JOHN HUMPHRYS: Michael Meacher, where do we stand now on this twenty per cent cut in CO2 by 2010. Is that a firm commitment today?. MICHAEL MEACHER: We are committed to the legally binding target of a twelve and a half per cent of the six greenhouse gases by 2010 and we have said that we intend to reach the twenty per cent cut in CO2 by 2010 which of course is going to be a lot tighter. It was in our manifesto, we remain committed to it, there's no question of backtracking on it, but it is a much tougher target but it is one which I believe when you look at the potential for saving on CO2 and other greenhouse gases in transport, in energy and the switch from fossil fuels to renewables it's one that I believe we can certainly meet. HUMPHRYS: The reason that some people are sceptical about it is that clearly it was promised in the manifesto, absolutely no question about that, you've used the word commitment again this morning. But, in the government's annual report, that thing in which you kind of measure yourself against your promises, what was ticked in the annual report, was leading the fight. There's was no mention of the twenty per cent there, nor was there any mention of it in the Chancellor's budget, so we are just slightly, some people are just slightly worried that perhaps it's being airbrushed out. MEACHER: Well you are becoming John just a bit too much of a criminologist.. HUMPHRYS: ..you have to be in this place.. MEACHER: ..I assure you there is no question of airbrushing out. We are looking at the policies which will deliver the twenty per cent target. The fact is as a result of measures already taken, closure of coal stations under the last government and improvements in energy efficiency already in the pipeline, we are a very long way towards meeting those Kyoto commitments, the twelve and a half per cent, we are something like nine or ten points towards it. HUMPHRYS: You were sort of eight and a half points before you got into office. MEACHER: I think about seven, but certainly we are a long way down the track so the task for us, where there are enormous potential in terms of energy saving, a better more environmentally sensitive transport system and a switch to renewable sources of energy. The task for us is to go beyond Kyoto and towards that twenty per cent. It is in the interests of consumers, they will have warmer, better insulated houses, it's in the interests of consumers, they will have a much more efficient transport system. It's in the interests of industry because they will be more competitive as a result of using more energy efficient techniques and of course it is in the interests of the government because we are going to have better protection of the environment. It's a win, win, win situation, that's what we are aiming at. HUMPHRYS: So when you publish your programme this year to tell us what you are going to do, is it going to be spelled out in detail, this is the commitment and these are the specific measures we will take to reach that figure?. MEACHER: Yes, that is exactly what we intend. We have a consultative paper which we published earlier this year. We are going to publish a draft strategy to achieve the climate change targets at around the end of the year and a final target as a result of further consultation by the middle of next year. That will be very detailed, it will take it sector by sector, what the targets are in each dimension where there can be saving in greenhouse gases.. HUMPHRYS: ..and how they will be reached. MEACHER: ..and how they will b reached. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's look at some of those ways then because energy as you've already said, that accounts for a vast amount of CO2 pollution. You've made it worse, you have cut VAT on fuel, there's a moratorium...well you have, there's a moratorium which may please an awful lot of people; old age pensioners whose budgets are tight of course, but nonetheless, the effect is to encourage us to use more fuel. There is a moratorium on building new gas fired power stations which as you say again, arguments for doing it, but in this particular sense it contributes to more CO2, because we are going to use more coal in our power stations. So what you are doing, you are actually seeing now an increase in CO2 over the figures that you had expected. MEACHER: Well you unerringly pick out, quite properly, quite correctly the two areas where we have allowed for some increase in CO2 over and above what might otherwise be the case. You have not mentioned and no doubt we will come on to this, the dozens of measures that we have taken that move us into the other direction. Let's take each of those. First of all, the reduction in VAT from eight to five per cent; we did that, although it is an anti-environmental measure, I absolutely agree with you, but we did it for overriding social policy reasons. We made perfectly clear before the election that we were going to reduce the price of fuel for heating, for pensioners and those on the lowest incomes when we came into office.. HUMPHRYS: ..why didn't they promise to insulate their homes instead, it would still save money on fuel but it would have had an environmentally beneficial effect. MEACHER: Absolutely and that is exactly what we are doing. You refer now, I'm glad to see, to one of the measures that we have taken, the new Home Energy Efficiency scheme. That is two- hundred and sixty million pounds over the next couple of years, it is going to be concentrated on the pensioners and those with the lowest incomes, instead of spreading as the previous government did, home energy efficiency extremely thinly over larger numbers, we are concentrating it on those who have the draughtiest, least insulated houses and I'm sure that's right. Now, if you look at the moratorium on gas fired power stations, the reason we did that was again for overriding reasons of energy policy. It is undesirable to have concentration on one particular fuel, we've had plenty of experience of the consequences of that, You need a diverse supply and you need a range of measures, that's the reason, particularly as we are now trying to do, we are trying to produce new electricity trading arrangements which will produce a fairer market in energy. And those are just about to be unrolled. HUMPHRYS: And one of the other things that you are doing, you've announced, is the Climate Change Levy which we talked about in Sarah Nelson's film. Business by and large doesn't want it, if it does it wants you to cut back hugely, campaigners think it is going to be watered down, as a result, in part, of opposition from business. Are you prepared this morning to give an absolute guarantee that it will not be watered down because, after all, one per cent isn't very much anyway. MEACHER: There is no question it will remain a central part of our policy... HUMPHRYS: It doesn't answer my question. MEACHER: Well, perhaps I will answer it John, but perhaps allow me to do so. It will remain a central part of our policy to reduce CO2 emissions in the way that energy is used. That's the key point. There are very good reasons for it. We believe that the relative price effects will save something like one and a half million tons of carbon a year. We believe that the improved energy efficiency which the intensive energy users I hope will achieve if they're going to get the negotiated agreements at my Department will save about another one and a half million tons a year. We've set aside fifty million pounds a year for small or medium sized enterprises so that they can improve their energy efficiency - we think that will save about another million so we're talking about something of the order of about four, four and a half million tons of carbon. That's why we need it. Now how is it actually going to be done? HUMPHRYS: Are you going to water it down was my question to take you back to that. Are you going to cut the levy in response to what industry wants? MEACHER: We are certainly listening to what industry says because of course we should. Lord Marshall said that there should be a two year run in so that there can be a discussion with industry about the design of the levy and how it should be administered, we're linking it with a carbon trading emissions scheme which I recently launched in the City indeed in this last week which is of course is what industry wants. All of this is going to do is to introduce cost effective measures. We're not imposing a tax on industry, we're getting industry to impose new energy efficiency measures which are in their long term interests. HUMPHRYS: Yeah. But the answer to my question was - yes. MEACHER: It is yes. It is yes. We are not going to water it down. HUMPHRYS: No... well let's be clear about what my question was. My question was - are you going to water it down? Are you going to cut that levy. The answer is yes, you may well do that. MEACHER: No, that isn't what I said. I said that we are listening to industry. Industry have asked us to do certain things; They've asked us first of all to look at the parameters of the scheme. We have said that the people who should be entitled, the intensive energy users, to get a negotiated agreement with a discount of say, for illustrative purposes fifty per cent, would be those who are subject to what is called the integrated pollution prevention and control act. Now we are prepared, because industry is pressing us to look and see whether that needs to be modified in some way, whether there is a better criterion for those that should receive the discount - that's one thing we're doing. Secondly we are prepared to look at the discount We mentioned in the red book a fifty per cent discount, that's only for illustrative purposes. If industry comes forward to us with energy improvement measures that my department are satisfied that they're capturing the cost effective measures that are possible to them we are prepared to look at higher levels of discount. HUMPHRYS: Ninety per cent is what some say MEACHER: We're not talking about figures. HUMPHRYS: Well it's higher than fifty per cent and it was meant to be nothing, now it's gone to fifty per cent now it may even go to ninety per cent..... MEACHER: No. That is a matter for the Chancellor. No-one has mentioned ninety per cent, no-one has mentioned any figure over fifty...... HUMPHRYS: You just did because industry was.... MEACHER: Well industry of course can hypothesise with particular figures. What we have said it will certainly not be one hundred per cent because Lord Marshall himself said that industry should retain a marginal incentive for the future to improve on energy efficiency so it won't be a hundred but somewhere between fifty and a hundred we can decide where it should be.... HUMPHRYS: When in fact what you should be doing is, if you're going to meet that very ambitious target and an increasingly ambitious target as you yourself has said, after all twenty per cent itself is only a beginning of this process, you should actually be talking about increasing this levy not cutting it, not compromise, not giving it away to industry? MEACHER: But John, you're the one who's talking about cutting it. I'm not talking about cutting it. What we're trying to do is to get industry to be as energy efficient as they can in their industrial operations but not in a manner which undermines a competitor. HUMPHRYS: Yeah but look, industry wants to be energy efficient anyway because clearly it's in their own interests. They don't want to have a higher electricity or gas bill than they would otherwise have so it's in their own interests. The purpose of this levy was to say to them - 'Look, this may hurt you a bit but nonetheless we have to do it because it's in the interests of the world as a whole'. Well now what you're saying is they'll come along to you and say, 'Look, we'll stick a bit of extra whatever you put in a thermos to make it a bit more efficient and therefore you can knock fifty per cent off this levy', that's effectively, or more, that's effectively what's going to happen isn't it? MEACHER: No that's a bit of a pastiche if I may say John...... HUMPHRYS: But what I was trying to do is make it as simple as possible because people might find some of the details of this a bit difficult to understand. MEACHER: Well I think in the case of simplifying it you've lost some of the essence of it. What we're saying is - 'Yes, we believe you can be more energy efficient. We have an organisation called the Energy Technology Support Unit which has looked in each industrial sector at what is the potential for improving energy efficiency. All of that is public, it's transparent, we've given it to industry. We're saying if you achieve more of that then we can have a higher discount. But can I also say this before industry complains too much about this all that we're doing is restoring the price of energy to the level it was about five years ago before there were massive cuts in the price of industrial gas and energy as a result of a liberalisation of the market. HUMPHRYS: Precisely so they could afford the levy couldn't they? Let's look at renewables now, wind farms and the like, whether you like wind farms or not - some people do, some people don't. The Climate Change Levy is going to hit wind farms isn't it. Now that's bonkers isn't it. You want to encourage wind farms. MEACHER: Well that's a fair point and we have said that we will look at the issue as to whether renewables should be exempted from the Climate Change Levy and also combined heat and power which can also offer, we think, something like a million tons of carbon saved it if were exempted, that is one of the issues which we are looking at and need current examination. HUMPHRYS: Because it's a fairly pathetic record so far isn't it. I mean you wanted to get to ten per cent by two thousand, the planning applications have meant, the refusal of planning applications has meant that they are being rejected as we've heard all over the place. Can you, are you prepared to consider forcing local authorities to allow wind farms in their areas? MEACHER: No no, there's no question about that. First of all when you say it's pathetic, yes we have a long way to go, we have a ten per cent target which we have announced, we are currently at about two and a half, three per cent of electricity is now generated from renewable sources of energy. There is enormous...... HUMPHRYS: Scope? MEACHER: Scope, and not just from wind farms, I mean in the longer term solar power is probably the most important but in the short term there's Biomass, energy crops, landfill sewage gas, there are a whole way by which we can increase the use of renewables to generate electricity. Now you say there has been a damper on this from the planning system we have looked at that, we have looked very carefully as to whether there was a change in planning policy around 1992/3. Our belief is that there wasn't but there were other things happening at that time which gave that impression. We are now very keen to write into regional planning guidance that there should be proper and sympathetic consideration..... HUMPHRYS: So a bias in favour of in other words... MEACHER: No, I'm not saying a bias in favour of, but to realise that this has a contribution to make to government policy.. HUMPHRYS: ..they know that.. MEACHER: ..the counter argument is first of all the aesthetic effect on the landscape which I am also the minister responsible for. I don't want to have, I don't want to have wind turbines disturbing some of our most beautiful landscapes, they can be better placed, they could be more sensitively placed in terms of the environment. And secondly we can have better liaison with the local communities. HUMPHRYS: But you'll need a bit of pressure won't you, that's really the point I'm making, you'll have to put a bit of pressure on them because they've said we don't want them, overwhelmingly, all over the place. MEACHER: It's not local authorities who are saying they don't want them.. HUMPHRYS: ..all kinds of local people.. MEACHER: ..some do, but it is the planning. The whole purpose of the planning system is to try and achieve that judgement of Solomon between these different conflicting pressures. What we are saying, is that we want the planning system to be as sympathetic as it can be. HUMPHRYS: Let's look at CO2 that is being generated by cars, massive amount again, what is it a quarter of all CO2 that goes up there comes out of the back end of cars. You are going to have to set targets for car use, aren't you. Because what we are going to see is an increase in the number of cars, forty per cent and even though they are more efficient than the new ones than the old ones they are still contributing, will still contribute an extra six per cent. So you are going to have to do so about car use aren't you. MEACHER: Oh absolutely, I mean that's what the whole integrated transport policy is all about. There have been technological improvements in the last ten years, quite considerable. We have more fuel efficient cars with better emission standards.. HUMPHRYS: ..sure but nonetheless, because there are so many more... MEACHER: ..absolutely that's the key point, it's being swamped by the number of cars. HUMPHRYS: So you have got to cut the amount of car use, no question about that. MEACHER: That's exactly what we are trying to do. We want to keep on the pressure for technological improvement in terms of fuel efficiency and indeed the biggest measure on the transport side contributing to the kind of change programme is the agreement that we have reached with the European car manufacturers and the Koreans and Japanese, that there will be a change in the design of cars which will reduce CO2 omissions by a quarter. That's very very important. HUMPHRYS: I understand that but your own figures show that there is going to be an increase in car use and everybody's figures show that there is therefore going to be an increase, even..in CO2 pollution, the Tories brought in a fuel escalator which meant that the price of petrol went up and up. You increased it when you came into power, now it seems that you are going to start reducing it again. MEACHER: No-one has said this. I don't know where that comes from. What we.. HUMPHRYS: You know where these things come from. They frequently come out from these blokes in the Treasury...and then the ground is prepared, so that by the time the budget comes along and the Chancellor says well you know, fuel .... does a jolly good job but we think there's a argument for cutting it back. MEACHER: Well I think you have a capacity to see what isn't necessarily there. Let me just tell you the actual position. We wrote into our figures of the climate change programme, the fuel escalator as you've said, six per cent over inflation for the years 1996 to 2002. Now it is of course a matter for the Chancellor. If the Chancellor is going to alter that before 2002, it's a matter for him. If he's going to continue it after 2002.. HUMPHRYS: ..and you don't think he should alter it? MEACHER: I'm saying that transport has got to make its proper contribution to the Climate Change Programme and there's no doubt the fuel duty escalator is the most powerful instrument for getting people to understand that there is a big environmental cost in use of a car and to persuade people when they change their car next time to move to a smaller more fuel efficient car. HUMPHRYS: It should stay where it is, it should stay where it is. MEACHER: Well as I'm saying, we of course look at these things as we go along very carefully... HUMPHRYS: That's why I'm asking you at this stage.. MEACHER: No, we have to take the nation with us. It's not a question of imposing on... HUMPHRYS: Yeah but it's there already. What I'm asking, I'm not saying you should bung it up to sixty per cent or something, it's there, it's at... some people might think that's a good idea. It's there, are you saying it should stay there. It's not a question of bringing in a new one, but keeping this one and not watering it down, not reducing it, or offering exemptions. MEACHER: I'm saying that we intend to ensure that transport plays its full part. At the same time there have been very strong representations made about this, of course it is right that we should consider them but there is no question of backtracking.. HUMPHRYS: And you'd be disappointed if there were.. MEACHER: ..transport and the use of cars has to make its proper contributing to the climate change programme. HUMPHRYS: And you would be, as the Environment Minister, you would be deeply upset if there were cuts. MEACHER: I would be concerned if transport as a whole, and what you've not talked about is the graduated rate for vehicle excise duty.. HUMPHRYS: ..no time for that I'm afraid at this stage.. MEACHER: ..the company car taxation reform. All of these including a fuel escalator duty have got to continue to play their full part. HUMPHRYS: Michael Meacher, thank you very much indeed.