| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): As someone who helped to broker agreement between the European Union and the United States in the run-up to the Rio summit--which started the whole process--may I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the efforts that he made last week? However, does he think that the anti-American tirade in which President Chirac engaged early in the week was helpful? Does he not think, on reflection, that the French were probably always determined to do what they could to subvert any compromise so as to enable them to pillory the United States and put it in the stocks?
Mr. Prescott: I am not sure that that is entirely right, although when President Chirac made the valid point in his opening statement that, taking account of population, the amount of gas emissions in America is far greater than that of France, it was interpreted as a criticism. He also said that there should be a levy--a kind of tax--on the mechanisms so that they can be accepted by the third world. Although that was proposed by the president of the
Council of Ministers, it was opposed by many European countries at the conference which interpreted it as an anti-American, and therefore difficult, proposition because the Americans had made it clear--as we did--that they would not accept such a deal. The conference president included that and other measures, including our proposal, in his document, but it is important to get on with making a deal and negotiating to produce the agreement that is necessary to improve our climate by implementing the changes advocated in the protocol.
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): In joining others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his role in searching for a deal, can I urge him to reconsider the matter so that next time the deal sticks? Does he believe that public opinion in the United States--which is, as he said, the overwhelming emitter of carbon gases in the world--is being led by the political leadership in a way that allows it to realise the enormous tasks that American society faces if we are to achieve such changes?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We have to return to all the parties involved. It has been suggested that perhaps we could negotiate without including the Americans, but people who believe that America, as the greatest emitter of gases, should not be part of the negotiations are kidding themselves about a successful conclusion. We must bear it in mind that, although the overall cut in emissions worldwide under the Kyoto agreement was estimated to be about 5.5 per cent., all the environmentalists tell us that it needs to be nearer 60 per cent. to achieve any real effect. Although this is only one small step, it is an important step in the right direction with the machinery that can bring about far better changes.
As for public opinion, I have no doubt that it is changing in every country, including those that I have visited, such as India, China or the United States. People, including Americans, are connecting the climates in their countries with climate change problems. The oil companies, the car industry and others formed a coalition against the changes proposed at the Kyoto conference three years ago, and I am especially pleased that those interests have changed their minds completely and are working to bring about the technological changes that are necessary to improve the environment. We will hear the same arguments, hopefully with the same people, and, hopefully, with a better result.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): Although in parts of the United States the opposition to such issues is diabolical, is there not a whiff of hypocrisy from the French Minister, whose Government allow French hauliers to enjoy the advantage of diesel at 62p a litre compared with 87p a litre here? What chance is there of getting a sensible compromise and a level playing field on such issues within Europe when the French Government seem to take a mutually contradictory posture?
Mr. Prescott: To be fair to the French Government--[Hon. Members: "Why?"] Why not? To be fair, European Union nations reach a common decision on most agreements. We have agreed in the climate change protocol that the world target should be reduced by 5.5 per cent., of which Europe would contribute 8 per cent., but nations will have different objectives--I think
that Germany's is 21 per cent. and ours is 12.5 per cent. Each European nation must have a set of proposals to achieve those objectives, some of which are to do with fuel prices and other matters with which this country is involved. There may be different priorities, and we will have to live with those, but achieving the overall objective is the most important consideration.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): Those of our constituents whose homes are threatened by rising sea levels will want to know the answer to a simple question: where next? In particular, how do we make the green politicians on the continent accept the practical realities of the situation in which they have to negotiate, and how do we get the United States to start moving forward in lieu of an agreement?
Mr. Prescott: It is important to get movement. Three years ago in Kyoto, the European nations wanted a target of a 15 per cent. decrease in gases, whereas we eventually settled for an average of 8 per cent. The European nations agreed a set of policies and a set of targets to achieve the objectives. The fact that a compromise was reached, with the European nations moving from 15 to 8 per cent, and the Americans moving from 0 to 8 per cent, and that compromises took place at The Hague on the part of the Europeans, the Group of 77, the Americans and the umbrella group, fills me with enough confidence to believe that an agreement will eventually be achieved. The overall feeling at the conference was in favour of an agreement. We came close, but unfortunately we did not achieve one.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the question in English, for the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister. What was the extent of the mandate that the Deputy Prime Minister was given to negotiate on behalf of the European Union delegation with the American delegation? Bearing in mind that he wishes to be regarded as a sensitive, charming soul, did he really mean to offend the French Minister by referring to her lack of understanding of the complex issues involved? Was it a lack of time or a lack of charm on his part? What damage does he think has been done to the entente cordiale in the run-up to the Nice summit?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady's question would have sounded better in French. What we should keep to the fore of our minds is the importance of getting an agreement, whatever the passions, feelings and expressions of the Ministers involved.
May I make a correction? I did not say that the lady was tired; she herself constantly said that she was too tired at the time to take in all the complexities. That is not condemnable, as the negotiations were extremely complex. That must be taken into account. I quoted her words; I did not pass the judgment. I was trying to explain why we did not come to an agreement when she sat with the European Ministers, took part in the negotiations with me, and then went into the main meeting and said that she was too tired to think through all the complexities. To be fair, it was the same for most Ministers who had
been involved in negotiations for 36 hours. I did not intend any comment about her tiredness; it was her comment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is my right hon. Friend aware that at many such summits, someone trots out a long declaration of all the wonderful things that have been achieved, and when one deciphers it, one finds that the summit has probably been a failure? When my right hon. Friend came out of those discussions and said, "I'm gutted", that said everything. It was like a breath of fresh air. In the heartlands in Britain, my right hon. Friend's statement was enough for people. They knew what had happened. One of the things that sticks in my craw is the fact that those Tories, who have jumped on every bandwagon that they can find, have now jumped on a French bus round the Paris peripherique.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend sums up the position very well.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): Did the Deputy Prime Minister have a chance to read the comments of the Danish representative at the conference, who suggested that the right hon. Gentleman's description of the French arose from the fact that he was under strain? Will he assure the House that that was not the case, and that it was all part of a careful and subtle piece of diplomacy to sweet talk the French round? Does he understand that, in talking the French and our other European partners round, the most important thing is for him to be able to answer the basic question: after his compromise deal, will the United States' level of emissions be greater or less? If they will be less, by how much?
Mr. Prescott: I shall deal first with the remarks of my Danish colleague, if that is what he said. There is a great danger in commenting on press reports which wrongly attribute remarks to me. The same may have happened in his case, so I shall not enter into that game of exchanges. He was in the negotiations with me, sat in the committee, heard what the final agreement was, chaired a committee that dealt with the clean development mechanisms with the Group of 77 and the Americans, and entirely failed to get what I achieved--getting the Americans to drop the clean development mechanism. [Interruption.] I have been asked about individuals who were involved in the negotiations. My Danish colleague then congratulated me on achieving that. It might be thought that I was under strain, but we must keep our eyes on the main ball. Our intention was to remove sinks from the clean development mechanism--that was the main ball. I achieved that. That alone was a major change in the negotiations. We were able to deny developed countries access to planting forest sinks, which meant that the deal was reduced, the American proportions being cut back. The tonnages were reduced from 300 million tonnes to 125 million, down to 75 million. That made a considerable difference.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |