Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
CHRIS RYDER
AND MS
MAUREEN NOWAK
Q60 Dr Strang: On the movement of
nitrogen to surface water, we read that after five years it is
not really possible to make a judgment as to what is significant.
Given that whole background, you could say, and I think you have
implied this already, we have been asked to make changes in these
measures without really having much of a clue as to what they
have been doing. Is that a bit extreme?
Mr Woolas: We are under pressure
to implement the Directive as soon as possible. Of course we are
in discussions with the Commission as to what possible derogations
there may be on the 170kg/ha point, but obviously the timetable
of implementation is subject to decisions. I do not know, in anticipation
of the next question, or possible next question, what the basis
of the four years is. I presume that there was some scientific
basis to that. Maybe that is something that I could provide a
note for you on as well.
Q61 Dr Strang: I recognise that you
have got to comply with the Directive, but I suppose, reading
the stuff, there is a certain scepticism in that on the one hand
the farming industry is required to take certain measures; on
the other hand there is an issue, obviously, in terms of the nitrate
content of the water. It is just whether the measures it is being
required to take are, in fact, impacting on the actual nitrate
concentration at the end of the day.
Mr Woolas: I think there are two
considerations. In the non-vulnerable zones there is a code of
practice for farmers and other land users, and the evidence is
that that is working. Because it is quite a prescriptive directive,
there is also the evidence from other countries. I recognise the
geography and the agriculture may be different, but there is the
evidence from other countries that it is working, so to that extent,
yes, but the answer in the core is, no.
Q62 Miss McIntosh: I have found the
relevant part. I should declare an interest, because I was at
the time an MEP for an East Anglian constituency. It does actually
say in Article 3(4) that "Member States shall review if necessary
revise or add to the designation of vulnerable zones as appropriate,—(I
think they mean "at least", it says "at last four
years")—at least every four years, to take into account
changes and factors unforeseen at the time of the previous designation".
Minister, it is good to see you again. Could I say, presumably
this would reflect the fact that changes in agricultural practice
probably take some time to work their way through, and I think
the NFU would probably say that the fact that all that happened,
all that was dug up during the Second World War actually took
more than four years to work its way through, so I hope there
is some flexibility in the Directive.
Mr Woolas: The other factor is
the weather. The amount of rainfall, and when it is, can affect
it and the balance over time of that. I do not know if there are
any other factors.
Mr Ryder: I think in the setting
of periodicity for the review there was a desire to recognise
that what the Directive is looking for is a positive trend over
time, and that four years was a sufficient period to apply to
enable that to be checked, and so what has happened is that having
designated zones in 2002, and applied a set of measures, we are
now at the point where we set in place an examination of what
had happened in 2006. What we are proposing here is the result
of the data we can examine and the information we have available
on which we now propose to act, taking account of the fact that
the Commission is showing a close interest in the adequacy of
what we have done so far.
Chairman: So how are we doing so far
because the NFU for example, in disputing some of the Environment
Agency evidence, said that they have done some catchment analysis
and they showed in certain river areas like the Trent a substantial
decline in the amount of nitrates in the water but there were
other examples they put before us, I think in a river in East
Anglia whose name immediately escapes me—
David Taylor: Wensum.
Q63 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed, where it had gone up. What is your take on it?
Mr Woolas: That it is getting
worse.
Chairman: Overall?
Q64 Miss McIntosh: Could I just add
a supplementary because I think the problem is you are intending
to put whole rivers into a catchment area whereas in fact we just
heard from the NFU that the upland part may have a low nitrate
level and the lowland part may have a higher nitrate level, so
it does not seem very sensible to put a whole river in these areas
into one catchment. Are you looking to review that?
Mr Woolas: That carries with it
commonsense and so it is something that we will look at for the
obvious reason as has been said. We also have, just again to give
the full jigsaw, the River Basin Management Plans of which these
are part. If I could just come to the situation as we see it:
it is patchy; our evidence is that the trends on nitrogen are
still going up in most groundwaters and some coastal waters; the
removal of set aside, leading to an increase in land under cultivation,
together with rising grain prices, is expected to increase fertiliser
use and bring with it a comparative increase in the risk of nitrate
loss. This tends to be in the eastern side. We have this issue,
Chairman, which has come up in the consultation over storage for
the—and if I caricature hon Members and right hon Members
will forgive me—the cattle areas to the north and the west
and the agriculture areas to the south and the east, and both
are suffering problems in our calculations in terms of levels
of nitrates, and indeed the revision from 55% to 70% reflected
not just better scientific methodologies but also an increasing
problem, so it is a patchy picture in our view.
Q65 Chairman: You can imagine what
it is like for us. We hear from the NFU who say, "Here are
some big catchments: trend down," and they say very candidly,
"In certain rivers: trend up." Then in the Environment
Agency's evidence to the Committee—and I quote—"From
our general quality assessment monitoring information, we know
that around 17% of our 7,300 river monitoring points exceed 50mg/l
drinking water value at least once during the winter months, linking
the nitrate concentrations recorded to run-off from agricultural
land." If you invert that, 83% do not register on the Richter
Scale. That sounds like a pretty clean picture. You are saying
it is patchy. I am now confused as to what the picture actually
is. Where do you get your data from?
Mr Woolas: Just to show we are
comparing apples with apples—
Q66 Chairman: I am sure we are not
but I am just confused.
Mr Woolas: Those figures do not,
as I understand it, include areas where it is moving towards 50mg
so that is the first point. The second point I think goes back
to Miss McIntosh's point on the whole river. Yes, it is 70%, that
is right.
Q67 Chairman: Would you like to just
clarify that. I am delighted you have got an adviser from the
Environment Agency who might be able to assist us. I appreciate
there may be different ways of measuring things, but if policy
is being made then I think what in simple terms we are anxious
to establish is upon what basis it is being made. We have now
had information given to us—and it may even be apples and
pears and we are not comparing like with like—but please
just explain to us why there is a difference between what you
are saying in all good faith that it is patchy, what the NFU are
telling us that by catchment area things are improving and what
the Environment Agency is saying, which sounds like 83% out of
7,300 monitoring points and seems like a lot of monitoring points
to me.
Mr Woolas: The explanation as
to the difference in the figures is two-fold. Firstly is the point
about the trend under 50mg being included in our assessment and,
secondly, is the point that has been made by Miss McIntosh, which
is that the 17% of the 7,300 sites are specific measurement points.
If you take the river basins, the river systems that are covered
by those 17%, you get to the figure of area covered of 70%, but
that again is why the point that has been made about up-stream
and down stream becomes important.
Q68 Miss McIntosh: Could I just pursue
that point because the point is, presumably, that it is going
to pose a disproportionately high cost of implementing the Directive
in areas like the upland part where nitrates do not actually exist
and it is not a problem, but you are going to implement the Directive
as fiercely as you are in the lowland parts where, hands up, the
Vale of York might be farmed more intensively than the upland,
so in a way you are posing problems for your own Department and
the Environment Agency from the point of view of cross-compliance
and implementing the Single Farm Payment. Minister, you just mentioned
set aside. I am hearing from upland farmers the fact that set
aside is going—and I do not think people are arguing with
that—and also the way that changes to the Entry Level Scheme
and Stewardship Scheme is being implemented seem to have been
made, and whereas they were encouraged and rewarded to farm in
an environmentally friendly way, those carrots have now gone and
those schemes will be discontinued.
Mr Woolas: If and when the revised
Regulations come in, because that would be a requirement, it would
not therefore qualify for Entry Level Stewardship agreements;
that is a very valid point. On the first point, the proposals
we have are subject to the consultation, which was closed on 13
December. We have had a very significant number of responses to
that consultation. We will be publishing the analysis of the responses
next week and I hope that will be available in time for your considerations.
And, as I say, this is a consultation and I want you to have the
analysis of the consultation before making recommendations that
I want to be able to take on board in the conclusions.
Q69 Chairman: Just to be clear, the
Environment Agency support what Anne McIntosh is saying because
they said applying the Action Programme throughout England would
place an excessive and unnecessary financial burden on farmers
in low nitrate areas. You have taken a complete river picture,
if I have understood you correctly, in coming to your view that
trends are rising, others take a different view, so your policy
is going to be formed in terms of what percentage above 55 we
eventually arrive at on the factual basis that you have just put
before the Committee in terms of whole river systems; is that
right?
Mr Woolas: My policy is going
to take on board the representations that have been made in the
consultation, the findings of this Select Committee, and all the
stakeholders.
Q70 Chairman: I am grateful for you
saying that but I am trying to understand the methodology that
will inform the decision-making process. You have just said in
answer to the Committee's questions, when we asked how are things
going, taking a whole river, that your figures are going upwards,
the trend is universally up. The picture from others is different,
so I am just trying to understand the methodology, what is going
to inform your assessment of all the information that you have
got?
Mr Woolas: On the measurements?
Q71 Chairman: Just to develop the
point, Miss McIntosh talks about upland areas and lowland areas.
The Environment Agency talk about the problems of low nitrate
areas and the expense of universality. You have talked about assessing
where we are on a whole river system, and a whole river system,
by definition, must include upland, lowland, high input and low
input. I just want to understand the methodology you are going
to use because you will get a lot of views and you have to have
a benchmark to say, "This is what I am now going to have
as the policy," so what is the basis upon which that decision
will be made?
Ms Nowak: Can I say that we developed
a revised methodology for the purpose of this review because we
felt that there were a number of uncertainties in the previous
methodology. Making the designations and identifying the polluted
waters is really quite difficult, it is a very complex area, so
we set up a group of very eminent people who we felt had the knowledge
and the expertise to be able to look at our existing methodology.
We did have NFU representation on that group. The methodology
that was finally decided upon took the view that if there was
a polluted waterway at the lowest point on the catchment then
it was one-out all-out. That was an agreed view that was taken
by people whom we felt were in a better position than just the
ordinary policymakers to take that view. The alternative would
be—because it is quite difficult to designate, and there
are inherent complexities in identifying the waters and designating
particularly groundwaters—to do what many other Member States
have done which is to apply the Action Programme across the whole
territory. Some Member States who have lower nitrate levels than
we do in England have chosen to take that option, some of them
for that very practical reason.
Chairman: Okay, so you are trying to
be focused but take into account the point you have just made
that everybody is in if you are associated with a particular river
where the trend is going up. Right, I think I have understood
that. Anne, did you have a technical point?
Q72 Miss McIntosh: I think there
are other Directives where the NFU and farmers have adopted a
voluntary approach. Is there some merit in considering that because
it would make it easier for the Department to show that it is
implementing the Directive and easier as well for the farmers
to implement the Directive?
Mr Woolas: The voluntary approach
being?
Q73 Miss McIntosh: Allowing the farmers
to have a voluntary agreement with your Department as to how they
will implement it rather than the Department being very prescriptive
even down to each farm.
Mr Woolas: Within the strictures
of the Directive that would be what we would want to do. The Directive
has been criticised for being too prescriptive. I think there
is some flexibility on the density point but on the storage and
spreading periods it is pretty prescriptive, and it has been criticised
for that.
Q74 Miss McIntosh: I know there have
been some adjournment debates on the de-designation and you actually
said in a written answer on 16 January this year that you were
considering circumstances under which land in an existing nitrate
vulnerable zone may be de-designated. Have you reached a result?
Mr Woolas: My intention is to
do that at the same time as the total package.
Q75 Miss McIntosh: Will the appeals
mechanism be open to existing and new NVZs?
Mr Woolas: The ball is bouncing
in that direction.
Q76 David Taylor: In your opening
remarks, Chairman, you talked about the Minister—and I will
paraphrase a little—almost setting up camp in Westminster
Hall as he was responsible for a series of debates, and I was
at the one in January when you, in a sense, abandoned 6 April
as the start date after bluetongue and after foot-and-mouth and
so on and the consultation period had to be extended. In the submission
to us for this particular investigation you have used that delightfully
vague and mobile description of "spring" as being when
you plan to actually implement it. Have you refined that any further?
Mr Woolas: I have crossed it out,
Chairman, and I thank you Mr Taylor for his very perceptive question.
We had a debate as to what I meant by spring!
Chairman: We need a separate inquiry
into that!
David Taylor: Spring has sprung; the
grass is risen.
Chairman: The influence of climate change
on ministerial timings of decisions; it could be very interesting!
Q77 David Taylor: Is the ball bouncing
towards early summer on to the beach?
Mr Woolas: The ball is bouncing
towards Brussels.
Q78 David Taylor: Oh God, we are
in trouble!
Mr Woolas: We put back the deadline
for the consultation from 13 November or thereabouts to 13 December
because of bluetongue and foot-and-mouth and it not being reasonable
to ask the farmers to respond because of that. Our initial intention
was to publish the response to the consultation in the form of
regulations in April of this year. The decision was taken, as
I indicated at the adjournment debate on 8 January, that that
would not give us enough time to do justice to the level and numbers
and content of the consultation responses that had already come
in.
Q79 David Taylor: You have got better
developed antennae than most middle-ranking Ministers. You must
have a feel for the area of terrain where this implementation
date lies. What are we looking at? Farmers need to know.
Mr Woolas: By the summer recess.
The third factor is the European Commission because we are talking
to the European Commission about these matters and about how we
could implement the Directive, about where the flexibility is,
and we will obviously use the response to the consultation as
part of our conversation with the Commission.
| 
