do address questions such as those that the
Committee are raising, but I just think in terms of what you are
saying in relation to the Water Framework Directive, it is an
extension really of the way that the Environment Agency operates
at the present time and I am not myself convinced that there will
be a great deal to be gained by having some kind of new parallel
organisation which will be involved in the implementation.
565. Well, I think that you should look at this
again. If you want this thing to work and if you want people's
cooperation, as you constantly say that you do and we do hear
the word "partnership" quite often—
(Mr Morley) Yes.
566.—then it seems to me that you should
listen to the concerns of at least one group of people who are
going to be key in all of this.
(Mr Morley) Sure.
567. You also just said that agriculture is
key in terms of pollution. May I suggest that you look at this,
that you look at the way, say, OFSTED works. You do not need vast
committees, endless partnerships and all the rest of it and you
have advisory groups in place. There are a number of imaginative
ways in which this could be solved, some of which was suggested
to us by the NFU last week, for example, and I think if you are
really looking at genuine partnership, then it might be an idea
to look at an alternative way of making this work. I think you
might well be surprised by the degree of warm cooperation you
would get from the NFU in getting suggestions from them about
how it might work.
(Mr Morley) The NFU are part of our stakeholder group
and at this stage in terms of the developments and implementation
of the Directive, we are going through the consultation procedures
and, therefore, we are open to ideas and we are open to suggestions
and we will give them careful consideration. I would just say
that in terms of my own views, I also know from talking to the
NFU that they are not very keen on duplicating lots of structures
and bureaucracy and it is always an issue which they raise with
us, so we have to take that into account as well, but in terms
of suggestions of structures, we will always look at those.
Paddy Tipping
568. I would just like to stick with agriculture
for a bit because you told us that agriculture is a big polluter
and you were kind of half saying to us that good farming practices
make a difference. Is there not a bit of resistance to change
within the farming community and how are you going to make sure
that these good farming practices actually take place?
(Mr Morley) Well, we already produce codes of guidance
on soil and water, for example, and there has been a big change
in, for example, the use of fertilisers and pesticides. It is
not in the farmers' interest to over-apply. It is not in their
interest; these are costly inputs and of course farmers are seeking
to use them in the most efficient way possible to minimise the
use and of course that is also very good practice in relation
to minimising pollution, but there are very basic issues of codes
of standards, for example, as to when you apply, the kind of weather
you apply in, how you apply, and this is generally well understood
by farmers. There is also new technology in relation to applicators
which minimise the applications and in fact the very latest technology
is based on GPS and can actually apply different parts of inputs
in different levels in the one field according to the soil quality
and the need. These are all very desirable developments which
are also very efficient in relation to agricultural practice,
but there are some basics which, if they are followed, do minimise
the risks of pollution and run-off and they are encapsulated in
the codes which we make available free of charge to the agricultural
sector. Also, as part of the implementation of the Food and Farming
Commission, there is the idea of setting up demonstration farms
which can demonstrate a range of techniques, and I always think
that is very useful in terms of practical, first-hand experience
as farmers do like to go and see what other farmers are doing
and they do like to see it being demonstrated in a practical way,
so I think the demonstration farm process is a good one. There
is also the possibility of the way that we use our own environment
programmes in relation to reducing inputs as well. Therefore,
I think there is a range of tools available to us in relation
to reducing agricultural run-off, many of which should not be
terribly burdensome on farmers. Now, it is going to be different
in different places and different conditions and we do accept
that, but, nevertheless, it is an issue that we cannot ignore
given the dominance of agriculture in some aspects of pollution
run-off.
569. I would agree with all of that, I agree
with the codes and I think the demonstration farms are a good
idea, but there will be in some situations some resistance to
change. How are we going to make that step change because you
have already told us that the NFU were not keen on other inspection
methods, so how are we going to police this?
(Mr Morley) Well, it is costs and the implementation
which the NFU are understandably concerned about in relation to
its members, but there will have to be policing. The Environment
Agency will have the principal responsibility for that and they
will apply inspections on a risk-based system which I think is
the right way of doing that. It is a question of also trying to
convince people about the kind of changes which need to be taken
and also the various ways that pollution can be minimised by good
practice and that is underway at the present time. In my experience,
there is a lot of interest in this. It is probably a very small
minority who are unwilling to cooperate in these issues and it
is like all things in that where you have a small minority who
are unwilling or just obstructive, then of course you do on occasions
need regulations to enforce measures and they are in place as
well.
570. In a sense, when you talked about agri-environment
schemes, you were half hinting, I think, that there could be some
kind of fiscal instruments here. The entry-level scheme is yet
to be designed and rolled out, there is a review of agri-environment
schemes going on at the moment, but all this in effect implies
a switching of funding from agriculture or, as they say in the
trade, from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2.
(Mr Morley) That is right, yes.
571. Is CAP reform and further modulation inevitable
if we are going to get this Directive in place?
(Mr Morley) Well, we are committed ourselves to modulation
and we are currently the only country which is doing so, though
it is likely that Germany will implement a modulation scheme.
Under the proposals of the Curry Commission, he is recommending
that we move from a rising modulation of 4.5% maximum to 10% and
that will of course give us considerably more funds to put into
the Pillar 2 approach to agriculture. I think what is clear is
that is the way that agricultural support is going to go and that
there are going to be less funds for production support and subsidy
and there are going to be more resources for environmental management
and rural development. I think that is in the interests of agriculture
both in this country and in Europe, but it will also give us a
lot more flexibility in terms of implementing schemes which might
address particular problems of diffuse pollution, so it is desirable
in terms of the range of tools which are available and the range
of support that we can give to farmers.
572. Are you confident that within the Commission
there is an awareness that agricultural policies and environmental
policies to link with the Directive are properly joined together?
(Mr Morley) I am absolutely convinced that the Commission
are well aware of this and they believe that it is the way to
go not only in terms of providing opportunities for doing what
we are talking about today in relation to pollution and management
of water quality, but they also see it as essential in relation
to future world trade objectives and I have no doubt whatsoever
that Franz Fischler is entirely signed up to this approach.
573. Just a quickie on diffuse pollution from
other sources, cars are big polluters, so how will we tackle that?
(Mr Morley) Yes, we are going to have to look at the
issue of pollution from roads and motorways, for example, because
there is a range of sources of diffuse pollution of which agriculture
is one, and we acknowledge that, and that is part of the consultation
that we have just launched.
574. What are the solutions?
(Mr Morley) Well, that will be looked at as part of
the consultation process, but there are solutions to highway run-off
in the way that they are dealt with. Some of those solutions are
not always put in place of course.
575. And who is going to pay?
(Mr Morley) Well, certainly in relation to new developments,
these measures should be built in from the very beginning as part
of the planning process. In terms of existing developments, what
we need to do is look at the impact they are having, the nature
of the pollution and the kind of steps that can be taken with
a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Mr Lepper
576. There is great emphasis placed on public
participation in developing the Directive and its implementation
and we have touched on that quite a bit in the discussions this
morning. Did DEFRA look at any models of public participation
in other parts of the European Community in relation to the Water
Framework Directive and consider the extent to which they might
or might not be appropriate in this case?
(Mr Morley) Yes, we did look at that. I know that
there are different models of consultation in different parts
of the European Union, but what we have to do of course is to
look at what is appropriate to us and also to look at the structures
we have in place. Again it does not help, I do not think, if you
are duplicating existing structures of consultation which would
not give you a great deal of additional benefit, but additional
cost and in some cases you could cause confusion by having additional
structures, so we did look at that, but we have encouraged public
participation and we believe that we are involving a wide range
of participants and of course the Environment Agency is very much
in the lead on this and they are very well experienced at public
participation, both local and regional and indeed, speaking as
someone who has often shared platforms at Environment Agency meetings,
talking to people, so they are very well experienced with this.
577. You talked about the stakeholder groups
and we touched earlier on local government involvement which you
suggested was through their membership of the stakeholder groups.
We have had no representations, so far as I am aware, to this
Committee from local authorities or from organisations representing
planners, yet clearly the Directive is going to impinge very heavily
on the work of those agencies and authorities. It may be that
they feel that the stakeholder groups and any representation they
have got there is quite sufficient for them, but certainly a theme
which has run through many of the evidence sessions we have had
is that whilst some of the major organisations, the NFU, the RSPB,
et cetera, the Country Landowners' Association, are aware of the
implications of the Directive and have a willingness and a desire
to become involved in participation, its impact on other consumers,
water consumers, the general public, for instance, and its implications
for them perhaps has not been particularly great at the moment.
Do you feel that DEFRA or indeed the Environment Agency could
be doing more in relation to that multitude of consumers out there
in making them aware of what is happening or involving the ordinary
consumers in some way in this exercise of public participation?
(Mr Morley) I absolutely accept what you are saying.
There is always an issue of how you involve the ordinary consumer,
if you want to use that expression, because that is quite challenging.
Of course it is always a lot easier to deal with representative
organisations because of course what you are doing then is you
are disseminating information and you have a two-way process which
goes backwards and forwards, but we are engaging with organisations.
Water Voice is one, which is a consumer organisation. There is
the Stakeholder Forum of which Water Voice is a part. As part
of our work across government, we talk about planning and local
authorities, and local authorities do have a key role in relation
to planning, but local authorities work within the guidance which
is laid down by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through
the planning policy guidelines, so, therefore, what we are doing
is making sure that the planning policy guidelines give the planners
the framework in which to operate with the information that they
have and of course there is an interchange of views within ODPM
in terms of its own consultation process with its own stakeholders,
and local government is one of the principal ones. Also there
has been a range of seminars and conferences which have been open
for local authorities and they have been very active participants
in that. Going back to the pilot river basin schemes, I really
see one of the strengths of that is an opportunity to involve
the wider public and to actually give people more understanding
of what the implications of the framework are and how it will
be of direct benefit of course to the general public in relation
to improving water quality at every level which is of interest
to us all.
578. I am sure you are right about that final
point. There does seem to have been a reluctance on the part of
the UK Government to get involved in a pilot study. I welcome
the fact that that has now changed, but it does seem quite a dramatic
change since we began our evidence sessions just a few weeks ago
and I am sure it has nothing to do with the views which have been
expressed to this Committee over that period of time.
(Mr Morley) You will know, Chairman, that we always
value the views of this Committee very highly.
Mr Lepper: It did have something to do with
it!
Chairman: At least it provoked a potential sharp
change in the London wholesale markets at any rate!
Mr Jack
579. Could I just ask you, Minister, to put
your hat on as Minister responsible for policy concerned with
flooding and how you see that area of policy integrating and being
involved with this Water Framework Directive because up to now
the focus of our inquiry has been on pollutants and how we can
control them because we can identify them?
(Mr Morley) That is correct.
|
