WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2003

__________

Members present:

Mr John Horam, in the Chair
Mr Peter Ainsworth
Gregory Barker
Mr Colin Challen
Mr David Chaytor
Mr Mark Francois
Mr Jon Owen Jones
Ian Lucas
Mr Simon Thomas
Joan Walley

__________

Memorandum submitted by DEFRA

Examination of Witnesses

RT HON MARGARET BECKETT, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, MR ANDREW RANDALL, Environment Protection International, and MS HELEN LEGGETT, Sustainable Development Unit, DEFRA, examined.

Chairman: Secretary of State, we shall now deal with the Johannesburg Summit and particularly the implementation of the process which you are responsible for, alongside Government. I shall ask Mr Ainsworth to kick off.

Mr Ainsworth

The Summit met with a mixed response, did it not? It is variously described as "a bitter disappointment" and "a betrayal", but by you as "truly remarkable" in its achievements. I cannot help but remember that you also described the foot and mouth crisis as "a minor triumph". Was the Summit truly remarkable in the same way that the handling of foot and mouth was a minor triumph?

(Margaret Beckett) If we can be quite accurate in our recollections, what I said was that I thought that, given the sheer scale and horror of the foot and mouth outbreak, to tackle it and resolve it as speedily as we did was in its own way a kind of minor triumph, and I hold by that view. It was horrendous and it was a very real achievement on the part of the Department of which I was not the most at its head, so I am not claiming any praise for myself, I am simply giving praise where I think praise is due, to those who had to take those steps. Now let us turn to the Johannesburg Summit. I have mixed feelings about some of these reactions. There is not any doubt that what is a little disappointing is that we could have hoped to do more, and in particular I think that what may or may not have kind of come through clearly in the public domain is that we lost some valuable momentum in Indonesia preparatory to the conference there, because a lot of ground could have been cleared in Indonesia that would then perhaps have allowed us to do a little more in Johannesburg, and that did not happen. Having said that, I think only people who had wildly unrealistic expectations of what Johannesburg was ever likely to achieve could legitimately call it a betrayal. What I thought was most important about Johannesburg all the way through was the way in which it was the sustainable development side and not the environment side, the links with tackling poverty, the relationship with the Millennium Development Goals, and what was really remarkable was that there was at Johannesburg - and of course now it has to be pursued - agreement that, unlike most summits, this was not the end of a whole lot of discussion which then produced a whole lot of words, it was actually meant to be the beginning of a real programme of action. It was that, and the atmosphere and the determination on the part of so many people in the world community to tackle what are horrendously difficult problems facing the human race, that I thought was remarkable at Johannesburg.

What went wrong in Indonesia?

(Margaret Beckett) What went wrong in Indonesia was that those whose interests were most at stake wanted to express their concern about other areas of policy and discussion which were not really on the table for Johannesburg. For example, understandable reaction and disappointment, among other things, on climate change, concern about what was happening in terms of agricultural subsidies and the potential of the Doha Development Plan. All of that at Indonesia became playing into the discussions around Johannesburg, and so a lot of people were focussing on that, for which, as you perfectly understand, there are totally separate processes. There is a climate change discussion process. There is a World Trade Organisation process. It was never likely that anybody was going to be happy about rolling those into the Johannesburg Summit which was supposed to be about sustainable development and poverty.

You said that the outcome is only at the beginning. Of course, for many people the process really started at Rio some time ago, did it not?

(Margaret Beckett) Indeed.

Jonathon Porritt said earlier today that he had only been able to identify two concrete targets from a list of 530 targets which had not already been achieved and were clear and achievable. It is not much of an outcome, is it, if you accept Jonathon Porritt's view?

(Margaret Beckett) I think that probably one of the features of the comment on the Summit is that you probably get a rather different read-out from people who were there and people who were not there. Yes, if all you are interested in in the Summit is what targets did we set, and no doubt especially if you had a list of 500, then I am not at all surprised that you end up being disappointed. But if, as we did, you approach the summit with a number of defined goals, then you are much less likely to be dissatisfied, although even we would not dispute that we would have liked to have seen more said, for example, about renewable energy, and we fought very hard for that, but there was not a consensus that that was something that we should do.

You are putting a brave face on it.

(Margaret Beckett) No.

Are you not really very disappointed at the lack of identifiable objectives arising from that Summit?

(Margaret Beckett) No. Mr Ainsworth, given where we started from, and what the expectations - the realistic expectations - were of a lot of people in the planning and the run-up to Johannesburg, I thought indeed that we did do remarkably well with the agreement that we got, not least because I always gave more emphasis than perhaps some of those who were critical then, and are critical now, to what is the comparatively new element in the outcome of the Johannesburg Summit, which is the partnerships. I cannot remember the up-to-date figures, but they are something of the order of a couple of hundred and more potential partnerships coming out of Johannesburg actually to deliver concrete results on the ground. This may be a very heretical thing to say, and perhaps I shall be drummed out of the Brownies for saying it, but I think that might be more useful than a whole string of targets.

You seem keen on targets in another context, that is all.

(Margaret Beckett) They have their place, they have their roles to play, but they are not the be all and end all. If you have got some targets, which are beneficial, maybe not as many as you would like, but you have also got some concrete outcomes, then one does not offset one against the other, they are both worthwhile.

There has been concern expressed not only in this country but also, for example, about a Canadian Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development. I do know whether you are aware of her initiative within the Canadian Government to try and identify some audited outcomes from Johannesburg and, in fact, she is trying to apply this internationally as well. I do not know whether they have been in touch with you over that, or whether it is the sort of thing that you feel you would like to co-operate with on an international basis but simply to tide out some of what was left rather than recommended?

(Margaret Beckett) I am not aware that she has approached us to do something on an international basis, but certainly to try to identify concrete ways of deliving on domestic programmes, that is exactly the kind of thing that we are doing. We are always interested to hear from and learn from others, as they are always interested to hear from and learn from us, about how it can be done. Whether there is a specific international effort, the follow-up we have always seen as going primarily through the United Nations, and we would like to see effective pursuit and enforcement through the UN machinery.

Do you think the UN machinery is sufficiently robust at present to deliver?

(Margaret Beckett) It has not been, frankly, but people are talking how it can be made sufficiently robust. There is a discussion about whether or not there are some parts of the machinery, CSD in particular, where it has not always been quite clear what their role is, and this could be a useful and beneficial role that they could pursue. So people are looking now at what is the head mechanism and machinery for getting better implementation of that weight of commitment.

The Government is actively discussing this with the UN?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes, there is a general international involvement in those discussions.

Chairman

It is always difficult obviously to get a reasonably snap judgment on a big event like a summit every ten years and people obviously change their views as time goes on probably. You would probably agree that the Rio Summit ten years ago would now be judged a considerable success, whatever was said at the time, because there were targets set for climate change, there was a review process which the Secretariat set down whereby countries had to commit themselves and their progress against it was reviewed. What I think upsets people, and the reason why I said this very shortly after the Johannesburg Summit was, as Mr Ainsworth was saying, there are really only two or three recognisable new important target-setting commitments, ie on sanitation and fishing. The rest of the 530 - which is actually what the Summit came up with, not Mr Porritt - were really commitments mainly to co-operate or to aspire to those things and nothing more than that. Is that not the danger, that there is nothing hard here, it is all motherhood and apple pie?

(Margaret Beckett) No, I am not sure if I would accept that. For one thing, of course, I seem to recall there was something much more specific on chemicals and, indeed, on oceans , that people have been talking about for a very long time. Some of what has been agreed has quite wide implications if we do succeed. For example, perhaps I was unduly pessimistic, but I was quite surprised - in fact, I was very surprised - that we got agreement that we should be seeking to pursue patterns of sustainable production and consumption and an end review of a ten-year programme.

But, again, no targets?

(Margaret Beckett) That can again be quite wide reaching if that is implemented and if it is pursued, and that is something we are looking at now. I can understand that perhaps ---

You can understand the disappointment?

(Margaret Beckett) Always. There is no point in going to a summit like that if you are not aiming for more than you are going to get. That is the whole process. You have ambitions, you try to get the maximum with the ambitions that you can, and you try to involve the most number of major players that you can. If I can give you a concrete example of why I am perhaps not so disappointed as some other people, I was, we were all, bitterly disappointed, frankly, that we did not get agreement to an overall target for renewable energy, but that disappointment was mitigated by the fact that literally within seconds of that section of the negotiations closing - the final section of the negotiations - delegates from a succession of countries were leaping to their feet to say that, although they had not felt able to accept a global target towards renewable energy, their country had every intention of making substantial strides towards renewable energy and, indeed, for their country wanted a bigger target than the global target that would have been set and so on. As I say, that does not alter the fact that we were disappointed not to get a global target, but it does mean that it is not as black and white a picture as the people who just said: "Oh, you didn't get a global target, so that was all a waste of time," as might have been suggested.

Mr Challen

Could I ask if our Government's delegation, which obviously came from a number of departments, was united on that particular subject? I remember when the Secretary of State for International Development came to this Committee, she did not seem terribly keen on renewable energy. Indeed, in a number of parliamentary questions she almost put down the questioner in one case, Gareth Thomas, rather strongly on that subject. Were we united, or is that simply what you are now saying DEFRA's point of view is?

(Margaret Beckett) No, it was a very united delegation. The Secretary of State for International Development was among those who served on the Government's own Private Committee and was very, very helpful and supportive, and was helpful and supportive in Johannesburg.

Mr Jones

Briefly, Minister, when you gave responses to the Committee about the Summit being remarkable, were you speaking as a politician who understands the art of the possible, or do you sometimes lapse into being a scientist again, understanding what is necessary?

(Margaret Beckett) I certainly was speaking as someone who, I hope, tries to have an appreciation of the art of the possible. All of us are very conscious - and this applies right across the board, this does not just apply to the Johannesburg Summit - of the scale of the task that we have, whether we are pursuing issues of climate change in the environment just as you describe that you have in mind, or whether we are pursuing sustainable development. Everybody is very mindful that where we presently are is inadequate to the scale of the task but, equally, all of us recognise that we have to work with the grain of what can be achieved at any given time.

Mr Francois

Secretary of State, you mention renewable energy is an area where there was very nearly agreement. You said that a number ---

(Margaret Beckett) No, I would not go that far. There was not very nearly agreement. There was afterwards a lot of support. There was no prospect of agreement for getting a global target.

I am sorry. I understand your distinction, but a number of countries leapt up and they said the same thing?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

Was that also the position of the United Kingdom?

(Margaret Beckett) Oh, absolutely, and the whole EU.

It is curious because our Committee have had a very detailed analysis of the Government's renewable energy policy, that we will be able to generate ten per cent of our electricity from renewable energy by 2010. To paraphrase, we concluded that the Government are nowhere near it and are not going to get anywhere near it on the current trends. Would you like to comment on that now?

(Margaret Beckett) Frankly, no, Mr Francois, given that we have got an Energy White Paper in discussion at the present time. I accept the Committee's rebuke that they do not feel we are doing enough and I would accept that successive governments have not done enough to tackle this issue. It is something to which we should be committed but, yes, we were arguing - as the rest of the EU was - for the global target.

Without taking you too far along what you are looking for, would it be fair to say that your department had quite an input into the Energy White Paper?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

Mr Challon

DEFRA had leading responsibility in the preparations for the World Summit. I noticed in the second memorandum that DEFRA has submitted, under the question on the last page: "How will the UK Government oversee WSSD implementation," in paragraph 50, it says: "Progress on delivering the UK Government's WSSD commitments in Departments' delivery plans will be monitored by the Treasury and the Delivery Unit...." which I take to mean the Number 10 Delivery Unit?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

"....as part of the existing process for assessing performance." Does this mean that DEFRA is being frozen out?

(Margaret Beckett) No, no, not remotely. We were, as you say, the lead department on the organisation and so on of the Summit, but obviously our goal as a department has to be to mainstream not only the outcomes of WSSD but the other work on sustainable development that the Department does into the work that all other government departments are doing. I always find it interesting. I mean, I do not know quite why it is, but there is a natural tendency, perhaps particularly amongst the news media, to say, "Ah, the Treasury's taking up this issue. Does this mean you've lost out to the Treasury?" Trust me. If you have an issue which is hugely important and you want to mainstream it throughout the Government, there is no department you would rather have batting on your side than the Treasury. So as far as I am concerned, I would think it is a real achievement - an achievement on the part of the Treasury, not just that they were willing to accept this role - that, for example, sustainable development considerations were part of the background to the last Spending Review, that it is increasingly a feature of the concerns that the Treasury expresses and pursues. I think this is a wholly good thing. A number of the specific outcomes of WSSD are not departmentally directly for us.

I certainly accept the premise that it is a good thing to have the Treasury on your side, but it does concern me that when this Committee I think had the Chief Secretary to the Treasury before us as a witness in the Pre-Budget Statement inquiry, we were told quite specifically that we would not be allowed to see departmental performance indicators relating to our responsibilities on this Committee, so how can we trust the Treasury to monitor a process which is clearly so important and which really it is terribly important that DEFRA is seen to take a very strong lead in and be open about the process?

(Margaret Beckett) If I may say so, that is a slightly different point. I accept that the Committee would like to see some of this work, and indeed it is a matter for the Government as a whole as to what papers and what information and so on are released, but I think it does not alter the fact that it is worth while and important, from our point of view, to have the Treasury taking a keen interest in these issues, which they do.

What role will the Sustainable Development Unit have as a cross-departmental unit based within DEFRA?

(Margaret Beckett) Apart from their ongoing role, as I think we said in the memorandum, we are discussing the setting up of a smallish task force focussed on how we continue to pursue the delivery of some of these objectives. We estimate that the SDU will act as a secretariat of that, and of course they are involved with our own sustainable development strategy.

How long will this continue for? Are we going to see a permanent process set up?

(Margaret Beckett) No, no. We have not set a specific time limit at this moment in time, but we hope it will be a time-limited body, because any pressure that it might wish to exert will become unnecessary, because sustainable development will be mainstreamed and the follow-up to WSSD will be mainstreamed in all departments.

Could you put a timescale on it? It sounds to me as if some of these things will be lost in the mists of bureaucracy, perhaps just as Rio was, and people in the end turned their back on Rio and said, "This is a new beginning."

(Margaret Beckett) I would think something of the order of a year or so, because it is specifically intended to be time limited. If it is the feeling that it is not delivering within that timescale, then I would have thought it would be abandoned.

How will we know? Will you get regular reports and will everybody else? Will there be parliamentary scrutiny of this?

(Margaret Beckett) One of the things that we are considering is how it should work most effectively. We have not gone into the issue of how it is going to report and what it is going to publish yet.

The Summit was back in September, and it is now February.

(Margaret Beckett) Believe me, nobody is more mindful of that than I am.

So when can we expect the first report, or to hear how things are going?

(Margaret Beckett) When we publish the sustainable development strategy it may well be that we will be able to incorporate some elements of that in that publication.

Chairman

Does this delivery unit report to you?

(Margaret Beckett) The task force?

Yes, the task force.

(Margaret Beckett) I will chair it.

You will chair this?

(Margaret Beckett) A ministerial group.

Which will look into all of this?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

How do you deal with colleagues who appear to step out of line? For example, we had an announcement this morning from Mr Darling effectively rubbishing the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which said that there should be taxation of aviation fuel, as part of the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. He rubbished the report first of all and said it was just a gallop around the course, it has taken only six months, and that he was wholly opposed to this sort of development. That seems an astonishing thing to do. Presumably he has consulted you about this, has he?

(Margaret Beckett) I have not had a specific conversation with the Secretary of State about the thing that you are referring to this morning.

Why not?

(Margaret Beckett) I have not had a chance to catch up on this morning's coverage. Certainly I am aware, as I am sure you are aware, that the issue of how we handle the impact of aviation fuel is something that has been much discussed and quite hotly contested, and that on the whole the general approach has been, I think I am right in saying, in the EU as a whole, the belief that this has to be addressed internationally, rather than being addressed on an individual basis.

So why did he say that?

(Margaret Beckett) I have not seen the precise text to which you are referring.

But is not that a pity? You are in charge. You said that you are going to be chairing this.

(Margaret Beckett) I am not in charge of every policy in every other department. It is my role to try to make sure that the outcome of WSSD is mainstreamed into the work of other departments.

Exactly. If sustainable development is to be mainstreamed in Government, surely there has to be a form of process through which commitments of the kind the Secretary of State for Transport made today or yesterday are routed?

(Margaret Beckett) There is obviously a process of discussion about major issues.

But it did not involve you, and yet you are in charge of this?

(Margaret Beckett) No, I do not expect to be consulted about every individual statement that is made by a colleague.

This is really rather significant. Aviation fuel, as you rightly said, is a big issue. Seven per cent -----

(Margaret Beckett) If someone is saying something new, then it may well be that they will feel that it is something they would like to run past colleagues.

But this is not new, is it?

(Margaret Beckett) No. Accepting that the issue of aviation fuel is a very difficult one, and accepting that it is best tackled probably at international level, it is not remotely new.

That is what we are saying. That is not what he says.

(Margaret Beckett) You are quoting something that I do not have in front of me, I am afraid.

I am sorry about that, but it was in the news. It is rather strange, if sustainable developments - this is clearly an important issue inside sustainable development - are being mainstreamed in Government, that a major announcement of this position of the Secretary of State for Transport has not been cleared with you, cleared in some way with your colleagues and had some sort of environmental appraisal or backing attached to it.

(Margaret Beckett) No. What I said was that I have not seen the specific words and text to which you are referring, because I have been involved in other things, not least preparing to come and give evidence to this committee. But certainly we do have a very fruitful and constructive relationship with the Secretary of State for Transport, and we do keep in touch, we do discuss the impact of sustainable development and transport, we do discuss the underlying background to these issues.

It is very strange also that the Treasury have actually got in process a piece of consultation on environmental taxation, and yet the Secretary of State for Transport comes out with this very strong view, despite the fact that the Treasury are conducting a consultation on these very subjects. Is this another breakdown? This chap is not playing the game.

(Margaret Beckett) I think that is perhaps over-egging the pudding. We are talking about a really quite specific recommendation of the Royal Commission, which, from memory, is suggesting action in the quite short term. It is not surprising that the Secretary of State for Transport did not commit the Government to such action at this point in time.

Mr Ainsworth

I was going to come in on this point, but I do think that it is a matter of really quite grave concern that the Secretary of State for Transport, on a matter like this, when only yesterday your own scientists produced a report saying that CO² emissions are dangerously high and rising, and when aviation fuel is responsible for about seven per cent of those emissions, seems so outside the frame in terms of what you are trying to achieve in sustainable development.

(Margaret Beckett) If I may say so, Mr Ainsworth, I think that is a slightly different point. You are regretting the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport did not on behalf of the Government accept the particular recommendation of the Royal Commission. As I have pointed out, several times ---

No, with respect. The point is to do with the working of Government, not specifically to do with whether it is right or wrong in respect of the issue.

(Margaret Beckett) No, with respect, it is not. The point I am making is, given the general view, which is a longstanding view, as far as I am aware, that if this issue is to be tackled - and there are always those who express concern that it should be tackled - it should be tackled internationally and not nationally, then it seems to me that in effect what the Secretary of State for Transport said is not new. I hope we are not going to go into one of those unbelievably boring things about process within Government.

The issue is not so much about process as about the credibility of your efforts to drive the sustainability agenda in Government.

(Margaret Beckett) With all the respect in the world for the argument that there is an important impact of aviation fuel on climate change, I do not think that it would be very credible for any British Government to say that unilaterally we were going to take a step that would have enormous impact on Britain's competitiveness. I suspect an awful lot of people, in various quarters of different parts of industry, would be very interested if that is the view of the Conservative Party.

Chairman

He did not say it before. He need not have said anything at all. Why did he have to say anything?

(Margaret Beckett) Perhaps this is an issue that you should take up with the Secretary of State for Transport.

What worries us, for all your good words about mainstreaming sustainable development, is that here we have an example with one minister just completely outside the framework. Why was he not stopped?

(Margaret Beckett) No. I do not accept that it is outside the framework. I am very sorry. I have said before, I accept this is an important issue, I accept that it is a difficult issue. I do not accept that what the Secretary of State for Transport said, although no doubt somebody campaigning on this issue will very much regret it, it is not a change of policy, it is not a change of approach. We are not always able to take all the steps that anybody might suggest in terms of tackling climate change. We do as much as we can, we take as many steps as we can, and I accept there is constant monitoring of the progress that we are making. It is perfectly understandable and sensible that that should be so.

Mr Thomas

I still want to ask you about this policy because you just said it was not a change in policy. I think there is a significant shift in Government policy here, because when we discussed the World Summit and preparations for the World Summit with the Deputy Prime Minister, it was accepted that aviation fuel was outside the World Summit discussions because it is governed by international convention. However, he, I am pretty certain the record will show, intimated specifically - he certainly did to a question from me on the floor of the House - that the Government would take a lead in seeking international agreement on aviation fuel towards the aims of sustainable development. Mr Darling's statement today has flown in the face of that policy, has it not? You cannot now take the lead internationally on these matters unless you slap down Mr Darling?

(Margaret Beckett) No, I do not accept that. Certainly it is the case, whether it is in the EU or in the IMO, this is an issue that has been under discussion and, as you quite rightly say, the British Government have said that it is an issue which should be explored. I also accept that what Alistair said is not a change of policy from where we are now.

He does not want to explore it even. He wants to rule it out.

(Margaret Beckett) This is your interpretation.

Mr Francois

Secretary of State, there are several reasons why we are pursuing this. One is because, as a Committee, we constantly have people come before us and tell us how very committed there are to the environmental agenda, and sometimes we think those people really mean it and sometimes we think they are just paying lip service to us, and that sometimes includes representatives of other Government departments. This Government in particular has made a big thing of its own position about being joined up, they constantly pride themselves on being a joined- up Government. Would you accept that what has happened today is not particularly joined up really?

(Margaret Beckett) I am sorry, but I simply do not accept that every single step that Government could conceivably take to tackle some of these issues has to be taken or else there is no joined up Government and there is no consistency of purpose. We do have, as I said before, strong links and good links with the Department of Transport. We do discuss the range of issues that lie behind difficult decisions that they have to take and Government, as a whole, does have to weigh what can be done and what can be achieved in a certain time frame. None of that is inconsistent with what I have been saying to this Committee, or I suspect what Alistair Darling said.

Let me put it like this: the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution have looked into this in some detail, and the Secretary of State for Transport has basically dismissed it as a gallop round the course. Under the principles of collective responsibility do you endorse that statement?

(Margaret Beckett) I have not had the opportunity to spend time studying what the Royal Commission said in the course of their study, and Alistair has certainly done that. I accept that there are different studies that take place; some are carried out in more depth and in more detail than others. Given this is such a longstanding issue, as well as a very difficult one, it may be that it is not one of the Royal Commission's longer studies.

I will give you one more go, Minister. Do you endorse what the Secretary of State for Transport said today?

(Margaret Beckett) I certainly do not resile from the Secretary of State for Transport expressing his personal view as to what he felt about a report that did not change Government policy, it does not change Government policy. He has no doubt had the opportunity of reading the report. Hitherto I have not.

One last go, Minister. You have said it was his personal view, but he is speaking ---

(Margaret Beckett) No. One of the things that I said at the outset when we embarked on this line of discussion was that I hoped it was not going to turn into one of those boring nit-picking excursions into precisely who said what and precisely when they said it, because I do not think anything turns people off politics more. Different people express themselves in different ways. It may be that the phrase the Secretary of State for Transport used is not necessarily one that I would use. I am sure I have said things here this afternoon the Secretary of State for Transport would not have said. It is called people, as I say, expressing their views in their own different ways. The more we all get excited about this, the less anybody else understands or cares what we are on about.

Mr Chaytor

Secretary of State, moving on from aviation fuel, we have been supplied with a list of the 17 main commitments that were agreed with the WSSD and which have now been allocated to individual departments. I understand that the process from now on is that the lead departments for each of the 17 commitments are required to produce delivery plans for those?

(Margaret Beckett) That is right.

Can you tell us if any of these have yet been produced and, if so, which departments have produced them?

(Margaret Beckett) I cannot off-hand, but no doubt somebody will shove a grubby piece of paper into my hand if we have a list. It may well be that they have not quite yet, because one of the things that we are very keen for them to do is to incorporate them into their own WSSD targets and that may take a little time. What we do not want is to get people going through a whole bureaucratic exercise, tearing everything up and starting all over again. What we are hoping is that we will get really basically the whole process, we hope, finished and sorted before the summer.

Before summer 2003?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

Therefore, the continuation of that is that will lead to the production of a revised government sustainable development strategy?

(Margaret Beckett) That is right.

Based on delivery?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

Can you tell us what you expect to be different about the revised sustainable development strategy and what will be the major influence of WSSD that we are likely to see?

(Margaret Beckett) Not really, because we are working on a revised strategy now and you are asking me to anticipate what the outcome of that will be. I suppose what I will principally say is that we hope it will enable us to review the growth areas so far, to identify where we think there are any main areas of weakness and then, as you say, to incorporate. For example, for our own department we will be looking at what we do in terms of agriculture and fisheries and chemicals, as well as the whole issue, as I was saying the other day, of how we pursue sustainable consumption and production. So it will be a matter of departments looking to incorporate that into their work and then us drawing that together in the overall strategy.

In the list of lead departments, it is significant that the DfES appears to have no responsibility, but there was some discussion about sustainable development and education I understand. Do you think this is a gap, or is this going to be revisited, or are we just abandoning any role for the DfES in promoting sustainable development?

(Margaret Beckett) No, I do not think there is any suggestion of abandoning any such role. It is merely that there were some sort of specific issues that came out of Johannesburg that clearly were very directly related to SDAs, but as we are looking at developing a sustainable development strategy we will be looking at encouraging all departments to look at what is in their SDAs to see whether they reflect the emphasis that we think they should reflect.

I wonder if I could ask you about one or two of the specific key objectives that are listed here - firstly, about creating a level playing field for renewable energy. In terms of the domestic context, do you think the Bill that went through last week, which essentially wrote a blank cheque to prop up British Energy and the future of nuclear electricity is incompatible with this objective of creating a level playing field for renewable energy?

(Margaret Beckett) No, I do not think that. I understand the point that you are making, but after all, that Bill had to be dealt with in order to meet a situation which is there, which goes back long before our careers in politics, in terms of how that programme was developed. Governments have to tackle all the issues that are there at the time and the problems that arise at the time. I know there are those who do put the issues in opposition one to another, but I do not think that Government taking the necessary steps to deal with a relatively immediate industrial crisis invalidates the concept that what we should be doing in the future is putting much more emphasis on sustainable energy policies such as renewables and energy efficiency.

Given the subsidies and the sums of money involved and the commitment that the DTI has had to give to nuclear power, do you think it is conceivable, following the Energy White Paper, that there will be a level playing field in terms of the levels of investment available?

(Margaret Beckett) If you are asking me whether I think the Treasury is about to give us £600 million for renewables, I suspect not. But if what you are saying to me is, is the Government's overall approach and policy direction one which says that we have to do much more, as indeed was identified in the earlier conversation, in terms of our approach to renewables and so on, then I would accept that.

Turning to one of the areas for which DEFRA is specifically responsible, it says here that there is going to be a government drive on sustainable procurement. Has that started, or have we missed it? This is an issue that has cropped up once or twice at our Committee, and we are unaware of any drama that we are about to see.

(Margaret Beckett) I commissioned a report, probably about a year ago, I think. The report has just been produced as internal advice. We are hoping to make an announcement in the near future, but we are now looking at how this can work. Do not forget, I do not know whether you are aware, Mr Chaytor, that it is not a field that everybody has pursued. I certainly had not been aware until a year or so ago, with the setting up of the Office of Government Commerce, that actually there was no kind of central procurement exercise of any kind, and indeed - and quite remarkably really, when you think about it - that under successive Governments no attempt had been made to maximise the Government's purchasing power. So that that has only been in existence for a couple of years, something like that. We have now asked them to look at sustainable procurement. Their advice is before us, and we are considering how we deal with that.

So would you expect that to be a prominent feature of the revised sustainable development strategy?

(Margaret Beckett) I certainly hope so.

Joan Walley

On a point of detail, in respect of your work with other departments, and drawing up delivery plans following Johannesburg, how are you dealing with the departments, for example, where you have heavy involvement in PFIs, where you have one-step-removed agencies in terms of the sustainable development agenda or perhaps related to regional development agencies? How are you ensuring that you can go right the way across different government departments?

(Margaret Beckett) Basically by getting, we hope, acceptance and agreement of the need for those departments to have that goal as a central pursuit for them, and for them to implement that and to pass that on through whatever agencies and so on. Whatever the nature of their projects, whether they are some PFI projects or whatever, it does not invalidate the fact that sustainable development considerations have to be taken into account.

Are you confident that you have the mechanism for checking up, and making sure that, for example, regional development agencies are doing exactly that? Do you have the enforcement?

(Margaret Beckett) I would not say that we have the mechanism yet, but I hope that we will have in time.

Gregory Barker

Secretary of State, we had Jonathon Porritt giving evidence to us this morning, before we had obviously had the benefit of your answer to tell us that you had not been consulted by, or conferred with, the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of his response to the Royal Commission.

(Margaret Beckett) That is not quite what I said, but go on.

I asked Mr Porritt what question he would put to you, or what area, given your very broad remit, would be of most concern to him. He suggested that the area that we probe was whether or not there are institutional mechanisms available to you adequately to take forward the sustainable development agenda that was advocated in Johannesburg. In effect, are you, Secretary of State, particularly in light of this graphic example today, satisfied that your ministerial colleagues across Government are actually clear about the Johannesburg commitments that they are responsible for driving forward?

(Margaret Beckett) No commitment on taxing aviation fuel came out of Johannesburg, although some might regret that.

That is a very good example, is it not, of a lack of joined-up government?

(Margaret Beckett) By definition, it is not a good example. We are talking about the implementation of WSSD. In terms of institutional mechanisms, that is exactly why I was talking a little while ago about setting up the short-term task force which we hope will give us an effective way to pursue the issue of delivery. I do not know whether you would call implementing through the SDA "institutional mechanisms". I think I would actually, yes. After all, the process of targets and agreements and so on is how we set goals for departments and then monitor their progress towards those goals. So I think that in so far as that is the main thrust of what we are doing, then yes, we do have some of the institutional mechanisms in place. I hope that the task force will assist us in pursuing that, and of course we also have the usual relevant Cabinet committee structure as policy issues arise. What I do completely accept is that this is where we are now, this is what we are starting to do. We hope and think that that will be effective, but obviously we will keep it under review, and if we feel it is not being sufficiently effective then we will consider whether there are further institutional mechanisms that we need.

Mr Porritt is particularly concerned that the Green Ministers Committee was really just concerning itself with housekeeping points, rather than big strategic issues. Again, that would seem borne out by today's events.

(Margaret Beckett) I think that may be a little harsh. Certainly I think there may be some justice in saying that that was basically their remit in the previous department, but they do have a wider remit today, and some of the issues that we have been discussing - sustainable procurement and so on - are exactly the kinds of issues where the Green Ministers Committee should be able to add value. So I think that is - uncharacteristically, I am sure - perhaps a little unfair to the Green Ministers Committee.

Mr Ainsworth

Do you regret the fact that your Department has very little say about land use planning issues? We know that the Department of Transport seems to be behaving in a way that is not exactly on message as far as what you are trying to achieve is concerned. I just wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister consulted you thoroughly before making his recent announcements about what many regard as unsustainable planning policies?

(Margaret Beckett) I think you will find that the Deputy Prime Minister is very careful to take account of these issues, as you would expect in somebody who has a track record in this field himself. So yes, we do feel consulted. I am sure that he would not, and I do not either, accept your description of the policy that he is pursuing. Turning to your general question about do we regret not having land use planning, to be honest, no, because there is a limit. I think that the structure that we have now in DEFRA has great potential and works very well. Of course you could add other things into it, but you could add 55 other things into it and then probably what you would get is an unwieldy department. Provided that you can have a flow, an exchange of information and ideas and so on, the departmental structures do not matter so much. I say that as somebody who has served in a department where, although you are in the same department and the department is the same, it does not necessarily make that much difference in terms of whether there is a flow of information and co-operation and so on.

Chairman

What does make the difference?

(Margaret Beckett) You can get silos within departments and silos within departments within departments. I have known that happen.

What does make a difference if the institute does not make a difference?

(Margaret Beckett) I say that with some regret, because there was a time when I used to think that perhaps if you got the structures and so on right, everything else would flow. I am afraid it is the people that make a difference. If people are genuinely open-minded and co-operative and prepared to work well with others as team players and so on, then the structures will work and it will not matter whether the departmental values are keen or not, and if they are not, it will not.

Joan Walley

Can I just ask, in view of the work that is being done in the department to access existing officers there, will sustainable development be a part of the assessment that you will be making of the future potential of existing officers inside the department?

(Margaret Beckett) I am not sure. Obviously, I am not carrying out the professional assessment. I am not sure whether it will explicitly be said. What I will certainly say is that the capacity to respond to evolving policy and evolving ideas and to consider how most effectively

to pursue them will absolutely be part of the process that is taking place, which is not just assessment, but is intended to be a supportive means of developing the capacity of the departmental team.

Chairman

One thing which previous ministers have committed themselves to is proper environmental appraisal of policies throughout the Government. Was such an environmental appraisal done for the house building programme and community programme which Mr Ainsworth referred to?

(Margaret Beckett) There was the whole range of contacts between departments and the whole range of different assessments and discussions and so on that you would expect and anticipate.

Was a specific environmental appraisal obtained?

(Margaret Beckett) To the best of my recollection, yes.

You will also recall there was a commitment by Government that if it was thought sensible, those appraisals would be published?

(Margaret Beckett) That is why I was looking at you rather cautiously, Mr Horam It is not a matter for me what is published by the Department.

It is not a matter for you?

(Margaret Beckett) Not what other departments publish.

Could we expect it to be published then?

(Margaret Beckett) I frankly do not know.

Mr Ainsworth: Could we, Chairman, ask for confirmation of that issue?

Chairman

We can certainly contact the Deputy Prime Minister's Department to do that. You do not know?

(Margaret Beckett) I said my understanding is yes.

Your understanding is yes?

(Margaret Beckett) But whether anything is going to be published, I do not know.

Mr Challon

I want to ask one question about a reference, in the document that we have been provided with, to partnerships.

(Margaret Beckett) Are you talking about the memorandum?

The second memorandum I believe we had. In terms of reviewing and monitoring the Summits, what partnerships do you envisage the Government engaging in with NGOs, business organisations, trade unions and so on? Will it be a fairly formal process, or is it going to be loose ad hoc meetings every so often to consider the progress being made?

(Margaret Beckett) I am not sure whether we are at slightly cross-purposes here because most of the partnerships that I think are intended, in terms of the reference in this memorandum, are partnerships that we have already set up, or are in the process of setting up. So whoever the particular individual players are is already not set in stone, but broadly the framework of which players have been involved is, generally speaking, identified, I think.

I read those two paragraphs as being more international ---

(Margaret Beckett) Yes, that is right.

--- than national.

(Margaret Beckett) That is right.

This is referring nationally within the UK to what DEFRA will be doing to talk to other bodies?

(Margaret Beckett) We continue to maintain what I hope are good relationships with people like NGOs, trade unions and so on, but in terms of partnership works specifically in this context, I think the emphasis at the outset is going to be on the quite demanding range of partnerships to which we are already, as a department, committed. Then as we think that those are coming forward and coming, hopefully, to fruition, we will look at them and consider whether there is more that we can do, but that whole issue will be looked at in the context of people delivering.

I will just make a suggestion, if I may?

(Margaret Beckett) Please do.

A couple of years year ago DFID did do a national tour, if you like, talking about sustainable development and so on. In fact, they had a team that came to Leeds and organised all sorts of seminars and things. Is that not something that DEFRA could do in terms of its lead role in relation to the Summit, perhaps in partnership with DFID?

(Margaret Beckett) That is a very interesting idea. In terms of thinking about the follow-up to the Summit, we have been concentrating more on the concrete stuff about getting things into delivery plans and so on, but as to how we take forward the argument and the case and the dialogue, I think that is an interesting suggestion.

Mr Chaytor

Coming back to the delivery plans and the 17 commitments, there are a huge number of separate issues listed in the document you have supplied. Which of these do you think should have the highest priory in influencing the revised sustainable development strategy, on the assumption it will not be possible to deliver across the board on everything?

(Margaret Beckett) I would say off the cuff that probably the overall aim and pursuit of sustainable consumption and production is the one that is the most potentially far reaching and probably the most difficult to deliver by.

Are there other specifics following that?

(Margaret Beckett) As I say, there is the whole issue of whether or not we can get the CAP reform, that is very present in my mind at this moment in time. People have been talking about something along the lines of the oceans initiative for a very long time. I would like to see us able to make more progress on that. Then, of course, there are the whole range of issues that are linked to the Millennium Development Goals, so I do not want to be too prescriptive in singling things out. Maybe you are inviting me to give , needless to say, one over-arching priority, when it is not yet identified.

Just picking up on the point about oceans protection, I think there is a date in the document of 2012?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes.

Whereby we see some legislation in terms of ocean protection. Am I right in thinking there was a Bill last year, the Marine Conservation Bill, and the Government actually opposed this issue that you are flagging up, the oceans, as an area to be given higher priority? Are we likely to see a Government Bill in the near future that would start to tackle that?

(Margaret Beckett) I do not think we are likely to see a Government Bill in the immediate future, but I am not sure that we did oppose a Marine Conservation Bill.

A Private Member's Bill.

(Margaret Beckett) I do not know whether I am getting confused. Was that not the one that died in the House of Lords? I do not think the Government opposed it.

The two are not necessarily incompatible are they?

(Margaret Beckett) In this case I think you will find that it was definitely not. It was enemy activity if I can put it this way, rather than Government activity. I may be mistaken. If I am wrong, I apologise and I will write to you.

Could we have a commitment on what you feel would be supportive of new legislation?

(Margaret Beckett) I am afraid you are not going to catch me like that, Mr Chaytor. I am not going to kiss the Lords radically because the Government is supporting whatever new legislation might come forward. We are looking at regulations to extend Habitats Directives, we are looking at a range of issues and we are looking at the old RATU(?) framework. I am very mindful of the fact there are many pressure groups in this field who think that we should have had major legislation probably ten years ago, but you will appreciate, I hope, that the Government cannot do everything at once. What I am saying to you is that this is work which I think we should be trying to take forward, but I am not telling you that we will be able to do it in this parliamentary session or possibly even the next.

Chairman

I think you mentioned, Secretary of State, in response to Mr Chaytor, that the top priority was consumption and production tax, business consumption?

(Margaret Beckett) Off the cuff you asked me to pick one and that is the one I picked.

You also made a speech about that last week?

(Margaret Beckett) Indeed. I announced that we were going to publish the strategy, hopefully, in the not too distant future.

What exactly is going to happen to that in December? How do you approach the problem?

(Margaret Beckett) Work is being done now to try and draw up some proposals for an over-arching strategy.

This is a strategy study, is it?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes, and we hope to publish something for consultation, I would anticipate, although I suspect, given that it is such a difficult and major subject, it will probably be quite a lengthy process of consultation for the whole thing, but we are hoping to make some progress on that later this year.

You mentioned that there was something to be published in the summer. That will be a consultation document, not a final document, will it?

(Margaret Beckett) Absolutely.

Because it is a big subject, is it not?

(Margaret Beckett) Absolutely.

So we are talking about a consultation exercise which will start in the summer, following a probing exercise?

(Margaret Beckett) I cannot really recall. There are a whole range of things that are supposed to happen in the summer, and that might be one of those that is a little late. Certainly during this year.

That is a bit more elastic.

(Margaret Beckett) You may be right. I am just trying to summons in my memory whether that is also in the summer. I am wondering how many speeches I am going to be making in the summer at this rate. Certainly we are keen to make progress on putting out some initial approaches to that, but obviously it is absolutely something we need to consult about.

It is a huge subject, and obviously the DTI will have an input in that, and the Treasury?

(Margaret Beckett) They will have an input into that as well.

Mr Thomas

I think it was in Cardiff, in the year 2000, that it was decided that the EU Spring Summit should always focus on environmental issues?

(Margaret Beckett) Yes, I think it was.

Can you tell us what is going to happen in the forthcoming EU Spring Summit as regards taking forward the EU's commitment?

(Margaret Beckett) I rather think - and again I am speaking from memory - that what is anticipated is that they will look at how the EU's external sustainable development strategy can reflect some of the outcomes of the WSSD. I think that is what is happening.

Have you got any more preparatory work in the Department? Have you got anything that might be useful to share with the Committee on what is likely to come out of this?

(Margaret Beckett) I am not sure, but if we have, we will.

Reflecting the earlier question, I think, about Canada, I hesitate to use the word "federal" here, but of course Canada is trying to deal with federal policy. In a different context, the EU has a similar structure and of course negotiated as a bloc at Johannesburg?

(Margaret Beckett) Indeed.

So are you thinking of any initiatives in terms of co-ordinating that? What can you say to us that can alleviate any concerns that the whole issue might drift at the EU level?

(Margaret Beckett) I think the principal thing I would say to you is that the Environment Council, I think, is extremely mindful of the importance of that acceptance and commitment. This time last year there was actually a kind of focus on "You must make sure that the Cardiff decision is taken forward". I think that will continue to be the case, that the Environment Council will continue to take a keen interest in how these issues are handled.

Will there be any policy initiatives coming out of this Spring Summit? Some of the things that came out of Rio, which the EU negotiated a position on, which could not get through to the final declaration, might now be usefully taken forward at the European level anyway. Has anything like that been put forward?

(Margaret Beckett) There are discussions going on about the EU's own strategy and how that might be developed, slightly separately really from anything that happens at the EU Summit, because again if it does not need to go to the Summit it should not go to the Summit.

Chairman

We have had quite a long session, Secretary of State. I sense that possibly you have answered most of the questions that we have asked, but there are a few things that we would like to follow up, if we may. The Clerk will be in contact with your officials, if possible, arising out of today's session.

(Margaret Beckett) Absolutely.

Chairman: I would like to thank you for quite a long session and for being so frank and helpful with your answers.