The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet
Dean
Benyon,
Mr. Richard
(Newbury)
(Con)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Flynn,
Paul
(Newport, West)
(Lab)
Griffith,
Nia
(Llanelli)
(Lab)
Hogg,
Mr. Douglas
(Sleaford and North Hykeham)
(Con)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Lepper,
David
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Lab/Co-op)
McCarthy-Fry,
Sarah
(Portsmouth, North)
(Lab/Co-op)
Mahmood,
Mr. Khalid
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
Paice,
Mr. James
(South-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Shaw,
Jonathan
(
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs
)
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Kumar,
Dr. Ashok (Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland)
(Lab)
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 23
July
2007
[Mrs.
Janet Dean
in the
Chair]
Soil Protection
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Jonathan Shaw):
I am delighted to have the
opportunity to explain to the Committee the background and
nature of the European Commissions proposal for a soil
framework directive. The origin of the proposals lies in the sixth
environmental action programme, which was agreed by the
European Council and European Parliament in 2002, and provided
a strategic framework for the Commissions environmental policy
up to 2012.
To
address the four environmental priority areas, the Commission
produced seven so-called thematic strategies, one of which was on
soils, which led to its paper, Towards a Thematic
Strategy for Soil Protection. After lengthy internal
discussions and internet consultation with selected specialist
stakeholders, the Commission finally adopted a definitive thematic
strategy for soil protection last September, accompanied by the present
proposal for a soil framework directive.
The legislative proposals mark
a significant departure from the plans outlined in the 2002
communication, which spoke only of a measure aimed at soil monitoring.
The proposed directive is broad in scope: its overall objective is to
provide a European framework for action under which member states will
identify threats to soil quality and resources and be required to
address any problems arising from within their borders. The proposals
aim to deliver a thematic strategy for soil protection in Europe,
establish common principles for the protection and sustainable use of
soils, prevent threats to soils, mitigate the effects of those threats,
preserve soil function within the context of sustainable use and
restore degraded and contaminated soils to approved levels of
functionality.
The
Commissions principal rationale for Community legislation rests
on the need to protect soils from degradation to ensure that they
deliver their known ecosystems, services and function. The Commission
recognises that aspects of soil protection are addressed in a range of
other policies, but believes that there is a need for a more
systematic, targeted approach, aimed specifically at soil protection,
to avoid the risk of gaps in coverage. It has several specific
justifications for Community action: any failure to protect soil will
undermine sustainability and long-term competitiveness in Europe;
different national soil protection regimes impose different obligations
on economic operators, thus creating an unbalanced situation regarding
their fixed costs; soil degradation in one member state can
have trans-boundary
consequences, and the damage must be addressed at source to prevent the
cost of restoring soils falling on another member state.
European action to prevent or
reduce soil contamination will complement the strict EU measures and
controls that are already in place to ensure food and feed safety.
There are five main elements to the directive. First, there are
measures to address the impact and policies likely to exacerbate or
reduce soil degradation processes, obliging member states to identify,
describe and assess the impact of those policies and make their
findings public. Secondly, there are measures to address soil erosion,
loss of organic matter, compaction, salinisation and landslides, which
oblige member states to identify areas at risk of degradation and use
the results of the risk assessment to develop a programme of measures
to minimise the risk of identified threats.
Thirdly, there are measures to
address soil contamination that will oblige member states to test
measures to limit the introduction of dangerous substances into the
soil that give rise to significant risk to human health or the
environment, and to identify all contaminated sitesthose that
give rise to significant risk to human health or the
environmentwithin a prescribed timetable, using a procedure
laid down in the directive. Member states will also be obliged to draw
up a national remediation strategy, setting out the timetable
and priorities: to ensure that all contaminated sites are remediated;
to establish funding mechanisms to ensure remediation of contaminated
sites where the responsible party cannot be found or made to pay; and
to require buyers or sellers of potentially polluted sites to provide
soil status reports describing the condition of the land at the time of
sale.
The fourth key
element involves introducing measures to limit soil sealing, obliging
member states to take appropriate steps to minimise it and mitigate its
effects using construction techniques and products allowing the
maintenance of as many soil functions as possible. Finally, the
proposed directive will require member states to take steps to raise
awareness of the need to protect soil and report back to the
Commission. It will also provide for information exchange with other
states and with stakeholders about various aspects of the
directive.
The
Commissions impact assessment provides a quantitative
assessment of soil degradation in terms of the amount of soil eroded in
what were then the 25 member states, how much soil matter is being lost
and how much in the territory is subject to contamination, sealing,
salinisation, landslides and compaction. The costs of such degradation
are estimated at €38 billion annually, or £25.7 billion,
but it is recognised that that analysis does not take into account the
contribution of existing policies to overcome degradation.
It is suggested that the costs
of implementing the directive in the EU will be about £1.36
million. The background to the proposals is outlined in the explanatory
memorandum of 17 October 2006, submitted by Lord Rooker, who was then
lead Minister with responsibility for soil. It was followed by the
supplementary explanatory memorandum of 8 May this year, which covered
the submission of the initial UK regulatory impact assessment and led
to this debate.
Particular concern has been
expressed about the over-prescriptiveness of some of the
Commissions proposed measures, particularly those dealing with
contamination and soil sealing. There has been disquiet about the
Commissions inability to quantify potential benefits and the
imprecision of its cost estimates, especially when compared with our
own regulatory impact assessment.
I emphasise that our assessment
remains provisional, but because of the continuing
lack of clarity in the Commissions explanations and the
proposed requirements, and the associated difficulty of obtaining
reliable information from the sectors potentially affected by the
likely costs, our initial analysis has led us to conclude that the
Commissions proposed measures would be disproportionately
expensive to implement and would cause difficulties due to considerable
overlap with other EU legislation. Significant changes are needed to
deliver net positive benefits nationally from a UK
perspective.
The RIA
also draws attention to the shortcomings of the Commissions
impact assessment in not providing a convincing rationale for Community
intervention. In ignoring the benefits being
delivered by current EU measures as well as overestimating those that
could be delivered by the proposed directive, particularly through its
provisions on soil sealing and dealing with contaminated sites, the
draft directive is not consistent with the Commissions own
principles of better regulation and is likely to lead to considerable
administrative burdens for little environmental
benefit.
As far as our
negotiating position is concerned, there is still not a great deal to
report. Progress under the German presidency was slow and did not move
beyond the exploratory stage, during which our concerns were echoed by
several other member states. The Portuguese presidency wants to
accelerate discussions and to achieve political agreement on the
proposals at the December 2007 Environmental Council. To facilitate
that, it has organised a number of working groupsthree in July
aloneto try to resolve member states concerns. It
intends to draw up a presidency text during the summer for discussion
at the two further working groups in September. The European Parliament
has yet to complete first reading, now not expected until autumn. A
plenary vote is scheduled for
November.
I emphasise
that whatever our misgivings about the directive, the UK Government
fully support the Commission in seeking to improve soil protection in
the EU. Protecting soil and its functions is a key pillar of the
natural environmental policy of the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, and that policy in turn forms an integral part of
our climate change agenda. We will, therefore, continue to seek
improvements in the directive to ensure that any new obligations are
evidence-based, proportionate, cost-effective and fully consistent with
the principles of better regulation and
subsidiarity.
The
Chairman:
We have until half-past 5 for questions to the
Minister, which, I remind Members, should be brief and asked one at a
time. There is likely to be ample opportunity for all Members to ask
several
questions.
Mr.
James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con): I, too, suspect that we will have plenty of time,
Mrs. Dean. I thank the Minister for his opening statement
and
welcome him to the Committee. I assume that he is now the lead Minister
for soil, if Lord Rooker is no longer, although I hope that the
Minister has higher
aspirations.
In the
Ministers conclusions, he referred to the Governments
position, and of course we support what he said about DEFRAs
role in protecting soil, but I am unclear from his statement about the
Governments specific view on European competence. Before we
consider in detail the right approachoptions 1 to 4 and so
onI would be grateful if he told us whether the Government
accept EU Commission competence on issues such as
soil.
Jonathan
Shaw:
We accept that there is a need to improve
soil across the European Community, but believe that there are huge
variations between the levels of advancement in this country and those
elsewhere. We have a history of developing green belt land and of
building on contaminated land, so I think that we are in a good
position to lead the debate. We believe that the Commission should be
involved, but that there should not be any overlap. At the moment, it
has not taken full account of our existing legislation, but I am
informed that the proposals are covered by article 175 of the European
Community treaty and by the sixth environmental action programme. I
hope that that answers the hon. Gentlemans
question.
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): May I,
too, welcome the Minister to his new and elevated role as lead Minister
for soil? We hear often about turf wars within Government; I do not
know whether this was the result of a turf
war.
Tony
Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): It is a dirty
business.
My concern is similar to that
of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: under the relevant
treaties, of course, the Commission might have competency, but the last
word of the Ministers statement was
subsidiarity, which takes the debate to another level.
Is he satisfied that in applying the principles of subsidiarity, it is
appropriate for the Commission to be taking the lead on
this?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I think that I made it clear in my
opening remarks that the Government remain concerned. Our preliminary
analysis of the proposed directive is that it is over-prescriptive, and
does not, for example, allow for existing and effective national
systems, particularly for contaminated land. That is a key principle.
Do we have our own planning system? We have a planning White Paper,
which is very relevant to the recent debate in the Chamber on flooding,
during which many Members mentioned building on flood plains. The
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responded
that we have given the Environment Agency more powers to provide advice
to local authorities. We can have a debate about
that.
On
subsidiarity, however, do we have our own planning measures in place?
We think that we have. We do not want that overlap, but we have had the
experience of clearing contaminated land through living on a small
island that once was very industrialised but now is not so much. Many of
us will have had that experience in our constituencies. We should be
able to provide that expertise in shaping the debate, and countries
should develop their own policies. The issue of borders obviously does
not affect Britain, but in the rest of continental Europe there are
concerns about contamination and soil running from one country to
another, and provisions should be in place for that. It is appropriate
for the Commission to take appropriate action, which should be
proportionate; as things stand, we are not convinced that it
is.
Paul
Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): One of the consequences of
the compaction of soil is that rainwater does not soak into the soil,
but runs off the surface at a quicker rate than previously. One of the
reasons why soil has become compacted in upland areas, particularly in
areas such as Plynlimon, which is in the catchment area for the river
Severn, is that they are overstocked by farmers with livestock,
particularly sheep. What can we do about
that?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I shall take on board my hon. Friends point
about whether farmers are overstocking. That is clearly a matter for
this country to resolve and we do not need the Commission to advise us
on it. Soil is very important, as my hon. Friend says, because of what
it does to provide essential drainage. There is also an issue of
cross-compliance. If we have a directive, it will need to comply with
other directives with regard to the grants and so on that are available
for farmers. I shall take on board my hon. Friends comment. If
he has evidence of what he says, will he please write to me?
Mr.
Paice:
The Minister might want to point out to the hon.
Member for Newport, West that since the decoupling of subsidies there
is now greater concern about understocking rather than overstocking on
the hills.
The
Minister answered my point about the
Governments attitude to EU competence, but in his opening
remarks he referred to the fact that not only the British Government,
but a number of other Governments, have expressed some concern. If that
is the case, why do not the Government work with those others and stop
this nonsense in its tracks? We can debate the issues of soil
management later; we are now questioning the principle of whether there
should be yet another framework directive. The Minister said in his
opening remarks that the Government thought that such a directive was
at least premature, if not totally unnecessary. The problem is that
once the ball starts rolling in Europe, it cannot be stopped. Surely
the sooner the framework is stopped altogether, if there is a
sufficient body of opinion elsewhere, the sooner we can get on and
address the real issues to which he rightly
refers.
Jonathan
Shaw:
Germany, in particular, is
concerned, as is France, I understand. I am advised that some of the
countries that recently joined the European Union are keen to see the
soil framework directive put in place. We have different perspectives
on the matter. We might wonder why the newer accession countries are
keen on
it, but they might have a great deal of contaminated land that they have
not managed to clean up in the same way as we have ours and Germany and
France have theirs. One can imagine that in the future, if the
directive were so prescriptive, countries might seek funds to clean up
those areas of contamination. We need to be alert to that. We are
working with other countries, and several countriesFrance and
Germany in particularare concerned about the prescription of
the directive as it has been drafted. We will continue to negotiate. We
see the need for a directive, but it needs to be
proportionate.
Mr.
Carmichael:
I should like to follow on from the question
asked by the hon. Member for Newport, West. It strikes me that by using
the modulation provisions arising from the single farm payment, the
Government can already do a great deal to improve the environmental
impact of agriculture. What does the Minister think a directive such as
this would add to the provisions, powers and facilities that the
Government already
have?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Is the hon. Gentleman asking about how we think the
directive will help
us?
Mr.
Carmichael:
I am asking about what it will
add.
Jonathan
Shaw:
We think that we are in a good position to make the
directive proportionate. We do not think that the directive, as it
stands at the moment, would add anything to what we seek to achieve.
Our initial regulatory impact assessment provides an analysis of the
costs and benefits of the proposed directive; it is only one step
towards developing a more detailed assessment. We need to understand
more about what the European Community hopes to achieve from it. The
directive sets out a framework, which it says is systematic, that
requires all areas to be identified, for example. A complete inventory
of all risk areas would be required. That would be an enormous
taskthe Government have done a lot on brownfield sites as it
is.
There are also
issues of contaminated land and soil sealing. Issues of best practice
are being considered, such as whether any materials used for sealing
could allow the best penetration of water possible. We have to use
concrete and soil sealing products; the question is about what the best
practice is. As I say, we believe that we are in a good position to
shape the debate and make the Commission understand how we have
developed practices, given that we have built on contaminated land,
especially during the past 20 years. I am thinking of developments in
the Thames Gateway and so
on.
Paul
Flynn:
Does the Minister think that the document takes
into account the profound changes that are taking place to our climate?
We have heard today that the flooding in some places in this country is
the worst since the 17th century. This year, southern Europes
climate has been more akin to that of parts of north Africa. As the
weather is likely to go on being unpredictable, is he concerned that
the document might be based on the farming practices and the use of
soil of the past, rather than on the likely new and alternative uses of
the future?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We should certainly push for stronger measures on
soil protection, given climate change. However, we are playing a
prominent role in respect of climate change. Soil is important; it
holds a great deal of carbon, especially in peat bogs. The farming
community wishes to work hard with the Government to reduce the amount
of carbon that it emits. We must use the lessons that we have
learned by working with all stakeholders. The Government
certainly intend to hold a consultation with stakeholders on the
directive, which will be starting almost immediately. We hope that
those points will be fed into the system.
Mr.
Paice:
If the Government are about to develop a
consultation, they seem to be accepting that the directive will happen.
Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with his
colleagues in the European Parliament? He said that the Parliament had
not undertaken the measures first reading yet, but I understand
that its agriculture and rural development committee has started to
debate it. The committee itself has said that the measure is premature,
that the Commission is jumping the gun, and that the directive would
create parallel legislation. Has the Minister had any discussions with
his colleagues in the European Parliament about the amendment that
would reject it all together?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman accurately about
whether there has been discussion at an official level, but I have not
had any such discussions to date. I shall certainly take on board what
he has said, write to him, and advise him and the Committee on that
point.
Mr.
Carmichael:
The Minister referred briefly to the
substantial and significant contribution that blanket bog can make to
carbon capture. My concern is that the directive is a substantial
sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. One element of that small nut
might be people who live in areas where peat is readily available for
domestic consumption. Will the Minister assure me that should the
proposal be implemented, such people, who are responsible for a tiny
proportion of the peat that is removed, will not be regulated out of an
otherwise very importantalmost
culturalactivity?
Jonathan
Shaw:
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. If we
were to use the sustainability test, it would apply to the hon.
Gentlemans example. We must ensure that our peat bogs do their
job and that people use them in the way that he describes. We do not
want disproportionate requirements that would impact hugely on
peoples lifestyles, but we must balance that with protection of
the environment. We have been sceptical throughout because we feel that
the proposal is over-prescriptive and does not take into account of a
range of issues. I shall take on board the hon. Gentlemans
point.
Mr.
Paice:
I shall turn to the options in the document. If the
Government accept that the do-nothing option is not an option, they
therefore appear to favourquite rightlyoptions 3 and 4.
Will the Minister confirm that the Governments current
stance is to support option 4, the option of just having a strategy? He
will not want to disclose his entire hand, but will he assure the
Committee that if radical changes are not made to a proposal about
which he has said that the Government are not happy, he will be
prepared to use his vote to stop the proposal and work with France and
Germany to create the necessary blocking
minority?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I should want to predict neither an outcome nor
failure at this stage. We will continue to work with our partners. As I
have mentioned, we already have a strong alliance. We think that option
1Ano, perhaps not. I shall perhaps come to this when the
handwriting is clearer to
me.
I cannot say at
this stage that we will use a veto, but we will seek to improve the
directive by working with our partners because that is the way to
proceed now. Issuing such a statement is unlikely to create the type of
atmosphere in which we can persuade others of the right course. We
believe that we are on that course through our
experience.
Mr.
Carmichael:
I am delighted that the Minister appreciates
the importance of peat cutting. As one who represents and was born and
brought up in a constituency that still practises it, I must say that
it ticks a lot of Government boxes: it makes a contribution towards
addressing the issue of fuel poverty; it helps to create a healthy
lifestyle; and it reduces obesity. The Minister should be enrolling his
colleagues in government to protect it.
On the impact assessment, the
Governments view is that the Commission underestimates the cost
of implementation. I understand that they are to carry out their own
assessment in that regard. Is there any indication of the scale of the
underestimate? When can we expect the results of the
Governments study?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We are undertaking that assessment. It will give an
analysis of the costs and benefits provided by the directive. We are in
only the first step of developing a more detailed assessment of the
implications of the proposals. Officials are working closely with
stakeholders and we will be producing a more detailed cost-benefit
assessment of the proposed directive. We are getting on with that work.
At this stage, I am not able to say when it will be published or when
we might have it, although I shall ensure that it is brought to the
hon. Gentlemans attention.
Mr.
Carmichael:
I understand that the delay to which the
Minister referred was caused in part by the proposal for the production
of a soil status report every time a piece of land was
sold. Will he give an assurance that that is now dead in the water?
Given the contaminated land register in this country and, in
particular, the Governments recent experience with home
information packs, there would be little to be gained from the
implementation of such a scheme.
Jonathan
Shaw:
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that any aspect of
the directive is dead in the water, in the same way that I would not
tell the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that a veto would be
used.
I have endeavoured to set out the areas about which the Government have
concern. We will be arguing for subsidiaritythat deals with a
point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made. In respect
of the report and the directive, we have not yet agreed the detail.
Things are not in and they are not outthis is being discussed.
We will argue the points of detail, although the point that he makes is
important.
Paul
Flynn:
Will the Minister give us an idea of whether any
practical, beneficial measures will be implemented to solve the
contamination of soils by farming over the past 100 years? I am
particularly thinking about the nitrates that will probably remain in
the soil for centuries contaminating aquifers. Other methods have been
implemented in recent years whereby contaminating materials have been
used to increase farm production. Will he push for a move towards
organic farming and a reduction in the use of chemicals on
soil?
Jonathan
Shaw:
My hon. Friend will be aware of the nitrates
directive, which has been around for quite some time. In implementing
that directive, we need to work with the farming community to ensure
that there are further reductions in the amount of chemicals used on
our land, which the farming community will want to see as well. We need
to tackle that issue in the near
future.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed
,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 13401/06 and
Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection, and 13388/06, Draft Directive establishing a framework for
the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC; and supports
the Governments aim of ensuring that any new EU obligations in
respect of the protection of soils and their functions are
evidence-based, proportionate and cost effective and take full account
of the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation, particularly
in respect of Member States existing national
legislation.[Jonathan
Shaw.]
5.6
pm
Mr.
Paice:
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long or
to go into matters in great detail. I entirely support what the
Minister has said about the importance of soil, its management and
preservation, and enhancing its status. There is clear evidence in some
parts of the country that soil has been degraded by various practices
over the years. For example, there has been a reduction in humus
content, which impedes drainage and soils capacity to hold
water. It is important to put that right. His comments on contaminated
land were extremely important. The soil erosion and diffuse pollution
that come with it are, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said,
dealt with by cross-compliance, and are a clear part of the
cross-compliance rules. I entirely support the Ministers
comments about the importance of soil and the advanced way in which
this country has gone about trying to look after it and to put right
things that have wrong. Contaminated land is clearly a critical aspect
of that, so there should be no need for debate across the Committee
about it.
The Minister said that there are
huge variations across the European Union regarding the management of
soil. That is true, but there are many variations across the EU in
several other policy areas, and that does not necessarily mean that
there has to be a European policy to deal with them. Coming from where
I do in the political spectrum, I can make that point because I am not
someone who is normally branded as a Eurosceptic. I worry about what is
often described as Euro-creep: the tendency of the Commission to seek
to get more and more involved in every little aspect of what ought to
be decisions for national Governments and should be covered by
subsidiarity, which was a word that the Minister used. This situation
is a clear example. There might be treaty-designated competence, as the
Minister said in response to my first question, and item 6 of the
action programme might give it, but that does not necessarily mean that
a soil framework directive is required. The Government have
saidI believe that the Minister cited part of this
statement
Our
provisional conclusion is that, from a UK point of view, the current
proposals risk being overly prescriptive, disproportionate and
expensive...and that significant changes in the proposed Directive
would be needed to deliver positive net
benefits.
The
Government have also said that there is a general lack of evidence to
support many of the key reasons given for Community legislation, which
is going back half a stage to whether there is a need for such
legislation in the first place. The Government should therefore adopt a
robust position on this matter. I have experience of European
negotiations and I understand that the Minister does not want to give
away his whole negotiating stance with regard to an endgame, but the
Government need to make it clear to the Commission that this is several
steps too far in terms of overriding what should rightly be dealt with
through subsidiarity. The points that he raised about cross-border
issues in parts of Europe might well apply. I would argue that that
could be dealt with bilaterally, or perhaps multilaterally, but without
the whole EU having to become involved in such
decisions.
I asked the
Minister about the discussions at the European Parliament. Its
agriculture and rural development committee is considering an amendment
to which I have already referred. I understand that it has already
received support from the Ministers party, as well as mine, and
from a number of member states. The amendment
states:
The
proposal is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and much
too bureaucratic. Furthermore, existing European legislation has not
been taken into consideration. A clear differentiation to other EU-law
did not take place. For example, existing measures already approved by
European law, might be illegal after entering into force of this
directive. Furthermore, the directive foresees that the harmonisation
of risk evaluation is carried out even without consulting the European
Parliament.
The
amendment is clear and has, as I said, cross-party support and the
support of MEPs from a number of member states. It makes clear the
views that I have tried to put across in this Committee. This has
nothing do with the importance of looking after our soil. The
present Government and previous Governments have taken steps to deal
with our own domestic problems and, as the Minister rightly
saidI am not making partisan pointsthe question is why
that should not be the practice right across Europe, without the need
for the Commission to get involved, to become ever more bureaucratic,
and, as he said, far more
prescriptive.
There is
probably not a lot that I need to add, except to say, All power
to the Ministers elbow. I hope that he will be as
robust as he can and I ask his officials to be robust in their
discussions. There must be very substantive change to the proposal if
it is to become a framework, because we know that once there is a
framework directive, it will be followed very soon by all the
implementing directives and regulations. Earlier, I used an analogy: I
said that once the ball has started rolling, it is very difficult to
stop it. I know that this might be tough, particularly when the
Government do not want to upset our friends and colleagues in Europe,
but sometimes we need to make it clear that a measure will not be
acceptable.
The looser
the framework, the better. If we have to have one at all, it needs to
be much more along the lines that the Minister described by allowing
national Governmentsin this case, the British Government and,
to a certain extent, the Government for Englandto continue to
use the various systems, schemes, methods and experience that we have
gained over many years. That is the position that we adopt. I will not
oppose the motion, but I simply ask the Minister to heed what I have
said.
5.13
pm
Mr.
Carmichael:
Unlike the hon. Member for South-East
Cambridgeshire, I am occasionally referred to as a Eurosceptic. Perhaps
that just reflects the fact that what constitutes a Eurosceptic in my
party is rather different from what constitutes one in
his.
I do not think
that it is a secret that I came rather late to this CommitteeI
was put on it only this afternoon. I give all credit to those who
produced its membership list because my name has somehow appeared on it
since I agreed to serve on the Committee at 3
oclockeither that, or I have to have a rather difficult
conversation with the Whips Office about when they tell me such
things.
The debate has
been immensely interesting. It strikes me that what we are discussing
in microcosm is an issue that could be extrapolated across the EU as a
whole. If the matter is to be the subject of legislation that is
implemented in the appropriate way, that legislation will either be so
broad that it is almost meaningless, or, if it is detailed, so
prescriptive that it is inappropriate in some parts of the Union and
inconsistent with the proper application of the principles of
subsidiarity. On that basis, I question whether it is appropriate to
have such a directive at all. Is there any point in bold, broad
statements of policy that will have no practical application? Should we
accept that some things are better left to be done either regionally or
nationally? This seems to be a classic example of something that is
better done at the very baseat a regional level. To try to get
one size to fit all across the EU on such a matter is, frankly,
nonsensical, and I welcome the realism of the Governments
position.
When I
questioned the Minister, I referred to the position of those in many
parts of the highlands and islands who cut their own peat for domestic
fuel. I was
not being flippant, although my tone might have been light, because the
directive is the sort of thing that will result in people in my
constituency needing to get a licence to cut peat. I declare an
interest: I burn peat myself, although I do not have much time to cut
it.
The amount of
peat taken from peat banks for domestic use in constituencies such as
mine and others in the highlands and islands is infinitesimal. I can
see that there might be an argument to be made about the large-scale
industrial extraction of peat, which is a legitimate concern that the
Government are aware of and have acted on in the past. However, the law
of unintended consequences concerns me once we start to legislate on
such matters. The Minister referred to the nitrates directive, on which
the Government have taken an active and leading role. I have some
experience of the creation of nitrate vulnerable zones, on which we
have taken a lead, albeit not always to the liking of the agricultural
community, and certainly not always in a way that demonstrates the best
understanding of modern farming needs and practices. However, the fact
that we have undertaken that action gives the lie to the need for such
directives.
Finally,
as a former solicitor, I must say that soil status
reports at the point of sale fill me with dread. When one buys or sells
any heritable property these days, the list of reports that one is
required to produce to satisfy the purchaser is lengthy and, on
occasions, questionable. We have water reports and contaminated land
reports and now, in England and Wales, home information packs are
coming in. I do not understand what a soil status report will add to a
purchasers knowledge of a standard, non-commercial property. It
will add to the time taken conveyancing and, undoubtedly, to costs, but
I fail to see what it will add to the purchasers knowledge or
to the title. I am pleased that the Government are taking a realistic
and practical approach and I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon.
Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: all power to the
Ministers elbow as he deals with this
issue.
5.20
pm
Paul
Flynn:
I thank the Whips for nominating me for this
CommitteeI now realise that my parliamentary career has peaked
this afternoon. Serving on the Committee has been an educational
experience.
As the
hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire rightly pointed out,
overstocking is largely a thing of the pastthere is no
advantage to it now, given that farmers are paid on the basis of the
land that they own, rather than the amount of food that they produce.
However, in Wales, until very recently, about 200,000 payments were
made for sheep that never arrived at market. One of the reasons for the
slow build-up of flooding incidents in the Severn valley was attributed
to the compaction of the land. If there are new uses of
landequestrian purposes, or purposes related to other animals,
or to leisure centresthe same mistakes should not be made. The
compaction of land in the high ground was certainly one of the factors,
albeit not the main one, of course, behind the floods that have
occurred.
I should
like to return to a point that I raised during
questions. We should welcome the directive. There is a huge diversity
of terrains throughout Europe. However,
what is common to all is how land has been abused for at least 100 years
for short-term purposesto maximise profit from farming. There
has been an irresponsible use of chemicals on land to produce results,
and we shall need a massive effort to remedy the situation.
I wish the directive well. It
is a chance for us to look towards the land environment, to see the
terrible way in which we have plundered itincluding our
soilover recent years, and to turn to husbanding the land as we
husband other parts of the
environment.
5.22
pm
Jonathan
Shaw:
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport,
West that we abused our land in the past. However, we in this country
have a good record on changing that. One sees some of the worst abuses
on television programmes brought from the former Soviet Union. Land has
been abused absolutely
catastrophically.
While
we should welcome the idea of a framework, getting it right is the
important thing. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned peat
and said that he cuts and uses it. However, we need to recognise that
soil, including peat, contains billions of tonnes of carbon. Soil in
Britain alone contains about
10 billion tonnes of carbon, 471 million tonnes of which is stored in
peat in England and Wales. I am advised that that is equivalent to
about three times the UKs annual carbon dioxide emissions. Soil
thus plays a hugely important role in our attempts to reduce carbon and
to act on climate change. We need to introduce measures in all European
Union member states that will ensure that soil is better used and not
abused, and that it forms an important part of our efforts to reduce
carbon emissions. We want to play a positive role in
that.
As with many
situations faced by politicians, we need to steer the right course. We
do not want the directive to be over-prescriptive, but neither do we
want to lose the opportunity to improve soil conditions throughout the
Community. We do not make this stuff; it is a natural resource that
underpins every aspect of human activity, and is key also to
ecosystems, on which life depends. I have listened to hon.
Members responses to the Governments position and
assure them that we will take a robust line. We see an opportunity
here, but we must find the right course. To reiterate, we will ensure
that we seek an outcome that is evidence-based, proportionate and fully
consistent with the principles of better regulation and
subsidiarity.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Committee
rose at twenty-five minutes past Five
oclock.