Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 116)
TUESDAY 26 JUNE 2007
RT HON
ELLIOTT MORLEY
MP
Q100 Mr Hurd: You must have been
actively involved in that personally really.
Mr Morley: I was, very much so.
Q101 Mr Hurd: Can you show us some
of the barriers that you found?
Mr Morley: Again, it is back to
this almost a theme emerging here. It is a question of the political
priority in leadership by the individual local councils. If the
leadership of a particular local council was giving a high priority
to sustainable development, recycling and climate change you have
excellent resource; if they did not they were appalling. When
I was dealing with waste and recycling I did have to call in a
number of leaders of local councils to ask them to explain to
me why their performance was so pathetic—literally pathetic
compared to the overall trends. And the reason why it was so pathetic
is that there was no political will in those particular councils.
Q102 Mr Hurd: Is that an argument
for extending the range of targets that apply to local government
in the sphere of protecting the environment or climate change
objectives?
Mr Morley: It could be, but I
think if you talk to the GLA they will not be very keen on more
targets. I am becoming increasingly anxious about the issue of
climate change and I am becoming increasingly anxious that the
clock is ticking away and that we have a relatively short timescale
in order to bring about stabilisation, both nationally and internationally.
I just think it is so important that maybe that is an area where—while
I am a great supporter of local government and my political background
is in local government—they do have to be part of the delivery.
I do not mind giving them some flexibility and freedoms about
how they deliver as long as they deliver—how they choose
to do that is different paths and a matter for local delivery—but
they have to deliver and I think if we do not see those changes
by some councils we will have to crack the whip.
Q103 Mr Hurd: You were very candid
before about the difficulty of one department being able to deliver—
Mr Morley: It cannot be done.
Q104 Mr Hurd: So there is a wider
authority of engaging people more effectively with that. Coming
back to the point that Dieter raised earlier about the rather
confused institutional framework that seems to exist, it seems
to be particularly confused in this area of giving advice and
information to people. I saw a Treasury document that suggested
there were no less than 70 national and 90 regional bodies offering
advice on energy efficiency to small businesses in the market
place and obviously there is the old chestnut of the Carbon Trust
and the Energy Saving Trust. Have you reached a view as to the
scope and value of rationalising these bodies or stitching them
together in a more effective way?
Mr Morley: I think it is always
important to look at the structures that you have in terms of
delivering advice and to keep them under review. The Carbon Trust
and the Energy Saving Trust have managed to develop their work
in different areas so that they are complementary rather than
competitive, which I think is very helpful. But it is always easier
for people when there is one point of contact rather than lots
of points of contact because it becomes very confusing. Interestingly
I was talking to some of the energy companies last night and the
concept, for example, of not just reform within government but
reform within industry is worth exploring. There is this debate
about energy companies becoming energy management providers rather
than simply selling power, but actually giving a delivery which
also involves improving people's energy efficiency as part of
their delivery, and that is part of their operation. I think the
energy companies will be up for that kind of approach, they just
need some encouragement to develop that.
Q105 Mr Hurd: I rather agree because
it is an option for them to differentiate themselves and at the
moment they do not have that opportunity. Could I ask you about
the Climate Change Committee. We have had an interesting conversation
with Dieter about that and certainly my sense, sitting on the
Climate Change Bill Committee, is that people are rather muddled
about what this Committee is for and it seems to be a body that
can be all things to all and everyone comes to the table with
a different vision of what it should be doing and that raises
concerns about overload, or certainly the expectation of overload.
If you were writing the remit, what would it be?
Mr Morley: It certainly needs
to be independent and to be seen to be independent. It certainly
needs to be authoritative, so you need to have a balance of people
on that Committee in terms of the advice that they give. It needs
to be pragmatic because you could have a very purest Committee
who had set perfectly logical targets, but having a logical target
and being able to deliver it is not necessarily the same thing,
you have to look at the capability, the capacity of what the government
and indeed what the economy and society can do, within a challenging
framework because you have to push on—as I say, you really
have to push on in terms of achieving those stabilisation goals.
Obviously that is going to lead to a debate, and these things
were never clarified within the Bill, I think deliberately, because
I think there is a need to explore some of these structures, some
of the options and some of the power. But I think that is a very
valuable function of the pre-legislation scrutiny which is currently
taking place. I think you will see the shape of the Committee
and the powers will be crystallising in the discussions that are
taking place in the run-up to the legislation, and I think that
is all part of the process because there is a perfectly reasonable
argument about how far those powers go and how far the independence
of the Committee goes; but, above all, it has to be realistic
in terms of what can be done in terms of delivery. If it sets
targets which are completely unachievable then it will discredit
itself and of course it will discredit the government and I do
not think that is in anyone's interests.
Q106 Mr Hurd: Do you see it in the
business of setting targets or advising on delivery?
Mr Morley: I have a fairly open
mind on that really. At the very least it has to be part of determining
those targets and those carbon budgets; it has to have a major
input on that as well as the role, which I do not think is particularly
controversial, in terms of overseeing the progress and reporting
on it.
Q107 Mr Hurd: Finally, you are obviously
not acting in isolation and your job is an important one in running
the international channels and the GLOBE network is a part of
that. Lots of countries are struggling with this in terms of the
structure of the government and the method of delivery and this
is incredibly difficult. On your travels have you picked up any
interesting ideas on how other countries are approaching this;
secondly, are there lessons that Britain can export and, if so,
what is the right forum for sharing them?
Mr Morley: The advantage of talking
with other countries is of course that there are always elements
of what they are doing which you can pick up, and I know you have
been very active yourself in the GLOBE organisation, which is
very much appreciated. Also, talking to a legislator you can,
I think, have an effect in terms of moving things forward and
I would like to think that the work that GLOBE has done—and
I know you have been involved yourself, Chairman, with US legislators—has
had some effect on this really because I have had more contact
with the US legislators in the last two years than I have had
in 20 years, frankly, on the issue of climate, energy and sustainable
development. We had the visit of Nancy Pelosi recently who came
to the UK and had a session with the legislators through GLOBE
UK. We had a meeting with the Congress Energy Committee and they
came over here to look at what we are doing in the UK, to talk
to Defra, to look at the Climate Change Bill and this is all very
welcome. Also our contact with German MPs has been very useful;
it is very interesting what Germany is doing on feed-in tariffs,
for example, and I think it is worth looking at what they have
done, and they have had more success than we have in terms of
driving forward renewables and feed-in tariffs has been an element
of that. Some of the Canadian provinces are very interested in
the presentation by Ontario of what they were doing on their energy
strategies, which was really very interesting, and I think there
are elements there from which we can learn. So I think the contact
and discussion, particularly within the G8+5 but not exclusively
the G8+5, I think the more contact and discussion with other countries
is all to the good. It also helps build confidence, it helps build
links and that can also be crucial when it comes to forums like
the UN Forum on the Climate Change and Convention, which is a
very difficult forum in which to get progress, and I think to
try and establish some kind of consensus around general principles
is going to be absolutely crucial to getting a post-2012 framework
agreement.
Q108 Colin Challen: I also take part
in some of those GLOBE activities and think very highly of them
because it is great to talk to legislators from other countries
and hear what they are doing. Does the government itself really
have that kind of dialogue because other countries obviously are
capable of doing wonderful initiatives, just as we are, but perhaps
we all get rather protective and defensive about what we are doing
and therefore unless we have, as it were, patented an idea here
we are not prepared to take somebody else's idea and perhaps even
use that and supplant one of ours which might not be quite as
good, particularly on the feed-in tariffs, which are being used
in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. That model has been replicated
a lot and I am not aware that many other people have replicated
our ROCs. I cannot think of a single one; does that not tell us
something about the way that we interact with other countries
and learn from each other?
Mr Morley: It may well and, again,
Colin, I very much appreciate your own role in this. I think what
you will know from your own experience in terms of these discussions
we have had with legislators through the GLOBE structure is that
the advantage where you can talk from legislator to legislator
is that it is a much more open and relaxed discussion basically.
There are ministerial meetings and bilaterals but they tend to
be very formalised because you are often part of a negotiation
and you are always constrained by that, whether it is in the Council
of Ministers in Europe or whether it is in the UN process. So
there is a ministerial constraint which, as legislators, you do
not have, and that is one of the advantages of the approach in
terms of the more informal discussion. But it is important, and
you are absolutely right, that apart from the issue of feed-in
tariffs Italy, for example, is rolling out a smart meter programme—the
meters are made in Britain actually but they are rolling them
out in every house in Italy at the moment. I know there are plans
to do that here but they are ahead of us on these things.
Q109 Colin Challen: But even perhaps
within the European Union—I know, obviously, what you are
saying when ministers come together they are often in negotiations—cannot
forums be set up in which ministers or government representatives
can talk informally and develop ideas which are not always contained
and captured in that negotiation?
Mr Morley: I think there is a
time constraint on these things about the time that people can
spare, but there has been an attempt to do that. The principle
behind the Gleneagles Dialogue that was set up in 2005 was to
try and bring together ministers in a more informal setting and
for the first time it brought together energy and environment
ministers, for example, and environment and development ministers
with the G8+5 group. That process continues up until 2008 and
the Japanese Presidency will try to bring some conclusions to
that. I do think it has been a valuable exercise and I do think
that the Gleneagles Dialogue has really stimulated a lot of the
international activity in terms of quite high-level political
discussions on climate change.
Q110 Mr Hurd: Our inquiry is about
the operation of government and the challenge of climate change.
Thinking out of the box a little, you spent a lot of time as a
minister talking with two very important communities—the
business community and the NGO community.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q111 Mr Hurd: Looking back on that
period do you think that the way government deals with those two
bodies could be made more effective somehow?
Mr Morley: It could although you
do have a difficulty in that the NGOs are very wary about being
bound in. They quite like to have discussions but they do not
want to have any responsibilities, if you understand, because
that is not their function in life and nor should it be. Again,
there have been changes in the business community. The business
community until comparatively recently—and it is still not
universal—frankly saw measures to combat climate change
as the barrier to business development, they saw it as a burden
on business and they tend to be instinctively wary of regulation
and they certainly are not very keen on any kind of constraints
like carbon trading or the climate change levy—they were
not very enthusiastic on any of those things. However, there is
a change really and I think a lot of businesses realised that
action has to be taken and they are an important part of their
solutions, and again they cannot do it on their own in the same
way that governments cannot do it on their own. Also, I think
a lot of businesses recognise that there are some real opportunities
here and it is good for business to improve energy efficiency
because it keeps their costs down and makes it more competitive;
it is good for business that there are new opportunities in terms
of technologies and energy services, consultancies and all the
kinds of functions that come with a low carbon economy.
Q112 Mr Hurd: Do you think that is
how government actually works with business in this country because
the impression one gets from that is this traditional process
of lobbying, arguing and discussion rather than the way it needs
to go?
Mr Morley: I think it is still
a very traditional approach with business, although that is not
necessarily inefficient and it can give you quite a good outcome.
I know there is an attempt to have more formal discussions with
business. For example, the DTI had a proper consultative group
with all the energy companies and Defra was part of that in terms
of the delivery of the Warm Front Programme, looking at the way
the Energy Efficiency Commitment works and whether it can be made
more flexible, and that was a very useful forum. Of course it
is easy with the energy companies because there is a limited number
of them; it becomes a bit more difficult when you have broader
industry groups and then you tend to talk to their organisations
and their representatives, trade bodies generally, and those trade
bodies varied in terms of how effective they were in terms of
disseminating information and how effective they were actually
in representing their members.
Q113 Mr Hurd: My final question is
about the way in which government works with opposition parties.
Again, the approach has been a traditional approach but I think
there is a growing feeling that this is an issue that crosses
parties and certainly one of our messages to the American Congressman
who came in, and Colin's All Party Group has done a report on
the scope for parties to co-operate on this issue. Are we resigned
to a traditional partisan approach to this or is there scope for
building consensus—
Mr Morley: Consensus is difficult.
Q114 Mr Hurd: Building consensus
to a certain level?
Mr Morley: Yes, to a certain level.
I know that Colin did a very detailed study of this and he probably
knows more about it than anybody else. I think the important thing
about consensus is that we have a consensus that there is a need
for action, a consensus that there is an urgency about the situation,
we have a consensus that we have to bring in some quite major
changes within the structures of government and the way that we
operate our economy, and I think there is a consensus about that.
Beyond that, when you start to talk about methods, pace, how far,
how fast, then there are visible differences. That is not necessarily
a bad thing because some creative competition prevents you from
having a consensus at the lowest common denominator, which I do
not think is desirable. So I do not think we are in a bad position
within the UK because the important thing is that there was a
real influence on the American Congressmen when they came to the
UK and they met Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians
who were all saying the same thing—there has to be action,
there has to be a global stabilisation goal. That was really quite
influential on them. You are never going to get complete consensus
around the measures you should implement and I do not necessarily
think that is a bad thing. I would like to think that there would
be a consensus on taking some difficult decisions that the public
might find hard, but I am not quite sure we are there yet because
there is always a temptation politically to peel away when you
think you can get some political advantage. That is going to be
the real test of political consensus in this country, and we will
have to see.
Q115 Chairman: We will be doing our
best to achieve that. The Members of the Committee on both sides
have a distinguished record of not being afraid to say some quite
controversial things. Finally, I know that bird watching is one
of your interests; do you have any concern that, amid all the
quite right emphasis on climate change, issues about biodiversity
are being slightly squeezed off the agenda?
Mr Morley: They are being squeezed
off the agenda because while people can see some of the effects
of climatic change in terms of extreme events—hurricanes,
floods, melting icecaps—and these all have an impact on
the public, and that is good, the catastrophic consequences on
biodiversity are not so visible to the public. I notice that the
BBC is doing a very good job at the moment in trying to raise
awareness of the impact on individual species. I think that is
very helpful but it is off the main public agenda and it is off
the radar from a lot of governments. A very welcome potential
change is the debate going on about including forests within the
carbon programme and within the United Nations Framework. It is
difficult because you do have to have robust methodology and you
have to have calculations and it is an opportunity to bolster
the arguments about carbon sinks, which are a bit debatable—it
is a complex argument. But what you can add on to this argument
is that you do get some benefits, there is no doubt about that,
but you also get the benefits of ecosystem services, watershed
protection, biodiversity, rare plants and animals, the environmental
goods elements. This is emerging but it is very small; it is certainly
something I would like to see more attention being given to and
I very much hope that we will begin to see this at the Bali COP.
At the moment it is popular because developing countries like
the idea of getting money for their forests and developed countries,
the public like the idea of protecting rain forests, although
I would go further and say perhaps the not quite so exotic or
interesting with things like peat bogs—peat bogs can have
a carbon capture function; they themselves are very important
for biodiversity and water management. So this is an area that
really wants some developing, both in terms of international negotiations
and also the kind of attention and priorities that governments
globally, including our own, give to it.
Q116 Chairman: You are the current
Prime Minister's Special Representative to the Gleneagles Dialogue;
are you the next Prime Minister's Special Representative?
Mr Morley: Yes, I am very glad
to say that he has asked me to continue on with this role.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming
in.
| 
