Examination of Witness (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP
2 NOVEMBER 2005
Q20 Chairman: Could I just ask you if
you might reflect on the policy of not advising the Member of
Parliament about an incident breaking out. I tell you for why:
it never fails to amaze me how quickly the media do get hold of
information and, God forbid that it got into the commercial poultry
flock in this country, I can imagine what would happen with someone
like Sun Valley, a huge local concern, because all the workforce
would know and who might they turn to, they might turn, amongst
others, to the Member of Parliament who is sitting in blissful
ignorance that an event is occurring whereas when the local media
come to the MP they are properly briefed. It can sometimes be
a help as opposed to a hindrance, but if you are in the dark then
you will find it very difficult to respond to the kind of searching
questions which are put to you. I appreciate you do not want unnecessary
publicity, and one understands it, but might I ask you to think
about that because I think it is a serious issue. One point of
detail, looking at a Parliamentary Question which a Mr Patterson,
one of our colleagues, asked you. He asked what assessment had
you made of the presence of the H5N1 avian influenza virus in
Taiwan, obviously reflecting the possibility that one of the birds
which has been affected had come from there. Rather carefully
worded, Mr Bradshaw answered saying "We continue to closely
monitor the spread of H5N1 virus in South East Asia" but
then rather surprisingly said "Taiwan has not officially
reported an outbreak of H5N1". I suppose if the supposition
is the bird came from Taiwan, it is a bit odd that something has
not emanated from that end.
Margaret Beckett: As far as I
am aware, still to this day, there is no recorded incident of
avian flu in Taiwan. Taiwan is regarded as an avian flu-free country
and is adamant that it is so. It is only fair to the Taiwanese
Government to put that on the record. You will be aware, Chairman,
from the exchanges that we had in the Chamber that recently a
consignment of smuggled birds was intercepted on its way to Taiwan
from China, and that was reported by the OIE. Those are the facts
that are in the public domain. Mr Bradshaw's response was accurate
and the information as we know it.
Q21 Daniel Kawczynski: During the
Defra questions that we had in the House some days ago, in reply
to the Shadow Secretary of State for Agriculture you stated that
there was a review that your Department was currently going through
in regard to the way that birds are kept in quarantine. Would
you give this Committee an assurance that in future birds from
different countries will be kept in different units as opposed
to being in the same building?
Margaret Beckett: No, I cannot
do that at this moment in time because that is the review to which
I referred when I spoke to Mrs Moon, and that review has only
just begun to operate. What I can tell the Committee, certainly,
is that is specifically one of the questions that I have asked
the reviewers to consider, this whole issue of whether or not
different consignments are kept in the same air space—I
think is the accurate description—and I am sure they will
have views about that.
Q22 Lynne Jones: Based on the precautionary
principle, should you not be adopting that as a policy or is it
just not practical to do so?
Margaret Beckett: I do not know
the answer to that question. It may well be very difficult to
make it practical to do so but that is exactly the kind of issue
that I very much hope the review group will consider.
Q23 Lynne Jones: Would it be sensible
to do that where it is possible based on the precautionary principle?
Margaret Beckett: I think where
there is a capacity in a facility to house different consignments
separately, whether it be animals or birds, that will be desirable,
obviously.
Q24 Lynne Jones: Should there not
be guidance issued to that effect?
Margaret Beckett: It is an issue
of what legal powers do we have? What is the general run of arrangements
that take place in quarantine facilities? These are all issues
that the review will consider.
Q25 Mr Rogerson: We have talked about
one presidency, and another is that of the G8. The Prime Minister
made it very clear that climate change was to be a priority. What
programme has been made in your opinion thus far during the G8
Presidency?
Margaret Beckett: I think, again,
it would be fair to record there is still more progress that we
hope can be made before the end of the year because in some ways
one of the things that will be an indicator is what happens at
the climate change convention in Montreal where this will be the
first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol, the first
meeting since the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified and come into
force. At that meeting there will be a number of important ends
to tie off which could not be tied off in terms of giving effect
to the decisions which have been made in the consequent past,
and giving them a legal force. Also, of course, the issue will
be raised, and the European Union will seek to encourage some
form of development of a process to what we do beyond the end
of the first Kyoto commitment period. A great deal of what we
have done during this year of the G8 Presidency has been designed
to help to create greater momentum in that UN process and to use
other and more informed channels to facilitate greater understanding,
and hopefully the establishment of greater common ground. There
have been a huge number of events. This week alone we had the
first meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue which was set up at the
summit, that was yesterday. Today in the UK we have facilitated
and hosted a two-day conference for officials on energy efficiency
with the new Energy Commissioner looking at his energy Green Paper.
There were delegates from 20 countries at the meeting yesterday,
that is very much the same countries that were at the round table
meeting that we had in March, and there are delegates from some
30 or more countries who have come to the energy efficiency meeting
today. The year in effect began in January in Davos where the
Prime Minister persuaded the organisers of the Davos Conference
to make climate change a major issue on their agenda. He spoke
at that meeting, he made a key note speech, and we had, also,
a breakfast meeting with the heads of some 30 global companies,
all from different sectors, with whom there was an exchange about
the issues of climate change who went back to their companies
and their sectors to try and raise awareness in their sectors
and report back before the summit about what the business community
felt they could contribute and what were the steers and levers
that they needed. We had the scientists meeting in Exeter to review
the latest science and give advice. We had the energy environment
ministers round table in March. The 20 countries, by the way,
are the G8, the plus 5 who were at Gleneagles and other countries
who are already major energy users and growing energy users, those
were the broad criteria. You get the picture, I think, of a string
of events which have been very well attended and very much welcomed.
In Ottawa at the pre meeting for the Montreal gathering of a couple
of weeks or so ago, there was an absolutely universal acceptance
that climate change was the issue of world leaders and world governments
in a way that it had not been before, and that is very much regarded
by all of our peers, particularly those who take an interest in
issues of climate change, as a major achievement of the UK's G8
Presidency. Indeed, some people have gone so far as to say that
they believe the UK under the present Prime Minister has made
use of the Presidency of the G8 in a way that no previous presidency
has done, which may be rather a large claim but that is what they
say, and in a way they think that will make it more difficult
for subsequent presidencies to treat it as an occasion to get
together and exchange information and ideas about the economy
and so on. The Russian Presidency, who are the next to take over
from us, have said that they will have a big focus on energy and
energy efficiency, energy security in their year and they said
yesterday that they hope to keep up the pace and momentum that
has been set by the UK. The Japanese, who take over the presidency
in 2008, have said already that they will wish in their presidency
to have a report back at their summit on the follow-up to Gleneagles
and the work that has been done. The perception of our peers is
that not only have we put climate change absolutely at the top
of the agenda for many world leaders but also that we have set
up a process that will continue that. The whole hope is that this
will also have an effect on the discussions in Montreal. I am
sorry that was such a long answer but a lot has been done.
Q26 Mr Rogerson: A couple of things
to raise: basically, you are talking about raising awareness of
the issue and starting the process which will be ongoing in the
presidencies of other countries?
Margaret Beckett: Yes.
Q27 Mr Rogerson: Coming back to yesterday's
meeting, what was achieved there, the first meeting of the dialogue?
Margaret Beckett: There was quite
a lot of attendance of energy and environment ministers, and this
has not always been easy. We had a report from the World Bank
about some work on which they are engaged, which they hope to
publish a little later, on how climate change can be a greater
priority and embedded in the judgments made in international financial
investment and the International Energy Agency also reported back
on some practical work that they are doing to promote more effective
and efficient use of energy in particular, and also to talk to
people about the diversity of how they are able to secure energy
security. Also, I think from that meeting we will be writing—Alan
Johnson and I who co-chaired it—to those who participated
suggesting the setting up of some specific working groups with
a feeling that probably people who are interested in particular
issues will volunteer for the specific working groups. The idea
is, for example, to assess on the basis of all our collective
and different experience what are the time lines within which
we might be able to make greater use of some of the existing technologies,
what is the road map for not just developing but deploying. There
is a phrase which I have forbidden my officials to use, and now
they are going to be very annoyed because I am going to use it
myself, which is the Valley of Death. People have these great
ideas of innovation and so on, on issues like environmental efficiency
and some people develop ideas, proposals and technologies and
then they do not get deployed, and that is the Valley of Death,
they disappear into it and never come out the other end. What
is the road map for stimulating technological development and
also deployment, a lot of practical issues of that kind. What
I forgot to say is as a further indication that we have set up
something which will be ongoing work, the Mexican Government has
volunteered to host the next meeting of the dialogue next year.
Q28 Chairman: If I had parachuted
in from somewhere and knew nothing about what was happening, I
would think there was a growing world consensus, an agenda for
action on climate change and that suddenly we were going to really
make progress. You mentioned the "valley of death".
In one country in the world they have already got Death Valley,
in the United States, but, unfortunately, the United States government
as a collective have not even admitted, seemingly, that there
is a problem. The Prime Minister at the Gleneagles G8 seemed to
indicate that he had given up trying to get President Bush signed
up to Kyoto and was looking for the birth of some kind of new
international consensus. Can you shed any light on the seeming
reluctance at a national level of the United States to admit there
is a problem, whereas at a state level some of the states in the
United States, and at the enterprise level some American companies,
are actually taking action? What I do not understand is that the
United States, which is a major energy importer of hydro-carbons,
is in hock to some of the most politically unstable parts of the
world and yet collectively seems to be unwilling to pick up all
the messages of reassurance, from what you have just said, and
to say, "We have seen the light out of the valley. Let us
have some action." Why not?
Margaret Beckett: First, can I
say that perhaps less attention has been given than I think it
merits to the content of the G8 Summit statement, and, indeed,
certainly either before the House or before this Committee I have
a feeling I remember being pressed before the July Summit on,
"Surely you must know what is going to be in the statement
because these things are precooked in advance", and I distinctly
remember saying to people that this was one negotiation that was
going down to the wire, and, indeed, it most certainly did; but
in that statement all of the heads of the G8 signed up to the
fact that human activity is contributing to climate change, that
greenhouse gas emissions—and in some ways I think this is
the most significant phrase in the whole statement—need
to slow, peak and reverse. They all signed up to the fact that
we need to act to make substantial cuts in emissions and agreed
to act with resolve and urgency now.
Q29 Chairman: What is the United
States' agenda on that to the best of your knowledge?
Margaret Beckett: The United States
is continuing to develop. There is a new Asia/Pacific partnership,
you may have heard, which I believe is hoping to have its first
meeting in January, where again they are looking at practical
ways in which they can work with other countries to help cut emissions
across the world, and at the Dialogue they took part in the discussions,
they will be coming to Montreal and will be part of the discussions
there and they are certainly very interested in the kind of practical
work that we were discussing at the Dialogue.
Q30 Chairman: Have you in the quiet
moments of dialogue that you have had with representatives of
the United States got the remotest idea from them as to what they
think they could achieve in the United States by any or all of
the measures you described, and things that we may not have heard
about, to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? They seem
to be reluctant to talk about numbers. It is all right talking
about great initiatives and partnerships, but I am not seeing
a practical agenda endorsed from President Bush downwards in the
administration as to practically what they want to achieve?
Margaret Beckett: They do have,
of course, an existing framework of proposals and a goal to reduce
the intensity of their emissions. Most of the rest of us do not
believe that is satisfactory, we do not believe it is enough,
but it is undoubtedly the case that they are making some changes.
I believe that only a few days ago they have published a new energy
paper, energy strategy, something along those lines. I have not,
frankly, had a chance to study it yet, but I believe that is giving
an indication of some of the ways in which they think policy is
developing. You said to me also that the Prime Minister had indicated
in advance of Gleneagles that he had given up on the United States
signing the Kyoto Protocol. That is unquestionably true. We had
accepted for some considerable time that the United States is
not going to sign the existing Kyoto Protocol, and, indeed, if
they were to do so it is very unlikely that they could get it
through their senate and their congress, which did unanimously
reject the original proposal to endorse the Kyoto Protocol when
it was put them.
Q31 Chairman: There is such a lack
of political endorsement to this process?
Margaret Beckett: We now have
the Kyoto Protocol in force, which I think very many people in
the United States believed would never happen—over 150 countries
have now ratified it—but we are all anxious to say what
more can we do than is done in the Kyoto Protocol, which, worthy
and important though it is, is a very small amount, and how can
we move forward on that forward agenda engaging those who are
not engaged in the Kyoto Protocol as it presently stands in that
first commitment period, and that includes the United States and,
of course, other countries.
Q32 Chairman: We are giving thought
to our future work programme, and I think the Committee would
find it of particular value perhaps if it would not trouble your
Department too much to send us a short paper on the British perspective
of the American commitment to climate change against the backdrop
of the conclusions of Gleneagles, the Dialogue and the forthcoming
Montreal meeting, because it is difficult to understand what is
happening and what the real commitment is. You obviously have
an overview, and I think it would be very helpful if we could
have that information. The UK climate change programme and review:
there was a hope that by the end of the year you were going to
publish a report. Can you be a little more specific as to what
progress is being made on this and when we might expect to see
the report?
Margaret Beckett: I cannot be
absolutely specific. I can certainly tell the Committee that work
is continuing. We had, as you say, Chairman, hoped to publish
earlier in the year, but, of course, when that commitment was
given it appeared that it had not factored in the occurrence of
a General Election; so that meant that once the election was safely
out of the way there was clearly a reassessment of the timetable.
Also we found that there were gaps in our analysis and in the
information available to us, and we wanted to remedy that; so
that work is on-going. I think we are now close to bringing together
the strands of the different material, different advice and so
on, and I hope that it will be not too far away. I cannot give
you a date at this moment, Chairman. I would if I could.
Q33 Chairman: Let us just probe a
little on this, because not too far away is a wonderfully elastic
piece of ministerial terminology. Do you think it will be before
the end of 2005, or is it more likely to be in the first quarter
of 2006?
Margaret Beckett: We are in an
unusual position, Chairman. I am genuinely uncertain, and I will
give you a very simple reason why. I mentioned that I am the UK,
not just the UK, the EU lead negotiator in Montreal and also on
agriculture issues at the World Trade Talks. This means, I am
afraid, that I leave the UK on about 5 December and do not return
it to for some considerable time. I will have to go straight from
Montreal to Hong Kong, and immediately after Hong Kong it will
be the Christmas Agriculture and Fisheries Council of which you
may have fond memories.
Q34 Chairman: Indeed.
Margaret Beckett: Need I say more?
Either the Climate Change Review will be ready to be published
before I go away at the very beginning of December (and also I
have an Environment Council on 2 December), or it may have to
wait a little longer than I would ideally have wished.
Chairman: It sounds to me that it might
just possibly creep into your box as your post Christmas reading
as far as that is concerned.
Q35 Lynne Jones: May I ask some questions
on that? The Prime Minister wrote an article about climate change
in The Observer, and the one concrete idea that he raised
was 5% of transport fuel to be bio-fuel. Apparently at the moment
it is only point zero 3%. To get to 5% by 2010, if that is going
to contribute to meeting the target, there is going to have to
be some pretty nifty footwork to achieve anything like that, and
that is only one small contributory element. I am worried, in
view of the Climate Change Review, that there does not seem to
be a sense of urgency about this if we are going to take seriously
meeting the 2010 target.
Margaret Beckett: No. I can assure
the Committee that there is no lack of urgency about it; it is
just that we want to be sure that any proposals that we make are
as soundly based as we can make them. I think it is perhaps wise
to recall that the assessment of the original climate change programme
proved to be not as robust as people had hoped—some things
delivered more by way of carbon savings than had been anticipated,
others less—and we are anxious to get a set of proposals
that is as robust as we can make it, and that is the driver. It
is not a matter of lack of urgency and it is not a matter of wishing
to see delay; it is a matter of trying to get something that is
as sound as possible.
Q36 Lynne Jones: There is not any
inter-departmental wrangling on this delay?
Margaret Beckett: There is, as
ever, inter-departmental discussion, as you would expect, and
quite right too.
Q37 Lynne Jones: But is it not important,
if you are going to be going to these international fora, that
we should be setting a good example in this country and you are
able to say what we are doing to achieve our targets?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, and I do
hope that we will be able to report for the whole European Union
at Montreal where we stand vis-a"-vis our collective
and individual Kyoto Protocol targets, but, of course, although,
quite rightly (and I do not in any way regret it), the focus here
in the UK is on the things that we have not achieved and how much
better we need to do along with everybody else, I can assure you
that on the world stage the perception is that Britain is way
out ahead of most others, and the only other people who are close
to us are fellow members of the European Union and only a smallish
number of them in terms of how well we are doing, but we believe
we will be able to show that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto
Protocol targets by 2010, 2012.
Q38 Lynne Jones: We have got to do
much better than that, and you yourself said it?
Margaret Beckett: I agree, but
you were making the point to me, I thought, that if we are to
justify being seen to be (as we are seen to be) in the lead on
the world stage, we have to do more to justify that and to stand
it up as thoroughly as we can at home. I do not dispute that for
one second.
Q39 David Lepper: I was just wondering
whether we might make even more progress if energy policy were
within the remit of just one major department rather than split
between at least two, but I would not expect you necessarily to
say here what your view is on that.
Margaret Beckett: I hate to sound
as if I have got departmental'itis, but I would certainly not
wish to see energy efficiency cut out of my department, and if
the corollary to energy being in one department were that all
of energy came to us, I suppose we would have to consider it.
I don't think that it is easy. There are lots of people who think
that planning ought to be in the hands of the department that
deals with these issues. It is always easy to see how these issues
mesh together. It is the job of governments to try to make sure,
wherever the departmental lines are drawn, that the departments
do work together to achieve the necessary goals.
|
