Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-252)
JONATHON PORRITT
CBE AND MS
SARA EPPEL
13 JULY 2006
Q240 Mr Caton: Do you believe that
the Government's plan for a carbon neutral government estate can
be extended to the whole of the public estate—schools, hospitals
and the Armed Forces—in the sort of timescale that we have
to tackle climate change? In particular, how do we get local authorities
to do it?
Ms Eppel: The short answer is
that we do believe that it could be extended to the public sector,
but it will take longer. I do not believe that we would press
for a 2012 date for that, because it is much more complicated.
It is a very large estate. The process needs to be worked through
a lot more. To give them an extra three, four or five years would
bring it into the right timeframe for climate change because it
would then be the middle of the next decade. Therefore, it would
contribute quite significantly to the 2020 expectations in the
Energy Review.
Jonathon Porritt: It appears to
be realistic. We have looked at it. We are pleased that the Government
has decided to start out down this road with a 2012 target for
government buildings. That will cause quite a challenge inside
the system and is not an unambitious target. But we believe that
it will begin to get real traction only when it is applied to
the whole of the public sector, particularly to the schools estate
and hospitals. These are areas where we can make an enormous difference
by heading towards carbon neutrality over a period of time.
Q241 Mr Caton: You have said that
the Government's 30% carbon reduction target for its estate fails
the leadership test. What target would you like the Government
to adopt for 2010?
Jonathon Porritt: To my knowledge,
we have not proposed a target for that; we have not recommended
a formal target. The reason why we said it was inadequate was
simply because if you look at what it will achieve on the journey
to the target of 60% by 2050 it is not enough; it does not send
the signal of a step change within the period of time designated
there, but it is a good challenge to us. I do not think we have
formally advised government on that target at any stage?
Ms Eppel: We did so internally;
it was not published. We suggested a 40% target. As my colleague
said, it is part of the progress through to 2020 and 2050. The
other matter to bear in mind is that if government is doing a
carbon offset programme by 2012 and it is offsetting far more
than it is saving in its own estate through its energy efficiency
drive perhaps that is not the right balance. It does not necessarily
incentivise them to continue to make the savings within the buildings
and operations year on year. It perhaps just means that they continue
to offset more and more each year, which worries us. The 2020
target needs to be anchored quite firmly so that the Government
is properly delivering on that commitment.
Jonathon Porritt: That is the
downside of the offset arrangements on which more and more people
are commenting. If one relies simply on offsets to let one off
the hook of better energy management, procuring green energy and
so on, no one will say, "Were not offsets a wonderful thing?"
They create a further barrier to doing the much more important
things in the hierarchy. We would always put energy management
and green fuels well up in the hierarchy before offsets.
Ms Eppel: The other point on the
target of 30% is that the baseline was the year 2000. We encouraged
it to have a baseline of 2004-05 because that was equivalent to
40%. Equating that to the national target for 2010 with the 20%
means that government was not even doing anything more challenging
than the general public across the piece and was not, therefore,
necessarily sharing the leadership that we think central government
should be sharing in its estate.
Q242 Mr Caton: To change the subject
completely, you now have a natural resources team. Do you think
there should be greater focus on forestry, agriculture and land
management in achieving carbon targets?
Jonathon Porritt: We do. I believe
that in the review of the Climate Change Programme, as we said
in our paper, the Government felt that it went as far as it could
go at that time. We are not persuaded of that at the moment. We
are concerned that different bits of Defra are not properly joined
up around the opportunities to look at changes in land use to
support key parts of the climate change programme. We hope that
the new Secretary of State will be much more aggressive about
getting connectedness between different bits of Defra and see
through initiatives like the Rural Development Regulation in 2007
that it is possible to use public policy in this area to promote
more climate-friendly land use strategies than is the case at
the moment through farming, forestry or whatever it may be. There
is a huge opportunity. The Government has created the Rural Climate
Change Forum and it needs to look to it as a way in which we can
be much more progressive about different patterns of land use
to support the strategy. There are also complex issues to do with
livestock and other greenhouse gases that need to be managed proactively
in the farming estate. There are big challenges ahead on many
of those counts which will need to be addressed.
Q243 Mr Chaytor: I am looking at
the transport section of your submission which in paragraph 78
says that "Existing measures include" and it lists the
fuel duty escalator. The point is that the fuel duty escalator
is no longer an existing measure because it has been abandoned.
Given the enormous difficulty of even getting a discussion about
the fuel duty escalator, do you believe there are ways in which
it can come back on the agenda? For example, is there a way of
reintroducing it in a revenue-neutral way and increasing fuel
duty by balancing it with a reduction in other forms of taxation?
Is there a trade-off between a cut in VAT and an increase in fuel
duty, for example?
Jonathon Porritt: I do not know
the answer to that question.
Q244 Mr Chaytor: Does anybody?
Ms Eppel: No. I am afraid I have
not done any work on that.
Q245 Mr Chaytor: To put it another
way, what is your view on fuel duty?
Jonathon Porritt: The issue is
a vexed one. How much money goes to which bit of the system once
people pay for their petrol or diesel? The concept of using fuel
duty more aggressively to try to change driver behaviour is quite
difficult if oil prices are to stay very high.
Q246 Mr Chaytor: Surely, if oil prices
are that high the advantages of having a high fuel duty is that
the effect of oil prices at the pump is proportionately less,
is it not?
Jonathon Porritt: You mean within
the overall envelope?
Q247 Mr Chaytor: The impact of the
change in the oil is less the higher the level of fuel duty?
Jonathon Porritt: Yes. At the
moment, we are very much focused on VED because we believe that
that is an available instrument that government can use. We are
focused on the efforts that the Government is making to increase
vehicle and fuel efficiency. There is a reference to that in the
Energy Review. It implies that that is all completely dependent
on agreement in the EU. We all know that to see a real step change
in some of those things is likely to take a long period of time.
I do not believe that strategically we have addressed the issue
whether or not we should again be thinking of fuel duty as a further
driver to achieve some of those objectives.
Ms Eppel: The advantage of the
vehicle excise duty is that it is different for every family and
it is a choice. With our proposal of £300 between each band,
if someone was running a smart car he would pay practically nothing
per year by way of vehicle excise duty. If one is running an SUV
one might be paying up to £1,800 on our proposal. It is a
choice. We think that is more likely to give people the message
that it is their choice and behaviour that influence the bill
they have to pay at the end of the year.
Q248 Mr Chaytor: But does not fuel
duty give a choice as to how many miles you travel?
Ms Eppel: Not necessarily. It
is more blunt in that it is across the piece. Obviously, one pays
more if one is using more petrol, but it becomes more blunt; it
is not down to you and your family so much but it is more about
the fact that everybody is paying it. Obviously, political problems
are reflected in that.
Q249 Mr Chaytor: Is there not another
argument here? With a system of wider differentials for VED, in
terms of influencing individual behaviour is there not a tendency
that people will say, "I have paid my £2,500 VED for
my 4x4. I may as well drive it as many miles as I can get out
of it in the course of the year to get my money's worth"?
Is that not part of the logic of individual behaviour?
Ms Eppel: I suspect that people
drive to get to places.
Q250 Mr Chaytor: Is it not the equivalent
of the old standing charges for gas and electricity?
Jonathon Porritt: I think we would
have been wise to stop at that point. We do not know the answer
to your question—not least because you are addressing two
cyclists who may well not be representative of the average driver,
let alone the average driver seeking to change his or her behaviour.
Q251 Chairman: This is one of the
rare occasions on which Mr Chaytor and I slightly disagree. I
believe that the VED has the merit of making a difference at the
point where people choose their vehicles. They will use those
vehicles for two, three, four or perhaps even 10 years, but the
point at which they buy it has, therefore, a very long-term effect.
A much wider differential of the sort you have outlined is certainly
something that I have advocated personally; and I believe that
the Liberal Democrats are now on the same tack as well. What really
mystifies me, given that it could be introduced on a revenue-neutral
basis, is that you could tweak the system any way you want. Why
on earth was the Government so timid?
Jonathon Porritt: Mystifying!
There are those who believe that the Treasury never recovered
from the fuel tax protests of 2000 and bear such painful scars
that it has been incapacitated in any attempt to intervene strategically
around personal driving behaviour. If one looks at the inadequacy
of Treasury interventions on that since 2000, that rather strange
psychological analysis may well have some truth behind it.
Q252 Chairman: That may be true,
but given the cavalier way in which Treasury ministers and officials
under all governments seem to treat the whole of the outside world,
including their own colleagues; it is extraordinary. They have
one blind spot; they are afraid of the motoring lobby. Thank you
very much for coming. It has been a really interesting session
from our point of view. We will certainly use a great deal of
what has been discussed in our report.
Jonathon Porritt: Thank you very
much.
| 
