Examination of Witness (Questions 120-139)
RT HON
TONY BLAIR,
MP
8 FEBRUARY 2005
Q120 Mr Ainsworth: Who actually took
the decision?
Mr Blair: The Government takes
the decision.
Q121 Mr Ainsworth: Did it go to a Cabinet
sub-committee? Was it a DTI decision or a Defra decision?
Mr Blair: In this instance it
has gone to a Government sub-committee, because it is important
we try and make sure we have all the facts and figures there—
Q122 Mr Ainsworth: Who chaired that sub-committee?
Mr Blair: If I could finish what
I am saying. The DTI and Defra have been working on this together
and the reason why the allocation we have submitted has gone up
is because business has come back to us with estimates which indicate
they will emit more than we thought because of strong economic
growth. I am simply saying to you that I have to be careful with
British business as well. I cannot have a situation where British
business is going to be unfairly penalised vis-a"-vis
the rest of Europe when actually British business and Britain
has probably done more on climate change than any other country.
Q123 Mr Ainsworth: Prime Minister, who
actually took the decision? Was it you in the end who had to resolve
the row?
Mr Blair: All Government decisions
are taken by me. It was not a row between Government. DTI and
Defra are fully agreed about this, because the original allocation
plan which was put in was put in on the basis of an estimate which
was provisional. It is very important, Peter, if I can say this,
that we do not send a signal to Europe that there has been some
disagreement within Government over this because there has not.
In the end we both understand what we have to do, whether it is
from Defra or DTI, is to make sure we put in an allocation plan
which is consistent with what business will actually be doing.
Q124 Mr Ainsworth: The problem, as you
will understand, is that the signal you are sending out is that
we are asking for special deal for our businesses—
Mr Blair: No, we are not.
Mr Ainsworth: It is a 3% increase in
the allocation, which is in practical terms probably neither here
nor there anyway, at the same time as going round the world telling
people to get their act together on climate change.
Mr Blair: I am sorry, that is
wrong. I am sorry to be so sharp about it but it is important
that we do not send that signal out to the European Commission.
It is not that we are asking for some special deal on behalf of
Britain, on the contrary every country put in provisional estimates,
the reason why our estimate has changed from the provisional estimate
is that the facts have changed. If the facts change about British
business and British industry, it is our job to put forward those
changed facts. The actual "business as usual" reduction
that we are asking from our business would actually increase,
so we have a very, very strong case for saying, perfectly consistently
with our obligations and our determination to tackle climate change,
we have got British business with changed estimates as a result
of changed facts. When the facts change, it is right our estimate
changes. I think it would be wrong and damaging for our industry,
quite apart from the case we are making to the Commission, if
people thought either there was some dispute about the change
in estimate which had happened or that we in Britain were asking
for some special deal over the rest of Europe. On the contrary,
Britain has a record second-to-none in relation to this issue
in Europe.
Q125 Mr Jack: Prime Minister, one simple
question, what actually have you said to President Bush about
the lack of United States' engagement in this matter? Has he actually
offered to do anything to recognise the problem and bring the
United States as a country, as opposed to the action of individual
states, on board to make a contribution? Because it seems to undermine
the whole approach if the world's biggest polluter is not on board.
Mr Blair: Of course, which is
why it is so important we get the United States back into a dialogue
again.
Q126 Mr Jack: How are you going to do
that? Tell us.
Mr Blair: That is the very task
for the G8. I think it is possible to get the United States back
into a dialogue on this.
Q127 Mr Jack: How?
Mr Blair: By patient and successful
diplomacy and negotiation, Michael. Before you do something like
this, the worst thing you can possibly do is have a discussion
where you have everything out and talk about it before you get
to the point where you think you can get an agreement. I happen
to believe we can get an agreement on this. I think it will be
very difficult, but I think the United States is ready to come
back into dialogue on this question. I think they do not want
to be left out of that dialogue, they recognise that it is an
issue, they recognise it partly for reasons of security of energy
supply as well as climate change, but it is not sensible at this
stage of the negotiation to start talking too much about the details
of it.
Q128 Dr Gibson: In this country, if we
could convince business by growing renewable technologies we would
get new business, new jobs and so on, what a shining example that
would be to the United States. We could introduce technology jointly,
whatever, in this area.
Mr Blair: I totally agree with
that, Ian, it would be very welcome indeed. The other thing to
remember about the United States is that this argument is shifting
there. The argument about Kyoto has not shifted, and let us be
absolutely blunt about that, the Senate voted I think it was 100
to nothing against Kyoto. It is very convenient sometimes for
people to say it is the Bush administration, in my view whatever
administration was in power, Kyoto would not be passed. However,
if you look at what is happening in individual states in the United
States, if you look at legislation now being brought forward by
individual senators, some of whom are Republican, there is a changing
debate going on in the US and we should make use of that and see
if we cannot mould that to a greater consensus.
Q129 Mr Key: Prime Minister, I bring
you a solution. Why do you not phone up Arnold Schwarzenegger
and tell him to have a word with the President about the progress
which is being made in California.
Mr Blair: That is a brilliant
suggestion!
Mr Key: Thank you very much.
Mr Blair: Thank you.
Q130 Mr Key: I make no apology for coming
back to this question of new house building and standards in technology,
because after all 25% of our carbon emissions are caused in the
domestic sector. You referred earlier to the increase in housing
supply in the South in four areas, but the building regulations
have actually reduced standards of insulation in social housing.
Incidentally, the building regulations refused to allow any impact
on noise between buildings; they reflect the ambient noise from
motorways, aircraft and roads, but most of the trouble with anti-social
behaviour is neighbour disputes, and yet there is nothing in the
building regulations on insulation for noise. Coming back to the
energy thing in particular, why is it that we have had two Treasury
consultations on fiscal incentives to improve household efficiency
in energy but nothing has happened as a result of those two?
Mr Blair: I would like to come
back to you and to set out in detail for you on the building regulations,
because my understanding is we had actually set quite tough new
energy efficiency requirements for those. On noise and so on,
you may be right, I just do not know but I would like to check
it out, if I may; there may be reasons for it. The biggest incentive
you can give is in building regulations. If you have to build
a new home with, I think I am right in saying, a 25% increase
in energy efficiency—but I will check that figure for you—that
seems to be quite a significant step forward.[2]
Q131 Mr Key: I admired your candour in
answering Richard Allan's question about technophobia, which is
a problem lots of people have, and I would not ask this if I had
not been able to tick the boxes myself. What are your own family
actually doing to change your own lifestyle to help change the
planet? For example, do you have a hybrid car?
Mr Blair: No, but if you will
forgive me I do not think I will get into my family and what we
are doing on global warming. I know I am responsible for—
Mr Key: It is very important.
Mr Blair: There may be certain
newspapers which would headline it, "Blair finally admits
he is responsible for global warming"!
Q132 Mr Key: But it does matter what
we do with our own lifestyles. Do you have a green electricity
tariff?
Mr Blair: If you will forgive
me, I am not going into what my own family do. Sorry.
Q133 Mr Key: Okay, let's move on. Do
you believe the rapid growth in cheap international air travel
with tax-free aviation fuel, the impact at home of needing new
runways and all of that, the impact the other end of environmentally-damaging
tourist resorts and the damage to the atmosphere in between caused
by high level emissions of carbon, is really sustainable? Do you
think it is really acceptable?
Mr Blair: I think it is a very
good reason why the science and technology needs to be explored;
aviation fuel in particular. I also think, and it is something
I said in Davos and I repeat and I know people think it is not
the right thing to say but I believe it is true, hands up around
this table how many politicians facing, let us say or not say,
a potential election at some point in time in the not too distant
future, would vote to end cheap air travel? Right. None. Oh, Richard!
Mr Hinchliffe: He is not standing!
Q134 Mr Key: It is really not a question
of ending it, is it?
Mr Blair: It is not, but that
is why I say this is what is important, if we are realistic about
this, then the only way through is to take a hard-headed look
at what the science and technology offer us. For example, the
new Airbus we went down to Toulouse to celebrate is actually on
fuel efficiency far more fuel efficient than the current airliners,
and that is the sort of thing you need to be looking at and I
think that is the only way through it. I do not think you are
going to have any political consensus for saying, "We are
going to slap some huge tax on cheap air travel", unless
you think differently.
Q135 Mr Key: But that is a bit defeatist.
We cannot just say, "Okay, it is terrible but we will do
nothing."
Mr Blair: I am not saying do nothing,
but the way through it is to focus on, for example, on aviation
fuel how we would improve the environmental sustainability of
that, and that is what is happening with the whole hydrogen fuel
cell debate in relation to cars in America. Incidentally, America
is putting probably the largest sum of money into science and
technology in these things of any country around the world.
Q136 Mr Key: Can I finally ask you a
question about good governance. Lots of people still do not believe
in climate change, they do not trust us, the politicians, they
do not trust journalists, they do not trust the scientists, some
of them might trust a pressure group or two, but in the interests
of good governance how can the Government and Parliament raise
the quality of knowledge and debate about all these difficulties,
whether it is the low carbon economy, nuclear power, GM crops,
stem cell research? You have been there, Prime Minister, over
GM. What are we doing about this anti-science culture in this
country, so we can come to more rationale assessments of different
risks and find a sensible way forward?
Mr Blair: I think that is a very
good question.
Q137 Mr Key: What is the answer?
Mr Blair: The answer is, and I
do not think it is just my responsibility to have the answer to
this, to try and engage in a genuine, sensible debate about science
and about risk, and I think those are two separate but related
issues which are very difficult. I faced this over the GM issue,
I faced it over MMR, for example. There are issues to do with
mobile phones which you can see coming up where again, if you
are not careful, you can have a debate that ends up being not
entirely rational in terms of the evidence there actually is,
and I think we do need a far greater exchange between the scientific
community, the media and politicians, and that is politicians
of all political parties. The other thing is risk, which I think
is one of the biggest things which faces modern political decision-makers.
You can spend vast sums of money protecting yourself against quite
small risks, but if there is a sufficient campaign which gets
behind it, you end up coming under enormous pressure to do it.
I think one way is doing it, for example, on food, and we have
the Food Standards Agency and I think that has helped somewhat,
but I think the other thing is to try and get a sensible, rational
discussion about science in the country.
Q138 Mr Key: So we are back to education,
education, education in schools from Key Stage One?
Mr Blair: It is in part, but it
is also about people like us going out there and being prepared
to have a proper, sensible discussion about it. These things are
very, very difficult and I certainly faced this over the GM issue.
It is the most popular thing you can ever do, rush out and say,
"I'm banning this and banning that" but it is not always
the most sensible.
Mr Key: Absolutely.
Q139 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, your
other priority for the G8 is Africa, and I think on that you will
probably have broad support right across both Houses and we all
look forward to seeing what proposals the Commission comes forward
with in March. The Chancellor has been working extremely hard
on the International Finance Facility on volumes of aid and he
managed to get some 34 countries supporting him, including support
in principle from France and Germany, but last weekend at the
G7 Finance Ministers the US Treasury Under-Secretary, John Taylor,
was barely off the aeroplane before he was bludgeoning the IFF
and saying it was not appropriate for the United States and not
needed. My Select Committee last week were in Darfur, and I have
to say there were some pretty grim scenes of camps as large as
any one of our constituencies, and Hilary Benn made it clear at
the weekend he thought those responsible for those war crimes
and crimes against humanity should be brought before the International
Criminal Court. Saddam today is before the Security Council, where
I am sure there will be a recommendation for a reference to the
International Criminal Court which I suspect the United States
will block. Going back to what Michael Jack said about Kyoto,
is not the simple truth this: we are always the first to be amongst
the coalition of the willing supporting the United States, but
whether it be on the International Finance Facility, Kyoto, climate
change, the International Criminal Court, we have to make it clear
to the United States we expect them to be amongst the coalition
of the concerned and support us as much as we support them.
Mr Blair: I do not agree that
there is a sort of quid pro quo here. I happen to be part
of the coalition with America in respect of Afghanistan and Iraq
because I believe in it on its own terms, but I also think it
is important of course that we engage in dialogue with America.
I think on Africa you will find America willing to come along
with the international community. Indeed there is an American
on the Africa Commission. I think Kyoto and climate change is
a different issue; there has been a real disagreement. My own
view is that the Africa Commission and what it comes out with
should not just be about the amount of money or debt relief, it
should also be about conflict resolution and governance. The Sudan
is a classic example where, if you had what I would like to see
in terms of the capability of Africa in conflict resolution and
peace-keeping, you would not have these camps in Sudan at the
moment. The reason you have them is you had no outside intervention
capable of keeping the peace.
2 See Ev 26. Back
| 
