News Release: 8/3/06
Labour/Co-operative MP unites political parties in call for more accessible employee ownership
In a Parliamentary debate on Tuesday 7th March 2006, Labour/Co-op MP Mark Hendrick (Preston)
proposed a number of improvements to the tax and legal regimes that affect how employee share schemes operate.
He also suggested the setting up of a support unit, ‘Employees Direct’ which would work alongside the Inland Revenue to promote the interests of employees in share ownership schemes.
Mark proposed that share ownership plans that provide facilities for wider participation, involving ‘not just the big boys at the top in management,’ should receive tax advantages that other employee-owned trusts should not.
During the debate, Mark gained the support of all three main political parties for an extension of employee ownership.
For the Government, Paymaster General Dawn Primarolo, congratulated Mark Hendrick for securing a debate which, ‘might just be the first debate on employee share ownership in which all three political parties present—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour—have talked about making a commitment to it.’
She agreed to meet with Mark to discuss in detail his proposals for an ‘Employees Direct’ unit.
Mark Hendrick commented, ‘As Chair of the Co-operative Parliamentary Group, I see the importance of continuing to press for more and better support for employee ownership. We made great progress through Mark Lazarowicz’s Employee Share Schemes Act and we need to continue to build on that.’
Notes: Mark Hendrick is the Chair of the Westminster Co-operative Parliamentary Group. The Co-operative Party is the second largest centre left party and has 29 MPs in Parliament, 8 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, 4 Member of the Welsh Assembly, as well as over 350 local councillors.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dawn Primarolo.] 9.30 am
Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): I am fortunate to be selected to have this debate. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I believe that it is important for employees in an enterprise to have a stake in the business in which they work, for a variety of reasons. First, a stake incentivises them, because they are likely to be more motivated to ensure that the enterprise is a success. Secondly, a stake tends to give the employee more influence in the running and operation of the enterprise than an employee with no stake whatever in the company. To some extent that gives the employee a voice and allows various democratic influences to be brought to bear on the enterprise. Co-operative businesses have played a role in achieving those outcomes, but employee-owned and trust-owned businesses generally have also operated to some degree on that basis. I shall propose a number of ways of improving the tax and legal regimes that affect the environment in which employee share schemes operate. Following that, I intend to suggest the setting up of a support unit working alongside the Inland Revenue to deal with the non-financial aspects of employee share ownership.
The Employee Share Schemes Act 2002 was carried through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It received strong support from the Co-operative party, and its passage was also assisted by the advice and guidance of Job Ownership Ltd, which, for those who are unacquainted with it, is an association of employee-owned and trust-owned businesses.
There are a number of key points to be made about employee share ownership schemes. First, employee financial participation is welcomed by the Government and has grown significantly, owing to favourable tax treatment, in particular my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's tax advantaged share incentive plan and his enterprise management incentives share option plan, both of which were introduced in 2000. However, research shows generally that employee financial participation alone does not transform employee commitment or greatly boost productivity. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend is a fellow Labour and Co-operative Member, as, indeed, is my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, who has done so much in this and the previous Parliament. Does he agree that, for employee commitment and all the other benefits that can come from employee share ownership, it is important for a broad-based ownership to arise from the use of such measures and any fiscal incentives? There is some evidence that ownership is sometimes restricted to the upper tiers of the employees—directors and others. There have also been some rather unfortunate activities, as in QinetiQ and elsewhere, which bring such activity into disrepute. For the full debate please follow the link below: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/halltext/60307h01.htm#60307h01_head0
7 March 2006
Parliamentary Inquiry calls for independent valuation of proposed “windfall” payouts in demutualisations
An All-Party Parliamentary Group examining the true cost of demutualisation among life companies and building societies has recommended that legislation is introduced requiring an independent check on “windfalls” to ensure members’ interests are being protected.
The report, “Windfalls or Shortfalls? The true cost of demutualisation”, [attached] is based on the group’s short Inquiry, held in November. It comes shortly before Standard Life publishes the proposed pay-out to members in its proposed demutualisation this year. The report will be launched today (7 March) in Parliament.
The APPG report concluded that too many people in previous demutualisations have not been clear on the benefits, or otherwise, of the proposals from their institutions and have not had sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. Often the only material they will have received comes from boards who are campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote.
The inquiry’s findings include:
Adrian Bailey MP, Inquiry Chairman, said: “Our report is a timely and authoritative examination of this important area. It is essential that consumers have as much information as possible before making decisions crucial to their financial well-being. We have taken soundings from all sides of the financial services sector and our conclusions are based on clear analysis of the evidence. I urge people to read the report.”
The report was written by Ian Welch of ACCA (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants). ACCA has been working with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Building Societies & Financial Mutuals on its inquiry, and the report includes a survey of ACCA members in the UK financial services sector.
Notes to editors
For further information please contact:
Adrian Bailey MP, c/o Peter Hunt, Mutuo, 020 7367 4154/07785 223846
Ian Welch, ACCA Head of Corporate Communications, 020 7059 5729/07739
862928 ian.welch@accaglobal.com
Helen Thompson, ACCA PR Manager 020 7059 5759/07725 498654
EDM 1789 CHILD TRUST FUNDS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
Bailey, Adrian
That this House notes that of the 1,305,000 Child Trust Fund accounts reported
by the Inland Revenue as opened at 5th January 2006, 567,000 have been lodged with
friendly societies; recognises that this represents nearly 44 per cent. of all child
trust funds to date; further notes that friendly societies are mutual organisations
that offer investment and financial protection to people in all walks of life; commends
their strong contribution to the delivery of this key policy to develop a regular savings
habit among United Kingdom citizens; and calls upon the Government fully to appreciate
the important contribution that friendly societies make when targeting tax incentives
to encourage savings.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=30248&SESSION=875
THE ENVIRONMENT
Climate Change Communications Initiative
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what notice was given to the National Assembly for Wales of the launch in January 2006 of the climate change communications initiative, tomorrow's climate, today's challenge; what financial input into the initiative the National Assembly was asked to provide; what percentage of that input was committed to benefit Wales; and if she will make a statement.
Mr. Morley: The climate communications initiative was launched in December 2005,
and the climate challenge fund and youth competition were announced in January 2006.
Officials from my Department had been in discussion in general terms with officials
from the National Assembly for Wales prior to and following the announcement of the
climate change communications initiative in February 2005. The indicative figure for
Welsh participation in the youth competition was £5,000, equating to the inclusion of
one young climate champion from Wales. Discussions on the challenge fund focused largely
on the principle of participation, with an indicative contribution for the duration of
the fund of the order of £300,000-£500,000 based pro-rata on population. All of the
monies coming from Wales would have benefited Welsh applicants, with some allowance
for administration.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/text/60307w07.htm#60307w07.html_sbhd1
Climate-proofing (Policy Delivery)
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions
she is holding with other Departments on climate proofing new policy delivery.
Mr. Morley: My Department has been consulting with many other Government Departments
and other organisations in the development of the climate change Adaptation Policy
Framework. A consultation document was issued in November 2005, and the consultation
period ended on 31 January 2006. The results of this exercise will be published later this year.
The Adaptation Policy Framework is seeking to integrate adaptation to climate change into
the wider policy making process so that it can be considered alongside other policy objectives
and priorities.
Throughout the development of the Adaptation Policy Framework we will be seeking to continue
to build on our relationships with other Departments and all regions.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/text/60307w07.htm#60307w07.html_sbhd1
Cryosat Mission (Global Warming)
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
she has made of the role of the European Space Agency's Cryosat mission in assessing global
warming; and if she will make a statement.
Mr. Morley: Cryosat 2 will make a unique contribution to understanding how Arctic
sea ice is thinning due to global warming, and the extent to which the Antarctic and
Greenland ice sheets are contributing to global sea level rise.
In parallel with the space-based mission there will be extensive complementary modelling
and ground-based experiments to maximise the scientific return from the mission. This will
lead to improved predictions of future sea-ice extent and sea-level rise.
The lead scientist for the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Cryosat mission is Professor
Duncan Wingham, Director of the Natural Environment Research Council's (NERC's) Centre
for Polar Observation and Modelling, based at University College, London. NERC is responsible
for the UK's subscription to ESA's Earth Observation Envelope Programme, through which Cryosat
is funded.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/text/60307w07.htm#60307w07.html_sbhd1
Greenhouse Gases
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was emitted from water treatment and sewerage systems
in 2004–05; and what assessment she has made of the trend in emissions from such sources. [55457]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 6 March 2006]: The main greenhouse gases emitted during the handling
and treatment of sewerage are methane and nitrous oxide. Total greenhouse gas emissions from this
sector were 2.0 million tonnes of carbon dioxide 2004, the most recent year for which data are
available. Emissions from this sector have grown by 15 per cent. since 1990, the base year for
emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. However, overall emissions of methane and nitrous oxide have
fallen by 50 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively, since 1990.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/text/60307w07.htm#60307w07.html_sbhd1
Greener Fuels (Taxation)
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister, because he can sustain an intelligent and thoughtful
dialogue on any subject and particularly one such as this. The debate gives a pre-Budget airing
to what is, to some extent, a perennial topic in the House. I shall talk largely about the transport
element of biofuel and not allow myself to venture onto other aspects of green fuel.
The fiscal system for biofuel and for greener fuel in general poses the Treasury with a dilemma.
The Treasury's traditional role is to raise money in an acceptable and efficient way—that is the
old rule by which the Treasury has abided for century after century. In recent times, however,
the Treasury has had a new mission and has imposed taxes to change, penalise and encourage certain
behaviour. As a result, we have the concept of environmental taxation, and therein lies the dilemma.
If the Treasury succeeds manifestly in changing behaviour, it almost simultaneously succeeds in
reducing the revenue that it would normally receive. I sometimes think that it should, in its own
interests, allow us to pursue our own path to perdition, by letting us carry on smoking, drinking,
gambling and polluting, thus providing itself with a stable income base, or that it should adopt the
philosophy of sad resignation.
In recent times, however, the Treasury has had a much wider policy objective. The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Paul Boateng, emphatically set out the Treasury's commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions and achieve other desirable environmental effects through taxation. None the less, one might suspect that some in the Treasury harbour residual doubts about the sanity of that procedure. There must, therefore, always be doubts about the sincerity of the Treasury's efforts. We must none the less confront the fact that there are differential tax rates on bioethanol, biodiesel, liquid petroleum gas and ultra-low sulphur fuels. However, the effect of that tax regime is not exactly magnificent. Since 2000–05, the number of LPG vehicles has increased by a factor of five. That is not a massive increase, because the number of vehicles has increased only from 20,000 to 120,000. The number of outlets where one can obtain LPG has increased from 130 to about 490. The tax take has gone up to about £10 million, although that pales into insignificance compared with the £12 billion obtained from petrol. For LPG, therefore, the results are relatively modest.
Nor has there been massive success with bioethanol and biofuels in general, which are covered by the renewable fuels obligation. In a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), stated quite categorically that they represent about 0.3 per cent. of the fuel used. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060308/halltext/60308h02.htm#60308h02_head0
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con) : What mechanisms are in place to monitor the accuracy of published
figures of greenhouse gas emissions for measuring progress against climate change targets; and if she will
make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The figures used to
monitor progress towards the UK's climate change targets are published annually in the UK's greenhouse
gas inventory. The inventory is subject to annual independent scientific peer review by a team of specialists
organised by the secretariat of the UN framework convention on climate change. The inventory also contains
internal quality assurance and quality control procedures, in line with international guidance prepared by the
intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Mr. Mackay: Has the well publicised row between the Secretary of State's Department and the Department of
Trade and Industry, which concerned the measurement of baseline greenhouse gas emissions, been satisfactorily
resolved yet?
Margaret Beckett: There is no row. I do not row with my colleagues. If I understood him correctly, the
right hon. Gentleman was asking about the baseline emissions, which are a matter for technical assessment
and scientific advice.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend recall that my private
Member's Bill includes a specific requirement in respect of Government reporting on greenhouse gas emissions
that would deal with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? Does
she agree that one of the best things that he or anyone else concerned with this matter could do would be
to be here at 9.30 tomorrow morning to support my Bill? I am glad to say that it enjoys support from the
Government and across the House.
Margaret Beckett: I congratulate my hon. Friend, on his Bill and on his sales pitch.
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): The data show very clearly that carbon dioxide emissions have increased
by 2.9 per cent. since the Government came to power. Moreover, the Secretary of State will know that
environmental taxes peaked at 3.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1999, according to figures
from the Office for National Statistics, but that the latest figures show that they have slipped to
3 per cent. Does she think that there may be some connection between falling environmental taxes,
which are now lower as a share of GDP even than when the Government came into office, and the record of
failure on emissions?
Margaret Beckett: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I am sure that he
will find the subject fascinating and enjoyable, as we all do. I do not agree with the basic premise
of his question—that CO 2 levels have risen because of changes in the impact of taxation. In fact,
the rise has much more to do with the impact of fuel prices on the choices of fuel made by power
generators. We very much regret that impact and, although the most recent figures suggest that it
might not have been as severe between 2003 and 2004 as we had anticipated, we completely accept that
we have to get the rise under control. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman of one further fact that
undermines the point that he made: all five EU countries whose emissions are lower than they were in
1990 recorded an increase in CO 2 emissions in the period to which he referred.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): In respect of emission reductions, is there any reason to doubt
the validity of the 2003 Energy White Paper? It argued that energy efficiency was the safest and cleanest
way to manage carbon reductions.
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that judgment. Energy efficiency
can be a very powerful tool. For historical reasons of under-investment over many decades in this country,
it is available to us to a greater degree than is the case with the many other European countries that up
to now have been able to deliver higher levels of energy efficiency. However, my hon. Friend will know that
the investment put in by this Government, not least through the warm front programme, means that we are
beginning to make inroads in that respect.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): Some Opposition Members wish that the Secretary of State would
have rather more rows with the DTI. Her Department says that, on current trends, we will cut carbon emissions
by 13 per cent. by 2010, but the DTI says that the cut will amount to only 10 per cent. Are DEFRA and the DTI
working on different sets of data and predictive models, and which figure is right?
Margaret Beckett: The latest figures predict a cut of about 10 per cent., but the two Departments are not
working on different models. Figures and assessments are being revised all the time, as information comes
in. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes that I would have more rows with my colleagues, but I find
that that does not help me to get my own way, which is what I like to do.
Mr. Ainsworth: We are very supportive of the right hon. Lady getting her own way, and hope that she is
successful. We know that relations with the DTI are difficult, but how is she getting on with monitoring
the accuracy of the data used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor? Is she aware
of research that shows that the ODPM's efforts to predict greenhouse gas emissions from new housing are
completely flawed because they are based on data that are 25 years out of date? What discussions did she
have with the Treasury about the accuracy of published figures on greenhouse gas emissions before the Chancellor
aborted the operating and financial review? That decision has wasted millions of pounds, angered responsible
business leaders and underlined yet again that, although she may be serious about climate change, the Government
as a whole cannot be trusted on the issue.
Margaret Beckett: With respect, that question muddles together several issues. It is true that the operating and
financial review is not going ahead, but there remain requirements on companies to report on environmental standards
under other legislation, which is partly why it was decided that there was no need to have two different sets of
reasons for reporting. As for the validity of data from other Departments, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's
party is now saying that it wants us all to be on the same page and move in the same direction on such issues.
That is good, and I welcome that. However, the issue is not the data—whether they are as good as they should be or
could be improved—but what we actually do about them. That is something on which I would like to see greater agreement.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060309/debtext/60309-01.htm#60309-01_sbhd0
Climate Change
3. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the findings of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department has accepted the
assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change as providing the most authoritative picture of climate
change. The third assessment report of the IPCC was published in 2001 and has made a most valuable contribution to
our understanding of the importance of the issue. The IPCC is undertaking its fourth assessment. The draft reports
are currently undergoing peer review and will not be published until 2007.
Tony Lloyd: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's remark that the IPCC produces the most authoritative reports?
However, its reports have not been uniformly accepted throughout the world, even though the science that they
contain is as good as it can get. We surmise from the leaks of the draft of the report that my right hon. Friend
will have in April that it will be even more dire in its predictions than previous reports, because it will say
that there is no upper limit to temperature increases owing to carbon dioxide increases. Does the Minister believe
that it will galvanise the whole of the international community, including the United States and countries that
opted out of Kyoto, to do something serious about climate change?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of those who question the science has diminished
dramatically. That can only be a good thing. The new draft report is still undergoing peer review, so this is a
delicate time to comment, but over the past year, not least as a result of the efforts of this Government through
our G8 and European Union presidencies, even those who may retain some lingering traces of scepticism have accepted
that the risks are such that it is wise for them to address those risks. That is why we are seeing more emphasis
on adaptation, and not just on reducing emissions, although the two have to go together. As my hon. Friend will know,
following the Gleneagles summit and the establishment of the Gleneagles dialogue, there is now a much greater
degree of international dialogue, exchange, communication and so on, drawing in all the major economies of the
world. We hope that that will provide us with a way forward.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that an important contribution to addressing the
findings of the IPCC would be to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from our power stations by the use of biomass?
In that context, could the Secretary of State explain to the House why the value of the renewables obligation
certificates now makes it less attractive to use biomass as a co-firing fuel medium in power stations at the
very time when research shows that as a biofuel it gives the best return per hectare in carbon dioxide reductions?
Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is growing awareness of the value and
potential of biomass and of biofuels. The value of the renewables obligation certificates and the issues that
go with that are part of what the Government are looking at in the energy review. I am sure that, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he will know what other
Members may not have fully realised, which is that the European Commission has recently published further
observations on the role and importance of biomass and biofuels. There is growing recognition of their potential
and a growing will to develop the industries in the European Union.
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK space industry plays a tremendous
role in providing earth-observing platforms? At what level does her Department talk to the UK space industry
on global warming and other matters regarding the planet?
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure what direct contacts we have with the industry, but our scientists draw on a
wide range of disciplines and information. They are very much in touch with other scientists and have done a
huge amount of observational work with them. Not unusually in this field, we have some of the best scientific
expertise anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend may know that our climate change scientists are making the
fruits of their work more freely available—for example, in the developing world, to aid in adaptation.
Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Although I acknowledge the serious nature of the problems of climate
change that face us all, the Secretary of State will remember that the five Opposition parties wrote to her
offering to work with her Department and the Government to find a united way to face that challenge. Has she
accepted that offer?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I did receive such a letter and I welcomed it, as I have indicated before, because
it suggested that all the parties represented in the House accept the science and the targets that the Government
have set, which is very much an important step forward. There are two other things, however. I shall not start
ringing bells until I can see that we are in greater agreement about what we should actually do, because there
has been a pattern whereby all the concrete actions that the Government have proposed have been one by one opposed
by other parties in the House. We have not yet had an opportunity to test whether that has changed. It is a slightly
different matter for a Government to engage in dialogue about future policy development than it is for other parties,
although I very much hope that their policy decisions are fruitful, and greatly welcome the moves that have been made so far.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060309/debtext/60309-02.htm#60309-02_sbhd0
Climate Change
13. James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con) : If she will make a statement on the Government's
progress in meeting its climate change targets.
14. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab) : What progress has been made by the UK on its Kyoto commitments
on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The Government expect to
exceed by about 7 percentage points our Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions
by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. We have today published the UK's demonstrable progress report,
which has recently been sent to the secretariat of the United Nation's framework convention on climate change,
confirming our progress towards our target. A copy is available on my Department's website.
James Duddridge: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but given that Sir David King, the chief scientific
adviser, has stated that the 2010, not 2012, target will be "a very tough target" and that longer-term targets are
perhaps more critical, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050? Is
that now more of an aspirational than an achievable target?
Margaret Beckett: I am talking about the Kyoto targets, which are for greenhouse gases as a whole, whereas I
think that the hon. Gentleman's reference to Sir David King may have been about our CO 2 targets for 2010 and
2050. They are very tough targets. That is why they were set: there is a great deal to do. In the not-too-distant
future, we will publish the climate change review, to which we committed ourselves in 2000, to show how we can get
closer to those targets; but of course, no one has yet drawn out the path to 2050. Work is continuing on that,
and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep the House informed of that work.
Mr. Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend say what the British Government are doing to assist other countries
in achieving their climatic targets—for example, with projects, technology and so forth?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that not just the Government but the private
sector in the UK can do a great deal to help others. Developing countries do not have such targets, but
they can certainly make a substantial contribution towards solving or exacerbating the problem, as the
case may be, and now that we have the Kyoto protocol enforced, since the earlier part of this year, there
is increasing scope for projects to be developed under the clean development mechanism, whereby sometimes
Governments but sometimes private companies can invest in technologies in developing countries to help them
towards a low-carbon economy. Indeed, I rather take the view that that may be a big spur towards the transfer
of technology, which has been sought as a development goal for so long.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The Secretary of State will be aware that the Kyoto targets do not
include emissions from international aviation, which is obviously good news for any Minister who wishes to jet
off to international conferences on carbon emissions. However, how will the Secretary of State resolve the
discrepancies between her Department and the Department of Trade and Industry over aviation? Unless we repeal
the second law of thermodynamics, we cannot have the massive increase in aviation specified in the aviation
White Paper and reduce carbon emissions? How will she resolve that discrepancy?
Margaret Beckett: Of course I am aware that aviation is not included. At the time, it was thought to be much
too difficult and the belief was that, if people tried to include aviation, the project would never get off
the ground—sorry for that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, during our EU presidency, we got
agreement from the European Commission to consider including aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme.
There is what one could call a slightly theoretical commitment from the global aviation organisations that
emissions trading is the way to tackle the impact of aviation but no concrete steps have been taken towards
that. If we can get the matter agreed in the EU, that would be a hugely powerful step towards global action.
As for Ministers travelling to discuss climate change, the hon. Gentleman reminds me of a question that I was
asked at a meeting for the Gleneagles dialogue in London. One journalist asked why no Minister had arrived by
bike. I explained that it was a little difficult to get here by bike from Latin America.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060309/debtext/60309-05.htm#60309-05_sbhd2
Thursday 16 February, House of Commons
Westminster Hall Debate
Debate on the report of the Treasury Committee on cash machine charges. http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_forthcomingbusiness.cfm
Tuesday 14 February, 10.00am, House of Commons Treasury Select Committee Subject: Financial Inclusion Witness: Action for Employment (A4e) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmwib/wb060211/sel-1.htm
Monday 13 February, 4.30pm, House of Commons
Public Accounts Select Committee
Mr Stephen Quinn, Permanent Secretary and Mr Noel Lavery, Finance Director,
Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment;
Mr Leslie Morrison,
Chief Executive and Accounting Officer,
and Mr Charles Harding, Head of Corporate
Finance Appraisal and Advisory Division, Invest Northern Ireland
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmwib/wb060211/sel-1.htm
Monday 13 February, House of Commons
Motion to approve a Money Resolution on the International Development (Reporting and
Transparency) Bill
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_forthcomingbusiness.cfm
Wednesday 15 February, 10.30am, The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
International Development Select Committee
Subject: Conflict and Development
Witnesses:
Oli Brown, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
and Claire Hickson, Saferworld
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmwib/wb060211/sel-1.htm