Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-559)
MR BILL
RAMMELL MP, MS
VALERIE CATON
AND MR
HENRY DERWENT
8 FEBRUARY 2005
Q540 Joan Walley: If I could just pursue
the line of thinking that we were on in terms of the actual work
that is going on as opposed to what is explicitly there in the
targets. You just mentioned a whole list of different initiatives
that are being taken in relation to G8 and the European Union
Presidencies. If I could just ask you how you are monitoring and
measuring progress on those things which are actually being done
because I think one of the things that this Committee is really
looking at, insofar as this is an audit committee, is to see not
just what people say they are doing but how they know that what
they say they are doing they are actually doing. Are you auditing
it, measuring it? How do you feel that those internal objectives
that you have set yourself are really being achieved?
Mr Rammell: I think we are trying
to measure. Relatively we are still at an early stage with this
in the development of a number of projects but I think we are
trying to monitor even down to the level of performance appraisal
for individual officials in terms of the job objectives that we
set them.
Q541 Joan Walley: Does that apply to
attendance at Select Committees? Sorry.
Mr Rammell: Good point. It comes
in from that point of view. It comes in, as well, through the
groups that we have established internally on climate change and
sustainable development which meet regularly to log and review
progress. Also, we are feeding that progress back in through the
inter-ministerial working parties and committees. For example,
and it is not explicitly on the climate change agenda although
it links into it, an example of the way that we have gone out
of our way, and I in driving this have gone out of my way, to
open ourselves up to scrutiny is on our Sustainable Development
Strategy that we will be launching in a few weeks' time. We have
worked throughout with Jonathan Porritt and the Commission for
Sustainable Development and have had a regular series of meetings
where I have got the submissions from officials, I have amended
them, worked them through and then thrown them open to Jonathan
and said, "Right, tell us from your independent perspective
how well you think we are actually progressing".
Q542 Joan Walley: Thank you. I think
you just touched on the Climate Change and Energy Group. Does
that have specific objectives and targets?
Mr Rammell: Yes, it does. I will
ask Valerie, if I can, to give some of the detail of that.
Ms Caton: I am Head of the Climate
Change and Energy Group inside the Foreign Office. We were established
last September with the objective of taking forward the Foreign
Office's strategic priority number seven on climate change and
energy security, which is set out in the Foreign Office's White
Paper setting out its international priorities. Also, we have
a role in taking forward the international aspects of the 2003
Energy White Paper and as part of that we led in drafting the
UK's International Energy Strategy which was published by the
Foreign Secretary at the end of October. That document was signed
off by the Foreign Secretary and Mrs Beckett and Mrs Hewitt as
well, so it had the backing of the three main ministries that
lead in this area. We are now following up how we are taking that
forward with the other government departments through the Sustainable
Energy Policy Network, which is a cross-Whitehall body which has
a number of publicly available objectives and milestones, and
we are submitting our objectives and milestones from our business
plan to that group and they will be monitoring our performance
in following that up.
Q543 Joan Walley: Thank you for that.
I think we will be coming in a little while to some of the detailed
issues that stem from that. Before we do move off that, can I
just ask the Minister to perhaps give us a little bit more detail.
I know that you are the Green Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, and I think that is a really important position to be
holding, and I just wondered how you felt that the work that you
have been doing has enabled this whole issue to be embedded into
the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Mr Rammell: I think we have made
progress. I am not going to deny that this is relatively a new
issue. It is not an issue that historically has been seen as a
key part of international diplomacy and the ongoing work of ambassadors
and officials. What we are trying to achieve is a cultural change
and we are certainly giving strong leadership on it. We are certainly
setting up the mechanisms to ensure that it is embedded. I take
your point about explicit wording, but the fact that energy and
sustainable development are included as two of the eight key priorities
sends out a strong message, I think. My assessment is that over
the time I have been in the FCO, which is two and a bit years,
holding this portfolio, the issue is much more mainstream than
it was. Have we got further to go in bringing about that cultural
shift, yes, we have.
Q544 Joan Walley: I am just wondering
if I asked the same question of someone like, for example, Professor
Paul Rogers from the Peace Studies Department at Bradford University
whether or not he would give the same answer that you have just
given.
Mr Rammell: I doubt he would because
that is the divide between academia and the world of government.
Q545 Joan Walley: In terms of pursuing
this whole issue of embedding environmental objectives into the
work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and looking at the
whole issue of conflict resolution and the prevention of conflict,
is there more that you can do as the Green Minister or are you
seeking advice of people who perhaps could be proactive in assisting
the UK Government on this?
Mr Rammell: I think I gave you
an example previously of the way through the Sustainable Development
Commission with Jonathan Porritt, who is hardly a shrinking violet
on these issues and has been quite robust and challenging externally
from the Government to challenge and scrutinise what we are doing,
I deliberately have gone out of my way to involve him and his
organisation in developing our sustainable development strategy
because I felt we needed that critical input from the outside.
I keep an open mind about whether we need to take that further
and involve others, but we are certainly not conducting this on
our own within a silo and not looking for external influence.
Q546 Joan Walley: As the Green Minister
you attend ENV(G). What do you think the role of that should be?
Mr Rammell: I think it is experience
sharing and looking across different departments at what works
and what does not work. It is keeping sight of the big picture
and ensuring all of us are aware of what that is and how we are
contributing, but it is also extremely—I should not say
this with two officials beside me—fairly official light
in terms of the dialogue that takes place and it provides a forum
in which you can step back and not just read from official briefs
but discuss with other ministers how you are taking the agenda
forward.
Q547 Joan Walley: Is that something on
which you think, in conjunction with the Treasury, there should
be a greater acceptance of further systems that can be travelled
on this issue?
Mr Rammell: Sorry, I am not following
the question.
Q548 Joan Walley: In terms of ENV(G)
and the Cabinet Committee there, I am wondering whether or not
there is more work to be done, perhaps in conjunction with the
Treasury, in respect of acknowledgement of the objectives that
could be part and parcel of the Foreign and Commonwealth objectives
that are there?
Mr Rammell: Sorry, if you are
talking about broadening out our objectives through the PSA process,
that is something that is kept under review. I still maintain,
based upon what we are actually doing that we are mainstreaming
environmental concerns, we are mainstreaming climate change, and
I do not think we are hampered by not having that explicit objective
in terms of climate change although energy covers it and sustainable
development covers it.
Q549 Joan Walley: You would not object
if it was there?
Mr Rammell: No.
Q550 Joan Walley: It would make it a
little bit easier possibly.
Mr Rammell: There is an argument
for that.
Chairman: I think you have answered most
of the questions that I was going to ask your officials, which
I do not think tells us anything.
Q551 Mr Savidge: In his Davos speech
the Prime Minister stated: "This year offers a unique set
of opportunities. I am committed to using the UK's G8 and EU Presidencies
to try to make a breakthrough on Africa and climate change".
What do you think would constitute a breakthrough on climate change?
Do we have specific objectives against which we could assess success
or failure?
Mr Rammell: Firstly, I think it
is something to our credit that we have set climate change as
one of our two G8 objectives. When I think back historically I
cannot imagine many governments actually holding the G8 and saying
that something like climate change is going to be one of the priorities.
A lot of what we are trying to do this year will not be very easy
to measure in terms of tangible outcomes because a lot of it is
about re-injecting political momentum into the process as we have
to start setting our sights on the post-Kyoto framework. That
is why, for example, under the G8 Presidency we are holding a
major meeting on innovation research into energy in May, that
is why last week we had the International Scientists Meeting in
Exeter and that is why we are having the Energy and Environmental
Ministers Round Table on 15 and 16 March, all of which are designed
to give a further kick to moving this process forward. Being quite
frank with you, I do not think it is going to be very easy to
quantify what the outcomes of that are until you get to the stage
that you have actually achieved a post-Kyoto framework agreement
but we need to be exploring all of the options, we need to be
injecting urgency within the process. Certainly there are some
tangibles within our EU Presidency which will demonstrate whether
we have made progress. We have got summits planned, for example
with the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Canadians and
the Ukrainians, and climate change should be, and will be, a key
element of those discussions and I think we will be able to measure
whether or not that has happened. Again, turning to some measurable
specifics, I think during our EU Presidency it is likely that
the Commission will come forward with the proposal to incorporate
aviation emissions into the EU Trading Scheme. If we can get an
agreement on that, and our target is to achieve it by 2008, I
think that will be a very solid and tangible achievement. I think
there are a number of things practically that we are looking to
do where we can achieve and measure what we have done, but I am
fully ready to acknowledge that a lot of it is more intangible,
it is about re-injecting some urgency and momentum into the process.
Q552 Mr Savidge: In effect, you have
got three separate arenas for climate change in 2005: the EU Presidency,
the G8 Presidency and, of course, the United Nations' Framework
Convention on Climate Change post-Kyoto negotiations. How far
do you see the agendas for those three arenas as being congruent
with each other?
Mr Rammell: I think they are going
to be complementary but it is important for us to recognise that
the negotiations and the decision making process on the future
Climate Change Framework will come through the UN Convention process.
It is not going to happen through the G8, it is not going to happen
through the EU, and I make no apology for that. Sometimes one
hears things debated about the role of the G8, that potentially
it could be seen to be usurping the role of the United Nations,
but that is not something we are comfortable with going along
with. It is about setting the agenda through the G8 and the EU,
trying to create some momentum. The fact that we are pulling environment
ministers from across the world over here in March, we have got
energy ministers in May, we have had scientific experts here just
recently in February, is all about trying to re-inject urgency
and momentum with a view that with a fair wind if we get it moving
for the November meeting we can hopefully have enough momentum
to be able to carry forward and start direct negotiations.
Q553 Mr Savidge: What is the UK's role
during 2005? Do you see it sort of acting as a broker or do you
see it as providing leadership to suggest a specific approach
and, if so, what would that approach be?
Mr Rammell: I think it is about
leadership and the very fact that a country like Britain has said
that we will make it a priority for the G8 is important. I do
not think at this stage we are setting out in tablets of stone,
and rightly so, what the preferred post-Kyoto framework is because,
frankly, there is not a consensus at the moment and that is part
of the problem. I think we need to explore and look at every single
one of them. It is also about leading by example and that is where,
although inevitably you can make criticisms about performance,
I think Britain is one of the best ones internationally. For example,
if you look within the figures for the EU X schemes, I think we
have probably got the second best performance within the European
Union at the moment, so it is actually leading by example through
the EU process. It is about diplomatically encouraging those who
are not making as much progress. In order to get the gearshift
that we need to get consensus on the post-Kyoto framework, I do
not think you can set it out in tablets of stone at this stage
because if you did you would fairly quickly run into the buffers.
Q554 Mr Savidge: Do you personally believe
that any long-term equitable solution to global warming must be
based on the concept of equal per capita emission rights, as advocated
in the Global Commons Institute's Contraction and Convergence
model?
Mr Rammell: It is one of the options
that we are looking at and on the face of it there are some attractions
to it. There are arguments that actually it might disadvantage
some developing countries, China as an example. I think the other
more substantive difficulty is that to actually get a target and
a cap regime itself agreed internationally, we know from our experience
from Kyoto, is extraordinarily difficult. To set our stall out
for that at this stage when not only has the United States set
its face against it, not only has Australia done that but the
G77 as well has done that, in those circumstances to emphatically
say that is the way forward at this stage I do not think would
help us achieve the kind of consensus that we need.
Q555 Chairman: Does that not go to the
heart of the issue, that there are so many disparate interests
and agendas, international relations and attitudes towards the
problem that you could go on discussing potential solutions forever
whilst the problem gets worse and worse and worse? That is the
danger, is it not, that a consensus is not actually achievable?
Mr Rammell: Yes, except I am not
sure what the alternative is to trying to establish that. I accept
the point that we are dealing with a very difficult, very dangerous
situation. When you sit down in the cold light of day and you
look at some of the projections it is absolutely terrifying and
one of the difficulties we all have is communicating that to the
general public in order to get the sustained political pressure
that we need for change, but I am not sure what the alternative
is.
Q556 Paul Flynn: The alternative surely
is that half the planet will not be habitable for our children
or grandchildren.
Mr Rammell: Sorry, I am talking
in the alternative what kind of actions we try to pursue. I accept
your point that unless we take urgent remedial action we are going
to have major problems. I would say on behalf of this Government
and this country that, compared to others, we are taking relatively
urgent remedial action but what we cannot do is guarantee that
others will go with us, therefore however difficult it is and
however complicated it is we have to seek to try to establish
international consensus.
Q557 Chairman: But really we are at the
talks about talks stage, are we not?
Mr Rammell: We just achieved a
significant milestone—we have not just, it is coming on
16 February—we are going to get ratification of Kyoto. I
tell you, it took a hell of a lot of arguing, lobbying and cajoling
to get there. Again, coming back to the Foreign Office's specific
responsibility, something we put enormous effort into was Russia
to get that agreement. That will give us a momentum. I think the
EU Emissions Trading Scheme when it comes on stream will give
us some momentum and, hopefully, if through this process of our
G8 Presidency, our EU Presidency, we sufficiently push this up
the political ladder we will have a better chance than we would
otherwise have of getting those negotiations kick started.
Q558 Joan Walley: I agree with all the
huge progress that has been made and I think it is quite historic
but you did not mention anything about the WTO and I just wonder
how much we need to get the WTO on board as well in respect of
all of this in terms of the possibility of trade sanctions against
countries that do not comply, that kind of direction.
Mr Rammell: I think arguably it
is something that we can look at. I think the prospects of getting
agreement for that even in the medium term are very difficult.
A big factor in this is the position of the United States where
we have taken a very different position with regard to Kyoto.
I do not think there are prospects on Kyoto of getting a different
position in the short term from the US administration, although
it is interesting, if you look back to the vote on Kyoto in 1997
within Congress, it was 95 votes to zero. In the McCain and Lieberman
Bill in November 2003 there were 43 votes in favour of it and
essentially it is just a domestic cap and target scheme whereas
Kyoto is an internationally agreed one. If you look at New York
and California, who in combined terms have the same global emissions
as the UK, there are some very tangible and substantive pieces
of progress being made. I do not think all is lost. I do not think
the position of the US Government is going to budge on Kyoto.
I do not think it is just a Bush issue. I think we would probably
have been in the same position if there had been a Democrat president.
If you look at some of the things John Kerry said during the election,
they certainly were not a great deal more cuddly and friendly
than the current position on this issue. So I do not think you
are going to get a change. What we have therefore got to do is
the post-Kyoto framework has got to involve the United States
given their huge contribution in terms of emissions. We have got
to look at ways and mechanisms to try and do that and that is
where some of the cooperation on science and technology is important
and also looking at what other mechanisms we can try and get agreement
on.
Q559 Joan Walley: You mentioned about
looking at other ways of involving the US. When this Committee
went out to Canada and met with the audit committee out in Canada
we found that they had very robust views about the ways in which
Canada could help influence the US in all of this. Is that something
that is within your sights?
Mr Rammell: Certainly. It is not
just America. Australia and others have a different view on how
we take this forward.
| 
