COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

SUE ESSEX

held at National Museum & Gallery, Cardiff on 21^st November 2002

LORD RICHARD: Minister, thank you very much for coming. We are much obliged. What we seem to have established as a general working procedure is if you would be kind enough to open the session for perhaps ten minutes and then the members of the Commission can pursue what issues they might be interested in. For the sake of the record, could you introduce yourself and your two colleagues.

MS ESSEX: Thank you very much. My name is Sue Essex, Minister for the Environment at the National Assembly for Wales. On my right is Martin Evans, who is Director of the Division for Planning, Environment and Transport. On my left is Bob Macey, who is responsible for environmental protection.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much.

MS ESSEX: First of all, thank you very much for the invitation. I want to start off by saying I am not a constitutional expert, as some of you in this room well know, but I have tried to respond to the questions and the points in the evidence in the way that you have posed the questions. I thought I would just try and give an overall description of what this portfolio covers and where I see the main issues really over the last couple of years. As you will appreciate, it is a wide portfolio covering a whole range of activities. I will come back in a minute as to what that means.

One of the key issues for me has been the thrust of policy development and I suppose that is where my interest and expertise lies. If you look at an area such as transport, I think it would be fair to say that prior to devolution there was not an awful lot of attention given to transport policy, unlike an area like planning where we had had quite a deal of responsibility and perhaps that was more widely developed. Across this portfolio and all its different areas we have tried to push the issue of getting a strong policy base on which to develop programmes and certainly develop funding in association with that and action on the ground.

In addition to that policy, the style which I followed, which I think had been very much the theme of the National Assembly since its inception, has been trying to work in collaboration, so a lot of my work has not been questioning powers that I have, it is using the powers I have got, using the ability to communicate and work together. I think that is a particular factor with the Committee and with a whole host of other organisations. In terms of delivery of our programmes Welsh local government is clearly crucial to us, but in many other areas - key voluntary sector organisations looking at the countryside and habitats - that is very important, as indeed is working with the ASPBs. So that has been very significant. In an area like sustainable development, which is incredibly new in the globe - there are only two other governments that have a duty similar to the duty we have - it is trying to interpret that, looking at that power but looking at that in a very positive way of how we can use the section in the Government of Wales Act to work with others to get key messages out and to get key arrangements out. That has been the approach.

In terms of the portfolio, as I said earlier, it is a wide one. To an outsider they might ask, A Does all this hang together?@ I think it does. I am very pleased, for example, that I have got planning and transport powers because bringing those responsibilities and those portfolios together really does think about integration in terms of development. Obviously issues of environmental protection, issues of the countryside and national parks, they all come together and that is why we have got the umbrella title of environment because so much of that coalesces under that heading.

Sustainable development is a mainstream issue right across the board. There is a sub-Cabinet group that the First Minister chairs, but I have been given the responsibility for leading on this issue which means obviously I look within my own portfolio to try to provide a good role model, I guess. It means me again working with my colleagues in other portfolio areas to try and make sure that that issue is mainstreamed in the same way that equal opportunities are. That has been a very interesting issue over the last couple of years. Clearly we are learning where we go on that but that, again, is very much a question of collaboration, working with others in terms of what powers and what abilities they may have to make a contribution to the whole of the sustainable debate, both within Wales and across the whole of the globe. I do not know if that is helpful but I thought my portfolio might strike you as being somewhat different and perhaps my evidence has been somewhat different from my colleagues= evidence. It has not evolved so much, in my experience, around issues like powers, although that is important, it is very much the style of trying to develop policy and deliver on the ground which I think has been the hallmark of the last couple of years. Perhaps that is all I need to say as an introduction.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much. The impression I get from what you have just said is that within the framework that you have been given by the Government of Wales Act you have a wide responsibility. Are there areas that you would like to be responsible for that at the moment you are not?

MS ESSEX: That is a good question. I do not think I would be able to sleep if that were true! It is an immensely wide brief. As I said, I think there is a logic as to why they are together. I cannot think of any area where I would say that has got to come within my portfolio because if we are getting our working arrangements right, if we are getting integrated development policy at strategic level within the Cabinet right (and I think we have) you will see that many of the topics in my portfolio overlap with virtually all my colleagues. This is why I think the style of working with Cabinet sub-groups is very important. If I could take some examples, for instance, on transport where we are developing policies on community transport, that clearly impacts.

LORD RICHARD: We?

MS ESSEX: We the Assembly.

LORD RICHARD: What do you mean by community transport?

MS ESSEX: As an Assembly government but, as I say, it is on a very collaborative approach. In developing a wider brief for community transport in Wales I will clearly have to work in connection with Jane Hutt as Minister of Health because so much of community transport has traditionally come from the social services base, but also, in addition, with my colleague Edwina Hart because a lot of the work relies on local government organisation and to a certain extent on education. So many of the aspects I deal with I cannot deal with in isolation, I have to develop that further. If you look at the issue of sustainability, as we pursue that, an area I am very interested in is sustainable design and construction. Part of that falls within Edwina Hart's brief because she is leading on social housing and construction. I am leading on design sustainability but there is also an issue there for Andrew Davies as Minister for Economic Development because so many of the conclusions we can make on sustainability have an economic impact and an economic opportunity.

LORD RICHARD: How do you resolve the problem? Cabinet committees or informally?

MS ESSEX: We have got quite a few Cabinet committees. We had one on children's issues which brings all those key issues on children together. We have had one dealing with Corus and the closures in Llanwern and Ebbw Vale and North Wales and West Wales. The way we decided to deal with that (because again that goes across a whole range of briefs, transport in my particular case but learning from Jane Davidson's situation and Andrew Davies= situation, with the First Minister's interest) was to pool those together in a sub-Cabinet working group. It may not mean that every meeting we all have to be there because it depends what is on the agenda but it does work at that level.

LORD RICHARD: Presumably it is much the same as it is in [Whitehall?]. You have got a lead minister there who produces papers and then everybody discusses them and you try and produce policies.

MS ESSEX: Because we are physically together as well it makes it easier to have those ad hoc meetings on particular areas, even if you do not have a sub-Cabinet group, if you have got a particular issue that you want to discuss.

LORD RICHARD: Not to be indelicate, but what about wind farms?

MS ESSEX: Energy is an example. A considerable amount of the angst comes at the planning end but it is an issue that also hits the whole point of sustainable development where in many cases there are no easy answers. We have got to work these things through. There is a good argument for and many people feel there is a good argument against. Often it hits the public at the planning level. Where we have to start is on energy policies, and renewable energy in particular in this case, and then look at what other policies we need to complement where we want to be in renewable energy.

LORD RICHARD: Is there what one could call an Assembly view on wind farms?

MS ESSEX: There is a commitment to produce renewable energy, whatever form that comes from. There has been a real degree of controversy on the ground on individual planning applications for wind farms (and you cannot constrain individual planning applications, there is no policy saying all planning applications will be called in or will not be called in and every application on a legal basis has to be treated on its own merit) and we are in the process of producing a technical note which will inform both potential developers and planning authorities to try and see if there is compatibility between achieving targets on renewable energy, of which wind farms is one but not the only one, and try to work with local authorities when it comes to development planning so they can see whether they can accommodate wind power within their communities, which then forms the basis for each application to be treated and to be decided. Certainly in planning you have to try and relate what the overall objectives of the Assembly are, whether it is wind power or other things, and then in terms of the technical advice you would give you cannot override the legal basis because every planning application has to be treated on its own merits.

LORD RICHARD: How much of this depends upon decisions taken in Whitehall or Westminster as opposed to Cardiff?

MS ESSEX: It depends on what electricity megawatt level the application is - this is not just wind farms - and over a certain level the power still rests with Whitehall, and Ceridigion was one of those cases. It depends on the level and at the moment we are discussing whether that could be further devolved to the Assembly.

LORD RICHARD: What is the mechanism at the moment for feeding your views into the planning machinery in Whitehall?

MS ESSEX: We did. We were consulted and we gave our views in a fairly, I would not say lengthy document but it was several pages long, which was drawing together conclusions and views and we submitted that to Brian Wilson at the time who was Energy Minister.

LORD RICHARD: Was there a planning appeal or not?

MS ESSEX: No, there was a view from Ceridigion.

LORD RICHARD: There was not an appeal with an inspector and all the rest of it?

MS ESSEX: No, there was not. The final decision by Brian Wilson, if my memory serves me right, was that there was not a need for a public inquiry on that particular application. That is right, is it not?

MR EVANS: It is.

TOM JONES: Can I first of all declare an interest as a member of one of your ASPBs, although not for very long C

MS ESSEX: --- And a very valuable service you have given Tom as well.

TOM JONES: On wind farms, I suppose the issue in public perception terms with devolution is what powers the Assembly has and does not have. The impression amongst some of the public is that it was a planning issue and suddenly it became an energy issue and then suddenly it became a Whitehall rather than a Cardiff decision because it was over a certain level. It is that confusion which the public finds frustrating in coming to terms with whether we have got devolved government or two layers of government, and sometimes it is difficult to understand the difference between them. We are looking for how the process works. You are saying it is seeking to negotiate some transfer of that energy decision-making to complement the planning powers that you have and we would be interested to know how you would expect that to happen. Will it happen fairly easily? If it does so, will it happen because of a good understanding between yourself and your counterpart ministers or will it happen with difficulty and will you need primary powers?

I have two other associated questions. One concerns national parks which you also referred to where you have not quite got the power to vary the composition of membership of the National Parks Authority. Would you be able to create your own national park if you wanted to or would that also depend on an England and Wales decision-making process?

MS ESSEX: On the first one, the powers that we have obviously come from the devolution settlement and I think it would be fair to say that there are, as the chair indicated, overall national objectives in various areas. It does not have to be just on energy matters, it could be on primary extraction materials, etcetera, and you have to reconcile how that is then interpreted and how it is delivered at the local level. There is an inevitable tension; it just does not have to be about renewable energy on that issue.

On the wind farm side, I think you are quite right to say that in the public perception they could not understand the difference as to why this should be either decided at a local level or at an Assembly level if it was called in because it suddenly came over a certain level. Clearly, as you know, we have argued that we think the prime responsibility should come to us. We are in negotiation and I do not know where that will lead us.

We feel the argument is a strong one here and it is the very one you alluded to, Tom, that it still has an implication in terms of location for communities. Whatever the quantity of electricity that is going to be produced, at the end of the day, as I know on planning, the location and the impact on the ground is something that people they feel strongly about and feel that decision should be made as locally as possible to their community.

I think, though, the other side of that is a transparency of decision and certainly the viewpoint that we put forward to Brian Wilson was made public so people could see what we had written, but I think we are persuaded overall that powers should come to us because we feel the issue on local accountability and accountability at the Wales level is compatible with the national targets that are set.

LORD RICHARD: You said you were in negotiation; with whom?

MS ESSEX: With the DTI.

LORD RICHARD: With the Secretary of State or ---?

MS ESSEX: I think the Secretary of State is involved, in my understanding.

LORD RICHARD: What you want out of the Secretary of State presumably is that that power should be devolved and taken away from the DTI and passed down to the Assembly?

MS ESSEX: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: Would that need primary legislation?

MS ESSEX: No.

LORD RICHARD: It would not?

MS ESSEX: No.

LORD RICHARD: Would it need a statutory instrument?

MR MACEY: I think it would need a transfer of functions order.

LORD RICHARD: That would be enough?

MR MACEY: I think so.

MS ESSEX: On national parks, as you again know, Tom, we are doing a review of national parks and one of the areas we will clearly be looking at is this issue of representation and whether there should be a change in terms of the make-up of the representation on national parks. I am sure people know, but at the moment there are members there that are nominated, from me in this case, and it is open in terms of public advertisement, but they are essentially put in in terms of the level of the national parks. There is also a quota of members that are on national parks that come through local authorities. There has been a debate as to whether that second part in the way that members come on to national parks is the best way of having that local representation. We wait to see what the outcome of that review is. I am not sure whether that needs primary legislation to do that.

MR EVANS: It would require primary legislation to change the business of representation, yes, but not to create a new national park.

TOM JONES: Would you wish that? If there is a group which is reviewing setting up a national park in Wales, if they came back to you and said, A We want to change the composition@ , would you be able to say or would you have go to colleagues in Whitehall, go to your colleagues in England and Wales and if they said, A No, we do not want to change the national parks in England@ , how do you deal with that issue?

MS ESSEX: In Scotland the new parks that are set up there have a different basis of membership to ours. We are going through a review so I cannot pre-empt what will come out of that and what decision will be taken but if the decision is that there should be a change in the structure and nature of the membership, then the way forward would be for us to log in a bid in terms of the programme that goes forward, bearing in mind that I have got colleagues all of whom have got bids for legislation, we would put that on the list as something we would want to go forward with and then it is up to us to do the work on that. We would wait and see whether there was any difficulty on that. I have to say up to now in terms of working through something like the Countryside and Rights of Way Act there has not been any difficulty at all. We are ended up with slightly different regulations in Wales but that has been completely accepted.

On national parks we have already got the situation in Scotland where there is a different make-up so I cannot pre-empt that but as long as there is a rationale for what we do and a logical basis following consultation, I would expect to have fairly productive discussions on that.

TOM JONES: You have got a grant-in-aid for the Environment Agency now and that seems an interesting development in the sense that that is an England and Wales body which was in existence before the Assembly and therefore had grant-in-aid from another department, and still has presumably, so suddenly you have been able to find your own funds. If that is not a reduction of the existing budget given to Wales, it is a separate budget, could you explain how that came about and how you have been able to give funds directly to an England and Wales body to deliver services that you are required to and how that process has worked?

MS ESSEX: I will ask Bob because he was pre-devolution --- I am not saying he was old or anything but he has some very valuable experience!

TOM JONES: He was last century, yes!

MR MACEY: Before devolution the Environment Agency was an England and Wales body. It was in those days responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales for the discharge of its functions in Wales but the mechanism was provided from two government departments, DETR as was and MAFF as was. There was no grant-in-aid provided by theWelsh Office. The concerns in Whitehall were very much in line with aspirations from here that with devolution there should be greater ownership from Wales and indeed responsibility from Wales for what the Environment Agency did and that could be achieved if the Environment Agency was funded by the Assembly for its activities in Wales. So a transfer of funds was agreed, reflecting the expenditure by the Agency in Wales.

TED ROWLANDS: Over and above the grant?

MR MACEY: There was a quite specific transfer of function from one department to another for funding the Environment Agency's activities in Wales. So we worked with the DETR and with Environment Agency clearly providing much of the supporting data. It was what we called in those days a PES transfer of resources from one government department to another, so the Assembly then inherited the resource base that was funding the Agency's activities in Wales. Any changes since that time have been for the Assembly to fund, financed from its own block resources which are provided in accordance with the Barnett Formula. The Minister has on a number of occasions provided funds for specific activities over and above those undertaken in England and those have come from block resources.

TOM JONES: Financial responsibility for those funds is with the core of the Environment Agency, there is not a Welsh or Wales Office from which there is accountability to you for that bit of funding.

MR MACEY: It is the Environment Agency corporately which is responsible to the Assembly. Clearly the Environment Agency is split into regions and the Environment Agency Wales is the main day-to-day link. In terms of the accountability, the Chairman is accountable to the Minister and the Chief Executive is accountable to our Permanent Secretary.

MS ESSEX: As Bob says, there were additional sums of money we put in last year. It was in particular to deal with environmental protection work, identifying problems at waste tips, identifying illegal transportation of waste, etcetera, which was an area of considerable concern to me, and indeed I think right across Wales. So in that way we were able to direct the additional funding and say these were the kind of activities we were carrying out on the ground. I think that has worked very well. The one other thing I would say about the Environment Agency is it did come up for quinquennial review (a strange animal to me) which looks at the Assembly-sponsored bodies. Clearly we did debate this whole issue of England and Wales. It is one of those areas where it is very difficult and joint arrangements are there because obviously the administrative boundary between Wales and England does not reflect the geographical boundaries of river catchment areas, etcetera. The view was - and this was the Committee's view as well and I work very closely with the Committee - that an England and Wales basis as we have it now was probably the sensible way forward to go, particularly in view of the fact that the Environment Agency had just been in the process of undergoing a huge restructuring internally, known as the BRITE restructuring, and everyone right across the Committee and ourselves thought it was not the right time to look at a separate agency for Wales. Further down the line in a few year's time when we have perhaps had time to reflect (this certainly goes for the Assembly) there might be a rationale for that. I cannot pre-empt what anyone would say. As I say, it is a rather unusual body in that there are many of its functions that go across administrative boundaries for very obvious reasons.

LAURA McALLISTER: I wanted to ask you about the variations and scope of your portfolio. You said in your paper that in some of your portfolio areas you have very extensive delegated powers, others less so. How do you manage that as an integrated brief? In some cases the origins of power are quite different and the location of retained power is quite different, in terms of Europe for example, and environmental matters I imagine, protection matters particularly. How do you operate various mechanisms for policy development when the structures are quite different in each case?

MS ESSEX: I think you are right to say we have inherited a lot of different powers depending on what had gone before. On top of that you have got the layer of European Directives and Regulations that are coming post-devolution that would not have been there pre-devolution. I suppose you might think there is a problem. It does not automatically per se cause problems because if you are looking at it in terms of outcomes then you use the powers that you have in terms of what you want to achieve and use those to the best opportunities that are flagged up in the report. One area where we felt we needed more powers post-devolution is in the transport area. Much of the stuff that is coming through, say, from the European side is absolutely compatible with what we want to do. It is not easy always to translate into action on the ground but the fact it has been driven from Europe does not cause us a problem because in effect it is compatible with our policies. The key question would be whether this stuff coming out is incompatible with our policies, and that is a different issue. As it stands at the moment, that is not the case and going back to the CROW legislation that again was completely compatible with where we wanted to go.

Going back to my first statement about achieving better delivery and integration of policy on the ground, I would always say that the question of whether that is working or not does not always rely on powers. So much of what we do in this portfolio relies on collaboration with others. This is why I want to get it in perspective. In terms of taking forward planning issues, clearly we have got a Planning Bill that has been highlighted in the Queen's Speech but taking forward many of the issues that we want to on planning, a lot of issues of primary legislation about collaboration with local government, about making sure the resources are there, the cultures are there and the training is there to get the outcomes that we want to achieve. So the fact that it is varied does not automatically give me a problem. We should be mature and able enough to cope with that variation. The issue post-devolution in one area, in particular in transport, has been one where I would say, yes, we have made it clear that we felt there are extra powers that could deliver - could deliver - outcomes where in fact we are not able to achieve those outcomes through the means that we have now.

LORD RICHARD: Can you spell out the things you can do on transport, what you would like to do and what stops you doing it?

MS ESSEX: What we did first of all was to put a policy base in the way I have described and that is the Transport Framework. The Transport Framework recognises that there are things that we can do because we have the powers to do that, such as on trunk roads in particular, and on motorways. The powers that have traditionally been there in the old Welsh Office were transferred to us so we can make investment on the trunk roads and the trunk road programme was the result. In many other areas where we would want to achieve integration of transport, which is a very important issue, we do not necessarily have the powers there. The way we have gone forward on that is to work again with local government in terms of their consortia which operate on the ground in Wales, and which operate very well. If you live in Wales you will know in North Wales you have got TAITH which is the local authorities coming together with transport operators. In this particular area we have got an organisation called SWIFT which is a collaboration between local authorities. The issue is will those voluntary collaborations achieve the outcomes and the integration we want to see. As things stand at the moment we have not got powers. Should we wish to - and I want to make it clear I am not saying we wish to - strengthen that because we feel the outcomes are not being achieved, bearing in mind as an Assembly Government we have put quite a lot of money through to consortia and local government to deliver that integration, then it would be rather nice to have a power here that could really produce a better integration on the ground[Can’t think what this might have been. Delete?], in the way that we have not got.

I gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on that when we were looking at transport and said there are two areas we have highlighted to deliver that. One is the fairly straightforward fact that apparently the Mayor of London has a general power to take action on transport, which would indeed be helpful for us to have. The second one is the ability to set up either a passenger transport authority or a passenger transport executive which we do not have. The view of the Assembly - and it is not just my view, there was a report done in the committee which looked at public transport that I accepted completely - is that it would be useful to have those powers. Not to say that we would instantly want to use them because we are very keen to support the voluntary collaborations that are operating now but should - and this is I suppose a political responsibility to the people in Wales who desperately want to see practical integration of transport happen on the ground - those outcomes not be achieved then I think it is right and proper as a strategic government that we have the power to try and help that along.

LAURA McALLISTER: Are you not struggling against deregulation more broadly in transport?

MS ESSEX: Clearly there is an issue of deregulation. Whether you feel that is right or wrong that is there on that basis but, having said that, I think we are making considerable progress. If you look at the concessionary fares scheme we have introduced, which is a Wales-only scheme, it has not been introduced in the same way in Scotland or England, then by using that power that we have on concessionary fares we have made a very important input both in terms of tackling social exclusion but very importantly flagging up public transport/bus transport in Wales. We are seeing that through the figures. I do think there are powers that we have that we can use, but the main issue for us has been one of integration and that is the core of our policy. The way we can tackle that is through voluntary collaboration but not on structural arrangements.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Can I ask a factual question about planning and how planning cases have gone since the Government of Wales Act has been on the statute book. As a background to that I should just say I was on the Standing Orders Commission and it was one of the areas in which we found difficulty. There was a retired senior civil servant who said in the old days with the Secretary of State it worked perfectly well but the new procedure, which is ordained by the Government of Wales Act and then spelt out by the Standing Orders, will not work in practice because calling in appeals is a very sensitive matter and having more than one person at the end of the day who is responsible is impractical. Can you tell us whether there have been difficulties about planning appeals, called in cases, since the Act was on the statute book?

MS ESSEX: I am not 100 per cent au fait with the deliberations you had earlier. If I can just explain how it works now. Applications are either called in against one or more of the criteria that we have for calling in applications or, secondly, they are major recovered appeals, major appeals that it is decided should be brought into the Assembly's domain. Either of those would be decided by a planning decision committee that is drawn up from essentially the committee members that sit on the committee that deals with my portfolio. I do not think necessarily exclusively - it is on the basis whether members have been trained. Clearly the membership of that committee has chopped and changed quite a lot but the essential qualification for sitting on the planning decision committee is that you have had proper training. In terms of those decisions it is not, as you referred to previously, made by the Secretary of State who would have been one person deciding on either recovered appeals or ordered applications. It is decided by the planning decision committee which is deliberately chosen to be cross-party with three or four members and chaired either by myself, if I am sitting, or the chair of the committee, Richard Edwards or, if he is not available, someone else can be nominated, as has happened in the past, to be the chair. In terms of my opinion as to whether it has worked or not, I personally think it has worked for two very important reasons. Firstly, I have made a decision which I do not have to make under Standing Orders that if I call in an application I do not sit on that committee. That has been my personal decision because it sends out the message I have not been involved in looking at that case at one stage and then looking at it in another. I think the principle of members of the planning decision committee looking at that case afresh and not having been involved in that before is an important one. I have established that by custom. Secondly, I think the fact you have four members considering that on the back of an inspector's report and on the back of the work that our civil servants have done in evaluating that sends a very reassuring message out to people.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Have any of them been taken to law afterwards?

MS ESSEX: No, I do not think so. There is always an issue in the public's mind that if there is one person they could be - and perhaps this is unfairly in the public's mind - prejudiced or seen as partisan, etcetera, but when you have got four people on that I think that kind of worry goes. I can only say from my personal experience - and Richard Edwards who chairs the committee is coming to give evidence fairly soon and it is a question you might like to ask him - that certainly in the committees I have been on there have been extremely good, very thoughtful, people who take their job very seriously. They probably, although I cannot make any judgment on predecessors, spend considerably more time over each application than the Secretary of State in the past has done.

LORD RICHARD: Do you have planning appeals as in England where the inspector comes down and produces a report?

MS ESSEX: Sure, yes.

LORD RICHARD: The difference is the report then goes to you and then goes to this committee?

MS ESSEX: It depends on the level of inquiry. If it is a household extension, these are mine, no, and they do not come through. If it is a major scheme and the decision is such that we cover it, an inspector's inquiry will be held and we will have an inspector's report but the decision is taken at that top level. There is that level and, as was mentioned before, there are call-ins. These are applications where representations are made to the Government in exactly the same way as it would have been for the Secretary of State, to take these away from the hands of local authorities, for whatever reason. We have set criteria for call-ins which in simple terms is where there are major applications that have cross boundary implications, ie, implications for beyond the sphere of one local authority. That criteria have been consulted on, which has happened post-devolution, and then a call-in application is judged according to those criteria. If it is called in it comes in front of the planning decision committee. If I decide, on advice, that that application should be called in and taken off the hands of the local authority, then that would have in many cases a public inquiry in exactly the same way and then the decision would be made by the planning decision committee.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: There were not any criteria before, it was entirely from the Secretary of State's discretion, I believe.

MS ESSEX: I think there were criteria.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: But they were not public criteria, were they?

TED ROWLANDS: Yes, I can remember a lot of issues on the question of open cast.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Obviously I am wrong about that. The second question I would like to ask you ---

MS ESSEX: If I could just say on the planning decision committee, that would not have been possible before devolution because you did not have a base to draw members from.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: My second question is much more about the future. There is this famously trailed Government initiative for changing planning procedures in England and perhaps Wales, I do not know, but it is quite obvious that you as Minister would have very strong views on these changes which are already arousing great criticism and antagonism in certain authorities, certainly within England. What is the position on this? Have you made public representations or private representations or what has happened?

MS ESSEX: We have produced our own Green Paper on planning - it is called Planning Delivering for Wales - because, as I alluded to earlier, there are aspects in Wales which are dependent on primary legislation, but we have a lot of other things that we have the power to change ourselves. We produced our own Green Paper which set out a whole range of questions which were not just about primary legislation change but clearly we had the possibility of primary legislation to think about, and we raised lots of other questions too. I personally gave evidence to the committee. They were primarily looking into the English Green Paper, but I did go along and there was a report of the proceedings.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: This was a select committee of the Commons on the environment.

MS ESSEX: It was chaired by Andrew Bennett.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: The Environment Committee?

MS ESSEX: So I went along to that and was really justifying why we were suggesting doing things differently in Wales. In terms of the Queen's Speech, when she announced the legislation, I will be making a statement to the full Assembly in Plenary Session next week of how we intend to follow the Green Paper, but it also would be clear that there will be clauses within the legislation when it comes forward that will be Wales-only clauses to reflect our responses to the legislation. I cannot say much more than that because I quite rightly need to put that representation in front of the Plenary first.

LORD RICHARD: Are all the clauses drafted?

MS ESSEX: Yes, I am reliably informed.

LORD RICHARD: You have got a piece of paper with the clauses? Who does the drafting?

MR EVANS: Parliamentary Counsel.

LORD RICHARD: In London? So you send instructions up and he does it up there?

MR EVANS: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: It then forms part of the normal procedure?

MR EVANS: That is how Welsh legislation was done in the past. Obviously now we have a Secretary of State for Wales so in terms of the parliamentary responsibility for that then that would be with the Secretary of State but all the work on instructions and so on would be done by the Parliamentary Counsel.

LORD RICHARD: Why is it the responsibility of the Secretary of State?

MR EVANS: When he comes to introducing legislation then ---

LORD RICHARD: It is tagged on the back.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: It is part of the Concordat, is it not? It is laid down in terms that is request for Welsh forms is passed through the Secretary of State on its way to Parliamentary Counsel and the Parliamentary Counsel cannot, for example, take directions from the head of department here, it has to go through. I do not remember the exact terms of what is said in the Concordat but it is quite clear.

MR EVANS: In practical terms you have to put your bid in for legislation and it would be the Secretary of State for Wales who would have to argue the case with his Cabinet colleagues for getting some Welsh legislation, for example if they were in competition with other government departments and departments are always competing for the opportunity to legislate. Once that is established then it is for agreement with the relevant Whitehall department in terms of any Welsh clauses that would go into that. They would lead the Bill, they would have a Bill team to take the work forward, but the instructing on any Welsh clauses would have to be done from the Assembly with the lawyers writing instructions to Parliamentary Counsel.

LORD RICHARD: You would have agreed policy with Whitehall before you get to that stage?

MR EVANS: That is right. You might have different policies but it would be agreed our policies would be incorporated.

LORD RICHARD: In getting that agreement you would deal with the department, not the Secretary of State?

MR EVANS: That is right.

MS ESSEX: Then obviously the junior minister to see the Bill?

LORD RICHARD: Yes, of course.

TED ROWLANDS: Could I pursue the transport stuff. Have we done the planning stuff?

MS ESSEX: We have never done with planning stuff!

TED ROWLANDS: The strategic transport side of things, particularly rail - rail policy, rail investment - stretches right across the border. First of all, what concurrent powers do you have with the Secretary of State for Transport in transport matters? Have you got concurrent powers where you share the powers with the Secretary of State for Transport?

MS ESSEX: Not on rail, no.

TED ROWLANDS: On what do you have them? Do you have them on many?

MS ESSEX: It depends on the interpretation of the word A concurrent@ .

TED ROWLANDS: It requires a joint decision.

MS ESSEX: No, on joint decisions we do not, do we?

MR EVANS: There is a difference between joint powers and concurrent powers. Concurrent powers would mean that both we and the Secretary of State could separately use those powers to do things whereas joint would require both powers to sign up to a single action. Road safety is the example we have where under the same powers the Department for Transport does road safety advertisements and so on and we use the same powers to do things ourselves promoting road safety. That would be the main example.

TED ROWLANDS: That is concurrent?

MR EVANS: That is concurrent.

TED ROWLANDS: Do you and the Secretary of State for Transport have any joint powers?

MR EVANS: Not in transport.

TED ROWLANDS: Or anything else.

MS ESSEX: There might be one or two minor things but certainly nothing significant.

MR ROWLANDS: You mentioned at various times in your own submission the relationship with the Strategic Rail Authority, for example, and of course, although you do not mention it at all, the successor to Railtrack. How do you relate to those strategic decisions made by the SRA, or now by the new successor to Railtrack? What leverage do you have on these bodies?

MS ESSEX: With Railtrack very little but I do not think I was alone in that at all. It clearly is one where we do not have powers as such. It goes back to the point on collaboration earlier on. We do try and influence. We have made decisions on supporting investment in rail in Wales, quite significant decisions, where we have said we are prepared to put money into schemes and to see them happen on the ground. The Vale of Glamorgan passenger transport is one and I am sure you are familiar with the Ebbw Vale line. It is a question of joint working not in the legal sense but in the practical sense. The SRA is a fairly new organisation and we have worked very closely with it because of my wish and my colleagues' wish that we do see a great improvement in rail travel in the future in Wales. It is partly down to the issues of integration that I talked about earlier. It has been very much one of dialogue but again, going back to where we have not got powers, we have looked at the situation in Scotland and there are pluses and minuses in having that.

TED ROWLANDS: Tell us about the Scottish powers that you do not have?

MS ESSEX: On direction over the SRA?

TED ROWLANDS: Yes.

MS ESSEX: Certainly in terms of budget and in the franchise Scotrail is their franchise north of the border. We have got a Wales and Border franchise. It is slightly more difficult for Wales because we are looking at Wales and Border and many of our lines run through England as well; in Scotland there is a geographical distinction. We have looked at the powers of direction that Scotland has and on balance we have said we think it would be a good idea for us to have them.

TED ROWLANDS: What type of power do they have?

MS ESSEX: They are still in negotiation in terms of how that will span out but certainly in terms of priority of spending on the franchise I understand - and I do not know if Martin has looked at it in more detail - that is an area we would consider important.

MR EVANS: The basic thing is the power of direction of the Strategic Rail Authority.

TED ROWLANDS: The Scottish equivalent has the power to direct the SRA to do certain things in Scotland.

MR EVANS: That is right. What goes with that is the money to do those things and the responsibility that goes with the money.

LORD RICHARD: You have got the scheme and the money for scheme round Cardiff and then you go and negotiate with whom?

MS ESSEX: What we have said here is as the Government has shown no willingness to put additional funding in for infrastructure improvements, particularly in terms of the links and that is something that is to do with infrastructure, clearly the SRA has a role as well in funding on network enhancement. As I say, there is a plus and a minus. The money for Scotland comes under the Barnett Formula. Anything that comes under the Barnett Formula you have to argue against competing pressures so you can put that as a question mark as to whether that is better. In terms of being able to state your priorities and match your priorities with your other objectives on integrating transport and other directives of spatial planning, it is a big plus and that is where we are persuaded on balance it seems like a good idea.

LORD RICHARD: Who would you go and argue with?

MS ESSEX: [?]

LORD RICHARD: If you have got a scheme, the Valley Railway for example, or you were talking about the Ebbw Vale railway; if you have an idea to do something like that?

MS ESSEX: You do not argue with anyone, I guess, because you would not have to then go and persuade the SRA that was a good scheme, you would have that power if it is within Wales.

TED ROWLANDS: I am not clear, I am a bit lost too. In Scotland if we had the equivalent power and you decided you wanted an investment in some aspect of the railway system, and you had the powers of the Scottish Minister, you could direct the SRA to undertake a scheme of some kind to develop? Is that right?

MS ESSEX: I think it is a bit more complicated than that because there is a difference between the franchise and the running of the train operating company and infrastructure and investment. As I understand it, it is an evolving process - and I have not spoken to my colleagues, they keep changing in Scotland, I am not sure why - and they have quite a strong influence over the franchise.

TED ROWLANDS: Over the actual franchise itself, so we could say, A We do not want you to have a franchise because you have got a track record of failure.@

MR EVANS: They have got the equivalent power to the power that the Secretary of State for Transport has in relation to England so what happens on franchising is that it basically gives the power to the SRA to do all that business. The SRA advertises the franchise and so on but in a framework of policy direction from the Secretary of State for Transport. So they are given some criteria.

TED ROWLANDS: In England and Wales you do not have the equivalent to that which the Scottish Minister has in influencing the franchise decisions in Wales? Is that right? Is that what you are saying?

MR EVANS: At the end of the Scotrail franchising process the SRA will have to go back to the Scottish Minister and say, A Here are our conclusions. What do you say?@ and the Scottish Minister will say yea or nay to that. In the case of England and the Wales and Border franchise, the SRA will go back to the Secretary of State for Transport and say, A These are the conclusions we have come to. Is that alright?@ Equally, they are conducting a process within a framework agreed by the Secretary of State for Transport who is in practice consulted about how that process works.

TED ROWLANDS: When we come to the decision over the franchise he or she is not obliged to get your agreement to that decision?

MR EVANS: No.

TED ROWLANDS: So they talk to you?

MS ESSEX: We are acting on goodwill and influence and I would not under-estimate that because the fact that we have got a Wales and Border franchise to start with, quite honestly, has resulted from the fact there has been respect for the wishes of Wales that we have a Wales and Border franchise. I think that indicates that that goodwill has been taken a very long way.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: But does money not come into it?

MS ESSEX: Money will come in and that is the part that I mentioned before. As I understand it, in Scotland this is the issue, the allocation to Scotland will be done on the Barnett Formula rather than any other calculation. I am not 100 per cent sure of this and I think we do need to look into it. That is right, is it?

MR EVANS: The Barnett Formula only really affects the change from year-to-year. What you start with is a baseline and basically transferring responsibility for rail services in Scotland to the Scottish Executive means transferring an amount of money, rather like Bob described for the Environment Agency, that gets transferred to Scotland and that is the baseline.

TED ROWLANDS: We have not done that in England and Wales. They have done it in Scotland and transferred ---

MR EVANS: That process of transferring and putting it into the main block has not finished yet, that finishes in 2004.

PAUL VALERIO: You are saying you are satisfied with the status quo at the moment?

MS ESSEX: No, I am saying that on balance we would like to have the same powers as Scotland.

PAUL VALERIO: With the financial implications as well?

MS ESSEX: As I said, there is a question mark over the financial allocation and whether it would put us in a plus or a minus situation. The plus is that at the end of the day we can be sure that the priorities made in the franchise decision will be our priorities. I would not want to misrepresent it. We have very good relationships and we have put together things like a bidders' pack and clearly they have tried to involve us at every stage of the process. It will be a commercial decision as to which of four bidders and we will not be party to which company wins that. We have tried to influence what we consider are the priorities in investment. That is at the end of the day, as I indicated, done on the basis of good will and influence rather than the actual powers.

TED ROWLANDS: The Secretary of State for Transport takes the decision in the end. It is his or her decision and not a joint one in any sense of the word. If you had felt that one of these four bidders with the evidence you had received would have been a better bet, while you could make a case to your opposite number you could not say you really should not do that?

MS ESSEX: In the Transport Act 2000 we got inserted this issue of consultation between the SRA and us, so they have a duty to consult but the final decision will be theirs and not ours. As I said, it is slightly different from Scotland because it is a Wales and Borders franchise and we do have to take into account the fact we have got colleagues over the border who quite rightly need a voice on transport issues.

TED ROWLANDS: It will always be a statutory joint decision, do you not think? You said it is across the border but a very large percentage of it is in Wales.

MS ESSEX: It is whether you work with the regional Assembly or whether you work with the local authorities. Up to now I have to say in terms of working across the border with colleagues on developing Wales and Border, which was not going to be the preferred option of reletting the franchise, it was a reconstituted franchise taking in various elements of other franchises and you could at that stage have anticipated that there could be a wish from colleagues across the border not to have that along the border, but they have come along and been supportive. I take the point about how that accountability could be put in place.

TED ROWLANDS: Investment in the railways themselves, in the tracks, this is Railtrack or the successor, which is now going to be a non-profit making body; what is your relationship or what power do you have with son of Railtrack or the successor to Railtrack?

MS ESSEX: Very much on the Glas Cymru model in the water industry. We have no powers other than providing funding to the process, as I have said, in the Vale of Glamorgan and obviously trying to influence the SRA in terms of what it considers are its priorities in terms of enhancement. Network Rail will be financed by money coming from the train operating companies, TOCs, and it will be money coming from the SRA in terms of the Strategic Rail Authority in terms of enhancements. We are also trying to put our money into where we think that is the priority, just down the road in Queen Street with the enhancement of the station. We have no powers to require the Secretary of State.

TED ROWLANDS: Does the Secretary of State for Transport have any such powers?

MS ESSEX: That is a good question. I do not know.

MR EVANS: He has indirectly in the sense of the power of direction over the SRA so he could give the SRA money and direct them to give it to Railtrack for certain purposes, but that is the only difference.

EIRA DAVIES: As I understand it, Minister, you had initially hoped for a Welsh Strategic Rail Authority but those aspirations were blocked by Whitehall. What happened in those negotiations?

MS ESSEX: We never asked for a Welsh Strategic Rail Authority.

EIRA DAVIES: Thank you for correcting me.

MS ESSEX: That is not my memory but my memory is getting really quite poor. I have gone through so many elements, certainly on the rail industry. The argument has always been from ---

EIRA DAVIES: You mentioned goodwill and collaboration.

MS ESSEX: Yes. We have always accepted that railways are a UK-wide issue and certainly in terms of many of their strategic roles if you look at inter-city lines, they connect from Edinburgh to Cardiff and from London to Cardiff, so about half our rail usage is on those strategic roots that are let through a variety of franchises. What we were really referring to is the internal operation of the Wales and Border franchise which crosses the English border and that is where we would look to having a strategic direction to influence the delivery of that franchise.

LORD RICHARD: I am sure it is my fault that I am not entirely following. Can the SRA take a decision about what they do to the track, say, in Pembrokeshire over and above the Assembly's views?

MS ESSEX: The franchise delivers the rights to the train operating companies so the Strategic Rail Authority in making that decision to the franchise holder is where the rights exist. We have not got a right to say to a company, A You must deliver this service@ , or to Network Rail, A You must create this rail station.@ It is all a question of influence.

LORD RICHARD: As far as Railtrack is concerned, could Railtrack take those decisions for Pembrokeshire without reference to you?

MS ESSEX: It could but it would be unlikely in practice now because so many of the decisions that are taken require infrastructure improvements as well, for example a new station, for which funding is coming through local authorities and us in partnership. It is in practice a much more collaborative effort now and I think that is true. In terms of our legal basis, our powers to make changes are non-existent.

TED ROWLANDS: In section 6 of your paper to us we asked: A Are there areas of policy where responsibilities are divided between the Assembly and Whitehall in ways which (a) have have worked well or (b) presented practical problems?@ I found the last couple of sentences of that page and the top of next page rather cryptic. I do not understand.

MS ESSEX: The multi-modal studies?

TED ROWLANDS: It says here: A The critical issue relates to the Public Service requirement of subsidised services. The Assembly does not receive funding to subsidise rail services and therefore achieving its aspirations for modal shift in south east Wales are subject to the judgements of the SRA.@

MS ESSEX: We are in different places here.

TED ROWLANDS: A The absence of powers of direction over the SRA is a key one@ - and that is what we have, with respect, been trying to tease out of you to find out what could or should be these powers - A in terms of developing a fully integrated policy@ . You say strongly, this is not just a thought, you seem to think it is essential to the development of your policy but you have not got this power of direction over the SRA. You did say earlier on that you were not quite sure whether you wanted it or not. Is this what the Scots have got that we have not got?

MS ESSEX: At the moment we rely on goodwill and influence, we would like it to be stronger.

TED ROWLANDS: You do not have a funding arrangement to subsidise rail services? MR EVANS: We provide individual bits of support. We have powers to grant aid to transport in various forms nearly all via local authorities.

TED ROWLANDS: So you can subsidise the rail?

MR EVANS: We can give transport grants to local authorities to do various things, hence the re-opening of the Vale of Glamorgan line and the works on Queen Street station.

LORD RICHARD: You can use some money in order to influence it. That is right?

MR EVANS: That is right. These are for one-off particular developments. What we do not have is statutory influence over the overall shape of overall policy.

LORD RICHARD: Small bribes rather than big ones?

MS ESSEX: Encouragements.

TED ROWLANDS: You do have funds if you wish to use them to subsidise rail services?

MS ESSEX: We do not receive funding from the government other than through the Barnett Formula. What we do is use our own resources.

TOM JONES: Can I have another bite of the cherry.

TED ROWLANDS: Can I just finish it off. A ... therefore achieving its aspirations for a modal shift ...@ What is that? What do you want to do? I cannot understand what a modal shift is.

MS ESSEX: It is simply getting people out of their cars and onto trains. It is a major aspiration for South Wales Valleys because that is a great opportunity where we have got a very good structural train service in terms of routes there, perhaps not so good in terms of frequency and quality, but we have got major problems of congestion, traffic coming from the valleys into Cardiff, in particular along the M4 corridor, so prioritising that and trying to get people out of cars to use park and ride and the trains is not just our priority, it is also priority of those local authorities that are part of the SWIFT consortium. Clearly priorities in terms of the franchise, in terms of frequency, etcetera, would be very important to get that modal shift.

TED ROWLANDS: The SRA has the power to subsidise these services?

MS ESSEX: Yes, the franchise will have a sum of money allocated to it wherever the commercial bidding comes in. It escapes everyone just how far the rail system is still highly subsidised, but they have a sum of money which they will use to buy a franchise and buy service levels.

TED ROWLANDS: What you are saying here is if the SRA has not got much of an interest in getting people out of their cars into Cardiff and out into trains then you have no power of direction over them to instruct them to do that?

MS ESSEX: Precisely.

TED ROWLANDS: A The multi modal study of routes between London and South Wales/the south west of England is an example of the difficulties we face in joining up major infrastructure initiatives across our boundaries.@ Can you elaborate on that and on where your powers or lack of them prevent this?

MS ESSEX: I suppose it is a fairly obvious thing really that in South Wales decisions taken the other side of the bridge on the eastern side of the bridge are going to have an enormous impact, whether it is investment in the M4 corridor or investment in the Great Western rail route. Multi modal studies are a major look at those transport corridors that the Department of Transport is now considering. The western one is key for us in South Wales and so decisions there will impact on us here and from our point of view.

TED ROWLANDS: What kind of decisions have been made which have impacted already and you would have liked not to have happened?

MS ESSEX: It is not necessarily what has not happened, it is in the future what might not happen and that is clearly investment on the west side of London and we are looking at major connections between Reading and Heathrow to improve that train corridor. I think that is just a reality of life, not just with the border but the different authorities down there. I think that sentence has been put in just to say that because in the case of South Wales you are at the end of line (or in fact you could say Eire is at the end of the line) major investment decisions or policies across the border can have an impact on us here. That is why we are into the area of joint working. It is not purely the aspect of powers of legislation, it is the aspect of the way that we work together.

TOM JONES: I was trying to give you some respite from Ted's probing questions.

TED ROWLANDS: My thick questions!

TOM JONES: The first is something I know nothing about. In your wish list of things that you might want, you referred to a Traffic Commissioner. You have got words like A potentially there is a case for ...@ and you say there is no statutory control over the Commissioner but the Assembly maintains its formal links. You are not asking for statutory control or extra powers and then you say A an office in Cardiff@ , you presumably mean an office in Wales, sustainable development, etcetera. What are your wishes for a Traffic Commissioner?

I have two other questions. We were discussing earlier on this morning with Jenny Randerson the powers over the National Lottery. The Lottery has brought in a lot of additional benefits to Wales for environmental projects, through Heritage Lottery and also the New Opportunities Fund. You have no control over Lottery distribution. Would it be useful if you had as an Assembly greater influence, control, powers in the way National Lottery funding is distributed?

The third point concerns Europe. As we all know, lots of legislation these days - on the environment, agriculture and rural areas - comes from Brussels and is European based. Are you satisfied with the mechanisms in place to make certain the National Assembly's views on European environmental legislation is as you would wish it and is the framework of the Joint Nature Conservation Body the best framework for you to actually take advice at a UK level and then have an input into European business? Those are three separate questions.

MS ESSEX: We still feel very aggrieved that the Traffic Commissioner was taken to Birmingham so Wales is served from the Birmingham office. Whilst the Traffic Commissioner in regular meetings assures us that that does not cause any practical problems because he spends lots and lots of time here in Wales, there is a general feeling that we could benefit from our own Traffic Commissioner. However, I suspect there is a price tag attached to that since traffic reorganisation has taken the Traffic Commissioner into Birmingham. As a first step we feel that there needs to be a physical presence and an office. It goes back to your point on public perception. There is a public perception that the Traffic Commissioner is remote in terms of delivery. He also deals with lorries and haulage but in the public's view the main matter that the Traffic Commissioner deals with is buses and the fact there is not an office here and a presence here means they feel there is not an action here. I feel there is an issue of perception. Like most things that are happening post-devolution --- for example Amnesty International have decided that they are going to open an office in Wales. Voluntary sector organisations and public sector funded organisations see the logic of having an operational base in Wales post-devolution because we can have that greater contact.

In terms of the National Lottery, yes, I think my view would be the same as Jenny expressed. We do feel that the arguments for it having a Welsh dimension are very strong because, as on anything else, the priorities across the United Kingdom may not be the same. That was particularly true for me in terms of waste and the way the money is being built up through that sector. I would agree with that.

If we can look at Europe, there are two elements to that. One is the consultation on potential legislation and then there is the devolvement of regulations and I will maybe ask Bob to come in on the second one because it is a major part of our work - European Regulations and delivery on those and delivering them to us.

On consultation we have had extremely good consultation. We are competent at doing it. Sometimes the turnaround time is quite tight but that is just a fact of life, that happens. But I am always getting consultation on very, very complicated chemicals that do all sorts of horrible things to people. I am not the expert but I could not say we were not included in that. Where we have got the capacity to respond we do that and where it is obviously an area where we have not got that detailed scientific capacity we are very happy to use what they have in England.

Before I ask Bob to come back on the transposition of the regulations, on JNCC in particular it is not one that I have spent a lot of time considering. It has not been flagged up to me by CCW. Maybe you will give your views on that to me at another time, Tom. We have kept to the view that there are many areas - going back to that point about specialist knowledge - that can be shared across political boundaries and it is silly to lose those on a point of principle and the JMCC is one area where scientific advice, etcetera, on biodiversity is in many cases at a strategic level. If we can be part of that and if it makes sense to be part of that, then we are. If anyone tells me any different on JMCC I would be happy to have a look at it. Certainly that is the view that has been coming to us up to now and also from people within the Assembly.

LORD RICHARD: I was going to ask you something about the implementation of European Directives. Has there yet been a case where Cardiff says, A We will implement it this way@ , and London says, A No you do not, you have got to implement it another way@ ?

MS ESSEX: Bob will tell me otherwise but there are a lot of Waste Directives that come through and we have got our own waste policy here in Wales.

LORD RICHARD: Does that cause problems with London?

MS ESSEX: No.

LORD RICHARD: London is happy that you should do it your way?

MS ESSEX: We will be going in more or less the same way. Where we have done something differently is in terms of the targets that we have set. We have produced our own strategy and obviously we have transposed some of the Landfill Directives in particular which have got to be transferred into ours. If I can look at the policy base in terms of meeting European targets which they have in terms of the Landfill Directive, then we have not taken an overall different approach to them but a slightly different attitude here in Wales and that has caused no problem at all because it is based on rationale, not on dogmatism. It is based on what we think is the right approach here in terms of delivery.

EIRA DAVIES: Why are the targets higher in Wales than in England?

MS ESSEX: I think partly because of our commitment to sustainable development in terms that we feel that we could go further on waste here, on recycling and composting, so because we are having those other drivers as well, we feel there is a potential for going further. It is also based on experience. We have had a couple of good schemes operating in Wales where we set up a Waste Forum which had the usual issue of stakeholders from different ends of the spectrum - the voluntary sector and Environment Agency etcetera - we had a long discussion before we set those targets and there was some experience in Wales that said we could go to higher targets than that. We then consulted on that in our first draft and that was generally supported. We have pushed that target up. Time will tell whether we can deliver. That was based on what we wanted to do in terms of our commitment but secondly based on the experience on the ground which said to us we think we have got the opportunity to do this. What we have done is support four examplar local authorities that are pushing that target up even higher to see if we can go even higher than that.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: That produced a very lively university department on environmental waste in South Wales who certainly supplied advisers, all professors to a man or women, to the House of Lords Committee on Europe, in particular the Environmental Pollution Committee under Lord Ashby, who was the first Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. They were very distinguished and they were leading the field in those days. I am speaking about 25 years ago.

MS ESSEX: I am sure they still are. Can I ask Bob to come in on the Landfill Directive which is going back to Tom Jones's original point.

MR MACEY: In general most environment policy is made in Europe. There has been a never-ending flow of Directives coming through for many years on air, water, land, waste. In many cases it makes little sense to implement them other than in practice on a GB basis. Industry is not going to be best pleased if there are different regulations even if they are better regulations in Wales than England. I am aware of no areas in the Minister's portfolio where aspirations to do things differently have been thwarted by Whitehall. There are two specific areas where we have implementeddifferently, one quite large and one quite small. The Minister has mentioned the waste issue where essentially there are a lot of European Directives which bear down on waste, and the Assembly in its early days decided to take ownership of a waste strategy. The European Directives in terms of driving waste from landfill do not at the moment - I suspect this will change - tell you where you must actually otherwise manage or dispose of your waste. One route would be that you would burn it in waste facilities or basic incinerators. The clear rationale for the higher target the Minister was keen on setting was to avoid the move from landfill being replaced to a large extent by energy-from- waste facilities. It was trying to maximise the contribution that recycling and composting could make. We established a team of a few people to take forward the policy. Where we did it differently in the strategy, there were no problems with Whitehall. Another area of difference is much narrower and relates to nitrate vulnerable zones. In Whitehall the preference (and indeed they consulted on it) was to implement the Directive on nitrate vulnerable zones by designating 80 or 100 per cent of England. The relevant Directive gave you the option of identifying areas or identifying the whole of the territory and then having a plan covering the whole of the territory. In Wales the science suggests only three per cent of Wales actually suffers from the problems of nitrate pollution as identified in the Directive and the Assembly very early in the process made it quite clear that it was going for a geographically localised approach, a designated approach. England has subsequently followed us to an extent by seeking to designate some 50 per centof England. Potentially it was quite embarrassing for DEFRA in having this fairly narrow approach in Wales - and Tom will understand this from the farming side - because DEFRA could foresee a lot of problems as a result of that with the farming community in England, but there was no pressure or problems in us pursuing a different line in Wales.

TED ROWLANDS: We have received evidence from Mr German and his officials in agriculture about quite a series of difficult problems in implementing Directives because the transfer of functions had been ragged. Not all the functions had been transferred and sometimes they have to go back for some kind of designation. We had quite a complicated discussion. Have the areas for which you are responsible struck the same problem? Do you know what I am talking about?

MR MACEY: It has not been a major problem for us in terms of the transfer of functions having to be re-visited. What is a more material issue, as I have mentioned, is there is a continual flow of European Directives. If we do not have the domestic power to implement those Directives then we need an order under section 2.2 of the European Communities Act and that is a continual process of having to refresh, if I can put it in those terms, the powers the Assembly has to implement the Directives.

TED ROWLANDS: You can do that yourself?

MR MACEY: It is formally confirmed by the Privy Council but we require Whitehall agreement. For example, we were recently seeking powers to implement a Hazardous Waste Directive. We did not have the powers under the transfer of functions order. It was not a deficiency of the transfer of functions order, it was that domestic legislation did not provide the powers that were necessary.

TED ROWLANDS: So you then went for the European Communities Act which allows you to implement Directives where there is no domestic legislation?

MR MACEY: Yes. It is not a transfer of functions order issue.

LORD RICHARD: Minister, can I thank you very much indeed. I know that you have got to be away at 4 o'clock.

MS ESSEX: If there is anything else, I can stay.

LORD RICHARD: You have been very helpful, thank you very much. I have learnt a lot this afternoon.