Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
JONATHON PORRITT
CBE AND MS
SARA EPPEL
13 JULY 2006
Q200 Mr Hurd: I want to ask about
personal carbon trading and your disappointment effectively about
political science in that regard. How could government meaningfully
create a debate around that issue without raising too high an
expectation about its own intentions? I am thinking of the precedent
of road pricing where government launched the debate. It had some
solidity to it because of its intention to launch pilots, in the
sense that it really wanted to do that. Personal carbon trading,
as you know, gives rise to quite big political issues, one being
its potential complexity and the ability of people to understand
it and the other being quite big issues relating to the potential
redistribution of wealth. That would need to be thought through
quite carefully. How would you like to see a progressive government
launch that debate against that background?
Jonathon Porritt: It would be
quite wrong for government to leap instantly to the point that
it has got to with road pricing, for instance, which is to start
talking about pilots and testing. I do not think that there is
enough of a settled understanding of what it means inside government
to move to that stage, but surely the next stage has to be government's
own inquiry processes and intellectual engagement in the discussion.
There are a number of quite big picture inquiries going on at
the moment, one of which is being spearheaded by the RSA in particular.
It looks at ways in which this can be made more understandable
and then more viable. These two things need to go hand in hand.
All we are suggesting at this stage—in all honesty it is
not a big request—is that the Government would be well advised
to exercise some investigative capacity of its own to begin to
map out what it looks like, to find a way to articulate it more
broadly in society and then to think about whether there is a
trial or feasibility process, not necessarily for a full rollout
but perhaps a partial one. I refer, for instance, to the feasibility
of some kind of "carbon card", which is talked about
a lot as the mechanics by which one delivers the eventual trading
scheme. Is there some way that it could be tested with a very
progressive local authority which for its own purposes might want
to begin to explore those kinds of areas? What is a little surprising
is the risk-aversion side of things and no desire even to go that
far. If one believes that ultimately the politics of carbon on
both a global and personal scale will be mediated via trading
schemes of one kind or another, then the more ground work one
does now to understand the journey one has to make to get there,
the better it is.
Q201 Mr Hurd: Do you believe that
at the moment with this Government and the new secretary of state
the door is shut politically?
Jonathon Porritt: I do not believe
that the door is shut. We have never had the door shut when we
have talked about it. It is absolutely true that we have not had
the door flung open with huge enthusiasm. It is interesting that
the new secretary of state, David Miliband, is beginning to test
concepts such as his "environmental contract". That
contract implies a revision of the relationship between government
and the citizen to secure these environmental outcomes. If that
is the nature of the inquiry that is going on in David Miliband's
mind it would be very odd if he did not want as part of that new
contract process to investigate one mechanism that would be available
to government, namely a personalised trading scheme of that kind.
Q202 Mr Chaytor: You are very critical
of the target-setting process and protectionism of individual
departments. Do you believe there is a case for disaggregating
the overall target and setting targets for each individual government
department? Would that produce a sharper focus?
Jonathon Porritt: We have never
advocated that. What we have done is to demonstrate that some
departments are bearing more of the weight of meeting that target
than others. For instance, we have commented that unless the Ministry
of Defence had achieved some of the very substantial reductions
in CO2 emissions that it had achieved, the picture
would look even worse than it does. I do not believe we have ever
advocated that we should go through a department-by-department
target-setting process. What we are aware of as we look at Sustainable
Development Action Plans, together with the new process of sustainable
development targets in government, is that we will have much better
data on which to base judgments about which departments are really
picking up their share of a collective target and which are not.
Ms Eppel: The PSAs of the departments
drive departmental objectives in terms of the policies for their
sectors. We believe that some of those are not adequately connected
into the overall climate change targets, so there will be a disproportionate
burden perhaps on departments that are not then able to influence
it. The departments that could influence change within those sectors
do not have that as a driving force in their objectives through
the PSA system.
Q203 Mr Chaytor: That was going to
be my further point. The PSAs are a target-setting system for
everything other than carbon reductions, so what is the argument
against not simply including a PSA for carbon reduction?
Jonathon Porritt: That is a very
timely question. It would be extremely helpful at this stage to
have the EAC's opinion on that. You will know that currently the
Treasury is reflecting on whether or not PSAs are doing the job
that it was hoped they would do and is to issue guidance to departments
possibly about reformulating PSAs through the comprehensive spending
review. If I am absolutely honest, at the moment the Commission
has been much more focused on some of the fine grain of what has
been going on through sustainable development in government process,
the new Sustainable Development Action Plans and the sustainable
procurement opportunities. All of that has given us much greater
traction department by department than ever existed before. The
commitment that government has now made at least on procurement,
that the Cabinet Secretary will take overarching responsibility
for overseeing delivery against whatever set of targets the Government
agrees on sustainable procurement, has achieved another very important
shift as far as we are concerned. It has lifted the whole thing
in terms of the seriousness with which these issues are being
addressed inside the department. We have been very worried that
the failure to get the buy-in of Permanent Secretaries in the
past on many of these issues led to consistent under-performance.
That is the way organisations work. If one's organisation is not
showing leadership from the top on these matters they tend to
disappear in the woodwork. We believe that that change of heart
and the strong steer from government, in that the Cabinet Secretary
will have a hand at least in procurement and possibly beginning
to look also at some of the framework targets, change the tone
with which government is trying to address these matters. I think
we have been focused more at that end than by high level departmental
goal-setting through PSAs, which is a good prompt.
Q204 Mr Chaytor: In respect of the
longer-term issues and the target for 2050, clearly this Government
will not be held accountable for its fulfilment. Given there is
now a target for 2010 and a range of figures around 2020 but nothing
after that until 2050, is there a case for interim targets at
five-yearly periods? What can possibly be the argument against
having a five-yearly target-setting process?
Jonathon Porritt: Indeed. I believe
that the agreement now by government to present an annual report
on the effectiveness of the delivery on climate change targets
is a very important commitment, and in a way that is bound to
create a rolling, target-driven process. It will just be much
more in the parliamentary process and people will find it inevitable
that that will emerge. As to how government does it, I think we
need to take accountð ñof the process going
on through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe
that when the IPCC reports in 2007 and gives its advice to governments
collectively about the adequacy, for instance, of a 60% reduction
by 2050, or whatever it might be, that will provide a new injection
of the state of scientific knowledge as it is today which all
governments anywhere in the world can use to set these milestones
towards the point we need to reach. I think the IPCC will be absolutely
clear that the kind of guidance it gave in the third assessment
report is clearly now not fit for purpose in the light of what
we now know about accelerated change processes in many different
areas. That may be the moment at which government can say, "Here
we are. We have had the update and this is what the world's scientific
community now tells us. We need to take stock of it. We felt we
were brave in responding to the long-term goal of the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution of 60% by 2050, but we now have more
data and we need to set some milestones along the way."
Q205 Mr Chaytor: Referring to the
IPCC report, is it your feeling that following the publication
of the next report 60% by 2050 will still be seen as adequate?
Jonathon Porritt: I have not seen
enough of the papers that are circulating at the moment, but my
discussions with two of the leading individuals involved in the
IPCC process indicate that they would have that as the absolute
minimum that any government should look to achieve. That will
depend slightly on where we are around stabilisation targets and
some of the new consensus on concentrations of CO2
in the atmosphere. There is a growing need to define that concentration
limit, whether it is 450 or 500 ppm, and a lot of work is now
being done to get some kind of consensus on the concentration
limits.
Q206 Mr Hurd: I should like to ask
briefly about the quality of the statistical data that underpin
policymaking. Is it robust enough? Are we asking tough enough
questions in this place about the quality of the data on the projections
for both carbon emissions and reductions? How do you believe the
process can be improved? In particular, do you have a view on
the idea put forward that this process somehow should be taken
out of departments and into some form of carbon audit office?
Jonathon Porritt: I should like
to ask my colleague to answer that because she is much closer
to the details. But it is interesting that in the business of
preparing our response to the review of the climate change programme
we had to go from 10 million tonnes to 15 million tonnes as the
shortfall required even in that period of time. We were very much
aware of the fact that some of the data being offered was hardly
as robust as we might have wanted. My colleague sat on the inter-departmental
analysts' group and saw the issue of data much closer to hand.
Ms Eppel: The difficulty is that
a lot of the work on these projections is based on trying to show
where we are likely to be if policies continue as they are. They
are updated through this process more or less every month. Therefore,
it was incredibly difficult to assess the work we had done at
the beginning on the expectation of a shortfall of 10 million
tonnes, which in six months turned out to be 15 million tonnes
and then 18 million tonnes. To have to work on the basis of shifting
sands and in that environment is not ideal for something as major
as this. I do not believe that that process is a good one. Whether
or not it should be moved out of the DTI is perhaps another issue,
but it makes it more difficult because it becomes a department
against department discussion which is not really helping.
Q207 Mr Hurd: Perhaps it should be
taken out of the departments entirely and put into some form of
independent carbon audit office?
Ms Eppel: Independence would be
a good thing, and it does not feel very independent. That may
be incorrect, but it does not feel that way when it is one department
pitching against another and trying to catch up with the changes.
Jonathon Porritt: I believe that
that will become a big priority for MPs, because an annual report
to Parliament necessitates robustness in the data used for that
purpose. To a certain extent, whether or not the data are sufficiently
robust for your purposes is something with which Parliament will
have to feel content. The interesting proposal about an Office
of Climate Change is certainly germane to that discussion because
obviously that will not be an independent part of the system.
I know that the Secretary of State is very keen to drive forward
those proposals quite quickly, and does not want to spend another
six months or year consulting on what such an office might look
like, how it would be structured and to whom it would report,
but early indications are that it would secure a much more serious
level of cross-department co-ordination. I believe that people
are talking of seven departments at secretary of state level with
a team of people primarily still co-ordinated by Defra, as we
understand it at the moment, providing the secretariat input into
that office. That is not quite the same thing as you talked about.
I believe that the function you are calling for is an independent
body responsible for the data control, management and evaluation
systems.
Q208 Mr Hurd: The tracking of carbon?
Jonathon Porritt: Indeed.
Q209 Mr Hurd: Would you welcome such
a thing?
Jonathon Porritt: Yes. We have
had discussions with ministers in Defra about this matter, and
we have indicated that we regard it as hugely important. I genuinely
cannot see any downside to it for government. If there is to be
embarrassment on these issues it is better that they surface via
a transparent process that others can point to rather than by
something that is suddenly released at the dead of night by a
government body that may well feel constrained by putting that
data into the public domain. This is critical. We do not necessarily
know that we are on track to achieving some of these targets.
It is quite hard to say whether or not these reductions really
are being achieved, and that is part of a much bigger picture
that is now being looked at by different international bodies.
How do we do this empirical evaluation of the amount of carbon
that any one nation is emitting? There is no robust global process
in place to secure that data. That will be critical for all sorts
of reasons to do with the emissions trading scheme and compliance
under Kyoto. At the moment, the compliance regime for Kyoto would
not be able to demonstrate that any country's claim to have complied
with its targets can be absolutely guaranteed.
Q210 Mr Hurd: I want to bring you
back briefly to the office of climate change. Is there a risk
that that kind of structure, which we have seen before arguably
with the SDU and Defra, may compartmentalise the issue, in the
sense that people say that the office of climate change is dealing
with the matter and so it becomes marginalised?
Jonathon Porritt: I do not believe
that that is the case. We have not seen enough yet, and we are
talking here rather speculatively. Matters will probably look
very different when the first iteration of what that Office would
look like emerges. As I understand it—I hope that I am not
saying anything with which the Secretary of State does not fully
subscribe—the reason why he is very keen to push it forward
is that his relatively recent engagement in the complexity of
climate change has encouraged him to think of different mechanisms
to achieve better cross-departmental co-operation. Perhaps the
Commission can put on record that the new-found co-operation between
DTI and Defra on the Energy Review and the very important contribution
that that better method of working has made to the review was
a signal to the secretary of state of Defra that that kind of
serious engagement at secretary of state level would lead to much
better and more robust processes for government as a whole. Those
processes have not been there in the past; it has not been part
of the equation.
Q211 Chairman: If we return for a
moment to the question of data, are you at all concerned that
some of the schemes for offsets are also not adequately policed
or audited?
Jonathon Porritt: Are you referring
to government offsets?
Q212 Chairman: There appears to be
a plethora of people now offering various ways of achieving carbon
offsets. On the Internet one finds all sorts of schemes, but I
am not quite clear whether they are really subject to a rigorous
process. It is also quite a commercial area. Should we be looking
at that a little more?
Jonathon Porritt: I was about
to say this was a huge and burgeoning market with lots of new
entrants of varying credentials as to the degree to which trust
might be put in them. That is my opinion, not the view of the
commission. We have not done any work on this or analysed the
level of risk associated with the new offset providers. The question
is how the public, business and government—the latter is
now into a substantive offset arrangement of its own already in
the context of emissions from aviation—will get the reassurance
they need that the offset provider is delivering exactly what
the contract says. It will send shudders down people's backs when
I say that there will have to be some regulatory intervention
in the new market to give people that assurance. If there is no
regulatory oversight one has a terrible vision of an appalling
scam being manufactured in our midst and everybody, with the best
of intentions, engaging in what they thought was a completely
acceptable and credible offset scheme only to discover that a
fictional forest is being planted in, say, the Negev desert. I
give an absurd scenario, but the whole offset side of things depends
on the credibility of the arrangement and the trust that the public
and key players can put in those offset schemes. At the moment,
it is very higgledy-piggledy. We have a sense of where reliability
lies in that emerging market, but there are so many new entrants
that pretty soon we would not feel confident to make that judgment.
Q213 Chairman: Given what you say
about the desirability of greater public engagement in the whole
process, with which I strongly agree, people may think that now
we are doing the right thing and offsetting and, therefore, the
risk of a setback in public engagement if a scam emerges is quite
high. On a related point, obviously emissions trading is well
established and getting bigger, but I believe that a lot of people
have a vague anxiety. For example, there are EU schemes. Are the
monitoring mechanisms sufficiently robust for people to have confidence
in them? This is more a business than personal issue. Do you have
any views on that?
Jonathon Porritt: I do not believe
we have done any work on that and we do not have an official view
on it. We along with many other organisations appreciated the
difficulties associated with the revelations that governments
had deliberately distorted their first national allocation plans
which created a massive ripple of concern across the entire market.
The UK now faces a very significant challenge to help rebuild
the credibility of that market. It is absolutely vital that the
EU ETS has its credibility restored and is enabled to deliver
these cuts by 2012. There is absolutely nothing else anywhere
in the European kitbag which will be able to generate that degree
of savings between now and 2012, which is not very far away. There
is nothing else remotely available to governments on a collective
basis. Therefore, to restore credibility through the second phase
of 2008 to 2012 is a very high level strategic goal for this Government
and others that want the initiative to succeed. To be fair, I
believe that the Government's determination to go for the target
of eight million tonnes for the second phase of the ETS sent a
strong signal, given that our performance over the first phase,
especially with all the controversy about trying to get our initial
level reduced, is a very much clearer and welcome signal that
the UK Government has sent back into the European political system
about our leadership in that area. If other countries follow suit,
particularly Germany, it would be extremely welcome.
Q214 Mr Caton: You mentioned the
Energy Review and were quite positive about the new focus on consumers.
Can you give your overall first impressions of the review? In
particular, is there anything in it which will impact on the target
for 2010?
Jonathon Porritt: We have not
had a chance to do a detailed analyse. Obviously, we shall do
that because it is an important part of our engagement in relation
to the CCP and the Energy Review. Overall impressions are broadly
positive. Putting to one side for the moment the nuclear debate,
which is connected to the whole of the rest of the Energy Review
but sits in a special place of its own, the rest of the Energy
Review is very encouraging from a number of different perspectives.
Advice is coming to government from a variety of different sources,
including this Committee, ourselves and others, about putting
energy efficiency first and making that the most important area
of policy drive. I get the sense for the first time ever in an
official government document of this kind that that message has
been well received and understood. There is still a long way to
go between that and delivery of all the different efficiency systems
that we shall see in place, but that is enormously heartening.
That has never been part of DTI's thinking before now; energy
efficiency was dumped back onto Defra and was regarded as that
department's baby. It was not thought to be a top-level priority.
The view was, "Defra does that and we do the serious stuff
like making sure the grid works, building new power stations and
things like that." I believe that that has changed and that
this document genuinely gives confidence in that change. As to
some of the other issues, the commitment to keep pushing the renewables
obligation and to make sure we arrive at a point where 20% of
our electricity comes from renewables is strong. There is a move
to look again at the energy efficiency commitment and to see how
in the third phase we can build it up. My colleague is in a much
better position to talk about that than I am and perhaps she will
say something about it. The commitment to consult on an Energy
Performance Commitment for a trading scheme in the UK for those
sectors of our economy that are not captured by the European Union's
emissions trading scheme is very important. We think that the
projected savings through instant response of 1.2 million tonnes
are pretty weedy, but they are just testing the ground a little.
There will be some parts of the business community which will
instantly began to wave their panic signals at the prospect of
what they will probably portray as another imposition on hard-pressed
British business, although we do not believe it to be any such
thing. We regard it as a very effective way to promote the kind
of efficiency on which the future competitiveness of British business
depends, but you know how that debate goes. There are a number
of very strong pointers there. Finally, as a general summary,
the recognition of the importance of decentralised or distributed
energy systems is much stronger in this document than in any previous
one. I know that there is a formal commitment to consult on this
matter and set up a high-level inquiry through the research councils
to see just how big this can be, but that is important. Government
is now doing some quite important short-term things in terms of
micro-generation, distributed systems, planning issues and perhaps
giving more powers to the Mayor of London and the local authorities
to push forward micro-generation schemes. This changes the tone
of the balance between big, centralised grid-based systems and
smaller-scale local distributive systems of that kind. That is
new. I do not believe that we saw that in the Energy White Paper.
We saw lots of provocative and flirtatious comments about how
that might be important in the long run, but this is much more
concrete than that. There is a lot of concrete stuff in it.
Ms Eppel: In relation to the energy
efficiency commitment, we have always been supportive because
it works. In our original submission last year we said that the
third phase should be at least triple the original one, but because
of the nature of the shifting sands of the targets and so on we
believed that it should be four times as much. In the review document
it is very much in that ballpark. Of more interest is the fact
that they are talking about shifting it into an energy-saving
obligation which is a whole different framework. The supply is
in a different mode of doing business which we believe is incredibly
positive and could, therefore, be part of a much broader emissions
trading way of thinking, getting it down also into households.
We are very positive about it. The other matter that my colleague
did not mention but is significant from this point of view is
the review of the role of Ofgen which was announced in the Energy
Review. We are doing a review of Ofgen this year. I believe that
that is quite significant because its mandate is not necessarily
moving us along this path. In our view there needs to be some
change in their primary objective.
Q215 Mr Caton: You neatly moved the
nuclear issue aside at the beginning of your answer.
Jonathon Porritt: I am very happy
to come back to it, as you can imagine.
Q216 Mr Caton: When we conducted
our energy inquiry quite a lot of the evidence we received came
from people who feared that if the green light was given to nuclear
it would cut the investment from renewables. Do you believe that
the way the Energy Review has tried to push both is adequate?
Jonathon Porritt: On balance we
do. In our nuclear report we were not necessarily persuaded by
that view of capital opportunity cost so if nuclear became the
preferred option there would not be enough capital to do a lot
of these other things. This will be a hugely dynamic market in
world investment terms anyway and we will see billions of dollars
invested in different energy systems. Our concern was more the
opportunity cost of political leadership around plumping for nuclear
and then saying that all these other things are perhaps important
but they are nothing like as important as nuclear. The way the
energy review has chosen to characterise the position of the Government
on nuclear is, from our point of view, manageable. It has been
categorical that there will be no taxpayer support for nuclear
and it will have to find its own investment strategy to make it
work if they want to bring it forward. One of our biggest concerns
was that the Government would deploy taxpayers' revenue to make
it easier for energy suppliers to bring forward the nuclear option.
Many of us on the Commission feel that without that kind of active
intervention from government the likelihood of a substantive new
nuclear programme coming forward in the UK is still very low.
The Energy Review says that the costings indicate that this will
be an attractive investment option for investors looking for opportunities
in the UK. Let that be tested by the people who have to put their
money into it. It is easy for the Government to say that this
is an attractive investment option; it bears no risk in saying
that whatsoever. The costings that the Government uses in the
Energy Review are questionable, inasmuch as no one can offer an
authoritative guide as to what the costs of a new nuclear power
programme will be. We have said that categorically because we
cannot find anyone who has given us sufficient comfort to offer
that advice to anybody when we have had to give evidence, wherever
it may be. I believe that the Government has finessed this one
quite interestingly. It could have been much more bullish about
it and driven it harder if it had wanted to, and to a certain
extent by leaving it to our liberalised energy market processes,
hopefully the level of political attention that that will require
should not detract from the really serious business of driving
this mixture of efficiency, renewables, combined heat and power
and so on.
Q217 Mr Caton: From what you know
of the progress of the Stern review, do you foresee more changes
in structure and policy to tackle climate change just a few months
down the road?
Jonathon Porritt: We have a small
involvement in the Stern review process and have made a submission
to it. We are tracking carefully what is going on there. It is
difficult to make a judgment on what may happen as a consequence
of that. As we read it now, I think that the review will be very
helpful to all those governments who have basically been arguing
that the economics of dealing with climate change in the short
to medium term are nothing like as onerous and damaging to a nation's
GDP prospects as is made out by many critics of the climate change
consensus. This looks particularly at some of the studies that
have been made in America which indicate huge damage to national
interests through reductions in GDP over a 40 to 50-year period.
As we understand it, the paper on which Sir Nicholas is working
will say that a lot of that is completely specious and the overall
impact over a number of decades in terms of net GDP will be very
small indeed. If that case is made very robustly by an extremely
authoritative body of that kind it will give a lot of comfort
to those governments that say that they need to press much harder
on the idea that addressing climate change enhances competitiveness
and increases productivity in the economy rather than reduces
or weakens the capacity of any one country's ability to perform
competitively in the global economy. If that is the case we may
see some more encouragement to the Chancellor to be rather more
applied about what he calls ecological tax reform in the Government's
statement of intent back in 1998 which, it has to be said, has
been left largely mouldering on a shelf since that time. If the
Stern review can encourage Treasury to go back to the 1998 statement
of intent, which is an excellent statement that is extremely hard-hitting
with a strategic commitment to shift part of the tax base over
towards eliminating some of the threats to our long-term security
in terms of CO2, climate change and so on, that would
be a very positive outcome.
Q218 Mr Hurd: I should like to bring
you back briefly to the energy review and hear your view on what
was said about coal. There is an argument that one of the biggest
risks to climate stability is the degree to which we allow dirty
coal to be burnt over the next 15 years and the momentum behind
that in China, India and the States. Were you disappointed by
what was said, given that Britain is generally thought to have
some competitive advantages in terms of potential clean coal technologies?
Jonathon Porritt: That section
is quite modestly stated—rather less so than I thought would
be the case, not least because of the decision by Japan to drive
an extremely ambitious carbon capture and storage (CCS) strategy
on the clear understanding that this will give them a lead in
what will become a huge global industry. That is the rationale
behind the Japanese decision to do it. That was announced before
the final text of the Energy Review was signed off, so there would
have been an opportunity to be a little more bullish about it.
However, from our point of view to be a little cautious about
it is no bad thing; there are so many unknowns in this whole area
of inquiry. They are technical and economic, with complex issues
about long-term liability. Some very big questions still have
to be answered. As I understand it, the principal suggestion here
is that the Government wants to move towards a demonstration project
which I guess means a commercial-scale power station of one kind
or another with a CCS capability, and it wants to do that in conjunction
with the private sector. I know that discussions with energy companies
in the UK have already started, and it is perfectly possible that
they will be able to move quite quickly from that commitment to
a demonstration project of that kind in a much shorter period
of time than one might imagine. For CCS to make any difference
at all to our own carbon targets, we need to get a move on with
it to test out some of these difficult areas. I can understand
the caution. It is somewhat similar to the caution about investigating
things like the opportunity for energy systems on the Severn estuary.
That is cautiously stated but nonetheless it is an area of inquiry
that clearly the Government now wants to take forward, which we
believe is the proper thing to do. We have raised a number of
concerns about CCS in our report, but we believe it very probable
that it will play a big part in different countries' carbon abatement
strategies. You mentioned China and India. America is still enormously
dependent on coal to a degree that people often under-estimate.
If those three markets alone were able to find a technically and
economically feasible way to do CCS big time, that would make
a substantial contribution to the overall carbon abatement that
we need to achieve.
Q219 Chairman: Referring to the Energy
Review, given what you said right at the beginning about missing
the 2010 targets and so on, will anything in the review help in
that respect? Does it have any impact in the next four years?
Jonathon Porritt: I think I would
have to check that out in more detail. My intuitive, instant response,
having just read through it once quite quickly, is that very little
additional reduction will come about because of what is in the
Energy Review. I should like to come back to the Committee on
that question because we have had no opportunity to do that analysis.
| 
