Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
16 JUNE 2004
SIR BRIAN
BENDER, MR
ANDREW BURCHELL
AND MR
LUCIAN HUDSON
Q80 Alan Simpson: I am grateful that
you have been as open about that as you have. Can I move on to
the last of those points to which you made reference, which is
in relation to the broader discussions? On page 51 you do make
the point about your duties. May I ask whether you are saying
to the other Government ministers and departments that there is
not a case for ducking the stand in relation to fuel duties? Can
you tell me whether you are making the case to the Department
of Transport that aviation fuel duties cannot be exempt from those
discussions and are they returning your calls?
Sir Brian Bender: I think I prefer
not to get into the first part of your question on fuel duty increases
and what discussion may or may not be taking place within Government.
On the second part of the question, it is government policy, first
of all, as I said earlier, to have aviation emissions covered
in the next stage of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. That
is something that is collectively agreed and will be pursued in
Government. There is discussion going on in Government at the
moment about the whole issue of taxation of aviation fuel, but
the general feeling on that across Government is that this is
a multilateral issue not just an EU issue.
Q81 Alan Simpson: Chairman, you wanted
me to try and link this with my second question which is about
fuel poverty. It does link in. Joan Ruddock, in an earlier question,
linked this in terms of carbon emissions to the fuel poverty strategy.
She asked about the budget for this. Your reply, Sir Brian, was
to say that you could not say at this stage how the cake would
be cut. Can I just come back to that specifically and ask you
whether you have put a bid in as a department for the 50% increase
in spending that the Fuel Poverty Advisor Group had told the Government
is needed for the warm front budget if their legal commitments
to eradicate fuel poverty are going to be met?
Sir Brian Bender: First of all,
we entirely accept the commitment is there for 2010 for vulnerable
households. Secondly, I do not believe Government accepts the
50% figure, but it does accept there needs to be a budget increase.
I think there is a debate to be had with the Fuel Policy Advisory
Group about the quantum. They produced their views and those are
valuable. Thirdly, is this an area where the Department is seeking,
in the Spending Review, to allocate additional resources? Yes.
Q82 Alan Simpson: Do you think that is
adequately reflected in your PSA requirements targets?
Sir Brian Bender: No. We certainly
discussed it last week and I suspect we discussed a year ago before
this Committee that our PSA target is the wrong target. We have
achieved it, which is great because we have treated the relevant
number of households. I imagine therefore that their fuel efficiency
has improved as a result. We do not know how many of those it
will have been taken out of fuel poverty. There has been an improvement,
and so in the most recent data, in 2002, the number of fuel-poor
households is 1.4 million but the target is meaningless. Therefore
what we are looking for, quite apart from the budget and the Spending
Review—and I do not think there is any difficulty in agreeing
this with the Treasury—is a target that addresses the requirement
as you described it a while ago: moving towards removing fuel-poor,
vulnerable households by the years 2010, something like that.
Q83 Alan Simpson: You would accept that
this numbers game that we have been playing in terms of meeting
the target is only relevant as long as you accept that the word
"reduce" in your PSA agreement rather than the actual
commitment or supposed agreement, which is the ending of fuel
poverty.
Sir Brian Bender: The aim is to
eliminate fuel poverty. There happens to be a legal commitment
as well, which matters just a bit, and that is what the policy
should be about. The current target of treating 600,000 households
is useful but it is not actually directly linked to and measuring
progress towards that target. It is bound it have some impact
on it but it is the wrong target.
Q84 Alan Simpson: Again, just to be clear,
it is useful but only in the sense of saying that you can meet
those targets by giving each household a couple of low-energy
light bulbs and it actually says nothing about whether they are
removed from fuel poverty, other than that under current rules
they are not even going to get a second bite of the cherry. Can
we just have as a committee an assurance from you that the targets
you will be working to in your PSA agreement for the coming year
are going to move away from the nonsense of a target that could
be met with two low-energy light bulbs?
Sir Brian Bender: There are two
answers. First of all, I fervently hope that when the outcome
of the Spending Review is announced and published with the new
PSA, which actually only bites from April next year, that PSA
will be a meaningful target of the sort that you are describing.
That is a matter for discussion between the Department and the
Treasury but I hope and believe we will get a meaningful target.
The second thing is that we still need to publish, and will do
I think in the not too distant future and in the light of the
Spending Review outcome, the Fuel Poverty Implementation Plan.
Again, that will need to address never mind the current PSA target
but the elimination of fuel poverty. I do not think there is any
disagreement between what I am trying to say and your line of
questioning.
Q85 Alan Simpson: Under the Home Energy
Conservation Act, the Department was under a duty to publish progress
reports in terms of the data, not just warm words. As I understand
it, the Seventh Progress Report under Haskins should now be complete.
I would like to know when you anticipate being able to produce
the data relating to that?
Sir Brian Bender: Perhaps I can
come back to the Committee on that point?
Q86 Mr Lepper: I have some quick questions
on a couple of the indicators that are used under PSA Target 3
on natural heritage. This Committee will be publishing a report
quite soon on sites of special scientific interests and so I will
not dwell on that too much this afternoon.[7]
The target remains at bringing 95% of SSSIs into favourable condition
by 2010. From what you say in the departmental report, you are
pretty optimistic that that target will be met. That is so, is
it not? There is no doubt about that?
Sir Brian Bender: What page are
you looking at?
Q87 Mr Lepper: It is page 258, Appendix
4.
Sir Brian Bender: We have made
a good start. The current figure, as you will probably know from
your inquiry, is 62.9% on target. The aim for next spring, which
we and English Nature are committed to, is 67% We have not yet
done the analysis of what we call the trajectories to get from
67% to the 95% Like many, this is a challenging target. Good progress
is being made. There is very good joint working with English Nature.
There is a much better understanding than there was a year ago
about the different factors that affect the conditions of SSSI
sites, and so we are much more on the case than we were this time
last year. I hope your report will at least reflect that. This
is a challenging target.
Q88 Mr Lepper: The Minister seemed quite
confident when he appeared before us. I am sure that confidence
will feed its way throughout the Department. Obviously the Government
will reply to our report when it is published.
Sir Brian Bender: On the point
I made about our ability to assess progress, we are expecting
to be in a position to do that for the autumn Performance Report.
At the moment, we have the target; we know the measures we are
putting in place; we know the work we are doing; we know the progress
we have made. Getting from there to the 95% with the mix of measures
and the trajectory of the assessment of progress should be available
when we publish our autumn Performance Report.
Q89 Chairman: Just to probe you about
the use of the language in this thing, it says here: "It
is only in light of this figure that we are able to set a trajectory
for increasing the area in favourable condition . . ." I
did a bit of calculating on this and all I saw was a straight
linear progression at 6% a year. The idea of a trajectory to me
when you are talking about a shell is that it goes up and comes
down, and yet you have already seemingly worked out the rate at
which improvements are going to be achieved. I do not understand
why you say here that you are working to establish this pathway,
trajectory, against which progress will be achieved when in actual
fact you have defined it because you have said it is going to
be 56.9 in 2003 to 95% in 2010.
Sir Brian Bender: The terminology
of trajectory in terms of delivering against PSAs actually means
looking at the different mix of policy instruments. We were talking
earlier about the different instruments on waste; here we are
talking about the different instruments on CAP reform.
Q90 Chairman: Why do you not say that
instead of using this mystical language about trajectory, which
is more at home in the Ministry of Defence's commentary on how
shells go up and down than it is in terms of how you are moving
towards meeting an important target?
Sir Brian Bender: I am afraid
it is terminology that is used in government at the moment on
PSA.
Q91 Chairman: This report is for people
who are not part of government but who want to read what you are
doing. This is a classic piece of gobbledegook.
Sir Brian Bender: We will plain
English proof it next year, Chairman.
Q92 Mr Lepper: I will make a brief comment
on the other indicator I was interested in. SSSI is one and farmland
birds is another where again I think there is an air of confidence
which I hope is well founded in the Department's report. The fact
remains that the number of farmland species is still only at 60%
of its 1970 levels. Looking at the weekly lines on graphs here—and
I will not call them trajectories—there does seem to be
a lot of fluctuation on the graphs from one year to another. There
is a confidence there still that targets will be met.
Sir Brian Bender: This is a long-term
target, as you will appreciate. We are talking here about 2020.
The first milestone is to stabilise the index by 2009 and then
get it moving upwards. We believe, from the data we have, that
the decline is slowing. What we do not know yet is whether that
is a long-term trend and therefore, taking the reverse of the
shell, whether the trajectory will start moving upwards.
Q93 David Taylor: The word trajectory
is a useful one, is it not? PSA 3 in 2000, and I am now talking
about the recycling and composting of household waste, had a target,
did it not, of 17% of such waste being recycled by now? You are
reasonably confident in your report that because the figures by
the end of 2002-03 were 14.9% that 17% would probably be achieved.
I will not dissent from that particularly. Is not your use of
the phrase "on course" for the PSA 6 in 2002 to be recycling
25% of household waste by 31 March 2006 perhaps a tad overoptimistic?
That phrase has been chosen has it not because it is useful when
you are debating your CSR bids to have something on target by
some trajectory that has never ever been experienced or evidenced
in past statistical trends.
Sir Brian Bender: I think it was
last year before the Committee one of the members said, "This
target is impossible". I said, "It is very challenging".
The member of the Committee said "Quite". Since then,
we have recorded a two percentage point increase and so there
is, and I am choosing my words carefully and trying to speak plain
English, an acceleration in the improvement here. Having started
at around 7.5% in 1996-97, we are now at 14.5% with two percentage
points increase in 2002-03.
David Taylor: I am not disputing the
17% figure. I think you are probably right. The fact remains that
we have to increase by 50% the amount being recycled at the moment
within less than two years.
Sir Brian Bender: We have a series
of different measures: the Waste Improvement Programme, the statutory
targets, the increase in Landfill Tax, the onset soon of the Landfill
Allowance Trading Scheme. If the Chairman will forgive me, the
recent work we have been doing on the impact of these measures
on the trajectory makes us believe this is achievable. Using the
language we are allowed to use, "on course" and "slippage?"
and so on, I would not say at the moment that we had slipped on
this. I would say it is achievable and therefore we are saying
it is on course, but it is a challenging target.
Q94 David Taylor: In the scales of the
senior civil service, how would you describe "challenging"?
Sir Brian Bender: Difficult. I
am sorry; I do not know if this is all senior civil servants or
just myself. When Defra was created and I looked at the PSAs we
had inherited, I thought this was the most difficult. I believe
now that it is achievable. That does not mean we will achieve
it.
Q95 David Taylor: Is it not the case
that for some local authorities, like my own in North-West Leicestershire
that are very cash strapped, the actual operation of recycling
and composting is rather more expensive than the traditional methods
of waste disposal and they are really struggling to drive their
percentage levels higher because they lack the financial resources
to improve the systems to the necessary extent? Is that not an
experience shared by other local authorities?
Sir Brian Bender: It is and what
we have got better at in the last year, working with the Local
Government Association and now working with IDeA[8]is
actually working out what does drive up local authority improvements
and what does not and sharing best practice. IDeA are going to
identify some peer review work and Elliot Morley announced at
the beginning of the calendar year that another £20 million
will be made available as a one-off, targeted grant to ease spending
pressures on waste. There are obviously PFI opportunities as well.
What we are trying to do is identify a much more target-specific
approach and a mixture of sticks and carrots for each local authority
so that the ones that are not performing well will get special
treatment.
Q96 David Taylor: I heard your answers
to David Burnside. I strongly endorse the promotion of the work
you are doing in relation to the importance of minimising waste
and all that goes with that. I think that is fine and I applaud
it.
Sir Brian Bender: The other thing
we are doing on waste minimisation, and which WRAP[9]are
doing on our behalf, is working with the retailers who are much
better placed than Government to actually understand what consumers
might or might want and influence them by reducing the amount
of packaging. That work is progressing fairly well according to
WRAP.
David Taylor: I counsel caution on any
PFI project because, to use your word, their trajectory of cost
might well suggest cost effectiveness in the early years of any
contract but that may well balloon to unaffordable levels rather
later down the line.
Q97 Joan Ruddock: I want to follow that
up by looking at the Landfill Directive on biodegradable waste
and perhaps look at the first target of running down by 2010 to
75% of 1995 levels. Are we on course? A lot of people do not think
we are.
Sir Brian Bender: I am reading
what my brief says on this. I will choose my words carefully:
Achievement of the 2005-06 standards will contribute to the diversion
of biodegradable waste from landfill and put us well on the way
to meeting the landfill obligations.
Q98 Joan Ruddock: Do you have a review
of those targets under way?
Sir Brian Bender: The first review
that is under way is the current discussions with the Treasury
both on resourcing and on the Public Service Agreement target.
For a Spending Review that spans into 2007-08, clearly the 25%
biodegradables target by 2005-06 is not relevant. The question
is therefore whether the new PSA target should refer to the Landfill
Directive objective, but we have said we would review this year
the national recycling targets. The review will be at around the
end of the year because we need first of all to have the Audit
Commission's initial, unaudited results for the 2003-04 performance
of local government, which we expect before the summer break,
and, secondly, we need to have finalised the work on the resourcing
and new PSA target. We would plan to have reviewed the statutory
recycling targets by the end of the calendar year.
Q99 Joan Ruddock: Then what might you
have to do, given that you are clearly not certain that you can
meet your 2010 Landfill Directive targets?
Sir Brian Bender: I am going to
start using the word trajectory again if I am not careful and
get into trouble with the Chairman. What we will need to do is
look at the mix of effects of landfill tax, what the effect of
the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme is likely to be, and of
course it will not be in yet, and how we might do more to prepare
local government to use it effectively, and other measures in
the Waste Improvement Programme that I was describing earlier
in response to Mr Taylor. We will be looking at the mix of measures
and what part expenditure might play, what part sharing best practice
with local government might play. There are a number of PFI projects
that are in the pipeline which may help on these issues, but beyond
that I do not want to be drawn as to where we might be by the
end of this calendar year.
7 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fourteenth
Report of Session 2003-04, Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
Conserving the jewels of England's natural heritage, HC 475. Back
8
Improvement and Development Agency. Back
9
Waste Resources Action Programme. Back
| 
