Table Of Content

SESSION 1997-98 4th REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MEETING WITH THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER; VEHICLE EMISSIONS: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE - REPORT WITH EVIDENCE Ordered to be printed 15th December 1997 LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE £6.30 IC rcneral a Ca ollections | s (Veter vrerbric&S - Aur- Tube HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 1997-98 4th REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MEETING WITH THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER; VEHICLE EMISSIONS: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE PE<9 T REPORT WITH EVIDENCE ; 1 OC aa BS 2 Ho; o/t7 — Ordered to be printed 15th December 1997 LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE £6.30 HL Paper 51 4) d Pi Ca eit ghee i pew ae bi Bena ae o: s My f » ? : ns I , LeL ivi aag Odh p ate ha hata ys a "i i2m S b4a le r ehae e fW e i ae =| . fiUy) JJa e Ate Sh R“awn i Bye y ian Bet eyed cay Meee a 0 han é a ' ¥ 7 - ri ; | =} -. ve! ova ei %, 4% Ait * ? a5; 4 id $ + Shige iF Sa 7 Ay i : j + ‘ Po f q 5 f =x y . a oe. Toa NNN fecal AEeeen k : JR ’ PS T4 OU,5 Rbiee. e B E, cea ee ee ee Le eee ire ele ame fen Ly ee AS > aaa 4 FyM ae: yO 60e e hahe aea YS Re“ ay OTae a ri Re, a ey esot hy ee / . S A ‘a ee | * yA, eT ys oo Te ee a ee br tae iG BY ae a ae. aes Pir 2) Ce fs ee we * Oh is ee Ae a , wi 7 bn ; s x: er eae es ee ‘ < gt } tan : 4 Fi ue ee f ory ory F 8 hi j e' > i fe. ’ Al i Ai bs \ vied ce r bat i ; Wy e Lo l AY, a 4; ‘ , a * : i ; . A Wh a‘.tr ae P3 Lp Cond? be ;" )a* e y 1“ eWé nibs ciyeca)sl e . , i J¢ | % . h j + uDi, e 2 7i 'i s he oe J . cau e j , o wae pal a Ve ey P\@ i “i ‘fis po F.o yeh ed r: e ifee ‘ >e ee ePA T oe Corie te aaOiF iethtea la too, lte 4 Tie . an‘ ee ‘ + ) . —_ Tad ba Sham a 1 A deo e Rie eee ‘y he¥ a i Pe Mn Py d uadlogia yT e,as ad wviard e.a SS itfea, tlyyaa ngeA a atne he * nea e a Ne Se: rh e ae tay, eg ast ey! ‘ y Ny “y ie re ” et Wi ‘ =, = : Mier \ 4; abel Ws CONTENTS Page AES OSTA) Shs 0 le oc il ta ek UR aM lc ee el 5 Appendix: MeIOeTSDI D OL tne. Select COMMITEE rate Rd cc eg a a 5 ula e 6 EVIDENCE The Rt Hon John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Michael Meacher, MP, Minister of State for the Environment; and Dravid Fisk) nile! Scientist, DE TRY 0 is dans eo al weed ss 1 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: TOWARDS ZERO EMISSIONS FOR ROAD TRANSPORT 15 a ae ey ae : ees, ore : ¥ =’ “ F) if = | ' ; . : | ‘hee i" Soh - "i =F <2 5. ie” . wh wise e = PSE NG RR ont ae vom 7 a : Seowa e : a Peer. hs sstinmie) also 9a ied Hamiose irs + vse omit ¥iiqe aaM Gece nistsn ot ra war aa tas : aniged odt bus noqanmT sasmnmivad stor i?- re at: him Teno eS oat 10% sist? to yos2ini IM astlosoM Ie: Nine hens ATA Jtetuneio’ ee Az ee ane FOURTH REPORT 15th December 1997 By the Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology. ORDERED TO REPORT MEETING WITH THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER; VEHICLE EMISSIONS—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE On 15th December 1997, we received oral evidence from the Right Honourable John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Mr Prescott was accompanied by Michael Meacher MP, Minister of State, and Dr David Fisk, Chief Scientist. The witnesses answered questions on: action following the Kyoto conference on climate change; nuclear power and nuclear waste; vehicle emissions; hypothecated taxation for environmental benefit; environmental audit of Government; housing development, brown field sites and water supply; planning of technological developments of national importance; and Regional Development Agencies. The transcript of our exchanges is appended to this Report. In November 1996 this Committee made a Report, Towards Zero Emissions for Road Transport (1st Report, Session 1996-97, HL Paper 13). The Government have now made a written response, which is also appended to this Report. FOURTH REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY APPENDIX Members of the Select Committee Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Craig of Radley Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Flowers Lord Gregson Baroness Hogg Lord Howie of Troon Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Kirkwood Lord Perry of Walton Lord Phillips of Ellesmere (Chairman) Baroness Platt of Writtle Lord Porter of Luddenham Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Tombs Lord Winston MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 1 SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MONDAY 15 DECEMBER 1997 Present: Craig of Radley, L. Perry of Walton, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Phillips of Ellesmere, L. (Chairman) Flowers, L. Platt of Writtle, B. Howie of Troon, L. Porter of Luddenham, L. Jenkin of Roding, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. Kirkwood, L. Williams of Elvel, L. Examination of Witnesses THE RT HON JOHN Prescott, a Member of the House of Commons, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and MR MICHAEL MEACHER, a Member of the House of Commons, Minister of State for the Environment, were examined; and Dr DAvip FIsk, Chief Scientist, DETR, was called in and examined. Chairman judgements on Kyoto. That will somewhat limit some of the remarks I have to make, as Iam sure your 1. Deputy Prime Minister, may I welcome you to Lordships will understand. the Committee with your colleagues. Perhaps I could begin by asking whether you would like to make any De Lose brief introductory statement and for that matter (Mr Prescott) Nevertheless, I think the Conference introduce your colleagues, although I am sure most was a success and I want to address some of these of us know who they are. remarks to the implications for the United Kingdom. (Mr Prescott) Thank you very much. I have with We were committed to leading the fight against me Michael Meacher who is the Minister for the global warming through both leadership abroad and Environment and David Fisk, our Chief Scientist. I positive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at am pleased to appear before your Committee, it is the home. I would like to say we were able to build on the second occasion I have had to appear before a House good record of the previous administration which of Lords’ Committee, the last time I was the Leader certainly gave us credibility in arguing with other of the Labour Group back in the late 1970s so it has nations that at least Britain had achieved her targets been a long time. That was your Europe Committee from the Rio commitment and was one of only a few under Lord Greenwood. I must say that you did a far countries basically to achieve that. That enabled us better job than the House of Commons’ Europe to talk to them with authority during the process of Committee in analysing what was needed to be done these discussions and negotiations at Kyoto. It was within Europe. I think that was due to your terms of indeed an historic agreement and it was a recognition reference which were much better than they were in by the world that a global problem required a global the House of Commons at the time. It was an solution and required legal commitments rather than experience and I am grateful to have a second voluntary commitments that had failed at Rio. That opportunity, albeit in a different position. I would is what the negotiations were about. I think one of like to express right at the beginning our tribute to the difficulties about those negotiations was that it Lord Dainton, we were sorry to hear of his death, was international protocol that does not allow and indeed we would like to put on record the anyone to vote on the issue, you have to get it by Government’s appreciation for the work of this consensus. You can imagine with 160 nations, all Committee for United Kingdom science. The with their own qualifications as to what you should Committee’s report on systematic biological research do, it is difficult to get within a two or three day which resulted in the Culture Collections Advisory conference full agreement but we managed that. I Group and the work that came from that was well think, therefore, it is an historic agreement, indeed, known and reflected a great deal of the hard work to get countries who have rather different and the quality of this Committee, if you would allow interpretations of what emission limits should be to me to say that. I am grateful for the opportunity to agree. For example if I can point out the United appear before you today. States, they believed that the cuts in emissions by 2. Thank you particularly for those remarks about 2010 should be the zero level, for the Japanese it was Lord Dainton who was a well regarded and fondly two and a half and for the EU it was 15. As it turned remembered colleague. Since you are freshly, out in the end the Japanese went from two and a half although that may not be the right word, back from to a six per cent cut, the Americans from zero to a Kyoto, I wonder if you would like to begin by telling seven per cent cut and the European Community us what action the Government proposes to take down, if you like, from 15 to eight. That is a within the United Kingdom jurisdiction in the light remarkable agreement because the _ overall of developments at the Kyoto Conference? consequence of that is that we could claim that there (Mr Prescott) Yes. You are well aware, my Lord, would be a reduction in greenhouses gases, to be that I shall be making a statement in the House of achieved by 2008-2012. That is a remarkable Commons tomorrow and if your Lordships so wish achievement. If it had been anything less, quite they will be having their own statement on our frankly, as we were at the six, six, five formula at one 2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE THE RT HON JOHN PRESCOTT, MR MICHAEL MEACHER 15 December 1997 ] [ Continued AND DR DaAvID FISK Chairman contd.| stage, we would have ended up with a formula which Lord Jenkin of Roding would have meant that by 2010 we would have 4. Deputy Prime Minister, you have mentioned the continued to increase greenhouse gas emissions and issue of tradeable emission permits and so on which that would have been a real failure. On the obviously figured substantially at Kyoto. One can international level we think it was a good agreement. understand the difficulties of trying to reach any We will now, of course, be consulting industry, as we agreement at this stage but hopefully it will come promised, and indeed the City as to how the package back at Buenos Aires next year. You may remember of proposals will work although, to be frank, one has a year or two back a Select Committee of this House, to recognise that the full details and implications of the Committee on Sustainable Development chaired that agreement for the world, and indeed even for the by Lord Tombs, had a substantial section of its United Kingdom, are bound up in the rules that report arguing the case for tradeable permits as one affect the trading agreements, the emissions, all these of the ways of making sure that savings are achieved other variables that are very much caught up with the in the most economical way. I wonder, would the sink argument for example. We were very insistent Government include in its armoury that you have that it was not possible to work out the agreements just been talking about a system of tradeable permits and the rules in Kyoto so we established conferences within the United Kingdom so that the different to take place after this time in which we will discuss emitters can trade in the way that has been envisaged the rules affecting emissions because there was great in order to help achieve the targets that you have concern at the Conference that trading emissions accepted? may well be seen as a loophole and nations will agree (Mr Prescott) Certainly the Vice President of the that they will cut emissions and then do nothing United States when I was talking to him about this about cutting their own greenhouse gases. There was matter was very concerned to get trading emissions. great concern ‘particularly by the Third World He said that using the market system had been very countries about that matter. The concept that we as successful so far as regards emissionsi n the United a delegation developed was what was called the States, it did not involve a great deal of bureaucracy “window of credibility”. There had to be a time from and he was attracted by the market aspect of it and when you signed up for the legal targets until the indeed the overall cost was something like ten per period of ratification in which the rules could be cent of what industry had estimated. He was very worked out properly, they could be seen to be much caught on that concept, he thought it was an credible and were tied very much to the targets. The important development. That is why we did include it full details of how it will apply even within the United in the Kyoto Agreement. It was clear whatever legal Kingdom are yet to be fully worked out. We will take targets were set these variables were an important as our first step next year to consult on these way of achieving the targets. I am sure that is why the measures to deliver our legally binding targets which American target is as high as seven, because they see have been set in Europe. As you know we are part of some substantial benefits coming along from this and the European bubble, if you like, to use that joint implementation. I must say that we would like expression, so whilst we all agree to eight, the actual to talk to industry first before we commit ourselves proportion of cuts will be differentiated within the to a highly complex and complicated way of doing it. European 15 countries which can range as much as There may well be a lot of sense in it and I approach it very much with an open mind and indeed it is now under the past agreement over something like a 25 part of the Kyoto Agreement so it will begin to take per cent cut for Germany, ten per cent for ourselves place. I am told of the difficulties within the United and in the case of Portugal I think it was something Kingdom economy of achieving that and indeed it is like a 40 per cent increase. That was a controversial said by some of the industry that they prefer to be matter, having differential agreements within the given a target on an industry basis rather than a European framework. We now have to go back and company basis and I see the chemical industry has my Minister for the Environment will be at the now suggested that they can achieve their cuts of 20 Council of Ministers for the Environment tomorrow per cent by 2005, five years before the period that is to begin the thinking of how we readjust the bubble envisaged in this Agreement. We are going to talk to contributions and therefore Britain’s contribution industry to find possible ways of getting greater will be considered within those discussions. We are efficiencies while at the same time in an efficient way looking for a package of measures to deliver cuts in achieving those emissions cuts. We do not rule it out, emissions in the United Kingdom and we are we do not rule it in. We are certainly going to look at working them out at the moment. We are not simply it and talk to all the parties about it and then produce going to leave it to one industry like coal, which a paper on what we think is possible. carried the burden under’ the previous administration’s policy, we are looking for greater savings from changes in industrial energy efficiency, Lord Porter of Luddenham an integrated transport system, combined heat and power and indeed increases in electricity generated 5. Deputy Prime Minister, you said a little while from the renewables. We are working out those plans ago that whatever happened at Kyoto you would at present and we will be producing a statement for hope that the CO2 emission target of 20 per cent suggested by the Prime Minister and others by 2010 the House, indeed for the country, so that we can show how we can achieve these targets, first the would remain. I think we all understood that the route to this was probably to a large extent through legally binding target and then the more stretched gas, the fact that gas energy means less carbon and target that we have set for ourselves. more hydrogen.