27/02/2014
Yesterday afternoon (Wednesday) I had the depressing experience of listening from start to finish the Commons Debate on
flooding (col.317) when, to my recollection, two words were noticeably absent: "European Union".
In fact, there was one reference, from Maria Eagle, who led the opposition day debate, but it was only to comment on the government's apparent reluctance to make an application for financial assistance from the EU's solidarity fund. For the rest of the debate, the stealth pachyderm was completely AWOL.
As to what caused the floods we have seen over the last months, there were a number of idiot MPs who directly or indirectly referred to Mr Monbiot's claims as to the role of maize, with one - Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, quoting liberally from his article, without the slightest bit of acknowledgement, waxing indignant about "deregulation". Did Flynn even know he was quoting from the
Guardian?
However, while the
Guardian readers were queuing up to make their points, not a single reader of the Booker column, not of the Spectator, nor even of this blog (there are some) sought to raise their heads above the parapet and question the role of EU legislation.
Nevertheless, it really cannot be case that all of those assembled in the chamber were completely oblivious to
the reality that the EU has defined and shaped the UK's flood policy. The decision not to acknowledge the presence of the pachyderm must have been conscious and deliberate.
Even now, as we continue our study into this remarkable episode of British history, we are beginning to see a deliberate pattern here, where the driving force behind the developments on the Levels has been the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, as augmented by the Floods Directive, alongside the Habitats Directive and other EU laws.
But what comes over from my
earlier piece is that, for NGOs such as the RSPB, implementing EU policy has become a major industry and, for them, a substantial cash generator.
For this reason, it has been these bodies which have been in the forefront of promoting activity in the field, so much so that when, yesterday, the EFRA committee
sought oral evidence on "lessons learned on approach to maintenance measures", it turned to the RSPB for advice. Could it really be oblivious to the part the RSPB plays in the
Blueprint for Water Coalition, which wants to "keep our rivers flowing and our wetlands wet"? Was it totally unaware of its association with
EU policy?
However, when we look as the previous select committee report, published on
2 July 2013, we see the same dire game afoot. There are only three references in Volume 1 to relevant EU directives, and then in oral evidence. These are not carried over into the main body of the report.
Lord Smith, giving evidence, tells MPs of the Environment Agency's "ambitions on natural capital enhancement and meeting our biodiversity objectives", declaring that: "We would always want to continue to maintain so that life and property are protected", then adding, "There will be times when we need to be careful about how and exactly when we carry out that work, in order to make sure we are not damaging biodiversity â¦".
This passed the MPs by â they did not pick up the thread, nor link it with the one and only reference to the Habitats Directive. And nor from
Volume 2 did they comment on the National Audit Office memorandum. That told of Defra and the Environment Agency holding workshops in November 2012 on mapping surface water ?ood risk and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Although these workshops were attended by 144 organisations at eight regional locations, and that in the entire report, this was the only mention of the WFD, not a single MP sought to inquire why 144 organisations were so interested in the Directive. Their lack of interest was total.
Yet, it is
that Directive which gives the NGOs their power. Specifically, their private gold mine rests with Article 4 which requires Member States to "protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water". By this authority do the likes of the RSPB seek to turn the Somerset Levels into a giant nature reserve.
The wickedness here though is that the Somerset Levels/Moors
qualify under the Directive as either "Heavily Modified Water Bodies" (HMWBs) or "Artificial Water Bodies" (AWBs). Under Article 4.3, they are essentially exempted from the provisions, where achieving good ecological condition would have an adverse effect on "water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or ... other equally important sustainable human development activities ...".
What we have been seeing is public bodies (such as the Environment Agency) with the active encouragement of the RSPB, WWF and other NGOs, exploiting for their own interests the provisions of the WFD. None will admit that there is a specific derogation and no need to apply them, especially if flood protection is at risk.
But, with MPs having absolutely no idea what is going on, and with even less interest in looking after the inhabitants of the Levels who pay their bills, not one of them is able to put the brakes on the NGO gravy train.
Meanwhile, the EU uses our money to bribe the NGOs and suborn the democratic process, leading yesterday to the unedifying sight of dozens of MPs blathering away into a vacuum, a supreme irrelevance with nothing of any consequence to offer. That is what it has come to.
