| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement on a setback that will be regarded on both sides of the House with great regret. The Deputy Prime Minister has had our support in his efforts to bring about progress on climate change. The groundwork for the Hague talks were laid not just at Kyoto but by the previous Government, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Deputy Prime Minister has pursued the matter with determination and has made progress on climate change the hallmark of his green credentials. We applaud him for that.
The right hon. Gentleman set high expectation for the Hague talks. He said, in the vernacular of the professional footballer, that he was "gutted" by the breakdown. This was a unique opportunity, but the talks have broken up amid disarray and recriminations. The world will pay a price for the breakdown. Yet the omens seemed so promising.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now believe, with hindsight, that the breakdown was inevitable or was it a failure of diplomacy? If it was inevitable, why did the Minister for the Environment say on the "Today" programme on Saturday morning, only a few hours before the collapse, that the compromise they tabled was "a very important achievement"? Yet, only three hours later, the Deputy Prime Minister found himself completely outvoted by our European partners. How does he explain this misreading of our negotiating position?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret that more time was not spent laying the groundwork and understanding the subtleties of the European position? He started the week posing for photo calls on the Dutch flood defences and ended it claiming victory on the "Today" programme at the most delicate stages of negotiation. Is not the real truth that he has been more concerned with the media and with exploiting the talks for party political reasons than with the hard grind of negotiation? He wanted all the credit for success; does he now accept part of the credit for the failure? Does he feel that he had sufficient support from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
President Chirac played a direct role at The Hague, but where was the Prime Minister? What part did he play? What has happened to his much-vaunted claim to be at the heart of Europe? Where is his influence now? Was there any contact at all between Downing street and the French Prime Minister during the course of the week? Was there a single telephone discussion between the Prime Minister and the White House, or does his renowned disdain for all matters environmental mean that he did not want to be involved, and that the Deputy Prime Minister was hung out to dry? [Interruption.] No, that is not all.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret the recrimination that followed the breakdown of the talks? Was not that the moment for statesmanship, for understatement and for understanding of our partners' point of view? The French Minister held the presidency, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may feel about her personally, it was not helpful of him to storm out with such petulance, and to dismiss French anxieties as "cold feet". The French Minister, for her part, said that the right hon. Gentleman had lost his nerve and his cool, and described him as "an inveterate macho man". Does not that breakdown of personal relationships suggest that, in trying to salvage his own reputation, he has not only burnt his bridges but set back the prospects for any future settlement?
Is not this breakdown the last nail in the coffin of the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, following the collapse of the transport system, under-investment in the roads, the flop of the urban White Paper a week ago, the row about National Air Traffic Services, and the stalemate over the tube? Is it not the final indignity that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--the man whom the right hon. Gentleman held up to the world as a crab in a jar--is now briefing that he wants the right hon. Gentleman's job? Was not the Evening Standard right to
describe the Deputy Prime Minister as "Blair's greatest embarrassment"? Was not yesterday's collapse the final collapse in credibility of a failed Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman often fails to speak to the issue, but it particularly annoys me to hear him talk about the collapse of the transport system, given that he was a director of Railtrack--an organisation that even his own party has disowned as unable to do anything for the railway industry.
I shall return to the issue under discussion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and the regret that he rightly expressed over the breakdown of the talks. I also acknowledge that the previous Administration were involved in the early stages--in the Rio conference--and in the early stages leading to the Kyoto conference. Despite their involvement, they did not hold the same position that we do, nor did they necessarily endorse the agreement that we reached at Kyoto. However, I am grateful that they were involved in the process. I inherited their programme and developed it.
On climate change, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that more than 160 nations were involved in the negotiations at The Hague. It is very difficult to get agreement between 160 nations. It was difficult to get agreement at Kyoto, where only 40 nations were involved, but we managed to do so. Nevertheless, our great problem was that there was no further time for negotiation.
In the early stages of the negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was involved with me, with European Ministers and Ministers from the umbrella group, we reached the agreement that I mentioned to the House. My right hon. Friend then went to the programme, hoping that the agreement that we had all reached would be taken to the president. However, the European Ministers decided--[Interruption.] They did not hold a vote on the issue--they did not reject the proposal; they said that there was not enough information. They assumed that the agreement would be taken to the president to put into his final document--[Interruption.]
I can only give hon. Members the facts as they were: there was no vote on the matter; there was no rejection by Euro Ministers--they did not have enough information to endorse the agreement. The agreement was then to be sent to the president, who would discuss it with the Group of 77. That was the negotiation process that had been agreed. We put those negotiations to the president so that they could be put before the whole conference. That is what we were involved in doing.
There were great difficulties--certainly passions were involved--but when I left the negotiations, they had well finished. We had reported back to the group. Other Ministers had left. My plane home was at 2 o'clock. I left that building after other Ministers had left and after the president had made clear that there would be no further negotiations. In fact, I had not been home for three weekends, so I admit to the weakness of wanting to go home that night. I leave the House to make a judgment about that.
As to the accusation that I am a macho man--moi? The remark leaves me most gutted. I did what I thought was best. We came close to an agreement, but time ran out for us. The conference president has now remitted the conference to its next meeting in May. I shall work hard with my French colleagues and with European Ministers
to reach a final agreement. This country and the rest of the world expect us to do something about climate change and we are committed to doing that.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for all the hard work that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment put in to the negotiations. I share his frustration that an agreement was not reached; I hope that he can go back and get that agreement. Does he agree that most people in Britain, and many in British industry, cannot understand why the United States is unable to make the sort of contribution that a civilised country should make to this problem?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, but I must correct him on one point. Those of us who negotiated at Kyoto know that the concepts involved--clean development mechanism, emissions trading and some forest sinks--were part of the agreement and were put forward by the Americans. If they had not been, we should not have been negotiating at The Hague. To be fair to the Americans, the concepts about which we had reservations, but which the Group of 77 have very much come to accept, were part of the final agreement.
There may be disagreements with the Americans about their proposals; after all, they negotiate according to their interests--and why not? That is precisely what European nations should do, too. However, the process of negotiation is to try to set limits on what is agreed, and that is what is difficult. The Americans played their part in the negotiations just as much as anyone else.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing genuine regret at the failure of the Hague talks? What lessons on climate change can he take from the Conservative party, which recently announced its intention to scrap the climate change levy? Will he confirm--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |