With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian ocean on the morning of Sunday 26 December.

In the early hours of 26 December, the earth moved along some 1,200 km of the sea bed, creating first a sea in retreat, then a sea borne along by a wave of such force that it literally obliterated not just the area of the coast at Aceh nearest to it, but land over 3,000 km from its epicentre. It was a force of nature so unimaginable in its power and catastrophic in its impact that it quite simply washed the life out of villages, towns, tourist resorts and anything alive on the water in areas across the entirety of the Indian ocean. It affected Indonesia, Sri Lanka, south India and the Andaman and Nicobar islands, the Maldives, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, the Seychelles and Bangladesh.

The estimated number of people killed now stands at over 150,000, with millions of people forced away from their homes. As well as the devastating loss of life and immediate suffering, there are significant longer-term implications. Many people have lost their means of earning a living. Fishermen have lost their boats and nets; farmers' crops have been destroyed; roads, bridges and buildings are damaged or destroyed, as are coastal areas where livelihoods are dependent on tourism.

We should begin by expressing the total unity of the House in giving our deepest condolences for the loss of life in those countries directly affected by the tsunami, and to all in this country who have lost family members, friends and colleagues in the disaster. Scarcely any of us here will not know someone whose life has been touched by this event. None of us will have not been moved to tears as each night we saw, with mounting horror, the human tragedy that followed the natural disaster.

I can announce today that there will be a memorial service later this year for the victims of the tsunami, which will be attended by Her Majesty the Queen. We will give more details in due course, and will obviously wish to take account of the views of relatives in planning the service.

I shall divide my statement into three parts. I shall deal first with the loss of British lives, secondly with immediate humanitarian help for the countries concerned, and finally with the longer-term issues of redevelopment and reconstruction. I hope the House will forgive me if I go into a little detail on those issues.

Let me begin with our own citizens. The number of confirmed dead is now 51. The number of category 1 of the missing—that is, those highly likely to be lost—is, including the 51, now 453, up from 443 last Friday. Of those, 371 are in respect of Thailand and 50 in respect of Sri Lanka. The numbers in category 1 have stopped rising so rapidly. Not all of them will prove actually to be dead, though many may. The category 2 figure, relating to those unaccounted for in the region but not in the "highly likely" category, now stands at 871, down from over 2,000 late last week. Previous experience, I am advised, tells us that that figure may never fall to zero.

On 26 December, the Foreign Office established temporary offices working in all the affected areas. There is now, for example, a temporary office the size of a medium-sized embassy in Phuket. Staff have also been deployed at overseas airports to help with any problems of British nationals and to issue emergency passports to those without travel documents.

There are 75 police officers working in Thailand and Sri Lanka, both to assist in an international effort to recover and identify the dead, and to give specialist advice to our Foreign Office teams in those countries. Their work is enormously difficult as well as very distressing.

Sadly, many victims were swept away by the force of the tsunami and their remains may never be recovered. In other cases, and as time goes by, forensic identification of the remains becomes extremely hard. DNA testing may be required and that will take time. I know that that will only add to the agony of the families concerned. I am afraid, however, that no short cuts are possible. The pain and upset that could be caused by mistakes would be even worse.

The Foreign Office has funded the deployment of portable mortuary facilities to the disaster areas in Sri Lanka and Thailand and is working closely with international undertakers to facilitate the repatriation of bodies once they have been positively identified. British officials and police officers are now working with the families of the victims to repatriate remains where appropriate and to help the injured to get home. The Foreign Office has assisted affected families with the cost of repatriating remains; immediate medical expenses for those seriously injured; medical evacuation; and return travel for two members of the victim's family.

The emergency call centre took over 40,000 calls at the peak, and has taken over 135,000 in total. Over 200 family liaison officers have been appointed to support every family of British nationals we think are highly likely to have been involved. I should explain that that figure is lower than the number of likely deaths because some families have unfortunately lost a number of relatives in this terrible tragedy. We are also looking to provide family liaison officers for families in the affected countries where appropriate and are supporting families in the UK who have lost family members who lived in those affected countries, particularly in Sri Lanka, where over 30,000 people were killed.

The Foreign Office has also ensured that there are full reception arrangements at airports for people returning to the UK. That includes tailored medical attention where necessary, assistance with getting home and access to psychological and emotional support services. The British Red Cross has also established a helpline for victims of the disaster and their families and a family support network for those affected.

I would like to say some words about the Foreign Office, police and other staff involved in this operation. The complexity of the operation is obvious. The grief of the families is manifest and absolutely understandable. There could not be circumstances more taxing. There will inevitably be mistakes made or unintended insensitivity in certain cases. However, I am clear that those staff on the whole have done a quite magnificent and exceptional job and I would like to express our heartfelt thanks to them.

Let me now turn to the action that the Government have taken to alleviate the consequences of the tsunami in the countries affected. Within hours of the disaster striking, the Department for International Development's crisis operations team was set up and it sent out its first assessment team. The next day, DFID began airlifts of tents and plastic sheeting in response to an urgent request from the Government of Sri Lanka. A series of airlifts followed, including approximately 80 tonnes of water donated to the Maldives and enough basic emergency medical supplies to Indonesia to treat 100,000 people for three months. We focused our immediate effort on support to the United Nations humanitarian organisations, the Red Cross movement, non-governmental organisations and a range of practical actions, such as delivery of urgently needed relief items, including water, water containers, tents and blankets and plastic sheeting.

As time has passed, it has become clear that the biggest challenges are in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The UN is leading the international humanitarian response, and Britain is supporting the UN co-ordination and logistics effort to improve delivery of assistance. In Indonesia, we have provided equipment to help establish the UN field office in Banda Aceh, plus five helicopters and some vehicles to the UN for use in the Aceh province. We have also provided two experts for its assessment team, two UK emergency teams and three military operations teams, which are working closely with local government and partner nations to assess needs. We also have a range of medium and heavy-lift cargo aircraft—including RAF Hercules and Tristar aircraft, and a number of helicopters—involved in delivering aid to the region. We sent some five flights to Indonesia, carrying almost 4,000 family tents. We are putting together plans for further airlifts, from both Europe and other regions, of relief materials to the region. We are also deploying two fully equipped and manned helicopters from the Gurkha battalion stationed in Brunei.

One of the main challenges in both countries is distributing the massive amount of aid provided. UK forces are playing an important role in this. We are providing significant airlift capacity, including one RAF C-17 plane and five C-130 planes. Two naval vessels—Chatham and Diligence—have been providing assistance off Sri Lanka, together with their Lynx helicopters.

In respect of the money pledged, the first thing is to pay tribute to the remarkable but typical generosity of the British people. Their willingness to contribute—the funds contributed by them now stand at over £100 million—is the best illustration of the British character, and it shows a warmth of spirit and a depth of compassion that have been uplifting, even as we contemplate the tragedy that gave rise to it.

I should set out the Government's contribution so far. In doing so, I should mention that in my conversations with the Presidents of Sri Lanka and of Indonesia—and again this morning with the Indonesian Foreign Minister—all have gone out of their way to express not only their gratitude but their admiration for Britain's response: that of the British people in their own right, and through their Government.

The international pledges now total some £2 billion. The European Union as a whole has already collectively pledged or given €1.5 billion. A meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on Friday agreed to ask the European Investment Bank to consider an Indian Ocean tsunami facility of up to €1 billion. The British Government's contribution is as follows. I have agreed that the Government will increase their pledge to the immediate humanitarian response from £50 million to £75 million, with an additional £25 million from the Treasury's central reserve. None of this, incidentally, has been taken from our existing development programmes. Of this £75 million, around £30 million has already been disbursed to the UN and to the non-governmental organisations. Our share of EU budget money allocated is a further £15 million; gift aid tax relief amounts, roughly, to a further £15 million. We will also make a special donation to offset the VAT on goods sold to raise money for the tsunami appeal, and DFID has offered to pay the cost of air freighting equipment and supplies paid for by donations from the public. Six flights have already departed; another goes tomorrow.

In addition, the G7 is agreeing to an immediate moratorium on debt repayments by afflicted countries, for those that request it, until a full needs assessment is completed. The suspension of debt servicing in 2005 for Indonesia alone will, for Britain, total over £70 million. So all in all, around £200 million of British Government money has already been committed or spent. But as I indicated last week, we still have to await the World Bank's full assessment of the long-term reconstruction needed. In all likelihood, that will require further disbursements. In addition, we will continue to meet any immediate requests for humanitarian assistance. I might add that the provision of so much military equipment also has a cost, which the Government rightly bear.

Long-term reconstruction in Sri Lanka, and especially in Indonesia, leads on to the lessons in respect of the international community's response to any future natural events. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—his Department, like the Foreign Office, has performed in an outstanding way in the past two weeks—has set out in a paper to the UN how he believes that the administration of its response capability can be improved. He will go to New York next month to discuss this issue. Presciently, he first made these suggestions in a speech shortly before Christmas.

Secondly, we need urgent work on early warning systems, and not just in the region affected. The Jakarta conference on Thursday agreed that a regional warning system was needed in that region. The world conference on disaster reduction will consider in Japan later this month how that and other similar needs can be met. In addition, I have asked the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, to put together a small group of experts to advise me on the mechanisms that could and should be established for the detection and early warning of global natural hazards.

Mr. Speaker, the last two weeks have shown a world in shock, but also in solidarity. It is not just the money given: it is the volunteering to help collect it; the doctors and nurses wanting to go out and help in the region; the experts from every field imaginable clamouring for a chance to serve and to give of their time, energy and expertise.

Later this year, the world will turn its attention not just to a natural disaster, but to one that is man-made—Africa. Daily in that continent, thousands die preventably from conflict, famine and disease. If the domination of that issue on our TV screens is less dramatic, the suffering of human beings is every bit as severe. If we were, as a result of the strength of our sentiment towards the victims of the tsunami, to turn that same sentiment into action on Africa, perhaps those whose faith has been shaken by the monstrous consequences of the event that we have witnessed would have it renewed. There could be no greater good to come out of it.

I thank the Prime Minister for making the statement and for giving me advance sight of it. Two weeks on, it is still difficult to comprehend the awful and awesome scale of this disaster. There could be no more poignant reminder of how frail and fragile is the human condition and of how tragedy can befall any one of us at any time. Our prayers have been for all those who have lost relatives and friends, and our immense thanks go to everyone who has been working so hard in so many ways to provide help to those who have suffered such loss.

Confronted with a disaster on this scale, it would be natural for people to feel helpless, but from the moment the disaster broke, the British people responded with heartfelt and urgent generosity. Spontaneously, quietly, selflessly and typically, they gave their money and their time to help those in need. That required no Whitehall initiative, no grand scheme and no ministerial diktat. The lead has come from the people, not the politicians. I welcome the very substantial amounts—over and above the £50 million that the Government expect to contribute in aid over the next few weeks—that have been donated.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations has pointed out that, in the past, not all the money pledged by different countries for natural disasters has actually been given. From now on, every country must measure up to its promises. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be sensible for the United Nations to produce a regular independent audit of the disaster income received and the expenditure made? Will he also now agree to give Parliament a regular report on the amount of British aid pledged and spent?

We also welcome the decision of the financial institutions and broadcasters here not to charge commission on credit card donations, and the Government's decision in respect of VAT. Many of those who have made telephone donations to the disasters emergency committee wish to maximise their generosity and have asked to have their donations gift aided. As things stand, the disasters emergency committee would have to write to every one, requiring hundreds of thousands of letters, which is clearly not the best use of their time or money. The committee has asked to be released from that obligation, so will the Prime Minister act on that request? What is more, people who put money in collection boxes cannot claim gift aid, so will the Government act to ensure that people's spontaneous generosity is not penalised? We also need to make sure that any lessons from this terrible tragedy are learned and shape our future response. Those grieving deserve no less.

Are the Government satisfied that all the diplomatic help that could have been made available was made available—and with the necessary degree of urgency? Can the Prime Minister also tell us how our back-up at home, including our performance in setting up the necessary help lines, compared with that in other countries? How many people were operating the helplines?

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the civil and military co-operation group set up to help deal with emergencies has yet been deployed to the region and, if so, when? Can he confirm that, in 2001, the group was due to join the Sri Lankans in a training exercise to practise responses to a tsunami but was stopped on grounds of cost? If so, does he agree that that was a false economy?

A number of other countries released estimates within days of the numbers of their nationals who were missing. I realise that this is a difficult decision and judgment. Nevertheless, will the Prime Minister explain the Government's thinking behind the decision not to do so, and their subsequent change of mind?

The British people who have given so generously do not want these shattered communities to be forgotten as soon as the television crews leave. The best way of ensuring that these places are not forgotten is to establish lasting relationships with the area concerned: school to school, church to church, temple to temple, mosque to mosque, community to community. Will the Prime Minister support the setting up of a register of those local authorities who are prepared to join in such a scheme and co-ordinate such efforts?Will he join me in paying tribute to organisations such as Red R, which are already engaged in providing people with technical skills to respond to emergencies around the world?

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that while our attention is fixed on the visible catastrophe around the Indian ocean, we should not forget the wider problems of world poverty. It is easy to forget that around the world some 30,000 young children die every day from diseases that are entirely preventable, or that almost 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day.

Britain's presidency of the G8 and of the EU gives us a singular opportunity to help lift people out of poverty by fighting for freer, fairer trade. Does the Prime Minister agree that free and fair trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty? While developed countries give with one hand by providing aid, all too often we take with the other by imposing tariffs.

The earthquake has been a disaster on a global scale. Tectonic plates clashing off the coast of Sumatra led to Britain's worst loss of civilian life since the second world war. Grief has known no boundaries, so why should we still maintain tariff barriers to keep goods out and perpetuate poverty at a time of want? Both the EU and the United States have imposed a tariff on clothes from Sri Lanka. Even since the disaster, new tariffs have been imposed on goods from Thailand. What representation has the Prime Minister made to the EU Trade Commissioner about these tariffs?

Protectionism by developed countries at the expense of the developing world must come to an end. It is both indefensible and immoral. Would not ending it be the most fitting tribute to the generosity of the British people and the most fitting memorial to those who have so tragically lost their lives?

First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his response. I shall try to deal with as many of the issues as I can. In respect of the money pledged, those pledges must be followed through and the money given. The UN will provide an update and we will raise that matter with it. I will make sure that Parliament is regularly updated on our contribution, as I have done today.

In respect of gift aid, I met the members of the DEC the other day and they raised the issue with me. The Inland Revenue is looking at this with them to see what help we can give. Obviously we must be careful as we must make sure that the system works in a proper and robust way. However, it is obviously right that they have better things to do than to send out letters.

In respect of Britain by comparison with other countries, I think that we have operated well by comparison with anyone. The best judges of that are those in other countries. In conversations that I have had with the Presidents of other countries and with the United Nations, great tribute has been paid, frankly, to the organisation and work of the Government, as well as to the generosity of the British people. More than 100 people, at the maximum, were, I believe, working in the call centres.

In respect of the emergency teams, they were deployed pretty much straight away. I do not know the answer to the point on the Sri Lankan team for 2001, but I can find out and let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know.

In respect of the numbers of dead and the figures, different countries have dealt with that in different ways. It is a difficult dilemma. Had we put out right at the beginning the overall number of missing—the people in the region—it would have been 7,000. That could have caused quite unnecessary upset and alarm. We waited until we thought we were in a better position, when the numbers had come substantially down.

We shall carry on updating people regularly on the numbers. The interesting thing is that over the past three days, the figure of 443 in category 1 of last Friday—that is, those highly likely to have been involved—has risen by only by 10. It was rising at a far greater rate in the few days before that, when it virtually doubled in a week. I am passing on the advice given me by experts working in the area in saying that there has to be caution even about these figures. There will be people who were in category 1 who have, fortunately and happily, turned up and come out of it. There will be people in category 2—currently there are 871, but that figure is down from more than 2,000 late last week—who will come through. Indeed, the figure may even be different as I stand and speak now.

The difficulty in giving a number is that a lot of caution must be attached to it. I was informed by Home Office research people that in respect of disasters that have happened in this country—for example, rail crashes and so on—there are still significant numbers of people missing some years after the event, although the overwhelming likelihood is that they are all well and alive. For that second category—the 871—we cannot be sure what will happen ultimately because people may remain on that list for a long period, but that does not necessarily mean that they have died in the disaster.

In respect of how people match up with those abroad—school to school, and community to community—I saw for myself in Shipley the other day that people are already doing that. If it can be facilitated through local authorities, that is a sensible suggestion, and Ministers and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are already looking at that.

In respect of the Red R, I totally agree with the work that it does.

In respect of the G8 and Africa, I agree that free and fair trade is obviously extremely important, and representations have, I understand, already been made, on Friday, about trade tariffs on Thailand. I have to say, though, that I think that all that is about more than simply trade, or indeed aid. The G8 deliberations and the Commission for Africa report on which the Government are working, with other countries and people around the world, will deal with trade, but will also deal specifically with the main killer diseases and with two issues that are not often put properly on the agenda in respect of Africa—conflict resolution and governance. Those matter, too. What is important is to have a comprehensive package to put forward. That package will be backed up; for the coming financial year, the Government have trebled aid to Africa from what it was a few years ago, and that is a major commitment. In my view, however, unless those other issues are dealt with as well, the public will lose heart about whether the money that they are putting into aid is actually going to be properly spent. That is why the measures in relation to conflict resolution and governance will also be a very important part of what we put forward.

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for his detailed statement this afternoon. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our complete sympathy and condolences to all those at home and abroad who have lost loved ones on such a colossal scale.

Despite the acres of television coverage over the past two awful weeks, it still seems hard to believe that, on our first day back after less than three weeks away, we should be having these exchanges about such monumental loss of life from such an unpredictable natural catastrophe, which has encompassed so much of the globe in the intervening period. The Prime Minister was surely right that there can be no one in the House who has not had direct contact with constituents, friends or family members who have been caught up in the aftermath of this catastrophe.

One person from my home area, where I have been spending the recess, Mr. David McCallum, was distraught because his son, daughter-in-law and grandson were in Thailand at the time. Initially, he had great difficulty, as did so many, in making contact through the emergency lines. He wanted me to put on record, however, that once those lines were up and running, he found them extremely helpful. I was glad that the Prime Minister went out of his way to pay tribute to those who have been manning those services. Given the scale of the catastrophe, its instantaneous nature and the difficulty of communications due to the destruction of infrastructure, their contribution has been positively heroic. We should all say that clearly.

That heroism has also been matched, as the Prime Minister rightly said, by the instinctive, spontaneous generosity of the British public. I therefore hope that, although the Prime Minister used the phrase "British Government money" in his statement, he would be the first to acknowledge that all British Government money, whether charitable or collected through taxation, is the British public's money, whatever source or means it comes through.

In terms of the lessons that the Prime Minister, the international community and all of us must draw, does he agree that this kind of global catastrophe underlines yet again the need for international responses through international institutions. Some predictable voices elsewhere, not least in north America, have been saying yet again that this is an example of the indolence or incompetence of structures such as the United Nations. Is not the Secretary-General correct to re-emphasise that the United Nations is but the sum of its constituent parts? The emphasis must therefore be to ensure that aid pledged is aid given and that the technological support made available is deployable by the United Nations through its agencies. The challenge to individual member states is to make that institution and others work better for the future.

On the United Nations, the Prime Minister referred rightly to the excellent contribution that the International Development Secretary made in a very considered speech before Christmas. Will one item for the International Development Secretary's New York discussions be the possibility of the UN establishing a well-trained, well-equipped, well-resourced standing rapid reaction disaster relief force, with a view to the future? While not being able to cope instantaneously with any disaster on such a scale, such a force would none the less have a standing infrastructure that could be mobilised more efficiently than is the case with the present more ad hoc approach of individual member states.

In terms of our leadership of the G8, will the Prime Minister agree that this country's response should be viewed not just as Britain in its own right but in terms of the role that we must play in the pivotal chair that we occupy, over this year of all years, against this backdrop? As well as dealing with the aftermath of this disaster, will he also therefore ensure that the agenda that he was rightly putting forward for the British chairmanship of the G8 is not deflected but enhanced as a result of the additional concentration of minds that must take place when we see the natural challenges on us as people?

On the question of money pledged and money delivered, can the Prime Minister say more about putting in place formal tracking systems for aid pledges so that Governments can be held to account? An example that has been cited recently was the last earthquake in Iran where $1 billion was pledged, yet Iran says that only $17.5 million ever found its way directly to the affected area. That is a lamentable reflection on all the countries involved and on the delivery mechanisms.

On debt relief, we very much welcome the Government's pledge to commit £100 million a year to write off debts owed to the UK by the poorest countries. Will that pledge be dependent on the conditionality of previous debt relief measures? Surely, the Prime Minister will agree that we must make sure that the money saved through debt relief is used to build basic poverty alleviation systems in the debtor countries. That, too, will be something on which the international community will look to us to give a lead in the G8 during the coming 12 calendar months.

This has been a most hellish and unimaginably grief-stricken period. The grief and grieving will be endless for so many, but what we can do, and what the House of Commons can help to contribute constructively through practical measures, will go some way at least to giving people the sense that their politicians are responding to the most fundamental human needs of all.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive response and ask him to pass on our thanks to Mr. McCallum for his kind words. It is worth pointing out that the maximum number of 999 calls in any day across the whole UK is approximately 25,000 and the centre was receiving 40,000 at its peak. The heroism, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly described it, of the staff everywhere is a tremendous tribute to them.

It is clear, and was clear in the days immediately following the tsunami, that the UN is the proper body to take things forward, and in my conversations with President Bush, he has entirely understood that. In any such situation, people want to make as immediate a response as they possibly can and obviously the United States will be a major player, particularly in respect of Indonesia, in getting help to them, but there is widespread acceptance everywhere that the United Nations is the appropriate body to lead this. That raises the issue of whether it is also the body with the right capability. The points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was making in his speech before Christmas are similar to the issue of ensuring that there is a standing capability able to go into action at any point in time. Over the last few years, in our own country, we have established the so-called Cobra process, which allows people to be pulled together quickly. That is not capability that needs to be in a state of constant readiness, but it needs to be able to be deployed in a ready state, if necessary. That is one of the issues that the UN will look at over the time to come.

It is important that we are not deflected from our G8 responsibilities in respect of Africa. Yes, we shall certainly use the G8, as we have set out, to push forward the programme on both Africa and climate change; we have made those two things the centrepiece of our G8 presidency. In the G8, our relationship with both America and the European Union will be immensely important in taking that forward.

On the amount of aid that will be spent, it is interesting that we have already spent £30 million of the £50 million that we immediately allocated; it is now up to £75 million. I think the money will be spent in this case, but it is important that we track it to ensure that.

Finally, on the moratorium on repayments—the servicing of the debt—those things will be looked at in the immediate and longer term at the meeting that will, I understand, take place on 5 February. We will play our full part in those discussions and attempt to put in place a long-term framework that backs up the UN reconstruction efforts.

The scale of the disaster is unprecedented in modern times and any comments we now make must be in that context. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the initial misplaced criticisms about the tardiness of our consular services, the jammed switchboards and so on have given way overwhelmingly to admiration by the public, and certainly the travel trade and others, of the quality of the response? Will he also confirm that this is a great opportunity for the United Nations and that he will do all that he can, both as leader of the G8 and, in the second half of the year, in the European Union, to find ways and means of enhancing the status and the co-ordinating role of the United Nations?

I agree with both points that my right hon. Friend made. It is also important to pay tribute to some of the companies that have given of their time and effort. There has been a remarkable response right across society—business as well as civic society. Yes, this is a chance for the EU to show its worth and the international will is there for it to do so.

The Prime Minister was right to talk about the efforts to avoid such a catastrophe in the future. Will he ask Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser, to consider the role of clusters of satellites? From my knowledge of the space industry, I know that it is possible to detect surface heights and changes in sea level. In this case, even with terrestrial warning systems, there probably could have been a 90-minute warning to people to get away from coastal areas. That is an essential way to give confidence to people when they go back to those regions that, next time, they will have a warning.

That is a very good point. Sir David King will, of course, look at the role that satellites can play. It is interesting that he informed me that the costs of providing such systems are not prohibitive in any way at all. Although we talk about this as being a natural disaster that was not preventable, some of its consequences undoubtedly would have been preventable if different systems had been in place.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to join me in recognising the magnificent effort of those in the Tamil community in north-west London, particularly in Colindale and Kingsbury. Last Friday, they loaded three full containers with aid—food, medicines, equipment and clothing—to send to Sri Lanka. Will he look into their fears that aid to Sri Lanka is not being distributed equitably—concerns that were exacerbated by the decision not to allow Kofi Annan to visit the badly hit Tamil areas during his recent trip to Sri Lanka?

I think that there will be a lot of concerns: once people have given, they will want to know that what they have given will be properly used. Our best estimate at the moment is that, obviously, issues will arise in the rush to get aid out, but we are satisfied that the aid is getting to the people who need it. We believe that, even in those areas of Sri Lanka that my hon. Friend described, everything possible is being done by the Sri Lankan Government and others.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that many people in this country have families and relatives in the affected countries, some of whom would like to go out to assist in the reconstruction effort and to comfort their families but cannot because of the immigration regulations? For example, Mr. Sasikumar, who is from Sri Lanka, lives in my constituency and is a hard-working newsagent. He has been in this country for six years and was granted political asylum. His application for British citizenship was submitted over a year ago, but it has yet to be determined, thus preventing him from going out to comfort his mother and family, as his father was killed. Is it possible that cases of that type, where there are compassionate grounds, could be fast-tracked?

I can certainly look into that, since I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituent will not be the only one in that position, although there may be complications as he is an asylum seeker. I will certainly look into that and let the hon. Gentleman know.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the very full statement that he has made to us this afternoon. May I underscore, from my own contacts with the Indonesian embassy, how in their grief, they have been much comforted by both the positive response of the Government and that of the people of the United Kingdom to the disaster in the Indian ocean? Although there have been immense difficulties in distributing aid in Banda Aceh, it is now beginning to get out, and the British Government have been very positive in the help that they have given there. However, in the medium to long-term, could the House have a quarterly report on progress on reconstruction, debt relief and tariff barrier changes, not just for Indonesia but for the other affected areas, because, for most of us, the disaster is beyond our comprehension?

I assure my hon. Friend that we will make sure that the House is regularly updated on those and other issues.

In his statement, the Prime Minister paid tribute to the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and what he said struck a chord in the House, but does he accept that that generosity of view may not be shared by those of our constituents who tried to get through to the call centre immediately after the disaster? I cannot be unique in having a constituent who lost a member of his family and who for two whole days was unable to get through. When he got through to Bangkok, his query was referred back to London, then to Hendon and then to Glasgow. Does the Prime Minister think that we did as well as we could have done, and if he does not, will he take steps to ensure that, the next time there is a disaster, it is easier for distressed people to talk to another human being, instead of getting the engaged tone or a recorded message?

I am very sorry about what happened to the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. Obviously, we will look at the lessons that can be learned about the rapidity of our response in such situations. On the whole, I think that those involved got it going about as fast as is humanly possible. As I said, the pressure in the first few days was enormous. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will look carefully at what lessons can be learned for the future.

I too lost a constituent in this terrible tragedy. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's comment in respect of Sir David King's activity. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Sir David's remit is sufficiently wide not just to cover issues of response and so on, but to help in the reconstruction of the science base in the countries affected, because they need at an indigenous level as much support as possible to build the mechanisms necessary to stop such events happening again?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will certainly make sure that Sir David's recommendations take account of that. There is also the issue of ensuring that all the scientific expertise in the world—some of it most prominently in this country—is put at the disposal of those countries, so that they can use it to put in place the requisite warning systems.

I apologise to the House for being late, but weather conditions in Northern Ireland are not favourable at the moment and the plane was delayed. I listened to the Prime Minister on the radio while coming in and heard the contributions made. I pay tribute to the generosity of our people across the United Kingdom, especially the Ulster people who themselves have been through great difficulties but have been most generous.

I have a connection with a church in south India of some 2,000 members. Eight hundred and fifty of them were killed in this terrible tragedy. The church needs to help the many, many children who were orphaned or who cannot be traced to any home in the community. I would like the Prime Minister to keep that in mind and to see that money for orphans will be made available in those areas. This will be an ongoing situation, and needs all the help that we can provide.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he said. As one part of the work that we are doing, and doing with the United Nations and the aid agencies concerned, we will continue to look particularly at the plight of children who have been orphaned. I hope that he will allow me through him to pass on our deep condolences to those in the village where so many people died in this terrible disaster.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a letter that he will have received last week from Alison Warner of Abbots Langley neighbourhood watch which sets out what they are doing to raise funds and proposes a more formal link between villages and towns in this country and many of those overseas that have been hit? Will he also consider how people in this country with skills that are much needed in the areas hit by the disaster can be helped to take part in voluntary schemes, so that they can go overseas and assist wherever possible?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents who have come together with such speed and generosity to help link up with those affected by the disaster. One of the things that we are discussing with the NGOs and aid agencies that are most active in the area is how we can facilitate volunteering. We will look at that, too. Many, many people—we have been inundated with calls—have expertise in particular areas and want to use that in the countries concerned.

One reason why people have been so generous in giving is probably the graphic nature of the pictures that have been sent back. I should like to think that the Prime Minister would join me in paying tribute to those brave reporters who have brought the pictures and radio stories back under very difficult circumstances. We criticise them often enough. Just occasionally perhaps we should recognise that they have done a good job.

Part of that generosity has been gifts in goods. We know that dry goods, medicines and household goods such as soaps and toiletries are in warehouses around the country, waiting to be shipped. It has been indicated that they will be shipped only on demand. Will the Prime Minister ensure that at the very least the goods are collected and collated, and if not shipped immediately, then shipped as and when appropriate?

We are working closely with the aid agencies on that and obviously we have agreed to pay the costs of transporting to those areas. Although a lot of goods and items will have accumulated, given the normal speed of operations in such circumstances, things are being moved. However, we will ensure that everything possible is done to get them out to the areas that need them as quickly as possible.

In respect of the media coverage, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It has in many ways been remarkable.

May I say how grateful we all are that the Government responded so speedily to this crisis? To a large extent, they have led the way.

I appreciated receiving a letter of 31 December from my right hon. Friends the International Development Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. However, one paragraph of it concerns me, and I should like the Prime Minister to assure me on it. It says:

"The FCO has established a package of assistance to be provided on a case by case basis to those who would otherwise not have the means to meet costs associated with the death or serious injury of a British national."

I hope that there will be no means-testing of assistance. Whether a victim was a millionaire or is from a family on a moderate income, equal assistance should be given. There should be no question of adding financial problems to the trauma that those people have already gone through.

There will be no question of adding any financial burdens to those families. That would obviously be wrong. I thank my hon. Friend, though, for his tribute to DFID and the Foreign Office. Indeed, tribute should also be paid to the Deputy Prime Minister for his co-ordinating work.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, may I fully associate myself with the Prime Minister's expressions of condolence and also the expressions of gratitude for those out in the field who are trying to relieve the situation?

I am pleased to hear that further Government aid will not be drawn from existing development or aid budgets. Can I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be no case for that to happen at any stage? May I respectfully ask him to consider supporting the initiative of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru that every Member should donate a day's pay to the relief effort?

I think that donations are a matter for individual Members, but I would be surprised if most hon. Members had not contributed in some way.

In respect of aid, we have made it clear that our aid programme—I single out Africa in particular—should not be prejudiced as a result of this relief programme. As I said, we will have made a significant contribution when all the different bits of the aid are added up, including the relief from the service repayments on the debt. As I said earlier last week, it will probably amount to several hundreds of millions of pounds.

One of the hardest things facing many UK families at this time is the waiting and the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will receive news of the death of a loved one or the good news that a loved one has been found. That is the case for the family of my constituent, Kevin Barnett, who are waiting for news of their son, who has been moved up to category 1. What can my right hon. Friend do to assure the family not only that every resource is being deployed to identify those who are missing but that, should any more resources be needed, they will be deployed? Finally, will he join me in commending the work of the liaison officers, who have been such a crutch for many families at this time?

I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents, who will be having an absolutely hellish time. We all feel for them. I thank him for his kind words about the family liaison officers. They have been extremely valuable to people and have worked very hard. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can in terms of any resources that are needed. I should say that the British forensic experts working in the region with those of many other countries have been doing a marvellous job in distressing and difficult circumstances.

Further to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about Sri Lanka, what assurances has he sought and received directly from President Kumaratunga that aid will be given to all stricken communities, including those in the north and east of the island? If he receives evidence that the Colombo Government are falling short of fulfilling their humanitarian responsibilities, will he ensure that the British Government follow the lead of the Italian, Danish and Norwegian Governments and freight aid direct to those communities, even in Tamil-led and Tamil-controlled areas?

The Sri Lankan Government have given that assurance very strongly, and they repeated it in Jakarta on Thursday. We will make sure that that is held to. We have to look at the best way of getting aid out to people. Normally, that will be working through the Government concerned, but it is important that aid gets to every part of Sri Lanka, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything that we can to facilitate that.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the Government's rapid support for a moratorium on debt repayments, which will probably be the greatest help to the victims at the end of the day? Given the scale of the disaster and how long it is likely to be before reconstruction work can be completed, does he agree that there should be an independent assessment of how sustainable debt now is for the affected countries, and does he agree that unsustainable debt should be cancelled?

That is precisely what the conference on 5 February will examine and the World Bank will by then have produced its report on the reconstruction effort needed in Indonesia in particular.

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), I think that the whole House would hope to see debt cancellation, wherever possible, rather than a debt moratorium. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is not just a case of Africa or Asia but that what we are all looking for in the G8 year is a strategy for the whole of the developing world? Will he confirm also that, during 2005, the wealthy nations of the world have somehow to work out how we find the extra $50 billion a year for the next 10 years that is required if we are to have any hope of meeting the millennium development goals by 2015?

On the latter point, that is precisely what we are doing. We are trying to mobilise international support behind what would be a G8 plan. We have to consider debt cancellation very carefully because it is important to realise that some countries do not want that. It is important also that we are careful for the future about what messages we are sending out. We need to examine the issue with care, but I have said that we will do whatever we can to help these countries. It is interesting that some countries have already indicated that they would prefer a different means of help.

Given the British public's magnificent response and the important points that my right hon. Friend made at the end of his statement about the links with poverty in Africa and elsewhere, should not the Government take the high ground in these matters? I am not complaining about what is being done, but more can always be done in these circumstances. Ideas such as the Tobin tax, a ring-fenced increase in higher levels of income taxation and the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product could then be things that we consider delivering in this year in which we are supposed to be making poverty history.

It is important that we occupy the high ground, although we must be sure that it is firm as well as high. We as a Government have set out for the first time how we can meet the UN's 0.7 per cent. GNP objective. The international finance facility that we have proposed is one way to raise that money and trebling our aid to Africa is also important. However, we must make sure that any measures that we take ultimately help the international economy and do not hinder it, which is why we must consider some of the proposals with a certain amount of care.

Is the Prime Minister aware of an initiative being launched in the House of Commons on Wednesday after Prime Minister's questions, when a House of Commons all-party group will draw attention to the need for increased consumption in this country of Sri Lankan fish, with fish being specially flown over for the occasion? It will also raise funds for Sri Lanka's decimated fishing fleet—10,000 to 20,000 boats have been lost. Money can be raised for individual boats, with the boats named after the donors. Will he give that initiative—nicknamed "fish and ships"—his imprimatur?

I am happy to do that, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to attend the meeting.

As one who has total confidence in Sir David King as Government chief scientific adviser, may I ask whether we are absolutely sure whether hazard protection is best achieved on a national, rather than an international, basis? What are the terms of reference of Sir David King and his group of experts and what is the time scale for their report?

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend back in his place again. To answer his question about terms of reference, because some of the experts on the subject are here in this country, I have told David King to bring them together so that we can make proposals, probably to the United Nations, in a reasonably informal way. I think that much of the work will be done at international, rather than national, level and that the UN will be able to lead it. What I thought was interesting about the presentation that Sir David gave me the other day was that he did not feel that the costs would be that great—in other words, the precautionary cost would be quite small, given the extraordinary cost of the disaster that has occurred.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Defence questions today the Secretary of State for Defence, responding to the second question, took it upon himself to make a substantive announcement about the deployment of more troops to Iraq. You witnessed the reaction on the Opposition Benches and the silence on the Government Benches. No formal notice was given in the question asked, which was about post-war reconstruction, not troop deployment, nor did the right hon. Gentleman ask to make a statement, even though in the past the matter would have merited a full statement. The only notice that the House had was the shamelessly trailed information in the media over the weekend.

I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker. On an issue of such importance, the practice of the House has been that notice is given of a statement, and a detailed statement is made, in response to which hon. Members are entitled to ask detailed questions. On this occasion, we understand that an extra 650 troops are to be deployed to Iraq, but we have no further details of their objectives or their location. That is unsatisfactory—[Interruption.] Someone is saying that we are in favour of it; we probably will be, but how can we know until we know the details of what the Government are proposing? Unless we have your protection in these matters, the Government will increasingly get away with slipping out such information, showing disgraceful contempt not only for the House but for the soldiers and their families.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point of order with me, the custodian of the rules of the House of Commons. The Secretary of State was in order. There was no abuse of the rules.

I point out that of the first 10 questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, six were related to Iraq. The purpose of parliamentary questions and Question Time is to allow hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, to draw information from Ministers, and they had at least six opportunities to do so.

The rules are for me to enforce. I repeat: the Secretary of State for Defence was in order and there was no abuse of the rules of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Secretary of State made his statement in response to Question 2, only two Labour Members rose to ask supplementary questions. You, Mr. Speaker, showing exquisite balance throughout the subsequent supplementary questions, called the same number of Opposition Members as Government Members. On such occasions, would it be appropriate, when there are many Opposition Members seeking to question the Government, for the balance to be suspended, to enable the Secretary of State properly to be held to account?

Sometimes the hon. Gentleman observes things that suit his case and does not observe things that do not. He may have noticed that the Opposition Front Bench, at short notice, was able to ask two supplementary questions. I say that because it was the intention of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to seek to ask a supplementary question on another question. To ensure that there would be a fairer number of questions coming from Opposition Members, I allowed the privilege to be given at short notice.

I do not wish to pursue this matter. I have made a ruling.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The central purpose of the Bill is to improve the local environment, which directly affects people's quality of life. In my Department's five-year strategy, which we published last month, I set out our key objective of achieving environmental leadership. That is at the heart of our international agenda, but care for the environment begins at home.

When asked what is most important to them about the environment, most people mention the state of their own neighbourhood. That is not to say that there is not general concern about instances or levels of pollution, or concern about environmental hazards. When asked whether they have anxieties about the environment, the vast majority of our fellow citizens answer yes, but go on to talk about their locality, and especially about comparatively small-scale defacement of streets and parks, about run-down and decaying areas and about litter and dumping, over which it appears to them that no one takes action and no one cares.

Contrary to the reasoned amendment, that concern is felt and expressed just as much in rural areas as in urban areas. I was surprised to learn from their amendment that the Opposition appear to be so little in touch with concerns in rural areas as not to realise that.

Are those concerns reflected by the generously endowed Labour Benches this afternoon, with Labour Members representing rural and urban areas, compared with the sparse attendance by Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there are about 180 Labour Members in rural and semi-rural constituencies. I have long believed that this was in notable part due to the fact that people living in those areas felt that their concerns were not understood. They feel that their concerns are better understood now. He is right to point out that that feeling is reflected in the Chamber.

If we are to create a genuinely sustainable society, we must tackle the more local aspects of environmental degradation and damage as well as dealing with our contribution to global warming. The Bill is an integral part of our environmental strategy. It is also an integral part of the Government's strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The damage done to the community by such behaviour is clear: dirty streets, burned-out cars and piles of fly-tipped rubbish have a self-evident effect. What may be less immediately obvious is the financial aspect of such damage. It costs local authorities and other agencies, and thereby the taxpayer, more than £3 billion a year. The greater and, in some ways, more damaging costs may be hidden, as they are not evident in the physical appearance of our streets and neighbourhoods or in any effect on council tax or other bills. That greater cost lies in the contribution of such behaviour and of the attitudes behind it to wider criminal behaviour and to making a community feel neglected, powerless, unsafe and insecure.

The Labour party has long taken the lead in identifying and tackling that complex continuum of behaviour, which ranges from comparatively low-level environmental offences such as dropping litter and fly-posting to spraying graffiti, vandalism and more serious crimes. To deal with crime effectively, we have increasingly recognised the need to tackle the full range of criminal and antisocial behaviour. It is essential that we do not ignore low-level offences and allow a degraded local environment to give both victims and offenders the message that antisocial behaviour does not matter.

The measures in the Bill should help all those involved in local communities, rural as well as urban, to create neighbourhoods in which people are happy to live— cleaner, safer and greener communities. That means clean and safe streets, well-designed public buildings and spaces, welcoming parks and village greens, and a countryside free of fly-tipped waste. All those contribute to people's sense of well-being and to their overall health. The purpose of the Bill is to contribute to people's quality of life. Our belief that it will do so is based on extensive consultations led by my Department over the past two years, including our "Clean Neighbourhoods" consultation last summer, which aimed first to identify the problems and then to explore the solutions.

On the issue of consultation, the Secretary of State may be aware that dog welfare organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and so on—I shall not list them all, but no doubt they have contacted the Department—are concerned about the proposals for stray dogs in clause 68. What consultation has she or her colleagues had with the representative bodies of animal welfare charities that deal with stray dogs? I am sure that her intentions are good, but we would like to know what they have said to her.

There has been general and wide consultation on the issue, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I shall say a little more about dogs later.

The measures in this Bill respond directly to what local authorities and others told us in the consultation about obstacles to the enforcement of existing legislation, why some provisions are difficult to use, and about the changes that are needed if authorities are to tackle antisocial behaviour and environmental problems effectively. The Bill gives them the new powers and better tools for which they asked. It also gives new powers to parish councils so that the most local level of our democratic structures can play a part in making things better. Again, that recognises that there are problems in rural areas and that the best chance of tackling them is to empower parish councils to act in their own locality.

My right hon. Friend has just mentioned an important part of the Bill, in which I declare an interest as a town councillor. Does she agree that it is wrong to regard the problem as either rural or urban, because waste goes from one area to another, usually, but not always, from urban to rural areas on the outskirts of larger cities? We must therefore tackle the problem overall, and does she agree that one way of doing so is by looking at the first tier of local government?

Yes, I do. The issue that my hon. Friend and others have identified reflects the concerns of their contacts in local communities. Within the farming community, for example, there is widespread concern about the impact of some of those problems, and he is mindful of that.

The Bill requires crime and disorder reduction partnerships to tackle environmental crime where it is a priority in their area. That is something that the best partnerships are already doing, but others have been slower to recognise the evidence of the impact of such crime and to take action.

I should say at once that we do not want to be prescriptive about the strategies that those partnerships are required to develop. Where environmental crime is not much of a problem, we do not demand that it feature in a strategy—the whole point of the partnership approach set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is to tackle offending as it affects individual communities—but where local environments are degraded, and especially where antisocial behaviour has taken root, we do expect local partnerships to tackle the problem robustly. Our approach, which has been strongly endorsed by senior police representatives, should ensure that local partnerships consider all the issues leading to crime and disorder in their communities, including environmental crime. To help them do so, we have drawn on the results of our consultation to give greater powers and greater flexibility to authorities and agencies to tackle such problems.

For example, alleyways giving rear access to properties are common in our towns and cities. Sadly, many provide opportunities for crime and are a magnet for antisocial behaviour. We plan to address the problem of nuisance alleyways by enabling local authorities to gate them more easily. This will allow local authorities for the first time to gate all alleyways that provide a haven for crime and antisocial behaviour, but it will also allow greater flexibility to make gating reversible, should local conditions improve or local needs change.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in respect of unadopted alleyways? As the Bill goes through Committee, will she consider whether additional funding can be found to ensure that unadopted alleyways are adopted, so that they can be dealt with under the new legislation?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which I am sure will be explored in Committee. Hitherto the major problem that has arisen in connection with gating alleyways has been access, and access legislation. That is what we are striving to overcome by means of the Bill.

Nuisance and abandoned vehicles often blight urban and rural communities alike. The Government intend to secure a major reduction in their number. The continuous registration scheme launched last year has resulted in a 65 per cent. reduction in the number of untaxed vehicles, and there has been a 30 per cent. reduction, for example, in abandoned vehicles in Kent following the national launch of Operation Cubit, which is a partnership between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, local authorities and the police and fire service to speed up the disposal of abandoned vehicles.

The Bill will also contribute to the Government's nuisance vehicle strategy, strengthening the existing powers of local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles from the streets and enabling them for the first time to do so as soon as an abandoned vehicle is identified. This should significantly reduce opportunities for arson and vandalism. Deliberate arson of motor vehicles costs some £230 million pounds a year. Common sense alone suggests that most of them are likely to be abandoned vehicles, so speedier removal should help to cut costs and reduce incidents that are both a nuisance and a danger.

I welcome the Bill, and especially this part, which will be of great assistance to many in my constituency. May I ask the Secretary of State two questions about this part? First, has she responded to the recommendation from the Environmental Audit Committee that local authorities should have ease of access to the DVLA database to identify the owners of abandoned vehicles? That was a key recommendation, to which the Government have not yet responded. The Bill is an opportunity to deliver it. Secondly, although I welcome the extension of getting rid of vehicles from streets to areas to which the public have access, one of the problems in my area is vehicles abandoned on farmland, which become the responsibility of the farmer. What does the Bill have to say about that?

Both the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised might be best explored in Committee. I take his point about the database. There has been some discussion about whether and to what extent access creates a problem, but we believe that the powers that we are giving will assist local authorities. If, when the Bill is explored in Committee, there is any suggestion—and evidence to back it up—that it is defective in some way, we will look into that. We discussed fly-tipping in rural communities earlier, and I am well aware that, as the hon. Gentleman says, abandoned vehicles are also a problem in some parts of the country.

Last year, tragically, a youngster was killed in an abandoned vehicle on unfenced private property in my constituency. If during the Bill's progress a way could be found of giving councils authority to enter such land to remove dangerous vehicles, it would be a great comfort to the family who lost their son so tragically.

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, which I am sure will be explored in Committee. Obviously there are problems with authorities' going on to private land without permission, but I take his point—as I am sure all Members do—about the problems that can be caused in certain localities, and the dangers to children.

The Bill allows authorities to tackle a not uncommon neighbourhood problem by making it an offence to repair or sell a vehicle on a road as part of a business. It will also make dealing with offenders more cost-effective, securing better value for money for the taxpayer. It is both expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to have to prosecute offenders through the courts, and their full costs are often not recovered even in the case of successful prosecutions. We are told that that is one key reason why authorities can be reluctant to prosecute for environmental crimes. To allow and encourage better enforcement, the Bill significantly increases the number of offences for which fixed penalties can be used as an alternative to prosecution.

The Bill makes a number of other changes that should promote enforcement. In particular, for the first time local authorities will be able to retain all receipts from fixed penalties. That too will help to offset the cost of enforcing the legislation. It must be right for offenders, rather than council tax payers, to bear the impact of such costs whenever possible.

As my right hon. Friend will know, local authorities were first granted powers to retain receipts from fines by the Local Government Act 2003. Is she disappointed that, more than a year later, so many authorities have not taken up those powers? According to information from her Department, only 76 of 359 authorities have exercised them. Has she a message for those authorities?

As my hon. Friend says, some authorities have used those powers well while others have been reluctant to do so. As I have said, there has been extensive consultation with authorities. That is part of the Bill's message. Although there are aspects that Members will want to discuss in Committee, we have done as much as we feel we can to address the major concerns of authorities, and to make it possible for them to use these powers to tackle problems that cause such distress in their communities. Having made the powers available, we hope and expect that authorities will use them when such problems arise.

Will any part of the Bill give powers to the taxpayer? A constituent of mine wants a local authority to restrict the hours during which a playing field abutting his property is used. The noise from the playing field is making him ill and he is starting to become very distressed, but he cannot persuade the local authority to close the field during the evenings. What comeback is possible for the ordinary taxpayer when a local authority will not exercise its powers?

I should have thought that existing powers could be used if the noise and difficulty were considered to be so great, but other powers in the Bill relate to noise, and it may be possible to explore the issue as the Bill proceeds.

I said a moment ago that local authorities would be able to retain the receipts from fixed penalties. Another important point is that in most cases they will be able to vary the amount of penalties to reflect local conditions. There will also be a power in all cases to offer discounts for early payment. Again, therefore, we have tried not just to incentivise enforcement but to give authorities much greater flexibility to shape their enforcement policy to what they judge to be local needs. To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), that will remove the excuse, if one may put it that way, for not using such powers, because local authorities will have much more flexibility to shape policy to local circumstances.

In the same vein, reflecting the desire for local solutions to local problems, we are extending the power to issue fixed penalty notices to parish and town councils and to the equivalent community councils in Wales. Those notices will cover a range of offences relating to litter, graffiti, fly-posting and dogs, all of which can degrade neighbourhoods.

Parish councils may often be best placed to deal with those essentially local problems. We recognise that not all parish councils will want or be able to take advantage of those powers, but others will welcome them and already have the necessary skills and resources. Extending powers to issue fixed penalty notices will strengthen the ability of local communities to deal with those problems. Parish councils, representing as they do our most local level of government, are often best placed to understand both the causes and the needs of the victims of such crimes.

Everywhere, litter is a growing problem, and the Bill contains a range of measures to help to tackle it. Under current law, littering on a footpath is an offence but littering in a private garden or in a river is not. We will close that loophole by making it an offence to drop litter anywhere, including on private land and rivers, lakes and ponds. That will make it clear once and for all that dropping litter anywhere is unacceptable.

All hon. Members will probably be familiar with the particular problem of littering on patches of open land. We will give local authorities a new power to require the owner or occupier of land that is heavily defaced with litter to clear it and to prevent it from becoming heavily littered again. That will replace the current system of litter control areas, which local authorities tell us they find burdensome, which they rarely use and which applies only to specific types of land.

My right hon. Friend mentioned fly-tipping. Does she accept that there is a particular problem with gas cylinders? Industry and shops no longer accept rival brands of cylinders. Not only are they dumped in rural locations but they are left in abandoned buildings, which could cause a particular threat to our fire service should a fire happen in that building.

My hon. Friend rightly highlights a specific problem. I must admit that it has not been raised with me specifically, but I take his point entirely and I hope that the powers that we are giving will enable it to be dealt with.

On the streets, litter control notices can help in dealing with litter generated by businesses such as fast food outlets. However, they, too, are difficult to enforce, with local authorities currently required to seek a court order. We will dispense with that step to make such notices easier to use.

We will also give local authorities new powers to control the distribution of flyers and leaflets, both of which can contribute to street litter, although I say at once to ease anyone's anxiety that political leafleting will not be affected. The Bill confirms once and for all that discarded cigarette butts and chewing gum are litter, and that it is an offence to discard them in the street. That makes the law explicit and should remove any lingering doubts, whether among local authorities or others.

Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise about the reference in the amendment to the need to make producers more responsible, and does she welcome, as I do, the industry's steps to approach her Department to show at an early stage how it could play a role in this matter?

As my hon. Friend may be aware, there has been extensive discussion between the industry and Ministers. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will shortly visit one of the major companies. We are mindful of the need, as are the producers, as she rightly says, to engage in the discussions.

Graffiti often degrades our communities and is often the result of young people using spray paints illegally. The Bill tries to reduce the problem at source by reinforcing existing legislation banning their sale to those aged under 16, and it will also make it easier to prosecute retailers who sell spray paints to that age group. The provisions are in addition to the provision in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 that addresses the removal of graffiti in public spaces through graffiti removal notices. The Bill will extend that to cover fly-posting—another highly visible blight on our communities. As the Environmental Audit Committee pointed out in its report, the problem of fly-posting might be exacerbated by its potential commercial advantage in terms of low-cost event advertising. To help local authorities deal more effectively with illegally displayed advertisements, we are making it more difficult for those who benefit from such illegal advertising to avoid charges simply by claiming that they did not consent to it. We will also make it easier for local authorities to recover the cost of removing fly-posters.

Of course, the issue of waste goes beyond simple littering and fly-posting, as a number of interventions have highlighted. The illegal disposal of waste—fly-tipping—is a real problem in both town and countryside. As well as degrading the local area, it can have environmental and health risks, so we are also providing a range of measures to strengthen the legislation on, and penalties for, fly-tipping. That will enable the Environment Agency and local authorities to deal more effectively, and immediately, with those responsible. We intend to send out a clear message that this is a serious environmental crime that will not be tolerated.

The Bill will make it more difficult for those who transport waste illegally to evade the law. The circumstances in which enforcement agencies can currently stop, search and seize vehicles that could be involved in fly-tipping are somewhat limited, so we will widen and simplify their powers to do so. We will strengthen the courts' powers to deal with fly-tippers by raising the maximum penalty in a magistrates court to £50,000, and by harmonising the penalties for fly-tipping hazardous and non-hazardous waste to a maximum of five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. The courts will also get additional sentencing powers.

The Bill contains a number of other provisions relating to waste that will help local authorities to carry out their waste management obligations more effectively. For example, they will be given the power to issue a fixed penalty notice for waste left out on the streets, provided that they have previously given clear instructions on the arrangements for waste collection.

Finally on waste, we will reform the recycling credit scheme, the original purpose of which was to encourage local authorities to recycle household waste. The scheme does not sit comfortably with the newer economic and regulatory measures that we have put in place to promote recycling and re-use. Reform of it will allow local authorities to agree alternative ways of encouraging recycling, as fit best with local circumstances. That increased flexibility will itself contribute to sustainable waste management, and will promote better working between waste authorities, the community and businesses. It ties in well with the announcement in our five-year plan of novel ways to increase recycling through a major new retailer recycling initiative in conjunction with supermarkets, which will be launched this year; and with a Waste and Resources Action Programme project to pilot, in conjunction with supermarkets, new approaches such as financial incentives, discount vouchers and new technology. Recycling has already more than doubled since 1996–97, and we are working hard with local authorities and other partners to build on that.

The Bill contains new arrangements for controlling dogs, replacing the current dog byelaw system. They give district and parish councils greater freedom of action through new powers that will be simpler and easier to use, without the need for central Government confirmation. They also give local authorities full responsibility for dealing with strays, in order to relieve—at their request—pressure on the police.

We are doing more to deal with the other nuisances that can make people's daily lives a misery. Nuisance caused by noise can be a major problem for those who live nearby. New measures for dealing with noise from malfunctioning burglar alarms, and from pubs and clubs at night, will help to alleviate these common disturbances. We are also extending the statutory nuisance regime to include two further nuisances that can degrade local quality of life: artificial light and nuisance from insects, both of which have given rise to public demand for greater action. Over-bright and badly sited security and other lighting can cause real problems for those who live nearby, and insect infestations attracted by activities such as sewage treatment works make local people's lives a real misery in certain locations. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) for repeatedly bringing these issues to my ministerial team's attention as a result of their constituency experience, and for working with us on this issue. The changes that we are proposing will enable local authorities to intervene. While we hope that most disputes will then be resolved through mediation, legal action will be made possible in the last resort.

The Bill puts the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment on a statutory basis. Its establishment as a private company was an interim measure, but one that left it outside the ambit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The commission's role will be unaffected—it is not a new quango—but its accountability to Parliament will be enhanced.

The Bill will play a major role in the Government's strategy for improving the environment, for developing a more sustainable future and for dealing with more of the antisocial behaviour that can blight communities. It builds on the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and responds to calls by local authorities and others for practical tools that they can use to promote cleaner, safer, greener communities.

Few things contribute more to a feeling of powerlessness and disaffection in local communities than the persistence of sometimes relatively small-scale but distressing problems that no one seems willing or able to address. If, as our consultation suggests, the powers, flexibility and localised focus of the measures in the Bill will help to ensure that such issues are addressed, it will mean, for many of our fellow citizens, a real improvement in their quality of life. I commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill a Second Reading because the Bill focuses predominantly on urban issues while neglecting rural areas, creates another unnecessary quango and brings local authorities into conflict with police and other authorities which currently exercise powers in relation to abandoned vehicles and stray dogs; because the Bill introduces provisions, such as clearing up chewing gum as extensively and frequently as litter, which will be prohibitively expensive yet fail to take account of producer responsibility; and because the Bill contains many unnecessary provisions which would not be needed if existing legislation were properly enforced.

I begin by welcoming the Government's recognition of the growing threats to our environment. Part of the threat exists at the global level in terms of challenges such as climate change—an issue on which, so far, the Government's response appears to be all talk. The floods experienced in the north-west over the weekend are an example of the damage that climate change can cause locally, but we are not even hearing any talk from Ministers—not in Parliament, at least—about that.

I also accept that part of the threat to the environment is indeed evident at local level. I agree with the Secretary of State that many of the issues that matter deeply to a great many families and individuals throughout the country relate to what is going on in their immediate environment. The consequences of more litter, fly-tipping, graffiti, fly-posting, abandoned cars and so forth mean that more and more people are suffering from dirty streets, which can turn into run-down neighbourhoods and then to an increase in antisocial behaviour. Those consequences are part of our daily lives.

The threats to both the global and the local environment are important and both need action by the Government. Sadly, although they have begun to admit to the existence of the problem, all the Government have managed to do in this Bill is to cobble together a hotch-potch of measures, some of which are incoherent. Some may be individually useful, but in many cases, local authorities may struggle to enforce them. Many would not be needed at all if existing powers were being properly utilised and if other aspects of Government policy were designed to address the problems that have been identified.

A great many reports have confirmed the often depressing day-to-day experience of most city dwellers and of many who live in the countryside—the ugly intrusion into our lives and the degradation of our environment caused by careless attitudes towards the disposal of unwanted items, whether it be chewing gum, old cars or many other items. Another cause is the lack of respect for both the built and the natural environment and for property that does not belong to any particular individual. Increasingly, too, we suffer from noise and light pollution—forms of environmental damage that can be just as offensive as poor air quality and, in certain circumstances, equally damaging to health.

Damage to the environment derives from a great variety of sources, and Government policy can be one of them. In its 2002 report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee pointed to the ghastly fiasco of the fridge mountain. Substantial costs were also suffered by taxpayers because the Government accepted new EU regulations without having the faintest idea of their implications. Individual and corporate behaviour is another source of environmental damage and criminal elements are believed to be at work, too.

A variety of organisations have produced evidence recently about the scale of the problems that we face. ENCAMS reported a 12 per cent. increase in litter last year; and the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted a 43 per cent. rise in the amount of fly-tipping dealt with by the Environment Agency since 2001. DEFRA's own municipal waste management survey highlights a 38 per cent. increase in the number of abandoned vehicles on the street. I am not sure whether the people who drafted the end-of-life vehicles directive had that outcome in mind, but that has been the effect of its introduction. There are nearly 100,000 abandoned vehicles in London alone, three for every 100 households; many are unlicensed and a significant number get vandalised.

According to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the area of land in England that experiences severe light pollution rose by 17 per cent. between 1993 and 2000.

I found it incredible that the Opposition intended to vote against Second Reading and I have listened with bated breath for six minutes to a litany of wrongs, but not one remedy has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party owes it to the electorate—this will be an election issue—to suggest alternatives to the measures outlined in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient for a bit longer. I was emphasising what I had rather assumed might be common ground between the Government and the Opposition: that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, a problem that, in any number of important respects, is getting worse rather than better.

Why vote against the Bill, then?

We are voting against the Bill because we do not think that the remedies proposed are likely to be particularly effective and because we are concerned about areas of omission to which I shall refer shortly. We also suspect that the burden that the Bill will place on local authorities will not be matched by any accompanying funding.

One of the reasons why the Opposition seek to vote against Second Reading is that they have created this false dichotomy between urban and rural areas. I represent a seat that would be described by the National Farmers Union as an urban fringe seat, and the NFU's evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee said that, in 2000, 67 per cent. of farmers complained of fly-tipping on their land. In what way will the Opposition's stance help me and my farmers who suffer from that problem?

The Government have been in power for quite a long time and seem to have woken up to some of the issues. On fly-tipping, I am not opposed to all the measures in the Bill. [Interruption.] There are "Oohs" and "Aahs" of excitement from Government Members, but just because a Bill is so deeply flawed that without substantial amendment it would be better were it not to be passed does not prevent us from supporting some of its measures. Some of those relating to fly-tipping are important and we support them because we regard the problem of fly-tipping at least as seriously as the hon. Gentleman and the NFU members polled in the survey to which he referred. I am as keen as anyone to see more effective measures taken against what seems to be an increasing problem, to which I will refer again later.

Complaints about noise have doubled in the last five years and the number of noise abatement notices has increased proportionately. However, it is not only the environment that suffers; it is also the taxpayer.

The Local Government Association has estimated that local authorities spend £35 billion a year on moving abandoned vehicles. The Environment Agency has estimated that fly-tipping costs the UK economy £150 million a year. Indeed, ENCAMS has suggested that the number of individual local authorities that have to spend more than £40,000 to deal with fly-tipping has quadrupled. The Greater London Assembly says that London boroughs and transport companies spend £13 million a year on graffiti removal, on top, of course, of what private individuals and businesses spend.

Part of the problem of waste is the result of our failure to achieve better performance in relation to recycling. Britain recycles only a quarter as much household waste as Germany does and within the total recycling rates achieved by Britain, there are huge variations from one local authority to another. Conservative-led Daventry recycles 44 per cent. of waste, closely followed by Conservative-led Lichfield. That puts to shame Labour-controlled Sunderland, Labour-controlled Manchester and Liberal Democrat-controlled Liverpool, each of which musters a paltry 2 per cent. waste recycling rate.

Very selective.

I will be less selective, then. The 10 worst local authorities, none of which managed to recycle more than 4 per cent. of its waste, consist of nine Labour authorities and one Liberal Democrat authority. None of the worst performers is Conservative. By contrast, of the 10 best-performing local authorities, which all recycle more than 27 per cent. of waste, or seven times as much as the worst ones, five—surprise, surprise—are Conservative authorities, four are in no overall control and one is Liberal Democrat. Not a single one of the best performers is a Labour authority.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is widely considered that in many circumstances fly-tipping is a direct result of people attempting to enforce better recycling and what goes with it, rather than not enforcing better recycling? Given what he has just said, does it make any sense at all for his party to vote against the Bill?

I am not sure that I understood what point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make. If our recycling performance were better, the problem of waste would diminish and some of the adverse consequences that we are debating would take care of themselves. If there were less waste to be disposed of, because more was being recycled, the challenge we face would be at least partly addressed.