Official Report 202KB pdf
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third meeting in 2005 of the Scottish Parliament's European and External Relations Committee. Before we commence our business, I intimate that I have received apologies from Dennis Canavan and Margaret Ewing, both of whom are participating in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to South Africa and Malawi, and from John Home Robertson who, less salubriously, has the flu.
I am the acting head of Oxfam in Scotland—I am not quite in the full position yet, as you suggested, convener, but that is okay, because I will be. I thank the committee for the invitation to be part of the process.
I thank the committee for inviting Save the Children to participate. Like Oxfam, we are members of the make poverty history coalition, which is our focus for the G8 summit and for the evidence that I will give today. In addition, we are keen for the G8 summit to consider the millennium development goals as key targets to be achieved. I am not an expert on all the issues that are raised in our written evidence, but I am happy to go back to my organisation and gather additional information if that would be useful.
I will lay out a bit of background to the committee's approach. Many of the issues that are to be discussed at the G8 summit and that are to be the focus of the UK presidency of the EU will be reserved issues. However, the committee has been intrigued by the publication of the Government's international strategy, which has for the first time explicitly included a focus on Scottish Executive involvement in some form of international development activity. That is welcomed across the board in the Scottish Parliament, but we are interested to establish what the strategy is about, what it means and what the Government plans to do. I use that point to illustrate the committee's approach to the inquiry, which is not necessarily to evaluate the content or output of the G8 summit but to evaluate whether the Scottish Executive is successful in influencing the G8 agenda and ensuring that its concerns and priorities are reflected in the issues that are discussed at the summit.
The main vehicle for that dialogue has been the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland, which in shorthand we call NIDOS. I am not sure how familiar committee members are with that network—some may be more familiar with it than others are. NIDOS recently ran consultation exercises involving members of the network, of which there are currently about 45, including big agencies in Scotland such as Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid and Tearfund, and a range of much smaller agencies—members are drawn from across the sector.
What were the main themes that you want to share with the Executive that emerged from the first consultation exercise involving international development organisations?
Oxfam's main emphasis was on encouraging the Executive to take a strategic approach to international development, for example by taking the millennium development goals as a main focus for its work overall. The £3 million that is available per year is not a great amount in international development terms so, in order for it to have the maximum impact, it needs to be focused strategically. The framework of the millennium development goals should be used to achieve that.
In terms of the practical way in which that dialogue can be built on, what approach do you expect the Executive to take?
There is a number of options and then there is the process. There are specific activities that need to be developed in conjunction with the Executive. It is hard for us on the outside to say, "You can do this," because we do not necessarily know what the Executive can do, but we know what we think that it can do and we know how we would like that to happen.
Do you see that as the most likely role that the Executive will settle on in terms of establishing Government-to-Government rapport?
It is certainly a potential role, although I do not know whether it is the most likely one.
So there would be an internal and an external dimension to the strategy that should be formulated.
Definitely.
In your written submission, you suggest a number of areas on which the G8 summit should focus and on which the Executive should use its influence if possible. Are there particular arguments of which the committee should be aware and are there areas in which the Executive should take a lead to ensure progress at the summit?
The biggest area in which the Executive could take a lead is the conditionality that is attached to debt, aid and aspects of trade. The Executive has to understand better the conditions that are being put on developing countries—the provisions that are supposedly in support of those countries. It has to become an effective advocate of changing the balance of power in our relationships with those countries.
I would add that the UK Government still has a long way to go before it reaches the 0.7 per cent target for international aid. Some other European countries are much nearer to the target. There is an argument that we should take a unilateral approach and say that we hope to meet the target within a much shorter time than is currently expected.
I thank both witnesses for their written submissions, which were very helpful. I wanted to pick up on a couple of points in Oxfam's submission. You mention "protectionism" and "massive agricultural subsidies". We seem to have a huge opportunity here. Scotland is giving a lead in, for example, regulations on passive smoking, but that has to be juxtaposed with the huge European Union tobacco subsidies that are being made through the common agricultural policy. Will the UK presidency offer an opportunity to highlight some of the protectionist policies? Should tobacco subsidies be highlighted?
Our work on subsidies has focused on the CAP and agricultural subsidies and has been mostly to do with cereal production. We have also focused on the negative impact of those subsidies on developing countries. So, yes, to answer your question, we have a significant opportunity to highlight the impact of subsidies on developing countries. However, we have focused not on tobacco but on cereal production.
Under the CAP, huge amounts of money are given in tobacco subsidies. There is also a lot of dumping on the third world of substandard tobacco. I have huge concerns about that. Because of our health agenda and our passive smoking agenda, we have an in-built opportunity to lead the way—especially on tobacco subsidies. Would you agree with that notion?
I do not have the information on tobacco subsidies, so I cannot give the expert evidence that you want on that. However, it may exist, although not necessarily within Oxfam. The Scottish Executive could find out exactly how the subsidies operate and the impact of that on developing countries. It will be a huge issue.
On another issue, how could we do more on ethical procurement? There are opportunities for us there. At around the same time as the G8 summit, we will have T in the Park. In the past, there has been an ethical threads campaign to encourage bands to use ethically sound produce at such major events. Are either of your organisations involved in that? The timing of those two major events is quite good. Do you foresee any tie-in with T in the Park?
That activity sends a strong statement to the public about how important it is for them to think about their role as consumers in relation to the situation in developing countries. All sorts of guidance can be made available on which products have been fairly traded, which products are linked to child labour, and so on. Such activity sends a powerful communication about what ordinary people can do.
There is another dimension to the impact on developing countries of ethical procurement policies such as those of the Executive. We wonder whether the Executive has ever conducted an audit of the impact of its procurement policies on developing countries. Does it know what that impact is? If it knows, that is great. What is that impact and how can we improve it? If it does not know, finding out would be one way of establishing a baseline of information from which it could consider ways of improving practice.
Yes, we are.
There is also a bigger, more structural issue to do with the way in which we purchase our goods and services and the way in which we tackle corporate responsibility and legislate for corporate responsibility to be part of that process.
There seems to be an in-built consumer group that is quite interested in that. Groups of young people are quite interested in environmental, debt and trade justice issues. We could link some of those together, as well as doing the Government-to-Government things. There are opportunities to involve younger people and to motivate them in some of these campaigns. I presume that the way forward for organisations such as yours is to get young people enthusiastic and interested. Perhaps we could have further discussions about that as policies develop.
I would like to pursue that last point about development education, which you also raise in your written submission. We sometimes wrestle with what is devolved and what is reserved, but education policy is almost entirely devolved to the Executive. Has there been any dialogue about expanding the components of the curriculum that would relate to development education? If so, how extensive is the dialogue that is going on? You also talk about the cohesion of government. This is an obsession of mine, but has the Government's commitment to an international development strategy percolated through into its education strategy, or are we not talking to each other?
I think that dialogue is happening in different places on these issues and there has been dialogue on development education with the Education Department. This year, an initiative called enabling effective support, which has been funded and supported by the Department for International Development, provides us with a great opportunity. If the Executive can give support to that initiative, which will work with development education centres and non-governmental organisations throughout Scotland to improve development education and invest resources in it, that will be important.
Excuse my ignorance, but is development education part of the curriculum in Scotland?
Yes, so to speak.
"Yes, so to speak"? Various parts of the curriculum relate to citizenship, lifestyle choices and so on, but I wonder whether development education features prominently within that.
It comes under the curriculum for global citizenship.
Yes, and subjects such as environmental studies. There should be elements of development education in a number of curriculum areas, which is the case with citizenship. For example, there are aspects of the teaching of history, economics or subjects relating to the environment and people in society that we would describe as being development education and which would involve raising development issues. There is no one subject in which the issue would sit.
There has been an interesting sustainable secondary schools project. Development education is not only about educating people about development; it is about a methodology of educating that involves engaging young people in the process not of deciding what they are taught but of running the way in which systems work within a school. That project, which has just come to an end, came up with some valuable findings. If the committee is interested, we can give you more information on that.
I apologise for my late arrival and thank our witnesses for their submissions, which I have read.
I believe that Hilary Benn will give evidence to the committee soon. You could bring the matter to his attention.
To be fair, I am raising the issue with you because you wrote the words in the Oxfam submission.
That was a genuine answer. The power to reach the 0.7 per cent is reserved to Westminster; it is not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament to raise development aid to that amount. However, it is within the gift of the Parliament and the Executive to apply pressure on the Treasury to create the space to make that 0.7 per cent target reachable and to create an awareness among the population of Scotland that it is a credible and viable way of helping to make poverty history.
Okay. The point that I am really trying to make is that perhaps Scotland could be a little magnanimous and recognise the Treasury's problems. We could say to the Treasury that we will accept a limited reduction in our block grant to help to achieve the target, which would be action rather than simply words of good will. What do you think about that?
I am not sure whether Oxfam would care to take a view on that.
I should say that I am not surprised.
We have—I have the exact figures somewhere. It is clear that the poorest farmers in the UK are not receiving the greatest subsidies. Rich agribusiness is receiving the largest proportion of subsidies from the EU—that comment applies to Scotland and to England. A recent parliamentary question revealed that 8,200 farmers in Scotland do not receive any CAP subsidy because they are not eligible. That means that the vast majority of farmers—although what I am saying may not cover the largest proportion of production—does not benefit from the CAP and therefore will not suffer if the CAP changes. They may benefit if we choose to restructure very differently the way in which we support our agricultural community and rural communities and if subsidies shift from going into the hands of big agribusiness and are more equitably or completely differently distributed throughout the UK economy.
I welcome your analysis and the fact that you have considered that matter. I, too, would like to see major changes to the CAP, which is perhaps fundamental to the European Union's existence.
Oxfam's position on conditionality is clear but is not explicitly stated in the submission. We would look to put conditions on debt relief that are different from the conditions that are currently applied. The conditions that are currently applied concern liberalisation, opening up economies, internal restructuring and the privatisation of goods and services within countries. The conditions that we would seek to apply would be that debt relief should be spent on health and education and providing open access to free, universal primary education and health provision. With the money released through debt relief, pro-poor policies could be developed that put the onus on Governments to generate increased democracy, reduce levels of corruption and engage the population in determining processes that will best meet their local needs. Conditions would have to be considered, but they would be very different from those that currently apply.
Has Tanzania's economic viability improved as a consequence of debt relief? I am not referring to big companies, but surely if such countries are to develop in the way in which we want them to develop, they must see an overall economic benefit that will allow them to help themselves to develop in future.
According to the millennium development goals, universal primary education and health provision are basic tenets of overall national development and create the bedrock for a country's development. Tanzania has said that it believes that its goal of universal primary education can be attained by 2006, which is nine years ahead of the 2015 target. I do not have any figures for Tanzania's economic development, but I know that it is making significant improvements in the aspects that were targeted by the millennium development goals. As I said, such improvements provide a footstool for achieving other development goals.
Are you able to give us figures for Tanzania's economic development?
Yes.
Both submissions are very critical of the European Union's proposals for economic partnership agreements. For example, Oxfam's submission says:
The basic tenets of the partnership agreements stipulate that the countries with which the agreements are made should open up their markets to the EU and remove any tariffs and subsidies that they might have. As a result, the limited protection that is available to their own markets is removed and those markets become very accessible. However, at the same time as the EU is demanding that subsidies be removed from the poorest of the poor countries, it is not planning to reduce subsidies to its own farmers.
What sort of trade agreements and partnership agreements should we try to promote as alternatives to the existing policies if they are so harmful? I am not disputing what you say, but if they are so harmful, how do we create a situation that allows poorer countries to trade in a way that is to their benefit rather than to their disbenefit, as you suggest is the case?
The main solution would be to untie the conditions that are involved, such as conditions about tendering and opening up public services to competition. Public services have to be funded and procurement must be done in ways that we probably would not want for our own country. Those aspects of the agreements are particularly disastrous.
A fundamental issue is on whose terms the agreements are being negotiated. If the negotiations were conducted much more from the perspective of the developing country than from the perspective of the northern country, the agreements would be very different in nature. Many developing countries know what their markets need to grow, expand and be nourished and, generally, it is not what is being provided or advised by the European Union. It is about shifting the terms on which the debate is held.
The nub of the inquiry that we are undertaking is the extent to which the Executive can make a contribution to or impact on the G8 summit. You have gone through a number of issues on which you think the Executive can use its position to lobby for or promote a different approach. Is there anything in particular that the Scottish Executive can and should do—beyond what it is doing already—that would make a particular impact on the preparations for the G8 summit? Will you comment on the political opportunities that hosting the summit here in Scotland provides to advance some of the issues that concern you?
To be honest, to some degree that is already happening. A style and a tone have emerged. The Scottish Executive will have a certain role to play, perhaps not so much in hosting the G8, but in hosting events around the G8 and inviting people to activities and so on. There will be many opportunities for the Executive to permeate those events with information, literature, commentary and perspectives on some of the issues that will be dealt with at the G8, whether climate change or the goals of the make poverty history campaign on debt, aid and trade. There will be ample scope for the Executive to permeate its packaging and marketing of those events with aids to understanding.
Between now and the mobilisation for the G8, a number of events will be held by members of the make poverty history coalition and all the agencies. MSPs are more than welcome to attend those events and to show their support for the information, ideas and campaigns that we are trying to promote. We can share our diary of events with the committee.
As members have no further points, I thank Judith Robertson and Sue Fisher very much for coming to present evidence to the committee and for kicking off our inquiry. If you have any further information that you think would benefit the committee, please send it on to us. Members of the committee would certainly like to receive further detail from Oxfam on the tobacco issue that was raised.
I will see where that is at. Thank you very much.
Our second panel of witnesses will concentrate on environmental issues as they relate to the G8 summit and the UK presidency of the EU in 2005. As members will probably have gathered, there have been some changes in the witnesses. Fred Edwards and Jessica Pepper are unable to be with us—a major environmental issue, congestion charging, has been resolved today, which has somewhat distracted some people—but we are joined by Duncan McLaren, who is the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, and Helen McDade, who is the campaign officer for WWF Scotland. They are both welcome.
Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. I am not only the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, but chair of CORE Scotland—the corporate responsibility coalition Scotland—about which you heard from the previous witnesses, and an active member of a grouping called G8 alternatives, so members might want to ask questions about those as well. Jessica Pepper and Fred Edwards give their apologies. Fred Edwards is, unfortunately, at a Scottish Environment Protection Agency board event and Jessica Pepper has been called to a National Trust for Scotland board event, so their absence has nothing to do with congestion charging.
My excuses were completely ill-founded, so I apologise for besmirching their good name.
I am sure that they would have things to say about that issue too. They would very much have liked to have been able to appear before the committee.
I am the campaign officer with WWF and I am also on the team for the everyone campaign, which is a joint campaign with Scottish Environment LINK to encourage participation in elections. The committee might have seen the launch last week of our climate change campaign, which is running up to the election that, we assume, will take place before the G8 summit. As part of that, we are working to try to get people involved in politics. We look on the G8 summit as another great opportunity for that. We are concerned that people in Scotland have a chance to make their voice heard when the event comes to Scotland. We do not want politicians to be parachuted in to have a meeting behind closed doors and leave again without our having been able to impact on them or vice versa. Therefore, we ask the committee to consider ways of ensuring that such an impact is made.
I was not laughing at the suggestion; I was laughing about what the contents of such an assessment might be.
From that, advice on how to reduce such consumption could be circulated for the benefit of further events in other countries. At the end of the day, people can smell hypocrisy a mile off. If delegates sit around talking about saving the world but do their bit to damage it during that time, that is the message that comes across. We are interested in the democratic input to the event.
I thank Helen McDade and Duncan McLaren for those remarks. I would like to start at the same place as I did with the previous panel of witnesses. The emphasis here is slightly different, given the focus on climate change that you have both highlighted, and given that climate change is an environmental issue for which the Scottish Executive has direct responsibility here in Scotland.
There are two central points to make. First, the issue of climate change is urgent and needs a rapid and continuing response. The Executive is currently undertaking a review of climate change policy and has the opportunity to set year-on-year targets for reductions in emissions. If that opportunity is taken, it will send a message to other countries about the urgency and importance of the response.
On the slightly shorter term, we recognise the fact that Scotland cannot make a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. Therefore, in our campaign we have been asking that we commit to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent by 2010, which Scotland could achieve. If the Scottish Executive committed itself to that before the G8 summit, it would have the moral high ground, so to speak, and could say that it is sticking to its part of the Kyoto protocol and that we have a right to be involved in the discussions. That is specifically what we, as a group, are asking for.
In the context of the EU presidency, one of the key challenges on climate justice is how countries including the UK and Scotland engage with the US. In our view, there is a risk that the G8 summit will be seen as an opportunity to set an agenda that brings the US on board but, in doing so, weakens the principles of the UN framework convention on climate change and does not take account of the principles of climate justice.
Your message is that we should avoid a soggy compromise and come to some arrangement that creates a credible vehicle for achieving some of the reductions in emissions that you have talked about.
Absolutely. There is a series of policies that could be delivered at the EU level, both in climate policy and with the on-going review of the EU sustainable development strategy.
Is that debate going on between Scottish Environment LINK, its counterpart body in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government?
Scottish Environment LINK and others have been inputting to the Executive on its climate policy. This is probably the first time that we have had a chance to put it in the context of exactly what that means for the G8. Our colleagues in London and in Brussels have been putting the same or a similar message to the relevant authorities.
I am interested in the points that you are making about the need to be careful not to portray the G8 summit in a negative way by talking about the number of police officers that will be needed, the roads that will be closed and so on. I note, from school visits and from young people to whom I have spoken, that there is an amazing amount of awareness out there about the summit. I do not recall any political event that I have spoken to more young people about than this. I wonder how we can use that awareness. Previous witnesses have spoken about the campaign to make poverty history. I wonder whether environmental groups have considered how we might harness the interest within our schools and among our young people to highlight some of the environmental issues. Have you had any discussions or thoughts about that?
We have not had direct interaction with schools in campaigning. However, through our everyone campaign, which is detailed on our website, we hope to engage the public in general, including young people, in taking action to become involved and make their voices heard. At the moment, the campaign is targeted specifically at the general election, but it is our intention to continue it.
Where do you think that the negative message comes from? I noticed it in the press at the weekend. Does it come from Government or the police?
Perhaps undue weight has been given to the precautions that will have to be taken. Sadly, the potential exists for problems and we have reached the stage at which Gleneagles will become a no-go area and residents will have to have a pass; that is sad, but perhaps necessary. The media might be making more of the situation than they should, but the Parliament has a role to play in asking for public involvement and saying that politicians are genuinely open to hearing the public's voices and input. That is the only way to make people engage with politics. There are plenty of single-issue examples that prove that people will turn out because they care. As you say, it is clear that young people care, but if they feel that they cannot say anything, the message might be channelled in the wrong direction.
It is unfortunate that that message is coming from the Executive. I was at a reception last week at which Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace spoke about the summit. They saw the summit, the 5,000 media people and the entourages of the delegations—the large footprint of the summit—as an economic opportunity and somehow missed the opportunity that will be presented by those 200,000 almost exclusively peaceful, often middle-class, well-heeled individuals—
Speak for yourself.
Those people would be at least as likely to come to Scotland again afterwards if they are welcomed and far less likely to return if they feel that they have been met with an oppressive or unwelcoming environment.
We tend to focus on what we can do through the UK presidency of the G8 summit to influence the decision makers at a macro level. However, is there not an opportunity at a micro level for us to use the events to influence individuals in Scotland to change their behaviour? Have you given some thought to how that approach could be developed? Is there anything that the Parliament or the Scottish Executive can do to assist that process?
There are two or three measures at that level. The largest of those is concerned with the United Nations decade of education for sustainable development that Helen McDade mentioned. That initiative goes beyond the school level and provides an opportunity to map and audit what all sectors are doing to provide education for sustainable development, using the summit to kick-start debates and discussions and to raise awareness. Then, support will be rolled out through educational budgets, the international strategy and the international fund.
What is your assessment of where we are in relation to procurement? I cannot imagine that you are 100 per cent satisfied, but are we in better shape than we were five years ago?
We have taken significant steps. Good progress has been made on parliamentary procurement, although at a reception here recently, I noted that there was no fairly traded wine. However, you have fairly traded tea and coffee.
Your answer raises issues that will preoccupy the committee in relation to European rules on procurement.
Absolutely.
I hate to give Mr Gallie heart by what I am saying.
To link back the issue of procurement to the issue of climate change, we would like all new large buildings to have combined heat and power and/or renewables. Such a commitment could make a huge impact.
There is an important issue in what you said about procurement issues for PFI schools. You will be familiar with the issue in Aberfeldy in my constituency, because the headquarters of WWF Scotland is there. Measures to try to make schools more environmentally sustainable come up against PFI rules. Thankfully the minister is engaged in addressing some of those issues.
Is either witness aware of the ethical threads campaign? Everyone knows about fairly traded coffee and tea, but young people at music festivals—even though they are environmentally aware—will pay £20 for a tee-shirt that probably cost about 99p to make, so the middleman takes about £19. If we offered them an ethically produced tee-shirt for £20, they would buy that rather than give a middleman somewhere £19. Not enough information about that is available.
I am aware of that campaign and of several other initiatives on the ethical sourcing of clothing, such as the no sweat campaign, which runs in the US, and the clean clothes campaign, which runs in Europe. Like many issues, the subject could have much more publicity. Perhaps members already model such clothing—that is an opportunity to show leadership. I would welcome such initiatives.
I am aware of but not well acquainted with the campaign. We have touched, several times, on the subject of joining up the issues for people. Once people start to understand sustainability and how it can have positive impacts for our country, they will consider the hidden costs of everything. That is an education issue. Mostly, people do not understand what is behind the item in front of them. The hidden costs are not explained, so education is the key.
It is nice to see Helen McDade back on the parliamentary scene, to which she is no stranger. She mentioned that we could ensure that all new public buildings are energy efficient. What does she think of the Scottish Parliament building as a model for that? Should it be emphasised or hidden at the G8 meetings?
The Scottish Parliament has had mixed reviews. Some aspects of the building take energy efficiency on board, which is great, but perhaps there were some missed opportunities. We are all aware that discussions took place about sustainable sources when the building was built. However, I attended a committee meeting the other week at which probably 100 lights were on while sunshine was blazing in, which drove me insane, and that committee was undertaking an inquiry into climate change, so more can be done. We have the building and we must see what we can do. It would be better to ensure that what we have suggested is done in future buildings.
You have made the point for me that we are good at making statements but not as good at living up to them.
Does Helen McDade have those figures in her head?
I am afraid that I do not.
I can give ballpark figures.
That will do.
Transport as a whole accounts for about 20 to 25 per cent of emissions. Air travel is a relatively small fraction of that—I believe that it is about 5 per cent of the total—but emissions from air travel are forecast to rise to about 15 per cent. Energy generation does not account for all the remainder, because land use and other elements contribute, but it accounts for about 60 per cent of emissions.
We are talking about Scotland. Are those figures true of Scotland? Did Scotland not start from a much lower emissions base when the targets were set? Does that not make it harder for us to reduce emissions?
I do not recognise that, I am afraid. In the UK as a whole, the dash for gas in the 1990s led to a significant reduction in emissions and, when the Labour Government made its pledges on coming to power in 1997, the trend was already set. In Scotland, however, we did not replace our two main fossil-fuel plants—Cockenzie and Longannet—so the Scottish base was not already reduced at that point. One of the unique challenges for Scotland is that we have a relatively high proportion of emissions from land-use sources, but the figure is still only around 12 per cent—I would need to check those figures.
Our policy officers can certainly provide you with the detailed figures. At the moment, the bulk of the emissions relate to energy production, which is why that has been concentrated on. However, transport is forecast to overtake that in the relatively near future. That is why we must consider that matter with some urgency. However, the power sector currently accounts for up to 70 per cent of emissions.
That would be useful, thank you. I remind Duncan McLaren that England was trying to catch up with Scotland with respect to gas. Nuclear power accounted for more than 50 per cent of our power generation and a further 10 to 20 per cent came from what was, in effect, water power. That is why I said that Scotland started from a lower base, which makes it much more difficult for us to reduce our emission levels.
There is an obvious conflict. You raise a key issue that must be resolved. One of our main demands is that the true costs of travel should be reflected. No one is talking about targeting emergency air travel or flights to the isles. However, the sad fact is that while it still costs a fortune to fly to Shetland, you can fly to London for £16.99—that was what I was quoted the other day. It is obvious that such prices cannot be sustained without some cost to the country.
We think that the on-going climate change inquiry is positive but we were saddened by the fact that the Minister for Transport declined to give evidence to the inquiry when he was invited to do so. I note that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning also declined to give evidence. There is a challenge in joining up policy across the Executive to address climate change in the way that is best for all elements of Scotland's society and economy.
In effect, both of your organisations are saying that the cheap flights that provide many jobs in areas such as Prestwick and which provide people with easy access to family and friends south of the border and to cheap holidays will have to end in the interests of the global environmental scene.
It is not only the interests of the global scene that we are talking about. At the end of the day, we all pay to travel all the time. The thing that people have a lot of trouble with, and which costs them a lot of money, is their travel to work.
I am talking specifically about low-cost flights. What is your attitude to such flights?
Our attitude is that the price of all transport journeys should reflect more fairly the actual cost, including the environmental cost. Clearly, that would have an impact on cheap flights—there is no doubt about that—but, equally, it might bring gains in public transport. People fly abroad perhaps once or twice a year, which is great, but if it costs a person a fortune to travel every day on public transport, perhaps they would prefer money to be put into public transport. Nobody can deny that hard choices must be made, but at present we are not getting the best of all worlds—it is swings and roundabouts.
I am interested in your assessment of the environmental components of the G8 summit. It would be a fascinating piece of work to understand how the focus on climate change affects the preparations for the event. You may want to carry out such work.
We proposed such work to staff from the Executive when we were asked what could be done to make the summit a greener event. However, as far as I am aware, the Executive has shown no interest in the proposal, despite a specific offer from WWF, which has developed a methodology to help the Executive with such work.
You mentioned that you have had dialogue with the Executive on how to make the G8 summit a greener event. Have you had dialogue on the wider issues that should be discussed at the summit and which the Executive should seek to include in the United Kingdom position? On a similar issue, to what extent does on-going dialogue take place between your organisations as a network and the Government on that wider agenda?
The dialogue is good, but direct dialogue on the G8 summit has been limited, although the channels of communication are open and we were recently encouraged again to keep the Executive informed of our plans in relation to the G8. We had the chance to urge the adoption of policy positions, though the Executive has been at least a little reticent and said that, because policy positions will be developed at Whitehall, it can have only a little impact. However, more widely, the dialogue tends to be good. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development and staff from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department are open to hearing our views, although implementing our views is still a challenge for them. As I implied, we struggle a little more to get our views across to other departments that have an environmental aspect, particularly the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department.
We are delighted that climate change is one of the top two issues that Blair continually headlines and that he followed our lead in picking his campaign. The summit is a great opportunity for the different aspects to feed in and for Scotland to make an impact.
It has been fascinating to hear from the witnesses. We realise that we called you early in the inquiry, so, as the weeks go by and you see the evidence that we take, if you want to feed in other material, please feel free to do so—we would welcome your input.