Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
RT HON
TONY BLAIR
MP
7 FEBRUARY 2006
Chairman: Welcome yet again, Prime Minister,
to the eighth session. There has been speculation, of which I
am sure you are aware, but I assume that we can expect to at least
see double figures together in these meetings! As usual, there
are three themes and you have been notified of those in advance
and, as everyone knows, you are not told the questions. Today's
three themes are, firstly, the outcome of the UK Presidencies
of G8 and EU; secondly, the Government's reform agenda, primarily
health and schools; and, finally, relations with Iran and the
impact of the electoral outcome in Palestine. So it is a rather
heavy programme and we will move straight into the questioning
and start with John Denham.
Q180 Mr Denham: Prime Minister, looking
at the outcome of the UK Presidencies, a major issue in the past
year and for you personally is climate change. It is true to say,
is it not, that even if all of the agreements that were reached
in the last 12 months were actually implemented in full and on
time, they would not begin to match up to the scale of the problem
that the world is now facing?
Mr Blair: Absolutely. We have
got to do a lot more. The most important thing about the last
12 months is that at long last we have a process in which America,
India and China are coming together as part of an international
dialogue, hopefully, to set a post-Kyoto Protocol framework for
the years following 2012, but even if we implemented Kyoto it
would only stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, it would not reduce
them by the amount we need to reduce them.
Q181 Mr Denham: The scientific consensus,
and I think this was reflected in the report produced for you
last week, is that, unlike many other issues, there is a point
with climate change where no action we take would be able to reverse
the processes that we have set in train. How long do you think
personally, knowing the evidence as you do, that governments in
the world have got to take and implement the necessary decisions
so that we can be confident of avoiding that tipping point?
Mr Blair: That is a good question.
I think that if we do not get the right agreement internationally
for the period after which the Kyoto Protocol will have expired,
that is 2012, if we do not do that, then I think we are in serious
trouble.
Q182 Mr Denham: So you would say then
that really within the next seven years critical decisions have
to be taken and implementation started?
Mr Blair: Yes, and I think that
the only way we are going to get that agreement is if America
and, as I say, China and India are part of the deal. I think the
good news is that everybody even if they are coming at it from
different angles—and the Americans will stress security
of supply rather than climate change; the Chinese and the Indians
are very, very concerned about their economic development for
obvious reasons—but from whatever angle people are coming,
I think there is the beginnings of an international consensus.
I am not overstating it; it is the beginnings. We have to then
make sure that we agree both the overall framework and the measures
in order to get there.
Mr Denham: Thank you, I think that is
a statement that will focus a lot of minds.
Q183 Mr Jack: Prime Minister, you have
very much put your own personal imprint onto the climate change
agenda. In your response to John Denham's question you indicated
the worth after the recent Gleneagles Summit of getting the Americans,
the Chinese and the Indians on board. You have regular contact
with President Bush, either personally or by videophone or in
telephone conversations. When did you last speak to him about
the climate change issue in the follow-up to Gleneagles?
Mr Blair: It is a continual part
of our dialogue, virtually the whole time. That is partly because
you have got a G8 summit that is coming up with Russia hosting
it. Obviously I talked to him, too, about his State of the Union
address just 10 days ago. Look, my assessment of the situation
is this: that America is very wary, for understandable reasons,
of having some external target unrelated to their economic growth
pushed upon them from the outside. That is their concern and their
worry. On the other hand, I think they can see the evidence as
much as anyone else and there are real issues to do with security
of supply. I cannot myself remember the last time the President's
State of the Union Address had a headline out of it about the
American addiction to oil. I think there are real signs of change
and, of course, as I was saying, the fact that Russia is going
to concentrate its G8 summit on energy will be interesting for
all sorts of reasons but will obviously give us an opportunity
to go back into this issue.
Q184 Mr Jack: But in your regular discussions
with President Bush, have you discussed any specific way in which
the United States can become engaged in the post-Kyoto programme
beyond the encouraging noises coming out of the State of the Union
message? For example, have you talked to President Bush specifically
about what would have to happen to have an international emissions
trading system in which the United States would want to participate?
Mr Blair: The whole range of discussions,
including what type of systems, emissions trading systems, whether
you can have targets or not, is part of the discussion the entire
time. It is fair to say that America has got a very clear position
at the present time on this, but I think if we could find a way
of ensuring that the right incentives were given without America
feeling there was some desire to inhibit its economic growth,
then I think we can find a way through. There is no point in me
speculating on the American position until the conversations and
discussions have concluded. My own view, as I say, is that they
have moved a long way in the past couple of years, but obviously
I and many others want to see America move much further.
Q185 Mr Jack: Have you actually in your
conversations with President Bush got any feeling that he wants
to personally and specifically move the agenda forward? The State
of the Union message was very good in potentially providing, if
you like, a technological way out of engaging with the greenhouse
gas issue and actually being able to demonstrate you are doing
something about it. When the President's own adviser on science
will not talk to the President, as I understand it, about greenhouse
gas emissions, whereas the Department of Energy takes a rather
different view, I wonder just how united the American position
is.
Mr Blair: Obviously I do not know
what you mean by his adviser, but I think this debate is continuing
the entire time. Look, in the end what is necessary to get a climate
change deal is to have a framework of incentives so that the private
sector together with the public sector develops the science and
technology that is necessary for clean energy. It is only going
to come through that science and technology being developed. One
thing that is absolutely essential in this area, in my view, is
to dispose of a lot of the nonsense that simply points the finger
at America and says America is the only problem in relation to
climate change. Let us be quite clear, we are one of only four
countries, I think, in the European Union that is going to hit
their Kyoto targets. China and India are not yet part of any binding
framework. It is not surprising that America—and let us
be clear the Europeans are pretty much in the same position—is
going to say that any future framework has to involve them as
well. When we take account of the fact—and it is not my
job to speak up for the administration—that America spends
more on clean energy technology than any other country, I think
it is just as well to put that in the mix when we come to analyse
who is doing what. However, to state it again, in my view, this
can only be done if you have a framework in the end that has targets
within it. If you do not get to that point then the danger is—and
I have discussed this with a lot of American private sector companies—you
never have the right incentives for the private sector to invest
heavily in clean technology, so the question is how do we get
from here to there? I am not saying that Gleneagles has started
anything more than a dialogue but for the first time that is a
dialogue that is happening—and Montreal took it on further—with
America, China and India involved, and if they are not involved,
then this is what I keep saying to people about the UK, obviously
it is important we do our bit but, let us be clear, whether the
climate changes or not is not going to depend on the UK. It is
dependent on those huge economic motors and in particular China
and India—China has a new power station every week or every
two weeks—if we cannot develop the science and technology
and then transfer it to them, we can make whatever agreement we
like here or in Europe, it is not going to do the trick in the
end.
Q186 Andrew Miller: That is absolutely
right, Prime Minister. The consumption of energy by China and
India is in direct correlation obviously to their huge economic
growth. Climate change is therefore an enormous priority just
because of those countries alone, and you have mentioned it several
times. What discussions have you or your ministers had directly
with the Chinese and Indian administrations about the specific
technologies of carbon capture and nuclear power?
Mr Blair: I have discussed both
of those technologies with both the Indian and the Chinese leaderships,
most notably last September when I was in both countries. Again,
I think that the good news is that the Chinese and the Indians
are very, very anxious to find a way of growing sustainably. The
trouble is, as both the leaderships pointed out to me, each of
them has several hundred million people living in severe poverty,
economic growth is the answer to their poverty, and they cannot
have an artificial constraint on their economic growth, particularly,
as they say, "You guys have grown in the Western world and
now you want us to dampen our growth." That is not going
to work. That is why I say the only realistic thing is to get
the framework to develop the technology and then to spread the
technology. For example, Europe has agreed now with China that
we will build a clean coal plant. With India and China obviously
there are discussions on nuclear power because India and China
are both building new nuclear power stations and they have been,
I think, more enthusiastic in terms of both the Gleneagles and
Montreal dialogue than people expected, and although obviously
you always want to go further in these circumstances, a lot of
people thought prior to Gleneagles you would never get a G8 Plus
Five dialogue going specifically on the climate change issue;
we have got it going. The key thing however, as I say, over the
next few years is to take those discussions to the point where
you get a framework, the investment goes in to develop the technology,
and there are mechanisms for spreading that technology to China
and India, in particular.
Q187 Mr Denham: Prime Minister, a few
minutes ago you gave a very tight timetable, seven years or so,
to get key decisions implemented. A year ago you asked this Committee
how many politicians facing a potential election at some point
in the not-too-distant future would vote to end cheap air travel.
Is not one of the problems, Prime Minister, that you are quite
pessimistic about the ability of politicians to persuade the public
that we do need to make changes in the way we live our lives?
Mr Blair: Whether I am pessimistic
about the politicians—maybe that is not a wise sentence
to finish! I think that you have just got to be realistic about
this. I think that the answer is to develop, for example with
the motor vehicle fuel cell technology, more environmentally sustainable
ways of aviation travel. I think if you get into the point of
trying to agree—and it would have to be done again on a
multilateral basis because there is no point in us preventing
British people getting on planes—I just think it is unrealistic
to think that you will get some restriction on air travel at an
international level, and therefore I think necessarily the best
way to go is to recognise that that is just the reality and instead
see how you can develop the technology that is able to reduce
the harmful emissions as a result of aviation travel. For example,
the big new Airbus because of the technology used in its construction,
I think, burns something like 30% less fuel. All I am saying is
in the end, in my view, that is the way the argument will go and
of course the fact is, and this is why I would like to see a significant
uplift in investment in this type of technology, if we were really
putting in the investment into carbon sequestration, into developing
the best forms of renewable energy, then I think we could find
the savings (because I think there is an answer to this) reasonably
easily.
Q188 Mr Yeo: Just staying with aviation
for the moment though specifically, emissions from international
aviation for the last published year (2004) rose by 12% and they
have more than doubled since 1990, and they are really out of
control now. Is not relying, as the Government seems to be doing,
on including aviation within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme a
hopelessly inadequate response to the one factor which could derail
the whole international approach to climate change?
Mr Blair: Well, I do not think
it is an inadequate response. I think it is important and again
the struggle to do it indicates that some people are not very
keen on doing this, but I think putting it as part of the emissions
trading system is a very important first step. All I am saying,
Tim, is that I will wait and see it, but, if you really want to
impede air travel, to cut it back significantly, for example,
through some taxation mechanism, it would have to be a fairly
hefty whack. I know we are all undergoing periods of policy change
in this area, but I will await it with interest.
Q189 Mr Yeo: But waiting and seeing,
I think in your own words in the foreword to the Extra Report,
is exactly what the world cannot do. Here we have one factor,
as I say, which is actually threatening to increase emissions
at such a rate that it is out of control. Now, emissions trading
for aviation is hideously complex and the target for trying to
include it half way through perhaps phase two of the EU's scheme
looks extremely ambitious, given the complexity. From what you
have just said, it appears that really it is a matter of hoping
for the best here rather than actually having any specific policy
to address this very real problem.
Mr Blair: No, because I think
you do have both the means to develop the actual frame of the
aircraft so that it uses less fuel and also of course there is
research going into better forms of aviation fuel. Now, all of
that is important and all I am saying to you is, and I am happy
to listen to any suggestions, but I cannot see myself that you
are going to be able artificially, through mechanisms based on
the consumer, to interfere with aviation travel. I just cannot
see how you would get international agreement to that effect and
I would certainly worry about putting some special levy on people
in the UK because I do not think it would be very sensible.
Q190 Mr Yeo: Hang on a minute. That is
just exactly what we could consider. I can see that, for international
flights, it is very difficult, but there is nothing to stop either
the EU or Britain alone or Britain acting bilaterally with another
EU country from introducing some form of tax or charge on flights
or on aviation fuel for those flights and that would be to use
the price mechanism which in most other areas we think is a good
way of sending signals on climate change into this area. It would
be much faster than the technological improvements which you have
referred to, which may come into effect a decade or so from now,
and it would address the problem immediately. Why have we not
considered that?
Mr Blair: Well, because I think,
in order to make a real difference, it would have to be pretty
hefty and I cannot see myself that we would be in a position to
say to the British consumer, even if you did it on a bilateral
basis, "This is worth your while because of the impact on
overall climate change". I just think it is one of these
things where in the end let us just face the reality and the reality
is that, unless we get an international agreement and you are
developing, as I say, the science and technology at an international
level and then spreading it, you can end up taking measures that
may harm your own economy without actually helping the issue of
climate change. That is why I think we have got to be extremely
careful of the measures that we take here. It is why I think you
need a certain amount of flexibility. As I say, I am happy to
listen to any suggestions that people make, but, if you really
wanted to stop people travelling, be clear, it would be a pretty
hefty whack you would have to put on travel within the UK or between
the UK and another country and I will wait to see who first proposes
it.
Mr Leigh: Well said!
Q191 Mr Yeo: Well, you could say that,
if it is not hurting, it is not working.
Mr Blair: Yes, there was a politician
who said that, I think!
Q192 Mr Yeo: I thought you might remember!
Mr Blair: I am not quite sure
what happened to him!
Q193 Mr Yeo: But the fact remains that
actually it does mean a pretty hefty pricing on it if it is to
make any difference at all. If there was a cross-party consensus
on this, then would that make a difference?
Mr Blair: Well, I have a feeling
that intra-party consensus looks a little troublesome. To be serious,
the problem is this, and I watched this debate very carefully
and went through all the Kyoto negotiations, but there are two
things that can be done in this are. One is very important, symbolic
actions, and I think we have got to look, for example, at how
we make it easier for people themselves to take action in their
own lives and their own lifestyle in order to help the environment,
but I think one has to be very realistic, that you are almost
making a point by doing that. Then I think there is a really hard-headed
analysis of what this climate change issue is and who can affect
it. When you come to that hard-headed analysis, that was always
my problem with Kyoto, that, if it did not involve America and
it did not involve binding targets on China and India, then my
worry was with Kyoto, all the way through, though I fully support
it incidentally and, as I say, we will meet its targets, but my
worry was that it was not dealing with the three great engines
of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore,
I think, if we want really to deal with this, you cannot deal
with it other than at an international level and by the means
I have described.
Q194 Dr Starkey: Prime Minister, can
I turn to an area of UK domestic policy where we could do something
about climate change and where the technology is already available,
and that is the area of domestic housing which contributes 27%
of our carbon emissions. Why has the proposed Code for Sustainable
Building been watered down so that it does not apply to commercial
buildings at all and it is only proposed that it should be voluntary
for market housing, although it is mandatory for social housing?
Are we not missing an opportunity here to provide leadership?
Mr Blair: I think the idea, through
the Code, is indeed to provide incentives for people when there
is new build and to make sure that we incorporate sustainability
into that. I was not aware that we had watered down all the aspects
of that. I thought we had still made it clear within the Code
that actually we expect certain criteria to be met in order for
new build to take place. I would also say incidentally in respect
of public sector buildings, and of course there is a big hospital—and
school-building programme, we are examining now how we build environmental
sustainability into the criteria for that build too.
Q195 Dr Starkey: Well, important though
it is to have environmental sustainability in social housing,
market housing is the majority and there are already clear differences
in design standards, for example, where—
Mr Blair: Have we taken them all?
I thought we had still left certain criteria in there.
Q196 Dr Starkey: The Code is there, but
it is not mandatory and all the experience in the existing growth
areas with design standards, for example, is that the private
sector chooses not to follow those design standards, so you will
have social housing of high-quality design and next door you will
have poor-quality design, private housing, so all the evidence
is that you will have the same thing over the Code for sustainable
housing. It will be followed for social housing because it is
mandatory for that, but the private housing will not follow it
and that will mean that that new housing will be less environmentally
friendly. Given that the Government's own figures demonstrate
that it only adds a cost of £608 per house, which is more
or less insignificant, why is the Government missing this opportunity
to make the Code mandatory and send a strong signal?
Mr Blair: Can I come back to you
on that specific point because I had thought the position was
a little more nuanced than that, but let me come back to you specifically
on that.[1]
Dr Starkey: Thank you very much.
Q197 Mr Jack: Prime Minister, one of
the interesting questions is that you have not appointed a Minister
for climate change, somebody who is obviously in charge. When
I looked across the spectrum of departments which have a finger
in this pie, you have, for example, Defra which is pursuing the
environmental agendas, biofuels, making an effort to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions, but you have the transport sector where
the reverse is occurring and you have arguments between, seemingly,
Defra and the DTI and you have the Treasury, for example on biofuels,
trying to stimulate a UK industry, but without a lot of success,
through a concession on taxation. Just who actually is in charge
in the UK of the climate change agenda? Are you in charge?
Mr Blair: Well, there is an Energy
and Environment Cabinet Committee which I chair and, you are right,
there are different departments with different responsibilities,
but our position on climate change, and indeed on the Government's
response to it, is done through the Cabinet committee process
and I think, by and large, they actually do more or less work
together on it. For example, in respect of Kyoto and in respect
of Gleneagles and Montreal, I think we have got a pretty well
worked-out position that generally is considered a fairly leading
position in the world. Obviously there are always going to be
clashes in this because those who are looking at it from an environmental
point of view and those who are looking at it from an energy point
of view may come to a different conclusion. There are obviously
differences between transport and the environment and again, even
within the energy sector, there are issues to do with, "If
you want to have clean energy, what's the best way of getting
it? Is it to have more renewables? Is it putting nuclear on the
agenda?" and so on. To be honest, I think that is inevitable.
You are not going to have one person who is going to be able to
do all of that, but we do bring it together in the Cabinet Committee
and, by and large, I think that process works reasonably well.
Q198 Mr Jack: Defra are due to be producing
their own review of the UK's Climate Change Programme. Will that
document come before the Committee that you are chairing and,
if so, when?
Mr Blair: Yes, it will. I do not
know exactly when, but I have a meeting, I think, coming up with
the Committee in the next couple of weeks.
Q199 Mr Denham: Prime Minister, thank
you for those answers. Can we move on to the European Union, the
Presidency there. In a speech last week, I think you expressed
a bit of frustration that expectations about what can be achieved
in the six-month Presidency were too high. In June, you told the
European Parliament, "The people are blowing the trumpets
round the city walls . . . The people of Europe are speaking to
us . . . They are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it
to them". Can the people put their trumpets away?
Mr Blair: No, absolutely not,
but I think there is a change, as I described in my speech, a
change of mood towards reform and I think we have a Commission
more openly committed to economic and regulatory reform than any
Commission before it, and President Barroso is someone who kind
of embodies that spirit, and I think, both at Hampton Court and
in the budget reform process that was agreed in December in Brussels,
we have the opportunity to take forward this agenda. No, I think
it is important that we keep up the pressure.
1 See Ev 54 Back
|
