HL Deb 25 April 2002 vol 634 cc364-6

3.25 p.m.

Lord Razzall

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What position they took, and why, on the dismissal of the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr Robert Watson.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, in view of Dr Robert Watson's outstanding leadership of the IPCC over the past five years the Government took the view that it would be in the best interests of the IPCC for him to continue as chairman or co-chair. The UK therefore strongly supported his nomination. In the event, Dr Watson was not re-elected. Dr Pachauri of India, also well respected, was elected by a clear majority. We are confident that the IPCC will be in good hands under his chairmanship. He has helpfully indicated that he would like Dr Watson to have a role in the future work of the IPCC.

Lord Razzall

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that as a result of the US Freedom of Information Act we now know that serious pressure was put on the US Government by Exxon Mobil to have Dr Watson removed or to engineer his removal? Does the Minister agree with Al Gore's comments in the New York Times this Monday that United States environmental policy has been hijacked by a group of former oil and chemical executives who are trying to dismantle the ability of the United States to force the oil and chemical industries to reduce levels of pollution? In the context of those comments does the Minister agree that the removal of Dr Watson was a mistake?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government strongly supported the reelection of Dr Watson. It is fairly well known, with or without the Freedom of Information Act, that there is strong pressure from oil interests on the present United States Administration. However, I cannot say whether that was crucial as regards the decision of the administration not to renominate Dr Watson and to support the nomination of Dr Pachauri. There was also pressure for a representative of the developing countries to chair the panel. Indeed, the majority received by Dr Pachauri probably reflected that view.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are times in the best of friendships when the gloves have to come off in order to protect valuable principles? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that it is clearly a step in the disinterest of Europe and in the interests of what appears to be the President of the United States' stand on environmental issues that this change of leadership has taken place?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have explained our view on the change of leadership. One cannot disagree with the noble Lord's first sentence. Her Majesty's Government regret the stance that the present American Administration has taken on environmental issues as regards its withdrawal from the Kyoto process and other domestic and international measures it has taken. However, as I say, a clear majority of the members of the panel elected to change its leadership. I do not believe that that can be entirely ascribed to the United States Administration. The Kyoto process lacks American participation, but the good news is that the European Union and the vast majority of countries will ratify the Kyoto treaty.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the statement that has been made that Exxon Mobil objected strongly to Dr Robert Watson? What has my noble friend to say about that?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I believe that it is true that the named companies did object strongly to Dr Watson and reflected that objection to the White House. As I said, I have no way of telling whether that was the crucial element in the White House's decision.

Lord May of Oxford

My Lords, given that Robert Watson is widely recognised as having embraced assent but forged a clear consensus on the balance of the science—that was endorsed recently by 17 of the world's major academies—does the Minister agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the person now appointed has been characterised in the scientific press as a "foot dragger" with respect to Kyoto?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have expressed my regret at the non-re-election of Dr Watson. However, it would be wrong, whatever the manoeuvres that took place and the various pressures that were exerted in the process, to dismiss Dr Pachauri as being a foot dragger. He has a commitment to this area and a record in relation to it. Indeed, there has been near unanimity in the IPCC on the analysis and on what needs to take place, as the noble Lord knows. I therefore hope that under the new leadership, the IPCC will continue to show the way in recognising the reality of the challenges presented to us by climate change.