Examination of witnesses (Questions 400
- 428)
THURSDAY 23 APRIL 1998
MR JOHN
BATTLEM MP
and DR COLIN
HICKS
400. What have they done?
(Mr Battle) I would hope that some have taken
the document and are using it and working with it because they
see it is in their interest to make money by doing that.
401. How are you going to check that?
(Dr Hicks) This particular programme which was
set up jointly by the two Departments a few years ago, drawing
on the lessons that had been learned within the Department of
Energy originally and then in the Department of the Environment
with the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme by taking all
the good things from it that they had learned about, i.e. how
to communicate with companies. It started four years ago and it
had a budget then of £16 million which it was going to spend
over five years. We set the programme contractors (it is managed
for us by the Energy Technology Support Unit in Harwell) the target
of monitoring the programme and showing that they would produce
savings that were ten times the total government spend on the
programme per annum within industry by 2005. Let me just repeat
that because it is actually a very challenging target. We are
spending £16 million of taxpayers' money over those five
years. We wanted to show by 2005 that there are accumulated savings
within industry of £160 million a year. That was a very challenging
target. It meant that the projects that were selected had to be
ones which were capable of producing significant savings. They
had to be ones where there was clear evidence that companies were
going to be willing to take up the projects. They had to be projects
where there was going to be a replication across a large number
of companies. We started off by saying we were going to address
the real environmental issues. So we did not just go out and look
for things that companies wanted to do, we consulted between the
two Departments and with the Environment Agency and asked what
the significant issues were in environmental terms. One of the
early successful projects was one which was to do with the re-use
of foundry sand. Historically foundries have largely taken virgin
sand, they have used it and then they have thrown it away because
it is contaminated. The programme identified best practice in
the clean up of that sand so it could actually be re-used. That
meant savings for the environment not only in the amount of sand
that is taken out but the amount that goes to landfill and, of
course, the road traffic that is produced. We have monitored very
very carefully the savings from those projects. At the moment
we are on the right road to producing the target savings. That
is one particular example.
Mr Grieve
402. Can I just take you back a moment on
this question of energy and renewable sources of energy? I do
not want to get bogged down in wind farms. I have to declare an
interest as a member of Country Guardians.
(Mr Battle) You are against them. You keep slagging
me off in your newspaper.
403. What interests me more about this is
the strategy because I think that is what this Committee has got
to concern itself with. You have waxed eloquent about promoting
renewable sources of energy. I appreciate your comments about
energy efficiency because I think that is a real issue which can
be addressed, but one is left slightly with the impression that
when it comes to renewable sources of energy there is actually
little that you can do about it. What are you trying to do about
it? How are you coordinating that within the other government
departments which go to make a sustainable environmental energy
programme? How is this coming about? Is it going anywhere? Is
there anything you have done in the last 12 months about this
that you can identify as showing that the systems which we have
been talking about are working?
(Mr Battle) Do you know about the NFFO programme?
404. No.
(Mr Battle) The NFFO programme was set up by the
last government. It was something that was a good idea and it
was an interventionist strategy. It was done in order to say we
will give companies a grant when they build a wind farm or a power
station using landfill gas and what that grant of contract does
is when you get the technology right and generate energy from
it we will guarantee that you can sell that energy into the energy
buying system of power generation. Do not forget, these are all
private companies out there generating energy. That system was
set up. I renewed that and set up the Fifth NFFO round inviting
people to tender for contracts in November, to extend the range
and remit of that. We included, for example, offshore wave, which
is another area that is not looked at. I have a little bit of
a row with you on Country Guardians sometimes as you do
not give me quite the fair hearing that I might ask for in the
editorials. We may agree on offshore wind as environmentally obtrusive
and that is a good thing, but we have to look at the whole range
of technologies and how we support them. Some of those technologies
are "nearer markets". Do not forget, the energy companies
are buying energy from where they can. The energy forces and the
rest of it are buying their energy from where it is cheapest.
They get it on the hour to keep prices down. Wind is nearly at
a price competitive rate now. I remember waste tips and having
to then, as it were, make sure that they were properly vented
because they were practically explosive and why, because the gas
was coming off them. I remember in 1982 Barratts built some houses
near them and the gas then seeped through all the workings underneath
and blew it up. The question was then asked, why could not we
use the gas, put it into pipes, send it to a turbine and generate
heat to warm the whole estate? I did not mind whether it was private
or council. It is possible technically and feasible and all the
rest of it. They are doing it but about 20 years too late when
most of the methane has been ventilated off and we have simply
flared it off, which is a waste. I am interested in biomass. I
went to see a scheme in Yorkshire where if we can get the Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries and the common agricultural policy
to change the rules on set aside—and they are working at
doing that within Europe—then why cannot those lands be
used to grow biomass? Those are short-term coppice crops. That
is renewable coppicing. It simply comes through quickly. If you
go and see the ARBRE project in Yorkshire you will see how it
is being done.
405. All this is very interesting but, in
fact, these are pinpricks in the whole issue of energy generation.
(Mr Battle) It would not be if we had had more
effort into renewable energies in the last 20 years. I think we
are a bit late. I have just changed 0.7 renewable energy to two
per cent. within less than 12 months. It will reach five per cent.
by the year 2000. I have set a clear target. The contracts are
coming in. I am on target to reach ten per cent. That is a four
or five per cent. increase and a faster growth rate than anywhere
else in Europe that is not using hydro. I agree with you, we ought
to get somewhere between panic and complacency, but I would hope
we have got a programme that is putting in position the blocks
to get us there.
Joan Walley
406. I would like to move on a little bit
in terms of the DTI and the way in which it is working to strengthen
British business abroad and this whole issue of trade liberalisation.
I am sure you are as aware as this Committee that the next meeting
is coming up on 27/28 April, which is the meeting whereby the
UK government is participating in the next round of negotiations
at the OECD on the MAI. I just wonder how you feel this whole
issue of the MAI fits in in terms of developing a strategic policy
for sustainable development. I would like to ask you, first of
all, what the UK government's position will be at that meeting
on 27/28 April?
(Mr Battle) My colleague Lord Stanley Clinton-Davis
is at a meeting in Paris today on this matter as part of the OECD
background negotiations. It is a serious issue. It has been debated
a number of times in Parliament and in Parliamentary Questions.
The MAI is attempting to provide that broad multilateral framework
for international investment that will provide high standards
of liberalisation, investment regimes and all the rest of it.
That regime ought not to prevent governments from regulating business
and that means ensuring that there is an environmental dimension
within that, in my view, and we ought not to see an MAI that prohibits
that environmental dimension. I think our proposal for a review
of the MAI's potential impact on the ability of governments to
maintain regulations to protect the environment has already been
accepted and Iam sure our representative will press for that to
be the case at the meetings.
407. It is important that we get holistic
action right across government departments and with Europe as
well. When I was out in Europe I was told that it was not possible
to formulate an environmental policy other than in respect of
the lopping of rain forests. How can you build an acceptable environmental
standard into the MAI if that is indeed the case? How is the Department
actually auditing and bringing together targets to make sure that
this is not going to compromise——
(Mr Battle) My colleagues go to that meeting with
a common government position; it is not just the DTI departmental
position.
408. Have you, as the Green Minister for
the DTI, had any input in ensuring that our government's position
is actually reflecting sustainable development concerns?
(Mr Battle) Yes. It is government policy, a seamless
web, that the MAI should not undermine environmental policy and
if we thought that it did, we would not sign it.
409. Has the Green Ministers' meeting actually
discussed the MAI?
(Mr Battle) The Green Ministers' meeting that
we had was before this issue hit the headlines, so, no, it was
not on the agenda, but Green Ministers, i.e. those of us with
an interest in green policy throughout, have been in regular communication
and had exchanges of letters and policy notes between ministers
and departments, but I have to say that this is a major policy
item. I noticed in the transcripts of previous conversations that
there is perhaps some confusion between the role of the Green
Ministers' meeting and the Cabinet meeting on that. This is a
matter that has been addressed at that higher level because it
is a key strategic integration policy matter.
410. I would be very concerned if the Green
Ministers' meeting was only discussing issues which "got
into the headlines". I think what this Committee wants to
do is to work with each government department to see how this
whole issue can go through the Green Ministers' Committee and
also the Cabinet Committee so that we are not fire fighting but
we are actually at a precautionary level putting those policies
through. What assurances can you give us that environmental sustainability
is not going to be compromised by any commitments to decisions
taken at the OECD meeting on 26 and 27 April?
(Mr Battle) The Government's objective is that
the MAI should not undermine environmental policy and if we thought
that it might then we would not sign it.
411. How will you be able to make that kind
of——
(Mr Battle) I will ask Stanley Clinton-Davis when
he comes back if he has signed it when he should not have done.
I am not suggesting he will sign it, do not get me wrong.
Mr Dafis
412. I would like to ask you a few questions
on environmental appraisal. I believe that the Directorates within
the DTI are required to consider the environmental impact in all
cases. If we look at the study carried out by KPMG on DTI policies,
they found that one of the policy areas that considered selective
regional assistance did not need to have any environmental consideration
at all. I would like to ask you to comment on that first. Secondly,
in the Nuclear Review they had restricted terms of reference with
the Department of the Environment looking at the question of radioactive
waste management. Could you tell us how these three study areas
were selected for the KPMG examination of appraisal, who made
the selection and on what basis was the selection made? Could
you explain why regional selective assistance was regarded as
not having an environmental dimension? Thirdly, how can it be
right for the Nuclear Review to separate off the question of radioactive
waste management from the DTI itself and give it to the Department
of the Environment?
(Mr Battle) I have been in post a year. There
was an election last May and the Nuclear Review was in 1993 and
I was not responsible for putting it in position. I was asking
those questions that you are asking now in Opposition. I was not
party to giving KPMG the instructions and asking why they looked
at these areas and not others. I am not in a clear position to
answer that question. Perhaps I could ask Dr Colin Hicks on a
neutral basis, if you like, without me starting an argument about
politics, why he thinks things were done or not done, if he could
give us a little bit of background as to why those areas were
addressed. I know the guidance has now come out in the last few
days from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
We take that very very seriously and we need to push it through
in all areas of policy within the Department, whether it is nuclear
waste management that we are relating it to, whether it is regional
selective assistance, whether it is the structural funds of the
European Community or whether it is business links. It has to
be applied within all areas.
413. So there is a clear intention to change
practice?
(Mr Battle) Yes.
(Dr Hicks) I do not recall how the cases were
selected to be studied by KPMG or for their appearance in the
report. What I think was done was that people throughout the Department
were actually asked what they did about environmental appraisal
in the activities that they undertook and then that evidence was
put forward so KPMG could decide what to look at. The example
of regional selective assistance is an interesting one because,
as you say, it says quite clearly in the report and in the summary
that "the environmental impact of any project will be covered
by the normal process of local authority planning approval".
One can then take a view as to whether that is adequate or not.
What we have been doing over the past year is as new schemes are
being reviewed and we are looking at the guidelines for schemes,
we are considering the extent to which we should build environmental
appraisal into the scheme itself. For example, we recently reviewed
the SMART and SPUR schemes and we have set up a new SMART scheme
and built into the criteria for projects is explicitly the environmental
impact. So as schemes are being reviewed we are now building into
their criteria. Another example to quote for you would be the
Millennium Products Scheme where you will have seen quite clearly
the Design Council's criteria have talked about sustainability
and it has talked about environmental factors. I think the explanation
is that the guidelines for regional selective assistance were
being reviewed and the practices went back a long way and we are
now reviewing, as the Minister has said, and going through different
schemes and considering how and to what extent modifications should
be made. Do not forget, whatever we do, there will still be a
planning process. If we decide something is right to be done environmentally
in our terms there are still these other interactions which have
to be taken into account by DETR and other organisations, local
authorities. The Environment Agency will always look at them.
414. Do you want to talk about the radioactive
waste management issue that I mentioned?
(Mr Battle) The nuclear inspectorate has had a
large role to play in that, of course.
415. Which is?
(Mr Battle) The independent inspectorate for the
nuclear industry. There is an independent body that monitors the
whole of these things and the Environmental Agency has a role
to play in that as well. I would put it to you in these terms.
Since the decision in terms of a long-term strategy for waste
management on NIREX was taken at the end of the last administration,
I simply put it as neutrally as this, a lot of work remains to
be done on that whole matter in terms of the long-term future
because there is no doubt that the management of radioactive waste
is a massive challenge to any society that has generated power
from nuclear energy and it is one that we have to address seriously,
properly and come up with a clear and acceptable strategy on that
our society as a whole and the world as a whole finds sustainable
and acceptable. Those two words do not necessarily fit together.
You could come forward with a sustainable solution that is unacceptable
to people because they refuse to accept that that is a means of
tackling it and that is a real problem because, whether it is
in Germany or elsewhere, people will say it is not our problem,
someone else should handle it, try and send it somewhere else.
416. Can I take you on to the question of
public reporting because this is a very important issue indeed
for this Committee in particular. Your Department is to devise
its own sustainable development strategy and that will monitor
a new approach to environmental appraisal, but it also says that
the integration of environmental appraisal and wider policy appraisal
does not lend itself to separate public reporting. The Department
is not intending to report publicly on the outcome of the appraisal.
Can you explain to us why that is the case? I think we might find
that worrying. Would the Department find difficulty in publishing
environmental appraisals as part of the announcement to introduce
a policy or a programme because what time would be the appropriate
time to announce what the environmental appraisal finds? Would
it not be appropriate for the Department itself to do that rather
than for it to be subsumed into an overall process?
(Mr Battle) If anything, I want the appraisal
to be built into every policy area. I said at the beginning I
am tempted to suggest that this might form that kind of appraisal
in a way and it is not complete, I have taken it out because I
would not have a book big enough to carry it to the meeting. Maybe
we have buried it into each area and what has been asked is to
pull it out into one volume or one approach. I do not know if
that would be helpful. I am tempted to think maybe it would be
in the light of this conversation because there are so many areas
of policy, even ones we have not spoken about now, whether it
is environmental impact assessments in the North Sea where we
have done great work in bringing forward the environmental impacts
assessments before time, where we are not spelling out what we
are doing in sufficient detail and whether we could catalogue
them in a way that is helpful and enables it to be focused as
a dimension I will take away and consider in the light of what
you are saying. At the moment what we are doing is embedding them
in each of the different dimensions of each of the sectors within
a department. Maybe that is not helpful and maybe we should pull
them out individually.
Chairman
417. So you will reconsider the line you
have taken?
(Mr Battle) Yes, I will reconsider it in the light
of the comments that have been made.
Mr Dafis
418. There might be a freedom of information
aspect to it.
(Mr Battle) Yes, that is absolutely right, I accept
that. In dealing with the energy industries the slightest nuance
in terms of reviews of industries affects the share prices of
major companies in Britain and there is an economic or a commercial
confidentiality dimension. I do suspect that we perhaps over-play
commercial confidentiality within our culture in Britain and I
think we could do rather more and encourage companies to be rather
more open and transparent. I hope that you will feel I have been
open and transparent and perhaps too forthright in this Committee,
but I do not see why we should not push businesses to be as forthright
as they possibly can, but we would have to clear our lines with
them as the Department that deals directly with business.
Mr Savidge
419. You mentioned the environmental impact
assessment in relation to offshore oil and gas. The actual Directive
was brought in in 1985. Why have the UK regulations only been
brought in recently?
(Mr Battle) Because the last lot did not bring
them in and as soon as I got in I brought them forward and got
them implemented. I do not want to start a political row about
it, but I was a bit surprised to find that we had got them and
they had not been implemented. I went to Aberdeen and I was surprised
because I thought there may have been massive resistance by the
oil industry and the companies and that the forces of hell would
rain down on my head as a result of this nasty, wicked decision.
That was not the response that we got from the industry. I passionately
believe that we ought to allow these environmental concerns and
considerations versus industry. I go round industries who are
making a heck of an effort, who understand the connection, who
are taking environmental matters seriously because it is efficient,
it makes money for them and it is the right thing to do as well.
I would have to say that within the oil industry I do not believe
they are totally environmentally responsible. In fact, I take
the opposite view, I think they are making a brave effort. In
some areas the technique of re-injecting water into an oil well
has benefits in our own towns and industries because they have
looked at the chemical ways of doing it. There are some spin-offs
if they take environmental matters seriously. We may push them
to be more explicit about them. We may push them to have targets
so that they can see that we are hitting clear objectives. We
may exhort those that fail and do not believe it they can do it
to follow the best examples. The amending Directive that I then
looked at is not due to be brought in until next year. I brought
it forward by a year. Again, I thought I would meet resistance
by the industry; I did not.
Mr Savidge: Can I
strongly endorse what you said about responses from leaders and
industry? I have been finding that recently with the offshore
oil industry. Can I ask if there are other areas where there are
European Directives on the environmental impact assessment which
should be applied to industries or other types of projects in
this country where we have not yet brought regulations in?
Chairman
420. Perhaps you could let us have a note
on that.
(Mr Battle) When we look at what is coming from
Europe, that is probably the source of our correspondence. Michael
Meacher and I keep in close contact because he monitors exactly
what comes out from Europe and then asks what are the implications
from industry, whether it is the car industry, the shipbuilding
industry, the steel industry, the engineering industry or, indeed,
the oil and gas industry and then we look at the detail of how
it will work. We want a partnership of acceptance to shift the
culture. We want a bit of dynamism in there. We want some commitment
in there and that means we do not want this idea that Europe has
thought up a regulation, we will resist it. We are not in that
business. We are in the business of bringing people together to
shift the whole lot on. We can work together with the Department
of Environment, Transport and the Regions to do that. The Advisory
Committee on Business and the Environment which is reporting to
the President of the Board of Trade and to the Deputy Prime Minister
responsible for environment is a good body and there are business
people on that. Then there are other bodies, whether it is the
Competitiveness White Paper in DTI that we are working on where
we include businessmen on it to inject this dimension. The cleaner
vehicle task force is a good example where we are looking to say,
"We cannot carry on simply fossil fuel burning in cars without
improving our act." The pollution, whether it is particulates,
nitrous oxide, sulphur emissions and all the rest of it, carbon
dioxide emissions, we have got to tackle. We are looking at cleaner
vehicles, whether it is gas or electric, looking to catalysis
and the hydrogen future. It is important we take these seriously
and look at means of turning them into best business practice
and by that I mean commercial enterprises. I cannot for the life
of me now see why every public vehicle cleaning the streets and
collecting the rubbish cannot be run on a system that is gas or
electric because they do not need to go 100 miles an hour and
travel 200 miles.
Dr Iddon
421. This inquiry is about greening government.
I think everyone round this table knows what we are about. Can
I ask you whether in your Department adequate instructions have
been given and sufficient training programmes have been set up
to make sure that this concept of greening government goes throughout
the Department?
(Mr Battle) That is a good question. I did not
dwell on it in case I was accused of paying too much attention
to housekeeping! There are 9,500 staff in the Department of Trade
and Industry, 3,200 within the five main buildings in London immediately
accessible. I think using the Environment Directorate to advise
staff right across the Department, holding seminars and training
for staff on sustainability, inviting experts in from outside,
including people from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, to
advise, to have the conversations, to get people to take it seriously,
is a good thing. I do not want things such as recycling in office
management, to give an in-house example, simply to be a tag on,
an optional extra that we occasionally do. We have to build it
into the system of operations so that it is second nature and
you do not need to think to do it. That does mean training and
working through with staff. It means having an environmental policy
statement. We had one in June/July last year. It means using the
intranet within the Department so things flash up on screens at
staff and they are aware of it, pushing it to the forefront of
their awareness, taking them through the steps so that they can
then be ambassadors for best practice in the areas of interaction
with industry/business, whether it is energy, science or wherever
outside. That is a massive task. It is a massive culture task.
I have got teenage children and occasionally I glance at their
magazines and I am not of the view that all the youngsters are
environmentally friendly and going down the environmental route.
That was the view maybe ten years ago. They are not. They are
going the other way. They think it is old hat and it is burnt
out, it is a waste of time because there is conflict in the science
about it, therefore we will throw the rubbish away. We are still
moving in the direction of a throw away waste society. It is still
a cultural change to affect through and that means changing the
hearts and minds of people, having training programmes in position.
We have a housekeeping guide for best practice within the Department
that is sent to all the staff and it is put through on the computer
systems as well.
422. Could I just follow that up and say
that we need some forward thinking as well as politicians and
officers. One example is space policy. People are getting more
and more concerned now about the debris that we are planting in
space as satellites expire and so on and so forth and conk out.
Is Government looking that far forward to ask the question what
are we going to do about recovery of some of this debris that
we are planting in outer space?
(Mr Battle) If I thought that our Department was
responsible not for the whole of Government but for outer space
as well I would be struggling to get out of bed in the morning!
I do not quite know what I am supposed to do. Am I supposed to
go up and clear it up with a brush and shovel? It is a serious
question and I tell you why, because we are responsible for the
earth observation of satellites and the rest of it and that is
happening now. I think Joan Walley mentioned telecoms and she
talked about carbon logic. I think there is a very strong line
for linking telecoms with the satellite technology and the debris
in outer space and yes, it is a serious matter. I was once invited
by a young man called Swampy, who came to a public meeting that
I was addressing on science policy with his friends, to cancel
science and ban it in Britain. I was a bit shocked at that rather
bold approach. I said, "Why do you want me to ban science?"
and he said, "Cause it is damaging the planet and ruining
our lives." So I said, "What do you mean by this?"
and he said, "Look at the smog in South East Asia. That is
what is happening as a result of scientists and the people you
support." I said, "Well, I have not been to South East
Asia but I see the smog because I saw it on my television set
and I see my television set because there is a satellite up there
moving it across." He thought that was a bit abusive. He
thought it was too forceful. So I simply said to him to think
it through. The fire fighters tackled that fire because they could
analyse it from an earth observation satellite and what I think
about is not so much that in a sense what we send into outer space
is not to look further out—yes, it is that and there is
that science of physics and astronomy and the rest of it, but
earth observation is vital to analysing what is going on down
here on earth and changing it so that we monitor climate change,
so that we monitor the interactions of what is going on particularly
in the oceans. Yes, we have to be responsible and ask are we simply
using the atmosphere as a dustbin and not making sure that we
build systems that are sustainable and renewable when we send
them out, and it is a fair question to ask of the British National
Space Centre and the programmes we support through the European
Space Agency as well. I would have to say to you, I have heard
the question raised as you have raised it and perhaps we have
not given sufficient attention to how we tackle it and I will
take that away from the comments that you have made this morning.
Chairman
423. Minister, can I bring you down do earth.
(Mr Battle) What a cheap jibe!
424. Admirable though your views are, with
respect, and illustrative though your talk about Swampy was, the
fact is that large companies now are ahead of government in presenting
in their annual reports clear expositions of what they are doing
as regards environmental protection and sustainable environment
to a degree, but the fact is that your own Department did not
publish any performance indicators as regards its environmental
work in the 1998 Environmental Report. So you are behind industry.
Why?
(Mr Battle) I am disappointed by that fact. I
will take action to remedy it in future. I say that because I
think companies are ahead. BT won an award for their report on
sustainable development in telecoms. You may dismiss it as a glossary,
but there is some detail in it about targets and actions that
have been taken and I think we ought to remedy that factor in
our report as well.
Dr Iddon
425. Could I just ask about environmental
management systems. Obviously you have given support for accreditation
of environmental management systems in industry. What are your
concerns about the value of those to your own Department?
(Mr Battle) BSI set up 14001 when it came up and
it set up a claim from the Department to push it out to industry.
The question then is whether it is applied and why it is not applied.
In terms of the reporting chains and the rest of it, is it worth
implementing it without it being an exorbitant cost? That is the
question. Before my time the Department took advice as to whether
we should apply for going through the accreditation and the advice
that we got at the time was that it would be cost prohibitive
to do it at that stage. It is under review and we are asking the
question why not. I would like us to move in that direction and
again lead by example, but there is obviously always going to
be that factor of whether we are simply paper chasing for the
sake of it to get the piece of paper or whether we are implementing
best practice. I want to see action. I would like to suggest that
when your Committee interview me again I should be able to say
where things have moved on to, what has changed in housekeeping,
and I do not apologise for that, as well as what we are pushing
others to do and to bring back to you details of how we have made
some small step changes but that we are getting there and moving
on. Whether simply to register or to get the accreditation ISO
14001 is the only means of doing that I am not quite sure, but
we are keeping it under review and it may well be that we apply.
Chairman
426. Thank you very much indeed, Minister.
(Mr Battle) Is that it?
427. That is it.
(Mr Battle) I have not talked about lots of things
that I have come to inform you about that we are doing. I will
be speaking at "Sustainable Technologies for a Cleaner World"
sponsored by our Department on the 19th May, Chairman.
428. Minister, we do not wish in any way
to constrain your eloquence, so if there is anything else which
you feel you have not said, please send us a note. We will be
delighted to receive it and take it into account.
(Mr Battle) Can I thank you for the questions
this morning. I hope you did not find that I was answering back
in too crudely political and robust a manner. I sincerely believe
this is an important Committee. It has an important role to play
so that departments and interdepartmental action actually takes
place within government. I know in a sense you could argue that
your committee is relatively new, starting in November. I feel
that for all of us this is a relatively new process, but we need
to do more than just talk about it and put in place the systems
and methodology for taking action.
Chairman: Thank you
for what you said, Minister. We were impressed by your enthusiasm.
We shall be casting a beady eye over whether or not in the next
12 months or so your enthusiasm is translated into performance.
|
