Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
CHRIS RYDER
AND MS
MAUREEN NOWAK
Q80 David Taylor: So for "spring"
read "early summer" is that what we are saying?
Mr Woolas: I have crossed out
"spring" and put in "summer".
Q81 Miss McIntosh: Does that mean
before the summer recess?
Mr Woolas: It does mean that.
Q82 Chairman: Just help me, we could
have some quite esoteric discussions if we were not a little clearer
on when you are going to go back to talk to the Commission as
to the areas that you can meaningfully discuss with them. Where
is the wriggle room?
Mr Woolas: The major area is the
170kg on that. Maureen, are there any other major areas of wriggle
room?
Ms Nowak: We have got wriggle
room insofar as the Directive does allow Member States discretion
in defining the very detail of some of the mandatory measures
which the Directive requires us to put in place. These are in
areas such as the closed periods, storage (and linked to that
the 170 we have to put in but we can apply for a derogation),
the cover crops, the detail relating to crop requirement, and
various other measures, so all of them allow us some discretion.
We will be applying that in the light of what has been said to
us in response to the consultation, and again within the constraints
that the Minister has mentioned of what we are required to achieve
under the Directive, which does have a very prescriptive nature,
and also in light of the evidence and the science that we have
to support our case. We have conducted a lot of work to support
the measures that we have put forward which we think deliver for
England what we need to do in order to make ourselves fully compliant
with the Directive.
Q83 Chairman: That amount of area
for discussion backed up by the methodology which the Minister
outlined is all designed to give us the opportunity to take into
account differing ground conditions?
Ms Nowak: Yes.
Q84 Chairman: And different agricultural
sector requirements?
Ms Nowak: Yes.
Q85 Chairman: Okay, and when you
have done that I presume you will have a financial impact assessment
done on these various options, will you?
Ms Nowak: We have already prepared
a partial impact assessment before putting forward our proposals
in the consultation and that was attached to the consultation
document. We will be doing another impact assessment in the light
of whatever changes we may make to the proposals.
Mr Woolas: And the evidence that
is presented in the consultation.
Q86 Paddy Tipping: Could I just talk
about the practical implementation. Farmers in Nottinghamshire
and the East Midlands say to me it is quite impossible if these
regulations come in to get planning permission and to get funding
to construct slurry storage facilities within a two-year period.
In fact, the NFU argue for four years. What is your view on that?
Mr Woolas: My response to that,
Mr Tipping, is again the dilemma between having a scheme that
is practical for its implementation and complying with the Directive.
We have put forward the two-year period—
Ms Nowak: — Our judgment
was that farmers would not be able to—
Mr Woolas: Sorry, Chairman, I
should have known the answer to this. The two years was ours;
it was not a Brussels date, so it is that balance. I have seen
some examples in correspondence that have been sent to me by Members
of Parliament of planning permission delays, and that is true.
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable if the Commission will
give. We have to look at the evidence that has been provided to
us on the costs. We are aware from experience in Northern Ireland
that there may well be some self-fulfilling inflationary problems.
It is worth mentioning also, Chairman, on the timing, I did have
a fourth reason which is related and that is the Anaerobic Digestion
Strategy. I am not suggesting at all to farmers that that is an
answer to all of their problems, but it is a significant answer,
and I am trying to ensure that the strategy in that regard dovetails
with the Nitrate Directive because to some extent we can have
a win/win, we can create a bigger market here, so the evidence
is important. It is interesting—and I am not saying this
in advance of the analysis of the consultation which is coming
out next week—that from the correspondence I have had where
farmers have written saying how we should implement it (and some
have written saying we should not implement it for obvious reasons)
they do make the point to me that Mr Tipping has just made.
Q87 Paddy Tipping: So that is an
area that is still open for negotiation and discussion?
Mr Woolas: It is something that
we will have to take into account, yes.
Mr Ryder: In relation to a possible
four-year period to consider how to implement it, of course the
Directive does require us to review the effects of what we have
done after four years, so we were bearing that in mind when we
proposed two years so that we would have some time for it to be
in place to be reviewed in four years' time.
Q88 David Lepper: I appreciate that
circumstances are different in each of the European countries,
both geographically, in terms of soil and farming methods, et
cetera, but it does seem that the UK is not the only country which
is having some problems as far as the Commission is concerned
in implementing the Directive. I do not know whether it has changed
since the information from November 2006 from the Commission where
they were taking action against Belgium, Germany, Spain, Ireland,
Italy and Portugal then, as well as us, some of that may have
been resolved. What I am wondering is whether, despite all those
differences between countries that we have talked about this afternoon,
there are common themes that are coming out across the EU in terms
of the difficulty that individual states are having in implementing
the Directive?
Mr Woolas: Can I make a general
point and then ask Maureen to answer the question specifically.
The impression I get—and it is 17 years since this Directive
was done and it was first discussed some years before that—is
that the European Commission does not make legislation like this
any more. It is now less prescriptive and it is less focused.
Having said that, my initial question was the same as Mr Lepper's
which was what are the others doing? Some of course have gone
a lot further and tougher but we are in a bad position in this
regard. It has changed since then and I think we are at the back
of the queue with Spain just in front of us.
Ms Nowak: Of the countries you
name, Spain, Italy, UK, and Luxembourg currently have action against
them by the Commission.[5]
There are different areas where they have concerns, but Italy
and ourselves have the same areas on our infraction. What was
the other part of the question?
Q89 David Lepper: I just wondered
whether there were common themes in terms of the difficulties.
Ms Nowak: Indeed, it is a universally
unpopular Directive, needless to say, simply because it is trying
to impose very prescriptive rules onto something which should
really be fairly flexible, so it is not, as I said, universally
popular. However the point that is made is that other countries
have managed to put in place measures which make them compliant
with the Directive, which achieve the Directive's objectives,
and have done so. We should be on our third review of the Action
Programme had we implemented in accordance with the timetable
set down in the Directive. We are only doing our first review
of the Action Programme. It is a dynamic Directive and it has
an on-going review process built into it. Whatever proposals we
put now are not written in stone, they will need to be reviewed
again. One way we have looked at it is to put in place what we
consider is necessary at this stage to deliver what the Directive
requires and be compliant with it, and then see in four years'
time what the outcome is. I take the point that has already been
made about four years not being a very long time but regrettably
that is what is in the Directive. It was reconsidered for repeal,
I believe, at the time the Water Framework Directive was being
negotiated in 2000 and the decision was taken not to repeal the
Nitrates Directive, so I think it is one of these situations where
we may have to learn to live within the constraints of the Directive.
Q90 Mr Williams: The Minister might
not be able to answer this question given the closeness we are
to the Budget, but with farmers faced with this quite considerable
investment, they do not even get some relief in terms of Agricultural
Buildings Relief which the Chancellor, as I understand, is intending
to scrap, and it may be a point that the Minister might wish to
make to the Chancellor, on the basis that these agricultural buildings
depreciate rather than appreciate in value.
Mr Woolas: First of all, there
is the polluter pays principle which is an important point.
Q91 Mr Williams: Well, they are paying.
Mr Woolas: Some suggest they should
not. Secondly, I just want to be cautious here and say that I
want to look at the figures again in light of the consultation,
and I want to be sure, as Maureen has said, what the financial
impact assessment is, so I am very conscious of this point. There
is of course the Rural Development Programme and there is the
Bio-energy Capital Grant Scheme and there is the Anaerobic Digestion
Strategy, as I have mentioned. We have started conversations with
the NFU and other partners about these areas, and there is the
Budget, as you have rightly said, about which I am going to say
nothing because I do not know.
Q92 Chairman: What I wise man! You
might get moved to the Treasury if you carry on like that! No,
we like you where you are; we are very happy from that standpoint.
Just help me a little bit to understand the derogation that might
be part of your strategy. The Environment Agency when they gave
evidence in writing to us said, "Currently, we believe there
is no justification for a derogation from the Whole Farm Limit
of the current 170kg/N/ha/yr ... " You perhaps take a different
view; why?
Mr Woolas: Because we want to
provide some flexibility. The goal is to take the nitrogen out
of the waterways that is killing the fish and damaging the environment
and costing the water companies £288million a year in capital
costs to treat the water to the level that it is required, but
within the zones we want some flexibility because not to do so
could result in—and I am not pre-empting the consultation
analysis here—herds being reduced for example. It could
result in farming practices being brought about in a way that
is not helpful rather than in a way that is helpful. It is not
a scientific point, it is a commonsense point, if I might say.
Chris, did you want to add to that?
Mr Ryder: The Directive does provide
explicitly for the possibility that Member States can set a higher
limit. That has to be by way of applying for a derogation after
you have implemented the Directive.
Q93 Chairman: But we have not implemented
it.
Mr Ryder: But when we have, our
Ministers have declared an interest in taking advantage of that
and applying for such a derogation. Clearly in order to obtain
the derogation, there needs to be a case, so we are working at
present to understand what the evidence would be to support that,
gathering information from interested parties—
Q94 Chairman: Just help me on the
technicalities because you said you have got to demonstrate that
you are applying the Directive. Does that mean you have to demonstrate
good intent? Can you not do the two co-terminously, otherwise
you could have a bizarre situation of working at 170 and everybody
thinking are they ever going to apply for this derogation and
then at some point down the road you say, "Now is the moment"?
Mr Ryder: I think the moment comes
quite quickly after implementing the Directive. It is not so much
a technical point as a reality that you can only apply for a derogation
from something which you have in place.
Q95 Chairman: Is the limit to which
you apply for a derogation determined by the Minister? In other
words, does he decide that 250kg is the number? Is it your decision?
Mr Woolas: If we get there.
Mr Ryder: I think that would depend
on the evidence.
Q96 Chairman: What I am saying is
is it a nationally derived figure that you wish to derogate to?
Is the answer Yes, Mr Ryder?
Mr Ryder: Yes, the 170 is a nationally
applicable limit under the Directive.
Q97 Chairman: I have got that.
Mr Ryder: The derogation would
be in order to apply a different level.
Q98 Chairman: What I am wondering
is if the different level is one that we determine ourselves.
Mr Ryder: Yes, but we have to
support it—
Q99 Chairman: Ms Nowak is nodding.
Ms Nowak: It is a level that we
will determine ourselves based upon the evidence which will support
our case for the derogation. We have to make a case so we will
need to get evidence. The fundamental core of our case has to
be that by granting the derogation no environmental damage will
be caused.
5 Note by witness: Portugal should also be
included in this list. Back
| 
