Examination of witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
THURSDAY 23 APRIL 1998
MR JOHN
BATTLEM MP
and DR COLIN
HICKS
380. No, in terms of policy.
(Mr Battle) If you will let me finish the sentence!
Housekeeping, yes. Across other areas of policy, not quite in
the way you think. It is not always that easy because we are not
a department which runs whole areas of industry. We do not run
the car industry, the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry,
the steel industry, so we cannot set targets for them. Some of
those industries come under targets set by the Environment Agency,
like for example sulphur emission targets for all power stations.
We do not set those targets but they are there. I believe in targets
but it is not the fact that we, Government at the centre, fix
the targets and tell industry to do them. We have to coerce, cajole,
persuade, and I actually say that in partnership. I encourage
them to believe that environmental approaches actually blend with
economic efficiency and social justice. I do not see them as separate
tasks. But we cannot tell industry what to do. We encourage them
to publish environment reports and best practice and we support
the notion of sustainable development integrated into policy formation
at every single level and aspect in our approach to move outwards
towards industry.
381. As well as simply sending out a pro-active
message that you are there to help British business follow sound
environmental practice, would you not see the Green Committee
as actually going with the Treasury, making sure there are financial
and fiscal incentives to be more than just helping industry? Have
we not got to get a structure so you can get this message across
the board from Government?
(Mr Battle) Yes, I do so, and we make suggestions
as well on fiscal strategy.
382. Which ones?
(Mr Battle) Of course I do not run the Treasury
either but I am more than happy to have that dialogue and have
that dialogue at the Green Ministers' Committee because it opens
up the Treasury as there is a Treasury Minister there. I actually
think life is more difficult for Dawn Primarolo than any of us
at that meeting, because she is part of the collective decision-making
of that body as well as reporting back to the Treasury. So that
means we have at least got a structure which prises open the Treasury
on questions such as fiscal measures. I will give a practical
example which is slightly different. I was very encouraged, for
example, when the Treasury published at Budget time, not least
as a result of questions we have been asking, a working party
to look at innovation, and by that I mean to ensure businesses
are competitive they must look at innovation, new ideas, new ways
of moving forward, new ways of using technology, new processes,
new products, but built into that is the concept of sustainability
and looking at sustainable ways of doing that. I thought that
was quite encouraging. That is obviously a Treasury document and
they are looking to see if they can give tax incentives for innovation,
and we encourage that.
383. Have you made any specific suggestions,
for example, in respect of the North Sea Fiscal Review?
(Mr Battle) We are involved in the North Sea Fiscal
Review. Our officials meet with the Treasury officials regularly
to look at that whole area. The conversations are going on at
the present time and I am not at liberty to reveal where they
are up to because that has a massive impact on the companies involved
in that. I would simply say to you that it is a review in the
sense that we announced we would do it. There was not a fiscal
change jumped on the industry without consultation.
Dr Iddon
384. There is controversy at the moment
about CO2 emissions. We heard last week about the question
of the sun spots. Can I ask where you stand on CO2
emissions? Is your Department monitoring the controversy?
(Mr Battle) We are, yes, and there is a section
precisely within Dr Colin Hicks' Directorate that monitors climate
change policy, carbon energy taxes and keeps an eye on this. In
terms of CO2 emissions, there are some that argue there
is no problem and that it is not "generated by human beings".
For some years I took weather readings and I used to send them
into the Met Office regularly. If you go into the Library and
you get out Dr Samuel Johnson's diaries you will find that he
kept weather recordings. There is a perceptible change in the
climate patterns. When I was in Opposition I went to the Hadley
Forecasting Centre and looked at their reports. They publish great
reports on climate change. We then got to the Inter-Governmental
Conference and at the very least it said that there is a general
consensus among those scientists that human activities have a
perceptible effect on climate change, and I think we should take
that seriously because there are those that say we should ignore
it. The French Green Minister is totally opposed to it. He does
not believe there is any problem at all. He attends the science
meetings with me in Europe. I think it he is wrong, frankly. I
think we have to take it seriously. I would move on from there
and say we need to have careful analysis. I have visited the Met
Office. I am responsible for the Natural Environment Research
Council under the science heading so I went down to Southampton.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about climate change. It is not
the case that if climate changes happen we will be able to grow
oranges and bananas in the middle of Leeds. If you look at the
ocean currents, in particular the Gulf stream, there is a real
danger that the convector system that pulls that Gulf stream current
up to the north could switch off. No one knows how to switch "it
on and off". If that happens, our climate will be closer
to that of Newfoundland than it would be to Portugal or Gibraltar.
I simply say that because that has massive policy implications.
My constituency is in the top ten of constituencies without central
heating. Fuel poverty and coldness in the winter is a real and
serious problems in my constituency. That is why we need energy
conservation measures, we need insulation measures and we need
to conserve the energy used in buildings. We want to make sure
that the science of buildings matches the fuel input so people
keep warm. I think in this debate we could find that keeping warmer
in winter is a problem in Britain in 50 years time or 100 years
time and we will not all be sitting out on the beach with sunglasses
on. I think it will be the opposite way round. There is a scientific
debate about that, but I am in no doubt at all that human behaviour
is having an impact. I think it is wider than climate change.
I also think there is a needless amount of waste which then works
through to inefficiency going on in our use of products and processes.
The big question in the next century will be water and energy
and that implies having the science and technology focused upon
addressing those questions.
385. May I put it to you that we might have
the propaganda wrong on CO2 emissions. As a chemist,
I am more worried about consuming fossil fuels because they are
a source of chemicals for the future. Perhaps we ought to focus
our arguments on that fact rather than the CO2 emissions.
(Mr Battle) When you burn coal in a power station
it burns at 33 per cent. efficiency. I remember going round a
power station where the power station manager was showing some
youngsters round and an 11-year old turned to him and said, "Are
you mad when you run this place? Why do you heat up all that water
but then send it out and cool it down as steam? What a waste."
The combined cycle gas powered stations are only 58 per cent.
at best; half the heat is wasted. Coal is massively inefficient
as a fossil fuel burn but so is gas. You could argue that it is
criminal to burn gas in a power station at 55 per cent. thermal
efficiency. There has been such pressure on and it is partly because
of our culture. When I was a kid they were just developing nuclear
energy and I can remember the themes then, i.e. if we could mystically
tap into the scientific dynamics of the sun then our energy would
be free because there was the notion of fusion as well as fission
around. That was the great myth. Then we discovered North Sea
gas and energy was going to be too cheap to meter. This notion
that there is this infinite reserve and resource that we can burn
at will forever is massively misconceived. One hundred and sixty
years ago most of the fuel was actually renewable energy, it was
crops for horse transport. So we may see this century as an aberration,
as a fossil fuel burning century, that we have got to move to
other more sustainable methods.
Mr Dafis
386. You are talking like a member of Greenpeace.
(Mr Battle) I am delighted to hear that. I do
not think Greenpeace are all that wrong on some of the issues.
I think we have got to discuss practical means of achieving timetables.
387. I was wondering how right or wrong
you think Greenpeace are in their critique of the way in which
the licensing of oil and gas exploration overseas is done. They
believe that, for example, BP are currently accumulating reserves
which if they were actually consumed would certainly put us in
a position of dangerous climate change. I think the fundamental
question for the DTI is why are you allowing currently such a
continuing expansion in exploration for oil and gas reserves when
the realities of the situation are that we have got to move away
from that kind of thing to a far more ambitious programme for
renewables than even the ten per cent. target by 2010?
(Mr Battle) I agree with you that we should move
to a more ambitious target. The analysis and critique of Greenpeace
is important and ought to be considered seriously, but I have
problems about the time-frame and I will say why. I will pay credit
to you personally in this and I will say why. I do not get as
many objections to licensing for oil and gas exploration as I
do objections to wind farms. I am battered day and night on wind
farms. I know you have campaigned continuously. What then happens
is you then come up with a green source of energy, some people
say you should try wind farms, some say try wave, some say try
a barrage project and everyone then finds an environmental reason
why we cannot do it.
388. Are you talking about the work of the
CPRE
(Mr Battle) They write all the time telling me
that if I put another wind farm up I am dead and all the rest
of it. Every source of energy has an environmental downside. We
are not going back to the Garden of Eden where we all think the
energy is there and free and we have got no problems. There is
a problem with every option we take. If we were to look at the
direction and dynamic now, how difficult it is, i.e. the renewables,
the NFFO round. There has been a distinct reduction in the bid
for wind energy yet that is the most developed technology, that
is the one that is nearest delivery.
389. It is a planning problem.
(Mr Battle) Of course, because people do not want
it near them, i.e. NIMBY, "Not In My Back Yard". I heard
recently that it has moved on now to "BANANABuild
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody". The Americans
say it is much worse, it is "NOPENot On Planet Earth".
We have not devised a means of getting energy from external sources.
I want to push renewables but I have got to do it within a realistic
timeframe.
390. There may be a debate about Greenpeace's
targets for carbon phase out. That is reasonable enough. Do you
not agree, nevertheless, that currently we are driving towards
more and more exploration, more and more identification of fossil
fuel resources which cannot safely be burned? Is that not an argument
for tightening up very significantly the whole process of granting
licensing for oil and gas exploration at sea?
(Mr Battle) It is not as if there has been a massive
expansion, but there has been some depletion in some areas. When
you look at the capacity, we are actually burning slightly less
fossil fuels than we were in the past. There has been a reduction
in actual fuel use. So it is not as if there was a massive increase.
The real challenge is to do two things: firstly, switch to renewable
sources of energy; secondly, to blend in and build into that the
really serious consideration of energy efficiency and energy conservation.
I do not thinkforgive my abusive way of putting thisputting
a bit of wrapping in the loft and insulation round the doors and
windows is enough. Insulation programmes are important, but it
is not enough. It does not even address the technological science
of buildings. We are not looking at structures. The biggest problem
for energy waste is not keeping buildings warm. We will use and
lose more energy in the summer than we do in the winter and why,
because no one is considering fans and cooling systems. Every
office worker will go out and buy a fan as soon as the sunshine
comes out and stick it on a desk. They will be wasting more energy
than if they left a three bar fire on for five nights running.
I say that because we do not join up the action. We have a theme
here, a theme there. Just as we are in silos in government, we
are not connecting together the themes consistently for energy
conservation. That demands a massive culture change whereby people
simply want energy at the lowest price all the time and not to
have it near them. We have got to have a culture change within
Britain and that means working on the politics of it all the time.
Mr Loughton
391. I want to come back to "joined
up thinking" and business. You said just now that probably
Dawn Primarolo has the hardest job when she comes to your Committee.
I think she had the hardest job when she eventually came to our
Committee as well, dragged kicking and screaming. In terms of
the links between environmental incentives and business, are you
a believer in the concept that if we are to increase the price
of fuel, for example, as an environmentally desirable measure
then the tax raised from that should be recycled into incentives
for business to be able to expand in other areas and that it should
be ring-fenced rather than just another way of taking money to
the Treasury?
(Mr Battle) What you are really asking me is the
larger question about hypothecated tax, is it not?
392. Indeed.
(Mr Battle) That is a much larger question and
I cannot go against all of government policy and say yes, in general
I believe in it for education, for health or whatever. I think
there are some dangers about hypothecated tax and I would have
to say why, because the old people in my constituency would not
spend anything on education and the young people would not spend
anything on the elderly. I simply say that because sometimes it
does not work out. I am putting it in a tabloid way. I would agree
with you that we ought to work to invest more resources in energy
efficiency and I put it in those terms.
393. You are in a position where you are
in charge of business and you are in charge of energy policy.
(Mr Battle) I do not collect the taxes for them
and hand them over to the Treasury or they do not come through
me directly.
394. One of your remits is to encourage
energy efficiency within industry. You have said all along that
we have got to take an holistic approach to all of this, so you
have got to be liaising with the Treasury rather more closely.
(Mr Battle) Can I just correct you? Energy efficiency
is actually handled by the Department of Environment and Angela
Eagle, including within business.
395. Sure, but energy policy is a large
part of your remit. There is an awful lot of overlap.
(Mr Battle) We have to be very clear about what
aspects you are talking about and not use the word energy as a
general "hold all" word.
396. I am using your language of an holistic
approach. You are trying to break down boundaries between ministers
because it affects everybody. I thought we had agreed that. It
is a bit semantic now.
(Mr Battle) With the greatest respect, it is not
semantic because it may be worthwhile having me and Angela here
together to talk about the interlock because we meet regularly.
There is an interconnection and an overlap and I am not the Minister
responsible for every detail. She has programmes running for energy
efficiency in business that I have not got within my brief here.
I have a vague idea what they are, but I have not got the whole
of the Department of the Environment's file as well. You might
say, and with some fairness, that the divisions within government
and between the departments paradoxically are somewhat strangely
overlapping and seem to be in the wrong place. It was the last
administration that took the Energy Efficiency Unit out of DTI
and put it in the Department of Environment. I am not now going
to open up a campaign to try and get it back at this stage. I
think we can co-operate.
397. We will put that on one side. I was
actually trying to help you there. You gave the example in your
constituency of doing an energy audit for a factory.
(Mr Battle) I did not do the audit.
398. Regardless of whoever did the audit,
you suggested it, it saved jobs, fine, perfect, brilliant. All
business should be doing that. What is your Department doing to
encourage business to be doing that?
(Mr Battle) "Environmental Technology Best
Practice Programme" is run with the Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions and the DTI. The officials worked together
to draw that up. This is a joint programme between DTI and DETR
to promote to industry, to say to it yes, you can make money and
at the same time reduce waste and pollution at source. It is a
code book looking at cleaner technologies, looking at solid waste
for recovery. Lots of companies forget about water and waste an
amazing amount of money on water. I visited a company on Monday
morning and I was amazed at what I saw. It might sound really
obvious, but Leeds is involved in engineering, printing and textiles,
so I know a little bit about the textile industry. If you want
to make a suit you do not cut out a bit of cloth that is that
big. You cut the cloth to fit as close as you can and there is
no waste. What was happening in car companies was that when they
were cutting out a part there were wasting a lot of material,
some sending it for recycling and some not. They are now using
half the material and there is a saving on their materials. All
that side is best practice that ought to be networked throughout.
It saves them money and is more efficient. The concept of waste
in our culture is massive. If it is in the centre of this piece
of paper, say, we cut it out and we throw the rest away. I am
really trying to say how waste is potential and we have to get
that message across to industry. This was in a top car company.
Ironically, they would not tell me about making cars, which I
am interested in, they wanted to show what they were doing on
the environment side and they were eager to show me that they
were using less steel because they were cutting the part so close
to the margin. We are talking about engine parts here. If you
cut them too close you will get a rupture in the metal, you will
damage the vehicle and somebody will drive it down the road and
the wheels will fall off or the gearbox will get blocked. I am
simply suggesting you need to get it accurate. With CAD-CAM design
it can get there now and have less waste. That is the kind of
best practice that we want to promote and that is the purpose
of that document.
399. Good stuff, perfect common sense, turning
waste into potential, a great sound byte, a nice glossy brochure.
What is the result of it so far?
(Mr Battle) At the end of the day we are looking
to industry to deliver it.
|