It is my pleasure to open this debate on the effects of the packaging waste regulations on the packaging industry. Such a debate is long overdue. I do not regard it as a political, them-andus debate. I am sure that colleagues and members of the Opposition will want to raise issues that involve the packaging industry in their constituencies. The industry covers aluminium, glass, paper and board, plastic, steel and wood and it has been subject to European Union proposals and regulations since January 1998. Further proposals and targets have now been introduced, which, if implemented, could have serious effects on the industry and the economy of many regions and communities.

The various interests of the packaging industry are represented in the Chamber this morning. Nearly every constituency has some connection with waste packaging. My constituency contains companies that are involved in the plastics industry, the aluminium industry, the paper industry and the wood industry, and many others connected with packaging. Next to Coca Cola and Cadbury Schweppes is a large aluminium supply industry and, between them, they employ 900 people, so I have a significant constituency interest in the proposals.

The Commission is revising the targets for recovery and recycling, which are between 60 and 85 per cent. It originally suggested a target date of 2006, but there is a strong argument for it to be 2008. The all-party parliamentary group for the aluminium industry is concerned about the differentials that are being proposed and wants the overall recovery target set at about 20 to 25 per cent. and the target date as 2008, because that would give us more opportunity to meet those targets.

If the proposed increase in the targets goes ahead, it will be at considerable expense to the industry. The glass industry estimates that it could cost it about £200 million. It is disappointed that the United Kingdom target of 50 per cent. recovery for 2001 was not achieved. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the packaging directives were produced for two purposes. First, they will prevent member states from introducing measures that act as a barrier to trade and remove existing barriers to trade. Little action has been taken to remove existing barriers and new ones have been introduced. Secondly, the directives will reduce the impact of packaging on the environment and establish packaging recovery and recycling systems to enable member states to reach set targets. More than 48 per cent. of used packaging is now recovered in the United Kingdom. The 2001 target was 50 per cent., so we missed it by 2 per cent. The United Kingdom and France are the only member states that have properly implemented the part of the directive that encourages good design of packaging. The industry believes that the Commission should pay more attention to the trade barrier problem and, in the longer term, consider replacing the directive with non-legislative measures that would give more importance to issues that are not covered by the directive, such as wastage, transport and designing a complete packaging system for overall resource efficiency.

The current directive obliges the European Commission to produce proposals for new recovery and recycling rates. However, the industry has constantly argued that the right level of recycling cannot be decided in Brussels or even here in London because it depends on local factors, such as the proximity of reprocessing facilities, and that is more a regional than a national matter. In view of the fact that we are moving towards regional government, perhaps that issue could be covered by those who propose regulations.

Packaging recovery notes are a currency for recovery and recycling processes. The system is weak. Companies are failing to register their obligations and companies that do register are legitimately finding ways to minimise their obligations. We lack resources to police the system. There are three regulators— one covering England and Wales, one covering Scotland and one covering Northern Ireland— and therefore no set pattern for policing the system. Data are not consistent, transparent or timely. Targets are set late and last for only one year. Therefore, PRNs must be addressed seriously.

The price of paper PRNs is returning to the approximate price in 1998—£30 to £35 per tonne—although prices had fallen to less than £8 per tonne during previous years. In order to encourage more collection and to provide adequate recycling funds, PRN prices should be more closely matched to the true cost of collection and recovery. The PRN system failed to achieve a recovery target of 50 per cent. in 2001, and it will not achieve any new targets without improvements to the system. We should examine the system seriously.

The Advisory Committee on Packaging is criticised as being unrepresentative by the paper and plastics industries and by the industries that use other materials. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must address the new proposals. The committee is not considered to be representative of all stakeholders. Companies, which pay millions of pounds each year in levies, are under-represented because of the number of recovery scheme members and regulators that are proposed for the body. Reprocessors lack an adequate presence on the committee. Each material is different, and the number of representatives of material industries should not be reduced. Will the Minister review the representation on the committee? The organisations that are involved with the industry should occupy the majority of the places.

There are suggestions for improving the system that applies to the industry in general, such as the creation of a commercially competent regulatory office. It is suggested that the industry should have one regulator, which could be called Offpack or Offwaste—whichever term is most suitable. The regulation process would be addressed better by one regulator. The regulator would take over responsibility for data management and for the preparation and timely dissemination of statistics.It would monitor and consolidate the business plans of compliance schemes to ensure adequate investment to achieve future recovery and recycling targets. It would audit the application of funds derived from the sale of recovery notes to set clear, consistent and accurate standards of data recovery and reporting to ensure that the regulations are applied consistently in the devolved parliaments and regions of the United Kingdom. We should therefore give serious consideration to changing the current system to an overall regulator.

I am aware that there are others who wish to contribute today so I shall not take my full 20 minutes. That should allow people to express their views on the industries that they represent.

At 41 per cent., packaging waste has one of the highest recycling rates in the total waste stream. Does the Minister intend to make changes to the UK packaging regulations to make them less complex and bureaucratic, and to ensure that there is better enforcement and monitoring? Will he consult the industry on the common position proposed by the European Parliament prior to the meeting of the Council of Ministers in October?

The Secretary of State told the House that she and her Ministers supported the compromise of the outgoing Spanish presidency, which included some differential material targets that were even higher than those proposed by the European Commission. The UK industry has made its feelings known about the recent consultation exercise and Members of Parliament support the industry on the basis of observations that have been presented to the Department. Does the Minister intend to maintain that position at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in October? The matters I have mentioned are important to the industry and it would be helpful if the Minister could address some of my concerns.

Recent media reports have indicated that for the domestic waste stream to be improved there will need to be an extra charge on domestic households. Reference has been made to a possible cost of £1 or £5 a bag for extra waste that may be collected, which would create problems for local authorities.

We must address the question of helping local authorities to meet their recycling and composting targets. Without the support of local authorities, the regulation targets on reducing, collecting and recycling packaging would be more difficult to meet. I urge the Minister to focus on improving the performance of the regulations in order to achieve recovery and recycling targets in the future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing an important debate. He referred to many of the industries in his constituency. My constituency is the largest area in the UK in which paper and board are manufactured. The industry produces some 1.4 million tonnes every year and employs some 1,000 people. I have declared an interest in the industry in the register.

The debate is important, both for industry and the environment. The packaging waste regulations, packaging waste recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes are not something that my constituents write to me about a great deal, but they complain about the amount of packaging that surrounds things that they buy in supermarkets and other retail outlets and they ask me what the Government are doing about that.

The packaging waste regulations are an important and significant development in the reduction of waste and the recovery of fibre that will allow us to recycle more waste. Industry must play its part. The benefit of the PRN system is that it is relatively cheap. While the PRN system has not achieved the 50 per cent. recovery target that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. there has been a step change since its introduction. There is no need to scrap the system and start again, but we should review it regularly, monitor its effectiveness, find improvements and modify it.

The paper industry has complained that, as my hon. Friend, the Environment Agency is not properly or adequately policing the system. It is said that some companies simply ignore their obligations while others are unaware of them. How far does that extend to UK companies? How many are involved? What is the mass of the recovered fibre involved? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us.

It is important to establish fact and dispel myth in the debate. The question is how to improve registration of companies with regulations. One proposal is that all companies should opt in and be given a certificate to opt out, rather than having to opt in, as happens at the moment under what might be described as a voluntary system. My right hon. Friend the Minister might balk at the consequential red tape that would be imposed on British industries, but the matter is worth consideration in trying to find ways in which to increase the number of companies that register. Does he have a view?

We must be more rigorous. The recycling rates to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred have been described as pathetic. He has put in place tough targets, and PRNs need to be applied more rigorously. Elsewhere in Europe, recycling rates are much higher and systems are more rigorous.

It is vital that more people register if we are to generate the much-needed reprocessing infrastructures to which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton referred. It is a vital and fundamental part of the scheme to generate that infrastructure to encourage investment and increase recycling targets.

We should not think that nothing is happening in the country. Industry is playing its part. In my constituency, SCA recently invested £17 million in a recovered fibre plant as a result of the PRN system, and it has specially designed vehicles to collect waste from all 410 branches of Sainsbury's. Once again, the paper industry is leading the way and demonstrating its sustainable credentials. It is increasing capacity, while the number of paper and board mills has reduced in recent years: 81 now operate. In the face of the strength of the pound, which has severely affected the paper industry, and gas prices, which have doubled, and despite other regulations, the industry is making great strides.

Is my right hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that the Environment Agency is policing companies that have a turnover of £2 million and produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging, which requires them to register? Might the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry work in partnership? Have any discussions been held on how to ensure that companies comply and are aware of their obligations?

We should not regard the new requirements as a threat. There is great opportunity for developing and improving infrastructure. Investment in the green economy is vital if we are to meet the targets and protect our environment. Rigour is required, and tough decisions must be taken now—we cannot wait forever and a day before we take them.

We must also address the situation in a sustainable way. We do not want any unnecessary impact on our industries that would result in them going out of business. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton referred to the development of more infrastructure. The Government recently provided a grant to Shotton paper mill in Wales for an expansion of newsprint. I was involved in the discussion about that. The grant went to the wrong company; it should have gone to Aylesford Newsprint. I make no apology for my parochial perspective on that.

As my hon. Friend said, it is vital that all stakeholders are involved in reviewing the current arrangements. Reprocessors must play a greater role on the advisory committee. I am keen to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that. If he is looking for names, I am sure that the Paper Federation of Great Britain would be more than happy to provide them.

I turn to the packaging export recovery notes. There is concern in the paper industry that the amount of waste that is being exported is rising considerably—by 59,000 tonnes in 2000 to just over 179,000 tonnes in 2001, and reports suggest that that figure will rise higher. Waste merchants are able to receive PERNs; the total amount over the past year or so is £80 million. We want that to be invested in reprocessing infrastructure. Does DEFRA have a breakdown of where that investment is going? That issue is causing debate among waste merchants and in the paper industry.

The PERN has made it more favourable for waste merchants to export material; it costs £60 to hire a container to China, which is very cheap. Paper mills are in a perverse situation; because so much waste is being exported, they are having to import it as they are unable to get sufficient supply from the domestic stream. This is a market system, but we have to make it work; we must look at whether the market is allowing us to operate in a sustainable way. My right hon. Friend the Minister should also look at when the targets are announced. It is difficult for companies to plan, if they do not know well in advance what next year's target will be.

The waste merchants will argue that, as a direct result of PRNs, the major UK mills have enjoyed very low prices in recent years. We live in a free market, and the basic laws of supply and demand apply. If someone is willing to pay so much for waste, it will go to them—it will go to the highest bidder. We must ensure that we get the very best out of the current system. The packaging waste regulations are important. They have made a step change, but much more needs to be done to bring people together so that we get the very best out of what we have, and produce improvements—rather than cause too much damage—to all areas of industry.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate and bringing forth a broad discussion on the important and often overlooked matter of waste.

The packaging industry has suffered from clumsy, burdensome and extremely ineffective regulation, but waste, particularly the waste produced by that industry, is a political issue that goes beyond the interests of just one industrial sector. It affects us all, and my constituents cannot understand why more is not done to control effectively the amount of waste that we produce as an industrial nation. Why do we not do more, and why is the action that we do take not more effective? Why can other European countries get a grip on the amount of waste that they produce—I am thinking particularly of what happens in Germany—yet we seem to be stuck like rabbits in the headlights of oncoming cars?

The Government are usually very much in touch with public opinion. Indeed, they pride themselves on their ability to read the public mind, yet in this respect they are greatly out of step with the public mood. Overregulation has, in some areas, led to the demise of simple, local solutions for recycling. I am referring not to the regulations that we have heard about, but to fire regulations, for example.

In the past, the usual way to carry away goods from a supermarket was to pick up a brown cardboard box that had been brought out of the storeroom and kept at the checkout. People would load in their produce and carry it away, but now, invariably because of planning or fire regulations, that regime no longer exists. A much larger mountain of waste is created, and the practical, simple and local solutions are actually leading to a greater amount of waste and greater problems in disposing of it. In Bexhill and Battle, people are particularly impatient with the failure to get to grips with the excess waste that is produced because we face the prospect of one or two incinerators in the constituency. People cannot understand why more is not done.

We were told that this would be the greenest Government ever but, sadly, Britain still ranks near the bottom of the international recycling league of developed nations. That is partly because, although many local authorities such as Wealden, which covers part of my constituency, do a terrific job of getting to grips with recycling, there is a lack of political will at the centre to get a grip on the much larger picture, which incorporates packaging and minimisation. It is no good local authorities increasing recycling by themselves, if people are not looking at the bigger picture to control on waste problems and we continue to allow the amount of waste that we produce to rise, as it has under this Government.

We must consider much more critically not only how we can improve recycling, but how we can bear down on the whole waste hierarchy. We must cut through the plethora of EU and domestic regulations, and create an effective framework to cut down on wasteful packaging and tackle waste at its source. Simple regulation that works with the industry invariably works best. We need better and more effective regulation that does not burden companies, but encourages them to minimise waste responsibly.

Unfortunately, as I have said, most of the goods that we now buy involve much more packaging than was traditionally the case. Indeed, packaging is now estimated to form up to half the volume of municipal waste in western Europe. As we have heard from other hon. Members, the packaging and packaging waste directive that was adopted in 1994 had to be implemented by June 1996. The targets for recovery and recycling of packaging and packaging waste by June 2001 were to recover at least 50 per cent. by weight of packaging, and to recycle at least 25 per cent. by weight of the totality of packaging materials contained in the waste, with a minimum of 15 per cent. by weight for each packaging material.

Any business handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging with a financial turnover of more than £2 million is affected by the regulations if it performs one or more of the following activities: manufacturing raw materials for packaging; converting materials into packaging; filling packaging; selling packaging to the final user; or importing packaging or packaging materials into the UK.

At the outset, businesses such as packaging manufacturers and retailers were obliged to recover 52 per cent. of packaging waste by 2001, and recycle at least 16 per cent. of each material category. Targets for 2001 under packaging regulations were 56 per cent. for recovery and 18 per cent. for material-specific recycling and packaging waste. Businesses will have to meet targets of 59 per cent. for recovery and 19 per cent. for material-specific recycling of packaging waste under the packaging waste recovery and recycling targets set for 2002. When those targets were set, the Minister claimed that the UK had done well so far. There had been 36 per cent. of recycling and 42 per cent. of recovery of packaging waste by the end of 2000, and improvement in recovery of 12 per cent. since 1998. As I said, however, the UK still lags behind the rest of Europe in recycling and recovery rates.

In April 2001, a Friends of the Earth study found that the packaging directive had not led to any significant increase in the recycling of packaging. It stated:

"Friends of the Earth believes there should be no recovery target at all, that the targets for recycling should be much higher and that there should also be a target for minimum levels of re-use of packaging, which is further up the waste hierarchy."

In April 2002, the Minister admitted that compliance schemes were not working at optimum levels when he chastised the second largest scheme in the UK for not meeting targets. In 2001, the PERN system revenue to accredited exporters for paper packaging waste was £3.3 million, compared with PRN revenue to accredited reprocessors for paper packaging waste of £32 million. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) highlighted, the large-scale export of plastics to China by some waste collection companies has allowed the system to be distorted, which means that even the UK's existing plastics recycling capacity is not being used.

Once packaging waste generators have rid themselves of their PRN obligations through waste retrieval firms, they can absolve themselves of further responsibility. Furthermore, the current system places no obligation on firms to search for more environmentally friendly and easily degradable forms of packaging. The motives behind the recovery system are clearly honourable, but the problems highlighted today must be addressed. It is essential to create a climate of opinion that presents achieving a better, more sustainable environment as a great opportunity rather than a chore. That will mean more carrots for the companies, local authorities and people who do the right thing, and fewer sticks that all too often miss their targets.

We need to measure and quantify the effectiveness of the system, not just introduce more and more regulations. We must also align people's best interests with their self-interest, and make it easier for companies to do the right thing for their local communities, which ultimately must shoulder the consequences of excess packaging and the failure to curb the growth of waste. We need better, more effective and less clumsy regulation. The target dates that the EU has set are drawing closer. The public are demanding action, and the Government will ignore them at their peril.

Mr. Cook, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister two questions, and comment briefly on the second. First, given that the major part of the growth in the UK packaging and recycling industry will need to come from household waste, what steps are being taken to ensure that household collection will be expanded sufficiently to meet future higher targets?

Secondly, what is the economic and environmental justification for the proposed different material-specific recycling targets of 60 per cent. for glass, 55 per cent. for paper, 50 per cent. for metals and 20 per cent. for plastics? I would like to know whether that is a fair division between materials, and whether it will achieve the desired result of the 55 per cent. minimum targets over the whole base.

On 8 May, some of us in the all-party aluminium industry group heard Nick Kendal say that the European Union packaging waste directive is about to be revised, and that he was worried that Orwellian tones were "abroad" within the Commission's current proposal. He said:

"Astonishing though it may sound, it's proposed that some packaging materials are to become more equal than others! You may be less surprised to hear that down at Animal Farm the material least easy to recycle or re-use is proposed for the "more equal status". It could be a case of straight bananas riding again!

Quite simply, concerning recyclable or re-usable products, the Commission is proposing that while the more favourable material types—Metals, Paper and Board and Glass should be allocated recycling targets of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., the least favourable material, Plastic, should only be set at 20 per cent…We don't want to see such nonsense enacted, and we don't think that you do either. For the sake of the environment, we would like to see you help to ensure that logic is maintained. That's the message, pure and simple."

I would like a comment on that issue, and on one other matter. The Dutch Member of the European Parliament, Dorette Corbey, who was responsible for steering the directive revision through Committee, opposes material-specific targets for which the Commission has not demonstrated any advantages. The United Kingdom Government apparently share that opposition. I would like to know what has happened to her amendment setting an equal minimum 25 per cent. for all materials, while raising the overall recycling target into the 55 per cent. to 65 per cent. range. What is the Government's attitude to that proposal?

Mr. Cook,I rise to—

Order. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to remind the hon. Members that, in its decision to assume these proceedings in Westminster Hall, the House also took the decision that the four senior Members of the Chairmen's Panel should be referred to, when occupying this seat, as "Deputy Speaker". If I were to allow this misdemeanour to continue, trivial though it may be, the expressions of amusement on some faces in the Chamber might turn to dismay. I would not want that to happen.

:I apologise for my error, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was following the Father of the House and compounding his error. I seem to he starting my remarks between a rock and a hard place.

I will make a few comments regarding the glass industry, but would first like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate. As he pointed out, all hon. Members have an interest in packaging waste, and therefore should have an interest in the packaging waste regulations. The issue affects all of us.

My constituency has a major glass manufacturing operation, known as Rexam Glass. Glass manufacturing is important to the constituency; indeed, the glass bottles that are on the table this morning were made in that factory. As regards packaging waste, glass is in a unique position.

I cannot let go the fact that the water comes from near my constituency, and the water is equally as important as the glass.

:I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am reminded of when we used to have different mineral waters—Highland Spring, Ashbourne, Malvern and Cwmbran—because of the intense jealousies between the various nationalities within the House. We now have House of Commons water, which fills the bottles made in my constituency.

To recap, glass is in a unique position in terms of packaging waste. The glass container industry reprocessed some 600,000 tonnes of post-consumer glass waste in 2001. It is a basic raw material in glass manufacture, sought by the glass industry on that basis. It is an easy material to recycle into another product. The collection is something else, but it is what we call a primary closed loop recycling system. Such recycling in 2001 saved the quarrying of 700,000 tonnes of raw material—the energy equivalent of 77 million kW hours and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of 132,000 tonnes, avoiding almost 600,000 tonnes of landfill. That type of recycling—the primary closed loop system—is unique to the glass industry: if replicated, it would exemplify best practice. The UK glass container industry currently recycles approximately 33 per cent. of the container waste stream. It has been involved in such activity for I he past 25 years. Recycled glass is a primary material in the construction of new glass.

As we have heard this morning, the revision of the packaging and packaging waste directive under discussion in Brussels could result in a 60 to 70 per cent. target—a significant increase—being imposed on the glass industry by 2006. That scale of increase in targets within such a time scale has been achieved in mainland Europe only through significant Government intervention and by placing great onus on local authorities and the consumer to achieve compliance. The container glass industry estimates the cost of achieving the new target at £200 million. For an industry that has witnessed a halving of profitability over the past five years, that is a huge cost burden, which the industry is unlikely to be able to manage.

The glass industry already possesses the capacity to reprocess and recycle 50 per cent. of the UK's glass container waste. Facility improvements and capital investment in two new reprocessing plants can go ahead only if the glass industry can be assured of increased supplies of good quality raw material. In other words, we can recycle more glass only if the facilities are there to process and use it. If new manufacturing plants come on stream, we will be able to increase the amount of recycled products. That complicates the target: industry can recycle only certain amounts because they are used in the manufacture of new glass products.

For the closed loop recycling system to work, the glass industry requires the Government to encourage the increased collection of colour separated waste. British Glass, the glass manufacturers' trade organisation, urges the promotion of this form of collection, whether from bottle bank sites or from kerbside collections. The colour separation argument is important. If glass is not colour separated, recycled glass can produce only green glass. Clear glass or amber glass can be produced only from recycled amber or clear glass. If two or three are mixed together, the resultant product is simply green. It leads to mountains of green glass cullet, which the industry simply cannot use.

About 50,000 bottle banks currently exist in the UK, which is equivalent to one per 2,700 head of population, which compares to a European average of one to 1,000. I am pleased that the first-ever bottle bank was placed in my constituency in 1970, hence the 25-year recycling history. Kerbside collection of glass is available to only 10 per cent. of United Kingdom households and most of the studies show that access to kerbside collection immediately doubles recycling of post-consumer glass waste. Further investment within the UK in kerbside recycling systems is desperately needed.

The term bottle bank is a misnomer, but the industry is stuck with it. It should be renamed glass bank, which would encourage people to recycle other glass containers such as jam jars and so on. People seem to think that they are restricted to recycling only bottles in bottle banks.

In 2002, the glass industry will spend about £425,000 on education and the promotion of glass recycling, but that is not nearly enough to persuade target audiences to recycle more by using kerbside and other schemes.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by and large, consumers want to play a full part in recycling if given the opportunity to do so? Responsibility for providing the opportunity comes down to the efforts being made, or not made, by local councils.

:I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. More effort by government and local authorities is needed to provide systems to enable us to meet the targets that will be imposed from 2006. Those huge increases in recycling targets will be met only if the systems for recycling are in place. By the same token, local authorities will need extra resources from the Government to be able to make the schemes work.

I want to mention some of the problems facing the glass industry in relation to recycling. Surprisingly, one of those problems is the newly introduced aggregates tax. Although the glass industry obtained relief from paying the tax, it is now beginning to suffer significantly as a result of the aggregates industry seeking supplies of glass container waste for use as an aggregate in road building. That means that aggregates companies avoid paying the tax, but also benefit from receiving packaging recovery notes income. The net effect is that the glass industry will receive less PRN revenue for investment in the collection infrastructure, promotion and education and might even be forced to have to purchase PRNs to cover its own obligation, which will be a further drain on its resources. It will also result in a significant under-utilisation of reprocessing and recycling facilities.

The glass industry is extremely concerned at that turn of events, which will also increase the industry's energy costs and pollution levels, and could in turn lead to it being penalised under the climate change levy and the integrated pollution prevention and control legislation.

As my hon. Friend referred to the climate change levy, I want to refer to a letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 May by the plastics industry—I accept that it is not the Minister's responsibility but it should be on the record. It suggests that very few plastics companies are able to obtain voluntary agreement to secure the climate change levy rebate and only one fifth of the levy is offset by the reduction last April in the employers' national insurance contributions. The effect of the reduction in the national insurance contribution is negative in this respect. Will my hon. Friend take that on board and associate the plastics industry with the glass industry?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was about to come to that very subject. As I have said many times in the House, the climate change levy has had a disproportionate effect on the glass industry because, although in some circumstances it qualifies for the 80 per cent. rebate, the tax imposed on the industry is still substantial. In 2002 it is estimated that the net cost to container manufacturers will be £1.8 million. Everyone agrees that we should support Kyoto targets on reducing our emissions and producing a cleaner environment, but that should not be achieved at the expense of certain industries in our country. The burden should be spread throughout the country, and not placed only on the manufacturing industry.

Does the hon. Gentleman favour a carbon tax as a fairer way of working?

No, I do not favour a carbon tax, but I would prefer a fairer system than the climate change levy, which unfairly affects manufacturing industry. It has caused huge costs to manufacturers in the glass industry, and some container glass manufacturers have based future energy reduction programmes, required by the CCL, on increased levels of recycled glass used in manufacture. If recycled glass sources reduce or even dry up, sections of the industry could find themselves liable to the CCL at 100 per cent. Its impact would be extreme and could put them out of business.

On the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations, the glass industry is committed to reducing polluting emissions, including carbon dioxide. The increased use of recycled glass as a raw material helps to achieve that, because less energy is used in re-melting cullet or recycled glass. If the industry experiences a shortage in supplies of good quality colour separated recycled glass, it could be forced to install electrostatic precipitators, which will cost the industry about £30 million and increase energy consumption by about 3 per cent. per annum. Again, an extra financial burden will be imposed on the industry if we cannot secure that supply of glass.

Another solution would be for glass manufacturers to consider importing recycled glass from abroad simply to meet the IPPC and CCL targets. The industry believes that that would be a retrograde step when a potentially good UK source of recycled glass exists, which will either be disposed of as landfill in the domestic waste stream or used as road aggregate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton spoke about the revision to the packaging waste directive, and I wholeheartedly endorse his comments. As most hon. Members have suggested, the glass industry does not support the idea of differentiated material specific targets, as they are likely to lead to competitive imbalances in the packaging sector. For example, the current proposal to give plastics a target of 20 per cent. compared with a 60 per cent. target for glass would give the plastics industry a huge advantage over the glass industry. We saw the advent of the PET glass containers some years ago, when drinks manufacturers put their product into plastic rather than glass containers even though plastic is more difficult to recycle. Once recycled, certain forms of plastic cannot be used as a food container, whereas anything made of glass has the advantage of being reusable.

The plastics industry could achieve that 20 per cent. target through recovery from industrial waste only, which would give the packet fillers and retailers who specify packaging types a much lower supply chain obligation. The glass industry maintains that if it is going to meet 60 per cent. targets for 2006, we must examine the domestic waste stream to recover that level of material. That brings me back to the systems that we need to have in place—the kerbside recovery schemes and so on—to get the material from the domestic, rather than the industrial, stream.

:I think that the issue that my hon. Friend is driving at is the importance of long-term planning. We need activities and investment to drive up the collection and recovery capacity for household waste. Although there are highly complex systems in place, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that there must be long-term planning from local government, central government and private operators. If we get that longterm planning, we cannot fail.

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must consider not only long-term planning but the impositions that we have placed on various industries. In terms of the climate change levy, those impositions were well intentioned; however, we may find that they affect our attempts to recycle and recover materials. For example, energy costs and national insurance contributions have increased for the manufacturing industry. Other burdens, such as the climate change levy, have been put upon it, too. Unless there is real joined-up thinking about our environmental, recycling and recovery targets, we are giving industry advantages with one hand but taking them away with the other by imposing measures such as the climate change levy and IPPC regulations.

I echo the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, who drew attention to the fact that companies are failing to register obligations, or are finding ways to minimise them. Of course, we must consider issues such as giving some companies a minimal obligation—such as plastics at 20 per cent.—resources for policing the system, bringing in kerbside collection schemes if necessary, and getting packaging waste out of the domestic waste stream. Companies in my constituency make the point that, across the European Union, there is no consistent data with which to compare and contrast the countries that are meeting their recycling targets and those that are not. We need to reconsider that.

I look forward to hearing the Government's response, particularly to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, who deserves our congratulations on initiating this timely debate.

rose

Order. We usually start the winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate, and apportion time equally between the three main speakers. I hope to allow the Minister a couple of extra minutes this time, because there are lots of questions to answer.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best to keep within a sensible amount of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), not only on securing the debate but on explaining so clearly the problems faced by the packaging industry. We are not without sympathy for those problems. Packaging and the interim processes that we go through to get goods are absolutely essential. We must recognise that. It is easy for environmentalists to say "Packaging—no, no, no.", but the issue is really one of appropriate levels of packaging and recycling, and making sure that we are using materials as wisely as possible. The packaging industry needs encouragement to do so and to fulfil its obligations.

However, many problems are a result of giving responsibility for such matters to the producer. The Government are more or less throwing the issue over the wall to the producer without saying how targets are to be achieved. There are problems with moving targets. What is the target for 2001? Is there a target for 2006, or for 2008? We also need to consider interim targets, because if the packaging industry it to achieve what is being asked of it, it needs to know what the steps are along the way and how it is going to get there. We must also make sure that there are incentives for those involved with the recycling and materials recovery business to see that it has a long-term future and is worth investing in. Without support, that will not happen.

We have packaging waste regulations, but I have read that there are some in the packaging industry who feel that they are an anonymous European Commission directive, brought down from on high to upset everybody. Of course, that is not the case. One of the biggest problems facing this planet, along with overpopulation, is the mountain of waste, which is growing enormously year on year. We must not only arrest its growth but reverse its increase.

We have many problems with targets. How are they to be achieved? The former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced on 21 November 2000 targets of 56 per cent. recovery and 18 per cent. material-specific recycling for businesses, obligated by the UK regulations. It took until May 2002 to get the figures for 2001 performance from the Government, despite endless parliamentary questions to try to drag that information from them. Can the Minister tell me why it took so long to make those figures available? How can we know how we are performing, if we do not have the information? Even if the news is bad, we need information so that we can put in place the necessary measures to improve performance. Typically, we failed to achieve those targets. If we failed to meet those modest targets, can the Minister tell us how on earth we are to meet the much more challenging 2006 targets? What will be done to help the packaging industry achieve those?

Wastepack, one of the compliance schemes, has failed to obtain recovery certificates to match even half its obligations. What changes will the Minister make to ensure that such compliance scheme failures do not occur in future and that the Government are alerted sooner to potential problems? Underscoring that is the need for interim monitoring and reporting.

Businesses need to know the targets in order to plan ahead. They have to tool up and identify what materials are needed, and to negotiate with their purchasers any changes in the materials used. It is not straightforward to say, "Today we're using tetrapaks, tomorrow glass or card products." Such changes cannot be made overnight. The industry needs information. Why do the Government expect obligated parties to meet their obligations, when they do not know until three months into the year what the targets are on which they are being measured? That has been a problem, and does not provide a level playing field.

We saw DEFRA's initial proposals for 2002 targets in September 2001. They were 61 per cent. recovery and 20 per cent. material recycling. One can only assume that the figures were lowered because by that time, we already knew that we were not going to meet those targets. We need a formal consultation process between DEFRA and business to improve the system so that the 2006 targets can be met. Everything that I hear from businesses says that they want to comply, but they need the Government to tell them what they want and to give them an idea of how they can achieve it without crippling their industry. Such information is essential.

We have not discussed plastic recycling very much. Understandably, we have had an interesting debate on the use of glass or plastic between Members who have those interests in their constituencies. There are many issues around plastic recycling, especially that of plastic bags. Ireland has introduced an innovative scheme of charging for those bags. Much more could be done.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that the recovery of plastics in the form of incineration is unacceptable, in my constituency or in his. The idea that energy from waste is the solution to many of our problems is not acceptable to the public at present, and I do not see that view changing. We must be much more canny over how to deliver recovered materials into alternate situations

Making a breakthrough on waste recycling is potentially a huge task. My background has been in working with local government asking people what they are doing to recover end-user packaging, to recycle it and reduce it. Those with whom I work spend their time saying that they do not want all this packaging, but people do not always recognise that some packaging is essential to preserve the quality of the goods in the way that people expect them to be delivered.

There are problems, and we need waste partnerships to achieve targets if we are to increase domestic waste recycling performances. At present, 11 million households are covered by local authority controlled kerbside programmes that collect domestic waste, but only 100,000 tonnes of packaging is collected. Some 300 local authorities have kerbside programmes of some sort, but they cover limited materials and not all households. Over a third collect only newspapers and pamphlets, which do not even qualify as packaging waste.

We need to ensure that between 1.2 and 2.7 megatonnes of additional packaging recovery takes place. We need a substantial increase in packaging recovery. We need to achieve an additional 500,000 tonnes of packaging recovery from household waste. To realise that figure would require the full participation of counties and 15 to 20 district authorities, but we want to make that happen nationally. We need far more material recycling facilities close to the point of use and collection, so that we do not prolong the problem of shipping materials somewhere else. We need investment of about £10 million of capital to start recovering such materials.

I went to see one of the plastics recovering companies in the midlands. It uses a variety of plastics, and has the process pretty well sorted. It was a very low-tech operation: about half a dozen people working in a barn, and producing plastics that form perfectly good drainage pipes and shields for underground cables, where it does not matter if the plastic is contaminated. Therefore, very little work has to be done to make those materials suitable for reuse. That company told me that it wants to take United Kingdom plastic, but because the Belgian market works much more effectively, it is cheaper to bring in that plastic. Despite that, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has been explaining how plastic is being shipped out to China. There is something wrong about the business of moving waste across countries and oceans to do something with it.

When I go to my local bottle bank, I cannot get anything into the plastics part of the bank because it is always full. I asked my local authority why, and it told me that it already has to spend money to take plastics to the midlands, and it has to be careful with the limited amount of money it has for that resource. We need to ensure that plastics are recovered properly, in greater proximity to the point of collection and with more of a following wind.

I could ask the Minister many more questions, but he already has many on his desk and I recognise that Mr. Deputy Speaker wants to make space for those questions to be answered. Without Government support for the packaging industry in the ways I have outlined, we will continue to experience problems of incineration and landfill, which the public and the business do not want to see. I hope that I do not see it in the future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate, and on raising, as did the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), some very practical questions from the industry. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Normanton for being so generous with his time, which has allowed every other Member who wanted to speak to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) raised one of the most important questions and made the most obvious point, which is that the best way to reduce waste is not to produce it in the first place. That point keeps being made, but it is not often answered. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) posed in rather brief order what we might call the West Lothian question of domestic waste. I look forward to the Minister's answers to that conundrum and to why it is that there is so little kerbside collection and domestic waste segregation.

The Government's handling of the European packaging waste directive provides an example of their "leap before you look" environmental policy. It is easy and inviting to prove one's European credentials by signing up to regulations and directives but then to muddle through on the home implementation front, alienating domestic interest groups, failing to secure one's purpose and running up bills to the taxpayer.

The key question is one of outcomes. How successfully have the regulations achieved their objectives? Can the Government fulfil their statutory obligations and attain the recovery and recycling targets, thus enabling the directive, which the Conservative party supports, to fulfil its purpose? How is the incentive to recycle to be created at the local level without over-regulation that simply increases bureaucracy and cost?

The directive is designed to prevent member states introducing measures that would act as a barrier to trade, to reduce the environmental impact of packaging and to establish economically efficient packaging recovery and recycling systems to enable member states to reach set targets. The challenge is to finance the expansion of the recycling industry and to make producers responsible for packaging waste, while not disrupting normal business activity.

In 1998, the UK achieved the lowest recovery and recycling rates of any member state: 33 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively, compared with 89 per cent. for recovery in Denmark and 65 per cent. for recycling in Germany and Austria. From 1998 to 2001, the UK improved. It achieved recovery and recycling rates of 48 per cent. and 42 per cent., yet in 2001, as has already been stated, it missed the directive recovery rate of 50 per cent. and the Government's target of 52 per cent.

The regulations specify targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste as well as the essential requirements to be met by packaging placed on the market. They place on certain businesses three main obligations: to register with the Environment Agency and provide data; to take reasonable steps to recover and recycle packaging waste; and to certify that the necessary recovery and recycling has been carried out. The packaging recovery note system was established in 1997 to force manufacturers to take financial responsibility for the packaging waste that they produce. Since 1998, some £250 million for PRNs and packaging export recovery notes has been channelled to reprocessors through registration fees.

However, if the purpose is to increase the amount of packaging that is reused or recycled, there is little evidence to show that money has been invested to achieve it. There are three main problems with the system. First, no differentiation is made between different types of packaging waste. For instance, hemp-based packaging, which is easily biodegradable, is treated in the same way as polymer-based packaging. Manufacturers and retailers are thus given no incentive to investigate less environmentally damaging forms of packaging.

Secondly, packaging waste generators are not directly involved with the recycling process. Once they have paid a waste retrieval firm to absolve them of their PRN obligations, they can effectively wash their hands of the waste that they have generated. That encourages a cynical approach to recovery and recycling: businesses simply look for the cheapest way of absolving themselves of their PRN obligations.

Thirdly, the PRN system is often undermined by the existence of the packaging export recovery note system, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members. Under that scheme, it is often cheaper for a waste recovery firm to send collected waste materials abroad for recycling. The consequence of that—we have already talked about China is that even the existing plastics recycling capacity in the United Kingdom is not fully utilised, so there is little incentive to build on it.

No doubt the Minister will talk about the increase in recycling. That is fair enough, but we must recognise that that increase has been in the easiest areas: the commercial and industrial sectors. That is because of a lack of investment in segregated household collection systems. Local authority recycling targets are based on weight, which means that newspapers and composting materials are prioritised above the lighter part of the waste—packaging. We have to meet higher packaging waste recycling targets over the next four years. To do so, we must extract additional packaging waste from the household waste stream and develop recycling markets. That will be achieved only if there is investment in household collection, sorting and reprocessing schemes.

Only 44 per cent. of households in English regions are served by segregated kerbside collection. According to the Packaging Federation, up to 80 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom would need such a scheme by the end of 2006 if the current European Union proposals were adopted. The suggested target levels for 2006 to 2008 will require between 1.2 million and 2.7 million tonnes of additional packaging recovery in the United Kingdom. That is a massive increase and the cost will be considerable. Even an extra 50,000 tonnes of packaging from household waste would require an investment of around £10 million. So even with the lowest figure of 1.2 million extra tonnes, we are talking about £240 million.

If the system does not produce the results that we want—and I have shown that it does not we need to think about what should be done. Has the Minister considered a reward system for waste management? It would work on the basis of a matrix of the increasing non-biodegradability of waste materials from paper to plastic—against the increasing adverse environmental impacts of different waste management options, from reuse and recycling to incineration and landfill. An increasing financial reward for the best waste management of the most non-biodegradable or environmentally damaging material would be offset by an increasing financial penalty for the worst waste management solutions. That would be a real incentive to recover and recycle, while rendering redundant the ineffective and costly PRN system, which fails to fulfil the purpose of the packaging waste regulations. It would also render the landfill tax redundant.

In order to achieve the objectives of the directive, the Government rely on the support of local authorities, private waste contractors and reprocessors, compliance scheme operators and the packaging industry. By upsetting each of those interest groups equally, the Minister may believe that he has achieved a balanced solution. If so, he is wrong. He has achieved a system that neither works well nor satisfies anyone. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that we have a system that does what we want it to do, rather than a system that fails in so many ways.

:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on securing what has been an excellent and well-informed debate. I shall do my best to further inform the debate, but the Chamber will be aware that the subject comes under the portfolio of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and my detailed knowledge falls far short of his.

Many short but complex questions have been asked in today's debate and they require lengthy answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is the world's expert at encapsulating in the shortest question a challenge on a very complex issue. If I may, I shall seek to supplement my responses by writing to hon. Members where necessary. I want to focus on the serious issues raised by a number of Members, but I must start by chiding the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).

:I thank the Minister for giving way. When he says that he will write to Members with specific answers, will he put those replies in the Library?

Yes, I am happy to do so. May I now proceed to chide the hon. Gentleman? I want to make it clear to him that far from seeking to upset groups, the Government seek to work with all groups with a sense of urgency. That may put many people under pressure.

In his response, the hon. Gentleman should have said to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow why recycling and related issues are at a low in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was a member of a Government who turned the muddled implementation of European directives into an art form. For 18 years, they did too little to tackle waste, which is why there is now a need for urgency and for pressure on the industry and local government to assist us in doing what is needed.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly acknowledged that this is the greenest Government that we have ever had. He was right to say that people want more to be done about waste, which is why it was so frustrating during the 1980s and 1990s for those of us who were concerned about the environment to see a Conservative Government doing so little about it. I saw work being done on waste and recycling in places such as Canada and Germany, and it was frustrating to return to this country to see so little being done, except for that done by voluntary organisations, such as the excellent organisation, Track 2000, in my constituency. I remember that that gained its first grant to begin its work in the early 1980s, very much on the basis of voluntary activity.

It is also worth pointing out that local authorities during that period were frustrated. The greater current level of engagement of local authorities with such issues is the result of having a Government who believe in partnership with regional and local government and the range of industries involved, and who are trying to draw all organisations together to get on with the job. The failure to do that over 18 years is why we face such a challenge and must improve the situation with a sense of urgency; it why we must set clear targets, and why we have a lower starting point than many other European countries—that was mentioned by several hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton raised a number of important issues. I want to reflect his serious and measured approach to opening the debate. He referred to the wide range of materials used in the packaging industry. He rightly outlined the relevance of the industry to constituency members, and therefore to people in all parts of the country. Although the impact of regulations on the industry is considerable, we must remember that what lies behind them is concern over the impact of waste from packaging on our economies, on the environment and on all of us as citizens. He rightly suggests that the Commission should consider issues such as transport and resource efficiency, to which several hon. Members have referred. They must be addressed in future as we consider how regulations and practice develop.

There are regional variations, but addressing regional issues, which are important, must not stand in the way of achieving consistency, fairness and national targets. Companies that seek to minimise their obligations may well reflect human nature and the nature of business. These are complex issues, but delay in making progress, or failure to make any, are not acceptable options.

I turn to the number of regulations and the nature of the regulatory body. I hope that we have succeeded in getting clear regulations. They have been in place since 1997 and are enforced by the Environment Agency in England and Wales and by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland. Over time, those organisations have achieved a reputation for performing their key tasks and, increasingly, for engaging industry in proper debate about undertakings.

I turn to the matter of the EC directive. When work is done on future directives, and on the implementation of them, the views of industry will be taken into account, particularly during the course of negotiations in Brussels. Full consultation will occur during those negotiations, and before regulations come into effect; that is one of the assurances that has been sought.

Reference was made to the need for strong industry representation on the Advisory Committee on Packaging. I am unsure whether a majority is always the best way to achieve that, but we need a good balance and the expertise of the industry. We are reviewing the membership of that committee. We hope to be able to announce the new membership shortly, and we will take into account the points that have been made in the debate.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and others talked about the timing of targets. That is a challenge. One of the difficulties is that, although consultation was issued last year on targets to be set for 2002, data from compliance schemes have been received since then. One has to know where one is, in order to know the position from which one seeks to move forward. Final targets could not be set until the data were finalised, but consultation has allowed business to plan for the new targets.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) raised several issues. She is another hon. Member who is good at asking questions. She talked about avoiding excessive movement, and the need for the market to develop. It is clear that there is a great deal of movement that it might be possible to avoid in the longer term due to an accelerated period of development of the market.

I was unsure of what to think about her suggestions with regard to interim monitoring and interim reporting. It is necessary to keep a finger on the way that things are developing, but it is possible to increase the amount of monitoring and the bureaucracy to such an extent that they get in the way of decisions that the industry should take.

The hon. Lady could have given a little more credit for what has been done. The UK narrowly failed to meet the recovery target of at least 50 per cent., but it met the recycling target and the material specific recycling target for all materials including plastic. The UK achieved just short of 48 per cent. recovery, with a shortfall against the target of just 195,000 tonnes. Therefore, the UK system has allowed us to move from a 30 per cent. recovery level in 1998 to a 48 per cent. level in 2001, and from about a 27 per cent. recycling level in 1998 to a 42 per cent. level. That is a considerable achievement, especially as it took only four years, and I pay tribute to the excellent performance of the majority of UK businesses. We will look with interest at the performance of Liberal Democrat local authorities, and the contribution that they made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow talked about the increase in the recycling of waste, and the importance of recycling domestic waste. Household collection is being expanded, and the local authority role in that is critical. We are working closely with the Local Government Association to promote it. He referred to material specific and differential targets; however, it would be sensible for me to write to hon. Members who have asked questions about matters of such complexity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) rightly said that it is important to separate fact from myth, and to think of the developments as an opportunity, not a threat. They are certainly a challenge, but they are also an opportunity for us to get it right. It is worrying that some companies may not be aware of their obligations; we will do all that we can to make sure that companies are made aware of them. My hon. Friend is right to anticipate our wish to minimise red tape as well as emphasising the need to apply requirements more rigorously. I am sure that he will accept that that is a difficult balance to achieve.

Order. It is time to move on to the next debate.

First, I apologise for choosing what is probably the dullest debate title this Session. PPG3—Planning policy guidance note 3—is something that I did not know a great deal about two years ago, and my constituents certainly did not know much about it either. If I were to say that people were now discussing PPG3 in the pubs and bars of Winchester, hon. Members might not believe me, but it is becoming an issue of extraordinary concern in the area. The document with the strange title "PPG3" is having quite an impact on the postbags of many Members of Parliament who represent constituencies similar to Winchester, and people visit our surgeries to talk about it. In essence, PPG3 is a Government policy designed to maximise the development of brownfield land.

My second apology is to the Minister; I am sure that he is fed up with Members of Parliament from the south-east making representations about housing developments in that area. I do not want to take a NIMBY approach to the subject, but will point out some of my concerns about the approach that is being taken, and the impact that PPG3 is having on the development and character my constituency and the rest of Hampshire.

I am not arguing that Hampshire should put up a "full" sign or a big barrier saying "No more developments in this area." I accept that there is a need for some form of housing, particularly low-cost housing. The subject is topical in view of last week's announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister. However, it is important that we have a debate about the type and amount of housing and, more specifically, its location and the Government targets being put in place.

In simple terms, the problem is that the Government have set some tough targets for the south-east, and those targets have been broken down into percentage targets for developments on both greenfield and brownfield sites in the area. The county council are to set up a structure plan, and local authorities will be faced with the day-to-day task of implementing decisions as planning applications come through to them.

The traditional argument, which I have used on many occasions, is that if we have to accept those central Government targets, we should at least try to avoid using green fields. They should be the very last option, and I certainly support the assumption that we should maximise use of brownfield sites to avoid building on them. In general, the public have understood that message; indeed, they have begun to use the phrase "brownfield site" at meetings. They recognise that development on brownfield sites is the price that we pay for not building on green fields.

I applied for this debate because the drive away from greenfield land towards brownfield land is having a serious impact. We need to recognise that the pendulum has swung the other way. We should urgently consider the impact that the pendulum swing towards brownfield sites is having on planning in the area. I am asking not for a shift back to development on greenfield sites, but for a review of the implication of developing brownfield sites, and in particular, the impact that PPG3 is having on local authorities. I shall discuss several issues, including sensitive brownfield sites, the need for more affordable housing, demands on infrastructure, the pressure put on individuals by developers, and the pressure on planning departments.

I shall start with sensitive brownfield sites. At the moment, all brownfield sites are alike in the eyes of the Government. Any previously developed area—even a factory site or an area covered in tyres—is in the same brownfield site category as, for example, a site very close to Winchester cathedral. We need to think again about how to categorise what is meant by a brownfield site. It is too simplistic to say that a site is either greenfield or brownfield, and if it is brownfield it can be developed to avoid building on greenfield areas. Many urban sites have as much value as marshland or other countryside areas, and are just as sensitive. However, at present there is no easy way to identify that third type of site.

At present, a development is being planned on the site of Minstrels, an old coffee shop in sight of Winchester cathedral. That is regarded as a brownfield site, just as an old factory site would be, which means that developers and the local authority have as much responsibility to pack as many flats or houses on to that site as they would on an old factory site. However, that is not really a brownfield site. Surely a third category is needed for such areas. Perhaps we could have greenfield sites, brownfield sites and "historic-field" sites, or semibrownfield sites. I am sure that the Government can come up with terminology that would set aside a different category for those areas. It is important that they do that, because in certain parts of the country, brownfield sites are sensitive. A conservation area and cathedral city such as Winchester has less capacity to manage brownfield developments than more modern cities, or areas where there is more need for urban regeneration.

I wrote to the previous Minister about whether the Government were planning to review PPG3, and asked specifically whether they would consider its impact on the character of historic cities. The answer was that the research on PPG3 involved the influence of capacity studies on housing development, but that it would not report specifically on its impact on the character of historic cities. Will the present Minister reconsider that, because there is a need to examine what is happening to those cities? If the review shows that PPG3 is having a detrimental impact on historic sites, will the Government consider introducing a third category not of brownfield or greenfield, but of historic or conservation sites?

My second worry builds on my previous point. If we accept that some areas are more capable of coping with regeneration and PPG3 than others, there must be a way in which county areas can manage the flow better. PPG3 says that there is a preference for building on urban sites and that regional planning bodies are supposed to work together to achieve that. I have seen little evidence of such co-operation. There should be some ability to trade sites between various city and local authority areas. That could be achieved by making better use of the Government's database of brownfield sites, which represents a good step towards a trade-off between sites that can and cannot take extra housing.

Local authorities contribute towards the database by undertaking urban capacity studies. That is an excellent idea, but at present we are not making maximum use of those studies. I believe that local authorities should submit their studies to the Secretary of State and that a county structure plan should not be agreed, signed or set in place unless all the urban capacity studies have been completed. In areas such as Hampshire, it is nonsense to submit the hard work done by half the authorities in identifying brownfield sites to the county, and for the county then to make decisions without seeing the rest of the local authorities' work.

We need to have a system that allows for certain areas that are in need of urban regeneration to undertake urban capacity studies and maximise the use of brownfield sites in their areas, thus relieving the pressure on the more ancient city centres. If that sounds as if I am a NIMBY saying, "You can build it all in the old port areas in Hampshire, not in the ancient city centres," I apologise. But there is merit in having a system that allows that to happen. Local people would benefit from it.

My third worry is about the market overheating as a result of the emphasis now placed on PPG3. There is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged, a backlog in meeting housing demand, but there is a danger, certainly in my constituency, that the floodgates are being opened. The market is overheating. Developers know that they can knock on doors and say to people, "Instead of building one house in your back garden, PPG3 means that we have to build three or four."

I am not one of those who would normally argue for interfering with the market. I accept that we live in a market economy and that the south-east and the housing market are both buoyant. However, the targets for brownfield developments set in PPG3 will probably be achieved quickly, possibly in the next two years, because developers and builders recognise that local authorities have to maximise their use of brownfield sites. Some of us would have preferred that target to be achieved over a phased 10-year period.

It seems right that the planning authority should be able to say to developers, "Yes, under PPG3 you could have built four or five houses on this site, but in the last six months we have built so many new properties—we have built about 1,000 in the past few years—that we are going to say no at the moment, because we want to phase this in over a 10-year period, rather than it all hitting the market so early on." I would welcome a response from the Minister on whether local authorities could take that approach. They could accept an application in planning terms, but turn it down in the short term to try to calm the market and restrain excessive demand, and seek to phase developments in. It is important that the situation should be calmed down.

The impact on my constituency is enormous; applications are coming through for every little bit of land. The overheating in these early years will not allow the infrastructure to catch up. We know that new schools, hospitals, drains, roads and so on take time to be established. Such developments can be planned over a 10-year period, but they cannot be put in place quickly enough to cope with the present demand. Brownfield sites should be near to sustainable areas, but developers are identifying sites where the infrastructure is not in place.

I recently attended a meeting of the Compton Down residents association, which has produced its own study of whether the area is sustainable and what it can cope with. The sustainability appraisal shows that there is no primary school, secondary school or general practitioner. no post office or shop, no bank, petrol station, pub, library, church, community hall or recycling point—I could continue. There is none of the infrastructure that we would normally require to accompany developments. Perhaps such infrastructure developments could be made during the next 10 years, but they cannot be achieved at the moment.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the crazy situation whereby Government grants are being used to demolish housing in some parts of the country where infrastructure already exists—for example, in Hull and Newcastle—while in the south we are building where there is no infrastructure, and we are trying to find ways to fund new infrastructure?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that illustrates the need to take a more global approach to the matter, rather than making individual local authorities meet targets. Some areas will be able to support urban regeneration and add to their infrastructure, rather than having to create infrastructure where it does not exist.

In Whiteley, in my constituency, new homes were built and within three or four years the primary school was full. Two extra classrooms were added and there is talk of adding a temporary classroom. Clearly, the infrastructure that should accompany new homes is not in place. We need to phase in and control PPG3 and allow local authorities to say that they will not accept all its requirements straight away. I accept that that would mean interfering with the market. I am not comfortable with that, but there is a desperate need for us to take that step now.

Flooding is another infrastructure issue. The drive towards PPG3 and finding and identifying sites will have some interesting impacts on the pressure to build on flood plains. My office was in contact with the Environment Agency manager for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, who said that although the agency promotes sustainable development it believes that there could be greater pressure to build residential developments on flood plains. He said:

"An increase in housing capacity on site will also limit such initiatives as Sustainable Urban Drainage".

He believes that there could be a conflict between PPG25, which deals with flood risk, and the drive towards developing land under PPG3. He continued:

"We should all be thinking strategically and encouraging some brown-field sites to revert to nature, or for habitat improvement",

rather than making the assumption that we should necessarily build on them. I hope that the Minister will recognise that building on more brownfield sites involves dangers and anxieties about building on sites that, as we know only too well from our experiences 18 months ago. have a habit of flooding.

I support affordable housing. My constituency like everyother constituency, has an enormous shortage of police, nurses and key workers, and I welcomed aspects of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last week. However, the consultation paper on reforming planning obligations suggests that the Government plan to change the way in which local authorities can extract money from developers for affordable housing. At the moment, under section 106 agreements, local authorities can set a tariff for developers and use the money to build affordable homes. The local authority in Winchester relies on that to secure revenue and provide new homes.

I understand that the suggestion is that in the new system there would be a threshold below which developers would pay nothing. If the local authority could no longer impose a levy on developments of fewer than four properties, that would have a serious impact on areas such as Winchester. Many infill sites involve four or five properties, and we rely on being able to set a tariff to pay for affordable housing. Do the Government intend to introduce a threshold to exclude smaller developments from the contribution that local authorities can take under section 106 agreements?

I now come to the frustrating subject of empty properties. We are focusing on the need to knock down existing properties on brownfield sites and redevelop, but brownfield sites contain an enormous number of vacant properties. In April 2001, 753,000 dwellings were vacant. About 86,000 were in the south-east, and about 17 per cent. were publicly owned. I am no mathematician, but my researcher tells me that that means that there are about 14,800 empty homes in the south-east, which would go a long way towards enabling Winchester and other local authorities in Hampshire to meet their brownfield targets. We need to make much more use of what already exists. Does the Minister believe that the urban capacity studies that local authorities use might be linked with studies and audits of empty properties? Recapturing some of those properties should be regarded as a way of achieving some of the targets.

People need to be encouraged to tackle difficult brownfield sites. In my experience in Winchester, developers find it easy to knock on the door and persuade someone to sell off a bit of garden, or, on discovering that a shop or office has become vacant, to move in and make an application. However, they seem reluctant to tackle a brownfield site that is tough, perhaps because methane has been found there or because it is large and a lot of work and cost would be involved.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the difficult sites, which he is exploring extremely well, will he return to the subject of existing residential sites where developers move in, pay the sort of money that people cannot refuse and develop to a very high density? In my constituency of Solihull, 10 residential units gave way to a development of 79 residential units. Would the hon. Gentleman care to say a word about intensity?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I touched on that point earlier in my contribution; the impact of PPG3 reflects exactly the point that he has made, because it causes 10 properties to be turned into 79 properties. I am asking the Minister to review the impact of PPG3 because such things happen day in, day out throughout the country. One day we will wake up and discover that we have a different urban culture. There is good motivation for that because none of us wants to build on greenfield sites, but we must recognise that the balance is shifting in the other direction.

Encouraging better use of difficult and complex brownfield sites would relieve pressure from the street corner developments. I understand that the partnership investment programme—PIP—was a popular and effective way of using public money to support regeneration related to private sector developments, but the European Commission outlawed it in 2001. Subsequent schemes to try to encourage the private-public use of old brownfield sites have not been successful. Will the Minister comment on that—he may wish to do so in writing—and tell us whether the Government have any plans to think again and lobby the European Commission to relax the state aids regulation? PIP was an effective way of using the sites, but as it no longer exists, some developers are reluctant to use difficult brownfield sites.

I shall examine the impact on individuals. I mentioned earlier the pressure on individuals when there is a knock on their door or a letter from a developer. That manifests itself in nasty ways. Apart from the fact that some people, such as 70 and 80-yearolds who live on their own, feel vulnerable and under pressure from developers to sell their land, a pattern is emerging whereby developers put in a planning application on a property, although they do not own it. At present there is nothing in law to stop that happening.

That means that the Minister could go back to his constituency tonight and discover that a planning application, in which he had had no say or involvement, had been made to turn his home into four flats. Local residents would be somewhat confused and immediately assume that he had put the application in. Such a situation has arisen in my constituency and it is causing enormous disquiet. The people who own the houses swear blind to their neighbours that they did not submit the application, but nobody believes them because it is assumed that they are trying to sell off their houses to make a quick buck. In fact, a developer has put the application in.

Can the Minister examine that problem? I appreciate that there are legal difficulties, because in some circumstances it is right and proper for planning applications to be submitted by a person who does not own the relevant land. However, the regulations could be tightened so that any notification issued would make it clear to the community that it was not the owner but a third party who did not own the land who had made the application, without the owner's permission. That is a small but growing problem as developers try every technique in the book.

The second impact on individuals is related to enforcement. A development in Crowder terrace in my constituency is a real example of the effect of PPG3 on individuals. Notification was poor. Indeed, a couple who lived right next to the property simply did not know that the development was going to happen. In another case, the developers went ahead without permission on a tight and particularly complex site. It is proving very difficult for planning authorities to tackle that, which is part of the general pressure being put on such authorities as PPG3 kicks in.

I have the utmost respect for planning officers. I visited the Winchester city planning department three or four months ago, and Steve Bee, the director, and his colleagues do an enormous amount of good work in the face of incredible demand. Applications to the authority have increased by 33 per cent. in the last three or four years, and are flooding in.

Has the hon. Gentleman experienced in his constituency, as I have in mine, serial applications and appeals one after another, which have almost put the planning department under siege?

It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman and I have similar experiences in our constituencies, because that is exactly what has been happening in Winchester.

The Government target that applications should be considered within eight weeks and the system that allows for an appeal create false deadlines. Taking more time to consider planning applications should not, in my view, mean a performance indicator failure. In fact, I would rather my authority was allowed 16 weeks to consider some applications, so that it could negotiate with developers and have more discussions, which would result in better quality decisions. Because the performance indicator requires that things be done within a fixed period, the authority feels not exactly that it must rush, but that it has to work under enormous pressure when dealing with applications.

We must take the heat off planners. To put it bluntly, it is probably much easier for a planning department to grant permission for 4,000 homes on one big greenfield site than to cope all at once with 200 or 300 smaller detailed brownfield applications to achieve the same number of homes. We support the shift towards brownfield sites, but we must recognise the pressure that that puts on planning authorities.

I ask the Minister to think carefully about expanding the review of PPG3. We all support the Government's objective of reducing the number of developments on greenfield sites, but I am also arguing, in a non-NIMBY way, that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, and the net consequence of PPG3 and the drive to use brownfield sites causes as many problems as if the developments had been on greenfield sites in the first place.

rose

Order. I think it advisable to remind hon. Members that in such a debate, it is common practice to allocate the last 30 minutes to the three winding-up speeches from the Front Benches. That time is usually apportioned equally between the two main Opposition spokespersons and the Minister. However, the Chairmen's Panel is reconsidering that practice, because we do not think that it is entirely fair. A Minister may require more time to answer questions—or, conversely, he may be happy to have a limited amount of time, in which he cannot answer questions.

As the Annunciator screens show, we have considerably more time than that today, but the Chairmen's Panel still feels strongly that the time left should be allocated equally only if necessary. In other words, the spokespersons from the main Opposition parties should not overrun one third of the time available. They do not have to take all of that time, but they must take no longer. Bearing those considerations in mind, and having explained that on the record, I am happy to call the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).

You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of trying to fill the time available. Instead, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing the debate, and on choosing a title that ensured minimum attendance in the Chamber, so that he had the maximum time to put his point across. I am sure that if he had chosen the title "Housing in the South-east", or "Brownfield Development", the Chamber would have been packed.

The current planning system in England has two main parts: a framework of plans, and development control. A third element is the role of the Secretary of State in determining planning policy, which is where the planning policy guidance notes come in. The Secretary of State has three key roles. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets out the planning policies that drive the whole planning system, and they are principally contained in 25 planning policy guidance notes, or PPGs, and a series of minerals planning guidance notes, or MPGs.

The planning system is often seen as not working, unresponsive, and sometimes slow and difficult to understand. Over the past 50 years, however, it has protected some of the country's most important green spaces. It has regulated development and, especially has recently given communities some opportunities to participate in shaping the future of their area. It is certainly better than a free-for-all, and has provided an essential framework for managing our built environment.

However, as the Government clearly recognise in their planning Green Paper, there is a need for a thorough rethink, and the pressures on our planning system are driving that forward. Let there be no misunderstanding: one of those pressures is the fact that there is a housing crisis. Record numbers of people are inadequately housed in accommodation inappropriate to their needs. We know that there are links between poor and inadequate housing, and such things as low educational attainment and greater demands on social care and health services. There is a direct link between temporary accommodation and contact with the criminal justice system. Many of the social problems that rear their heads time and again in council chambers and in the House are linked to poor housing conditions.

The Liberal Democrats take a bottom-up approach We believe that people in their communities know what is required, so they should have the powers to meet those local demands and needs. Our policy is that each local authority should be tasked with undertaking a housing needs survey in its area to find out not only the number but the type of homes that are needed. We would then get away from the current system whereby developers build the properties that they wish to see in a locality and then, if they are in a property hotspot, advertise in national newspapers. Under that system, local needs go unmet.

The waiting lists for affordable housing in large parts of the south and south-east, and in several property hotspots in the north, are lengthening. There is a national problem. The right housing—housing appropriate to people's needs—is not being supplied. House prices are rocketing, as there are too few properties available for sale and interest rates are low. Low interest rates are a good thing, but when they make it easier for people to purchase there is too much money chasing too few properties. It is a classic problem of supply not meeting demand.

We also want local authorities to adopt a strict hierarchical approach after assessing housing needs in their area. The first thing that they should do is use empty homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said that there were 753,000 empty homes, and if we total up the number of people on council waiting lists and add those who are temporarily housed or homeless, the result is a similar figure of 750,000 people, taking into account the fact that each home represents a family. The locations of the empty homes do not necessarily square with the demand or the lack of supply, but the priority should still be to bring them back into use. We would give local authorities a statutory right to take over a property that had remained empty for more than 12 months without good reason, bring it back into use and supply a home for someone.

The second part of our hierarchical approach is to assess whether other empty buildings could be converted to use as homes. Homes above existing properties could be considered. To give credit where it is due, I must say that the Government's homes above shops scheme has proved popular, but much more could be done. We should consider infill and easing the planning system for change of use so that properties designated for business use could, when there was no more demand for that business, be changed to some form of housing use. Then we should consider brownfield and greenfield land, as a last resort.

The price of land is another key element. One reason why land values are high in this country is that although other countries tax land, we do not. If we taxed the undeveloped value of land, we would surely maximise its use. For a start, that would discourage the horrible practice of land banking, whereby developers purchase land speculatively and, believing that the price will rise in the future, hang on to it to make more money later rather than develop it to meet today's demand.

The community sometimes makes an investment in infrastructure that raises the value of the land around it. For example, when a new road is built, the land either side of it suddenly gets considered for development and its price rises.

It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is proposing a tax on the undeveloped value of land similar to the development land tax introduced by the Labour Government in the 1970s. That was an utter disaster, because development land was not brought forward for development. Has the hon. Gentleman thought through his proposal? How would it help make more land available for development and how much would it raise?

I am talking about not a development land tax, but land value taxation. It was attempted in the 1920s but sadly, it was blocked for one simple reason: we did not then have a comprehensive land register, which would have been necessary for the policy to be successful. Such a tax would raise significant sums and could replace the uniform business rate altogether. We could do away with the uniform business rate and simply tax the site value of businesses and land. That might also help to iron out regional differences such as the overheating of particular regions. Developers would be encouraged to develop land with a lower land value tax, moving development away from the hotspots to other areas that we wish to be regenerated. Such a tax would also end windfall gains to which people contribute nothing. People lucky enough to live near the Jubilee line saw their properties rocket in price, but made no contribution to its costs. Such windfall gains are unjust, and the Government should consider mechanisms to put that situation right.

There are fairer mechanisms than section 106 agreements, which are mainly dependent on the negotiating skills of a particular local government officer with a particular developer. There can be two identical schemes in different districts, but one will get much more out of its section 106 agreement than the other. That system, too, must be reformed.

The hon. Gentleman's proposal for taxation sounds very much like the punitive levels of taxation that the old Labour party introduced in the 1960s and 1970s. Will he confirm that the Liberal party has finally given up on any pretence of being a modern middle-of-the-road party and is now a far-left party?

rose

Order. I find it difficult to allow myself to be persuaded that such inquiries have a direct impact on PPG3. I advise the hon. Gentleman to carry on with his speech.

I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am proposing land value taxation as one way of ensuring that we get the housing that we need. It would not be an additional tax, but replace existing ones, so in fact Liberals could be attacked from the left for being far too right wing in wanting to reduce the taxes that people have to pay, rather than increasing them or maintaining the status quo, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) clearly wants.

The idea of such a tax has always been defeated by the lack of a comprehensive land register, and that is directly linked to PPG3. Local authorities cannot prepare their structure plans and decide how to designate each plot of land unless they know who owns that land. According to the recently published book "Who Owns Britain", the owners of more than 60 per cent. of the land in this country are not known. It is staggering that we know the owners of only about 40 per cent. of the land.

We can find out who owns land only when the title changes and the land is registered. Although we may have a rough idea of who owns land that has not changed title for hundreds of years, we do not know for sure. It is often then released in small pockets, at the owner's whim and according to the market, to maximise its price. The first step in trying to bring land into use would be a comprehensive land register, so will the Minister say whether the Government have considered the link between knowing who owns land and Government land use policies, which are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister?

In conclusion, we need local housing studies, a strict hierarchy at a local level, a comprehensive land register and land value taxation. That radical agenda, which would reduce tax and abolish the uniform business rate, provides the answer to the problems that we are facing in our communities.

This has been an interesting debate, but I expect that the proximity of the recess has ensured that the attendance is not as great as it would otherwise have been. Nevertheless, it is important.

To start, we should examine the PPG, because it is wide ranging. It says:

"the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and cities".

It also recommends that we should

"provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the size, type and location of housing than is currently available, and seek to create mixed communities…give priority to re-using previously-developed land within urban areas…create more sustainable patterns of development…make more efficient use of land"

and, above all,

"promote good design in new housing developments".

That is a pretty wide agenda, and we have had a pretty wide debate this morning.

We believe in the need for good quality, affordable housing. We thoroughly approve of the aim of using previously developed land—that is a better term than brownfield land—instead of concreting over the English countryside. We agree with the objectives of PPG3. After all, they were drafted under our stewardship. The shocking fact, which is not widely understood, is that last year only 162,000 houses were built, which is the lowest number since 1924, excluding the war years. Even more staggering is the fact that growth in the number of households in that period was 220,000, so for the first time ever the number of households has exceeded the number of houses being built. Furthermore, 7.6 per cent. of the nation's housing stock was classified as unfit in 1996, widening the gap between the number of homes available and those in need of housing. Little wonder, therefore, that the number of homeless has risen by 12,000 since the Government were elected in 1997and the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has soared by 150 per cent. since the election. Imaginative policies are needed to start solving some of those fundamental problems.

Hon. Members have rightly talked about the need to build on brownfield, or previously developed, land. The Government will have great difficulty meeting that 60 per cent. target once the number of houses to be built starts to increase, and my goodness it needs to do so. I suggest that the Government should require all local authorities to draw up a register of all previously developed land in their area. They should co-operate with the owners to discover the nature of the contamination of that land, and plans should be drawn up showing how that land could be brought back into use and what use would be feasible for it. Some brownfield land is so contaminated that it can never be developed; other brownfield land could be developed only as a car park, for example, and the less contaminated land could perhaps be used for residential dwellings. The Government need to take a more proactive stance in that respect.

It is a sad indictment that one of the world's biggest economies cannot house itself. We need more building, but we do not want to concrete over our green fields and the green belt. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement last week presaged a lot of extra building on green fields and the green belt, but quite how building 100,000 extra houses in the rural parts of the south-east of England equates with protection of the green belt is particularly difficult to understand. The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of the fact that he is the Minister who will protect the green belt, but with his centralised regional planning targets, which will be imposed on local authorities in the south, it is hard to see how he will achieve that.

The focus for additional housing should be on existing towns and cities. The housing density target of 30 houses to the hectare, which the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week, may often be sensible in inner cities, but in a rural area such as my constituency in the Cotswolds it is quite inappropriate. What we really want the Government's target to achieve is the discretion to decide whether it should be applied, according to the conditions that prevail in a particular local authority. In the inner cities, that may be achieved by building sensibly designed tower blocks to get the density up to 50 or even 70 dwellings per hectare, but it would be inappropriate in a rural area. Flexibility is needed in that respect.

Particularly worrying is the fact that homelessness is not only rising—by 12,000 as I said earlier but rising among the young. The figure is 11 per cent. since the election. The number of people who have to be housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is especially reprehensible.

We need to ensure that we build more sustainable communities. That means mixed, well designed and well planned communities with a mixture of sustainable housing that is near the workplace. That requires imaginative policies as well as sensible planning, design and transport links. Too often, houses are built in rural areas where the transport links are not sustainable.

We need to ensure that there are adequate transport links in areas where new, larger estates are built. In building such larger estates, particularly in the inner cities—I have recently embarked on a programme of visits to some of the larger ones we need to ensure that the developers and the city corporations can aggregate enough parcels of land to obtain a development of sufficient size for its infrastructure, mix of houses, work and facilities to be sustainable.

We must tackle this serious housing problem with a vision for the 21st century. The Government are beginning to tackle it, which is welcome, but we are looking for action, because after five years the difficulties have got substantially worse and the Government's announcements have not yet sorted them out. There is a real problem with urban regeneration. Our cities will generate the renaissance, but there are too many schemes. Urban regeneration is far too fragmented and there is no focus on bringing the parcels of land together.

I suggest to the Minister that the Government should clarify the respective roles of English Partnerships, regional development agencies, urban regeneration companies and sub-regional bodies. To a certain extent, the review of English Partnerships has helped, but it would help the regeneration process if English Partnerships were to assume national responsibility for brownfield land. That would help to bring forward some brownfield sites, which would make more land available. The problem with the housing market is that there is not enough land. If one constrains the supply of land, the price of houses is bound to go up. I have suggested to the Minister how he can identify where that brownfield land is, so we look to the Government for some form of pump-priming to get that brownfield land back in action.

We lost European gap funding due to bad negotiating by the Government and the derelict land grant has been abolished, so unless they suggest a mechanism to pump-prime those brownfield sites not enough will be put back in action and the Government will not meet their targets. If the brownfield sites are not built on, I predict that an unacceptably large amount of green belt and greenfield land will be built on. That is wrong for our country's future. Once greenfield sites have been built on, that can never be reversed. We look for a vision from the Government, and I await the Minister's response with interest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing this important debate, and I join the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in chastising him for being so obtuse in choosing its title—the Chamber is not full to bursting. If the debate had been entitled "Housing in the south-east", numbers might have been greater. We finish later today, but, even so, I do not accept the point that attendance is low because the recess is near. Colleagues, of all parties, are busy doing other things. When they see a debate title that looks like something out of the cast list of "Dr. Who and the Daleks", we should not wonder why they do not come along in droves.

I think I believe the contention of the hon. Member for Winchester that people are slowly starting to talk about PPG3 in the pubs and clubs of Winchester. I suspect that that is the case, however unlikely it might seem. I congratulate him on placing his remarks very firmly in a thoughtful context that shows, first, that he has read PPG3 and, secondly, that the debate is not just about nimbyism—the attitude that if there are needs to be satisfied, fine, but that should be done anywhere but Winchester.

I shall try to touch on most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that he will forgive me if I miss anything, and I shall write to him if I do. With the best will in the world, I have no intention of speaking for 35 minutes. I shall speak for as long as I need to and that is it.

The hon. Gentleman rightly assumed that greenfield developments remain the last option. Things will get more difficult, but we are a long way ahead of the game in terms of achieving our target of 60 per cent. plus of new developments on brownfield sites. It will be difficult and troublesome to sustain that, but it is the starting point of the process. If I can be parochial for a moment, in London the figure is well over 90 per cent., which will be equally difficult to sustain. All our towns, cities and urban fringe areas have an organic dynamic that means that people may be talking about tomorrow's brownfield sites in the boardrooms of Winchester, Hampshire and elsewhere, if not in the pubs and clubs, although they are currently not brownfield at all.

Something said by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) struck me: once a greenfield site has been built on, that can never be reversed. That is not strictly true. Is there not a case for returning some existing built-on land to nature in exchange for the use of a greenfield site? That would be a quid pro quo—turning developed land such as a former industrial site into a public park and using a bit of greenfield land in return. The overall amount of greenfield land would not go down.

:In my two months in this role, I have not gone through every nook and cranny and every single planning application countrywide, but I served on a planning committee for 11 years, and I know that such things can happen and have happened any number of times. In my borough, we switched a piece of green belt over to join another piece on the far side of a railway line so that we could put a supermarket on the near side. That consolidated the green belt on one side, and a supermarket was developed on the other on a site that had been greenfield. It also happened to be, although this does not matter, the site of my primary school, but that was bulldozed long since. Such swapping round happens frequently in development. How often brownfield land goes all the way back to being virgin green belt, metropolitan open space or greenfield varies, but it can happen.

Although the contribution of the hon. Member for Winchester was thoughtful on the whole, an idea lacking in our deliberations is taking PPG3 in the round. It is not simply about brownfield land and hierarchical gradations. I shall return to his comments on historic towns. Much of PPG3 is about "Creating Sustainable Residential Environments". That section makes up almost half the document, followed by the sections on housing and on land. We need to see it completely in the round.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for a review, but in governmental terms if a document has 2000 on it, that means that the ink is barely dry, which would be the case for Governments of any persuasion. There will not be a review yet, but there may be further research. I shall return to that point.

The important aspect of PPG3 to bear in mind is paragraph 31, which gives the details underlining many difficulties that the hon. Gentleman queried:

"In deciding which sites to allocate for housing in local plans and UDPs"—

unitary development plans—

"local planning authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against each of the following criteria".

Let us stop there. Ultimately, PPG3 deals with suitable brownfield sites. Again, there is no automatic switch so that people can get on with doing what they like with a previously built-on brownfield site. I shall deal with the criteria in a moment, but the site must be suitable and, more generally, within the context of other planning. I do not know anything about the example that has been given and I do not want to say anything about it, because I may have to deal with it in some form or other. However, if it is a previously developed site, and if it is slap bang in the middle of a conservation area and almost in the shadow of Winchester cathedral, all the elements of the wider planning policy framework prevail, not just this one. [Interruption.] I shall try to leave the microphone alone in future.

It is absolutely right that all those aspects kick in, but the difficulty is that targets must be achieved. The authority cannot say no to all applications. The problem with an area such as Winchester is that nearly all the sites are sensitive. The inclination is to use those things that the Minister talks about to say no, but the authority is virtually forced to say yes to achieve the target. That is why different criteria are needed for places such as Winchester.

I am not entirely sure that new or different criteria are needed. Developers must understand that PPG3 is not above the rest of the planning framework, but part and parcel of it. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman alludes reinforces the point that the Deputy Prime Minister made last week about giving far more resonance to reasonable planning guidance and getting counties, boroughs and districts to appreciate their housing difficulties, whether caused by overheating or low demand, in a national and a regional context. That means that Hampshire must talk to Surrey. I am sorry, but they must talk, although I know that they do not like to do that. We must try to get East Sussex and West Sussex working together—we could start a real revolution.

In recent months, I have been involved in a few things in the north-west, where low demand is the reverse of the problem in London and the south-east. It is a salami-style situation—not quite block by block. but there is low demand, overheating, low demand, overheating. Resolving problems in east Manchester might be wrong for, and cause further underheating in, Salford, Rochdale and Oldham. The same consideration should be paramount in addressing the overheating in London and the south-east. I take the point.

There is a danger of being too simplistic about brownfield land. It is important that the Minister considers his powers in legislation to establish a national register of brownfield land, identify the contamination on it and develop a plan as to how it might be used. Land is so precious in the south that we must consider very carefully every single piece of previously developed land.

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I return to that point.

The criteria are the availability of previously developed sites and empty or under-used buildings, their suitability for housing use and the location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and services. I take the point about pressure on existing infrastructure and the scope for new, which is the next criterion. Additional criteria are the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, water, sewerage and other utilities; social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals; the ability to build communities where major brownfield sites are being developed; and the physical and environmental constraints on the development of the land, which I shall deal with later.

Regional and local authorities should utilise brownfield sites in the context of the wider planning framework. That is important if conservation areas are included. I fully appreciate, even in a London context, that development on previously developed land in Harrow will be slightly different from such development in Hackney. I am sure that that is the case for Winchester versus Southampton as well, but I am not sure that the third category is needed, although we may consider it.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester about sensitive brownfield sites, the starting point and the key to much in PPG3 is the suitability of previously developed sites for further development. There is no carte blanche for developers to get on with developing any site that has been previously developed, and it may be important to explore that with them. I take the point, because it is known to me in a London context.

I am not sure that I agree with the points about floodgates opening, markets overheating and PPG driving over-development and overly high density. The idea of a causal link—that it is all PPG3's fault—is a tad simplistic. There are enormously complex events going on in London and the south-east, as well as the fascinating corollary in parts of the north-west, that we need to deal with. However, that is not all happening because of PPG3, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, started under the previous Government. That is a tad unfair, and we need to consider matters in a wider context.

Will the Minister give way? Mr. McNulty: In a moment.

On the flooding point.

I have not touched on flooding, with respect. I mentioned floodgates and the market overheating.

On the question of slowing the market down to allow infrastructure to catch up, there is scope in the body of the PPG for phasing developments, especially larger ones. That would not only slow things down, but, to address the other point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, allow infrastructure to keep pace with development. PPG3 allows the phasing of housing to control the pattern and speed of urban growth to ensure that new infrastructure is co-ordinated with new housing developments. Developers are becoming more and more aware of that.

On some sites and developments that I have seen recently, the better developers have put more thought into the environmental, structural and social consequences of what they are doing. They are building houses, which involves not only the piecemeal infrastructure for those who live for a while on a temporary building site—the market is so hot that half of the properties go before the process is finished but keeping an eye on the impact that the last pieces of infrastructure and the last buildings have on the surrounding infrastructure and communities. That sensitivity is developing more and more.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I thought that he was going to make one point that I really would agree with. Whether it is empty houses, brownfield sites, previously developed sites or sites in general, if one looks in any locality, many such sites belong to the public sector. Some notion of getting to grips with what the public sector does with them more generally is important.

People are keen to consider some notion—perhaps defined by the Office of Government Commerce and the Treasury—of best value and the contribution of those public sector sites to the common weal in terms of housing and development in a particular area. We have scarcity, but a lot of sites have public sector, or ex-public sector, imprimatur on them. The market is completely overheated when there could be a little control in terms of how to phase our land for the public good. That is worth looking at. If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, I have said it anyway.

I take the point on vacant homes, which is emphasised in paragraph 2 of the PPG. We are trying to tap potential. Our good practice guide on capacity studies says that we should consider vacant lots because they are a significant source of capacity. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, I would not want to go down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Torbay and say that there are 720,000 empty houses in the public sector and about 720,000 people in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation—voila, problem solved. Would that it were that simple. Put one figure against the other and the mismatch is phenomenal.

It is inappropriate to say that we have failed, and that it is all misery, doom and gloom as regards state aid and gap funding. The housing gap funding schemes are focused on brownfield sites, and there is a new scheme in place that broadly deals with whole notion of state aid. Such matters develop all the time, and the funding allows grants of up to 60 per cent. for more difficult areas.

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a point that is relevant to the debate and not part of a broader rant: we must somehow reach a capacity at which the public sector assists private developers to tackle the most difficult brownfield sites. The fact that reclaiming such sites for our communities is difficult should not lead us simply to conclude that they are far too poisonous and contaminated and that they should be left. That will lead to difficulties, not least because of the capacity of some urban towns.

There are other fiscal measures about which I shall write to hon. Members, as I do not have the details to hand. They include a 150 per cent. tax credit for the clean-up of contaminated land and a range of VAT initiatives. I ask hon. Members not to push me on VAT, because I shall simply tell them that the Treasury deals with it. If I find out more about gap funding, state aid or the broader issue of really difficult contaminated land sites, I shall certainly get back to hon. Members.

Given that the hon. Member for Winchester is so interested in planning anyone who reads PPG3 must be—it is shameful that he did not listen in fine detail to what the Deputy Prime Minister said last week. I do not mean to knock the hon. Gentleman, but had he listened he would know that his question on thresholds and the tariff-based approach no longer prevails. Significantly, we have decided after much consultation to revise policy guidance on planning aid section 106, but that we shall not pursue legislative routes for the tariff measures replacing that section.

We shall revise circular No. 197 on section 106, but we think, given the consultation that has taken place, that we can make the existing planning obligation system under section 106 work far better. We shall try that route before using primary legislation. The Deputy Prime Minister said the same in his statement last week. The fact that PPG3 dates from March 2000 means, in governmental terms, that the ink is just dry and it will not be reviewed instantly. We said in the Green Paper and in our response to consultation that we shall consider in the round the nature, scope and format of planning policy guidance.

In a parliamentary answer on 1 March, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), said:

"We have research underway to consider the implementation of PPG3 and this will report the progress made by local authorities".—[Official Report, 1 March 2002; Vol. 380, c. 1592W.]

Will the Minister acknowledge that he is talking about the same thing now?

With respect, I am not, but my next paragraph refers to it.

As we said in the planning Green Paper, when we find a legislative slot, we shall consider in the broadest sense the form, context and role of planning policy guidance. We want to have a headline statement with the detail following it, rather than something too complicated. On a rainy night in Winchester, read PPG23 on mining and aggregates—it is wonderful reading. There is no need for a rewrite on that basis, but we are researching the implementation and bedding down of PPG3, and we shall evaluate its overall impact and consequences. That may, but only may, prompt us to reconsider parts of PPG3, but that is for the future.

In a broad sense, some of what we are trying to do in the Green Paper, outwith PPG3 or the general PPG process, may address points made by the hon. Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Winchester on serial applications and subsequently serial appeals, which are part of the wider planning process, not just guidance. The hon. Member for Winchester is entirely right to say that, at this moment, someone could be putting in a plan to bulldoze my nice little semi in Kenton in Harrow to put up a block of flats. Such a person would not even have to notify me, as it is up to the local planning authority to do that.

I am not sure whether trying to take action on that would represent using a big stick to sort out a little problem, but we will consider the matter. I was on a planning committee for 11 years and I know that people are deeply perplexed when they suddenly discover that half their garden or their garage is part of next door's application for flats.I am not sure how people deal with that. I have not a clue where Crowder terrace is, let alone what the enforcement issues were, but we are considering enforcement under the Green Paper. Much of PPG3 involves creating sustainable residential environments.

Will the Minister give way?

:I am just coming to the relevant point. There are proper sequential hierarchies to go through in relation to the elements that I have described—flooding, flood plains and so on.

:I want to give the Minister another constructive suggestion. Sustainability will increase the pressure on flood plains. Is he aware that Ordnance Survey is doing interesting work producing height maps, which will make it much easier to identify those areas where the one-in-100-years event is likely to take place? Will he contact Ordnance Survey to find out whether that work can be speeded up so that local authorities have a better idea of where flood plains are likely to extend? That is particularly important in this era of climate change, when we are getting wetter winters than we used to.

I am not only aware of that work, but I have the great delight of being the Minister in charge of Ordnance Survey. When I pop down to Southampton, I may well raise that issue, among others. Ordnance Survey does exceptionally good work across the field. Happily for the hon. Gentleman and for the synergy of answering his question, I am also the Minister responsible for dealing with coastal and inland flooding. Those are matters of concern, and the freak events—I hope that they are freak events—in much of the southeast and some of the south-west in recent years need addressing. What Ordnance Survey is doing in that regard is very important. I shall pursue the matter.

PPG25, another darling little document, introduced the risk-based sequential test that gives priority to developing in lower-risk flood areas. We should bear it in mind that, as has been said, we are well behind. This is not a partisan point, but in the 1970s and 1980s—Labour was in government for part of that time—some buildings were put where they ought not to be. That had serious environmental consequences, which we want to address. We certainly do not want a repeat of that, and we will use the information that the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested.

I recommend anyone who is interested in the important, deep and detailed technicalities of mapping for any sort of public policy work to look at what Ordnance Survey does. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done so. Ordnance Survey is well ahead of the game in developing and utilising digital mapping and other technologies. That is the end of the advertisement.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester, not only on how he spoke, but on a very thoughtful speech. If I have left anything out, I will get back to him. That is the nice bit over. I do not have much to say in response to PPG3 specifically, and I know that you would chide me if I strayed off that subject to respond to the other contributions, Mr. Amess.

I spent a great day and a half in the constituency of the hon. Member for Torbay, who called me a friend of Torbay, which is kind of him. I hope that he remains a friend when I have finished speaking. He will forgive me if I deliberately confine my remarks to the thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Winchester, rather than to the delights of what seems to be a tortured package of housing reform and local government finance. The finance issue probably has its roots in the 1850s, and the housing reform issue certainly has its roots in the 1960s. I am not here to debate the arcane nature of, or the flaws in, the policy package that was alluded to. Perhaps I should pop along to the Liberal Democrat conference.

We should not be simplistic about such matters. The hon. Member for Torbay asked—in an early intervention, before he got to his rather weak party political broadcast—why we demolish properties in low demand areas where infrastructures are in place and then build where there are fewer or no infrastructures. That goes back to my point about the wholly simplistic approach of "X amount of empty houses, X amount of people in bed and breakfast, merge the two, problem solved."

Some northern towns and urban centres must ask themselves serious questions and they have to grasp the nettle, which is, "Actually, X town, which has had 80.000 people for the past 100 years, probably cannot sustain more than 40,000 or 50,000, given its communities and infrastructure." Such questions are painful, but it is not enough to give the impression that, in the next 10 years, the 20,000 people who may want to live in the Winchester or Southampton areas can fill a particular place in Lancashire or Yorkshire, thereby solving the problem. Really complex and desperately painful choices about low and high demand will be faced in the north and the south.

I shall tell my constituents that Liberal Democrat policy is to tax those who live in Queensbury, Canons Park and Stanmore—the three tail-end Jubilee line stations—not because their houses have moved, but because what is happening 30 miles away at the other end of the Jubilee line, through to north Greenwich, is a windfall for them. I find that absolutely astonishing and I shall pursue such matters wearing a political hat, not my governmental hat.

Will the Minister consider the position in which someone who lives next to an infrastructure improvement receives a windfall through the value of his property, for which he is not taxed, even though the rest of the community has put taxpayers' money into that improvement? The mechanism that can resolve that problem should be investigated.

:I shall not go down that route as it is not germane to PPG3, save to say that developments or windfalls gained by the people of north Southwark and north Greenwich due to the Jubilee line extension 25 miles from my constituency should not penalise my constituents in Stanmore, Canons Park and Queensbury. However, perhaps we can pursue such matters over a cup of tea another time.

Given that the hon. Member for Cotswold described these matters as a serious problem, it might be useful if he took them seriously. Perhaps his new boss will sort things out, but all we heard from him was a party political rant without substance. It offered no hope at all and was more to do with internal Conservative family difficulties than anything else. It offered nothing to the people in need of PPG3. That is a shame in the light of how the hon. Member for Winchester started the debate. I do not say that the Government have all the answers on overheating in the south and in Winchester and on the problems of low demand in the north, but I know from last week's statement that we are seriously trying to tackle such problems realistically, in the north and in the south, and that PPG3 is part of that process.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we need to take a new stand on how we build homes and communities. The Chancellor put his hand in his pocket and gave us the resources to assist with that process. PPG3 is a cornerstone in the programme that links planning, housing, transport. education and regeneration, and it is about people, places and protecting the environment. I take seriously the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Winchester. I urge hon. Members to read in detail not only what the Deputy Prime Minister said last week, but the daughter documents that flow from it—not least those on housing and planning—and any subsequent statements issued in summer and during our new Session.

We are deadly serious about the issues covered in the briefing from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, especially housing, regeneration and planning. As one who spent 11 years on a planning committee, I am grateful that, finally, people are starting to regard planning and guidance as serious political tools to deal with the problems in our towns and cities, north and south. I look forward to future debates on PPG3, but let us give them a title broader than what sounds like a relative of K9 from "Dr. Who".

Last week, in this Chamber, there was an excellent Government debate on poverty. The Government set out clearly and without complacency the progress that they have made over the past few years in their concerted fight against poverty. We heard how pensioner poverty was being successfully addressed, about the advances in the struggle against child poverty, what was being done with regard to ethnic minorities, and how job creation was a central part of the Government's policy to tackle social exclusion.

Important contributions were made; several hon. Members cited their experiences in their constituencies. The thrust of the comments reinforced, supported and extended what the Government are doing. However, one issue that was not touched upon is the relationship between poverty, participation and power, and that is what I will focus on today.

At the end of 2000, a 63-page report entitled "Listen hear; the right to be heard" was published. It was the result of the work of 12 commissioners, who put their heads together, debated, argued and took evidence from around the country. They addressed the causes of social exclusion and poverty, and they examined what had been done to address them in the past; but they also mapped out some things that might be considered in the future.

The commissioners were drawn from various aspects of public life, and, more importantly, several of them had had direct experience of poverty. It was my privilege to be one of those public life commissioners, and I found the work enlightening and rewarding. I like to think that it has had some influence on what I am now doing as a Member of Parliament.

The inspiration and support for the project came from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the membership organisations of the UK Coalition against Poverty. The report is hard hitting; it does not mince its words. It is clear about what it sees, and it is forceful in its recommendations. When I and the other commissioners were thinking about how to prepare the report, we took as our starting point the principle that genuine participation is a basic human right. We all held the view that poverty is compounded by powerlessness and exclusion, and we strongly believed that if we were going to get policies that address poverty and social exclusion, the people who actually experience those things should be properly consulted.

Many people who experience poverty do not vote or participate in consultation processes: many such people are cynical about politicians and decision-making processes, and they deliberately absent themselves from engaging in democratic structures that could, in theory, make an improvement to their lives. One question that the commission asked is: why is that the case? It examined the many complex issues that contribute to the situation. It found that frequently people who experience poverty are not respected. They are often looked down upon and are patronised by others in society, particularly decision makers. Those who have power all too often dismiss people who are experiencing poverty. We have all heard the names—scroungers, hangers-on, lazy and so forth. That has a profound and negative effect on those in poverty—those at the sharp end. That is shown clearly in a quote included in the report. It was made by a speaker at a conference in Glasgow organised by Voices for Change:

"People with little or no power are made to believe there is no point in raising their voice, as it will make no difference. That they will not be listened to by those who have power and control."

It came across clearly in our work that participation is often far from genuine. There is a great deal of tokenism. People often go through the motions of encouraging participation without taking the time to think about what it means and what it could lead to. From the same document, I cite one of the grass-roots commissioners:

"People ask: how is this meeting going to change my life?—and if they can't see how, they won't go. Whatever is done, you need to ensure the change affects their lives."

Another graphic statement was made by a commissioner in a conference in south-west England organised by Voices for Change:

"Where are the decision makers? We invited so many councillors and council officials and they are not here. The leader of the council and the MP made their speeches and then scarpered. Once councillor said he had to go to another meeting in the council house. They were discussing 'citizenship and democracy'! They should have been discussing it with us, here."

That, again, illustrates clearly what people think about the tokenism that is sometimes shown on the notion of participation, empowerment, engagement and so on. It is all very well to use buzzwords and in-phrases, but unless they mean something in practice, people quickly become cynical.

As the previous quote suggests, tokenism is not confined to one tier of government or one kind of organisation. In the Benefits Agency, for example, the commission found that people were frequently treated with condescension and lack of understanding about the problems that they face. Someone told the commission:

"I had two children and no maintenance from my ex-husband. I had no family to support me and was totally financially dependent on social security. When my giro didn't arrive I started to panic as we had no electricity left, no gas or coal for heating and very little food. I went to the local DSS office and was told my giro was in the post. When it didn't arrive the next day I went back—and this was repeated every day for a fortnight. I became increasingly desperate and angry and on one occasion clearly heard one of the staff say, 'Here comes that bloody woman again.' By the third week and two days before Christmas, I had to borrow money for food and gas stamps…I told a friend and he took me down to the main DSS office, where I went in all guns blazing demanding to see the manager and refusing to leave until I had my giro. Ten minutes later I had my giro—it had been on someone's desk all the time!"

People in poverty face such experiences day in, day out. For others in society, such a situation—where the solution is apparently easy and straightforward—would not arise. However, for many people, for whom we need to ensure full participation in our democracy, such problems are monumental.

Privatised utilities can also show a lack of sympathy and sometimes pursue policies that penalise the poor. In local government, there is frequently evidence of topdownism. The jargon of empowerment is often used to justify decisions that have already been taken in order to pursue certain policies.

It is not always non-Labour authorities that pursue such insensitivity and top-downism. In many traditional Labour areas, such as the south Wales valleys, there is much of the "I know best" approach to the local community. Although a councillor might be elected on only a very low turnout, the councillor—usually an elderly man who is, of course, white—considers that he always knows best what people want on whatever issue because he has the support of the electorate. Sadly, that is not the case.

The problem sometimes continues even after a change in the political control of local authorities. I cite the example of Rhondda Cynon Taff in south Wales. The Labour party lost control of that authority to Plaid Cymru. However, exactly the same policies, attitudes and prejudices exist in the authority as when it was under Labour control. That applies not only to elected councillors, but to professional staff in local authorities. That raises the question of how local officers are trained and what contact they have with the communities that they are supposed to serve.

The commission also found that poverty is not always geographically confined. Many people, such as the elderly, disabled people, young people, women and asylum seekers, do not feel part of traditionally defined communities. Nevertheless, they experience exclusion and poverty in different ways. Also, the loudest voices in communities are not always the most representative. Often those who suffer in silence should be those who are most keenly listened to. However, the situation is not all bad—positive examples can be given, and I shall talk about some of those in a moment.

The commission also discovered that people face personal and practical barriers to empowerment. There is a lack of basic skills in many areas. There is a notion that people could speak up for themselves if they had the willpower to do so—but that is unfair, because they are a product of their circumstances. Women experience the problem that a lack of child care frequently prevents their participation. There is a lack of so-called tools of the trade because people in poverty seldom have faxes, computers and in some cases, even telephones. They have a lack of money, which impairs real participation.

Some aspects of our social security regulations dampen enthusiasm for volunteering. The commission examined positive examples from countries such as Australia and the Netherlands in which volunteering and community work is recognised as legitimate engagement with the community for which remuneration can be received from the state.

I do not intend to sound negative. Real problems prevent the popular participation that many of us want, but we can cite positive examples of good practice. Several members of the commission visited Caia park estate in Wrexham and we saw an excellent community project based on recycling. Another project provided fruit, vegetables and other healthy food for people who did not have a large income. Members of the commission visited the Pembroke street estate management board in Plymouth and we were extremely heartened to see the tremendous enthusiasm there. We noted that a modest residents' group had developed so that residents were in a genuine partnership with the local authority to help to run their estate.

We learned that, in Hull, the Preston road residents committee was deeply involved in putting together a "new deal for communities" scheme, supported with finance from central government. In Wales, we learned how the communities first project was beginning to breathe new life into communities that have experienced deprivation for generations. One of the most positive meetings that we had was with Edwina Hart, the Assembly Member and Welsh Government member with responsibility for finance. She explained to us how the communities first project would transform some of the communities in Wales. That is now happening. I shall give an example from my constituency. A small estate called Graig y Rhacca was renowned for its high level of unemployment and its deprivation, but the community is now coming together. Through partnership, the initiative is beginning to create a new kind of ethos and optimism.

Another thing that the commission found to be true is that central government are making significant strides on that agenda. Much has been done with regard to consultation with children and young people. The neighbourhood renewal unit has set up a community forum and provides advisors on community regeneration schemes and brings together people who have experienced poverty in their communities. Several commission meetings have been held with people who have been active with voluntary organisations and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury civil servants, the Secretary of State for Wales, and Home Office civil servants.

The all-party poverty group is very active. The Cabinet Office has prepared a so-called tool kit to advise on best practice and how to bring about inclusive consultation. The social exclusion unit continues to examine the issue, and is making powerful recommendations on best practice in myriad subject areas. There is, however, room for improvement. The Department for Work and Pensions received some criticism from the European Commission on the action plan that it put forward last year, but lessons are being learned.

Poverty and social exclusion are the crucial social issues of our time, but so too is ensuring that people who experience them are involved in our decision-making processes. The report points the way forward in many respects. I know full well that the Government have given it active consideration. I hope that they continue to do so, and I hope that they give real consideration to its central recommendation, which is that a series of task forces be established, both for devolved Administrations and central government, to consider how the agenda could be purposefully pursued.

I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister needs time to reply. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate, because the issues of poverty and exclusion are very important. I am glad that he has highlighted the issue of getting people to participate.

In particular, it is important that children and young people participate in decision making that will affect their lives and help to lift them out of poverty. In Wales, there are some outstanding examples of how children and young people have participated in a culture that I believe is beginning to grow throughout the United Kingdom. I should like to mention the information centre in Swansea, which the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs visited yesterday. Young people decided what they wanted from it and where it should be. They designed the place and appointed the staff. The result is an information centre that is completely geared to young people's needs. Similar examples are to be found throughout Wales.

The other example that I should like to use is that of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. That is a unique appointment, in which young people were involved. Those are examples of how we can tackle poverty and exclusion by involving people from the beginning of their lives in the decision-making. I add that to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I am delighted to reply to this extremely important debate under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate. It may be the last day on which the House meets before the summer recess, but my hon. Friend could not have picked a more important subject for us to consider. He is an expert in this area; he was a commissioner of the "Listen hear" report by the UK Coalition against Poverty, about which he spoke so eloquently. The report is an extremely useful contribution to the debate on poverty and social exclusion and to our consultation.

The social exclusion unit was set up in 1997 to provide joined-up solutions to the problems of social exclusion. We all agree that we cannot place social exclusion in any one category. We must confront problems of income, employment, health, disability, education and skills, housing and access. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the unit. The key to its success is listening to people. We cannot understand the problems faced by people sleeping rough on our streets, or the problems that looked-after children and children in care have with educational attainment, unless we talk to them. We cannot produce a report on ex-offenders unless we talk to prison governors, prison officers and prisoners. All that is central to the way in which the unit works. Moira Wallace, the first director of the unit, gave evidence to the commission and is quoted in the "Listen Hear" report.

The National Assembly for Wales has launched communities first a long-term programme to tackle poverty and social disadvantage locally, which I welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly talked about wards in his constituency that are extremely deprived. However, there are also growing examples in his constituency of good community projects. He referred to a successful sure start health outreach team that has new shop-front premises. It has become clear that projects such as sure start have huge name recognition. Sure start has become successful because people have a sense of ownership and are consulted about what they want. Local parents have a say, which is important.

On the subject of participation, the "Listen hear" report makes a point about the need for serious commitment to reaching out to diverse or hard-to-reach groups. It also makes the point that that should be part of a continuing dialogue, not a one-off exercise. We should not just dip in and then leave, but should keep the dialogue going, which we are committed to doing. The unit understands that there is a need to do more than consult the same people—the usual suspects—time and again. I am not sure if my hon. Friend used that phrase, but he was being too kind.

In 1998, we formed the 18 policy action groups to develop policy for the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. That led to important initiatives such as the neighbourhood renewal unit, to which my hon. Friend referred. Of the 596 recommendations that emerged from the policy action team reports, 86 per cent. were adopted as Government policy, which is significant.

My hon. Friend was right to talk about the Cabinet Office strategy unit's public involvement framework to help policy makers at all levels to involve the public more in decision making and thus improve policy design. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, that is in a sense a new innovation for Government. If consultation is to be purposeful and meaningful, it is quite difficult to carry out and we have to work quite hard at it, but we have some good examples.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that involving children and young people is essential, but that is difficult to do, which is why the children and young people's unit launched "Learning to Listen". That document sets out the core principles that will apply across Government for the involvement of young people in policy making. It commits Departments to developing plans to provide more opportunities for children and young people to get involved in the planning, delivery and evaluation of Government policies and services.

In 1998, we launched an initiative on better government for older people, building a unique partnership with similar objectives. From September, all secondary schools will teach citizenship as part of the national curriculum, another important recommendation in the "Listen hear" report.

One major recommendation in the report is the one outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, which is that the Government and the devolved Administrations should set up a taskforce of people with direct experience of poverty to draw up recommendations. That would ensure that such people could participate in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. I understand why the recommendation was made, but I am not convinced that such a standing committee would be the best solution at UK level, partly because we are talking about a wide range of issues that affect practically every Department. That might make a single consultative structure a little unwieldy, but there are ways in which a more tailored approach could benefit us. I am certainly committed to working with my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to see how we can take the matter forward.

As part of the European Union's support for tackling poverty and social exclusion, we shall shortly begin work on our 2003 national action plan for social inclusion. Participation at all levels will be essential to ensure that the plan reflects the full range of effective action that is needed to tackle the problem throughout the UK, so we shall consult widely. We also want to use that opportunity as a focus for a national campaign against social exclusion, a campaign that we want to be as participative as possible. It is important that we go out and talk about the issue, and that we are responsive. A flexible, tailored approach will produce the best results for all concerned.

I agree with my hon. Friend that although a lot has been done, there is a lot to do. We can improve our practices, and I will always be interested in seeing how we can do that. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also engaged in issues of participation. Hon. Members will remember that he met the all-party parliamentary group on poverty earlier this year, when these issues were discussed in detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has raised a vital subject. We need to take forward the important issues and find new and creative ways to work on innovation. I am committed to doing so and thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate.

Thank you, Mr Amess. It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship.

This is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" for me, although not with the august Minister of State. I usually deal with his colleague the Aviation Minister, and it is good to know that as Transport Secretaries and their shadows come and go, debates on Manchester airport remain a regular fixture of the parliamentary year—for me at least.

On our last day before the summer recess, I am grateful for this timely opportunity to debate plans by Manchester airport to change the use of its departure routes over Cheshire. It is timely because the threat to the peace, lifestyle and health of many thousands of my constituents is imminent and because yesterday the Government announced a major consultation on their proposals to manage growth in air traffic while minimising the effects on local people and the environment.

I acknowledge the huge debt that I owe to the many local people in my constituency who have helped me on this issue. My comments would be reiterated by other hon. Members who represent airport constituencies, because we are always struck by the enormous support that we receive from volunteers. I want particularly to mention Jeff Gazzard, Alan Wilson, Tony Greaves, Chris Corner, Barry Wienholdt, Anthony Dobell, Bert Grange and all those involved in action groups like the Knutsford and Mobberley joint action group, the Manchester airport environment network, and the parish and town councils of Knutsford, Mobberley, Marthall, 011erton and Peover. They are the unsung heroes of this campaign.

Those people are all volunteers with limited time and even more limited resources, but each has put a huge effort into mastering the detail of aviation policy, section 106 agreements and flight routes so that Manchester airport is challenged and properly held to account. We are up against the might of the airport, with its full-time professional lawyers and public relations people, but we are more than holding their own. At times it feels like a David and Goliath fight, but we should remember how that story ended.

Without the vigilance of that local army of volunteers, we may never have known that Manchester airport was proposing to change the use of its departure routes in the first place. The airport was adamant that the opening the second runway last year marked the end of a period of change, not the beginning of a new one. However, alert residents in Lower Peover and Ollerton first noticed last autumn that each day, around lunchtime when most people were not home, one or two passenger jets were flying over their villages. That seemed strange, as the map printed by Manchester airport and circulated to thousands of local residents made it clear that the only propeller planes and light jets were allowed to fly over their villages. Indeed, according to the Civil Aviation Authority, even such light jets are only allowed in exceptional circumstances, although exceptional seems to have become routine.

To distinguish that restricted departure route—the so-called LISTO route—from the main routes used by larger commercial jets, it was shaded green instead of blue on the map sent by the airport to residents. The distinctive colouring is so clear that even the Aviation Minister, in his letter to me on 1 July, said that the LISTO route is

"also referred to as the 'Green Corridor—.

It is so described because it coloured green on the map to distinguish it from other departure routes. The restriction of the LISTO route, or green corridor, to only the smallest of aircraft was a crucial part of the airport's argument during the planning process and public inquiry into the second runway. It enabled the airport to admit that some areas would lose out as a result of the new runway and departure route, but point to other areas, such as those covered by the LISTO route, that had previously experienced heavy traffic but would be much better off.

The new routes, including the heavy restrictions on the LISTO route, were spelled out in black and white in the section 106 planning agreement signed by the airport, Manchester city council and Cheshire county council in 1994. On the basis of that agreement, people bought homes and settled down in places covered by the green corridor, including east Knutsford, Peover and Ollerton. They thought, and their house purchase searches told them, that they would not suffer from the misery of aircraft noise.

The first sign that Manchester airport was about to betray these people came last autumn, when a few alert residents noticed that the occasional large passenger jet was using the green corridor. Ken Sayle, chairman of 0llerton and Marthall parish council, wrote to the airport to ask why. He received an answer of which George Orwell would have been proud. The airport's community relations manager revealed that clandestine trials had been conducted using a range of aircraft on the LISTO route. She explained that there were

"some air traffic control advantages (and capacity ones) that would flow from some re-balancing of traffic on the southbound routes".

She ended by stating:

"our general advice to those residing close to the airport is that they are likely to see and hear aircraft at some time".

That is a truly extraordinary statement, given that the point of aviation policy is to assign preferred noise routes to limit the impact. Saying that people living close to an airport are likely to see aircraft from time to time is not the same as changing departure routes.

I went to see John Spooner, the managing director of the airport, to find out exactly what the airport was up to. I established at that meeting last December that the airport had indeed conducted a major trial on the LISTO route—without telling anyone, including the Department for Transport, and in breach of both the section 106 agreement and Civil Aviation Authority guidelines on the use of that route. I also discovered that it was now considering completely changing the use of LISTO routes to include large commercial jets. Although the airport was concerned about noise on other routes— one of its excuses—the real reason for the change was, according to the managing director, "a capacity one". In other words, it wanted to dispatch more aircraft, more quickly, early in the morning. That was seven months ago. At no point since then has the airport made any attempt to inform local people about what it was planning, ask for their opinions, or engage in any meaningful consultation whatever.

Only thanks to the local newspaper, the Knutsford Guardian, the work of the Knutsford and Mobberley joint action group, and a newsletter that I printed and distributed from my own office allowances, have the residents of Knutsford and affected villages woken up to the airport's betrayal of its agreement with local people and to the huge threat that now looms over them. They have now begun to fight back. Action groups have been set up and thousands of protest letters sent. I received more than 200 and forwarded them to the airport.

These are not the pro forma letters or postcards that MPs are used to receiving, but individual letters, which people have taken the time and trouble to write. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Lenderyou wrote:

"The impact on this densely populated area will be very negative, inflicting disturbance and noise pollution".

Mr. and Mrs. Simmons wrote:

"There is an alternative route over more open countryside (which is used at present) and it seems completely irresponsible of the Airport to contemplate a route which will detrimentally affect so many households and fly over two junior schools".

Mrs. Needham wrote:

"I help out at a school in Knutsford with children having learning difficulties and concentration problems. The noise of planes constantly overhead will not help."

Mr. Cotton wrote:

"This proposed change to the use of these assured routes will have a detrimental effect on my family's quality of life. It also goes without saying that the value of my property is also likely to be negatively affected by changes".

Mr. Corner wrote:

"Many people moved to this side of town because they found life intolerable under the landing path. They now find themselves with the prospect of being out of the frying pan into the fire".

That snapshot of letters gives an idea of how angry and betrayed local people feel, and how determined we are to stop the airport changing the use of this route. We have had some success. The Aviation Minister told me in a recent letter that he was

"aware of the concern of local residents regarding the LISTO routes".

That is a huge victory: we have penetrated the ivory towers of Whitehall. We have also affected the airport's thinking. The managing director told me back in April that he hoped to make a decision to proceed by the end of that month. That was three months ago, and there is still no formal application to the Government. I was told by someone who recently had a meeting with the managing director that the reason for the delay was that I, the local Member of Parliament, had "put my oar in." The airport will be disappointed to know that I intend to keep on rowing on the issue.

Ultimately, however, the fate of my constituents will be determined by the Department for Transport. That is why I asked for this debate today. I know from our ongoing correspondence with the Minister's colleague that no formal application has been made by the airport to change its routes, and I am sure the Minister will say that again today. However, I also know that the Department has held a number of informal discussions about the proposal. Therefore, this is the perfect time to ask the Minister five questions. If he is unable, for obvious reasons, to respond in detail to the questions today, perhaps he will undertake to write to me about the matters that I raise.

First, will the Minister give me an assurance that any change to the departure routes at Manchester airport will be subject to the specific approval of the Secretary of State? I ask that because in the Aviation Minister's first letter to me on the issue on 16 May this year, he said that if the airport wishes to change the use of its departure routes, it must first make a formal application to the Directorate of Airspace Policy. If that directorate believes that

"such changes have a significant detrimental effect on the environment"

then, according to the directions under the Transport Act 2000, they must

"refrain from promulgating such changes without first securing the approval of the Secretary of State".

The Aviation Minister has already acknowledged that his Department knows about the huge concern of local people about the proposed route change. The Department must also acknowledge that sending large passenger jets down a flight route that does not carry them at the moment must, by definition, have a

"significant detrimental effect on the environment".

Will the Minr today confirm that any change will require the approval of the Secretary of State?

My second question again refers to what the Aviation Minister said to me in his letter of 16 May. He said:

"it has been the view of successive Governments since the 1960s that the balance of social and environmental advantage lies in concentrating departing aircraft along the least possible number of departure routes".

Therefore, like previous Governments, will this Government—it is their practice to date—reject the argument from the airport that one way of reducing the impact of aircraft noise is by fanning out departing aircraft along several routes? The airport is using that spurious argument to try to divide local opinion. It has told residents of Mere, a village which is badly affected by the current departure route, that opening up the LISTO route would make life more bearable for them.

I know what a misery aircraft noise causes in Mere, but as the airport's main consideration is to put more planes into the sky more quickly, I honestly believe that a change of route will not significantly reduce the number of aircraft flying over them and will certainly not stop the noisiest planes of all, such as the PIA jumbos, from flying over Mere.

Will the Minister stick to existing Government practice and reject the argument that it is best to spread the misery when it comes to departure routes?

Thirdly, the Aviation Minister said in his letter of 16 May that as it is Government policy to concentrate departing traffic along

"a relatively small number of tracks…it makes sense to arrange these tracks to over-fly sparsely populated areas where possible and thus reduce the sum of total disturbance".

Therefore, before any decision is taken on Manchester airport's proposal, will the Minister undertake to conduct a survey of how many people live in the area under the LISTO route to establish how sparsely populated it is? Current departure routes quite rightly go to great lengths to go around Knutsford, because that is densely populated. If departing aircraft went to the same lengths to stick to those routes it would be even better. However, the parameters of the LISTO route cut straight across the eastern half of Knutsford, where thousands of people live, and then proceed over several large villages. How can letting large jets fly down that route be consistent with a policy of arranging routes so that they

"over-fly sparsely populated areas where possible?"

Fourthly, the Aviation Minister acknowledges that details of departure routes were included in agreement on the second runway

"as part of the assessment of the likely effects of the proposed new runway".

However, he says that it would not be appropriate to comment on that agreement, as it was between the airport, Manchester city council and Cheshire county council. I accept that the Government were not party to that agreement. Is the Minister therefore saying that the Department takes no notice whatever of the section 106 agreement, and the promises made by the airport? It seems unfair and a little strange that the Government do not take into account the basis upon which Manchester airport was given permission to construct a second runway, and the solemn promises that they made to local people at the time, when deciding whether to allow the airport to break those promises. Indeed, the course of the LISTO route described in the section 106 agreement is very different from current LISTO route, which is much further west and now overflies Knutsford—something that did not feature in the original maps. The Government may not be party to the agreement, but surely they must take it into consideration.

Fifthly, and finally, the Government yesterday announced a major consultation on the future of air capacity in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State said that the key issues included not only how we should respond to the continued growth in demand for air travel, but how we should deal with the environmental impact of expansion and its effects on people living close to airports.

The consultation document covering the north of England raises some very big questions for Manchester airport and the people living around it. It forecasts that the number of passengers using Manchester each year may rise from 18 million in 2000 to 60 million by the year 2030, or even higher in some scenarios, and raises the issue of a fourth terminal in Manchester by 2015.

I welcome the spirit in which the consultation has been launched. I want Manchester airport to be a success and a magnet for jobs in the region, but for that to happen it must respect the rights of people who live around it and treat them like adults. As I understand it, the consultation will run for four months and the Government will then publish a White Paper upon which decisions may be taken and legislation based.

Does the Minister agree that it would wholly wrong to take a decision on the changed use of departure routes at Manchester airport before consultation has taken place and before a White Paper has been produced? As I hope that I have demonstrated today, Manchester airport's proposal to change the use of its departure routes has huge implications for local people, the local environment and airport capacity. It will bring the misery of aircraft noise to thousands of homes that to date have mercifully been spared. It will be a betrayal of the promises made by the airport to local people when the second runway was agreed, and it will run counter to current Government policy of concentrating the impact of departing aircraft along a small number of routes flying over sparsely populated areas.

The decision cannot be taken out of the big picture and looked at in isolation; it requires joined-up thinking. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will give careful consideration to the issues that I have raised to today, that he will wait until the Government produces the White Paper before taking any decision on the change of use of routes at Manchester, and that he or the Secretary of State will decide the future of those routes? The quality of life of the people whom I represent will depend upon it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for raising the important subject of the use of departure routes at Manchester airport. He posed a considerable number of questions, and I hope that I will be able to answer some of them. If there are matters that I cannot cover in the time available, I shall write to him. As he said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport debated the subject of noise from aircraft using Manchester with the hon. Gentleman last July—it is obviously an annual event—and described the prosperity that the airport brings to Manchester and to the whole of the north-west region.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the might of Manchester airport, and certainly it is a significant factor in the north-west. Manchester is the biggest regional airport in the United Kingdom, with an extensive programme of scheduled and charter flights to a number of short-haul, medium-haul and long-haul destinations. It also has the largest belly-hold freight operation—the hold of passenger aircraft—outside the south-east of England. In 2000, Manchester airport handled 18.4 million passengers, some of whom may have been the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and 117 thousand tonnes of freight. The airport infrastructure comprises two main runways and three terminals with a capacity of around 30 million passengers per annum.

The airport is a major employer in the region, a factor that should not be under-estimated. In 2000, it directly supported an estimated 17,800 jobs and a similar number of indirect and induced jobs in the area. It operates training and apprenticeship schemes with local communities. The hon. Gentleman's constituency benefits from a significant share of those jobs, for example at the Emirates European call centre, Barclays IT centre and BNFL.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognised, as do I, that noise in local communities is an undesirable but inevitable consequence of the airport. He described a number of measures that the airport has taken to limit the adverse impact of noise on local communities. They include night restrictions, ground noise restrictions, noise insulation, departure noise limits and departure routes. The last of those measures, which arouses much interest in Manchester, is our subject today.

I want to stress that the policy of successive Governments has been that aircraft noise is a local issue, best resolved locally. Only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are designated for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The Government are responsible for setting noise mitigation measures for those airports. Elsewhere, including at Manchester, that is a matter for local resolution. Manchester airport has been designated under section 35 of the 1982 Act, so is required to provide adequate consultation facilities for users of the aerodrome, local authorities and local representative organisations on issues of concern arising from airport operations. I have encouraged members of the local community, through their representatives on the consultative committee, to take the opportunity to express their views. From what the hon. Gentleman has said today, they are availing themselves of that.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the second runway at Manchester was the subject of a public inquiry in1994–95 that carefully considered air noise. The inspector recognised adverse impacts on Knutsford. A package of mitigation measures was crucial to the granting of planning permission to build the second runway. Those measures are the subject of an enforceable agreement with Cheshire county council and Manchester city council under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter received from my hon. Friend the Aviation Minister in May. It is appropriate to clarify what I understand that letter said. When my hon. Friend said that he could not comment on the agreement, that was not meant to imply that he was not taking it into account, but that he could not comment on a legal interpretation of the agreement, which was a matter for the relevant local parties.

A map illustrating the existing and proposed departure routes was included for information in the evidence on the airport company given to the planning inquiry. The planning permission given for the second runway was not contingent on the precise location of the routes or their usage. The airport included in its section 106 agreement with Cheshire county council a provision committing it to further consultation over any proposed changes to the PNR—preferred noise route—segment of its departure routes, and to undertaking that through the airport consultative committee and the environmental health officers' consultative committee.

The new runway at Manchester airport was opened in February 2001. It is staggered relative to the old runway, and lies approximately 1.8 km—1.2 miles—closer to Knutsford than the old one. International Civil Aviation Organisation rules for the use of staggered parallel runways state that landing aircraft should utilise the first available runway. When both runways are in use, aircraft taking off should use the other runway. That means that during the day, when the wind is from the south or west, aircraft will take off toward Knutsford from the new runway, with a consequent increase in noise in that area. I fully accept that.

The introduction of the second runway necessitated the design of new departure routes. All routes must be properly designed in accordance with internationally agreed design requirements. Aircraft are not permitted to commence turns until they have reached a minimum height. Due to the displacement of the second runway, it is impossible exactly to reproduce for the new runway routes from the old one. There has been no change to departure routes over Greater Manchester as a consequence of the second runway. There are now four routes for departures to the south-west. Those to the north and west are largely as before, with a slight adjustment due to the spacing and stagger of the runways.

I fully accept that there has been a noticeable shift for southbound traffic. At the time that the second runway scheme was conceived, it was thought that the old CONGA southbound route passing to the east of Knutsford was incapable of taking all types of traffic without significant overflying of Knutsford. Therefore, it was proposed for propeller aircraft only. The result is that the majority of southbound traffic passes to the north of Knutsford before turning south between Knutsford and Northwich. The CONGA routes were renamed LISTO in August 2001 and have also been referred to as the green routes.

The directorate of airspace policy at the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for airspace design and for promulgating changes to existing airspace arrangements. The DAP is required to act in accordance with directions given to the CAA by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000. The directions require the DAP,

"where such changes might have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment,"

to

"advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions"—

the directions were issued in 2000—

"of the likely impact and of plans to keep the impact to a minimum",

and to

"refrain from promulgating such changes without first securing the approval of the Secretary of State."

The guidance goes on to stress the importance of consultation, through which the views of those who may be affected by any change can be considered and a solution can be developed.

The original proposals for the use of the CONGA, or LISTO, routes were drawn up in about 1993 on the assumption that there would continue to be a fairly large contingent of propeller-driven aircraft used on many of the short-haul services from the airport. More recently, since planning permission was granted, small regional jet aircraft have largely replaced the propeller fleet operating from Manchester to UK and European destinations. That is part of a wider phenomenon in the aviation industry.

Airport officials evaluated the performance and noise characteristics of those small jet aircraft compared with their predecessors, the propeller driven aircraft, as the growing popularity of regional jets was causing problems with air traffic control. Their work was reported to the technical advisory group of the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee, which agreed that the CONGA 1R and 1Y routes could be used for light jets in addition to the propeller driven aircraft previously proposed. That view was subsequently endorsed by the main committee, which acknowledged that, in noise terms, it had advantages over the original proposals. It was also endorsed by the Environmental Health Officers Group. As it represented a change to the original proposal in respect of the preferred noise route segment of the route, the proposed modification was referred by the DAP to the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in June 2000. The Department was satisfied that appropriate consultation had taken place.

I understand that airport officials have carefully monitored the pattern of community noise disturbance since the opening of the airport's second runway in February 2001. There has been a significant increase in community complaints from the area north of Knutsford as a result of increased air traffic, as the hon. Gentleman indicated.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Time is our enemy, and he may wish to write to me on some of the specific issues that I raised. However, would he deal with one point before our time is up? Does he agree that it would be wrong to make a decision on the use of routes while a major consultation is taking place on air traffic in the north of England?

The hon. Gentleman described a pressing issue in his area. I am not sure whether he wants to delay consideration of that situation while there is, as he rightly says, a public consultation on the much broader issue of air traffic in the north of England and the longterm future of Manchester airport. However, following his comments, I shall give those views consideration.

As I said, it is also the case that areas to the east of Knutsford have benefited from significantly reduced air traffic. In recognition of the concern expressed by the communities to the north of Knutsford, consideration has been given as to how that could be mitigated. One potential solution suggested is to widen the range of aircraft able to operate on LISTO as a way of sharing the noise burden.

Order. We now come to the final subject for debate.

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I am delighted to have secured a debate on an issue that affects not just my constituents but those of every hon. Member.

People of pensionable age make up 18 per cent. of the UK's population. My constituency of Glasgow Anniesland has one of the highest concentrations in Europe— 31.5 per cent. of the electorate are in that bracket. It is very important for me to ensure that an issue that affects such a large number of my constituents is recognised and addressed by the Government. There is no doubt that the policy initiatives introduced by the Government have made a huge impact on improving the lives of our pensioners. We have spent a great deal of money on pensioners—an extra £6 billion a year in real terms—as a result of the policies that we have introduced since 1997. In fact, we are now spending three times more than an earnings link since 1998 would have given pensioners.

Between 1979 and 1997 the gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners widened beyond belief. The top fifth saw their incomes rise by 80 per cent. above inflation, but the incomes of the poorest fifth rose by only 34 per cent.—less than half as much. I am very pleased that the Government have focused on pensioner poverty as an immediate priority. Indeed, measures such as free eye tests, the winter fuel allowance and free television licences for the over 75s have applied to all pensioners regardless of income. However, measures such as the increases in the basic pension and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee have ensured that it is the poorest pensioners who have benefited most.

This year's Budget pledged that whatever the rate of inflation, the basic state pension will increase by at least £100 a year every year, and this year it is rising by even more than that: £156 a year for single pensioners and nearly £250 for couples. In fact, the average pensioner will be £7.75 a week better off as a direct result of the tax and benefit changes announced in this year's Budget. All in all, with the minimum income guarantee, the new pension credit and the new pensioner tax allowances, the average pensioner household is now £1,150 better off even after inflation than in 1997.

From next year, 5 million pensioners will gain from the new pension credit—on average by £8 a week or £400 a year more per household. For the poorest single pensioner, extra help will guarantee a minimum income of £98.15 a week this year and at least £100 next year. By absorbing the minimum income guarantee, it will underpin the incomes of people aged 60 and over so that they need not live on less than £100 a week, or £154 a week for pensioner couples.

There will also be a higher guaranteed income for those who are severely disabled, and for carers. I take a big interest in that subject, and I more than welcome that move. The pension credit will also reward pensioners for saving. We no longer want a security system that penalises pensioners with modest occupational pensions or savings. We no longer want millions of pensioners living on low or moderate incomes, who struggled to put money aside for their retirement, only to find they were little or no better off than people who had saved nothing. The credit will benefit half of all pensioner households, topping up the state pension with a cash reward, and ensure that pensioners with small occupational pensions or modest savings will no longer face losing a pound in their benefit for every pound of pension or other savings they have built up. Crucially, it will abolish the intrusive weekly means test. From age 65, most awards will instead be set for five years, and pensioners will have to report only significant changes in their circumstances.

The pension credit will be delivered through the new Pension Service as part of our plans to make it far easier for pensioners to claim all their entitlements. At the point of retirement, we will be able to work out how much pension credit pensioners are entitled to, at the same time as working out their basic state pension. We will then normally need to reassess their award only every five years, unless they tell us that their income has fallen.

Since April, the Benefits Agency ceased to exist and all work relating to pensions—for pensioners today and in future—became the responsibility of the Pension Service. There will be one point of contact for pensioners where pension entitlement and arranging payment can be worked out. Pensioners will need to give information only once and will not be left to find their way through the system. I welcome the measures, but I think that we could do more.

Life expectancy at birth has increased dramatically during the past hundred years. In 1910, for example, a man could expect to live until the age of 48, which means I would now have been dead for two years. Born today, he could expect to live until at least 75. Likewise, a woman born in 1910 had a life expectancy of 52 years, whereas today she can expect to live until at least 80. By 2020, there will be 50 per cent. more pensioners than there were in 1990 and a smaller work force to support them.

As the population ages, we find it more difficult to support and protect our elderly. Recent figures show that fewer pensioners were in poverty last year than for the previous decade. Some 21 per cent. of pensioner couples now have incomes after housing costs of less than 60 per cent. of the median income, which is down from 27 per cent. 10 years ago and equates to well over 1 million fewer pensioners than in 1997. Those are encouraging signs that we are reversing the trend in the number of pensioners on relatively low incomes, and clearly show that we are moving in the right direction. Although I take heart from those figures, I do not believe that it is acceptable for anyone who has contributed all their working life to find themselves in poverty in retirement.

I congratulate the Government on the work that has been done so far, but I should like to make one or two suggestions about what we need to do now. I mentioned earlier that I welcomed the introduction of free television licences for those over 75, but I should like us to go a step further by lowering the qualifying age to 65. The most recent estimates put the cost of doing that at £714 million. It is a lot of money, but when one considers that annual spending on education and skills increased by £12.8 billion in the comprehensive spending review, it is not much. It is absolutely right that we invest in our children, but we must also look after our pensioners. When a person reaches 65, television is no longer a mere luxury, but a necessity.

I wholeheartedly supported the introduction of the winter fuel allowance, and the increases since then have been welcome. However, it is time to go further. Although there has been a drop in excess winter deaths, more people die in the UK than in any other European countries as a direct result of the cold. Winter is often a precarious time for older people. Research shows that the poorest pensioners tend to live in housing with the most inefficient heating and insulation: those who can least afford a high heating bill must pay most to keep their homes really warm. When a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on energy, it is considered to be fuel poor.

The energy efficiency of the home is another key indicator. The energy efficiency rating of a home is measured by the standard assessment procedure or SAP, which has a scale from 1 for highly inefficient to 100 for highly efficient. The most recent figures showed that lone pensioners living in the private sector had an average SAP rating of 11, which compares with the national average of 35. New buildings are required to have an SAP of 70. We can see why those pensioners have to pay most for their heating.

Some 77 per cent. of single pensioners and 43 per cent. of couples are still fuel poor. It is estimated that fuel poor households still spend between £700 and £800 a year less than they should to achieve adequate warmth. I would suggest that, as a further step to eradicating fuel poverty, we look at increasing the winter fuel allowance to £250. I completely accept that the existing £200 payment was not even an option under the Tories, but we need to find ways of further eradicating fuel poverty. The cost to the Exchequer could perhaps be offset by the £1 billion that fuel poverty costs the NHS every year.

I welcome the home energy efficiency scheme, HEESplus, which is aimed at people over 60 who receive an income-related benefit—the minimum income guarantee, council tax benefit or housing benefit. Government figures show that from 1990 to 2000, between 39,000 and 77,000 people did not claim the income support to which they were entitled. That does not entirely convince me that those who should claim HEES-plus will do so. If it is not claimed, it will not go far enough toward combating fuel poverty.

That brings me to my next point. One third of all benefits are now means-tested, but for pensioners the figure is almost 60 per cent. There is some evidence to show that the take-up of means-tested benefits by pensioners is low and, furthermore, that it is lower than when money was given directly to them through the higher basic state pension, which is targeted according to age. The key question, one that I hope the Minister will address, is how we continue to target our poorest pensioners. That requires a degree of means-tested benefits while ensuring that take-up is at a desirable level.

I wish that we could do away with means-testing, but unless someone can come up with a better way of assessing those who have least, I fear that it will be around for as long as we have poverty.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Can the hon. Lady please wait? We must give the Minister time to answer, and I still have a little of my speech to go.

According to the Government's figures, between 300,000 and 750,000 pensioners who are entitled to MIG have not taken it up. Take-up is low because many elderly pensioners are baffled by the forms and the complexity involved in trying to claim. I appreciate that we have shortened the MIG claim form from 40 to 10 pages, but at that age, even 10 pages is too long. I hope that the aims to do even better under the pension credit scheme will come to fruition.

Means-testing presents pensioners with particular difficulties. The complexity of the forms is not the only problem. Research shows that 3 million pensioners throughout the UK are not claiming the full range of benefits to which they are entitled. According to research carried out by Prudential, 43 per cent. of pensioners surveyed said that they did not realise that they were eligible for certain benefits, 23 per cent. did not even know that a benefit to which they were entitled existed and 18 per cent. were put off by red tape.

The research showed that 18 per cent. of Scottish pensioners were likely to reject means-tested benefits, compared with a UK average of 10 per cent. Increased means-testing, therefore, is disproportionate in its effect on Scottish pensioners. A factor that I have not yet mentioned is that pensioners are often put off means-tested benefits because they are proud never to have claimed any form of income support during their working lives and do not want to start in their retirement. We need something better.

We could look at the language used in naming additional benefits. Words such as "benefit", "support" and "allowance" all conjure up an image of some form of income support or charity, as elderly people sometimes think of it. We must look at more positive words such as "entitlement". The name "pension credit" is a step in the right direction, but even that could be improved. We should examine how we can promote the range of benefits and advice available to pensioners, to maximise take-up.I certainly hope that the new Pension Service will be more effective in that way.

I shall consider the new proposals that deal with the ways in which pensions will be paid from now on. There are plans to scrap the traditional pension book and replace it with a bank card, and to pay pensions into bank accounts. Although I understand the reasoning behind those proposals,I have concerns. Many elderly people do not have bank accounts, for various reasons. They may not understand them or they may be uncertain about new technology. Above all, there is no substitute at that age for meeting and dealing with a real person. Pensioners like to have cash to hand, but I fear that having to withdraw it from a hole in the wall will not reassure them that their money is safe.

I again congratulate the Government on all the work that they have done to help pensioners. They have introduced policies that would never have been introduced under previous Governments. Above all, we are on the right track to eradicating pensioner poverty and improving pensioners' lives. However, I reiterate that I would like further steps to be taken. I am talking about free television licences for the over-65s, an increase in the winter fuel allowance, less means-testing, more assistance for pensioners in finding their way around the system, and real people to deal with pensioners face to face, rather than new technology.

I have raised a number of issues and made suggestions about the way forward. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.

First and foremost, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate. He is fast showing himself to be a stalwart defender of, and advocate for, his pensioner constituents.I, along with other Ministers who have something to do with pensions, have noticed that, as I am sure that his pensioner constituents will have, too.

My hon. Friend has raised important issues.I thank him in particular for the way in which he has set out his comments, because he has taken the trouble to explain what the Government have already done. That is important, because it would have been easy for him just to come along and say, "This is what we want." I thank him for his even-handedness.

The Government's strategy is to ensure that all pensioners enjoy a decent and secure income in retirement and share in the nation's rising prosperity. As my hon. Friend was kind enough to say, we have already achieved a great deal, given where we started. We inherited a pension system that was failing to provide enough support to current pensioners and to provide security in retirement for future pensioners. In addition, the gap between better-off and poorer pensioners was growing. Indeed, my hon. Friend has given the figures.

As soon as we took over from the previous Tory Government, we started to right past wrongs. Our first priority was to address the immediate problem of pensioner poverty among retired people, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee in April 1999. Anyone who has had anything to do with social security will realise what a long and difficult task it is to introduce a new benefit or to change an existing one. However, we were determined to increase quickly the incomes of the poorest pensioners, who did not have access to a good second pension and who had not had the opportunities during their working lives, or their lives caring for others and bringing up children, to accrue such a pension.

That is why we built on the income support system that already existed, but we were left with a number of problems, which my hon. Friend has mentioned and to which I shall return. The key issue was to get money to poorer pensioners as fast as possible, and the MIG did that. We have uprated it in line with earnings every year since its introduction, and we will continue to do so for the lifetime of this Parliament.

We went further by introducing winter fuel payments in winter 1997. These benefit pensioners generally as well as the poorest pensioners. When we introduced the payments, the rate was £20 for each eligible household and £50 for those on income support. Many of us forget that that was the starting level. It was increased to £100 in 1999, and from winter 2000 the payments have been £200 for each eligible household. That is considerably more than they would have been if the increases had been in line with inflation.

More than 11 million older people in more than 8 million households receive a significant contribution to their winter fuel bills through the winter fuel payment. In my hon. Friend's constituency, as he probably knows, almost 14,000 people received payments last year. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already announced that sufficient money has been set aside to continue paying winter fuel payments at £200 for the rest of this Parliament. My hon. Friend asked for a further increase, but I hope that he acknowledges how much we have already done and how welcome and popular the winter fuel allowance is among our pensioner constituents. I have found that when knocking on doors in south Liverpool.

My hon. Friend referred to fuel poverty and the home energy efficiency scheme plus, but did not say how much that scheme could help. In 2001–02, we expect some £81 million to have been spent on home energy efficiency scheme plus grants, which tackle fuel poverty on a house-by-house basis—possibly the most effective way imaginable. We expect 600,000 homes to have received help by 2004, and my hon. Friend should recall that we have increased the scheme's maximum grant from £315 to £2,500. Significantly more work can be done to tackle fuel poverty, and the grant is usually enough to pay for gas-fired central heating.

Does my hon. Friend accept that take-up is never sufficient to alleviate the poverty? The £200 winter fuel allowance worked, so if we gave £250, it would go a long way to alleviating the problem of people not taking up their allowances.

As expected, my hon. Friend is sticking tenaciously to his argument. I shall come to his point about take-up in a moment, but I want to get on record the fact that the increase in home energy efficiency scheme plus is significant. It will help 600,000 households by 2004 on a house-by-house basis, dealing with cold problems in particular dwellings. That is a very targeted way of spending the money.

I should like to remind my hon. Friend that in real terms between 1997 and 2001, domestic gas prices in the UK fell by 12.6 per cent. while domestic electricity prices fell by 16.8 per cent. Therefore, he will have to acknowledge that the winter fuel payment is becoming better and better value each year, even though it is staying at £200.I hope that I have convinced him.

Can my hon. Friend guarantee that the prices will continue to fall?

My hon. Friend thinks that I have far more power that I do. We hope that the falls will continue, but unfortunately I am not in charge of the entire economy or domestic fuel pricing. We can only hope.

My hon. Friend acknowledged that the free television licences have been a tremendously popular initiative, and we spend more than £356 million a year on providing free television licences to households with at least one person aged 75 or over. My hon. Friend may know that about 6,200 pensioners over 75 are eligible for free television licences in his constituency, and I am sure that they tell him how pleased they are to have them. I know that my hon. Friend would like the scheme extended to all pensioners, but the current regime strikes the right balance between safeguarding the principle that the BBC should be funded by viewers through the universal licence fee and our duty to help our oldest pensioners, who for reasons of ill-health, restricted mobility and social isolation are more likely to be reliant on television as their window to the world.

I cannot agree that people turn into couch potatoes when they hit the age of 65. That is a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature, and one statistic will illustrate my point. At age 75 plus, only 2 per cent. of pensioners still receive income from earnings, but one-fifth of those aged 65 or more are still working in one form or another and are not as socially isolated as some of our more elderly, frail pensioners. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge my response, although I cannot expect him to have been won over completely by my arguments. No doubt he will come back to me and to the Department.

Compared with 1997, single pensioners in receipt of the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment and free TV licences are now at least £18 a week better off. Pensioner couples have gained by more than £27 a week in real terms. My hon. Friend referred to the take up of means-tested benefits and, in particular, the minimum income guarantee. Our recent take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee resulted in more than 138,500 successful additional claims. Those pensioners received, on average, an extra £20 a week. That campaign can be seen only as a success. He explained some of the reasons why we have a problem with take-up of the MIG, and they include the stigma and resulting reluctance felt by many pensioners to claim what they consider to be perhaps a handout or an income-related benefit. We want to tackle that.

It is certainly true that the figures for the pensioners entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but who have not claimed it yet, pre-date the national take-up campaign in May 2000. We are therefore undertaking further research to obtain a more precise estimate of the number of pensioners who are entitled to, but not receiving, the minimum income guarantee. More than 1 million pensioners responded to the take-up campaign and many of them were not eligible for MIG, usually because they had too much capital. The changed capital limit—the abolition of some of the requirements for MIG in pension credit—will tackle that problem and many more of those pensioners will be entitled to help under pension credit than under the minimum income guarantee. We can get in touch with them; we know who they are and where they are, unless they have moved. However, many pensioners remain in the same home.

We have made it easier for older people to claim their entitlement through a new shortened MIG claim form. We have reduced it from 40 pages to 10, which is certainly an achievement. We have stopped asking pensioners whether they are pregnant, which must be a step forward. The reason why such questions were on the form was that it was based on income support. We had to administer MIG through the income support system to ensure that payment was made quickly. The change to pension credit will be a major breakthrough. It will make real changes to the way in which we ask pensioners for information, the type of information we ask for and the type of process that they must go through to receive it. It will make a big difference in respect of take-up.

Pensioners who contact the retirement pension telecentre line are asked a series of questions to identify those callers who are not already receiving the minimum income guarantee, but who may be entitled to it. We are taking a more proactive approach to identifying entitlement and trying to ensure that payments are made to those who are entitled to them. That will make a difference, too. We have started a data matching exercise that will enable us to invite a claim to MIG from those whom we think may be entitled, following the award of another benefit or life event, for example a bereavement or marriage. We will know whether people are entitled to it and encourage them to claim.

Will the Minister give way?

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has attended the debate, but perhaps she may apply for one herself at a later stage. I still have some points to make in answer to my hon. Friend.

The pension credit is a tremendously important stage in our strategy to address the unfairness in the social security system that leaves people with modest savings no better off than some people who have no savings. From 2003, we shall reward people with most savings through the introduction of the pension credit. The way in which we shall undertake that will deal with the take-up issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. The main group of people who will benefit will be women over 70. Under the current rules, the occupational pension that they may have saved towards is taken into account pound for pound against any entitlement that they may have. Under pension credit, there will be a reward for that saving of up to £13.80 a week for a single person. My hon. Friend made the point that, on average, pensioners who are entitled will be £400 a year better off.

For most pensioners, the pension credit will be fixed for five years and people will not need to make reports each week on whether their income has changed. That will also remove the stigma and ensure that entitlement is clear and take-up is fully implemented. We hope that more pensioners will claim pension credit as a result of such changes. My hon. Friend asked about automatic credit transfer. I reassure him that that will not stop pensioners being paid in cash over post office counters. The measure will save administrative costs and, because order books are open to fraud, we want to ensure that there is less fraud. I hope that I have given him some assurance on the points that he has raised and I congratulate him again on the debate.