“Certainly there is a degree of disappointment that there isn’t more common ground than there already is,” she said.Her remarks come days after Mr Blair returned from talks with President Bush about global warming in Washington.At Westminster, Mrs Beckett’s criticism will be interpreted as a sign of growing frustration with the White House over an issue that the Prime Minister wants to see given top billing at the summit in Glenagles. She said the Government had made no secret that it wants the White House to be “more engaged” on climate change. The US has consistently blocked attempts by Britain to put progress on tackling climate change alongside G8’s moves to scrap African debt at the Gleneagles meeting of the leading industrialised nations next month.
Mrs Beckett added that signing the Kyoto protocol was clearly “off the agenda” for President Bush, who was “coming from a different place in the dialogue” on the issue of global warming. In a rare, outspoken critique of the US position on global warming, Margaret Beckett told The Independent of the Government’s frustration at the lack of “common ground” with Washington on the need for action on the environment.

The British Government is deeply disappointed that President George Bush has not made a greater commitment to tackling climate change before the G8 summit, the Environment Secretary has disclosed. “It seems there is a logic about a tax on aviation, which is a great polluter, to help those will be the top victims. It could be a Live Aid of the air.”The G8 also warned that “sustained high energy prices are of significant concern since they hamper global economic growth”.. “Aviation could put hundreds of millions of pounds into the Treasury and it would have no impact on the environment.”Ryanair said it would “strongly oppose” anything that would increase charges for consumers.But John Stewart, the chairman of Transport 2000, a pressure group, said the proposal was a step forward as the aviation industry was undertaxed.”Aviation is a great contributor to global warming and it is African countries which will be the greatest sufferers from it,” he said. “Why only target airline passengers – why not bus passengers?” he asked. “If you want to go after a particular industry why not go after the oil industry, where companies such as BP and Shell make record profits.”There would be no side-benefit for the environment as the tax would not give any incentive on people to alter their behaviour, he said. A spokeswoman said: “There is no justification for singling out airline passengers for an additional tax to fund development in the Third World.”She said it was hard to see why aid for small business in Mozambique should be funded in part by a family travelling from Glasgow to Malaga for a holiday.A spokesman for easyJet said the proposal was “confused”.

No one in the G8 has said anything against it.”Gordon Brown is understood to have consented to the new plan, seen as a sign of a trade-off in exchange for France and Germany dropping their initial opposition to the terms of his debt cancellation plan.BA said the notion of the tax was “illogical”. Airline groups have condemned plans by the world’s richest countries to impose a tax on airline tickets to fund extra money for poor African countries – and make a gesture towards fighting climate change. It would prefer that customers trust their advisers and salesmen, and the product being sold, rather than having to go to the trouble of explaining all the upfront and hidden charges involved.Whatever is at the root of obfuscation – be it ignorance, incompetence, cumbersome tradition or deliberate profiteering – it’s served the industry too well for too long.So, let’s hope those letters from the FSA don’t fall on stony ground, and we can at last see an end to customer disservice.s.dunn independent.co.uk. If the consequences weren’t so serious for consumers, I’d have to laugh wryly at this: one of the world’s most sophisticated financial services industries needing its regulator to remind it to make sure those who trust it with their money are getting a good deal.Customer service – ie, putting the customer first – is supposed to be paramount in Britain today, yet in this industry it’s far too often lacking.The problem with making things simple is that it gives the consumer too much power – enough to think twice and pursue a better deal that might lie elsewhere.I’ve no doubt that the financial services industry understands this perfectly. Consumers need a lucid explanation of how a product works, no matter how complicated it is, so that they can feel comfortable with the financial decision they are making. The FSA has itself set up an initiative to promote better service, called Treating Customers Fairly (TCF). Winning back trust is vital for the industry’s long-term future; after all, no punters equals no profits.A large dose of clarity is surely the best way to do so Ideally, it should be all about customer service.