HC Deb 27 November 2000 vol 357 cc635-47 3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott)

As the House will know, the outcome of the climate change talks in The Hague last week was a real disappointment for all concerned—[Interruption.] It was indeed a disappointment, but at the end of the conference all parties remained committed to reaching agreement when they meet again in May next year.

If nothing else, the negotiations have highlighted the pressing need to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It was clear that all countries are experiencing climate change problems, that the situation is getting worse and that a global solution is needed. The House will recall that the Rio convention said that developed countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

At Kyoto in 1997, we agreed legally binding targets for developed countries to take us up to 2012. Most notably, the European Union agreed a target of an 8 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions; the United States agreed 7 per cent.; and Japan agreed 6 per cent.

Nations signed up to the Kyoto agreement under conditions that involved mechanisms for implementation, including the clean development mechanism, joint implementation between developed countries, emissions trading and the use of carbon sinks such as forests. Those were contentious issues, and after Kyoto groups were set up to decide how the proposals could be implemented.

The Hague conference was about how the mechanisms would work. The talks started on Monday 13 November. On the evening of Thursday 24 November, the president of the conference, Jan Pronk of the Netherlands, tabled proposals for compromise solutions to the most contentious problems facing the conference, but they failed to gain agreement.

Between 2 am and 3 am on Saturday morning, we consulted the president of the European Union delegation, and indeed the president of the conference. They were extremely pessimistic about the pace of negotiations. I agreed with the European Union president, the French Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, that we would urgently explore a possible compromise with the United States and its allies in the umbrella group. The key issue concerned carbon sinks such as forests, which absorb and store carbon, and how far they could be used in developed countries and elsewhere under the clean development mechanism.

I must make it clear that both the sinks and the clean development mechanism were part of the Kyoto protocol, not loopholes first raised in The Hague. It was always understood that they would form part of the 5.2 per cent. overall cut in emissions to which developed countries agreed. Early on Saturday morning, I met Ministers from France, Germany and the United States to draw up compromise proposals to solve the main issues of contention between the European Union and the umbrella group. I then agreed these with a core group of 10 Ministers representing the European Union and the umbrella group.

The agreement, if accepted, would have been passed on to the president of the conference, to feed into his final proposals for consideration by the G77 and other countries. The agreement would have prevented developed countries from gaining credits from the clean development mechanism for planting forests in developing countries. This was felt by many countries, particularly the green groups, to be a huge loophole. The agreement would have placed a ceiling on the use of forest sinks by the United States, Japan and Canada—a ceiling which Europe had been asking for—and strengthened the scientific requirements applied to the domestic sinks.

Overall, compared with the president of the conference's original proposal, we estimate that that would have saved around 150 million tonnes of carbon a year. However, European Union Ministers failed to endorse the proposals. Many felt that a deal was very close and welcomed the initiative, especially the exclusion of sinks from the CDM, but expressed uncertainty about the overall impact on the emission reduction targets agreed at Kyoto. They believed that further negotiations were necessary and that that should be communicated to the conference president. However, the president took the view that there was not enough time to present a new compromise package.

The failure of these talks is not the end of the story. We have a meeting of the European Union Environment Ministers in December.

Let me make one thing clear to the House: I have worked and negotiated with Dominique Voynet for three years now. Her commitment to securing an agreement is as passionate as mine. We will both work together to ensure that the agreement is reached. Let me also make it clear that my experience in negotiations in these areas leads me to believe that working together with other European countries can provide a stronger negotiating position in achieving those ends. [Interruption.] That is precisely how the Kyoto agreement was achieved.

I also want to emphasise that the climate change conference did not end formally on Saturday. It will be reconvened in May.

The outcome of The Hague is disappointing. We all did our best, and we came very close to agreement. I still hope that we can secure sufficient agreement in May to secure ratification by the European Union and others by 2002. We should remember that we are not just looking to the first 10 years but to setting up a framework that will hold for 50 and 100 years. That is what really matters to this and future generations.

Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells)

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement on a setback that will be regarded on both sides of the House with great regret. The Deputy Prime Minister has had our support in his efforts to bring about progress on climate change. The groundwork for the Hague talks were laid not just at Kyoto but by the previous Government, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Deputy Prime Minister has pursued the matter with determination and has made progress on climate change the hallmark of his green credentials. We applaud him for that.

The right hon. Gentleman set high expectation for the Hague talks. He said, in the vernacular of the professional footballer, that he was "gutted" by the breakdown. This was a unique opportunity, but the talks have broken up amid disarray and recriminations. The world will pay a price for the breakdown. Yet the omens seemed so promising.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister now believe, with hindsight, that the breakdown was inevitable or was it a failure of diplomacy? If it was inevitable, why did the Minister for the Environment say on the "Today" programme on Saturday morning, only a few hours before the collapse, that the compromise they tabled was "a very important achievement"? Yet, only three hours later, the Deputy Prime Minister found himself completely outvoted by our European partners. How does he explain this misreading of our negotiating position?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret that more time was not spent laying the groundwork and understanding the subtleties of the European position? He started the week posing for photo calls on the Dutch flood defences and ended it claiming victory on the "Today" programme at the most delicate stages of negotiation. Is not the real truth that he has been more concerned with the media and with exploiting the talks for party political reasons than with the hard grind of negotiation? He wanted all the credit for success; does he now accept part of the credit for the failure? Does he feel that he had sufficient support from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?

President Chirac played a direct role at The Hague, but where was the Prime Minister? What part did he play? What has happened to his much-vaunted claim to be at the heart of Europe? Where is his influence now? Was there any contact at all between Downing street and the French Prime Minister during the course of the week? Was there a single telephone discussion between the Prime Minister and the White House, or does his renowned disdain for all matters environmental mean that he did not want to be involved, and that the Deputy Prime Minister was hung out to dry? [Interruption.] No, that is not all.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret the recrimination that followed the breakdown of the talks? Was not that the moment for statesmanship, for understatement and for understanding of our partners' point of view? The French Minister held the presidency, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may feel about her personally, it was not helpful of him to storm out with such petulance, and to dismiss French anxieties as "cold feet". The French Minister, for her part, said that the right hon. Gentleman had lost his nerve and his cool, and described him as "an inveterate macho man". Does not that breakdown of personal relationships suggest that, in trying to salvage his own reputation, he has not only burnt his bridges but set back the prospects for any future settlement?

Is not this breakdown the last nail in the coffin of the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, following the collapse of the transport system, under-investment in the roads, the flop of the urban White Paper a week ago, the row about National Air Traffic Services, and the stalemate over the tube? Is it not the final indignity that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the man whom the right hon. Gentleman held up to the world as a crab in a jar—is now briefing that he wants the right hon. Gentleman's job? Was not the Evening Standard right to describe the Deputy Prime Minister as "Blair's greatest embarrassment"? Was not yesterday's collapse the final collapse in credibility of a failed Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman often fails to speak to the issue, but it particularly annoys me to hear him talk about the collapse of the transport system, given that he was a director of Railtrack—an organisation that even his own party has disowned as unable to do anything for the railway industry.

I shall return to the issue under discussion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support and the regret that he rightly expressed over the breakdown of the talks. I also acknowledge that the previous Administration were involved in the early stages—in the Rio conference—and in the early stages leading to the Kyoto conference. Despite their involvement, they did not hold the same position that we do, nor did they necessarily endorse the agreement that we reached at Kyoto. However, I am grateful that they were involved in the process. I inherited their programme and developed it.

On climate change, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that more than 160 nations were involved in the negotiations at The Hague. It is very difficult to get agreement between 160 nations. It was difficult to get agreement at Kyoto, where only 40 nations were involved, but we managed to do so. Nevertheless, our great problem was that there was no further time for negotiation.

In the early stages of the negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was involved with me, with European Ministers and Ministers from the umbrella group, we reached the agreement that I mentioned to the House. My right hon. Friend then went to the programme, hoping that the agreement that we had all reached would be taken to the president. However, the European Ministers decided—[Interruption.] They did not hold a vote on the issue—they did not reject the proposal; they said that there was not enough information. They assumed that the agreement would be taken to the president to put into his final document—[Interruption.]

I can only give hon. Members the facts as they were: there was no vote on the matter; there was no rejection by Euro Ministers—they did not have enough information to endorse the agreement. The agreement was then to be sent to the president, who would discuss it with the Group of 77. That was the negotiation process that had been agreed. We put those negotiations to the president so that they could be put before the whole conference. That is what we were involved in doing.

There were great difficulties—certainly passions were involved—but when I left the negotiations, they had well finished. We had reported back to the group. Other Ministers had left. My plane home was at 2 o'clock. I left that building after other Ministers had left and after the president had made clear that there would be no further negotiations. In fact, I had not been home for three weekends, so I admit to the weakness of wanting to go home that night. I leave the House to make a judgment about that.

As to the accusation that I am a macho man—moi? The remark leaves me most gutted. I did what I thought was best. We came close to an agreement, but time ran out for us. The conference president has now remitted the conference to its next meeting in May. I shall work hard with my French colleagues and with European Ministers to reach a final agreement. This country and the rest of the world expect us to do something about climate change and we are committed to doing that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for all the hard work that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment put in to the negotiations. I share his frustration that an agreement was not reached; I hope that he can go back and get that agreement. Does he agree that most people in Britain, and many in British industry, cannot understand why the United States is unable to make the sort of contribution that a civilised country should make to this problem?

Mr. Prescott

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, but I must correct him on one point. Those of us who negotiated at Kyoto know that the concepts involved—clean development mechanism, emissions trading and some forest sinks—were part of the agreement and were put forward by the Americans. If they had not been, we should not have been negotiating at The Hague. To be fair to the Americans, the concepts about which we had reservations, but which the Group of 77 have very much come to accept, were part of the final agreement.

There may be disagreements with the Americans about their proposals; after all, they negotiate according to their interests—and why not? That is precisely what European nations should do, too. However, the process of negotiation is to try to set limits on what is agreed, and that is what is difficult. The Americans played their part in the negotiations just as much as anyone else.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing genuine regret at the failure of the Hague talks? What lessons on climate change can he take from the Conservative party, which recently announced its intention to scrap the climate change levy? Will he confirm—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not the business of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Foster

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that at lunch-time he held a meeting with representatives of a large number of non-governmental organisations; that he was specifically asked whether the deal that he had negotiated would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the US; and that he was unable to give a straight answer? Given the confusion that clearly exists on this issue, can he understand why other countries were not prepared to sign up to the deal that he put on the table? Is it not the case that—at least on this occasion—no deal is better than a bad deal?

Mr. Prescott

It is for all of us to make judgments on whether no deal is better than a bad deal. I personally think that it was a good deal. Had we been able to get the package together, we would have reduced carbon emissions, which was the proposal; we would have tightened it up so that the countries would not have exploited the planting of forests in developing countries, which was a major concern; and we would have had an overall reduction in carbon gas emissions in 2010. The hon. Gentleman refers to the meeting that I held with the green groups. I told them that, yes, there was a reduction and I gave the amounts.

Mr. Foster

What are the figures?

Mr. Prescott

I shall give them now for the record, and the hon. Gentleman can write them down and then tell the green groups. It was clear that the Americans proposed that forest sinks would equate to 300 million carbon tonnes. That figure went down to 125 million tonnes during the negotiations. I negotiated it down further to 75 million tonnes, and I believe that that was still not the end of the road, but time was short and the document had to be taken up to the conference itself so all the parties to the negotiations could endorse or reject it. It is not true that I did not give the amounts earlier, and they are now on record. On that basis, it can be seen that there was good faith in the negotiations. We got a reduction and, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his knowledge of such issues, planting forests in developing countries under the clean development mechanism was seen as a major loophole. I was the first to get it removed from the deal with the Americans.

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the role that he has played? May I tell him how important many of us regard the removing of forest sinks from the clean development mechanism and, indeed, the capping of the contribution that such sinks could make in the United States? Will he do his utmost to ensure that both the outline agreements are kept on the table in all future talks, while continuing his pressure on the United States to make real cuts in domestic emissions?

Mr. Prescott

I thank my hon. Friend for her words of support. As I have said, I am pleased that we stopped the development of forest sinks under the clean development mechanism. That major, fundamental change was very much welcomed by the European Ministers when I proposed it to them. On the capping of the United States, it is true that the amounts that we were talking about required not only a ceiling, but greater scientific assessment so that we could judge, over time, whether the science worked and whether it was being abused. The Americans agreed to that at that stage.

On whether the same documents will be put on the table, I must be fair, as one of those in the negotiations, and say that when Ministers get to that stage they have to cut a political deal. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about. Politicians have to use their judgment because all the evidence might not be as clear as they would want. A deal has to be made, and no party to it would want to start the negotiations again if they had already given everything that they thought they could at that stage.

I regret that it is most likely that the negotiators will go back to their original positions. We have already been told that the document used by the president is likely to be used. Given that the settlement that I negotiated, with others, was far better than the president's, we will start off in a worse position, but I hope that we shall reach the better one than I proposed.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would agree,

especially after today's announcement, that it would have been better if he had not made the personal comments that appear to have been made, given that he has to negotiate further with those people? Does he agree that there is considerable doubt about the effect of the agreement that he wanted? His recent answer did not dispel that doubt, so will he answer a simple question? By how much would the United States domestic emissions have been reduced under the agreement that he hoped he would get, and how does that compare with the domestic reductions of the European Union?

Mr. Prescott

The right hon. Gentleman was greatly involved in leading the negotiations in the early stages. I think that I must be the first Minister to include an opposite number on the delegation; I recognise the role that he has played. He will know that it is difficult to get precise information when it is based on such variables. Indeed, that was my real problem with the European Ministers, who asked exactly what the reduction would be. Let me give an example. If the opportunity to include forest sinks in the clean development mechanism for developing countries no longer exists, a judgment has to be made about how much they save. Some say that it is as much as 35 per cent. of the effort required, but what is that as a proportion of the American or, indeed, global contribution? It was very difficult to make a precise definition in the two hours that we were negotiating—I readily admit that. We talked the matter over with the Ministers, but, at the end of the day, we have to obtain a reduction in emissions and make sure that it is a reduction and not a plus. All the figures show that an agreement would have led to a clear reduction in Europe as well as in America. It would have been a greater reduction in America, because it is the greatest emitter.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

My right hon. Friend has been talking to representatives of a Democratic American Administration and we are likely to have a Republican one in January. Can he assure us that he will develop close relations with the people with whom he might have to sit at a future conference to re-address the same issues?

Mr. Prescott

I must admit that that was one of my considerations, although people will understand that I do not wish to pass comment on who should be the next President of the United States. The political climate can change in six months as it can in six years. It is an important consideration for anyone in negotiations and it certainly was in my mind. We had an opportunity, because Ministers from America and other countries were prepared to come to an agreement. As we have seen from past negotiations, Ministers, Governments and policies change, and we have one opportunity to reach an agreement. I thought that this was the opportunity, but I will not give up looking for another one. However, it is a pity that we did not take this one.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

I believe that the US and the UK position has to be different from that of the French and that we need to move the French to reach an agreement, so will the Deputy Prime Minister take advantage of this opportunity to apologise to his opposite number in France? I do not think that personal abuse helps to achieve agreement. Does he agree that, if he apologised now, we might get the agreement that he wants?

Mr. Prescott

As the right hon. Gentleman has a reputation in the House for apologising for nothing and for being highly personal in most of his comments, his question is a bit of a cheek. Let me make the position absolutely clear. It was not simply the French who opposed the deal. European Ministers agreed by about 2:1 that they did not have sufficient information to endorse the agreement. However, all that was required was to send the agreement to the president to put it to the conference of delegates who were negotiating. I put together an agreement between two important parties—the umbrella nations and the European nations. An agreement was reached by 10 Ministers from Europe and the umbrella countries but, when it was properly and democratically presented to Ministers from the European Union, those Ministers took the view that, although they endorsed the initiative and particularly the clean development mechanism proposal, they did not have enough information to judge whether it was a good or bad deal. They wanted more negotiations and the deal to be sent to the president.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

Was the European Union supposed to be negotiating as a single bloc at the conference? If so, was that done under the specific provisions of the treaty or was it merely an informal ad hoc arrangement?

Mr. Prescott

My right hon. Friend knows that the Commission has certain responsibilities in international negotiations and often negotiates on behalf of the Community. We were at this conference as European Ministers deciding common policy in negotiations. As he knows, even if we come to a common European position, as we did for the target of 8.5 per cent., Europe then decides the variation of targets between the nations known as the "bubble" and Britain's contribution was 12.5 per cent. We all signed individually to the protocol; it was not signed simply by the Commission, which signs in its own right.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

As someone who helped to broker agreement between the European Union and the United States in the run-up to the Rio summit—which started the whole process—may I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the efforts that he made last week? However, does he think that the anti-American tirade in which President Chirac engaged early in the week was helpful? Does he not think, on reflection, that the French were probably always determined to do what they could to subvert any compromise so as to enable them to pillory the United States and put it in the stocks?

Mr. Prescott

I am not sure that that is entirely right, although when President Chirac made the valid point in his opening statement that, taking account of population, the amount of gas emissions in America is far greater than that of France, it was interpreted as a criticism. He also said that there should be a levy—a kind of tax—on the mechanisms so that they can be accepted by the third world. Although that was proposed by the president of the Council of Ministers, it was opposed by many European countries at the conference which interpreted it as an anti-American, and therefore difficult, proposition because the Americans had made it clear—as we did—that they would not accept such a deal. The conference president included that and other measures, including our proposal, in his document, but it is important to get on with making a deal and negotiating to produce the agreement that is necessary to improve our climate by implementing the changes advocated in the protocol.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central)

In joining others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his role in searching for a deal, can I urge him to reconsider the matter so that next time the deal sticks? Does he believe that public opinion in the United States—which is, as he said, the overwhelming emitter of carbon gases in the world—is being led by the political leadership in a way that allows it to realise the enormous tasks that American society faces if we are to achieve such changes?

Mr. Prescott

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We have to return to all the parties involved. It has been suggested that perhaps we could negotiate without including the Americans, but people who believe that America, as the greatest emitter of gases, should not be part of the negotiations are kidding themselves about a successful conclusion. We must bear it in mind that, although the overall cut in emissions worldwide under the Kyoto agreement was estimated to be about 5.5 per cent., all the environmentalists tell us that it needs to be nearer 60 per cent. to achieve any real effect. Although this is only one small step, it is an important step in the right direction with the machinery that can bring about far better changes.

As for public opinion, I have no doubt that it is changing in every country, including those that I have visited, such as India, China or the United States. People, including Americans, are connecting the climates in their countries with climate change problems. The oil companies, the car industry and others formed a coalition against the changes proposed at the Kyoto conference three years ago, and I am especially pleased that those interests have changed their minds completely and are working to bring about the technological changes that are necessary to improve the environment. We will hear the same arguments, hopefully with the same people, and, hopefully, with a better result.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Although in parts of the United States the opposition to such issues is diabolical, is there not a whiff of hypocrisy from the French Minister, whose Government allow French hauliers to enjoy the advantage of diesel at 62p a litre compared with 87p a litre here? What chance is there of getting a sensible compromise and a level playing field on such issues within Europe when the French Government seem to take a mutually contradictory posture?

Mr. Prescott

To be fair to the French Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Why not? To be fair, European Union nations reach a common decision on most agreements. We have agreed in the climate change protocol that the world target should be reduced by 5.5 per cent., of which Europe would contribute 8 per cent., but nations will have different objectives—I think that Germany's is 21 per cent. and ours is 12.5 per cent. Each European nation must have a set of proposals to achieve those objectives, some of which are to do with fuel prices and other matters with which this country is involved. There may be different priorities, and we will have to live with those, but achieving the overall objective is the most important consideration.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)

Those of our constituents whose homes are threatened by rising sea levels will want to know the answer to a simple question: where next? In particular, how do we make the green politicians on the continent accept the practical realities of the situation in which they have to negotiate, and how do we get the United States to start moving forward in lieu of an agreement?

Mr. Prescott

It is important to get movement. Three years ago in Kyoto, the European nations wanted a target of a 15 per cent. decrease in gases, whereas we eventually settled for an average of 8 per cent. The European nations agreed a set of policies and a set of targets to achieve the objectives. The fact that a compromise was reached, with the European nations moving from 15 to 8 per cent, and the Americans moving from 0 to 8 per cent, and that compromises took place at The Hague on the part of the Europeans, the Group of 77, the Americans and the umbrella group, fills me with enough confidence to believe that an agreement will eventually be achieved. The overall feeling at the conference was in favour of an agreement. We came close, but unfortunately we did not achieve one.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the question in English, for the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister. What was the extent of the mandate that the Deputy Prime Minister was given to negotiate on behalf of the European Union delegation with the American delegation? Bearing in mind that he wishes to be regarded as a sensitive, charming soul, did he really mean to offend the French Minister by referring to her lack of understanding of the complex issues involved? Was it a lack of time or a lack of charm on his part? What damage does he think has been done to the entente cordiale in the run-up to the Nice summit?

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Lady's question would have sounded better in French. What we should keep to the fore of our minds is the importance of getting an agreement, whatever the passions, feelings and expressions of the Ministers involved.

May I make a correction? I did not say that the lady was tired; she herself constantly said that she was too tired at the time to take in all the complexities. That is not condemnable, as the negotiations were extremely complex. That must be taken into account. I quoted her words; I did not pass the judgment. I was trying to explain why we did not come to an agreement when she sat with the European Ministers, took part in the negotiations with me, and then went into the main meeting and said that she was too tired to think through all the complexities. To be fair, it was the same for most Ministers who had been involved in negotiations for 36 hours. I did not intend any comment about her tiredness; it was her comment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at many such summits, someone trots out a long declaration of all the wonderful things that have been achieved, and when one deciphers it, one finds that the summit has probably been a failure? When my right hon. Friend came out of those discussions and said, "I'm gutted", that said everything. It was like a breath of fresh air. In the heartlands in Britain, my right hon. Friend's statement was enough for people. They knew what had happened. One of the things that sticks in my craw is the fact that those Tories, who have jumped on every bandwagon that they can find, have now jumped on a French bus round the Paris périphérique.

Mr. Prescott

My hon. Friend sums up the position very well.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

Did the Deputy Prime Minister have a chance to read the comments of the Danish representative at the conference, who suggested that the right hon. Gentleman's description of the French arose from the fact that he was under strain? Will he assure the House that that was not the case, and that it was all part of a careful and subtle piece of diplomacy to sweet talk the French round? Does he understand that, in talking the French and our other European partners round, the most important thing is for him to be able to answer the basic question: after his compromise deal, will the United States' level of emissions be greater or less? If they will be less, by how much?

Mr. Prescott

I shall deal first with the remarks of my Danish colleague, if that is what he said. There is a great danger in commenting on press reports which wrongly attribute remarks to me. The same may have happened in his case, so I shall not enter into that game of exchanges. He was in the negotiations with me, sat in the committee, heard what the final agreement was, chaired a committee that dealt with the clean development mechanisms with the Group of 77 and the Americans, and entirely failed to get what I achieved—getting the Americans to drop the clean development mechanism. [Interruption.] I have been asked about individuals who were involved in the negotiations. My Danish colleague then congratulated me on achieving that. It might be thought that I was under strain, but we must keep our eyes on the main ball. Our intention was to remove sinks from the clean development mechanism—that was the main ball. I achieved that. That alone was a major change in the negotiations. We were able to deny developed countries access to planting forest sinks, which meant that the deal was reduced, the American proportions being cut back. The tonnages were reduced from 300 million tonnes to 125 million, down to 75 million. That made a considerable difference.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)

Will my right hon. Friend resist the new Conservative policy to sweet talk the French, and instead turn his attention to the Americans and bring home to the new American President the deep concern throughout the world that the Americans cannot continue to consume a quarter of the world's oil supply every year when they have less than 4 per cent. of the world's population?

Mr. Prescott

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the factual point that he makes about America. I have had many discussions with Vice-President Gore during the past three years, and I have no doubt that he understands the point. He has used it in the elections when talking about the environment. It perhaps is more difficult to make the point in America, given public opinion, than it is here. Nevertheless, there is awareness of it. Vice-President Gore has been an active campaigner for global environmental changes.

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

As the Deputy Prime Minister has attributed the breakdown of the negotiations to one issue, can we assume that the other big issues, which were matters of difference, such as compensation for oil-producing companies and the demand of the large intensive energy developing countries such as China for financial assistance, have been resolved?

Mr. Prescott

I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman into believing that the negotiations broke down on one issue. It was, however, a major issue between European countries and umbrella countries that could be settled only by ourselves. That is why I sought to intervene as I did. Many contentious issues were being dealt with. As for the specific issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, there was talk of compensation being paid to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. There was not a great deal of sympathy for the idea that we should raise money and give it to the oil companies. That was a matter of contention for the oil companies, which were quite strong in the negotiating group, the Group of 77.

There was the prospect of a major agreement of a billion-dollar fund that would be available to help developing countries, which they welcomed. It would have come from various sources of funding. There had been agreement between the three major parties to the negotiations. I am sad that the fund has not been put into effect because we did not reach an agreement. We will keep on trying.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

May I ask about another issue that was originally in dispute between the United States and the European Union, and that is the role of nuclear energy in the clean development mechanism? The issue has not been reported over the weekend. Can my right hon. Friend say something about what agreement, if any, was reached about the role of nuclear energy and the CDM?

Mr. Prescott

That is an important point, and a controversial one in the European group of Ministers. The issue is that, with any aid that is given to developing countries under the CDM, we should not be supporting any nuclear projects. There are those who say that even the huge dams that are being created should not be included. There was great disagreement about that within the European group. More importantly, the Group of 77 took the view—I am sympathetic to the view—that it was not prepared to have developed countries tell developing countries how they should deal with their industrialisation. I think that I referred to that approach as a new form of economic colonialism. There was a controversial debate within the European group. However, the Group of 77 would not agree that developed countries should dictate to developing countries. I have some sympathy for that. The discussion added nothing to the process of agreement, but because the European group was talking about the issue, that added to the problems of time, delay and eventual failure.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must move on to the next statement.