Examination of Witnesses (Questions 51
- 59)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
CHRIS RYDER
AND MS
MAUREEN NOWAK
Q51 Chairman: We now move on to the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I have
pleasure in, once again, welcoming before the Committee the Minister
of State, Phil Woolas, and he is supported by Chris Ryder, the
Head of the Water Quality Division, and Maureen Nowak, who is
the Team Leader on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive.
Minister, you must be one of the world's living authorities on
this subject, judging by the number of Adjournment and Westminster
Hall Debates you have done on this, so you know everything there
is to know. Indeed, this is Mastermind on the Nitrates Directive,
and you have decided you are going to volunteer to answer questions!
One or two things by way of definitions to get us into the mood
for our inquiry. In Annex 1 of the actual Directive itself, it
talks about ground waters containing more than 50mg/l of nitrate,
and yet in the evidence which the Environment Agency sent us they
talk about river monitoring points not exceeding 50mg/l of drinking
water value. Could you just explain this difference in what it
is that we are actually measuring, and perhaps you could assist
me to define with some clarity what we actually mean by the term
"ground water"?
Mr Woolas: Thank you very much
indeed, Mr Jack, for inviting myself and my team to give evidence.
We are very grateful to the Committee and certainly looking forward
to the report of the Committee before any decisions are taken
on the future of the Directive. It is important to point out that
at "Annex I" of the actual Directive, the definitions
offered are to identify as polluted waters surface and ground
waters which have, or could have, levels of nitrates above 50mg/l
if action is not taken. What one has to look at in designating
a vulnerable zone is where the surface water and ground water
is already above 50mg/l and where the trend is that it might be.
On the actual drinking water point, the 50mg/l of drinking water
quality is, in fact, the same thing, and I would ask for advice
on why that is. I think, Mr Jack, it is because it is waters that
you could take out to treat or drink. That is the point, I think.
Yes, it is.
Q52 Chairman: Okay.
Mr Woolas: From memory from the
Adjournment Debate.
Miss McIntosh: That is your starter for
ten!
Q53 Chairman: We are actually looking
at two types of water, both surface and ground water, because
it is a bit confusing, when we have had some commentary criticising
methodology, as to quite which bit is being criticised. The other
thing to help me out in understanding this: part of what we are
going to look at are the requirements, for example, to have 170kg/ha
but with requests for derogations of potentially up to 250. Where
did 170 come from? Why is 170 deemed to be the right number of
kilogrammes of nitrogen per hectare to achieve the objectives
of the Directive?
Mr Woolas: As you know, the 170kg/ha
is from the Directive.
Q54 Chairman: I know they are from
it, but where did the number 170 come from?
Mr Woolas: From the discussions
and negotiations in 1990.
Q55 Chairman: Is there a scientific
basis for 170 being deemed to be the universal number that throughout
Europe, if nitrogen is applied in that rate, achieves the objective?
I am interested to know why 170 is the right number or even why
250 is the area for derogation.
Mr Woolas: I do not know, Mr Jack,
but I think you make a very good point which I had not thought
of, and it could be a very helpful point. My advice is that no
nitrogen is not a good thing, that this is a balance in terms
of its impact on the two criteria, as I understand it, from the
original discussions. One was on the impact on the plants and
wildlife, the so-called eco-system, and the second was on the
processes for treating the water for drinking water and, of course,
we have debated in the House the cost of that. I assume, therefore,
that it is a balance of those things, but I do not know, and I
think it is a very good point and I will find out for you and
let you know.
Q56 Chairman: The reason I ask that
is, obviously, we are aware that the European Commission has decided
to consider taking legal proceedings against the UK with reference
to the implementation of the Directive. It would just be helpful
to have your commentary about how that particular course of action
by the Commission has influenced the moves that you are now making
in terms of the coverage area of the NVZ and, indeed, the changes
to the Action Programme that are proposed.
Mr Woolas: Thank you very much.
The story from our point of view is that the Directive, as we
know, was a 1991 directive, that it is subject to a four-yearly
review, of which we have never ever had one. The European Court
of Justice, I think in 2000, ruled that the definitions that we
had applied to define nitrate vulnerable zones were inadequate
and that increased the percentage area of England, I think I am
right in saying, from 8% to about 55% as a result of that ruling
by the European Court of Justice. Following action from that,
we have started to prepare our—
Q57 Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt,
but you made a very interesting point. You said the United Kingdom
had never had one of the four-yearly reviews; so the Commission
would not have known how well we were doing, and yet we are subject
to an ECJ ruling in 2000 to say we have got to do better. So,
what was the case against us? Why did we lose?
Mr Woolas: We had defined the
designated vulnerable zones as part of the preparations for implementing
the Directive, but we had never in this country implemented it.[4]
The definition of the designated zones was challenged in the European
Court and the definition was found to be outside of the European
Directive, and that caused us to expand the areas of the country
which were defined as designated zones, as I say, to 55%. We have
never been subject to a review because we had never implemented
the Directive. My view, Mr Jack, is that in recent times, with
the accession countries and the European Union wishing to ensure
that there are environmental compliances in place across the European
Union, we are the last of the old countries, as it were, not to
have implemented this Directive, and so we are in a very vulnerable
position. I think the other factor was the Water Quality Directive,
which covers some of the same requirements to improve the quality
of the water.
Q58 Chairman: When you say "water
quality", do you mean the Water Framework Directive?
Mr Woolas: The Water Framework
Directive; I am sorry. So that, again, I think, has provided momentum
to it. I am informed that the Commission had obtained also its
own report on what should or should not be designated and the
challenge to our definition is based on the Commission's report.
Q59 Dr Strang: Has there been sufficient
time to assess the effectiveness of the Action Programme measures,
given that most of them have only been in place since 2002?
Mr Woolas: No, I do not think
there has. I think that the Directive is too specific. There is
some flexibility, obviously, and we have tried to err on the side
of commonsense in the proposals we have put forward, but they
are, of course, as you know, subject to consultation themselves.
I think the problem that we have, apart from the nature of the
Directive, which we can complain about as much as we like but
other countries have implemented it and it is something we signed
up to, is the different geography of our country, the different
sub-regional and regional differences, but I think the answer
to the question is, no.
4 Note by witness: Defining nitrate vulnerable
zones (NVZs) fulfilled our obligation to implement the first of
the several implementing stages of the Directive. Establishing
an Action Programme in 1998 and applying it to defined NVZs met
the second and third stages of implementation. When the NVZ area
was increased from 8% to 55% in 2002, insufficient available data
made a review of the effectiveness of the Action Programme (to
implement the four-yearly review requirement) impractical and
the 1998 Programme was applied unchanged to the newly-designated
areas. The recent review of the Action Programme fully implements
the Directive's periodic review requirement. Back
|
