What progress is being made on introducing strip stamps in the Scotch whisky industry. [152887]

I met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association last week to discuss this issue, and general consultation with the spirits industry is, of course, continuing. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is due to meet the association on 23 February to discuss the issue further.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am pleased that he is taking such a close interest in this important subject. The Scotch whisky industry has been looking for some time at alternatives to the stamp duty and strip stamps. If it comes up with a successful solution, will he make representations to the Chancellor, so that we can ditch that proposal once and for all and allow the Scotch whisky industry to get on with its main business, which is, of course, to sell whisky both here at home and abroad?

My hon. Friend is right: the industry is of huge importance to Scotland—and, of course, to the whole of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear at the time of the pre-Budget report, his concern is about the growing amount of fraud. Customs and Excise and the Scotch Whisky Association put different monetary values on that fraud, but both agree that there is a problem, and it needs to be sorted out. The Chancellor has said that unless something else is done, he intends to go ahead with the strip stamps. However, he has made it clear that it is up to the industry to talk to Customs and Excise with a view to finding some other way to deal with what is undoubtedly a growing problem. I am sure that the whole House would agree that, faced with a growing amount of fraud, it is necessary to take action, but of course, that action must be consistent with ensuring that we do everything we can to help the industry, which is why we have frozen whisky duty for the past six Budgets.

Why should the Scotch whisky industry have to foot the bill to crack down on crooks? Surely Customs and Excise should be doing that more effectively. Why is a proposal being made for new systems, new overheads, new costs and new regulations, all to be borne by the Scotch whisky industry, when every bottle of whisky is already clearly marked with a lot number, which would help in the fight, which everyone supports, against fraud?

Bottles may be marked, but there is still a problem with fraud, as representatives of the industry admitted when I met them last week. Whisky is going missing when it is shipped out of warehouses. We have made it clear—I have just done so again—that the industry and the Government need to talk together to consider alternatives. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, it has always been the case in the Scotch whisky industry—and, indeed, in many other industries—that responsibility for security rests jointly with the industry and Customs and Excise. The Scotch whisky industry already has considerable security measures in force to ensure that whisky is kept safe and accounted for, and the vast bulk of it is—but there is a problem with fraud, and the industry and Customs and Excise need to work together to find out how we can sort it out.

The Economic Secretary will visit Scotland on 23 February at my invitation, in my capacity as the chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group, and he will start at Allied Distillers in my constituency. I recognise that fraud is a problem, and I am trying to persuade the industry and the Government to take a consensual approach to achieve a satisfactory outcome, but will the Secretary of State ensure that he makes his colleagues aware that this is a £2 billion manufacturing industry, and any solution that is reached should not damage its competitiveness and productivity?

My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, are well aware of the importance of that industry. Indeed, it is not possible to live in Scotland without being aware of its importance. Of course my hon. Friend is right to suggest that it is in the interests of the industry as well as the general taxpayer—who, after all, will have to foot the loss unless something is done about it—that both the Government and the industry work together to ensure that the problem is dealt with. What is encouraging so far is that the industry is showing a willingness to talk to the Government and discuss with Customs and Excise measures that might help, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the Government cannot ignore a situation in which a very large amount of money is being lost in fraud, and we have to do everything we possibly can to stop that happening.

The Secretary of State asks the industry to engage with Customs and Excise. Is he aware that one major distiller in Scotland has offered to audit-trail random purchases from the high street to trace fraud? Why has it not received a single phone call from Customs and Excise about that? How can he condone such complacency, when one in 50 jobs in Scotland are at risk?

When I met the industry and the people from the Scotch Whisky Association last week—the association represents the whole industry in Scotland—they said that they had been working on several measures, including audit measures, which they had been discussing with Customs and Excise. It is not true to say that Customs and Excise has not been engaging with the association—the association readily agrees that that is happening. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that something specific could be done that he would care to let me know about, I shall make sure that Customs and Excise sees it. However, it is important for all of us in the House to recognise that there is a significant revenue loss at the moment—the exact monetary value might be a matter of dispute—that is rising and needs to be dealt with. The question is: what is the best way of dealing with that revenue loss?

How many pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of pension credit. [152888]

As at 31 January, there were 229,000 pensioner households in Scotland, comprising approximately 271,000 individuals, receiving pension credit. The latest monthly pension credit progress report, including numbers of recipient households in each parliamentary constituency in Great Britain, was published yesterday.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. Does she agree, however, that the increase in the uptake of pension credit over the past month was only 1.4 per cent., and that at that rate of increase it would take another 30 years before everyone who was entitled to pension credit received it? What are the Government prepared to do to remedy that situation? Does she agree that the answer is to reduce the number of means-tested benefits and raise the basic state pension?

The answer to all those questions is no. The actual fact about the current situation is that more than 4.1 million pensioner households have been written to about pension credit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that, in his constituency, 2,065 households, comprising 2,424 individuals, now receive an additional £40.43 a week. I ask him to have a conversation with his colleagues the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), because in the Mearns Leader, which I am sure is well read in Edinburgh, the hon. Member for Gordon said:

"I am delighted to see Aberdeenshire pensioners gaining significantly by the introduction of the new Pension Credit."

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) should have that conversation as soon as possible, before he makes any other misguided comments.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, although the good news story of pension credit is just that, another good news story is that only one third of pensioners in the UK actually pay tax. Is that equation reflected in Scotland?

I think that I missed the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I assume that she was talking about the numbers in Scotland. The number of pensioners in Scotland not paying tax will be pro rata to the number in the rest of the United Kingdom. What I do not want to lose sight of is the core of my hon. Friend's comments: we have reduced the tax burden on pensioners so that only about one third of pensioners in the United Kingdom now pay tax.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that less than 0.25 per cent. of pension credit is currently paid into Post Office card accounts? Does she think that that is too much or not enough?

I thought that the Conservative party had spent its whole history building on the idea that people ought to have choice. We cannot—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting this—force pensioners to collect their pensions in whatever way suits us. We have offered pensioners a plethora of initiatives, including support for the Post Office cards, to give them the choice of how they want to collect their pensions every week, and I would have thought that he would see fit to support that.

The Under-Secretary is right to say that I am very much in favour of choice, but it must be free and fair choice. I am sure that she is aware of constituents of hers who have tried to get their pension credit paid into a Post Office card account, and she will know how difficult that process is. According to the Government's own figures, 140,000 eligible pensioner households in Scotland will not claim the credit. Does she accept my view that they are likely to be the most disadvantaged and the most in need? Is she proud of that statistic?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman leave me to look after my constituents, rather than try to tell me what is best for them. We have widened the choice of ways in which pensions can be collected. One reason for moving from the approach of having books stamped weekly at the post office is that it was open to fraud and theft. Up to 100 pension books per week were stolen. The hon. Gentleman has no credibility on pension credit, because his party is against it.

I applaud the Government's initiative on pension credit, from which 2,700 families in my constituency—more than 3,300 individuals—are gaining. However, I have found out over the past few weeks that some pensioners do not know that they can claim pension credit. They claim other benefits, and in the middle of it all, forget about claiming pension credit. Will my hon. Friend urge all pensioners and their families to telephone 0800 991234, to get immediate access to pension credit?

I am sure that the Pension Service will be grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the helpline number. We must make sure that all pensioners have the information they require, and we applaud the Pension Service for making a commitment to contact every pensioner. Sometimes that work is not helped by the denigrating and negative comments that are made by Opposition Members for their own political motives, and certainly not to benefit pensioners.

When he last discussed the 10-year transport plan with the First Minister. [152889]

I have regular meetings and discussions with the First Minister about a range of matters, including transport.

We are almost one third of the way through the 10-year transport plan. Is it on track? Are trains now one third more reliable? Are road journeys one third better? Can we take any comfort that the plan is going where it should go?

I will help the hon. Gentleman by giving examples that may assist him in relation to his own constituency—

This is about Scotland.

Order. Hon. Members should not tell the Secretary of State for Scotland how to answer a question. I think that he knows how to conduct himself. [Interruption.] Order. I will decide whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Yes, the 10-year plan is on track. For example, we are spending more than £1 billion on upgrading the power supply to trains running south of the River Thames, and we have increased the amount of money going to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's own local authority has seen a dramatic increase in money. As he is now interested in Scotland, which is a good thing, I can tell him that the Scottish Executive will be spending about £1 billion a year on transport—something they have never done before. The big difference between now and the past is that the Government are committed to sustained investment in the transport system. The problem has been that for decades, not enough money was put into transport. The hon. Gentleman may like to tell his constituents—and his party will no doubt tell this to people in Scotland— that Conservatives oppose every penny spent on transport. They have voted against such expenditure whenever they have had the opportunity.

My right hon. Friend will agree that shipping is vital to the transport sector in Scotland. Will he join me in congratulating the management and workers of the Wishaw firm that next week will charter a ship to transport 2,500 tonnes of steel that will be used in building the grandstand for a racing track in Dubai? Will he do all that he can to encourage exports by companies such as Bone Steel?

I agree with my hon. Friend that shipping is of great importance in exporting products such as the construction materials from Bone Steel that will be used in building the Formula 1 track in Dubai. I take this excellent opportunity to congratulate a Scottish firm on winning that contract and showing that Scottish engineering is respected throughout the world—and it is good, too, that our shipping is being used to transport it.

Does the Secretary of State agree, particularly in respect of rail, that the 10-year plan has been superseded by his statement of 19 January, when he said that the Government would consider devolving more responsibility to the Scottish Executive? Does he agree that effective devolution of responsibility is possible only if the money to implement the decision is also devolved? Can he assure the House that responsibility will not be devolved without the required financial means being devolved too?

The 10-year plan is an investment plan, and sets out sums of money, from both the public and the private sector, to be invested in the railways and other forms of transport, year by year in the whole of the United Kingdom. On 19 January, I said that we were looking at the organisation of the railways, and that one thing we wanted to consider was the devolution of decisions on rail spending. Obviously, we cannot have a railway if we do not spend the money, but at this stage I am not in a position to tell the House when our final decisions will be made. However, I fully understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Has my right hon. Friend had discussions on the economic and environmental importance of fast long-distance trains, particularly on the Aberdeen-London route, for both freight and passenger transport? In the latter case, would he impress on the First Minister the fact that improving the track through Fife deserves higher priority?

I agree that it is important that we have a fast and reliable train service from Aberdeen and Edinburgh down to London. I think that everyone in the House knows that the track through Fife has been a matter of concern ever since it was built. It is a difficult line, and it is something that the Scottish Executive and Network Rail, which owns the line, will want to consider. The priority for Virgin, GNER and ScotRail is to drive up reliability. If we get reliable train services, more people will use them.

While the Secretary of State for Transport is seeking to devolve more responsibility to the Scottish Executive, is Network Rail not transferring control of route planning from Glasgow to Leeds? Is there not an inherent contradiction between those two developments, and will the Secretary of State for Scotland use his good offices with the Secretary of State for Transport to resolve it?

Only a nationalist could get steamed up about the fact that the four people involved in that planning are working out of a Leeds office instead of a Glasgow office. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a betting man, and I am willing to bet him that most people in Scotland did not know that four people in Glasgow were involved in route utilisation studies. For goodness' sake, the important thing is that we have a coherent network so that train services are reliable. That requires money and management, both of which the Government have continued to provide, instead of the petty squabbling that typifies much nationalist thinking.

On how many issues he has consulted the Crown Office since 1 January. [152890]

I met the Lord Advocate just before Christmas and discussed a number of issues with him.

Since the Crown Office is the lead Department on Lockerbie, would my right hon. Friend ask it what it is doing to follow up the $10 million paid on the 23 and 24 December 1988 to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command?

My hon. Friend has raised that matter on a number of occasions, both in questions and in an Adjournment debate. He raised it with the previous Government in 1995. As he knows, the prosecution and investigation of crimes in Scotland are entirely a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I undertake to pass his concerns on to the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and the Foreign Office.

When he last met Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss the Scottish salmon farming industry. [152891]

My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet Scottish Executive ministers to discuss matters of common interest. He and I keep in close touch with developments affecting the Scottish salmon farming industry.

May I remind the Minister that salmon farming was worth £110 million to the Shetland economy last year? It was estimated by the Shetland Salmon Farmers Association yesterday that, if the anticipated 50 per cent. drop takes place next year, some 410 jobs in Shetland will be under direct threat as a result. I remind the Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland retains an executive power under the Crown Estate Act 1961 to direct the Crown Estate Commissioners. I urge her to consider exercising that power to allow a rent holiday for salmon farmers in Shetland and other affected communities. The rents paid to the Crown Estate Commissioners are not crucial in themselves, but could help with cash-flow difficulties.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in developments because of his constituency interests—Shetland has the highest concentration of salmon farms anywhere in Scotland. Last year, the Crown Estate introduced a rate cut of some 10 per cent. for salmon farming. However, I will relay the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Crown Estate through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask the hon. Gentleman to welcome the fact that the Government have submitted an application to the European Commission for temporary measures to safeguard the salmon farming industry against the importing of salmon from non-EU countries. I hope that that will prove to be one of the ways in which we can build up protection around a high-quality salmon farming industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is, I think, the first time the Government have ever asked for safeguard measures for any product or industry? Is that not a very positive sign of the importance that the Government attach to the salmon farming industry in Scotland?

My hon. Friend clearly identifies the fact that this is an unusual measure for any Government to take. The Department of Trade and Industry, working closely with the Scottish Executive, was keen to take it, to ensure that we protect our salmon farming industry. I know that there is concern in my hon. Friend's constituency about dumping from non-EU countries undermining the quality of the product in Scotland.

What issues of international law have been raised with her since 13 January. [152902]

No devolution issues of that nature have been raised. In relation to non-devolution issues, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be well aware of the long-standing convention in relation to Law Officers' advice that has been adhered to by successive Governments. I remind him that the purpose of that convention is to enable the Government to get the legal advice that they need to perform their functions without having to explain or to justify it, or to reveal that they may have concerns about a particular legal position.

Will my hon. and learned Friend show her QC curiosity in relation to the inquiries that the Scottish Secretary is to make into the payment to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command on 23 December 1988?

I do not think that my hon. Friend fully understands my ministerial remit, but I shall certainly pass his comments on.

What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152903]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 13 January. [152904]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 13 January. [152905]

What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152906]

What devolution issues she has considered since 13 January. [152907]

Since 13 January, 51 devolution issues have been intimated to me, all of which were in the criminal arena and concerned matters such as pre-trial delay, failure to communicate information required by sea fishing measures, and the use of sexual history evidence in trials. I am happy to elaborate on those matters if hon. Members wish.

I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, particularly following our illuminating half-hour Adjournment debate last week, which was most positive. Will she comment on the situation that will arise after the enactment of the Traffic Management Bill, which will apply in England but not in Scotland? In particular, has she or her office given any thought to the difficulty of prosecuting for road traffic accidents in which cannabis use has been a causal factor

Prosecutions and prosecution policy are entirely matters for the Lord Advocate. I am sure that he has considered that issue, and it is not for me to advise him.

Today's report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee states at paragraph 39:

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Scottish appeals and any changes will require legislation or a resolution of the Scottish Parliament."

Does the Advocate-General agree with that assessment? Can she tell the House that she will ensure that it is implemented, and explain why that has not already been done?

The short answer is that we do not have a Bill yet. My functions in relation to Scottish Parliament legislation do not kick in under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 Until Bills are available We are awaiting a United Kingdom Bill, and there is no Scottish Parliament legislation for me to examine.

During last week's Adjournment debate, which some would describe as less than enlightening, and in which I was fortunate to participate, I asked the Advocate-General a question to which I did not get an answer. I should therefore like to ask it again today. Is the hon. and learned Lady constitutionally required to put the interests of the United Kingdom Government before those of the Scottish Parliament?

One of the reasons why I could not finish all the points that I wished to make in the interesting Adjournment debate that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) instigated was that I took too many interventions, including those from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). I did reply to her question during the debate, but I do not think that she liked the answer. I must make it plain that I am a UK Law Officer and I obviously get instructions, which I consider, from UK Departments. However, my job is to give the best advice that I can about the law. It therefore does not matter whether I am advising the UK Government or anybody else: I always try to give the best advice I can.

Customs and Excise is a UK department, whereas the Scottish courts are devolved. Customs and Excise claims that 200,000 bottles of spirits are sold illegally every day, yet in two years there were only five prosecutions for spirit duty fraud in the Scottish courts. As the Government's legal adviser in Scotland, can the Advocate-General shed any light on the reason why there are so few prosecutions when so much fraud is alleged?

In the devolution settlement, all prosecutions—whether involving UK Departments or devolved matters—are devolved to the Lord Advocate. Prosecution policy is entirely a matter for him, and it is not for me to interfere with that.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, notwithstanding the concerns that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs raised today, the proposal for a supreme court is not a threat to the traditions and values of Scots law, and that it should be viewed as part of the process of evolution?

My hon. Friend sums up the matter well. Scots law has survived for many centuries through developing. The institutions, too, develop, and the proposal is one example of that.

If he will make a statement on the future role of the Lord Chancellor. [153651]

To reform the justice system and enhance judicial independence. the Government have concluded that it is no longer tenable for a Cabinet Minister to head the judiciary and chair the second Chamber. The Government will therefore introduce legislation to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor in this Session of Parliament.

Why are the Government hellbent on meddling with our unwritten constitution and abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, which has maintained judicial independence and in which our constituents have confidence? After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That is the right thing to do, and I shall explain why. It is right not only because we need more clarity and transparency than the current blurred arrangement between the different branches of our constitution provides, but, more importantly, because we need a more effective Parliament, judiciary and Executive to ensure that each branch can focus on its core functions. We now have a ridiculous position whereby the head of the judiciary is a politician who also chairs the second Chamber, and the Prime Minister chooses who should chair the House of Lords. The changes are overdue, and I am glad that we can make them.

The Under-Secretary is aware that the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs has today published our report on the reforms. Although there is support for modernisation of the judicial system, there is also concern that the pace is too fast and that mistakes will be made. Will he assure hon. Members that the post of Lord Chancellor will not be abolished until all the other elements of the modernisation process have been put in place and seen to work?

I welcome the report of the Select Committee, which looked in great detail at some of our proposals. The constitutional reform Bill will make it plain that all those different aspects are interrelated and that the reform programme has been well thought through. Of course I understand the need for widespread consultation, and the consultation documents were issued last July, so we have had a considerable period in which to consider them. However, I do not see any particular outstanding reason why we should have a further, prolonged period of debate before introducing the legislation so that the House can consider it line by line and in detail, in the proper scrutiny process that is needed.

Bearing it in mind that the Lord Chancellor will have to remain in office until certain of these processes are complete, can the Minister give us an approximate date—or even a year—by which he expects the supreme court to be sitting in its own building and the judicial appointments commission to be appointing judges?

That is a simple question but, obviously, the answer depends not only on the date of Royal Assent for the legislation but on when we identify the future building for the supreme court. Both matters depend on various factors, some of which are commercial—in regard to whether we refurbish a building or build a new one—while others are connected to the passage of legislation through Parliament. However, I anticipate that we should be able to make progress in the next couple of years and see such matters settled in good time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, far from criticising the plans that have been announced, we need to take further radical steps, here and in the other place? We must bring ourselves up to date. Parliament ensures the civil liberties of all our citizens, but that is no reason to worship what has occurred over centuries. Modernisation is essential.

My hon. Friend is right, and implicitly highlights the obvious conservatism of the Opposition, who have opposed themselves to any change, no matter how obvious and rudimentary it appears to the rest of the country. They think that Westminster is happy with the current arrangement, that the establishment is content with it, and therefore that no change is necessary. However, we believe that we must make sure that our constitution has clarity and transparency, so that it can be understood by the wider public. We must also ensure that we have a justice system that serves the public's needs.

Does the Minister recognise that the Government are indulging in dangerous constitutional tinkering, and that they have caused great anger through such proposals as the idea of calling the presiding officer of the other place the Lord Speaker? That move would be dangerous and confusing. Have not the Government in recent days accepted not one or two, but 12 Opposition amendments in another place to replace the title of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs with the original title of Lord Chancellor in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill? The Government are really in a terrible mess. Would it not be better to keep the historical role of the Lord Chancellor, which works?

I take that as a commitment that the Conservatives will put it in their manifesto that they will repeal any changes and reinstitute the office of Lord Chancellor. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? I can hear no response whatever from him—

Order. I say to the Minister that no response is necessary. The Minister is there to answer a question.

It is important that we do answer that question. There are several important issues involved, including whether the second Chamber chooses a different title for the person who presides over its business, but that is a matter for the second Chamber itself to debate. We will be careful to make opportunities to listen to what it says on that. The fact that there have been a number of amendments to a Bill in the other place is almost irrelevant, given that we will have the constitutional reform Bill, which will make all the necessary changes to previous legislation when it is passed. The principles are clear, which is what the hon. Gentleman refuses to address.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a rare ministerial victory over Jeremy Paxman last night on this issue. He performed superbly. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Lord Chief Justice that there could be a threat to judicial independence because future judges whose decisions offend Governments might be disciplined, moved to other work or denied promotion? Should there not be legislation to protect their independence?

Following extensive discussions with the Lord Chief Justice about the constitutional reform Bill, I am pleased to say that he has mentioned in a speech to the other place that he agrees with the process of changes now in train. For that reason, we shall put into the Bill provisions to ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to uphold and maintain judicial independence, and that the Government as a whole have to respect that independence. Those are positive steps forward, and I know that my hon. Friend will welcome them.

If the office of Lord Chancellor is abolished, does the Minister believe that there should be an objective voice in Cabinet at all times to safeguard the interests of justice? Does he also believe that that role should be undertaken by the Attorney-General, who would then have to attend not selected Cabinet meetings but all of them? Does the Minister then believe that the Attorney-General should be a voting or non-voting member of the Cabinet?

Thankfully, the composition of the Cabinet is a matter not for me but for the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman asks who should have the role of defending judicial independence. I believe that it should be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. That is our proposal, and we shall put it into the Bill. I hope that that will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.

What assessment he has made of the work of citizens advice bureaux in relation to legal advice provided to members of the public. [153652]

The citizens advice bureaux and other not-for-profit agencies have an important role to play in the community legal service and in increasing access to legal and advice services for people experiencing social welfare problems. During 2003–04, the Legal Services Commission contracted with 239 CABs. The contracts were valued at more than £25 million.

The Minister will join me in applauding the work of the citizens advice bureaux throughout the UK, not least the offices in Maesteg and Bridgend, which reach out to all parts of Ogmore. However, may I draw his attention, with some concern, to a report published last week that suggested that parts of Wales were an advice desert, with people having to travel up to 50 miles to reach advice from a lawyer? Does he agree that the long arm of the lawyers should stretch a little further?

I commend the work of the CABs in Bridgend. At this very moment, the LSC is involved in a contract bidding round with solicitors and CABs that want to provide legal aid services in Wales, and it believes that, as of April, some of the gaps that have been identified will be closed. I visited Wales a few months ago and looked at the telephone advice service that Shelter was providing on social welfare and housing issues. We have to look increasingly at other ways of providing advice, particularly in rural areas, and telephone advice will be one of those methods.

Many CABs provide excellent services throughout the country, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inept local government settlement is making local authorities look closely at the donations that they make to charities, which will also affect the CABs? Is he concerned that some of those services might have to be withdrawn?

The citizens advice bureaux receive more than £116 million of public funding every year. That is more than they have ever received before, and on this side of the House, where we support the Attlee Government's establishment of legal aid, we shall of course continue to support citizens advice bureaux.

What the system for monitoring and appraisal of judges will be after the introduction of the judicial appointments commission. [153653]

The judiciary is responsible for its own system of monitoring and appraisal, in line with the principles of judicial independence. However, in cases in which conduct or discipline may be an issue because of incapacity or misbehaviour, the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice will work together, supported by a complaints secretariat.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He must be aware that there is no effective system for monitoring and appraisal of judges. For example, he may know of recent publicity about 25 or so criminal judges who are appealed four or five times as often as their colleagues and frequently criticised by the Court of Appeal, but nothing is done to improve their performance. Does he agree that it is essential to ensure that judges are not only independent, but competent and that a proper system must be introduced to guarantee that by, I suggest, the judicial appointments commission?

I do not think that the judicial appointments commission would be the right body to be involved in post-appointment issues related to complaints and discipline, as there could be a conflict of interest. It is important that the judiciary has a monitoring and appraisal system, and my hon. and learned Friend raises a fair point. It would not be right for the political process to be involved in the day-to-day reporting of appeals and so forth because that would effectively represent a level of political interference. The judiciary and judges are, of course, not only accountable through the appeal process: they make their decisions in public, they give their reasons and their decisions can be open to appeal so that mistakes can be corrected. I know that the judges will listen to her point about the judiciary having a good monitoring and appraisal system.

May I invite the Minister to study page 53 of this week's Gay Times? Perhaps he cannot normally reach the top shelf to see it. It says:

"The second gay judge is appointed",

and gives all the details. Under our existing system, that happened perfectly sensibly, it has been reported and that is fine. I consider it good news. Were the Government's proposals to be enacted, choosing such people would be seen as fulfilling the requirement that appointments must be, to quote from the Minister's consultation document, "reflective of society". If someone appointed under his proposed system were gay, female, disabled or black, the inevitable next step would be a public assessment of whether their judgments in court were consistently reflective of the appointment criteria. That is nothing to do with justice and would amount to the politicisation of judicial decisions. Does the Minister now understand that the requirement for any judicial appointment to be reflective of society will lead inevitably to demands for judgments also to be reflective? Will he now undertake to drop any such references from the forthcoming Bill?

It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that if we want merit as the sole criterion for appointment, it is somehow incompatible with achieving diversity. I see no incompatibility whatever in making sure that the judiciary is better reflective of our wider society and seeing that merit is the sole criterion. If he thinks that people who are not currently represented among the judiciary cannot be meritorious candidates, he needs to reconsider his perspective.

When he next expects to meet representatives of the local magistracy to discuss the modernisation of courts in East Anglia. [153654]

There are no plans to meet representatives of the local magistracy in East Anglia to discuss the modernisation of courts in East Anglia. That could be arranged, however, if it would prove useful.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, as it may well be useful. Does he agree that justice needs to be kept as local as possible to have maximum impact? Does he also agree that young offenders in East Anglia are much more likely to be deterred if they are tried in their local town by local people? Will he therefore concentrate on modernising existing courts and not close any more magistrates courts anywhere in East Anglia?

The hon. Gentleman asked the very same question in September and on three occasions previously. On that occasion, I replied:

"It is right and proper that magistrates live locally, but it is clear that we cannot have courts in every town." —[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 163.]

In the last two years of the previous Conservative Administration, 42 courts were closed. I am pleased that we closed only 11 last year.

What estimate he has made of the level of support for a wholly elected House of Lords. [153655]

When Parliament voted on the composition of the second Chamber last year, both Houses rejected the "wholly elected" option, in the Commons by 289 votes to 272 and in the Lords by 329 to 106. Because no consensus was reached, the Government are drawing up proposals enabling us to make progress where we can, including a proposal for the removal of the remaining hereditary peers.

Last week the Prime Minister wanted no democratically elected element at all. What is his view this week?

If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to ask the Prime Minister at Question Time, but this is the Government's view: we want a further debate after consideration of the Bill, because we do not want the door to be closed to composition considerations. It is important for us to look to the future and at other options, such as indirect elections. The key issue is the need to reconcile Commons primacy with the need for more legitimacy in our second, revising Chamber. If we can achieve consensus on that, perhaps further reform will be possible.

I do not know whether the Minister, like me, is a Billy Bragg fan, but is he among the growing number of people who feel that his secondary mandate proposal, whereby the House of Lords would be comprised proportionally and indirectly according to the share of the vote at general elections, is the answer to the question of Lords reform? Would not that system combine election and appointment with the advantages of both, reassert the primacy of this House and, crucially, give people more of an incentive to vote?

I know that my hon. Friend is a vocal advocate of the secondary mandate, which is indeed worthy of consideration. We need to ensure that this House is seen clearly as the democratic chamber—that it is plain that we are accountable, and this is where the buck stops when it comes to decisions and responsibility in our constitution. But if we can find a way of improving the legitimacy of our revising chamber by other means, suggestions to that effect will merit further consideration.

Does the Minister agree that we have far too many elected politicians in this country already? They are elected at European level, to this place, at regional level and at metropolitan. county, district and parish level. If he or any of his hon. Friends are really saying that we need more elected politicians—if that is the answer to the question—many of our constituents will want to have a very good look at what the question is.

That is a strange argument. Presumably in that case the hon. Gentleman would prefer hereditary peers to be retained in the revising chamber. But if he does not want that, he will obviously support our Bill when it is presented to Parliament.

I believe that we have a duty to consider seriously what the composition of the second Chamber should be, but given that there was no consensus last February we must make progress where we can, and remove the hereditaries from the second Chamber.

What analysis of the way in which time is used in conducting House business is to be carried out by his office. [153632]

My office keeps a watching brief on the way in which the House conducts its business, and I am always open to suggestions from Members on how it could be better arranged.

I note the work undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman to review our sitting hours. May I have a reassurance that, before reaching a firm and final conclusion, he will think carefully about how the House uses its time? On occasion, debates are kept going simply because a Division has been predetermined, although if discussions could have taken place earlier, better use could have been made of Parliament's precious debating time, and perhaps two items of business could have been dealt with rather than one. Will he consider that and the procedures of the House to ensure that we make the best possible use of our time and facilities in determining when the House sits?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, which he made with force. The difficulty lies in balancing Members' desire for predictable timing of votes so that we can all arrange our work accordingly with avoiding the spinning out of debates which, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, sometimes occurs. I am certainly willing to consider all good suggestions from him or anyone else.

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is always open to suggestions. Is he aware of the growing body of opinion that the change in the Tuesday hours has not been wholly satisfactory? Were the recent arrangements to be modified, would he consider whether those for Tuesday could revert to something similar to the previous system, without in any way damaging the other modernisation initiatives?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I will look closely at that and other suggestions; indeed, I have my ear bent regularly about such matters. It is a listening ear—I know that the next question addresses the same issue—and I want to achieve a position whereby everyone is not dissatisfied with the outcome, even if everyone is not wholly satisfied.

Does not the analysis that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned show that the Leader of the House is simply not providing adequate time to debate the really important issues? I shall give three examples. When I asked the Leader of the House for extra time to debate the Higher Education Bill, he refused. As a result, many Members missed out, yet during the same week we had a debate on truancy that nobody attended.

I did.

Well, seven Members attended, all of whom were photographed on the front page of The Times. I asked him for extra time to debate the Hutton report, but he refused. Only half the Members who wanted to speak got in that day, yet in the same week we finished early on Thursday and Monday. I asked for more time for the local authority finance debate, but he refused, and not a single Conservative Back Bencher had an opportunity to speak. Is it not time that he ensured that business management has priority over the news management in which the Government are engaging?

As the hon. Gentleman knows. under the existing sitting hours we have in fact spent more time scrutinising Commons business than in the previous year. On the specific points that he raised, he pressed for two days' debate on the Hutton report, but when it was published and he and others realised what its contents were, at the previous day's business questions he did riot press the matter again, even though I reminded him about it. When he looks at what really happened, he will see that all these measures had plenty of time for scrutiny, as such measures have always had in the past, under Governments of all colours.

What plans he has to take private Members' Bills after 7 pm on Tuesdays. [153633]

What plans he has to take private Members' Bills after 7 pm on Tuesdays. [153636]

I am aware that many Members favour this option, which the Modernisation Committee will consider as part of its review of sitting hours.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that even London Members such as me have to make constituency appointments for Fridays many months in advance to accommodate all the demands? The result is that Members, and indeed Ministers, often find a conflict between local loyalties and having to attend this House for a private Member's Bill. Does he agree that, if such Bills were taken on a Tuesday evening, more Members could participate in those vital debates, and constituents could be certain that their Member of Parliament was available on a Friday?

My hon. Friend makes her case persuasively, and hers is one of the many arguments being put to me about how we could adjust the existing sitting hours that meet with widespread consent. Many Members, including her, have said to me that moving private Members' Bills to Tuesday evening would have the advantage of freeing up Fridays for constituency business, and would perhaps allow such Bills to be debated by more Members than are currently able to turn up on Fridays. There are counterbalancing arguments, and it is precisely this issue that I want to look at more closely.

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, besides freeing up Fridays, moving private Members' Bills to Tuesday evenings would also allow more time for consideration on Tuesdays of Select Committee reports and other non-voting business?

Again, that suggestion has been made to me in recent weeks, and I am looking at it very seriously. It struck me during my extensive consultations in recent weeks with Members of all political persuasions, and Ministers, that very few people are now arguing for going back to the old hours on Wednesdays. [Interruption.] Well, some may be, but there is not a large body of Members doing so. I am simply reporting to the House my findings in the light of such consultations. However, there is a focus on Tuesdays, and if we could reach agreement on how to handle Tuesdays, and if there were widespread consensus—I am not saying that we need unanimity—there would be a case for having an early vote on the matter. However, if there is not a consensus, I do not want to rush into a vote, leaving behind a bitter division on the hours, so we need to continue our discussions. In doing so, we can take into account the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

Does the Leader of the House accept that the findings of the questionnaire issued by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, will give good guidance to him and the House on future sitting hours? Does he agree that the Procedure Committee's report on "Procedures for Debates, private Members' Bills and the Powers of the Speaker" is an important report? Will he tell the House when hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate that report, which was published towards the end of last year, on the Floor of the House?

I am always up for good guidance from the hon. Gentleman and I usually get it and am grateful for it. We are examining the Procedure Committee report and I want to reflect on it further. I also believe that the survey will be valuable in informing the investigations of the Modernisation Committee and, in the meantime, it will help inform me about how the feeling in the House is spread. I am already getting a pretty good idea from the regular verbal representations made to me, not to mention the discussions that I have in my office, including one that the hon. Gentleman attended, if I recall correctly.

Reverting to Tuesday evenings, does the Leader of the House recognise that there is a demand from both sides of the House to ensure that we have enough time for proper scrutiny of private Members' Bills? If we allocate consideration of such Bills to Tuesdays, can he assure me that the aggregate total time available will not be a reduction on the current position? If anything, we need more time to be able to do the job properly, particularly given the raised expectations among the public about the importance of private Members' Bills, which are not being met by the current method of delivery.

When the proposition was first put to me, the 13 Fridays allocated for private Members' Bills equated to 22 Tuesday evenings for an exactly similar time. Of course, there are about 36 Tuesdays in a calendar year, so there is an issue to be dealt with there. However, I do not disagree for one moment that private Members' Bills deserve a fair wind and proper scrutiny. It is one of the arguments being put to me, but, as I have already said, some counterbalancing arguments are also being put to me by business managers, Ministers and others who argue that the hon. Gentleman's preferred method is not a satisfactory way of proceeding. It is one of the issues that I shall have to bottom out.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House believes there should be an annual debate in Parliament on the state of the environment; notes that sustainable development and the issue of climate change is fundamental to the long-term security and stability of the world; is very concerned that climate change could, according to leading international scientists, cause the extinction of one million species by 2050, could, according to the World Health Organisation, mean an additional 150,000 people dying each year, and is, according to Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, "the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism"; welcomes the Government's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and their pledges to help meet its targets, particularly the Energy White Paper commitments to renewable energy and energy efficiency; notes however the worrying trends in key domestic environmental indicators with, since 1997, total municipal waste up by 17 per cent, road traffic up by 8 per cent, domestic energy consumption up nearly 7 per cent, high level radioactive waste up 6 per cent. and energy consumption from aviation up 21 per cent; acknowledges that investment in environmental protection and innovation benefits the whole economy and creates jobs, and calls on the Government to make better use of economic instruments to this end; and believes the Government needs genuinely to put the environment at the heart of government and to take a greater role in promoting sustainable development, and that this requires a clear lead from the Prime Minister.

This year, there have been two startling stories which should cause us all to reflect. The first was a statement by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser. Writing in the journal Science, he said that climate change was

"the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".

It will not have escaped the House's attention that, while a great deal of our time is spent on terrorism, not very much of it is spent on climate change. The second was a report by a group of leading international scientists, warning that between 15 and 37 per cent. of all species could be extinct by 2050—a frightening statistic.

I shall return to the substance of those matters shortly, but first may I express my regret that the House has not held a full debate on the environment for a long time? The last such debate was on 15 May 2002 and, as on this occasion, it was on a Liberal Democrat motion. The debate was held during the run-up to the world summit on sustainable development. Since then, there has been no debate on the environment in Government time. It is true that there was a debate on the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the work of the Department, but that debate was held in December 2002 and was mainly agriculture-focused.

In Parliament, we need to give the environment the focus that it deserves, and the present ad hoc arrangements are not delivering that. That is why our motion suggests that the House should hold an annual debate on the environment. If the Government do not give the lead and facilitate that, then Liberal Democrat Members will.

I share many of the sentiments expressed in the hon. Gentleman's motion. The problem is that if we have an all-suited environment debate for one full day a year, it will cut out opportunities to debate important environmental issues that arise from time to time. For example, as chairman of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Sustainable Development, I am anxious to debate sustainable development, but if his proposal were adopted, such a discussion might have to form part of a wider environmental debate. Has he thought about that point?

I understand the point, which the hon. Gentleman is right to raise. We have an annual debate on defence, but it does not stop us debating defence throughout the rest of the year. I hope that an annual debate would raise understanding among Members and encourage further discussion of the environment throughout the year—the opposite effect to that which he fears.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned defence debates, of which there are normally three a year. Perhaps his motion is unambitious and there should be different debates on different aspects of the environment.

I would welcome three debates on different aspects of the environment, but I would settle for one if the Government were to concede the point. The Government have not called such a debate for a long time.

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not with us today. The sad fact is that she has not participated in any debate even partly related to the environment since 2002, and March 2002 was the last time that the Government volunteered even an oral statement on an environmental issue. I happen to think that the Secretary of State is sound on environmental issues, but I cannot say for certain and we must read the signals—it is like watching the Soviet Politburo. We do not know definitely, but in so far as we can tell she is sound. Why is she not in the House more regularly attending debates called in the Government's name to champion the cause of the environment? We would welcome that, but it does not happen. Perhaps the truth is that her views, which may be sound, are out of line with those of the Government in general, who rank the environment low down their list of priorities.

The hon. Gentleman says that he has time for the Secretary of State, but can he think of a single area in which she has sounded her ambition to leave an imprint on the Government's environmental record by doing anything that is in any way out of kilter with what has happened before? Has she shown personal commitment to this important issue, as opposed to just being a safe pair of hands?

Tricky questions first. If we believe what we read in the press and consider the smoke signals, the right hon. Lady was responsible for ensuring that the Government's Kyoto target was not downgraded by 15 per cent., which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry apparently wanted. The Minister for the Environment is nodding, so that suggestion is correct.

indicated dissent.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems to be quite good at defending her budget, although I would not want to overplay that point. She is a friend of the environment—in so far as we have one in this Government—so let us not be too unpleasant about her because we need her on board to help us.

I listened in vain to the Queen's Speech introducing this Session for a mention of the word, "environment", and it appeared once:

"the new strategic environment in which the Armed Forces operate." —[Official Report, 26 November 2003: Vol. 415, c. 7.]

It appeared, but not in the context that many of us would have wished.

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the word "environment", as though someone who does not mention it cannot be doing the right thing by the environment. What about the Energy Bill, which is surely a major step forward? It proposes difficult targets on, for example, renewable energy sources.

The Energy Bill has a number of good elements—I was about to be nice about it—and I shall go on to discuss domestic policies. It is important to paint a fair picture so that one can criticise after having praised other matters.

Before the hon. Gentleman is too kind about the Energy Bill, does he share the views put forward by the Scottish renewable industry, which has expressed grave concern about the costs associated with tapping into the national grid? Many developments by the Scottish renewable industry are located in the far north of Scotland on the islands, and it will be expensive to connect them to the national grid, which has led the industry to raise concerns about the future of renewables.

The renewable target in the White Paper is welcome. Access to the grid is a serious issue. In many cases, power supplies are offshore, a long way from centres of population, and that is a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has raised on several occasions. The Government say that they will address it, and we will see in time whether they do so.

When the Prime Minister was questioned last week by the Liaison Committee, he gave his usual impressive performance, except when he was asked about the environment. Then his eyes glazed over and we saw a rather different Prime Minister. He was asked whether he agreed with the Government's chief scientist on climate change, and he replied:

"Looking very long term, if I look at when my children are my age, yes, I think that is the key issue that faces us."

He was not entirely convincing, and he even forgot the name of the Department represented by the Ministers here today. He gave the impression that the environment was a humdrum issue, as did Mrs. Thatcher before him.

At least the Prime Minister said that he recognises climate change as an issue for 30 or 40 years' time, but he seems not to realise that it is with us now, and is accelerating. Species are already disappearing, the polar icecaps are melting and we are seeing wild swings in our weather patterns.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our Kyoto targets exceed those of any other country? Does he accept that the UK is the only European country to put forward an emissions trading scheme? Most particularly, does he agree that climate change will be long term? Even if we take steps now, it will be a long time before we change the pattern of the curve.

I certainly recognise the Government's commitment to Kyoto and I shall say so later. Climate change may be long term, but it requires action now, and that is what we are not seeing to a sufficient degree. The oil tanker will take a long time to turn round, and we need to start now. We cannot wait for the time when the Prime Minister's children are his age now to realise the catastrophe that awaits us. It is a difficult political issue for all of us. We have to convince the electorate and the wider world about an issue that is not immediately on our doorsteps but which requires immediate action. It will be too late in 30 or 40 years' time.

The most recent models of climate change from the United Nations Environment Programme suggest that global temperature will rise between 1.4 and 5.8 per cent. by 2100. That is grotesquely in excess of anything that has happened in the past 10,000 years, and there is no guarantee that flora and fauna—let alone human beings—will be able to adapt to such change.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about flora and fauna. Does he agree with some scientific opinion that suggests that, if the polar icecaps continue to melt at a faster rate, the warm airs from the gulf stream will be greatly weakened and we will have a climate more similar to the deep continental one? In other words, winters in this country could become much colder.

That is indeed one scenario, and that is why we now try to talk of climate change, not global warming. What is clear is that we will see significant changes in our weather and climate, and we should not gamble with that—although it appears that we propose to do so.

There are statistics that support both sides of the debate, but I was struck by the report that more than half of the world's wetlands have disappeared since 1900, and that figure will reach 85 per cent. in the next 30 to 40 years. That is an appalling figure. I say that not from soft sentimentality about wetlands, but because managing wetlands sustainably will aid significantly in meeting the targets set at the world summit on sustainable development to halve the number of people without adequate water and sanitation services by 2015. It is a people-centred statistic, as well as a nature-centred one.

Sustainable use of the planet is inextricably linked to a stable and prosperous future. Many hon. Members will have seen the excellent WWF report "Living Planet Report 2002", which demonstrates all too graphically how we are using up the capital resources of the world faster than they can naturally be replenished. That will lead to an increase in poverty and human misery and, potentially at some time in the future, to resource wars over basic substances, including water. We must try to avoid that.

It is worth remembering that the poorest countries are likely to be the most vulnerable and most affected by climate change. Some 60 per cent. of the additional 80 million people likely to be at risk from flooding are in southern Asia, and 20 per cent. in south-east Asia. Africa is expected to experience significant reductions in cereal yields, as are the middle east and India. An extra 290 million people could be exposed to malaria by the 2080s, with China and central Asia experiencing the biggest risk. Those are frightening projections. I hope that they are wrong, but if they are anywhere near right, we have a big problem on our hands.

It is also predicted that 3 billion people, predominantly in Africa, will suffer through increased stress on water supplies. There is an old saying that forests precede man and deserts follow him, and that is becoming all too true. Deforestation is having a devastating impact on the global climate. That is true not only for Brazil and Indonesia, which are the focus of popular concern, but for countries that should know better, such as Australia and what is happening in Tasmania. It is also happening in Africa to a degree that people have not so far appreciated. A parliamentary answer I received from the Secretary of State for International Development suggested that 5.2 million hectares of forest disappeared from Africa each year. That is an area the size of France, and we cannot go on like that. Some 80 per cent. of ancient forests have been destroyed, degraded or fragmented by human activity, and that has a massive impact on biodiversity and threatens to destroy the livelihoods and way of life of millions of forest-dependent people. That is the bleak reality that we face.

Much of the logging is illegal and many of the products are exported to the UK and other European markets. The Indonesian Government lose an estimated $6,700 a minute in revenue because of illegal logging, but Indonesian companies that rely on illegal logs to feed their sawmills still export plywood to the UK, where it is used once or twice and then thrown away. I welcome the fact that the Government support the European Parliament's resolution on forest law enforcement, governance and trade, which is a good first step. However, it will not stop the illegal timber trade with the European Union. As Greenpeace points out, the plan contains no commitment to legislate against the import of illegally logged timber, but relies instead on voluntary partnership agreements, such as those already in place between the UK and Indonesia. That is clearly not enough.

We need a sensible approach to public procurement. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) raised with the Prime Minister the issue of the timber being used for the new Home Office building. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister laughed at the matter, instead of treating it seriously. That is not good enough. I also gently suggest to the Minister that while Government statistics show that we import large quantities of timber from places such as Vatican City, there is some way to go in regulating the timber trade. Surely there are not that many old church pews in Vatican City.

Climate change will affect us in the UK directly, as DEFRA's own website shows. The most recent climate change scenarios show an average annual temperature increase across the UK of between 2 and 3.5 per cent. by the 2080s, with all the possible consequences that we have heard about, including high summer temperatures and increasingly rare cold winters. However, the changes to the gulf stream may mean colder winters, giving us the temperatures found in Labrador. The US National Academy of Sciences has even described such changes as "likely". That may be the worst-case scenario, but even alternating between colder and warmer temperatures for several decades would play absolute havoc with agriculture and civilisation generally.

Whatever the shape of the changes, it would be better not to take the gamble that we are taking. This is not an issue for the long term, as the Prime Minister said last week: it is an issue for now. However, I want to give credit where it is due, and the Government did sign up to Kyoto early and willingly. They have set ambitious targets and they are on course to meet the EU target, if not the 20 per cent. target. It is true that some of that resulted from the switch from coal to gas; nevertheless, our Government are on target, and we should be pleased that they have approached the matter responsibly.

That attitude is in marked contrast to the attitude of our best friends, the United States, which has 7 per cent. of the world's population but accounts for 25 per cent. of all energy use and 36 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions each year: they are going up—and going up fast—in the United States.

I feel sorry for the Prime Minister. He took a big political risk in supporting President Bush in his Iraqi strategy, and he is not being well repaid by the American President over Kyoto or indeed very much else. Either the Prime Minister has not pushed Kyoto very hard with the United States President, in which case he is failing in his duty to do so, or he is being completely ignored by the United States President—in which case, so much for the special relationship. I am not sure which explanation is right, but neither is very flattering to either man.

The protocol could still become binding if Russia ratifies it. I hope and believe that the Government are doing all they can to persuade Russia to sign up. We have received assurances from Ministers to that effect, and we have no reason to doubt them. That is the right policy to pursue, and I welcome what the Government are doing in that regard. I very much hope that they will be successful.

I hope that the Government have also made plain their disagreement with the recent noises from Madrid suggesting that Spain may wish to reopen discussions over Kyoto in the European Union. That needs to he firmly squashed; we cannot afford to allow the EU to unravel over Kyoto.

I referred earlier to the report by leading scientists suggesting that up to 37 per cent. of species could become extinct by 2050. I am told that that is about one every 45 minutes. I admit that I cannot prove it, but the prediction is probably more reliable than other recent 45-minute claims. Even if the figure were just 5 per cent., that could have a devastating impact on our world. Everything is connected to everything else, and the disruption of natural chains will have unpredictable and unwelcome consequences. Species will face disruption to habitat and may find it impossible to adjust. Even if they can adapt in climate terms, they may find that there is no food to rely on.

The human race needs to wake up and address the issue. We cannot sit back while a third of all life forms, which have been here for millions of years, vanish in our lifetime, practically overnight in evolutionary terms. That means addressing quickly, not in the very long term, the root causes of this mass extinction, one of which is climate change, which I have mentioned. Another is the inequality in our world and the poverty that drives millions to destroy the land on which they depend as the only way of finding the next meal.

Global problems require global solutions. They can be found; they can work. We have an example in the Montreal protocol, which has worked quite well in stopping the destruction of the ozone layer. That shows that the world can pull together when it needs to.

We need Kyoto to work. It may not be perfect—the Americans say that it is not, and they are right to say that—but it is the only show in town and we need it to work. We also need to make international agreements such as the convention on biological diversity much more effective. That runs in parallel with the World Trade Organisation, but while the WTO has teeth the CBD merely has gums. That imbalance needs to be addressed. As the Minister's predecessor suggested, we also need a world environmental court to deal with these issues on a global basis, so that we have environmental and sustainability justice across the world.

What we do in our own country is important too. In theory, it should be rather easier to achieve. The Government started well in 1997 by creating the right structure—a major Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, bringing together the environment and transport. Many of us in the environment field had argued for that for many years, particularly to try to stop the destructive transport policies that had been implemented until then. The Government also introduced a cross-cutting Environmental Audit Committee. That was absolutely the right policy; the Committee has done sterling work. In addition, the Government introduced a cross-cutting team of green Ministers. I am not sure how effective it has been, but the decision was right.

I recognise that the Government look for innovative ways to deal with issues across traditional departmental boundaries, as they should. I give them credit for doing it, even if the price is sometimes more control from No. 10.

The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the Government for their commitment, but does he not realise that green Ministers were established by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, in 1992? My right hon. and learned Friend also led this country to Rio de Janeiro for the world summit. Does not the hon. Gentleman also realise that the Transport Department and the Environment Department were intentionally co-located in Marsham Towers, and that there was a good deal of discussion between the two?

I did not realise that green Ministers were present in the Conservative Government, which may suggest that they were less effective than that Government might have wished them to be. It is true that there was Rio, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is not here today, who did some sterling work on the environment. However, I am sorry to say that, according to a number of indicators, the previous Conservative Government did not do very well. For example, they had the most appalling recycling record. They had a road-building programme that was the biggest since the Romans, and they had a joke figure for renewable energy. So I would not concentrate too much on the previous Conservative Government.

I believe that it was a mistake to break up the DETR. I note that the "Greening Government" report stated:

"Part of the Government's approach to this institutional difficulty"—

the division between transport and the environment—

"has been to eliminate one such divide with the creation of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). The Deputy Prime Minister described this as 'in itself…a very important step towards achieving the environmental objectives'."

If it was a very important step towards achieving environmental objectives, why was it split up and abolished? That seems not to make much sense.

With due respect to the Minister and his colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of time, as he knows, DEFRA is a bit of a throwaway Department. The Minister knows very well that key decisions affecting the environment are nearly always taken elsewhere—at the Department of Trade and Industry, whether on energy policy or trade matters, which are key to environment; the Department of Transport, with regard to aviation or road transport; the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, for planning issues and key issues about the use of greenfield sites and so on; or No.10 or the Treasury, which is very happy to take decisions on behalf of any Department that it can muscle in on.

Perhaps that helps to explain why, despite the commitment of DEFRA Ministers—I include the hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessor, of course—the Government's domestic record on the environment is a bit patchy. Many of us had high hopes with regard to transport, for example. The Government came to power accepting at last that we could not build our way out of congestion. We had tried for 100 years and it had not worked. The Deputy Prime Minister even famously pledged himself to road traffic reduction targets and asked us to hold him to them. I happen to think that the Deputy Prime Minister understands transport, with his history in the National Union of Seamen, and that he was sincere when he made that pledge. But he could not have anticipated that he would have the rug pulled so swiftly from under him by No. 10, which is what happened.

What do we have now? Last week I received a parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who told me that road traffic—already up by nearly 8 per cent. since 1997, by the way—

"is forecast to grow by between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. in England between 2000 and 2010." —[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 824W.]

The news that road transport will go up by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in this decade comes from a Government who quite recently were committed to road traffic reduction. That is a failure of some magnitude, and it will not help the Government to meet their Kyoto targets. It is not a reduction, as the Deputy Prime Minister promised us. It is not even a reduction in the rate of growth, which is a formula the Conservatives used to use when trying to deal with the issue when they were in government. It is a massive growth and a catastrophic failure of transport and environment policy.

While industry is busy cutting carbon emissions, emissions in the transport sector are going through the roof. It is not simply road transport, of course. There is also aviation, where I was told in answer to another parliamentary question that carbon emissions, which were 20,000 tonnes in 1990, would double to 40,000 tonnes by 2010.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a dilemma here, because if traffic grinds to a halt there is obviously much more pollution? The Government have got another 1 million passengers on to the railways. Is he advocating the use of other modes of transport, such as aviation, which will create yet more pollution? It is obviously a very complex issue, and he should not try to simplify it in the way that he is.

I hope that I am not trying to simplify things. I recognise that this is a complex issue to which there are no overnight solutions, which is why the Government were right to produce a 10-year transport plan. That is the sort of period over which improvements can be delivered, but an election intervened and the Government did not see the policy through—they bottled out in an attempt to get through the 2001 election. Transport is now in free fall, or automatic pilot-whatever metaphor is used—and no one is pushing things forward. It seems that the Secretary of State for Transport dare not do anything that would upset anyone, so we have to make the best of things and, in the meantime, market forces take over. Market forces involve lots of people flying on cheap airlines, a massive increase in road transport and an atomised, ineffective rail system. We have not moved on, which is a bitter disappointment for many of us who thought that the Government would do rather better on transport.

There is great concern in Essex about the environmental damage that could result from the proposed extension of Stansted airport. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to achieve 40 million passenger movements a year using the existing runway at Stansted? Does he support the action being taken by Conservative-controlled Essex county council to consider submitting the proposal to judicial review in view of the fact that we believe that the Government are wrong and that the people of Essex are right?

The people of Essex must make up their own minds about how they wish to take that matter forward. Clearly, there is a strong body of opinion, to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The aviation White Paper relied far too much on predict and provide—a concept that I hoped we had got rid of in transport planning, but it seems not. The Prime Minister did not have very good answers when the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), pressed him on the issue last week. The Government still have to bite the bullet. They cannot please everyone all the time: they must decide on a sustainable strategy and stick to it. They did the first bit; they did not do second bit.

The recent energy White Paper genuinely embraces the concept of a big switch to renewables and the Government rightly view offshore wind as the first easily attainable tranche of that, but there is a mountain to climb: only 2.5 per cent. of our energy currently comes from renewable sources and most of that is hydroelectricity. That is pitifully lower than other developed countries. It is also important that the Government do all that they can to smooth the way for a transition to a renewable future. That involves sympathetic planning guidance and seeing off the nuclear industry's attempts to discredit wind power, in which it is busily engaged at the moment.

I must confess that I find it breathtaking to hear those in the pro-nuclear lobby complain about the effect of wind generators on the countryside, when they are busy generating tons of highly radioactive material with a half-life measured in hundreds if not thousands of years. Having just managed to keep the door open to nuclear power in the energy review, the strategy is to try to demonstrate that renewables cannot deliver and to force Ministers back to "safe, reliable" nuclear power—those adjectives are in ironic quote marks.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me a second time. He mentions the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I have the honour to serve. The Committee considered this issue in great detail under the previous chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who is in his place this afternoon, and we found that one of the greatest impediments to renewable power was planning opposition to the development of wind farms in certain localities. Will the hon. Gentleman assist the House with the great dilemma that we found: Liberal Democrat Members are always in favour of wind farms in general, but they always oppose them specifically whenever they are proposed in their own constituencies?

That is rather a red herring, an old chestnut and an incorrect challenge. Our policy is to recommend that wind power in general is a good concept. We ought to promote it—most Liberal Democrat councils are doing so—but no one in any party is suggesting that every application for a wind farm should be approved. That is the purpose of the planning process. There is a willingness and a desire to support that concept, which is manifest in Lib Dem councils throughout the country.

The House will be interested to hear that the problem affects all parties. Indeed, a Conservative MSP has opposed wind farms at Huntly. The issue is specific not to parties, but to planning problems.

We must not demolish the planning system in considering these important matters.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). There are difficulties all over the country with specific wind farms, but does he agree that one thing that has not been properly explored so far is offshore wind farms, which would solve many of the problems about siting?

I agree, but, having looked at the guidance, I know that it is not that easy for an offshore wind farm proposal to be successful. The Government need to sort out that problem very quickly; otherwise those in the nuclear industry will respond by saying that renewables cannot deliver, and I want to avoid that.

Let me make it clear that a sustainable future has no place for nuclear fission generation. No one who looks back at the past 50 years of nuclear power can do other than conclude that we would have been better off if we had never started down that road. The power that would be "too cheap to meter"—a phrase from the 1950s—has turned out to be fantastically expensive.

Curiously enough, a Conservative privatisation proposal lifted the lid and showed just how uneconomic the industry was, but the DTI is now handing out multimillion pound lifelines to British Energy to stop it imploding financially—and still it continues. I was a little unfair to say that the Queen's Speech included no reference to the environment because it included the nuclear industry bail-out Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords and is designed to hand responsibility for gigantic amounts of nuclear waste firmly to the taxpayer in a desperate attempt to make the nuclear industry's books look better.

Then there are the usual tricks, the latest of which is the racily entitled "Consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution", which was quietly released on the Friday of Hutton week. If that was not an attempt to bury bad news, it was clearly an attempt at least to store it above ground. The thrust of that supposedly independent paper is that we should not necessarily return to the countries whence it came all the waste generated from reprocessing. Why? Presumably it is because that suggestion would enable prices to be cut and business in that doubtful area to be propped up.

The fact is that we have more than 75,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste lying around in this country, with no clear idea or strategy on how to deal with it. Nirex has no solution. Its last suggestion was pulled and it has not come back with another proposal since, but it now seems to want more of the stuff. The projections already suggest that we will have 107,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste by 2010, and 143,000 cu m by 2030. It seems that we want more waste from other countries to add to that stockpile. However, the author of that report—NAC International—makes some of its money by carrying out work for BNFL. A parliamentary answer that I received yesterday confirmed both that that financial arrangement exists and that the DTI was aware of it before it commissioned NAC to write the report. That is simply not acceptable. That paper is discredited and the DTI should now withdraw it.

I am pleased that the Government are making progress with energy efficiency: given that domestic energy consumption is up 7 per cent. since 1997, they need to do so. One useful thing that they could do is to support the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who came top of the ballot, as the Minister will know.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question before he leaves the section of his speech that deals with nuclear energy. I share much of his scepticism about the nuclear lobby and agree wholeheartedly that the way in which the Government bungled the latest massive handout to the nuclear industry is very regrettable. but does he want to slam the door on all types of possible research, particularly if in years ahead the prospect of cold fusion could unwrap the potential for new forms of energy, which may be produced without all the hazardous waste that typifies the nuclear industry today?

I am bound to say that a great deal of money has gone into nuclear fusion already without very much to show for it. If that money had gone into renewables, we might be rather better off than we are. I would not entirely slam the door on nuclear fusion, but I certainly wish to slam it on nuclear fission for the reasons that I have given.

Waste concerns me greatly, and no one could think that the Government have performed very well on the matter. The waste hierarchy, which everyone supports, is applied upside down. There is a perverse incentive to landfill and, if not to landfill, to incinerate and only then to recycle—and reuse and waste minimisation get not even a look in.

Is it not evident that the danger now is that the Government's failure to produce a proper, coherent waste strategy is placing an intolerable burden on local authorities, which simply have no guidance whatsoever to deal with the very difficult planning decisions that they often face?

The hon. Gentleman is right: local councils are being driven quickly by the Government to meet the targets required by the landfill directive, but they do not have the policy options or necessarily the resources to do other than probably opt for incineration. That is not the solution that they or the people in their areas want, but that is where we are going. We will end up with a chain of incinerators throughout the country if the Government do not do something quickly.

We have had one disaster after another from the Government in the waste field. We had the famous fridge mountain about which my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon warned the Minister and his colleagues months before it appeared, although nothing was done. We now have a nationwide breaker's yard of abandoned cars throughout the country, with 238,000 dumped in England and Wales last year. That happened because the Government caved in to the motor lobby and instead of making the industry responsible for vehicles at the end of their lives, as happens in most of Europe, they put responsibility on to the last owners, who have vehicles at their lowest value. What a nonsensical policy that is. Apart from letting the motor industry off the hook, what kind of value does that give to the taxpayer? We paid £14 million last year to clear up abandoned vehicles because the Government took the wrong decision.

Next, there will be lorries looking for an official site to dispose of hazardous waste. The Government admit that only 37 of the 218 present sites will be available for use for hazardous waste after a EU directive banning co-disposal takes effect in July. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford raised that matter, the Minister told her that her concerns were premature. There are fewer than six months until the directive kicks in, so I do not call that premature.

That is all well and good, but the hon. Gentleman's speech has lasted three times as long as the Queen's Speech and we are yet to hear a single Lib Dem policy. Are there any?

There are buckets of Lib Dem policies, which I shall be happy to speak about for the rest of the afternoon if hon. Members wish to hear them. They are implicit in the comments that I have made. We propose a waste hierarchy that is actually based on the waste hierarchy and that gives incentives to waste minimisation—we desire a zero waste policy. We have a sound energy policy that has no place for nuclear power, is based on energy conservation and efficiency and would give a much better leg-up to renewables than any policy that we have seen from the Government. We have a transport policy based on an increase in cycling, walking and public transport, a reorganisation of the railways and a proper investment strategy to deliver what people want. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have strategies coming out of our ears.

While we are pursuing solutions rather than problems, will the hon. Gentleman say a little about the phrase "economic instruments" in the motion? Does he believe in the use of economic instruments, will he give us some examples of them, and does he believe in the principle that the polluter should pay through fiscal measures?

Yes, I do believe that and I shall come on to it shortly, although I should probably take no more interventions given the time. The polluter does not pay, as a matter of fact, because figures from the Environment Agency show that only 0.5 per cent. of landfill pollution incidents last year resulted in a fine, despite the fact that there were 285 major incidents. The 100 or 200 operators who did pay paid an average fine of only £6,000, which is a pittance to a landfill operator. The message from the Government is that the polluter does not pay, but gets away with it scot-free.

Before I address the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), let me say a few quick words about ghost ships. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out his position on the four ghost ships at Hartlepool. The ships are strange because they were apparently so decrepit that the US authorities demanded that they were dealt with right away. They then miraculously recovered to undertake a sea voyage across the Atlantic to this country, but they have now suddenly become decrepit again and unable to sail back—they are very curious ships. I understand that the official line was that the ships were due to return to the US when spring arrived and weather conditions permitted, yet a letter sent late last year by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to British MEPs stated:

"The UK is satisfied that the ships will be dismantled under environmentally sound conditions, in accordance with planning permission and the waste management licence for the site."

Has DEFRA now decided that the ships will be dismantled in Hartlepool? How is it possible to pass judgment on the acceptability of the manner of disposal when there are outstanding issues regarding planning permission, the necessary licence and, indeed, the environmental impact? Are the Government pursuing a policy in private that is contrary to the one that they espouse in public?

Will the Minister deal with the issue of genetic modification when he replies? He will have noticed that our colleagues in Wales and Scotland have taken a rather more robust line on GM matters than the Government here in Westminster. They do not wish to co-operate with GM maize Chardon LL, or T25, which is patented by Bayer. In the light of those decisions in Wales and Scotland, what is the Government's strategy to deal with that matter?

I now turn to economic instruments, which the hon. Member for Sherwood rightly raised. If we are to have an environmental policy that is delivered effectively, we must have incentives and disincentives in place so that we generate the right behaviour patterns. I received a parliamentary answer showing that in this country, unfortunately, only 2.5 per cent. of taxes, as classified by the Treasury, are raised on environmental matters, which is lower than the percentage in most countries. We have some way to go. It strikes me as mad that if people build on greenfield sites they pay no value added tax, but if they renovate an inner-city building they pay 17.5 per cent.

We must create a structure that changes those perverse incentives without increasing the overall tax take—the policy is not about increasing taxes, but using different taxes. Energy saving equipment should incur lower VAT, and compensatory changes should be made elsewhere. We should especially consider how to deal with aviation, because as aviation fuel is not taxed there is a perverse incentive to take the plane, although the environmental solution would be to take the train— especially for internal journeys, and also for cross-channel journeys. On 17 April 2002, the Chancellor said:

"There is also no necessary conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment. There is a huge potential for British firms, small and large, to capture new world markets by investing in environmentally friendly technologies and creating new businesses and jobs as a result."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 583.]

That takes things on a stage, and it is important because we must demonstrate to businesses, which are sometimes sceptical about the environment, that investing in the environment can help them to cut their costs, improve their technologies and get them one step ahead of the opposition.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in the aviation industry. Will he comment on the fact that best estimates suggest that through not having to pay fuel tax and other taxes, the tax that the industry avoids paying aggregates to about £9 billion a year, which would pay for the whole of the United Kingdom's higher education budget? Is that not astonishing?

Yes, a gigantic amount of tax is not paid by the airline industry. Why should the rest of us be deprived of what we wish to do—on health, education or anything else—because that sector is excluded? That is entirely unfair and the Government must address it. I accept that the situation is difficult because of the international agreements and so on, but we must go further and faster than we have.

People in this country want to help the environment—they have a hunger to do so in many ways. We know how people clamour for recycling facilities in their own patches. The most recent survey on public attitudes on the DEFRA website reveals that 91 per cent. of the population are either fairly or very concerned about environmental issues. Research by WWF says that 8 million people or more are likely to make decisions at the ballot box based on such issues, so they are politically, as well as morally, important, as I have tried to argue.

I do not want to say that the Government have achieved nothing because they have several achievements. They ratified Kyoto, produced a reasonably good energy White Paper and made welcome structural changes. However, they have not gone far enough. Jonathan Porritt, the Prime Minister's adviser, said:

"Anybody looking at it dispassionately is going to have a hard job proving that Labour has put the environment at the heart of Government, which is what they claimed they would do."

Friends of the Earth said:

"Although the creation of DEFRA has brought environmental concerns to food and farming policy for perhaps the first time, it has also effectively sidelined the environment as a factor in many other crucial political areas, for example transport, trade, business and planning".

The Environmental Audit Committee said that the Government are

"making unsatisfactory progress on environment. The Government has made progress on only two of seven environmental indicators, with progress on the rest being unsatisfactory".

We need to go further and faster. We have suggested an annual debate on the environment in Parliament to keep a focus on the topic. We welcome some of the Government's steps, but they need leadership from the top. We do not think that leadership is coming from the Prime Minister because he does not act as though he is interested in the topic at all. Perhaps that is why the best efforts of certain Ministers—the Minister for the Environment and his predecessor especially—do not always bear fruit as they should. The Government must ensure that the environment is at the heart of things, not out on a limb.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"applauds the leadership and commitment on the environment shown by the Government domestically and globally; welcomes the UK's climate change programme which has already put the UK on track to overshoot its Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012; commends the introduction in the UK of the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme; further welcomes the long-term improvement in air quality and steps to improve local environmental quality generally; notes that river and bathing water quality is the highest on record; congratulates the Government on achieving a household recycling rate of 15 per cent. in 2002–03 and being on track for 17 per cent. for 2003–04; further congratulates the Government for playing a key role in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), increasing protection for a number of endangered flora and fauna; recognises that there is still much to do to promote sustainability at all levels; and calls upon the Government to continue to put environmental protection, locally, nationally and globally at the heart of its policies."

That was an interesting run through a range of environmental issues and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) took a fair approach, to the extent that he acknowledged that the Government have made a lot of progress with a range of environmental issues. We can be proud of measures that command widespread support. This is not a partisan issue because there is a great deal of commitment and interest from all parts of the House and all sections of public opinion. It is easy to be glib about some of the challenges, and I am the first to acknowledge that while the Government can point to real progress and achievements, there is much still to do.

In principle, I am not against an annual debate on the environment. Why just one debate? The Government, DEFRA and I have all been strong on integrating environmental priorities right across Government strategies and policies. I would not want the environment to be the subject of an annual debate, then for it to be thought that we had "done" the environment, and I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Given the increased, scrutiny, Select Committees and improved facilities for Adjournment debates that the Government have put in place, there are many opportunities for the House to discuss, debate and scrutinise environmental issues—which also touch on the Treasury, trade and health, and the whole range of government functions.

I must defend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because no one doubts her commitment to environmental issues or questions her international achievements in negotiations on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and with the Doha agreement, which for the first time put environmental and non-trade issues on the agenda. I do not pretend that that solved the problem because reaching agreement in a body such as the World Trade Organisation is difficult, but at least those issues are now on the agenda, when they were not in the past. There is not much evidence either of any attempt to get them on the agenda in the past. My right hon. Friend can take credit for that development.

I do not doubt either the commitment to the environment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which he has demonstrated on many occasions. In his speech to the American Congress, he raised the issue of climate change right to the heart of American government. We have repeatedly said that, as America is the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases, it must take climate control seriously. Even though the Americans have not signed up to Kyoto, many American states, institutions and academics do take climate control seriously and have tried to address it unilaterally within the US system.

The US Government are keen to take forward environmental technologies, which have a contribution to make. We do not believe that such technologies are the complete answer to climate change, but we are prepared to work with the Americans. We welcome the large sums of money that the US has committed to environmental technology research and to research and development generally. We have agreed to co-operate with the Americans in the G8 in taking forward environmental technology. The House should not be misled into thinking that there is no US engagement or involvement on climate change. However, we believe that the US ought to ratify Kyoto and ultimately should be part of a global agreement on controlling greenhouse gases.

We welcome the fact that the Government are working with the US to secure improvements, but I still have great difficulty identifying the strategic leadership. This is not an anti-American debate. We accept that a lot of good work is being done in the US, but there is a huge gap. Something is needed to tip the Americans into ratifying Kyoto. The US must be made to understand the potential for jobs and other opportunities if it provides leadership.

That is also an internal debate within the US. I heard a lecture by a prominent scientist who advises the Bush Administration in which he made it clear that there was no doubt about the impact of climate change and the need to address it. Many voices have been raised in the debate in the US and I am sure that that will continue—as is the case with Russian ratification.

Carbon trading and setting caps are not all negatives in respect of their impact on industry. They encourage energy efficiency, improve competitiveness and offer financial advantages—not least to Russia. We are trying to make the case to Russia that there are economic advantages to ratifying the Kyoto agreement.

I was in Russia at the end of last year and one view expressed was that climate change might benefit that country as it might increase agricultural production. That opinion is prevalent in high Government circles in Russia, which is most worrying.

That is worrying. I have heard the argument that where a country has a frozen hinterland, increased temperatures might be no bad thing. However, when road vehicles and pipelines start sinking into the melting tundra, climate change might not be thought such a good thing. There are also all the associated problems, not least the impact on biodiversity.

The Hadley centre and the Tindale centre are both world-class institutions and the former has developed a regional model of its climate change programme, Précis. I had the opportunity to meet academics from various institutions in India who are applying the Précis model to the Indian subcontinent in a first-class project that is supported by my Department as part of its commitment to global sustainability and national sustainable development.

Key to our approach is putting sustainable development at the heart of our policies, as we want them to impact positively beyond political time scales. Our key objectives include the sustainable use of natural resources and protecting the rural, urban, marine and global environments. To make changes sustainable, they must be set alongside economic opportunity and social well-being. One cannot separate the three strands.

Structures are also involved. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the change from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to DEFRA. I acknowledge the arguments for a DETR- type structure because keeping environment, transport and planning together offers certain advantages. But keeping together the environment, all land use policy, all water policy, biodiversity policy, global and national biodiversity, and sustainability in one Department also has advantages. What is key is ensuring that Departments engage with each other. Ministers from my Department have made joint appearances before Select Committees with Ministers from other Departments. The launch of the better building regulations task force involved Secretaries of State from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of Trade and Industry and DEFRA. We are developing joint strategies and there is a collective approach to decision making. All those initiatives are bringing together Government functions on sustainability.

I accept the point that the hon. Member for Lewes made about the importance of transport, but our society is becoming more affluent and people have the freedom to buy cars if they so choose. That does not mean, however, that we cannot address problems through, for example, the transport plan, which was widely welcomed. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) acknowledged that an additional 1 million people are using rail. We have applied fiscal measures to transport. For example, we have changed company car taxation, which is linked to car emissions rather than engines, as was the case in the past, and have made changes to road tax, which was also linked to engine size. We have introduced a range of measures to address the impact on society of transport, including air travel. We accept that more needs to be done, and that measures on air transport need to be introduced to tackle the issue of pollution and climate change. Air transport is by its very nature a global activity, so we need international agreements and approaches, but that does not mean that we cannot make progress on an EU level, and we are looking at that.

When the Secretary of State for Transport appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to discuss the Government's policy on air travel, we were extremely underwhelmed by the complete lack of a clear environmental policy on airport and airline expansion. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us, and tell us what direct influence he has had on his colleague's transport policy and the future of the airline industry?

We are, of course, consulted on issues such as the Government White Paper, strategy on air travel and related developments. It is easy to wrestle with such problems in opposition, but the hon. Gentleman should accept that more people want to travel by air. Plane use and passenger numbers are going up. We cannot ignore that. We must recognise trends in society such as the demand for travel, but we must try to tackle their environmental impact.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. However, he cannot ignore the fact that the real cost of airline travel is falling dramatically. In recent years, the cash cost of air tickets has fallen dramatically, and is set to continue to fall in real terms. The Government, however, are quite unwilling to engage in the argument and simply talk about the generality of people wanting to travel.

That argument is under way. However, if I interpret the hon. Gentleman's comments correctly, he seems to be arguing that air travel is getting cheaper, so it should be taxed to make it more expensive. That would not necessarily deal with the issue of emissions and pollution—it may simply mean that people pay more, so there will not be an effect on the environment. We must therefore think carefully about which measures we want to apply. For example, the application of carbon trading to air travel within the EU is being considered as part of the EU debate. The proposal has a great deal of merit and would have genuine results. We need collective agreement on such issues, in this case in the EU, but in other cases on a global basis.

May I return to the Minister's comments about people being more affluent and using their cars more? The implication was that the Government simply recognise trends and follow them, rather than trying to set them. In a recent consultation about post office closures, my constituents said that they do not have more cars or more opportunities to use them. They want to be able to walk to the local post office. Government policy on post office closures does not help the environment or reduce the amount of car traffic. Where is the Government's leadership?

With respect, post offices and small shops are closing because the hon. Lady's constituents are driving to out-of-town department stores. Of course, we must try to influence such trends and change them, but we must not make glib statements. Many shops close down because local people, who all want to keep them, do not use them themselves. Changes in patterns of behaviour and individual responsibility are not easy to bring about, and the Government cannot dictate exactly what people should do. The hon. Lady seems to think that Liberal Democrat policy is about whether people can or cannot buy a car, where they can take it and how they can use it. I did not know that there was a Stalinist element in Liberal Democrat policy on the environment. Sadly, however, life is a bit more complicated.

We must introduce a range of measures to convince people to follow a course of action that is beneficial for their communities and society. That may, for example, involve restrictions on access to city centres, such as parking policies and parking charges. A range of measures can be applied, but a balance must be struck. It is not, however, always easy to do.

I thank the Minister for being generous with his time. However, he has changed the terms of the argument. No matter how much he wags his finger at me, in my constituency, which is considered affluent, there are people who do not have access to cars, buses or other forms of public transport. Forty per cent. of the people who replied to our consultation have mobility problems, and in some areas 20 per cent. have no car. What is the position of those excluded members of society who do not have the opportunities that the Minister is talking about?

Of course there is a social exclusion problem, which the Government take seriously. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to have a small wager with me as to whether or not car ownership in her constituency has gone up or down since 1997. I think I know exactly what the trend has been.

I should like to return to aviation, as it is an important area. As the last international treaty governing aviation was signed in the 1940s, does my hon. Friend agree that the European Union offers us the best way of trying to make the environmental improvements in aviation that we need? That is one reason—Opposition Members obviously will not accept it—why we should remain fully engaged with the EU.

Does my hon. Friend agree that environmental measures should be built into new EU rules governing our relationship with other countries such as the United States? There is a moratorium on genetically modified food, and we could build in environmental considerations that would have a moratorium effect on air travel if we did not conclude a treaty in the near future.

I certainly agree that there is a case for negotiation and discussion to reach an international agreement, both within the EU and globally. My hon. Friend is right—insufficient attention has been paid to the growth of air travel over the past few decades. Times have changed, and we need to address the problem.

I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House about the need to tackle climate change. Our record is strong, given that we have exceeded our Kyoto targets and are pursuing an ambitious goal, as we are committed to reducing CO₂ by 60 per cent. by 2050. I am not complacent, but nevertheless we are making progress and have considerable support for our approach. I hope that by leading by example—we are the first EU country to implement the EU carbon-trading scheme and set targets—we can encourage other countries to follow.

Before the Minister leaves the subject of aviation, what steps are the Government taking to try to ensure that aviation emissions are included in Kyoto targets, as currently they are absent? What will he the impact on aviation sector emissions following the Government's recent announcements on aviation? I think that there will he a big increase.

There will be an increase in emissions, and the hon. Gentleman is free to look at our figures. As for Kyoto, ideally, aircraft emissions should have been included from the beginning, but we must be realistic and accept how far and how fast we can go. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are well aware of the problems with the Kyoto agreement, including the difficulty of getting Russia to ratify and the fact that the US has walked away. The inclusion of aircraft emissions would not have made that any easier. The best way to deal with the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) suggested, is to approach it internationally rather than within the Kyoto process. Perhaps we will be able to do that post-Kyoto, but in the meantime, the main thing is to get Kyoto ratified and up and running.

I strongly believe that environmental sustainability issues should be addressed locally, nationally and globally. The local aspect includes buying from individuals, which involves raising awareness by making these arguments. We recognise that we have a role to play as a Government, as do the local authorities and non-governmental organisations with which we cooperate closely in trying to get the message across. We also need to play our role globally, as we have done on climate change. We are fortunate in this country to have a first-class scientific base with a wide range of institutions and people. We have been active and successful in international bodies such as the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES— and the convention on biological diversity, which I will attend later this year, and where we will press for further changes, including the extension of protected areas to the marine environment. We have worked with our colleagues in the EU and internationally. We have increased the budget of the Darwin scheme—which was originally set up by the Conservative Government; I give credit where it is due, because it has been extremely successful—from £2 million to £7 million a year.

We are making progress on forestry. I am proud of the fact that we were the first G8 Government to make a commitment to procuring timber on our Government estates from legal and sustainable sources. We have set up a point of expertise to advise people about that, and we are working with the forest law enforcement and governance process in Asia, Africa and the EU. We want to agree powers in the EU that will strengthen our power to seize illegal timber. We can, and do, seize timber that is in contravention of CITES regulations, but I want to be able to go further. That must be achieved on an EU-wide basis—we cannot do it unilaterally, because we could not stop timber coming from, say, Rotterdam into this country by rail or through the tunnel. We are actively encouraging that EU-wide approach.

I turn to GM in Wales and Scotland. If the hon. Member for Lewes has a fault, it is that he tends to believe what he reads in the newspapers without any criticism or question. He should be wary about that, because in this case it was inaccurate. We are still discussing GM with the devolved Administrations, with whom we have a friendly and constructive relationship, and we will in due course announce our response to the recommendations of ACRE—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

Waste is one of the areas where we have lagged behind other countries, although we have a good record on climate, water quality, air quality, and involvement in sustainability and environmental issues. I am pleased, however, that we are making a great deal of progress on waste. We are hitting our targets on recycling, and many more doorstep collections are being introduced by local authorities. Our strategy—the waste implementation programme—is having a big effect. WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—has been successful in finding markets for recyclates. I am not complacent, because we need to do more, but I am encouraged by the fact that we have made very good progress, which seems to be accelerating.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked about the ghost ships. The bottom line is that people should have the facts about that situation, and I hope that he will join me in condemning the extreme, alarmist and inaccurate descriptions of "toxic time bombs". The fact is that those ships are no better or worse than any other scrap ships of their age. They remain under an injunction and are stored safely in Hartlepool in the facility run by Able UK. In terms of their future, if there are proper green recycling facilities in this country that are legal and have all the required permits, the best option would be to do the job in this country, not tow them all the way back across the Atlantic. That is self-evident, and most green groups regard it as the best option environmentally.

The situation gives rise to wider issues such as our strategy for ship recycling. As many ships, particularly single-hull tankers, will come on to the market in the next few years, we need good facilities in this country to avoid exporting our problems to other countries. We are in the process of developing those facilities.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is on record as saying that the ships will be sent back. Is the best environmental solution therefore effectively a U-turn?

No. The hon. Lady did not listen to what my right hon. Friend said. She made it clear, in the same words as I have used, that we are seeking the best environmental option. If the option of proper green recycling facilities is not available in this country, the US recognises that the ships will have to be returned. There is no change in the present situation. The hon. Lady joined the bandwagon on these ships, but it ran into a ditch when the green groups recognised that the incident had been exaggerated disgracefully. Is she saying that she does not want Able to be developed as a world-class recycling facility?

Of course I would love to see a world-class facility at Able, but the dry dock has not yet been built and the ships are moored up next to Seal sands in Hartlepool. While I entirely share the Minister's desire for the best environmental solution, we both need to be clear about exactly what was said.

Indeed. That is why I have made it clear to interested parties that there are no shortcuts in this process and that there will be no compromise on the environmental assessments that will have to be made in relation to the adjacent special protection area. We do not know whether the dry dock facilities can be put in place, the payments approved and planning permission granted; those are issues to be resolved by the company and the appropriate authorities. At the moment, it is a hypothetical situation, and we shall have to see how it develops.

The Minister seems to be keeping his options open as regards the best environmental option—as indeed he must, given that there is no planning permission, no dry dock and no licence. How does he square that pragmatic position with the extract that I quoted from the letter that his officials sent to MEPs late last year, which suggests that the decision has already been taken to dispose of the ships in Hartlepool—in other words, that it is a fait accompli?

I saw that letter, and I do not give it that interpretation. It is entirely consistent with the position that I spelled out to the House, which is the position at the present time.

Surely it is wrong to focus on these alleged ghost ships, because the bigger issue is that increasing numbers of ships will require decommissioning. Instead of arguing about the specifics, should we not leave that to the courts and work on developing a strategy, in the UK, Europe and internationally, to tackle the problem?

My hon. Friend is right. That work is in progress. A review of UK facilities and an assessment of future demand are under way. For example, we calculate that approximately 2,000 single-hull tankers are EU-flagged and they will need to be tackled in proper facilities. Apart from not wishing ships to be exported to countries that do not have proper facilities, health and safety measures or hazardous waste handling equipment, we are considering an environmental business. I see nothing wrong with developing environmental businesses in this country, provided that they fulfil the proper standards. There is a considerable opportunity for businesses in this country in a range of environmental business, not only ship recycling.

I welcome the debate. It is useful to tackle important and serious issues. The whole Government take environmental matters seriously. We try to lead by example in procurement and energy policies. For example, we have exceeded the targets that we set for the share of power from renewables and combined heat and power in Government estates and for the standards that we apply. We have reduced water use and increased recycling, but we want to do a great deal more. We want sustainability to be at the heart of every Government policy, whether on transport, housing or development. We hope that new developments such as Thames gateway, which will be Europe's biggest brownfield development, will set the pace for reducing energy and water use and building in sustainable transport.

I saw an interesting development by BedZed for sustainable zero emission housing that had workshop units underneath homes so that people could work where they live. Such developments are not appropriate in all parts of the country, but they have a role to play. I am pleased by the proposal for up to 2,000 of those units in the Thames gateway. I therefore believe that Thames gateway gives us a chance to demonstrate some cutting-edge technology in sustainable design and planning.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene before he concludes. He mentions Thames gateway, where he well knows that there are issues about building on a flood plain. He also knows from discussions that he and I have held about the concerns in Essex about the reorganisation of flood defence committees. In a non-partisan manner, I remind him of that and stress to him that it is important to the people of Essex to be allowed to retain a flood defence committee, not least to provide reassurance about the sort of things that he has just mentioned.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting Essex flood defence committees into a debate on the environment and Thames gateway. He knows that I acknowledge the case for local involvement. We have not taken the final decision about the structure of the new single-tier flood defence committees, but he knows that I am sympathetic to the case that Essex has made and that I invited that committee to present some proposals. I shall consider them in due course.

Flood plain development is important and we have changed the planning policy guidance to reflect that. Indeed, we are reviewing PPG10 on development, energy and a range of sustainable issues. Thames gateway is currently defended to the level of one in 1,000, which is very high. We have long had big urban centres, such as Hull, on flood plains. They can be defended; of course, that entails a cost. That brings me back to where I started: climatic change.

When we present arguments to convince people, we admit that there are costs, through caps, to industry in carbon trading. We understand that that has an impact, but if we do not tackle global warming, there will be huge costs to society. I pay tribute to Professor King, the Government chief scientist, and Professor Dalton, DEFRA chief scientist, who have been active and outspoken. We cannot ignore the matter. If we do not tackle climate change internationally, the results for our country and the world will be catastrophic.

I tend to agree that an annual debate on the state of the environment is the very least that the Government should provide. I pressed for at least an annual debate on trade justice when I was working on international development.

There are few tests more exacting than the legacy that we leave future generations and the quality of life that we bequeath our children. When I was a child, the major threat to world security was the prospect of a third world war—a nuclear one at that. Today's children grow up facing not only the threat of international terrorism but the genuine prospect of environmental catastrophe. Although international terrorism is unpredictable, we can predict what will happen if we continue to ignore environmental problems. Furthermore, as part of a league of rich nations, if we have the will, we have the power to do something about it.

The Minister referred to the importance of the Doha round and getting the environment on to the agenda. However, an agenda is useless unless there is a meeting at which to discuss it. As we all know, the round collapsed fatally at the talks in Cancun and it has been difficult to get any agenda back on the table. There is therefore no room for complacency among nations that are as well developed as ours.

We need to be clear about what we mean by the environment. The term literally covers a multitude of sins. The fact that the debate is on the state of the environment underlines the breadth of the subject. For some, "environment" evokes concerns about global warming, ozone depletion or renewable energy. For others, it suggests anxieties about the amount of litter locally, river pollution or fly-tipping. It is important to appreciate the divergence in people's understanding of the environment and to make strenuous efforts to tackle each concern. Whether people's environmental concerns are focused locally or globally, there is general recognition that our lifestyle has an effect on the quality of our environment.

There is a vast difference between the outward concerns that people may express publicly and the action—or lack of it—that they take personally. My children are a case in point. They are always quick to point out to me when in the supermarket that we should not buy aerosol cans, but they are the worst offenders for leaving the lights on once we get home. However, the fact that more and more people want to be seen to be green is encouraging. Environmental concerns often resemble those about car safety in the way in which they have infiltrated the public consciousness.

Fifteen years ago, accident safety was not such a high priority for car buyers, as shown by the fact that so few car manufacturers focused on safety as a means of marketing. However, today, vehicle safety is a strong influence on consumer choice. The same pattern is emerging with the environment. The material satisfaction that many have experienced since the 1980s has brought in its wake a new set of anxieties and priorities. Parents who are in the fortunate position of being able to provide fully for their children's immediate needs start to consider the longer-term needs of their children's children. The environment is at the heart of that.

The cultural change is not uniform. We need to recognise and tackle the fact that environmental concerns do not figure especially highly in the priorities of people who live in deprived areas. My constituency has four of the most deprived wards in England and Wales, where daily worries about housing, drug abuse and crime render issues such as landfill and climate change almost irrelevant. I say that because it is important that we recognise that although cultural change may be in train throughout what is crudely termed middle England, there remains a vast tract of society for whom the environment is an expensive luxury.

Improving local environments through reduced litter, fly-tipping and graffiti is a vital component in fostering a sense of pride and responsibility in areas where people live. If we do not tackle the quality of life in deprived urban environments, I fear that we shall miss art opportunity to help facilitate the sort of social improvements that we all want. The Conservative party has a proud history on the environment. I should like to correct the false impression that Lady Thatcher somehow thought of the environment as a humdrum issue. As a scientist, she was one of the first party leaders to bring the environment on to the mainstream political agenda, when she said:

"We do not have a freehold on the earth, only a full repairing lease."

Does the hon. Lady not remember that Margaret Thatcher stopped the very important Salter's duck renewable energy project? That project is now nowhere to be seen, but at the time it was at a production level of 10 per cent., and cheaper than nuclear energy. That was one reason why she closed it.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just wait a little to hear me talk about renewable energy. Technologies have moved on a great deal, even since I wrote my PhD on the subject 20 years ago. Improvements in technology have improved the economic viability of so many renewable technologies, but that was perhaps not the case at the time when Lady Thatcher was leading my party.

Many would seek to demonise centre-right politics, capitalism and business as the arch-enemies of environmental welfare. That simplistic analysis is as flawed as the assertion that because the Conservative party is pro-business, it cannot be pro-environment. However, centre-right politics yielded the end of the cold war and with it, the beginning of the end of some of the world's most environmentally destructive industrial practices. The word conservatism is a derivation of the verb to conserve, meaning to protect or preserve. Conservatism is all about taking responsibility for one's actions, being prudent, safeguarding the future and nurturing a framework of codes and practices that permit the maximum possible freedoms for everyone.

Those four tenets go to the very heart of the protection of our environment, reflected at every level at which my party operates. At global level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has said, it was the present leader of my party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who led the negotiations for Britain at the 1992 Rio Earth summit, which gave rise to the Kyoto protocol, of which we remain fully supportive. At European level, the Conservative group negotiated to chair the environment committee in preference to other committees, because we recognised the importance of working with our neighbours to combat environmental threats. At national level, hon. Members on both sides will recognise the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who continues to be dedicated to environmental matters and who led for the Conservatives in the debate on climate change in Westminster Hall two weeks ago.

Hon. Members will observe that, to show our ongoing commitment to the environment and our understanding that it involves cross-cutting concerns, we have again combined transport and the environment in one portfolio, which we are certainly finding beneficial for policy development. At local level, according to the National Audit Office, Conservative councils consistently perform better on environmental issues than their Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts.

There is broad consensus among all parties on the need to protect the environment. However, although we can agree on that aim, there are bound to be differences in the way in which we would go about attaining it. It is important, especially in a debate such as this, to give credit where it is due, and many of the Government's intentions on the environment are very good. That is why my party can make common cause with the Government on so many environmental objectives, but where we differ is on how those objectives can best be realised. Too often, the underlying problem has been misdiagnosed, and consequently the wrong priorities are chosen in the attempt to devise an effective solution. There has therefore been a system failure in implementation, creating a whole generation of new problems as a consequence.

It is not difficult to understand how that has occurred. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has evolved comparatively recently, and it has become rather centralised and bureaucratic, having difficulties with its lines of responsibility. I do not make that diagnosis of the problem; it was made by the person whom the Government appointed to undertake an analysis of DEFRA's structural problems: Lord Haskins. He described the Department as

"a dog's dinner of the highest order".

Nowhere are the Department's failings clearer than in the context of the environment, and the rural environment in particular. Although we would think that the environment would come first in the list of departmental responsibilities because it is first in the Department's title, all too often—partly through events, including the demands of the crisis in agriculture—it has come last in the Government's departmental priorities. We have only recently discovered, now that the figures have come to light, that it took £500,000 of taxpayers' money to rebrand DEFRA when it was established in 2001, absorbing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Such is the confusion in DEFRA that when I recently asked a written question, the Minister who replied was unable to supply even the most rudimentary information on staffing levels in the Department. Only during oral questions in the Chamber last week did I finally obtain that information, which should have been readily available.

The practical effect of the organisational problems in DEFRA is manifest to those who have to use its service and those of us who observe it in action. I shall quote Lord Haskins again. He said:

"Too many organisations are involved in rural delivery, resulting in confusion—the delivery of sustainable land management, for example. is handled by at least six national agencies working with multiple regional and local organisations."

The problems are not only of an organisational nature, but concern broader questions of competency. According to DEFRA's municipal waste management survey, England recycles or composts just 13.5 per cent. of its municipal waste. That is one of the lowest rates in Europe and compares with a recycling rate for municipal solid waste of 48 per cent. in Germany and roughly the same rate in Austria. I am yet to understand why DEFRA cannot do more to include home composting in the compilation of its figures. I strongly suspect that a failure to include in the figures the extent to which we, as a nation, compost at home has led to an underestimation of the extent to which we compost in general. If the reduction in the number of black sacks that my family puts out is any indication of the role and value of home composting, there are great savings to be made in that area.

I have been made aware today, by industry sources, of the industry's estimate of the ground that needs to be made up. In its view, we are so massively off target over meeting the requirements of the landfill directive that unless there is a fourfold increase in the amount of composting that we undertake as a nation, we will fall way short of the directive targets by 2010. In response, the Government have set a target for the recycling rate for household waste to rise to 25 per cent. by 2005, to 30 per cent. by 2010 and to 33 per cent. by 2015. However, the Environmental Audit Committee believes that the UK will

"not come close to meeting any of the national targets set for recycling",

and that the 2010 and 2015 targets will be missed by "a wide margin".

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady's points on home composting and the need to compost.

However, will she cast her mind back a few months to the passage of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill? Her Front-Bench colleague in the other place tabled amendments that would, if accepted, have led to the demise of composting.

It would take an awful lot, in such a nation of gardeners, to lead to the real demise of composting. Fundamentally, we are a nation not, perhaps, of shopkeepers but very definitely of gardeners, and I think that we all understand the value of composting. If our spokesman in another place is unaware of its benefits, perhaps it is for lack of a garden—who knows? I shall speak to him on the subject.

On the figures for recycling and composting, the hon. Lady will be aware that I have said that we have a lot to do in that area. I am not complacent about that. The Environmental Audit Committee report said that the Government would not meet any of their targets, but that is just not true. We are meeting our targets, and the rate is accelerating. Will the hon. Lady also, in a spirit of fairness, acknowledge that in relation to recycling and composting, we are starting from the very low base that we inherited in 1997?

I do not deny that, as a nation, we have a lot of catching up to do, as anyone who is aware of the cultural and lifestyle differences among certain comparable developed economies, particularly on the continent of Europe, in relation to recycling and segregating household waste before it is passed to the municipal authorities will know. However, I am concerned that we sometimes sign up to directives without having put in place the necessary facilities to implement them, so that even if we want, with the best will in the world, to embrace the changes involved, we are unable to do so. A good illustration of that is the batteries directive, which we have signed up to despite there being no facilities in this country for recycling batteries. In comparable developed economies, it is regarded as a heinous crime to put batteries in the waste paper bin. However, that directive remains the only solution to that problem in this country, and I look forward to the necessary facilities being put in place so that when a safe and environmentally suitable solution exists, we really can take advantage of it.

Recycling rates and landfill rates are two sides of the same coin. It is no surprise, given the slow progress being made on increasing recycling, that aspirations towards the reduction of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill are also faltering. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a fair point when he said that the hierarchy of dealing with waste seemed to have been turned on its head. Much more effort needs to be put into this area, because the more that can be segregated and recycled at household level, the less will be the temptation to justify the easy solution of burying it all in the ground, which we want to move away from.

The amount of landfill increased to 22.3 million tonnes in the last year for which there are figures. That is not only an indictment of this country's inability to get on top of waste disposal as an issue—it also means that Britain is perilously close to missing the requirements of the European landfill directive, which would result in a fine of up to £180 million a year. Perhaps the Government will tell us whether they intend to pass that fine on to local authorities and, ultimately, to council tax payers, should we be faced with such a bill.

Another target that is looking increasingly fallible is that of attaining 10 per cent. of electricity production derived from renewable energy sources. The reality is that the 3 per cent. target for 2002 was missed by a considerable margin. That makes the likelihood of fulfilling the 10 per cent. target in a mere six years look more and more like a costly pipedream. I am of course aware of the recent announcements regarding wind farm investments, which the Government have been keen to cite as examples of progress in meeting those targets. However, there are many concerns about wind farms—particularly onshore wind farms—with regard to their reliability, their efficiency and, ironically, their environmental impact. Wind farms can at best be only part of any sensible programme for generating electricity from renewable energy sources. The Government must certainly look to offshore wind farms and wave farms as ways of harnessing renewable forms of energy in a more environmentally acceptable way.

Among the most interesting and logical sources of renewable energy are biofuels. As the author of a book entitled "Non-Food Uses of Agricultural Raw Materials", perhaps I ought to state a private interest in this particular issue. Biofuels, like wind power, are not in themselves the holy grail of environmentally friendly energy production, but they could well offer part of the solution and they certainly warrant further research.

Sadly, biofuels are another area in which the Government's thinking has appeared muddled and little or no effective progress has been made. In October last year, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published a report which confirmed that. It stated:

"We deplore the fact that the Government has not nominated any one Department to lead on biofuels and consider that this is the prime reason for the slow progress that has been made in this area."

The report concluded:

"The Government's biofuels policy still appears to be muddled and unfocussed: it has expressed support for biofuels but the mechanisms used to promote their use have had little effect so far".

It is bad enough that the Government are found wanting when it comes to taking effective action for our medium-term renewable energy commitments, but there are also a number of very worrying failures with regard to their present day implementation of EU environmental measures. Every so often, a snapshot image of the kind used in newspapers and on television screens becomes imprinted on the public consciousness, and I would argue that one such image is that of mountains of decaying fridges piled up throughout the country with no adequate means of disposal for them.

The hon. Lady has not really talked about nuclear energy. What are her party's policies on that issue? Its history, when in government, was to support nuclear energy with what I call a nuclear tax of 10 per cent.—otherwise known as the non-fossil fuel levy. That gave our competitors in Germany and Denmark a great opportunity to advance on us in terms of the engineering and technology required to develop wind power, for example. Would the Conservatives go back to such an approach, which would set back our renewable energy prospects? Do they have a policy on nuclear power yet?

The hon. Gentleman would expect the environmental spokesman for the Conservative party to state the blindingly obvious on this issue, which is that until an adequate environmental solution is found to the problems of waste from nuclear energy, nuclear power is not an option that can enthusiastically be embraced. So far, such a solution has not been found. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

To return to the mountains of fridges, the arguments over whose fault that was—the Government's, for failing to read and understand the implications of the ozone-depleting substances directive, or the European Commission's for not making the implications explicit—have been rehearsed many times. In June 2002, the Commons Environment Sub-Committee concluded that DEFRA and not the European Commission was primarily to blame for the situation. The Committee, of whom eight members out of 10 are Labour MPs, said that clearing up the problem would cost taxpayers £40 million. In particular, the report said:

"While the European Commission must accept some blame for lack of clarity, the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation lies with the Government."

The report concluded:

"We find it deeply disturbing that the Government signed up to the regulation whilst still suffering 'knowledge gaps' about its full impact."

What this episode serves to highlight is a routine deficiency in the implementation of European environmental legislation, and the spectre of the fridge mountain fiasco looms large as we begin implementing the hazardous waste directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. I very much fear that, as a country, we are inadequately prepared to deal with the de-manufacturing and recycling of our waste electrical goods, particularly as we feel the effects of the ominous trend towards built-in obsolescence in manufactured goods.

One consequence of this lack of preparation is the increased problem of fly-tipping, which blights urban and rural areas throughout the country. That problem is likely to be exacerbated with the closure of 290 of the 300 landfill sites that currently take hazardous waste, just months before the hazardous waste directive takes effect. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position on that.

Yes, I will. The sites will not be closing. The directive ends co-disposal, but they will continue as landfill sites. Some of them, if they so choose, will be able to continue by installing a separate cell for hazardous waste on the site; indeed, a number have already put in a planning application to do so. The vast majority of the sites do not take hazardous waste anyway, so the hon. Lady's figures are really quite misleading.

I tabled a written question on this subject. It is of the utmost importance to know the pattern of sites to which hazardous waste will be able to be sent. Given the combination of the increase in landfill use and the costs involved, if there are to be restrictions on the type of material that can go to such sites, those who try to avoid those costs will be tempted to deposit certain materials in the countryside.

Fly-tipping presents similar problems to those of litter, graffiti and, to some extent, urban water course pollution, which are also symptoms of ineffective law enforcement. Litter costs local authorities in the region of £342 million each year. I am not convinced that measures contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will reverse the fall in the number of prosecutions and convictions for depositing litter and the fall in the number of fixed penalties issued to offenders. More policing will be a far greater agent for change than more legislation.

Another grave concern among Conservative Members is the inconsistency within the Department. Last Friday, I went to Stansted to meet campaigners opposed to the construction of a new runway. They, like me, are bewildered at the lack of an environmental impact assessment before the Government announced their plans about where to expand. This view is shared by the Environmental Audit Committee, which stated:

"The opaqueness of the appraisal process means that it is not possible to evaluate … the cumulative impacts at both regional and national levels, and the relative balance of economic, social and environmental benefits and disbenefits."

The Committee added:

"We regard the absence of concise, transparent and strategic integrated appraisals as a major weakness in the consultation documents. The Department's failure in this respect conflicts with its own guidance."

The aviation White Paper also brought to light another inconsistency in the Government's approach, to which other Members have alluded in interventions. The ambitious carbon reduction targets that the Government have set will be impossible to meet given the growth in aviation facilitated by the Government's airport expansion plans. Those failings clearly suggest that the environmental implications of airport expansion were of little or less concern when the Government reached their decision.

At each level of environmental awareness that I identified at the outset—global, European, national and local—there are clear failings by DEFRA. It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that Britain was alone in being without a joined-up approach to dealing with the environment. I am sure that we can all name one country whose failure to ratify Kyoto should be a cause of grave concern to us all, which the Prime Minister would do well to use his much-vaunted transatlantic influence to remedy.

The point. however, is that there is no good reason why we should not be one of the pioneers of environmental policy and good practice. It is an uncomfortable reality that without many of the EU-originated regulations, Britain would not even now be adopting environmental good practice in many crucial respects. Britain is a bold, entrepreneurial, creative country with a natural instinct for conservation and protection, and it is the Government's duty to harness that instinct. Britain could and should become a beacon of environmental progress among industrialised nations. If we fail in this, we will certainly be in no position to try to influence the environmental practices of the developing countries that otherwise will surely follow in our footsteps.

I very much welcome this debate. Given the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to it in their motion, I am surprised that it is only a half-day debate. It seems that the ice caps could melt before we move off the subject of a local income tax, but that is their order of priorities.

The motion calls for an annual debate on this subject, and we should give it a regular slot. Perhaps it could be tied to regular debates on reports from the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit. The EAC, as Members on both sides of the House will know, has produced some highly critical reports, to which reference has often been made this afternoon. Its reports deserve a wider audience. The Committee was one of the key creations on the parliamentary environmental scene that arose from the Labour party's 1997 manifesto, and it has firmly established itself as an authoritative voice on the environment and sustainable development.

My main concern with the nature of the political debate on the environment and sustainable development is that it does not engage the public as widely as it should. We know that politicians of all persuasions are reluctant to go too far down the road of radical change because a swift and debilitating electoral consequence would follow. Sustainable development, if we take it seriously, implies that those living in the most developed countries will have to make some sacrifices. Our pattern of consumption is clearly unsustainable, but it is our solemn duty as politicians—in all parties, I hasten to add—to tell voters at election time that we will make their quality of life better, which is always understood to mean their material quality of life. Our whole economic model is based on the presumption that we must pursue economic growth, and that we must emulate countries such as the United States, which has experienced the longest sustained growth rates in the western world. The fact that the US does that by consuming more resources per capita, at a rate that simply could not be replicated around the globe, is the kind of argument that is compartmentalised in discrete packets of worthy thinking labelled "the environment", "climate change" or whatever, which are not allowed as yet to challenge the assumptions of economic growth.

How do we square the circle? It will be very difficult. The first party that dares seriously to challenge those assumptions will be laughed out of court. Unless a major disaster forces our hand, we will inevitably have to take an incremental approach, which runs the risk of not doing enough fast enough to make much difference. I applaud this Government's early and urgent efforts to get the world to agree on the Kyoto protocol, but it is still not yet in force, and, even when it does come into force, it is such a modest measure that some doubt that it will have the desired impact.

Nations will therefore have to take more unilateral action to get things done, but even that will cause howls of protest from those such as the CBI, which would prefer simply that the climate change levy would go away, because it says that it damages our competitiveness. That is the same argument used by George Bush, who wants a purely voluntary approach to climate change, which I am not sure he really believes exists anyway. He wants to prevent the American economy from suffering. He has already caused enough unemployment; he does not want any more.

Such short-term attitudes will ultimately be self-defeating, as the costs of climate change mount. Those costs will hit us with higher insurance premiums, more flooding in some areas, more drought in others, food and water shortages and high levels of human migration causing civil strife. The Government have made some very useful steps in the right direction: the climate change levy, the renewables obligation, and the Energy Bill, which clearly has set some stiff targets in sourcing energy from renewable sources—10 per cent. in only six years' time and 15 per cent. by 2015. Some people say that we do not have the engineering capacity to meet those targets. I hope that we address that criticism by putting more resources into our energy strategy from Government funds, and that we seriously increase our research and development resource in other areas, apart from wind, which is now a fully fledged technology. How is it that we spend less on R and D in wave and tidal energy or other renewables than we use to prop up British Energy and its outdated nuclear technology?

Most of what the Government have done so far has addressed major players in the environmental field. They have addressed corporations' use of energy, for example, and they have introduced market mechanisms, which take a while to filter through, such as the renewables obligation. What we lack is a way of engaging the public in this debate, such as mechanisms that encourage individuals to make pro-environment choices in their lives. That is the real test, because, unlike businesses, individuals have votes, and if, for example, we told individuals that they could not drive their cars our popularity would evaporate faster than a cloud of carbon dioxide. Nor, as we have seen, can we easily introduce more taxes, since the fuel protests put paid to that. No doubt it is the memory of those events that makes the Government reluctant to tax aviation fuel. What, I wonder, is the Liberal Democrat policy on that? I do not think we have had an answer to that important question.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be given a very full answer by our shadow Chancellor when he winds up. but in the meantime let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping): aviation is currently untaxed, and we need to find ways of dealing with that. The Government have imposed airport passenger duty, which is very low and not terribly focused. There is talk of the Chancellor's doubling it, but I am not sure whether that is the right idea. We would like aviation fuel to be taxed, but we realise that that must happen, if not internationally, at least on a Europe-wide basis, which is not immediately achievable.

The Government's aviation paper mentioned a number of economic instruments, some of which should be investigated carefully. There may, for instance, be a case for taxing aeroplanes—on the assumption that they are full—because that would give airlines an incentive to fill seats rather than running half-empty flights. There are a number of possibilities—