Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MS ANNE
SHARPE, MS
MARIE PENDER
AND MR
MARTIN NESBIT
4 DECEMBER 2007
Q60 Mr Stuart: It was announced by
the government as an 11% reduction and in fact you can give us
no evidence that it led to any reduction. You must admit that
that does knock confidence in the very transparency and effectiveness
issues which we have been trying to focus on. I wonder how well
these issues are understood across government and is there a risk
of confusion or complacency among policy makers by presenting
the purchase of credits in this uncritical fashion?
Hilary Benn: I really do hope
there is no complacency or confusion. There is an issue of principle
which your questions have got to the heart of as to whether it
is right and proper for countries in part to make their reductions
by purchasing reductions elsewhere.
Q61 Mr Stuart: Especially if you
know that they are probably not representing anything.
Hilary Benn: That is not, as I
understood it, what Mr Nesbit was saying. Have another go.
Mr Nesbit: Phase one of the European
Emissions Trading Scheme was recognised as an introductory phase.
It has given us the evidence that the European Commission is now
relying on to set more demanding caps for phase two. Provided
you have the assurance that you are actually getting real effort
from the setting of caps, then the use of those emissions trading
schemes within carbon budgets is reliable.
Q62 Mr Stuart: I will not labour
this. We know and government knows that there is not a real effort
corresponding with that. We have a new Secretary of State with
a reputation for being unusually frank and honest and I hope he
will take these points on board. We look forward to greater transparency
and effectiveness in the way these things are dealt with in the
future.
Hilary Benn: I appear before this
Committee both to learn and to try and answer questions.
Q63 Mr Chaytor: I want to ask about
the question of behavioural change, both within business and amongst
householders. The Department has quoted the climate change levy
as a successful example of a policy that has exceeded its targets
because there has been a conviction by businesses that this is
actually the way to cut their bottom line. With ordinary citizens
looking at their household bills, we do not have that kind of
behavioural change yet because most people seem to think that
the best way to keep warm is to have lower gas prices and to turn
up the thermometer. Most people view green taxes as a form of
stealth tax. How can we do more to secure the kind of internal
dynamic that there now appears to be in business with the domestic
sector? What mechanisms are in place to attempt to achieve that?
Hilary Benn: This is a really
important part of what needs to happen because we know that 40%
of our CO2 emissions are the direct result of decisions that each
of us take as individuals. The first thing is people being more
aware of the problem and the fact that each of us has to play
our part. I think things are changing. If we reflect on how climate
change has come to the centre of our politics as a House of Commons—never
mind as a nation or as a world—you can see that change happening.
That is the first thing. The second thing is people will often
say—we ask a lot of questions and do surveys—"Yes,
I get that this is going on but I am a bit confused about what
it is that I am meant to be doing." We have been running,
as you know, the Act on CO2cf1 campaign. I do not know
how many Members of the Committee saw the adverts that appeared
over the summer with sticky black footprints. I thought they were
really striking. The words "carbon footprint" are gradually
entering our language and people are beginning to understand what
they mean. The truth is we are entering a world in which the phrase
"living within our means" which we understand currently
to mean something financial—i.e., you are spending more
than you are earning—this is the century in which this phrase
is going to have to acquire a second parallel meaning. Are we
overdrawn at the carbon bank? Are we living within the world's
carbon means and the world's capacity to accommodate human activity?
That is the task. The Act on CO2cf1 campaign raises awareness.
We have the carbon calculator which we launched. I think about
600,000 people have clicked on it. I do not know if Members of
the Committee have done so. I did shortly after I arrived in the
Department because I thought it would be a good idea and it makes
you think. It gives some advice about what you can do and you
discover that you have done some of the things, like most people,
and there are other things that you could do. We have two tasks.
One is to ensure that individuals as consumers have information.
This goes back to your points about transparency. We need information
to understand what the carbon impact is of choices that we make.
There is labelling and we have made some progress on energy efficiency
of appliances, although I was talking to the supermarkets the
other day about the missing bit of that equation. You look at
two washing machines and you see that this is an A rated and it
will cost you £300 and this is a B rated and it will cost
you £280, so consumers see that comparison but what we do
not yet have is the information which tells you, if you do a wash
a day for ten years at current electricity prices, what this would
cost you as opposed to what that would cost you. There is an example
of how we need businesses and others to get information out there
so that consumers who want to take the right decision and people
who are increasingly aware, can do so. Then there are things that
we need to do to make it easier for that to happen. I think the
domestic energy sector and the housing market are really good
examples because the government has said from 2016 all new homes
must be carbon zero and we will ratchet up the building standards
to get there. Great. The house building industry can prepare.
The problem is 26 or 27 million existing households where not
all of them are as energy efficient as they could be, despite
the efforts of EEC, CERT and so on. The green homes service which
is going to be launched next year through the Energy Savings Trust
are about trying to make available one stop advice on energy use,
travel and other things. My view is that we have to get to the
point where a market develops, where someone will come and knock
on your door and say, "You have had this advice. These are
the things which will bring your bills down. We will come and
do it. We will pay for that and in return you will pay back part
of that cost, whether it is through a mortgage where people are
moving home or through your energy bills", because only the
most hardy are going to go out to do this for themselves and source
their photovoltaic cells and find a builder who can connect them
up. What most people want is to come back home and there is a
button that says, "Hot water now. Heating now". We have
to make it easy for people. I make that point because sometimes
folk come to the government and say we should be giving yet more
in the form of grants to get people to lag their lofts. Hang on
a minute. Lagging your loft—and not everyone has done it—will
pay back in a year and a half. Going back to your point, Ms Swinson,
about government spending, here is an example. Is it really sensible
out of a finite pot of money to spend money on getting people
to do something that will pay back in a year and a half? No, I
do not think it is very sensible. We should find other mechanisms
for doing it. The last point I would make is that the campaigning
that there is on climate change is really important because it
pushes all of us as politicians to move and that is a good thing.
I myself have said that, in the same way as we had the campaign
to make poverty history, we need something similar and we need
to encourage something similar that is about making climate change
history, not just in the UK but also in other countries of the
world. I am sorry about the length of that answer but it seems
to me there are a number of things that we need to make progress
on.
Q64 Mr Chaytor: I suppose my question
is relevant to that because there are a number of highly diverse
mechanisms in place. What we do not have in the domestic sector
is a single, clear incentive as we have in the large business
sector. The Carbon Trust provides the information.. The Carbon
Trust provides the support. The Carbon Trust provides the consultancy
and there are reductions on national insurance to compensate the
investment. Why is the government so resistant to the use of council
tax reductions as an incentive for improvement to domestic energy
efficiency? Is this not a single mechanism that touches the heart
of most people's family budgeting and their concern about tax
rises and incentives? Is this not the nearest thing to a silver
bullet there is to change behaviour?
Hilary Benn: I am not sure that
it is the nearest thing to a silver bullet because, to take the
example I just gave, if it is the government handing over money
to people to do things that, are, some of them, clearly quite
sensible, the weakness with that proposal is the same one in relation
to grants for installation and there are other ways in which we
can achieve the same objective. I doubt very much whether most
of the people who have had the energy companies knocking on the
door and saying, "Here are the light bulbs; we will come
and do the loft or your cavity wall" have any idea that this
is the result of a policy that the government has put in place
in the form of EEC and what will be CERT. One issue for the government
is to better explain how all these bits fit together. In relation
to domestic energy efficiency, I believe that trying to generate
both a sense that this is going to be a national movement and
we are going to do the existing housing stock, in the same way
as we managed to convert to North Sea gas. It is not comparable
but I remember when they came and changed the burners on cookers
and everyone talked to each other and said, "Have you been
done yet?" We need to do something equivalent but we need
to find the mechanism. The Green Homes Service launch thereof
in the new year is, I would say, step one but we need further
steps in order to achieve the objective that you have rightly
set out.
Q65 Dr Turner: We recently had a
UN report which has been somewhat critical of the UK's performance.
They describe the Climate Change Bill for instance as bold and
innovative but they expressed serious concerns about our ambition
to reduce emissions in terms of the targets set and in terms of
our current performance on our climate change programme. They
say that if the developing world followed our lead, temperatures
could rise by as much as five degrees centigrade, clearly well
in excess of the hoped for two degrees safe limit. How do you
respond to the UN report's criticism? Have they got it wrong or
have we got to look at our policy much more radically?
Hilary Benn: The first point I
would make is that I suspect it was written—I have not checked
myself—before the Prime Minister made his recent speech.
I would be surprised if it referred to what he said about up to
80%. That is the first point. Secondly, if developing countries
followed the UK's lead of at least a 60% reduction as set out
in the Bill by 2050, boy, would we be making progress. I am slightly
puzzled as to the criticism and I suspect, thirdly, that the human
development report, as it is wont, because I have read it on a
number of occasions dealing with other issues, probably had quite
a lot to say about other countries but that does not tend to get
reported in the newspapers here in the UK for reasons that we
all understand. If you are looking around the world at who is
giving leadership, I think with all due modesty it is fair to
say that the UK has given leadership on the fight against dangerous
climate change. It is not exclusive because other countries are
also providing leadership but it is quite striking when you travel
to other parts of the world how that is recognised. It is not
always recognised and appreciated here in the UK but that is the
way it goes. Coming back to Bali, the problem is not frankly where
the UK is. I met the NGOs yesterday and representatives of the
business community to talk about what is coming up in Bali. They
recognise that the problem is not the UK's policy. The problem
is what is everybody else going to do. We should occasionally
just pause for a millisecond to acknowledge that fact.
Q66 Dr Turner: The report also pointed
out UK transport emissions which need to be tackled. It obviously
applies to other countries as well, but we do have a particular
problem with government policy in that we have average fare increases
of 4.8% next year on public transport and projected reductions
in government support for railways to the tune of 1.5 billion
by 2014. These do not help us to reduce transport emissions, do
they, given that private transport is not subject to these increases
in costs?
Hilary Benn: If you look at the
price of petrol, I am not sure that people filling up their cars
would quite see it that way, the first point. The second point
is, if you take the railways, a huge amount of investment has
gone in and I think I am right in saying there are now more people
travelling on our railways, not just since any time compared with
the 1960s before the not so good Dr Beeching got to work on the
railways, but even before then. There has been a very, very significant
increase in passenger usage of the railways, but yes, we need
to make further progress on the transport sector. I suppose it
goes back to Mr Chaytor's point about people having alternatives.
We have here in London obviously the congestion charge scheme
that the Mayor has pioneered and, as I think of the city I have
the privilege in part to represent, Leeds, yes, Leeds would be
keen for more investment in public transport. Frankly, we could
not build any more roads in the centre of Leeds because the centre
is covered enough with motorways and roads as it is.
Q67 Dr Turner: The basic point is
that whatever has been done so far to promote public transport
and deter increasing reliance on private transport clearly has
not delivered, because the use of private transport continues
to increase and public transport does not. The railways are suffering
from a saturation in demand, so do you think it reasonable that
fares should be further increased just to control demand on the
railways?
Hilary Benn: I must be careful
not to stray into the territory of my Cabinet colleagues on that
subject. Notwithstanding what has happened to fares, people are
travelling on the railways, in part because if you have to deal
with congestion as the alternative then it is a good way of getting
about. That is the first point. The second point which I did not
raise in answer to your previous question is we must not ignore
the capacity for technological change in the individual transport
sector—i.e., cars—what Europe is doing looking at
regulating for CO2 emissions for vehicles, the development of
hybrid fuels, other forms of technology and electric vehicles.
If you can make progress on electric vehicles and you get your
electricity from a wholly renewable source, you do not have a
carbon and greenhouse gas problem; you still have other problems
that you might want to deal with. Julia King is doing her study,
as you know currently, which is due to report by the Budget next
year and I and others I am sure look forward to what she is going
to have to say about the contribution that technological and other
change can make to deal with the problem that you have raised.
Q68 Mr Hurd: Perhaps I can link in
to Dr Turner's questions about engaging the public. One way of
engaging the public is by sending a very clear signal on the leadership
from government and I would like to ask you a question about the
expansion of Heathrow in that context. I have a constituency issue
but do you understand why many people are confused as to a government
on the one hand that talks about the over arching challenge of
climate change and the need to change behaviour and, on the other
hand, it appears to be giving the green light to an expansion
of the fastest growing source of emissions? Did you just lose
the argument? How are my constituents supposed to reconcile these
two messages?
Hilary Benn: Because governments
must continue to have regard to how we are balancing sustainable
economic development with fighting climate change and that issue
remains. It goes back to the answer I gave earlier, first point.
If we were wholly exempting aviation from any contribution, then
you would have a fair point about there being a contradiction
but we are not. For the reasons we have discussed earlier, we
are absolutely at the forefront of Europe, pressing for aviation
to be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. If we were
wanting to put it in a separate box and say that aviation does
not have to get stuck in and does not have to play its part, then
you could have a go at us but we are not doing that. The third
point is, within the overall reduced total of emissions that we
are committed to achieving, society still has the choice about
where it chooses to emit. I think it is important that one acknowledges
that because otherwise people could argue: what about other forms
of emissions? I grant you that aviation has grown because that
is where the public demand is. Otherwise, why are people not saying,
"Why are you not doing anything about emissions in those
other sectors?"? The debate is: do you want to be sector
specific about saying that those are good emissions and those
are bad emissions or do you want to construct a system overall
that meets the target we have set for reducing emissions, recognising
that we have a choice about where we choose to do it? If aviation
grows once it is in the ETS, it is going to have to make a contributory
saving elsewhere. It seems to me that that is consistent with
what we are trying to achieve.
Q69 Mr Hurd: Do you understand why
there is profound scepticism about what the ETS will deliver in
terms of reduction in aviation emissions, not least because of
the track record that we have had but also just the simple fact
that the aviation industry seems to be falling over itself to
go into it which ought to ring considerable alarm bells?
Hilary Benn: Whether it is falling
over itself, given the terms on which it might be included, I
do not know. Yes, you are right about the ETS. You have to have
decent caps but it is part of the best and only hope we have of
dealing with this and therefore that is not an argument against
the ETS. It is an argument for having a strong and effective ETS
with the right caps and one that includes aviation.
Q70 Mr Hurd: Did your Department
agree with the decision on it?
Hilary Benn: The government has
taken the view that we are going to issue the consultation document
which we have done and there will be a consultation. The government
will listen to what people say as a result of the consultation.
Q71 Chairman: Do you think, if we
achieve an 80% target in UK emissions by 2050, the third runway
at Heathrow will be in full use?
Hilary Benn: That sounds like
a question inviting me to anticipate the outcome of the consultation
which we have just launched upon so without being disrespectful
in any way I think I will probably pass on that one, if you do
not mind.
Q72 Mark Lazarowicz: Turning to a
slightly different area, you will be aware there has been disappointment
at the fact that we do not yet have a Marine Bill well on its
way to completion and a Marine Act on the statute book. If there
is to be a Marine Bill considered even in the 2008-09 session,
that will mean that the Commons draft Bill must appear pretty
quickly. Can you give us an indication of when you expect the
draft Bill to appear for consultation?
Hilary Benn: On this disappointment,
one way of looking at it is we waited 1000, 2000, five million
years, for the Marine Bill to come along. I happen to be in the
fortunate position as Secretary of State responsible in a government
that is committed to legislate to provide one in the current parliamentary
session. I really appreciate the level of interest and support
across all parties that there is for a Marine Bill. The answer
to the specific question is it will appear in the new year. I
am acutely conscious of the need to get that done so as to allow
for a period of consultation on the draft text because I know
most directly from the recent experience with the Climate Change
Bill how we have all collectively benefited from scrutiny of a
draft Bill in relation to the Climate Change Bill. I do believe
it made a good thing better and I want to do the same with the
Marine Bill. We want to get on with this as quickly as possible.
Keep up the support but I would urge people not to think that
somehow the government is not committed because we are resolutely
committed to doing what we promised in our manifesto in relation
to a Marine Bill.
Q73 Mark Lazarowicz: You will be
aware that the consultation paper on the Bill was written in March
2006. In some quarters there is a difference of opinion between
the UK government and some of the devolved administrations which
is leading to the delay in the publication of a draft Bill. Is
that true or not?
Hilary Benn: No. We are working
on the production of a draft Bill. Different parts of the UK and
the Scottish Executive in particular have views about what they
would like the Bill to provide for. We want a UK-wide Bill. I
want a UK-wide Bill, first point. The second point is that if
there are issues about the devolution settlement then there are
ways in which the devolved administrations can pursue them. I
just hope that they are not going to be played out in relation
to the Marine Bill because I would not want a discussion about
any change to the settlement to get in the way of us getting a
Marine Bill that is effective in providing protection for our
seas and what lies beneath them in the way that the government
wants to set out. I hope very much that we can reach agreement
on this. It is absolutely legitimate for devolved administrations
to have a view about what they might want to change but there
is a place for dealing with that and, with the Marine Bill, we
want to work on the basis of the devolved settlement as it is
having regard to any changes that the UK government is happy to
make. Above all, I want the Bill. I think we all want the Bill.
Q74 Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure we
would all agree with you on that. Your Fisheries Minister has
recently, I understand, called for an increase in cod quotas to
deal with the problem of fish dumping. Everyone is concerned,
rightly, about fish dumping but does not the position of the government
that cod quotas should be increased first of all run at variance
with the scientific recommendations about the level of cod quotas
for next year and, in any event, would not an increase in cod
quotas do nothing really to deal with the problem of fish dumping?
Is the real answer not to change the whole quota system? Is that
not where the government's attention should be directed?
Hilary Benn: As I understand it,
my colleague Jonathan Shaw has been leading on this and if it
would be for the assistance of the Committee I would be very happy
to provide you with a note on this[1].
My recollection is that cod stocks have recovered a bit and that
is why we are taking the stance that we are in relation to the
negotiations that will take place in the Agriculture Council just
before Christmas. Can I send you a note on that if that is okay?[2]
Q75 Jo Swinson: I wanted to turn to the
issue of excess packaging which is something that many of our
constituents are concerned about. There is obviously a variety
of government mechanisms in place to try to deal with this including
the voluntary Courtauld Commitment agreements. The thing in particular
I wanted to ask about is the legislative tool that we have at
our disposal to tackle this issue, the Packaging (Essential Requirements)
Regulations. These are being implemented by a number of trading
standards offices but I have done a survey of them and they are
having great difficulty in finding this to be of any use because
the criteria which can be used to justify packaging do not just
include getting the product home safely and properly protected
but also things like consumer acceptance, product presentation
and marketing. Obviously there is carte blanche for marketing
departments of multinationals just to create whatever excess packaging
they like and they can justify it on the basis that they will
sell more products, which is probably true if it takes up more
space on a supermarket shelf. Even that, do you think there is
an argument to tighten up those regulations and change them so
that they can be more useful than they currently are?
Hilary Benn: This is an important
issue and it is one—I agree with you—that some consumers
are increasingly concerned about. What I think we have to recognise
is that the regulations have enabled us to make some progress
in increasing the recycling rate. They have succeeded in raising
the rate in the UK for packaging waste that has been recycled
from about 27% 10 years ago to nearly 50%.
Q76 Jo Swinson: I think we are talking
about different regulations. I think that is the producer responsibility.
Hilary Benn: Are you talking about
the essential requirements?
Q77 Jo Swinson: Yes, the essential
requirements.
Hilary Benn: As I understand it,
a number of companies have already been prosecuted. You mentioned
trading standards.
Q78 Jo Swinson: There have only been
four prosecutions.
Hilary Benn: I hope others will
look at that and if they have not abided by the requirements of
the regulations that will encourage them to do more.
Q79 Jo Swinson: I think the problem
that trading standards are finding is that it is very difficult
to bring forward a prosecution just because the regulations are
so wide and something can be justified on the basis of marketing
so there might be more products left as a result of packaging.
That is seen to be all right. Do you not think we need to change
it so that essential packaging requirements are about what is
essential?
Hilary Benn: What I can tell you
is that DG Environment is aware of the issue and is proposing
to undertake a study which is going to reflect on the experience
not just in the UK but across all of the Member States, which
will leave them to decide whether there needs to be a revision
either to the essential requirements or to have more effective
enforcement measures. The point is understood and there is a process
of trying to look at that. I hope that is helpful.
1 See Ev 18. Back
2
See Ev 18. Back
| 
