This is a timely debate coming just days after the closure of consultation on the document entitled "Where shall we live?", which sets out the allocation of houses within Hampshire. It might be seen as a curtain raiser for next month's visit by the Minister for Communities and Local Government to Hampshire to discuss the document and its infrastructure implications. I wish to talk about how the plan will affect Hampshire and explain its particular effect on south Hampshire, in which I include the unitary authority areas of Southampton and Portsmouth. I wish first, however, to deal with the issues that will affect the whole of Hampshire.

The consultation process closed on Friday. The county council did as much as it could within the time scale and with the resources available to ensure that the proposals for housing allocation throughout Hampshire were communicated to as many people as possible. I know from a well attended public meeting in my constituency a week last Friday that less than half of the people there had read the document. Furthermore, because of the consultation timetable, some of the work that should have underpinned it, such as understanding the infrastructure needs of the additional houses, had not been completed.

Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am that no study has been made to assess the impact on the New Forest of any of the options? Does he agree that infrastructure requirements include day-to-day needs for recreation because, frankly, the New Forest cannot accommodate that?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the New Forest national park authority said that development in the east of the county will have an impact on the New Forest itself, especially on the roads going through it. If more people are to be living in Hampshire, they will want recreation and will look to the New Forest as a natural place to visit.

The lack of detailed preparation applies not only to recreation. There is a lack of detail about some of the transport issues associated with the plan. For example, the consultation document on the strategic development area north of the M27 stated:

"It would have new/improved transport links to Fareham and Portsmouth",

but made no reference to what the links might be. They could range from a better bus service to a new dual carriageway or a new motorway junction. The process is structured in such a way that it is not helpful to those who wish to participate, to those who want to understand its implications and to those who ultimately have to consent to the development.

"Where shall we live?" sets out the allocation of new housing throughout Hampshire. In south Hampshire, 80,000 homes are planned to be built between 2006 and 2026. It is planned to build 16,000 homes in central Hampshire and the New Forest, and 26,000 homes in north Hampshire. That is a total of 122,000 homes. One in five of the almost 600,000 homes that are to be built in the south-east between 2006 and 2026 will be built in Hampshire.

The new development will be provided in one of three ways. First, there will be development within existing towns and cities. In south Hampshire that will focus particularly on Portsmouth and Southampton. Secondly, there could be urban extensions to towns throughout Hampshire to places such as Waterlooville and, thirdly, there could be two new strategic development areas in south Hampshire. Each method will have its own implications for the communities that it affects. However, one factor unites all the communities: infrastructure. What will it be? Who will pay for it? The centrality of the issue to the people of Hampshire is illustrated by a comment in the consultation document. It states:

"there must be clear guarantees of investment—by the public and private sector together—in physical and community infrastructure to support growth. This means investment to improve such things as roads and other transport facilities, water and sewerage systems, schools and health facilities."

However, local residents are sceptical about the Government's willingness to commit to the funding of the infrastructure needed to support the new development. Although we recognise the important role that developers' contributions will play in funding the infrastructure, we must also recognise that those will be insufficient to meet its full cost and that some of that cost will have to be borne by central Government.

Local people would like to see some conditionality: the Government and local authorities making an objective assessment of what infrastructure is needed—whether improvements to the road network between the M3 and the M4, or the sewerage and water requirements—for the 122,000 homes. Having agreed on that, they should agree on who would meet the cost, when it would be delivered and how housing development should be phased in line with that.

Ultimately, we would like to see the Government sign up to the plan, manage and monitor approach so that development would not run ahead of infrastructure, and that when infrastructure was lagging, the release of land for housing development would slow or stop. In effect, we are looking for a guarantee that the Government will foot their share of the Bill for the major infrastructure investment needed as a precondition for housing development—no infrastructure, no development.

Is it not the case that not only local residents have doubts about whether the infrastructure will be made available? A Select Committee of this House also expressed similar doubts when it considered the south-east plan and it looked for similar reassurances from the Government.

Indeed; my right hon. Friend is right—the Select Committee also had doubts. Furthermore, in its work on sustainable development in the south-east, the Institute for Public Policy Research raised the same issues. There is widespread concern that the Government are not prepared to pay their share for the development. The Government need to recognise the high infrastructure costs associated with this issue and understand how housing development is to be financed and supported, and how the associated infrastructure is to be delivered.

Why is this such an issue in south Hampshire in particular? Why is there such concern about infrastructure? Let me give two examples. The first is Whiteley, a community of 2,500 homes north of the M27, part of which is in my constituency. In many respects, Whiteley is an ideal place in which to live and work, but it has significant drawbacks. Despite the fact that local people are able to live and work there, at 8.30—human nature being what it is—it appears that its whole population spills out to work elsewhere and is replaced by an entirely new population that works in the offices and businesses there. If there were a good road network, that would be fine, but there is one road only in and out of Whiteley and that goes to a busy junction, the M27.

It would cost about £15 million to buy the land to complete the road network and create another exit from Whiteley. After 15 years, there is still only a temporary doctor's surgery in Whiteley; the primary school is not big enough to meet the needs of all the children who live there, so five and six-year-olds have to be bussed to schools the other side of the M27. After sustained pressure from parents, councillors and me, the county council has agreed to build another one-form-entry primary school to meet the needs of the existing community, at a cost of £4 million. Secondary school children living in Whiteley are bussed to Fareham, despite there being another, closer secondary school. However, that secondary school already has 1,700 pupils to meet the needs of the growing population in that part of the area.

Not long after I was elected, I asked why an extra secondary school was not being built to service the housing development in the west of my constituency. The answer was that the Government's funding for additional school places is on a per-pupil basis; there is not the money in the system to build an entire new secondary school. Developers' contributions are sufficient to build a new primary school, but not a new secondary one.

School places, GP surgeries, roads—all the evidence is that there is an infrastructure deficit in Whiteley. The community has seen housing development go ahead of infrastructure provision. Houses were built without adequate provision of roads, community facilities, schools and doctors' surgeries. It is not surprising that my constituents are sceptical about the willingness of central Government to foot their share of the bill for proper infrastructure.

Let me give one further example of the current infrastructure deficit in south Hampshire. Hampshire county council and Portsmouth city council both back a rapid transit scheme to link Fareham and Portsmouth through Gosport. That would relieve the pressure on the A32 between Fareham and Gosport, and on the M27. It is intended to be phase 1 of a scheme linking those places to Southampton. The Government initially agreed to fund the scheme—they recognise that there is infrastructure need—but there was a cost overrun. The county council and city council went back and reworked the Government's contribution, and brought it down in line with the original estimate. Has a decision been made on the matter? No. The scheme is still sitting in the Department for Transport, awaiting decision by a Minister.

The scheme would tackle some of the infrastructure problems in the area. The south coast multi-modal study described it as a "must do" scheme. All its other improvements to the transport infrastructure of south Hampshire were predicated on the scheme going ahead. So we can understand why people in south Hampshire—and across Hampshire as a whole—are sceptical about the willingness of Government to fund the infrastructure needed to support the housing development set out in the south-east plan. It is in that context that people are considering the proposal set out in "Where shall we live?" and questioning whether the money will be there to provide infrastructure.

I want to touch on the plans for south Hampshire itself. As I said, the greatest burden of house building falls on south Hampshire. The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire is a group of local authorities, including the Southampton and Portsmouth authorities, that has developed a plan for south Hampshire, focusing on the need to raise economic development in the area in line with that of the region as a whole. It argues that a higher rate of housing development will lead to a renaissance for the two cities and other older urban areas. I shall return to that later.

The question asked by my constituents and people elsewhere in south Hampshire is how the additional 80,000 houses will be accommodated. We know that 38,000 will be built on existing sites, principally in Southampton and Portsmouth, and that 11,000 will be built on sites already identified for housing by the borough councils. Two new sites for strategic development areas have been identified, one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), and one north of the M27, in my constituency, where 10,000 houses will be built on greenfield sites between Fareham and Wickham. The balance of the number of houses will be extensions to urban areas.

As for the strategic development area planned for my constituency, its site is along the M27. Anyone who drives along that road can see it. It is currently green fields. There are only two settlements in that area, both quite small—Funtley in my constituency, and Knowle in Winchester. There is little in the way of infrastructure in the area. There is no school and no general practitioner surgery in Funtley. Apart from some small and winding B roads, there is the single-carriageway A32, which leads to Fareham. Through junction 10, it has access eastbound to the M27 towards Portsmouth, but not westbound to Southampton. From the same junction, there is access northbound from the M27 to the A32, but not southbound. There would need to be new shops, community facilities, doctors and dentists.

As local people consider the implication of that SDA for their area, they think back to the experience of Whiteley, just a few miles up the road, where there were new houses but poor infrastructure. They ask whether the new SDA will suffer from the same problems that bedevil Whiteley, and ask who will meet the cost.

We know that developers' contributions will meet some of that cost; indeed, PUSH has a working assumption that developers will contribute £10 million for every 1,000 houses, so 10,000 houses will bring in £100 million. That sounds like an infrastructure bonanza, but new residents should not expect the roads of the area to be paved with gold. Just think about the costs of the new infrastructure needed for the area: a secondary school costs between £15 million and £25 million, and a single-form-entry primary school costs £4 million. It has been estimated that to convert junction 10 into a fully functioning junction, so that people can access routes north, south, east and west rather than simply north and east, would cost about £80 million.

Although we might quibble about the cost of individual items, it is clear that if we are to fund the infrastructure needed for 10,000 new homes, Government money will be required, but we know that the community infrastructure fund is only about £200 million. As the IPPR said in its report on sustainable development in the south-east,

"The UK needs an open debate about whether, as a nation, we are prepared to devote resources necessary to deliver a range of housing policy objectives . . . and to meet other associated demands for improved infrastructure in areas such as transport."

Local people are looking for a guarantee from the Government that the support will be there. If the Government are not prepared to invest what is required, would it be possible to scale back the level of housing development to bring it in line with the amount that they can afford to contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure? Will they permit local authorities to use the plan, monitor and manage approach to enable them to slow down, or even to stop, land release if the infrastructure does not exist?

Will the Minister make the commitment today that, together with local authorities, the Government will agree the infrastructure needs and their cost, the timing of delivery and how the costs will be met, to ensure that there is a match between infrastructure delivery and housing development? That would mean that if the Government do not meet their side of the bargain, local councils will not be forced to deliver the 80,000 homes in south Hampshire, the 120,000 in Hampshire as a whole or the 600,000 in the south-east, and that residents, new and old, do not have to suffer from the infrastructure lag that has affected other parts of Hampshire.

As I said, one of the objectives of PUSH is to raise the level of development in south Hampshire in line with that of the rest of the region. The argument is that if we are to raise economic growth in south Hampshire, we will need to bring new businesses into the area which offer a higher value added than existing ones. While that is one way to achieve economic growth, on grounds of sustainability surely it would be better to develop the skills of local people first, so that local businesses can move further up the value chain and therefore drive up economic development without having to increase housing development. Indeed, PUSH would have preferred to be able to develop its economic strategy so that it could put housing targets in the context of that strategy and examine the needs of local people to try to raise their skills and avoid higher and higher levels of housing development.

May I develop the argument one stage further? PUSH has suggested that if economic growth rates in the area were to match the regional rate, the release of housing land would be adjusted to reflect the fact that it had reached its objective. Again, will the Minister confirm that if the economy in south Hampshire meets the targets set by PUSH, using the plan, monitor and manage approach the rate of release of land would be altered?

There is another aspect to this debate; it is not just about what is happening in Hampshire. We see the debate in the context of the Barker report on affordability of housing and its planning implications. Will the Minister elaborate on how the plan, monitor and manage approach that Hampshire local authorities wish to use and adopt on infrastructure development would mesh with the proposals set out in "Planning for Housing Provision"? That recommends an automatic release of extra land for housing development if house prices rise too sharply.

That automatic release mechanism implies that if the housing market was overheated, more land would be released; its release would be accelerated, regardless of the infrastructure provision planned and delivered. Is that the case? If the mechanism were used to release land early, would the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister be able to accelerate the funding of the infrastructure needed to meet the demands of the additional housing?

I have focused on some narrow issues about development in Hampshire. The Hampshire wildlife trust and, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, the New Forest national park authority have their own concerns. They have contacted me to raise their issues relating to the proposed scale of development and its impact on the environment in Hampshire. I hope that I have given the Minister the flavour of the concerns expressed by my constituents and others across Hampshire about the scale of development and the infrastructure required.

At the heart of the debate there are three questions. If the economic growth targets set by PUSH are met, will house building be scaled back? Will the Government meet their share of the infrastructure cost of the 80,000 homes scheduled for Hampshire? If they are not able to do so, will housing development be scaled back to match the infrastructure that they can afford to finance?

In essence, is the target for Hampshire one that must be hit or will the ODPM recognise that progress will be made towards that goal depending upon the state of the sub-regional economy and the funding of the infrastructure needed? They are key questions for my constituents—questions about the future of the communities of south Hampshire—and ones that the Government must answer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing this most timely debate on housing development in Hampshire. The Minister might know that I initiated a similar debate three months ago, and much remains unanswered on this issue. I shall focus on the sustainability of development, which should be at the core of the Government's strategy on housing, and which should be a fundamental concern in the plan of the Government and the South East England regional assembly for Hampshire and the whole of the south-east.

There has been a barrage of consultation on housing numbers in my constituency and throughout Hampshire in recent months—different consultations continually taking place and the publication of reports such as "Your Shout!" and "Where shall we live?"—but there are few details of their impact on our local communities in respect of environment and services, how local services will be increased to meet the new needs that the housing numbers will dictate, who will pay for the services, and whether the options under consideration are truly sustainable. Several important reports suggest that the Government do not know the answer to those questions for Hampshire or the south-east.

Residents in my constituency and throughout the south-east have been asked to give their considered opinions in surveys, but they have not been given the facts on which to base their responses. It is difficult to make judgments on specific housing numbers without clear facts on the implications of those decisions for future generations. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) mentioned reports produced by this House, and I wish to refer to one of them now. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee issued a report in May. Its conclusions on the Government's housing strategy stated that

"the Government has been able to take the Review's agenda forward without having to acknowledge the serious environmental implications contained within it."

Indeed, in evidence to the Committee, the Minister admitted that little attention had been paid to environmental and sustainable aspects. In a speech to the Royal Town Planning Institute, the author of the Barker report admitted that she regretted not focusing more on infrastructure issues.

SEERA, which is responsible for implementing Government policy on housing, states that its objective for the south-east is a

"distinctive, outward-looking, accessible region of prosperous, sustainable communities".

One would expect it to know what is sustainable for Hampshire. The south-east plan sustainability report, which it issued in July, stated:

"Achieving the scales of development within the South East that are proposed in the Plan without damaging local quality of life and environmental assets will be a major challenge".

Concern within SEERA about the impact of the plans stretches further:

"It is not known what the overall impact of the strategy will be in terms of numbers of vehicles on the roads . . . The transport policies have to be very effective very quickly to prevent the likely adverse impacts from increased travel."

That is of little comfort to the residents in the west of my constituency who only last week learned that the borough council would be forced to close a major access road if a highly controversial major development area were to go ahead in the neighbouring constituency.

Lack of consideration of the impact of house building targets permeates everything. The south-east plan sustainability report also states that the lack of any policy on historical environment does not seem appropriate, given the extent of the region's historical environment assets, and that policies on water resources will require new supply infrastructure. Indeed, when I last raised that issue in a debate, the Minister had to admit that major concerns had been raised about water and waste in Basingstoke, but that Thames Water and the Environment Agency had yet to find an answer.

The shortfall in investment in local services such as roads, public transport, schools, water supply and sewage disposal is estimated at £l billion for Hampshire. That shortfall exists before the change in magnitude of housing development. The debate is not about whether new homes are needed in many areas of Hampshire but about the scale of development. There is a perverse nature to the process being followed, in which the Government set housing targets before they determine whether local services can cope with them. That is not the right approach. I can give numerous examples of improvements in local services in Basingstoke being promised but not delivered when houses have been built, and I have done so in previous debates.

Trains into Waterloo are overcrowded to breaking point and there is no money for new doctors' surgeries, but we are still building more than 800 new houses a year. A new school was promised in a housing development of 800 but was scrapped once the houses were being built, and a new station that was promised several years ago in the Chineham area of my constituency is yet to be realised. The South East England regional assembly is so distant from my constituency that it is attempting to place some of the most rural parishes in the south of my constituency into the western corridor—a region of high-density development growth—threatening to split rural parishes in the process. I am campaigning vigorously on that issue and I shall continue to do so alongside local residents.

I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the process has started at the wrong end. If she really wants sustainable communities in Hampshire, let our communities determine what is sustainable locally. We must establish what local improvements to services we can afford and what our environment can sustain, particularly given that during the previous debate I had on the matter, the Minister made it clear that the Government would not fill the gap relating to local services. The Government must heed the warnings of the Environmental Audit Committee and SEERA's sustainability report. Nowhere to date has there been an adequate analysis of the impact of what has been suggested.

I must apologise because I am unable to stay for the winding-up speeches today; I have to attend the Trade and Industry Committee. I hope that the Minister will take heed of the need to stop these meaningless consultations, and the need to give residents the facts about what is proposed throughout Hampshire. The implications of this level of development seem to be unknown. Is that really the right approach to such a massive change in housing policy? Is it a responsible plan for our future? The facts to date suggest that it is not.

I should like to associate myself with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), particularly in their citing of the report from the IPPR on sustainable development in the south-east, which I commend to the Minister. I was a member of the cross-party group that wrote that report and its key point is correct: we must ensure that planned infrastructure is in place before adopting a top-down targeting approach, which the Government seem to have embarked upon.

I represent a Hampshire constituency where more than 4,000 people are on the housing list. Very large numbers of young local people, including young couples with children, who come to my advice surgery cannot afford to get on the first rung of the property ownership ladder. They are forced to wait, often in very difficult circumstances, for accommodation from one of the local housing associations. There are homeless people, too. Some of them are sleeping rough, even as the nights get substantially colder, and recently there have been nights when it has been impossible to find a hostel place anywhere in the county.

In other words, I know that there is a real and pressing problem of housing and homelessness, even in a county as relatively prosperous and affluent as mine undoubtedly is. I shall not, therefore, join the nimby tendency and oppose any and all housing development. I have fully supported Eastleigh borough council in some of the tough choices that it has had to make to ensure that we do not ignore the real problems of homelessness and the lack of adequate social housing. Last year, 906 new homes were built in Eastleigh borough; we have not ignored housing need. I am also pleased to say that those homes were overwhelmingly built in existing communities and not on green fields.

Eastleigh council has pursued a strategy of meeting housing need from brownfield sites, like the Pirelli and Causton sites in Eastleigh, rather than building on the fields that separate and define the towns and villages of the borough. It has not always been easy. The borough has had to take tough decisions, including on a recent proposal to build on allotments. Inevitably that has stirred up much local opposition. Overall, though, the policy has helped to rejuvenate the town of Eastleigh and has ensured that a number of local schools that might otherwise have been under threat of closure due to falling rolls have been able to stay open and continue to serve the local community successfully.

The policy has been overwhelmingly supported by local people for many years and it was set out in the local plan by the borough council. It contrasts with a proposal from Hampshire county council for a 4,000-home major development that would have been a nail in the coffin of many local communities. The new town would have filled in a large part of the countryside between Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak on one side and West End and Hedge End on the other. It would have been a large step towards a Solent city that no one in the area wanted.

Thankfully, the borough council's rejection of the idea in its local plan review to 2011 was upheld after a six-month review by a Government senior planning inspector, Mary Travers. In other words, Ms Travers backed the people on the ground in their judgment of how best to provide necessary housing. Members can therefore imagine the consternation when we found ourselves confronted with a proposal for a strategic development area twice as large—with 9,000 new homes—as the major development area that has just been rejected. The proposed site is north of Hedge End between the Grange Park area and Durley. Effectively, this is another new town proposal. Does Hampshire county council have no respect for local residents' views?

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the leader of Eastleigh borough council is also part of PUSH, which made these proposals? Its voice is as strong as that of the county council.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the leader of Eastleigh borough council has associated himself with the borough council in its decision not to support the proposals or suggest house-building targets. The crucial point is that, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, we are attempting to set house-building targets before we have dealt with the issue of how to meet infrastructure provision.

There should be no doubt about local residents' views. Residents in all the surrounding villages have repeatedly supported the borough council's policy against the alternative proposal for a major development area. We have elections by thirds, so we have elections every year for either the borough or the county council. Every year, Liberal Democrat councillors in favour of preserving local communities from being swamped by a Solent city are re-elected.

In the last few weeks, I sent a survey to the residents of Grange Park, the area most affected by the new proposal, and I can report that opposition to the scheme remains both passionate and overwhelming. Just 3 per cent. of the residents who responded backed the idea. Some 21 per cent. said that a new town would be welcome but the location was inappropriate, and 66 per cent. said that development should take place across the county in existing built-up areas.

Every single resident who responded backed the proposal from the borough council for a green belt that would ensure that local communities stay as such, and do not become suburbs of a Solent city. They are right, and the bureaucrats at the Government office for the south-east or in the county council at Winchester castle are wrong. In Eastleigh, we have shown that we can responsibly balance local housing need and the preservation of our quality of life in our local communities, and we should be allowed to do so.

I have a lot of sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, is it not the case that the pressure for extra development in his constituency and mine comes not from Hampshire county council, but from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? In the case that he mentioned, I think he will find that Hampshire county council proposed a much a lower figure for overall development in the county, but was overruled by the ODPM. That is the pressure that is causing the problems that he refers to.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is exactly why I mentioned the Government office for the south-east as well as the county council officials at Winchester castle. The reality is that the options that have been set out were set out by the county council.

I am sorry to intervene again, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the proposals set out in "Where shall we live?" have been promoted by PUSH, which includes all the borough councils, the two city councils and the county council? It is unfair to say that the county council is to blame. Liberal councillors have taken part in the process and supported the plans.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment that his own borough council, which is controlled by the Conservatives, supports the proposals when he criticises them; however, the reality is that Eastleigh borough has pursued a policy that, for all the reasons that I gave, is at odds with the idea of plonking a new town in the area. Those reasons were enumerated in the IPPR report, part of which deals with our concerns about the Government's inability to meet infrastructure need.

Local councils fairly elected by local people are the best judge of their own circumstances. The top-down approach of setting regional targets that are filtered by the counties to the districts is a recipe for unaccountable and inappropriate decisions. The real problem is that councils do not have the necessary instruments to balance the interests of new and old residents. In Eastleigh, for example, the council's ability to support public transport has been limited. We have had much development during the past 30 years, but we are the constituency with the 26th highest rate of car commuting in the country.

We have been repeatedly promised by the Conservative-controlled county council, not least by the hon. Gentleman's friends there, that its top priority for the county is the building of the Chickenhall lane link road, which would divert traffic around Eastleigh town centre. Yet, proposals have still not been drawn up, let alone investment made to allow the project to progress.

Many of my constituents are bedevilled by problems from the lack of investment in water infrastructure. They were outraged when we discovered this year that nearly half of the sharp increase in the water rate was being levied to pay for capital improvements in the Thames Gateway area in Kent. That seems extraordinary when there are massive gains to be had from granting planning permission for greenfield developments in that area. They should be made available to pay for the infrastructure costs of new developments, rather than the costs falling on the residents of Eastleigh and other parts of Hampshire.

The Barker review found that a hectare of farmland selling for £7,534 could be worth £1,230,000 once planning permission has been granted. There is no way, short of developers' contributions negotiated under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that a local authority can capture that uplift, even though it is created entirely by the authority and not by the developer.

The problem is even wider than that, because a local authority may invest in new schools, parks, public transport, leisure facilities, or youth facilities, and find that the value of nearby property rises. Yet it will be able to capture none of the increase in existing property values unless there is a proposal for redevelopment.

A major step forward would be to restructure the business rate so that it was based on the value of the land rather than the building on it, and hand it back to local authorities. Local councils would then be able to capture a substantial part of the uplift in values to the benefit of the local community, and local authorities would have the incentive to invest in facilities that the local community wants, which are woefully inadequate.

We have landed in the worst of all possible worlds. Local authorities have not been given the instruments to reach acceptable trade-offs between development and quality of life for local residents, and as a result they can too easily fall in behind the nimby tendency and ignore local housing needs. The Government then decide that even the small amount of discretion left to local authorities is too much, and that they should dance to a centralised tune of housing targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Whitehall official in the county at Winchester. That in turn increases further the sense of disconnection between local communities and the body politic. It is a vicious circle that needs to be broken by handing back powers to local authorities to make decisions on behalf of local people. In that respect, Hampshire is but a microcosm of the failure besetting an over-centralised system.

In most countries in Europe it would be regarded as extraordinary for a national Parliament to debate a matter that should properly be regarded as local. The sooner we empower our local communities again the better the results will be, not just for local residents who need homes, but for our democracy.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing this timely debate. I welcome its tenor, in that not too many party political points have been made. I only wish that that were the case at local level.

A huge amount of housing is suggested for the south-east: 122,000 new homes over the next 20 years, equivalent to more than 6,000 a year. The constraints in respect of Hampshire itself, with its national park and the forests of Bere and Eversley, mean that housing numbers have been unfairly concentrated on certain areas. The PUSH alliance has been referred to, and there is a growing sense of unease in many quarters; there seems to be a vision of a huge housing conglomeration along the south coast.

At a very local—parochial—level, it has been somewhat amusing to see the crocodile tears shed by certain Conservative councillors, who do not seem to acknowledge that they are in control at SEERA; they have, to a certain extent, decided the housing allocations. The first ever letter I wrote to the local paper in a political context was a criticism of the then Conservative council for allowing large numbers of such developments, but that seemed to be okay at that time; we had a Conservative Government, and a Conservative-run council which had friends in the building industry. All the infrastructure problems that have been highlighted in this debate were not addressed at that stage, and we in Hampshire are living with some of those problems today. The worst example of such hypocrisy is the case of a newly elected county councillor who is weeping crocodile tears over new housing, when as leader of Test Valley borough council he supported the development of thousands of houses at Valley Park. We are still living with some of the infrastructure problems caused by that.

Sometimes the debate becomes very simplified: "We don't want the housing, full stop." There is a lack of acknowledgement that there is a need for some affordable housing in the south-east. The suggested quota is about 35 per cent. However, that may not be enough, because we have a real problem in the south-east with first-time buyers not being able to get on the housing ladder, particularly in rural villages. We also have a problem with key workers being unable to find housing that they can afford in the area.

The villages are a particular problem. We have now reached a situation where the sons and daughters of the people who live in the villages cannot afford the housing in those villages. Many villages in the area want small amounts of sustainable development, but the planners at district level just love what is called planning gain; they want large numbers of houses so that the take from the developers is maximised. That is a flawed approach. Large-scale developments are not needed in some areas.

Test Valley borough council covers one part of my constituency. The situation there is that a decision will be taken on whether we need 2,500, 3,250 or 4,000 houses over the next 20 years. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that the borough local plan, which has just had its examination in public—we are awaiting the inspector's report—did not identify adequate housing. There was a shortfall, and there was a cop-out by the council, which said, "There will be some windfall sites, so we will have those." That has caused two problems. When the plan comes back from the inspector, there will probably be a severe threat of the inspector allocating extra housing. If that does not happen, there will be pressure from developers that cannot be controlled through the local plan process. Unfortunately, that was the result of local councillors not taking the necessary difficult decisions—perhaps the all-up election around that time had something to do with that.

There are significant concerns in Romsey that PUSH's vision seems to suggest that an obvious place for housing might be between Romsey and the urban conglomeration of Southampton. That would cause a number of problems because Romsey is a unique market town with strategic gaps separating it from other development areas, and I think that everyone in the town wants it to remain so. The Romsey and District Society's planning sub-committee chairman, Chris Amery, said:

"We want to defend Romsey's unique character and an independent and vibrant market town. That means above all keeping its geographical expansion to an absolute minimum and preserving clear southern and eastern boundaries. That way we best preserve its character and its traditions and its attractiveness as a centre for all the neighbouring villages. It's very difficult to see how 2,500 homes could be accommodated and very difficult to envisage any more than that."

He added:

"If Portsmouth Fareham"—

I am not sure that this applies to Fareham—

"and Southampton want to grow their economy faster that's fine but Romsey should remain a market town and not become a dormitory for them. Build the houses near jobs."

That seems a sensible approach for sustainability.

My constituency also covers Chandler's Ford, which is part of Eastleigh borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has already referred to many of the problems there, but Chris Tapp, the council's chief executive, pointed out in a letter that the government process is dominated by the need to identify new housing numbers and perhaps potential sites at individual district levels at this stage. He described that process as "fundamentally flawed" because, as has been said, there has been no robust appraisal work on issues relating to transport, sustainability, environment and delivery. He said that it

"anticipates certainty where there cannot yet be"

any.

A recent motion from Eastleigh borough council called on Hampshire county council to refuse to put forward those numbers and called on SEERA to do the same. While generally supportive of the PUSH approach, it stressed that it should be focused on Southampton and Portsmouth by improving transport corridors and a balance of growth for each city to the west and east and noted that the consultation proposals do not achieve that. It also restated its commitment to south Hampshire's green belt to prevent the towns and villages merging into a Solent city and called on the county council to support a south Hampshire green belt in the plan for the south-east.

When considering some of the infrastructure problems, one of the frustrations of many local councils and even residents is that when deciding housing developments the question of schools, roads and surrounding facilities such as doctors' surgeries are always raised by the public because they want to know how existing services will cope with the strain. The planners' automatic answer is always that that is not a planning issue. If we are going down the road of more housing, that should become a much stronger planning consideration.

There are severe reservations in many parts of my constituency about numbers. The Hampshire wildlife trust has said that Hampshire has unique areas of considerable benefit and diversity. It seeks reassurance from the Government that appropriate assessments under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 will be undertaken in relation to plans for urban growth in the vicinity of the most important wildlife sites. Given the diversity in Hampshire, that is an important consideration.

I am pleased that we have had this debate. I look forward to the Minister's reply; clearly, a lot of questions need to be answered. In the meantime, a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down imposition of housing numbers, would serve most of our communities much better than the Government approach.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate. It has been very interesting, and there has been a surprising amount of cross-party agreement, despite a bit of cross-party bickering.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need to ensure that building development does not run ahead of infrastructure development, and about the need to upskill the local economy, rather than just relying on drawing people in from outside. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) spoke about the pressures on transport when many people come into an area without making sure that infrastructure is in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) spoke about pressures on housing in his constituency, the good record of Eastleigh borough council on developing new homes on brownfield sites, and the need to build around existing urban centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out that there have been long-term problems in the area as a result of development lacking the infrastructure that goes with it.

Few of us who went home by tube last night can have failed to notice Shelter's powerful advert when walking on to the escalator. It points out the terrible problem of overcrowding in this country, particularly in the south of the United Kingdom. It showed a striking image of an overcrowded family in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As one goes into the tube station, there is a whole set of images and adverts reminding us what a lack of housing means for real people's lives.

All of us here are signed up to the need for more homes; the questions about that are how, what sort, when and where. That is what the debate has really been about. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh spoke about pressures in his constituency, and the need for much more affordable housing. What has happened in the area is a classic example of what happens when there is a top-down approach, and when local people have very little discretion in deciding what should be built where and in what order. That adds to the real sense of frustration with the fact that no one is really accountable.

Who do local people get in touch with when they are unhappy about how development happens? It is not clear who is responsible, because people are overruled by higher levels of authority, going all the way up to the ODPM. My hon. Friend spoke with great frustration about a battle that was going on for a new town, and the fact that the ODPM overruled the decision taken locally, although there had been a great deal of support for that local decision.

Why do people oppose the development of new homes? There are two reasons: because they cannot see the benefit to themselves and because they can see the cost. If we are to put new homes in place and deal with the housing crisis, we have to tackle both those problems. People in Hampshire know very well that their young people cannot afford to buy a property, and they know that many people live in appalling housing conditions and that something needs to be done. But they see many new developments of four-bedroomed executive homes that are targeted at people coming in from outside the area, not at local people who need affordable housing, particularly in the social rented sector.

As all hon. Members have said, the real reason why people fear new development is lack of infrastructure. They have already seen that, without infrastructure being put in place, new development creates pressure on existing services. New communities cannot be developed simply by building new housing. In fact, just putting in new housing without all the other things that communities need is the way to destroy communities, not build them. We need roads and transport links. We need doctors' surgeries, schools and community centres. Are the Government proposing to fund that infrastructure, and if so, how? As other hon. Members have said, there is also a need to boost the economy locally. South Hampshire, in particular, is economically underperforming. What are the Government doing to upskill local people, to ensure that its economy is developed internally.

We have seen what happens when new towns are plonked into an area: they are among the 50 per cent. of the most deprived of local authorities and all but two of them are more deprived than the counties in which they reside. That is the reason why Eastleigh borough council has argued that the development needs to happen around existing urban centres. Building on greenfield sites always causes great controversy and concern.

The Government are still not taking the issue of empty homes seriously and they still have not responded to the consultation on empty property management orders. They have dragged their feet on producing that kind of secondary legislation. There are 83,000 empty properties in the south-east—an estimated 11,000 in Hampshire. Such action will obviously not solve the whole problem, but it would make some impact on the problem in Hampshire.

About 1 million residential units could be created in empty commercial space above shops in the UK. Many of those would also be in the south-east. The Government still have a kind of perverse incentive to build on greenfield sites, rather than brownfield ones, given the tax system. When will they consider harmonising VAT to deal with that issue? It would make so much difference in terms of bringing empty properties back into use.

I have been asked to keep my remarks relatively brief, so I shall leave considerable time for the Minister to reply. People in Hampshire, as in many areas, feel that the Government are not taking their concerns seriously. People do not want development to run ahead of infrastructure. They want homes that will meet local need for local people, because that is where the real pressure is.

First, I declare an interest in a family property and building company, which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing today's debate. I suspect that if there is to be a theme throughout the Parliament, it will involve many Members from areas that are being encouraged to grow by Government diktat asking the Government for guarantees and reassurances about infrastructure.

The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made a good speech; I did not disagree with anything in it. She made the good point that people examine the benefits and costs of development and they think that it is something done to them rather than with them. Although one would not expect any national Government not to have a view about housing growth and a national strategy, the balance that we have is altogether wrong.

Local councils and local government should have a larger say in what happens to them at local level. That is a policy on which we fought the last general election. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful, but there needs to be a proper balance in the decision making and public policy area, so that local communities have rather more say.

I have great sympathy for Hampshire county council, which is essentially instructed to try to deal with the demands from central Government. A total of 122,000 new homes, with 80,000 in the south Hampshire area, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is a lot to accommodate for a county that has grown substantially over the past 20 or 30 years.

I acknowledge that for a lot of that period we had a Conservative Government and that some of the concerns that people have about the level of growth are to do with the fact that past development has quite often led to problems of a lack of resources, decent roads, doctors' surgeries and schools. This morning, we heard a litany of concerns that infrastructure has not yet caught up with the development that there has been over the past 20 years. A £1 billion deficit was cited. Therefore, there is bound to be great concern when people look ahead and see proposals for new towns and substantial growth. They will be concerned about what that means for them and their immediate local community.

The starting point for this debate is what has and has not happened in the past in terms of infrastructure. We have to be concerned about the level of future development. The South East England regional assembly and the eastern area commissioned Roger Tym & Partners to examine the infrastructure costs of development. The first report, which covered the south-eastern and eastern counties, recognised that the level of housing development expected by the Government would need £45 billion of infrastructure. It identified with that a deficit that is already about £8 billion, and that does not take into account all the transport schemes that will be needed. My hon. Friend mentioned transport; a lot of what we have to discuss when housing is built in an area are the roads, railways, buses and so forth that are needed so that people can move around in that area.

The south-eastern counties are keen to make their views about the real costs of development in their counties known to the Government. I hope that the Minister will say that there will be a proper dialogue both with SEERA and with the county and borough leaders from the south-east, to ensure that there is such development.

Councillor Keith Mitchell is chairman of SEERA. He stated in a letter to me that SEERA had

"been at great pains to make it clear"

to the Government

"that such levels of development are conditional upon the timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure before or in parallel with the housing".

That is a key point.

My hon. Friend made it clear that if that infrastructure were not forthcoming, he would expect the Government to slow down the housing allocations, because these two developments go hand in hand; transport and other major infrastructure schemes have to be carried out before or at the same time as the major housing developments. If they are not, we will end up not with a sensible and balanced development, but with a lot of problems in the south of England.

The Government seem to be set on their course of predict and provide. It appears to me that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is embarking on the last great crusade of central planning. That will leave communities with real costs, unless we get assurances from the Government that the necessary investment will be forthcoming.

We recently had a debate on the Thames Gateway. Because of its brownfield sites and the nature of the development there, building in that area will be very expensive. I asked for some reassurances about the level of investment there, and the Minister reeled off some of the £6 billion investment that the Government had already committed for that development. I would hope that the Minister could clearly set out—if not today, then in a letter to the Members for Hampshire constituencies—what sums the Government have committed to underpin and sustain the development that they expect the county to undertake, because that will be a key issue for all local Members.

The south-east is a large area and, as my hon. Friend said, it is expected that one in five of the new houses will be in Hampshire. Therefore, this is a key issue, and I suspect that unless the Minister answers the major concerns of Members representing constituencies in that county, they will come back and raise them time and again. Because of the long-term consequences of not providing what is necessary to accommodate this sort of growth, many people will be queuing in surgeries and writing to Members to encourage them to have endless Adjournment debates.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us answers. I hope that she can reassure us about the level of investment that is needed. I would also like her to reassure us that the development will be joined-up—that the ODPM will combine with the Department for Transport to ensure that we have proper, sustainable development.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing this debate, and on using it to raise issues that are of great importance to his constituency.

A series of important points have been raised, and I want to try to address many of them. Some of them were specifically about Hampshire, but others were more general. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members raised the issue of infrastructure. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was not the only Member who discussed planning for housing. Hon. Members also raised the issue of environmental impact, and the relationship with economic growth.

However, hon. Members will be aware that I will not be able to comment on some of the points that they have raised, as they are currently subject to the planning process and the discussion around the development of the regional spatial strategies. They will know that I am not able to discuss individual proposals for strategic development areas or housing numbers, given the consultation process under way and the role that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State play in the planning process. However, I shall try to address as many of the points as I can in my reply.

First, we need to be clear about the need for new homes in the region. During the past 30 years, there has been a nationwide 30 per cent. increase in the number of households and a 50 per cent. drop in new house building. The south-east has been particularly affected; the ageing, growing population means that building rates there have been at about 75 per cent. of the assessed need.

Faced with that gap between growing demand and constrained supply, it is not hard to see why house prices have risen so significantly in the south-east and the impact that that has had on affordability. There has been a big drop in interest and mortgage rates as a result of decisions made by the Bank of England, and steady economic growth has improved people's standard of living and incomes. Nevertheless, affordability is a serious problem for many across the south-east because of the tight housing market.

The impact will perhaps be even more serious in future. Currently, more than 50 per cent. of 30-year-old couples can afford their own homes. Some of the initial analysis done as part of the response to the Barker review suggests that during the next 20 years, at the current rate of building, that could fall to nearer 30 per cent. We should not be denying the next generation the opportunities that we have enjoyed, nor should we say that the only people who can afford to buy their own homes should be the sons and daughters of those who have owned their own homes—people in a position to inherit money for their deposits or get that first loan from mum and dad to help them on to the housing ladder. Such projections are particularly strong for the south-east.

As hon. Members will know, the children of existing residents in Hampshire face the greatest pressures; people moving to Hampshire from London or other parts of the country tend to be higher-skilled and have higher purchasing power, and that pushes up house prices and the pressures for those who have grown up in the area. Having lived in Hampshire for many years, I know a lot of people with whom I was at school who have struggled to afford their own homes, but have managed to buy them. However, their children will face far greater pressures unless we recognise the pressures on housing and the need to build more new homes in response.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh powerfully set out some of the pressures around homelessness, and there are certainly pressures around overcrowding also. Obviously, those are felt particularly in London, but it is certainly true that pressures for affordable housing are felt across the south-east as well. We have been clear that we need more affordable housing; we need to increase the building of such housing across the region. We are already spending £700 million over the next two years on increasing affordable housing in the south-east and we also need to build more intermediate housing—shared equity housing, housing that supports key workers—as well. However, we also need to recognise the need for new market housing, otherwise we shall deny people the opportunities for home ownership and for getting a foot on the property ladder that we have had. That is why it is important that local authorities, MPs and other stakeholders in the area work to address that problem.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that it is not fair because the pressure comes not from individual local councils but the ODPM. The reality is that the pressure is coming from the next generation of people who need their own homes: from the demand for housing. We all have to address that; we cannot simply put our heads in the sand and walk away from those pressures—that would be hugely irresponsible. That is why PUSH is so important; it is about local authorities coming together to try to address long-term housing need and looking at how to work in partnership—local government and national Government together—to address the real pressures from housing need.

It is easy politics for individual Liberal Democrat councillors and Conservative councillors to blame each other, and, every so often, to turn around and blame us. That is the nature of political debate. However, the real tension is not between individual areas or local and national Government, although it is easy to make it into such an argument. Our real challenge for the future is how we balance the interests of the current generation with those of future generations that need more homes, but do not have a voice in the process to say that they need more homes, whether through local or national Government.

We need to accept that the challenge of providing new homes for the next generation is not just about how we manage housing growth and face its difficulties, but how we can make the most of the opportunities, particularly economically. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to the need for economic growth and to promote jobs in the same areas in which new homes would be built so that we avoid dormitories. We should be building communities not dormitories and looking at long-term, sustainable economic growth alongside housing growth. That is important and the reason why many in the Thames Gateway have embraced the prospect of new homes and new housing growth. They see it as following on from an economic regeneration that is about economic growth, the opportunity to attract new businesses into the area and to use infrastructure investment not only to support new homes but skills, and to attract investment. That is why the business community in Milton Keynes has supported growth in the area; it regards it as an opportunity to address its approval pressures and support economic growth.

It is important to regard PUSH as being able to deal with the fact that the area is not meeting its economic potential. It has huge potential to attract business and investment, and to improve skills in the area. The area must embrace that economic opportunity alongside the need for new homes. The Government are keen to work locally with those who want to develop an effective partnership in respect of the need for new homes and economic growth. We want to have greater discussion with those areas that are committed to supporting increased levels of new housing and consider how that can be linked with economic strategies.

Hon. Members have raised a series of issues that concern infrastructure. We have already invested substantial additional sums into new infrastructure throughout Hampshire and the south-east. We must regard infrastructure as being not only about transport, which is often easy to do given that it is about the roads that will enable people to go round and past new housing developments, but about health and education. The hon. Member for Fareham cited examples in his constituency and referred to GPs' surgeries and schools. Infrastructure must be about community facilities and skills. Cultural and leisure facilities might be needed in an area. We should not underestimate the need for wider infrastructure to support the sustainability of local communities into the future.

As I said, we have invested considerable sums in expanding public sector infrastructure across the board, particularly in areas for affordable housing. We must also recognise that congestion pressures and demand determine whether there is housing growth. Many areas throughout the country face increasing congestion pressures that are related not just to the number of homes, but to people's increased demand. That is why the Department for Transport has been clear that the long-term way in which to deal with such matters is not only to build more transport infrastructure, but to recognise existing infrastructure pressures and consider demand management.

In the Hampshire area, the Solent transport group has been working with PUSH to draw up common transport strategies. That is important, and there must be a co-ordinated and strategic approach to the consideration of demand management, the need for new investment and sensible prioritisation.

In December last year, the Government announced £950 million during the next three years for investment in south-east transport schemes of local and regional importance. The Highways Agency investment programme includes two schemes to improve the M27 totalling £78.3 million. Construction is planned to start by 2008.

On the railways the south-east is already the beneficiary of a £1 billion power upgrade and train replacement programme, with more than 2,000 Electrostar and Desiro electric train carriages being introduced, and a third-rail power supply upgrade throughout the region. The total project has cost more than £2.7 billion. A lot of additional infrastructure investment is going into the region.

The hon. Gentleman asked what happens if infrastructure is not in place. He knows that the Highways Agency already has powers over the planning system. Planning applications throughout the country often do not go ahead, because the Highways Agency is not satisfied that the appropriate infrastructure is in place, or the solutions to the pressures on the road network have not been properly addressed or resolved.

Looking to the future, we must consider how we address infrastructure pressures throughout the country and those that will occur in growth areas. That is why we have considered the different proposals in the Barker report about how we fund future infrastructure. The Barker review proposed a planning gain supplement, which we are considering. Hon. Members may also be aware that Milton Keynes and Bedford, which are in growth areas, have considered other ways to try to raise more investment for infrastructure, such as tariffs.

When does the Minister expect to report on those considerations?

We have said that we shall reply in full to the Barker review by the end of the year. Relatively shortly, we shall be able to say more.

Will that reply include any particular proposals about planning gain supplement, planning tariffs or land tax?

We expect to say something about the Barker proposals, including planning gain supplement, ways of raising resources for infrastructure and the need to ensure that we get the right resources into local areas. It is hard for me to respond in any detail, but we intend to say more before the end of the year. We take seriously the need to address the infrastructure that underpins communities throughout the south-east.

I want to address planning for housing and whether it would have an impact on how the developments took place. The hon. Gentleman said that the problem with planning for housing is that it has a market trigger. The way in which he described it was based on the Barker review proposals rather than the proposals set out in "Planning for Housing Provision". In that document we are clear that the planning system must be much more sensitive towards the housing market. There are areas where there is a considerable gap between the demand for and supply of housing. That is not taken into account sufficiently by the planning system, in terms of considering the need for housing during the next five, 10 or 15 years.

We also said that the approach needed for high-growth areas such as Milton Keynes and the Thames Gateway should be different from areas where growth should be constrained perhaps because of environmental pressures or neighbouring areas where there is low demand and other problems. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman but the position he describes in his speech is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which planning for housing proposals works.

Hon. Members raised other infrastructure issues concerning schools and health, and we have worked with other Departments to set up arrangements. For example, we have worked with the Department for Education and Skills so that local education authorities in exceptional circumstances of high growth in pupil numbers can apply for additional capital support to ensure that schools are in place to meet needs. We have worked with the Department of Health in order to ensure that its funding approach takes account of planned increases in population in the future rather than responding to an increase after it has taken place. We are clear about the need to support infrastructure.

Hon. Members have recognised the need for housing growth and the need to address the housing pressures that we face in Hampshire and other parts of the south-east. They have made important points about the need for infrastructure that we recognise and are keen to support.

In the time left, would the Minister elaborate on how the mechanism—the interaction between infrastructure provision and housing development—works? That represents the nuts and bolts of the argument. How will they work together in tandem so that the infrastructure is delivered on time and in line with the housing that is built in an area?

As I have said, there are already checks in place within the planning system, such as the way in which the Highways Agency operates regarding roads infrastructure, preventing planning applications from going ahead if there are no appropriate solutions to the pressures on the roads. That is the case in many parts of the country.

We are working very closely in partnership with the areas where the highest levels of growth are taking place to ensure that there is additional support for the particular infrastructure that they need. We are able to ensure that that includes, for example, support for new hospital developments or in the Medway towns, for example, a new university. The projects that are receiving infrastructure support are not limited to roads, where the issues can involve demand as well as the appropriate type of infrastructure.

We are keen to talk further to those who are strongly committed to increasing the number of new homes to meet housing needs and to make the most of economic opportunities. We are keen to work more closely in future with individual areas that want to support higher levels of housing growth, compared with what they have experienced. This is an opportunity for many of those areas and we must not underestimate the importance of linking it with economic strategies for the areas. It should include the regional development agency's strategy and more local economic strategies, too. Too often in the past, there has been failure because such strategies have been seen as just regarding housing growth, rather than broader economic strategies of which housing growth is an important component.

Will the Minister refer to the points I raised about empty homes? The ODPM has closed the consultation on empty property management orders. When will the Government respond to that consultation? It is an issue that many agencies feel will make an enormous impact on dealing with the empty homes problem. As I said, that problem exists particularly in the south-east.

The hon. Lady is right. We want to bring in the empty homes dwelling orders as rapidly as possible because there is a significant opportunity for local authorities to take action on empty homes in their areas. We also need to consider what support and advice should be available for local authorities so that they can make the most of those powers and use them appropriately. We shall respond shortly to the consultation.

We should recognise that there has been a 10 per cent. drop in the number of empty homes during the past eight years, but the real issue that has to be addressed is the number of homes that have been empty for more than six months. The number of homes that are empty for less than six months will be heavily affected by the market at the time. The important thing about the new powers for local authorities is how they can be used for those properties that have been empty for a longer period of time when action could be taken to make them perfectly habitable.

Hon. Members have raised a series of important issues. I have tried to respond as far as possible and we will say more on some of the broader issues raised as part of the Barker review. I leave hon. Members with the assurance that we are keen to work with local authorities who are committed to supporting the new homes that we need, both through further debates on infrastructure and longer term planning to support their economic strategies. We have to take seriously the needs of the next generation; we cannot simply walk away from the housing pressures that we face. We need to respond in the most sensible way possible.

I begin by declaring as an interest the support that I have received from the Sustainable Energy Partnership in connection with the development of my private Member's Bill, about which I shall say something later.

I am glad that my name came out of the hat to allow me to hold this debate today. I want to speak on this subject because of a number of key decisions and choices that will have to be made at European level over the next few weeks and months about renewable energy and energy efficiency. First, there will no doubt be a discussion at the Energy Council meeting on 1 December about the proposed directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. I presume that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will lead for the UK and will chair the Council, in his role during the UK presidency. Secondly, we are at a key stage in the consultation on the European Union's Green Paper on energy efficiency.

Finally, I thought that it would be useful to say something about the recent meeting in Edinburgh of parliamentarians from across Europe—both from member states and from the European Parliament. They met under the auspices of the European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) and I were among the Members of Parliament who attended that meeting. There were a number of points that I thought it would be useful to bring from that meeting to this debate. There are also one or two other matters that have a bearing on the subject that I hope to raise if there is time.

The background to the debate is that Europe is strongly dependent on imported fossil fuels, and that dependency is increasing. The European Commission estimates that, by 2030, 90 per cent. of our oil and 80 per cent. of our gas will be imported from outside Europe, at increasingly high prices. There are immense opportunities in Europe for renewable energy and greater energy efficiency. Among other things, our geographical position means that we can utilise extensive wind and wave resources. That is particularly true of those of us in the north-west of Europe—particularly those who represent constituencies in the north of the United Kingdom.

Wave power has a particular advantage in that it can provide a relatively constant source of energy. However, the apparent disadvantage of wind power in that respect should not be over-emphasised. The more widespread throughout Europe wind power devices become, the more possible it is for wind power to provide a more constant source of energy at European level. To put it simply, if the wind stops blowing in one part of Europe, it is likely that it will start blowing elsewhere. If more wind power devices are installed at European level, and there are proper grid connections and interconnectors, some of the local peaks and troughs can be evened out. Europe also has the potential for big increases in biofuels and biomass power, and, like the rest of the world, we have the opportunity to draw on solar resources.

We also have the potential to make big savings in energy use by increasing energy efficiency. The Commission's Green Paper suggests that Europe could save up to €60 billion a year by tapping into our existing energy efficiency potential. Although European countries are relatively energy efficient compared with many other industrialised countries, it is worth bearing it in mind that Japan is already twice as energy efficient as the European Union. There are examples elsewhere in the world that can encourage us to do more. The European Union is falling short of its existing targets for renewables. It is appropriate, in light of today's debate, that yesterday the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment launched the second European climate change programme and accepted that more had to be done to ensure that we reach energy efficiency and other European targets.

For the sake of convenience, I shall refer simply to the draft directive as the energy services directive. A debate has been taking place among the institutions of the European Union—the Parliament, the Commission and member states in the Council—about whether there should be mandatory, measurable energy savings targets. The subject will be discussed at the Energy Council in a few weeks' time, and the hope is that the debate will lead to agreement between the various institutions on a suitable directive.

There is a strong case for mandatory, measurable energy efficiency targets. I am sure that the Minister for Energy has discovered since his appointment that much of the debate about energy and environmental policy seems to rotate around targets, whether national, European or international. The debate is between those who want as many compulsory targets as possible, and those who fear that the adoption of targets could be a substitution for policy rather than a means of achieving results.

I accept that targets are not the be all and end all of policy, and that there is no point in adopting targets just for the sake of it, but we should bear in mind that the adoption of targets in energy and environmental policy has been effective in driving policy nationally and internationally. The binding targets of Kyoto, and the targets adopted by national Governments such as our own, have ensured the political momentum to bring about the national policy changes required to reach them. In our own country, the apparent falling back from previous good progress on our Kyoto and domestic targets has caused some embarrassment and will create pressure for further policy changes to put us back on track. There is a strong case for mandatory targets as part of energy efficiency policy. It should also be borne in mind that many member states fail to reach non-binding target, for example, in the promotion of biofuels.

Setting mandatory targets for energy efficiency would not centralise policy in the hands of what the Eurosceptics would call Brussels bureaucrats but is, in fact, a necessary counterpart to giving member states an opportunity to choose how they will achieve energy efficiency. If we accept that Europe should not impose in detail the method by which each member state achieves the targets, the corollary surely must be that we at least set targets to which we contribute through the policies that we regard as appropriate in our own member state.

Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made in reaching agreement on the energy services directive? What is the position on mandatory energy efficiency targets, and what position are the Government advancing on them? I also ask him to consider the case for mandatory targets. If we do not adopt such targets, what other measures has he in mind to achieve the objectives of the energy services directive?

We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for applying for this debate and I congratulate him on obtaining it. How does he think mandatory targets should be enforced, and what penalties should be used against members states that fail to meet those targets?

Ultimately, as with any mandatory European provision, the offending state can be brought before the European Court of Justice and required to take measures to ensure implementation. If necessary, it can be penalised for not complying with those mandatory requirements. The normal result, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that members states eventually comply with mandatory requirements. It is important not so much to concentrate on what happens at the end of the day if member states do not comply with their requirements, but to ensure proper monitoring of their compliance with requirements. That is the area on which we should concentrate our minds.

Might not the proper enforcement of emissions trading schemes be a way of helping nations to achieve mandatory targets? If they did not achieve their targets, they would have to pay a financial penalty.

That could well be one way of enforcing targets, and it emphasises that we are discussing not just one set of measures, but a whole portfolio of measures, all of which must be put into operation to allow us to reach European targets. Those are ambitious, but we all want to reach them.

On the energy services directive, a specific point has been drawn to my attention by the consumer organisation Energywatch. It has pointed out at a number of forums the advantage of smart meters both to consumers and for energy efficiency. They show clearly the amount of energy being consumed and thereby encourage consumers to use energy in the most efficient way. Plenty of research has been carried out, which I cannot go into today, on the savings that such meters can bring consumers and the energy savings that can be made. Energywatch pointed out that the current draft directive on energy services includes a provision to ensure that consumers are given information on their energy consumption regularly enough to allow it to influence their energy use. Such a provision will encourage smart metering and that, in itself, will be a worthwhile outcome of the directive when it finally goes through the European process.

The second debate taking place on European energy issues is on the Green Paper on energy efficiency, which was launched by the Commission just before the summer. It is an excellent document, which makes pointed observations on the opportunity for Europe if we make use of energy efficiency. In his introduction, the commissioner said that Europe could, relatively easily, save 20 per cent. of energy consumption by 2020. Half of that could be saved simply by member states effectively implementing current European measures on energy efficiency. Although making an additional 10 per cent. of energy savings is a challenging task, it is certainly by no means impossible. It is to be welcomed that the Commission recognises the importance of energy efficiency throughout the European Union.

I urge the Government to be proactive in support of the Commission's proposals. I would be interested to hear the Minister say how the Government intend to respond to the Green Paper, and how they will ensure that Departments, local government, businesses, trade unions and NGOs are involved in the debate. The Commission has rightly said that such a debate is essential to ensure that, if we adopt such a programme, it is effective and reaches what are undoubtedly ambitious but necessary targets. Given the time left to me, I shall say no more on that now, but I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on how the debate on the Green Paper can be taken further.

I referred to the meeting that took place in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. I understand that other hon. Members may make reference to it later. I simply want to highlight a number of the points made at that meeting, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister an indication of the Government's position on the important matters discussed.

The meeting of parliamentarians pointed out that the fossil fuels on which we rely—oil, gas, coal—will all run out sooner or later. Uranium will also eventually run out. That emphasises the importance of adopting policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. The conference pointed out that more than 300,000 people work in the renewable energy sector in the European Union. That industry has an annual turnover of more than €15 billion, so it is already big business in Europe. It is important that we take further the opportunity of developing that business, and to make sure that we in the UK get the maximum potential from it.

The parliamentarians in Edinburgh also called for a mandatory target of 25 per cent. renewable energy consumption by 2020 in the European Union. I would be interested to know the Minister's views on mandatory targets for renewable energy. I can see arguments for and against them, but if we are not to have mandatory targets, we certainly need a suggestion of how Europe can get together to ensure that we reach our full potential in the field of renewable energy.

The European parliamentarians also drew attention to the need to promote renewable heating and cooling in Europe. Renewable sources have an immense potential to provide for our needs for heating and, increasingly, for cooling. With climate change, there is a need for cooling in ever greater parts of Europe. I urge the Government to consider the advantages of a European directive to promote renewable heating and cooling. I know that before the Minister came to this Chamber today he was involved in responding on initiatives that the Government are taking in that field. Perhaps that is a point to which he can refer, as he is fresh from his earlier meetings.

My final point relates to a particular constituency interest, but it has much wider implications for renewable energy policy, both in the UK and at European level. In my constituency are the headquarters of a company called Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. It is at the forefront of the development of wave power in the UK and Europe, and it recently won a contract to supply, in Portugal, what will form the heart of the world's first commercial wave energy farm. It has had considerable support from the Department of Trade and Industry in developing its technology.

I know that the company is very grateful for that support, but it is now waiting for a decision on support for the next stage in the development of its technology. The decision making has been fairly slow. That company, along with others involved in the sector, is still awaiting the announcement of a decision on how the marine deployment fund, which was announced by the Government last year, will be allocated.

I understand that decisions on the applications to a fund are currently delayed as a result of the European Commission's state aid approval process. It is certainly not a good example for European policy in practice if Europe adopts bold policies on renewable energy but individual companies find that there is a lengthy process for getting approval to take their technology projects forward.

I make that point because the fear is that if we in the UK do not take the opportunities to support the growing wave power technologies that are now being developed on a commercial basis, those technologies and the companies will move elsewhere. They will move to countries such as Portugal, which will get the benefit of technology that we have developed in the UK.

We must bear in mind what happened with wind power. Britain was at the forefront of technology in the 1970s, but we lost our opportunities, and countries such as Denmark developed multibillion-pound industries with many thousands of employees because they seized the opportunities that we did not. We must ensure that we do not make a similar mistake with wave power, where we have particular advantages because of our geographic situation.

I know that what we are doing in the UK is widely respected throughout Europe, so I hope that the Minister will give some indication—it might not be today—about what is happening on the decisions on the marine deployment fund. I urge him, in his role in the Energy Council, to ensure that European approval processes do not unduly delay decisions on applications by OPD and other companies, so that the technology can be taken up by the industry in the UK and elsewhere.

Europe is at the forefront of both renewable energy and energy efficiency, but we should not be complacent. Some countries are doing better than we are at energy efficiency. Although we can currently point to some of the growing economies such as China and India—in due course, we may be able to point to Russia—that appear to be behind us on energy efficiency and renewable energy, we know that those countries are increasingly aware that they cannot go on with their current high energy consumption policies. If they intend to continue their economic growth, they will have to turn increasingly to renewable energy and energy efficiency.

There is an immense opportunity for us to take advantage of our lead in these fields in Europe and provide long-term employment for hundreds of thousands of people in the European Union. However, we must take the decisions soon, if not now, to ensure that we do not lose the opportunities that exist for our industry. If we do not take the right decisions quickly, we could end up making the same mistake at European level that I would argue we made at British level in the 1970s. It would be a tragedy if we did so, and I urge the Minister to ensure that we do not.

I start by echoing the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in welcoming this debate and congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing it. For the reasons that he has given, it is an important and timely debate. I agree with a great deal of what he said, particularly on how mandatory targets can help to move things forward; I will return to that.

I welcome the discussions around the energy end-use efficiency and energy services directive. From my party's point of view it is crucial that, in their discussions about the directive and their input into it, the Government do not seek in any way to water down what is being discussed in the hope that mandatory targets can be brought in. Mandatory targets should be set at a reasonable level to encourage progress on these issues, rather than being over-draconian. They certainly have a role to play in encouraging member states to move forward.

The Prime Minister has made action on climate change a key element of the UK presidency of the European Union; he has raised it on a number of occasions, but the UK presidency is passing at an alarming rate. The Government have an opportunity to address that agenda and to claim to have taken some action on it during their presidency. I understand that there may be an opportunity to get this directive passed during the plenary session in December; that would be a great step forward. That breakthrough would give a clear signal that the UK Government have taken some significant action in their presidency.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith referred to the Edinburgh declaration, which represents a step forward in promoting the comprehensive and coherent European renewable energy and energy efficiency strategy that is needed. There are challenges involved in securing a strategy that is comprehensive and coherent when the inevitable negotiations have to take place at European level, and then in securing those benefits and making sure that they are applied in the member states.

The aim of achieving 25 per cent. renewable energy by 2020 is one of the mandatory targets discussed in the Edinburgh declaration. That would set a clear target for states, and if the Government were minded to accept it, it would move the debate forward considerably.

Returning to the directive, one of the targets discussed is an energy saving of 1 per cent. a year in each member state. That would lead to a 6 per cent. overall reduction by 2012; that is significant, and would help to move things in the right direction.

We are also very supportive of the idea of a demand-side public sector target, because the public sector has a great role to play in showing how energy efficiency measures can be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) recently asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister a parliamentary question about building regulations. We had hoped that the Government would take a slightly more forward-looking view on that, although we are grateful that the regulations are, at least in part, being introduced.

We need to note the benefits of energy efficiency measures in terms not only of climate change and the cost savings from which we can all benefit, but of the job creation potential of exploiting the new technologies. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said, in the past we have missed out on opportunities to put our country at the forefront of technologies for renewable energy and energy efficiency. There is now a great opportunity; ideas exist in our country which can be exploited. As a Member representing a Cornish constituency, I am well aware of the potential of wave power. Seeing the opportunities for that technology to be brought into play, I am particularly excited to be involved in this debate.

I also note that the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has reported on renewable energy. The report unfortunately identifies certain obstacles to the exploitation and development of renewable energy. It suggests ways in which member states' Governments could do more to encourage energy efficiency. The report says that the

"market is still suffering from a number of serious distortions, such as insufficient ownership-unbundling requirements, ineffective wholesale markets, increased market concentration, large direct and indirect subsidies, no non-discriminatory access to balancing facilities like the large hydro-storage power plants, non-segregated decommissioning funds and non-internalisation of external costs."

It insists that the Commission tackle those issues in its report on internal electricity and gas markets at the end of the year. We are seeing several different initiatives. With the UK presidency proceeding to its close, it is a crucial time for the Government to take advantage of those initiatives and stamp their seal of approval on such moves.

We should call on the Commission to reform the market. We need to encourage smaller energy producers and ensure that they have access to the grid. People have contacted me saying that they are interested in microgeneration and the installation of machines in their homes to generate power, but when they investigated they discovered that they get far less for any electricity that they produce than they pay for energy that they take in. We must correct such measures to encourage everybody at every level to take advantage of renewable technology.

Some people in my constituency do not have access to the grid at all. I am sure that several other Members are in that position. Some in more urban constituencies are surprised to hear that, but I have people who are still reliant on their own generator. With the increase in fuel costs and so on, they will face a great increase in costs.

We hope that the Commission will consider ways to avoid monopolies being formed and set in stone, and ways in which financial instruments could be used to encourage the use of energy efficient technology. Several other states in the European Union have introduced measures designed to increase the take-up of energy efficient technology. In Italy, for example, electricity regulators set tariffs to promote energy end-use efficiency. In Denmark, energy distributors are obliged to grant energy counselling free of charge, and there are several other initiatives in Luxembourg, Germany and elsewhere.

There is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to take on some of those ideas and, I hope, to move forward. There is a role for some form of mandatory target, and I look forward to the directive being passed later this year, to its coming into effect and to its successful implementation.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is welcome that we are debating this matter during the British presidency of the EU, because we must hold the Government to account for what they are or are not doing during their presidency. They said that early settlement of the energy services directive would be "a priority". I ask the Minister, what evidence is there that any significant priority has been attached to the directive?

I hope that the Government will respond to the point I made to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) that an energy services directive with mandatory targets would require enforcement and that enforcing targets on countries that would be unable to achieve them might be difficult and pointless. We are all in favour of improving access to economically efficient renewable electricity generation at both micro and macro level.

As an aside, Miss Widdecombe, may I declare that my wife may be applying for a clear skies grant to install renewable energy in a holiday home? I was disappointed to learn that the closing date for applications under the clear skies initiative is 4 November, which is next week. There will then be a seven-month delay before the Government approve the replacement for the clear skies initiative. Here we are, talking about renewable energy and dealing with hundreds of small, even minute, businesses involved in the programme of installing renewable energy devices in people's homes and businesses, but if the Government's funding is left off the list and abolished for months on end it will hardly add to the viability of the industry and bring down the cost of equipment and installation, which is presumably what the Government want to achieve.

May I briefly congratulate the hon. Gentleman's wife on her eco-awareness and suggest, without doing the means test, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give his wife an early birthday present and should not get too much into the grants culture?

That question must have been a tease. I did not think that the grants were means-tested; perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. If grants are available, presumably, the Government want people to take them up. Renewable energy is still expensive and presumably the purpose of the grants is to pump-prime the industry, so that volumes rise and costs fall. As a UK taxpayer and citizen, my wife is just as entitled to apply for a grant as any other UK taxpayer and citizen. I am interested in the notion that the Government's policy may be discriminatory. It is an interesting philosophical point. If someone is politically indisposed to Government money being spent on uneconomic activities such as grants for this or that, is it then morally wrong to apply for them? I submit that it is not, but that is a matter for my wife and not me. I merely wanted to put the interest on the record. Although it is not declarable in the Register of Members' Interests, I am not ashamed to draw the Houses's attention to it.

What is the point of including mandatory targets in the energy services directive if they cannot be achieved? There is a great danger of believing that, if we are legislating for something good, we are definitely doing something good. In fact, the European Union is littered with evidence of legislation to achieve good things which has had adverse consequences that were not foreseen by the authors of the legislation.

Although I found the discussion about the clear skies grant for the hon. Gentleman's wife's interesting, I am glad that we are back on the European energy services directive.

I accept the value of some of what the hon. Gentleman said about mandatory targets. It would be wrong to set mandatory targets that no one had a hope of achieving, but I notice that his party had a debate in the main Chamber last week to criticise the Government for allegedly not reaching their Kyoto targets. Therefore, I take it that the Conservative party does not in principle oppose binding targets, so I wonder why he believes that at some level mandatory targets do not have a role to play in energy efficiency or renewable energy.

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid and interesting point, but it is the Prime Minister who is now questioning the efficacy of the Kyoto treaty and its mandatory targets. The Kyoto targets are not binding in UK law. Breaching those obligations would not have the same consequence as breaching a mandatory target set under European Community law, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, could result in infraction proceedings being taken against the UK in the European Parliament.

The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) discussed the emissions trading scheme, which is a market system for creating an incentive against carbon dioxide production by member states. It is an example of where we could have some difficulties. Up to 2012, the scheme is clear enough, but what happens then? Some countries will be hugely over-producing carbon dioxide and exceeding their allocated allowance under the scheme. It is difficult to understand how the scheme would continue on that basis—if, in fact, it does not fall to pieces before then. I could ask why we do not set mandatory targets for reducing unemployment. The answer is that some things simply do not respond to that kind of invocation.

Let me be clear. I support the objective of the energy efficiency directive. However, we must carefully consider the means of achieving it. I support the Government's opposition to mandatory targets and would be interested in hearing where they are on that issue at present.

What is the Government's response to the Green Paper, which has been out for consultation for some time? They have issued no concrete response. As the Association for the Conservation of Energy pointed out, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment stated at the beginning of the presidency:

"Under the UK presidency, the Government will therefore look to pro-actively encourage responses to the Green Paper as part of the wider public debate on energy efficiency which the Commission have launched."—[Official Report, 4 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 4W.]

Where is the great wider public debate that the Government said they would promote during the presidency? I see no sign of it.

Lack of such a debate is yet more evidence of the Government's invisible presidency, which is how it should become known. After the fanfare of the Prime Minister's speech to the European Parliament, in which he said that he would scrap agricultural support and completely change the whole architecture of the European Union because that was the message, which he initially opposed, from the two referendums, we have heard virtually nothing from the Government about the presidency. It is likely to turn out to be the least productive British presidency in the history of our membership of the European Union.

I have several points to make about the Edinburgh declaration, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith referred. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to them. First, the assumptions in the declaration are deeply flawed. Oil, gas, coal and uranium will eventually run out, but there are enough coal stocks in the world to last for more than 200 years, and more than 40 per cent. of them are in stable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Simply to discount fossil fuels overlooks the contribution of technologies such as carbon capture and storage. In this Chamber last week, distinguished Labour Members argued for a greater role for coal in UK electricity generation, based on the emerging carbon capture and storage technologies.

As for uranium running out, has the Minister studied the third report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology covering the period from 1988 to 1999, which was published on 10 March 1999? It refers to the mixed oxide fuel stocks in this country, and I recommend it to him. We have substantial stocks, which would, I am told, fund a nuclear electricity generation programme easily for 30 years.

If we could provide 35 per cent. of our electricity from nuclear sources for 30 years to make a substantial contribution to a reduction in our use of fossil fuels, that would seem a practical way forward; the Government chief scientist has hinted that that would be his desire. The declaration's assumption that stocks of nuclear fuels are somehow finite and low misunderstands the United Kingdom's situation.

This may, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, help him to avoid going down a road that he need not go down. I am not suggesting that fossil fuels have no important role to play for many years to come. I recognise the opportunities for more efficient use of coal and carbon capture in relation to coal emissions. Equally, I recognise that the limited supplies of uranium do not mean that nuclear power does not have technical potential. My point is simply that we have to do more to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, and that is where greater emphasis needs to be given at European level.

I am perfectly prepared to support that principle, but we are discussing the means of doing so and whether some means are as economically efficient as others at reducing our carbon dependency, which is what we are really talking about. The declaration says that nuclear power has "serious environmental considerations". Well, I do not know of any form of electricity generation that does not have such considerations.

Personally, I do not believe that the nuclear industry has any more serious environmental considerations than any other. Coal has more serious environmental considerations, unless we crack the carbon sequestration and storage problem. Modern nuclear power gets an unfair press because of historical mistakes made with nuclear generation.

We have a stock of nuclear waste and a backlog of nuclear decommissioning to deal with, and we are going to have to deal with that anyway. Even if we had 30 years of nuclear generation in addition to that of our existing plants, we would add only a tiny fraction to the stockpile of nuclear waste that we already have to deal with. The Government will have to confront that problem anyway. I do not regard nuclear waste as an insurmountable obstacle, either technically or economically. Indeed, the problem is only political and it is high time that the Government got on with solving that to allow the market to continue with nuclear power if it so wishes.

The UK energy market is heavily distorted in favour not of nuclear power or coal, but of renewable energy sources. The National Audit Office estimates that that distortion will cost the consumer £1 billion a year by 2010. It also estimates that upgrading the transmission network to allow renewable energy projects to connect will cost between £1.1 billion and £1.3 billion by 2010. Those costs do not have to be carried by the renewable energy generators that invest in a plant; they will be passed on to the consumer one way or another.

The NAO has calculated that the renewables obligation is the most expensive of the Government's policy tools for reducing CO 2 emissions, with an estimated cost of between £70 and £140 per tonne of carbon not emitted. I reckon that that is a serious consideration.

We are in favour of renewable power in principle because it generates electricity from elements in our environment, such as wind, waves, tidal power and solar. However, if the cost is as high as that, we must ask whether there are cheaper ways in which to reduce carbon emissions than by betting the ranch on the dash for wind power that the Government are going for at present. Renewable technologies are still uneconomic. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on renewable energy found that

"In conventional terms, virtually no renewable source is economically competitive at present".

The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith talked enthusiastically about wave power. My researches suggest that wave power is about the least economic of renewable energy sources. We are still a long way from being able to convert wave power into economic quantities of electricity. There might be an inventor with the Midas touch who will invent new technology, but at present we are very much at the Heath Robinson end of the equation. It warms my heart to see money being put into research projects in those areas, but let us be realistic: the idea that wave power will make a measurable contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in a short time is moonshine.

It is strange that the hon. Gentleman mentioned inventors who are interested in wave power because a gentleman in my constituency has been in touch with me about the contribution that he hopes to make to that subject. I am sure that he would welcome the chance to get in touch with the Minister about it.

I was intrigued that the hon. Gentleman referred to renewables and cost-effectiveness, having already moved over the nuclear industry. Is he arguing that the nuclear industry has been cost-effective in its lifetime and has not pulled in huge subsidies?

That is a pertinent question. It definitely deserves a debate of its own, although perhaps on a different occasion—I look carefully at you, Miss Widdecombe. An increasing number of countries are going down the nuclear route. Our nuclear industry was not particularly efficient. We tended to build a different sort of power station and reactor each time. When we built reactors, each reactor had experimental elements to it; each one had to be certificated separately for safety. Each reactor had its own specifically trained work force. Let us compare that to the French nuclear reactor programme, which standardised early on one form of reactor, so that it had to license only one type. It had a much more efficient planning process. It went for volume, which brought down the costs. Given the Finnish reactor construction programme, Finland seems to have learnt some of those lessons.

The Government must develop a policy framework that is favourable to efficiency in the nuclear industry to avoid the mistakes that we made in our nuclear programmes. The industry has informed me that, given the right stimuli, the right policy framework and the pre-licensing facilities of reactor types and prospective sites, it can be economically viable. Given the substantial increase in electricity, oil and gas prices in recent weeks, months and years, the equation has moved significantly in favour of nuclear.

I commend to the hon. Gentleman a paper by Professor Dieter Helm. It concludes that a new nuclear build programme is on the cusp of viability. If the Government were minded to create the right framework to remove some of the obstacles and uncertainties, the programme would be viable. It is something that the Government should get on with as quickly as possible.

The targets called for in the Edinburgh declaration are difficult to justify. All countries apart from those that produce a high proportion of electricity from hydro—in Austria, the proportion is 67 per cent., in Sweden 54 per cent., in Portugal 26 per cent. and in Finland 21 per cent.—would have to cope with massive intermittency and grid connection problems to meet a target of 33 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2020.

Such a rapid expansion of renewables would inevitably be focused on wind generation. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has visited Denmark, which generates more wind power per head of population than any other country. There, the average load factor for wind is just 20 per cent. of capacity. In Germany, E.ON Netz states in its 2005 report that the average feed into the grid from wind was just one fifth of the total installed wind-generating capacity. It reports that in order to maintain grid stability wind can displace conventional generation only to a limited extent. The hon. Gentleman said that the problem should not be overstated, but Denmark and Germany balance their grid by importing what is probably fossil fuel-generated electricity to deal with the intermittency of their domestic wind production.

To give an example, on current trends, the forecast of 48,000 MW of installed wind capacity for 2020 would displace only 2,000 MW of conventionally generated electricity; that is just 4 per cent. That is why we need to ask whether we are spending our money on the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions. In reality, of course, wind generation is not a strictly carbon-free system of generation, because it requires back-up from other forms of generation.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee found that

"for relatively low penetrations of wind power (up to ten per cent of total demand) the additional standby capacity required is small . . . there is a law of diminishing returns: the amount of conventional generating capacity that can be displaced by intermittent generating capacity falls proportionately as the absolute amount displaced increases."

I listen with interest to the suggestion that we can take a pan-European view of the issue. I have not heard that suggestion before. We have to grapple with the concept of line loss. If one transports large amounts of electricity from one side of the continent to the other, because of a lack of wind generation effectiveness at one side and because of wind blowing on the other, line loss is a significant factor. It heats up the atmosphere, which is not a good thing; it wastes a lot of electricity; and it corrupts the frequency—that is another point that must be borne in mind. The longer the transmission lines, the more corrupted the frequency becomes. One finishes with what those in the business call dirty electricity. Dirty electricity is quite difficult to manage.

I am quite technically minded, but I have not got my mind fully around the technology of how to run a national grid. I understand that it is much like that game in which someone tries to balance lots of plates on the end of bamboo poles. The plates must all be kept twirling round, and none must be allowed to fall off, because if one starts to fall off, they all do. As we have seen recently, we only need one bit of the system to shut down for it to trigger the shutdown of other bits of the system. The whole system becomes unbalanced and automatically shuts down, and then it is difficult to start up again. It is the problems of intermittency and line loss that we must be wary of as we dash for wind in our enthusiasm for renewable electricity.

Proposals for land use plans that give priority to renewable energy sources risk local objections being overridden simply to meet centrally set targets. The Government are already riding roughshod over popular opinion in their dash for wind. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry planning inspector last week gave the go-ahead to the construction of 26 wind turbines at Romney Marsh in Kent. That was done in the face of opposition from two county councils, two district and 12 parish councils, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a host of environmental organisations. The Government have overridden serious environmental considerations in that case. I wonder whether the matter will go to the European Court of Justice if there is a challenge on environmental grounds. The decision does not comply with other European directives on the environment.

Generally, there is no established consensus on the most cost-efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. Energy efficiency has been a goal for the past 30 years, but demand for electricity continues to grow at 1.5 per cent. per year. There is little point in setting new targets at European or national level when the Government are already missing their own targets on climate change, renewables and energy efficiency. For example, they are likely to miss their 2010 renewables target of 10 per cent. of electricity consumption and their 2010 combined heat and power target of 10,000 MW of CHP. Building regulations relating to energy efficiency are being flouted regularly.

In its manifesto for the general election in May, Labour pledged to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010, in spite of all the evidence that its policies to cut emissions are failing. Total CO 2 emissions for the UK in 2004 were 6 million tonnes, or 4 per cent. higher than the 2003 figure, which in turn was 1.5 per cent. higher than the figure for emissions in 2002. The chances of meeting the target of a 20 per cent. reduction are nil.

If we are to begin to change people's attitudes to energy use, which is what I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is really seeking to achieve, we need to go back to the grass roots and to the clear skies programme. We need to consider the promotion of microgeneration and to combine it with energy efficiency in people's homes and offices. Like energy-saving measures such as solar panels, small wind turbines and the use of rain water, domestic microgeneration is only just beginning to become readily available. Low volumes and the intermittency of grant support mean high prices, and planning departments and building regulations militate against the very things that the Government seek to promote. However, people who implement such measures become more and more aware of their energy usage and often make disproportionate savings as a result. The Government's disjointed approach to the matter militates against that.

I argue for enhancing and encouraging people's natural instinct to conserve—what I call the politics of the compost heap. That should be a major part of the energy White Paper that I am urging the Government to pursue. Rather than starting at a European level, let us start at the grass-roots level, with conservation and microgeneration.

rose—

Before I call you, Mr. Challen, I should say that the previous occupant of the Chair pointed out that she called the Front-Bench spokesmen to reply thinking that no other Member was seeking to catch her eye, but you stood up after that and she did not have you on the list of speakers. It would normally be the Minister's turn to speak and he would have a reasonable amount of time in which to conclude his remarks. I will call you, but I ask you to confine your remarks to about five minutes. The Minister has generously agreed to that. I hope that Members will not intervene, to allow you to say as much as you want in that time.

Thank you, Mr. Hancock. I understood that an Opposition Back Bencher would have the first opportunity to speak after a Government Back Bencher, so perhaps I was not quick enough on my feet, although I had written in to say that I wanted to speak in the debate; I thought that would be sufficient.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and on his private Member's Bill, which, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), addresses these issues. If those Bills go through Parliament, they will give the Government enormous powers to forge ahead with the debate.

That is extremely important because I feel that, as has been indicated in the debate, Britain has, sadly, slipped behind some of our European competitors on renewable energy. We have not taken it terribly seriously in the past. In that perhaps we are victims of our history, as an island blessed with abundant fossil fuels, but it would be a great mistake to continue down that path. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—I have the unnatural advantage of having heard his speech, for which I apologise—seemed to indicate that the cross-party consensus forged last week might be disassembled in short order. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will pay great attention to what the hon. Gentleman said this morning.

We have made huge efforts to prop up the nuclear industry. British Energy is still croaking along with all the subventions that the taxpayer has contributed to it. At the European level, too, I am sad to say that there is still evidence of a reluctance to kill off this old dinosaur. For example, five times more research money is spent on looking for the holy grail of nuclear fusion than is spent on renewables, even though we know that renewables can deliver in our lifetime, not in a time frame that "Star Trek" fans would be more familiar with.

It is good to see what is being done with renewable energy in Europe, even if it is not being done on quite the scale it should be. Denmark is often cited as an example of a far-sighted country—and it is—that long ago realised it could reduce its carbon emissions, which it has, while becoming more self-reliant; it does not share our level of indigenous energy sources. Denmark developed its policy as an industrial strategy, as did Germany. Wind power has delivered a lot for Denmark, and it is now selling products to us in a fast-growing export market. It has done so with cross-party and public support. That is my major point because I have had to curtail what I wanted to say.

I hope that we can learn some lessons from the Danes because we must convince the public that we are following the right course. We cannot afford to experience any further delays. The Danish Government and opposition parties came to a formal agreement. Under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport and Energy, they have an agreement that seeks to

"ensure a reliable energy infrastructure for the future".

The agreement supports a draft plan on renewable energy and conservation presented by the Danish Government at the end of last year, which followed cross-party discussions during the previous six months. It contains eight commitments and although I will not go through them all in detail, I hope that the Minister will agree to examine them.

Briefly, the commitments cover measurable energy savings and how they will be delivered and monitored, agreements that will follow with suppliers, the setting up of a co-ordinating committee, effective energy labelling for buildings and so on. The agreement was signed on 10 June this year and the Danish Government are committed to presenting their detailed implementation plan by the end of November. In response to that, we could say, "We are not the Danes. We are not a small country and our histories are quite different. Our culture does not permit any such consensus." I say that we do not have time to turn our backs on good practice elsewhere in Europe and carry on battling in our own discrete little political boxes.

Finland's experience has been mentioned; it is going down the nuclear route. Funnily enough, that decision was also made by all-party consensus, but I do not think such a consensus would be achievable in this country because it is built on a proposition that our nuclear industry will not be prepared to accept. Finland has had to sell to the public the principle of how the industry deals with its waste before doing anything else. I do not think that the nuclear industry in this country is willing to accept such a principle prior to further nuclear new build. I curtail my remarks and thank you, Mr. Hancock, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Welcome to our debate, Mr. Hancock, which has been useful. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) for his shorter than expected but useful contribution. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) also made an important speech and raised one or two points that I want to address. As usual, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke in a challenging way, but I would like to challenge some of what he said myself, if I have time.

The recent declaration of Edinburgh is an important contribution to the debate on the security of our electricity supplies and on how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is vital that we act to reduce those emissions, because climate change is already having far-reaching effects on our planet. For example, there is some evidence that the number of strong hurricanes has increased. This year has also seen a record hurricane season in the Atlantic, although it is too early to say how much climate change has influenced this year's storms; the scientific jury is still out on that one. Even so, Katrina, Rita and, more recently, Wilma demonstrate that such storms are a major threat to even modern cities, leading to considerable loss of life and economic damage.

Although renewable energy and energy efficiency have a key role in helping us to reach our emissions target, we also recognise that fossil fuels will still have an important role to play in meeting our long-term energy needs—I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex in that respect. That is why we need to adopt, and we believe that we have adopted, an holistic approach to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

On 14 June, I was pleased to announce the publication of a carbon abatement technology strategy for fossil fuel use and the development of a hydrogen energy strategic framework. That includes a funding package of some £40 million for demonstration projects of carbon abatement, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies over the next three or four years. The carbon abatement technologies strategy promotes a twin-track approach: more efficient plant producing lower emissions, together with carbon capture or sequestration storage to deal with the emissions that remain.

Hydrogen has the potential to contribute to cost-competitive carbon reductions and increased energy security for transport in the medium term. Indeed, when I was in Washington recently, courtesy of General Motors, I was able to drive, albeit briefly and nervously, a hydrogen car. I was nervous because I was told that it was worth $1 million in terms of development. The technologies are moving forward and they, together with renewables and increased energy efficiency, will help us to reach our environmental and energy policy objectives.

Of course, we are continuing our support for renewable technologies through the renewables obligation and dedicated funding programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith mentioned Ocean Power Delivery and its wave energy generator. That company is in the forefront of the development of an exciting new technology and has already benefited from more than £3 million of funds from the Department to help support six separate projects. Ocean Power Delivery will be able to bid for further funding under the marine renewables deployment fund—a fund of some £50 million—for which we have just received state aid approval. That will start in January next year.

It has been noted that the biomass taskforce report was published this morning; I was at the launch. As the hon. Member for North Essex knows, we thank Sir Ben Gill for his important report, which we need to consider. Biomass is already making a contribution, albeit a small one of 1 per cent. or so, to electricity generation. We need to consider its potential.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I take the opportunity to comment on the outcome of the biomass report? It was reported in The Daily Telegraph that it

"will . . . dismiss as 'unworkable' proposals that a proportion of domestic and business heating should come from renewable sources."

That may have been garbled in the reporting. Will he comment on the outcome of the report, which seems to be against any compulsion?

The hon. Gentleman needs to read the report thoroughly and, indeed, so do I. I have not yet had a chance to read it all. We will respond to it in the fullness of time; I will leave it there.

The clear skies programme, which has been mentioned, and another programme to support photovoltaic solar panelling will be followed by a carbon buildings programme. I hope to say more about that quite soon.

All I was trying to say earlier in a little tease of the hon. Gentleman—I am pleased that his family are considering microgeneration for their home—is that these things should not just depend on support from the state. To enable citizens to become part of the solution to climate change, rather than, as we all are, part of the problem, we need to enable more people to think that such technology is a reasonable investment in the energy efficiency of their own dwellings.

I am interested in the position of the Conservative party. Although the hon. Gentleman spoke enthusiastically about microgeneration, he is clearly not so excited by the potential of other renewables and wind turbines. I am interested in what that means for the Conservative party in the future. I read the press, and I note that there is some activity in that party. I thought that the Tories were moving towards being a more caring and sharing party, and, one might have assumed, a cleaner and greener party. However, that does not really square with their abandoning the renewables obligation—I do not know if that is their policy—or abandoning any idea of setting targets for renewables. Despite what the press suggests, it appears to me that the Tory party is looking backwards. Or is all this just hot air, which does not help either? Is the Tory party looking forwards or backwards?

rose—

We are going to get an answer—although the real answer will come in six weeks.

The truth is that the Government's energy policy has become a bit of a shambles, as they have bolted more and more on to the policy they inherited from the previous Administration. We are arguing for a proper review, and I have argued that the Government should consider extending the renewables obligation to all forms of non-carbon generation in order to create a level playing field for all such generation, which is presumably the objective—rather renewables becoming a religion.

It would be interesting to see what came out of that review. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because we think that the priority is to reduce carbon emissions in the most economically efficient way. That is what we are working towards, and the Government should do the same.

I agree, but working towards that is not the same thing as coming here as a sort of modern Tory Don Quixote and tilting at windmills. Nevertheless, we will continue the debate.

I turn to the work of the international community in addressing climate change. The EU accounts for about 14 per cent. of global emissions; we in the UK account for about 2 per cent. The EU emissions trading scheme was introduced on 1 January 2005; it is one of the policies introduced across Europe to tackle emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The scheme is considered to be one of the most cost-effective ways of meeting Kyoto obligations and of moving towards the low-carbon economy of the future. It is an imaginative mechanism—I can claim no credit for inventing it—to utilise the market for the benefit of broader European society.

On the domestic front, the UK is on track to achieve its obligations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases under Kyoto, and we have set ourselves an even more ambitious domestic goal of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The Prime Minister's decision to put climate change at the heart of our presidencies of the EU and the G8 demonstrates strong international leadership. We are committed to working with our partners in the International Energy Agency, the EU and the wider international community to deliver a global solution to a global problem.

The EU has already shown an appetite to address the challenge of climate change. The renewable electricity directive set the target for the EU of securing 22 per cent. of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. In June 2004, the Commission published a communication on the share of renewable energy in the EU. It evaluated progress made by the EU 15 countries towards achieving national targets for 2010 for electricity from renewable sources. The overall assessment was that the EU 2010 targets for renewables electricity would be missed. That has lead to the call in the declaration of Edinburgh for a mandatory target of 25 per cent. renewable energy consumption by 2020.

The UK Government have yet to be convinced that a mandatory target represents the right approach. The energy White Paper made it clear that we prefer to create a market framework, reinforced by long-term policy measures such as the renewables obligation, which will give investors, business and consumers the right incentives to find the balance that will most effectively meet our overall goals. The European Union has also introduced the framework programme, which channels €810 million into support for sustainable energy research. In addition, the Intelligent Energy Europe scheme—that is a good name—seeks to promote the use of renewables, energy efficiency and better transport fuels. Several other EU directives also relate to renewable energy, including a biofuels directive.

It is not just Europe that is determined to take action; the International Energy Agency is also active in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not only responsible for fossil fuels, but has a strong commitment to renewables, with its own research division on renewables, a renewables working party comprising member countries, and nine implementing agreements.

The Energy Commissioner's announcement earlier this year that energy efficiency was to be his No. 1 priority epitomises the heightened focus and was both welcome and timely. Energy efficiency is now at the heart of the UK's energy and climate change policies and we have been a leading advocate of energy efficiency for some time. As President of the EU, we now have an opportunity to press for greater awareness throughout Europe.

In the EU, the focus is increasingly shifting from the supply to the demand side of energy, with increasing recognition by Governments, business and consumers of the positive impact that increased energy efficiency can simultaneously have on business competitiveness, security of supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A suite of recently adopted directives has already established a sound basis for future energy efficiency policy throughout the EU. The energy performance measures in the buildings directive aim to promote the improvement of energy efficiency of buildings in the EU through a range of cost-effective measures. Coupled with the changes in the UK to part L of the building regulations, it is expected to deliver savings of almost 12 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. That is equivalent to the amount of carbon that would be emitted from nearly 1 million dwellings built to current standards.

The directive on eco-design of energy-using products sets out a framework for design requirements aimed at reducing the overall environmental impact of strategically important energy-using products, excluding means of transport. The Commission estimates that this measure alone could reduce EU energy consumption by around 10 per cent.

Another piece of legislation—the cogeneration directive—places an obligation on member states to ensure that support for combined heat and power is based on useful heat demand and primary energy savings. The UK is already largely compliant with the requirement, but the directive ensures that the majority of UK-based CHP schemes that are already providing primary energy savings are likely to continue to be eligible for public support.

In addition, the UK continues to press for agreement of the energy end-use efficiency and energy services directive, which is currently under negotiation. That is a priority for the UK presidency. The directive will set energy-saving targets for all member states and will place obligations on energy suppliers to offer and promote energy efficiency improvement measures to consumers and to provide better information to consumers to allow them to make informed decisions about their energy usage. The whole theme of work and discussion on improving metering and the idea of smart meters has a resonance in terms of microgeneration, and we need to look further at that. A good deal of work is going on and there is much practice in Italy on smart metering, which is interesting. Both the European Parliament and the Council have thrown their support behind this approach and we hope to reach a deal before the end of the year.

The announcement of the energy efficiency initiative and the publication of the Green Paper on energy efficiency before the summer were also a notable step forward and gave us a valuable opportunity to have an input into a longer term European framework on energy efficiency.

Will my hon. Friend indicate in his discussion on the energy services directive his view of the status of the energy-saving targets that would be placed on member states?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is some debate and disagreement between the European Parliament and the Council about the status of those targets. As President of the EU, the Government are trying to achieve some consensus on the issue. Essentially, we are in the business of supporting challenging but indicative targets, not mandatory ones, which I understand are not welcomed by the great majority of EU nations. However, that will be a matter for December's meeting of the Energy Council, which I chair.

We are keen to see the Green Paper lead to a further strengthening of the evidence base for energy efficiency. We cannot expect full buy-in until we can clearly point to benefits through increased competitiveness, security of supply and environmental improvements. In turn, those should help facilitate better regulation, better sharing of information and best practice between member states, and greater consistency and coherence throughout EU policy. The Green Paper should also offer an opportunity to add political impetus to proposals for further action in key sectors such as transport.

We are currently facilitating debate on the Green Paper between member states in Europe and I am looking forward to an important ministerial debate on it at the December Council. With the Commission, we are also co-hosting an international energy efficiency conference next week that will further consider the international elements of the Green Paper.

All that is very much part of the European dimension, but all the time we need to relate the international and European dimensions to the local dimension. I have not forgotten about the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who made an important contribution. He was talking about people in his constituency whose homes are not even part of the national grid. I am aware of that issue; we are making inroads there—no pun intended. More people are being connected to the grid, but not enough. I hope that we can do more with the national grid and Ofgem on that issue.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that microgeneration has a part to play. If people are off-grid, they need alternatives, and microgeneration is one of them, not least for those whom we would describe as the fuel poor, who need to make sure that they get enough energy. I want to think more about how we can connect up and I shall be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues whose constituents are off-grid.

This debate has been useful and we have had a number of noticeable contributions. It has certainly reminded us that although climate change is by definition a global issue, and although global players—the EU, the UN and the rest—need to play a major part, there is also a very local dimension. As I said earlier, there is a sense that we all, not only the big institutions and players, need individually to take some personal responsibility in our lifestyle choices, such as what car we drive.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the 25-5 challenge, launched by the all-party group on climate change, which seeks to make Members reduce their carbon emissions by 25 per cent. during the next five years. Does he think that a willingness among MPs to cut their emissions would be a good example to the public? I can tell him that 37 MPs have already signed up.

I think that I can name them all. Initiatives of that kind are important. The hon. Member for North Essex was talking about his compost heap; I was distributing my leaf-mould over the weekend. We are all part of the problem; we should become part of the solution.

Just this morning, there were two explosions in Sulaymaniyah. According to first reports, nine people were killed. Our condolences and our hearts go to their families. This terrible disaster—this terrorist atrocity—was the first such incident in Kurdistan for about a year.

Let me start by making two things clear. The people of the Kurdistan region of Iraq supported the war to remove Saddam Hussein, and they see us as a liberating, not an occupying, force. I was in Iraq during the run-up to the war in February 2003, and I went again in September this year. Therefore, I feel well placed to report on the progress achieved since the war, and I do so humbly in the hope that I can inform the debate.

I pay tribute to the many MPs who have been involved with the area. Hon. Members must often base their decisions on Government briefings. I trust Ministers to act honourably and to give briefings in good faith—they always do. However, we also speak and vote according to what we hear, read or see in sometimes sensational media coverage. If we go to war for a people, it is right, if we can, to learn what those people actually feel and think. That is why I have been to Iraq and why I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate so that I can help, in my small way, better to inform the House and the international community.

The bare facts are stark. Ninety-seven members of our armed forces have been killed. Our spending approaches £6 billion, and our longer term plans remain relatively undeveloped, although I accept that we now have an honourable exit strategy. This is one of the more important debates of recent years, and addressing the facts at first hand is self-evidently the right approach. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has just entered the Chamber; he missed my paying tribute to him.

The UK forces are in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Government and operate as part of a multinational force under resolution 1546 of the UN Security Council. They are providing the necessary support, training and security for the Iraqi Government to build a democratic, safe and prosperous future for their people. Any MP who does not believe that it is an essential part of our job to make the world a safer place, and to tackle human rights abuses wherever there is genuine need, is not following the time-honoured and honourable traditions of this mother of Parliaments.

I pay tribute to our armed forces. I am proud to have served in them myself, if only briefly. They are one of the best disciplined, most professional and most effective forces in the world, particularly in difficult peacekeeping roles. We must do all that we can to protect them, and we must bring them home safely as soon as we possibly can.

I pay tribute to the media who, although they sometimes sensationalise, work with dignity, bravery and professionalism. They do an excellent and necessary job. The 100 British policemen in Iraq have trained almost 15,000 Iraqi police and will end up training about 25,000, and there are many unsung British heroes who are helping in specialist areas. We can be proud of them all.

I gave the Prime Minister a message from Kurdish President Barzani, in which he thanked the British people for

"all you have done to liberate his people and help them to secure a safe and democratic future"

and asked the Prime Minister to

"continue to keep sufficient troops in Iraq to enable the country to reform as a stable democracy".

It is worth putting the Prime Minister's response on record. He stated:

"I was pleased you had a good exchange with President Barzani. We will continue to work with him and other leaders to help Iraq develop as a stable democracy. I believe we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to see through this commitment. We will stay in Iraq for as long as we are needed and not a day longer."

The Prime Minister, like all MPs, must have the courage to make tough personal judgments and stand by them. It is called leadership. I am grateful to him for his responsible and honourable leadership during the post-war period in Iraq. As for the decision to go to war in Iraq in the first place, history will show that it was justified, because on balance it saved lives and suffering.

The Prime Minister said that Saddam Hussein slaughtered more than 1.5 million people. He certainly slaughtered 500,000 Kurds. Thus, on average, 1,000 people were killed every week of his evil regime, and the war stopped that slaughter. That gives moral justification for the war. If the war eventually delivers stability to Iraq and the middle east and enables human rights to progress and democracy to become established, they will represent additional reasons why Britain was right to go to war in Iraq. Whatever one feels about the decision to go to war, we are there and there we must stay until the job is done.

The attempted destabilisation of Iraq, which we saw in the bombs this morning, is driven by various motives. The mindless terrorism of al-Qaeda is a key factor, but perversely the insurgency and terrorism will prolong our stay. Remnants of the Ba'ath party and some Sunnis remain unable to accept the new order. They do not like the majority Shi'a population gaining democratic controls. There are some who want to destroy the progressive political development and disrupt the co-operation of the three main groups, the Shi'as, Sunnis and Kurds, which has the potential to deliver stability and a better life for everyone in Iraq.

Religious fundamentalism is also playing a part in resisting democracy and progress in human rights. There is also an economic obstacle for some who do not wish to see a stable and prosperous Iraq delivering oil to the international market. Some may feel that it is unhelpful to others who supply that oil in the middle east.

Political, fundamentalist and economic pressures, as well as mindless terrorism, stand in the way of progress for the Iraqi people. Neighbouring countries may not wish to see the Iraqis and in particular Kurdistan achieve sustainable self-determination, but in reality and in the end, self-determination is what the constitution will deliver. That is why millions of Iraqis risked death to vote for it on 15 October.

An hour or so ago, the result came through, with 78 per cent. voting for the constitution, and 21 per cent. against it. Only two districts voted against it. The constitution has been carried with a massive democratic mandate.

Iraq's constitution may eventually fulfil the Kurdish dream and set right the historic injustice to those people. The international community must bring tougher pressures and better rewards to neighbouring countries to ensure that the Iraqi democratic process is not disrupted. The international community must be more relaxed and magnanimous about Kurdistan's development. Help on Iran is needed from Russia and other nations. We need a positive attitude towards Turkey from the European Union. I call on the Security Council to be uncompromising with Syria, and for Russia and other countries to support it.

Kurdistan has made great progress politically, socially and economically and in developing sound human rights for all its people, including the various ethnic groups and others who live in its administered areas. That is why Kurdistan is planning an advert on CNN International in early November to promote Kurdistan and to thank Britain for the liberation of Iraq.

In planning my September expedition to Iraq, I determined the people whom I would meet and the places and institutions that I would visit. I was accompanied by Ms Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan regional government high representative to the United Kingdom. My trip was facilitated by the KRG and the Kurdistan Development Corporation. That interest has been declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

I aimed to revisit the people and the institutions that I met with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in 2003. I focused on issues such as the validity of the war and our exit strategy, insurgency and terrorism, and the international community's action needed to stop it. I sought to review the Christian situation and to give a balanced and true perspective based on my findings. I considered the important economic progress made in Kurdistan, which is now accepted as the commercial gateway to Iraq. It is very much open for business and supports business-friendly and sustainable commercial laws and policies. I know that well, because I gave a 15-minute speech on it in Iraq while I was there.

I met NGOs and reviewed progress in hospitals and health care. I saw the startling growth of Salahaddin university from 15,000 students, when the hon. Gentleman and I were there, to 22,000 students at present. Massive progress has been made during those 13 months. The university now has 21 faculties. I visited Sami's park in Erbil, where the remarkably successful and peaceful DBX trade show took place, illustrating that normality is returning to Kurdistan.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our visit in straitened, stressful times before the war. I respect his view about the invasion of Iraq, although I do not share it. We visited internally displaced person's camps on our first trip. Are many of the internally displaced persons who were driven out of the two areas of Iraq still there? As for Salahaddin university, did the hon. Gentleman find out whether there was any response to my correspondence with certain faculty members who are being denied the right to come to the United Kingdom because they say they are not members of the Kurdistan Democratic party or the other Kurdish political parties, but are independent academics?

The hon. Gentleman raises two interesting points. The IDP camps have mainly been disbanded, thank God. There are remnants, but they are being cleaned up quickly. Hopefully, within the constitution by 2007, the position of Kirkuk will be clarified and its remaining refugees can return to their communities and rebuild their lives. I did not deal with the university issue; it was not addressed to me, but I think that we should take it up together with the high representative for the United Kingdom, Bayan Rahman, who will find the answer.

It was moving to see ordinary Iraqis, Kurds and Christians working and playing together in Sami's park. That was named after its creator, Mr. Sami Abdul Rahman, who was tragically killed by terrorists. His dignity and selfless contribution to his country and his people will not be forgotten, and I pay tribute to him. I met about 20 politicians at all levels who represented various political and ethnic groups. President Barzani's message to the Prime Minister, calling for our forces to see the job through, was echoed throughout all sections of his people.

Kurdistan is a model for developing democracy in Iraq and throughout the middle east. It is in much better shape than the rest of Iraq, hence it is now known as "the other Iraq"—as we shall see in early November from the CNN international advertisement. The Kurds are building a decent democracy. Of course, they have had a 10-year start under the no-fly zone. They have the great advantage of the peshmerga. It is a formidable organisation and was one of the targets of the two bombs this morning.

Rebuilding has been remarkable in all sectors—political, social and economic—and in terms of infrastructure.

I believe that the peshmerga, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a force of 75,000 troops. There are concerns that it sees itself as an independent Kurdish force, and as yet there is no proposal or move to mix it in with the rest of the Iraqi forces. Were there any indications that it would become part of an Iraqi force or does it still see itself—as it did when we were there—as a defence force for the Kurdish area?

It is my understanding that the peshmerga still sees itself as being quite independent. It is a formidable force and that is one of the many issues with which the politicians in Kurdistan and Iraq will have to grapple. I know that President Barzani is carefully examining how he can move to a more democratic and normal arrangement in that country. We are talking about a country that has been oppressed for many years and is in transition. It is making great progress and we must support it so that the progress continues, and that includes the peshmerga.

Human rights have improved fast in Kurdistan and there is increasing optimism among the people. The students at Salahaddin university represent an important sector of Iraq; in many ways, they are its future. They spoke passionately from their hearts, both privately and in an open vote, after a detailed and sometimes critical debate. They felt safe to exercise free speech in private and in public. They spoke forcefully and gratefully of liberation and of being given a safer and better future by the removal of Saddam. They are like any other students around the world: challenging, questioning, hungry for information and freely giving of their views and ideas. Iraq has a great future in them. They are superb kids.

I was keen to get the views of the Christian community. I spoke to Christian MPs, including the Speaker, Mr. Adnan Mufti, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Sarkis Aghajan Mamendu. I met the Christian Bishop and Father William Jacob, a Kurdish Christian church leader in Sweden who may soon return to Kurdistan, and Christian community leaders. I also visited the Christian community of Ankawa and spoke with ordinary Christian people, both Iraqis and expats from this country and from America, who have lived there for years.

Such people are supportive of the KRG and are pleased with progress. They are concerned at what they see as propaganda by people largely from outside their communities in Iraq who call for an autonomous administrative region for the Christian communities. That is being sold as a safe haven, but from what I saw and heard first hand from the Christian people in Iraq, and from their democratically elected representatives and community leaders, the concept of a safe haven is wholly inappropriate.

Let me set out just a sample of the recent progress that Christian MPs told me about. The KRG has returned Feesh Khabur village to the Christians and is trying to return other villages, many of them places that the Christians lost decades ago. It has reconstructed 1,200 houses in the past two difficult years and much more work is in progress. It has provided new water supplies for 26 Christian villages. It has built or rebuilt nearly 40 churches since 1991. I visited one being built; there were Christian crosses in the main road leading to it.

There are, pro rata, more Christian MPs than Kurdish ones. There are five Christian MPs. Strictly, proportional representation would dictate that they deserve only two. They were awarded three important ministerial seats in Government, including Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. Thousands of Christians are employed by the KRG, and there are two new Christian radio stations. We could do with some of them in this country. The KRG region has more than 30 Assyrian language schools, which have almost 10,000 students and 500 teachers, and 90 Christian schools and cultural centres have been opened. Those are not acts of oppression but of enlightenment.

Christian MP Romio Acarie said that they were not allowed to use Assyrian names under Saddam Hussein but now, of course, they can. He said:

"Comparing life under Saddam with life under the KRG is like comparing Earth with Heaven".

As a result of all this progress, and much more I have not had time to mention, some 5,000 Christians have in recent years left other areas of Iraq to settle in Kurdistan, and they are still moving there—voting with their feet. For context, the Christian population is about 38,000, within a Kurdistan population of 4 million—that is the figure from the last United Nations census, although it is now probably nearer 5 million.

Of course, Kurds lost much under Saddam; they are waiting for their new roads and schools, and for their Kurdish villages to be rebuilt, yet the KRG is positively discriminating to help the Christians. In any event, the Iraqi people's new constitution recognises the cosmopolitan religious and ethnic make-up of Iraq; the Kurds argued for that. It prohibits discrimination on racist, ethnic, religious or other grounds, and it protects minority languages. I feel that the KRG is genuinely trying to help the Chaldo-Assyrians, the Armenians and other Christian groups.

I challenge those outside Iraq who make adverse claims to come to Iraq with me, and to meet and talk to the people themselves. They could question Mr. Shlemon, the Christian deputy governor of Duhok, who said:

"Our Community in the Kurdish region in Iraq works successfully with the KRG and with all the peoples of the region. In this peaceful and progressive way, in tandem with those around us, we are developing our homelands, improving our livelihoods and protecting our rich heritage."

I found no evidence of institutionalised discrimination against Christians; quite the contrary—although there are, of course, individual incidents.

Kurdistan still has much to do for all its communities, such as to repair Saddam's evil slaughter of 182,000 Kurds in his Anfal campaign, in which he razed 4,000 Kurdish villages to the ground, seeking to ethnically cleanse them in an act of brutal genocide. I call again on the international community to accept that that was genocide.

Some people think that we should pull our troops out now; I disagree. I will not succumb to the terrorists. Like all MPs, I have a duty to give leadership on difficult issues, to be honest and to speak the truth as I see it. I hope that people will respect that.

The Iraqi people are risking death by voting. In doing so, they are demonstrating their commitment to the new order. It is in the interests of the middle east—and even, possibly, of world stability—that we see through to the end the job that we have started. I welcome the excellent progress made in the Kurdish region of Iraq since the war.

I hope that eight minutes is long enough for the Minister to respond to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Hancock; I will give it my best shot.

I thank the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for raising this important subject, and for the update he gave on the situation of the Chaldo-Assyrians in northern Iraq. Such first-hand, objective accounts help us to assess progress in our commitment to stand by the Iraqi people as they work towards securing a democratic and stable future.

There is still an enormous amount of work to be done by the international community and Iraqi leaders to ensure that Iraq makes a successful transition from being a country blighted by over 35 years of Ba'athist oppression to one which can regain its rightful place in the international community. A founding member of the United Nations, Iraq needs the help of its neighbours, the region and the donor community to get back on its feet.

Northern Iraq is no exception. Saddam Hussein and his regime inflicted immense hardship and suffering on all the peoples of the north—the Arabs, Kurds, Turkomans, Christians and others. However, as the hon. Gentleman generously recognised, the protection afforded by the no-fly zone enabled northern Iraq to move forward. Since the fall of Saddam's regime, that progress has accelerated.

In security terms, the northern provinces of Dohuk, Irbil and Sulaymaniyah are among the quietest in the country. Incidents in the north are, in general, less severe and far fewer than in other parts of the country. That is not to say that those areas have been spared terrorist attacks. We have received reports today of a car bomb in Sulaymaniyah, which has caused casualties. That is just the latest example of terrorists attempting to derail the political process. Through the multinational forces, we will continue to support the Iraqi security forces in their courageous efforts to defeat all forms of terrorism in their country.

The north's economy continues to develop, as the KRG gradually builds critical infrastructure. There are signs of progress everywhere, the most obvious being the recent opening of airports in Irbil and Sulaymaniyah. The KRG is keen to draw on external expertise to lay solid foundations for the region's future economic growth. Its immediate priority is to develop the agriculture, tourism and manufacturing sectors using local skills, and to expand internal markets so that the economy is less dependent on external markets.

The people of northern Iraq are equally committed to strengthening the political process in the region. They turned out in huge numbers for the January elections, and did so again for the referendum on Iraq's draft constitution. Our consul in Kirkuk had the opportunity to observe voting at a polling station on 15 October. He reported that the voting process took place peacefully.

The fact that nearly 10 million Iraqis nationwide took part in the referendum is eloquent testimony to their determination to exercise their democratic right and to decide the political future of their country. Whatever the result turns out to be—there have been indications of the result this morning—that is a major achievement. It is democracy in action. As Prime Minister Jaafari said, whether Iraqis

"vote yes or no is not the point. The victory for Iraq is that they are voting."

What is important now is that all Iraqis participate fully in the political process to ensure that Iraq's Parliament and Government are genuinely representative of all the peoples of Iraq. The UK has provided funds for outreach programmes that set out the political options available, help to explain to the Iraqi electorate the importance of the draft constitution, and broaden understanding of the content. The programmes will focus on explaining the electoral system for the December elections.

Unlike last January's elections, in which Iraq was treated as a single constituency, the December elections will be conducted on a province-by-province basis. The Department for International Development is supporting the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq's public outreach programme to encourage civil society organisations, particularly at province level, to get involved in the electoral process.

Kirkuk is a good example of why political participation, dialogue, compromise and consensus are critical if Iraq's transition is to succeed. The city brings together several communities within its boundaries. The majority of citizens are Sunni Muslims, but Kirkuk also has a sizeable community of Christians and a small Yezidi community. Iraq's leaders will therefore need commitment and determination to find a solution to the legacy of Saddam's policy of forced Arabisation of Kirkuk. They have agreed to set up a committee that will work towards finding a permanent solution on that difficult and sensitive issue. We will continue to encourage them in their endeavours, and we will continue to encourage and urge all minority groups in Iraq to take part in the political process. The UK Government maintain a close, open dialogue with leaders and representatives of such groups.

The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to the situation facing the Chaldo-Assyrians. Foreign Office officials in London met Mr. Yonadam Kanna, secretary-general of the Assyrian Democratic Movement, during his visit to the UK last week. His primary concern is that the rights of Chaldo-Assyrians be protected. He recognises that the Chaldo-Assyrian community must participate fully in the December elections if it is to be represented in the next Iraqi Parliament. Equally, Chaldo-Assyrian leaders will need to agree a common approach and to identify like-minded political allies in the next Parliament if they are to advance and to protect the rights of all Chaldo-Assyrians. Making such alliances is a key part of parliamentary politics and, of course, would have been unthinkable under Saddam's regime.

Our aim is to help all Iraqis to create a nation where all Iraq's citizens are safe throughout the country, irrespective of race or religious belief. National unity is key to securing long-term stability and prosperity in Iraq. In the transitional process so far, we have seen important symbols of that unity at work. The appointment of an Iraqi Kurd as President of Iraq is a powerful and eloquent signal that the political process can, and does, support the appointment of a non-Arab to high office. President Talabani has used his position to send out a consistent message that Iraqis should come together to support the transitional process. There may be deep disagreement about the way forward; that is too often what politics is about. However, for the vast majority of Iraqis, the only way forward is through peaceful, participative politics.

We have been encouraging the Iraqi Transitional Government to include all Iraq's communities in the political process. Chaldo-Assyrians, Turkomans, Yezidis and Mandaeans all had representatives on the Constitutional Commission. Those representatives were tasked with ensuring that the views of their communities were included in the draft.

I commend the draft constitution to the House. It reflects the multifaceted religious and ethnic make-up of Iraq and offers guarantees of full freedom of religious belief and practice to all individuals. It prohibits discrimination on racist, ethnic, religious or any other grounds, and it protects minority languages. The draft constitution strives to strike a balance between a wide range of views. The final draft text illustrates the extent to which, in the end, all parties were prepared to compromise.

Should the constitution pass at referendum—it seems to be emerging today that it will be passed—that, of course, will not be the end of the process. The text will not be set in stone. A review mechanism has been included in the draft. That will see the establishment of a constitution committee, which the constitutional draft stated will be made up from

"the principal groups in Iraqi society and members of the Council of Representatives"—

that is, the next Parliament. That committee will be tasked with presenting a report to that Parliament within four months with any proposed amendments to the constitution. That shows the value of sustained and intense engagement in the political process by all Iraq's communities, and that means contesting and voting in the coming elections.

Preparations are well under way for December's elections and the United Nations is working closely with the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq to ensure that those elections are conducted openly and transparently.

Before I start, as a Member for a Birmingham constituency and in the light of events during the past few days, I want to express, on behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members in Birmingham, whatever their party, our sympathy to the friends and families of those who lost their lives and to add our voices to those of community and civic leaders in stating our commitment to Birmingham as a multi-racial, multi-faith city. That view is shared by the overwhelming majority of Birmingham citizens, irrespective of their race, creed or religion.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chamber some worrying things that have been going on in Birmingham in respect of the way in which the Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration of the council is approaching its statutory obligations to the homeless. Like other big cities, Birmingham faces big challenges to improve the quality of its housing stock and to make available sufficient affordable homes to those on its waiting list and to those in urgent need of rehousing because of homelessness or other problems.

According to figures from Shelter, in 2004–05, more than 8,000 families in Birmingham were found to be homeless. I welcome the extra investment that is going into housing as a result of the actions of the Labour Government, but more needs to be done and there is a real debate to be had about how best to achieve that.

However much money is going in, it is vital that local authorities exercise their ongoing responsibilities fairly and consistently, particularly in the way in which they allocate properties and treat homeless people. It is in the latter area that the policies adopted by the coalition running the city council are nothing short of scandalous. The fact that it has tried to claim that the Government have imposed those policies on them is something to which I feel sure the Minister will want to respond.

Under housing legislation, Birmingham city council is under an obligation to help eligible families who are either homeless or threatened with homelessness within 28 days. In the case of private tenants losing their homes, the city council used to regard someone as being threatened with homelessness if they had received a section 21 notice to quit from their landlord. In the case of a dispute between landlord and tenant, of course, a court procedure was available to determine whether the notice to quit was reasonable. However, this summer, the council's policy changed. It apparently decided that the court procedure should no longer be a way of resolving disputes between landlords and tenants, but should be a normal part of the notice-to-quit procedure. In other words, even if a tenant accepted that the landlord had issued them with a valid and reasonable notice to quit—for example, because the landlord needed the property to live in—the council would not accept that that tenant was threatened with homelessness unless he or she forced the landlord to get a court order to evict them.

It gets worse. The council does not only insist that tenants force their landlords to go to court. If the court decides that the notice to quit is reasonable, the city council expects tenants not to comply promptly with the decision of the court. Instead the bailiffs have to be called in before the council will accept its responsibilities to try to find alternative accommodation for the tenant. A briefing note from the council was supplied to me and clearly states:

"It is at the 28 days prior to the bailiffs notice . . . that someone is accepted as homeless or threatened with homelessness"

What is the result of all that? The council claims that it tries to give early and helpful advice to those who approach it for help. That is simply not borne out by cases I have been dealing with over the past few months. Let me give some examples. A tenant with a health problem who had been given formal notice to quit by her landlady back in April was told by the city council that it would try to rehouse her on the basis that a section 21 notice had been issued. The policy changed in the summer and, to cut a long story short, she eventually found out that the council would not rehouse her until she forced her landlady to get the bailiffs in. The result is that she has a court order against her, and she has had costs of £190 awarded against her because there was no reason for the case to go to court in the first place. As far as I knew the situation yesterday, the council still had not found her anywhere to live.

There are other examples, such as the tenant who, having followed council advice, is worried about her chances of ever being offered a privately rented property in the future, because she will have on her record that she wilfully refused to leave when she was reasonably asked to do so by her landlord, and that she forced her landlord into unnecessary court proceedings to get her out.

There is the woman who rented out her house while she went off travelling for a few months. Having got back and having issued a perfectly reasonable notice to quit to the temporary tenant, she cannot get into her own home or even get at her winter clothes because her tenant will not leave—presumably in line with council policy. As a result, the woman landlord is £2,000 out of pocket through court fees and temporary accommodation costs for herself.

When I questioned the Conservative cabinet member for housing, Councillor John Lines, about the matter on local radio, he claimed that he did not like the policy any more than anybody else, but that the city was acting on Government instructions. I asked him several weeks ago to provide me with a copy of the alleged instruction. I am still waiting for a reply.

I have received, however, a written answer to a question I tabled in the House last week. It is from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who confirmed:

"It is not good practice to simply advise people to remain in their accommodation until their landlord obtains a court order for possession and the bailiffs arrive, and we advise against that."—[Official Report, 17 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 810W.]

Why are Birmingham city council adopting such a crackpot policy? The answer could be in briefing notes supplied to me by the city council to defend its policy. The notes make it clear that, if the council can meet a target agreed with the Government to reduce the number of people presenting as homeless, they will receive extra Government cash. That target is meant to be about reducing homelessness. Insisting that tenants and landlords go through costly and unnecessary court proceedings does not reduce homelessness at all. What it does is enable the city council to reduce the numbers it defines as threatened with homelessness. It is, it seems, massaging the figures.

Worse still, that may be the tip of a much larger iceberg. The city also has to meet Government targets to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation. Birmingham counts someone as being in temporary accommodation only if they have been placed in such accommodation by the council. If a single parent is living with a child on someone else's sofa, and they approach the council for help, that does not count as temporary accommodation. Presumably, it does not show up on the city council's figures for that target.

That definition of temporary accommodation may not be helpful in identifying housing need. The point is, though, that it also affects who gets prompt help from the council, and who does not. Birmingham's housing allocation policy has always specified that priority should be given to rehousing homeless families. Now, though, there is a new allocations policy.

The new policy creates two categories for homeless people accepted as in priority need. There is band A, or priority priority, and band B, which is not so priority priority. The difference is not need.

If that single parent I was talking about had been put in bed and breakfast by the council, where she and her chid at least had a bed to sleep in, she would be priority priority. As she is sleeping on someone's sofa, she slips well down the queue into band B. That has nothing to do with the family's needs, but I wonder if it has everything to do with how Birmingham presents its figures about the extent of homelessness in the city.

For example, according to Shelter's figures, of the 8,289 households found to be homeless in 2004–05, 3,626, or 43 per cent., were classified by the council either as intentionally homeless or not in priority need. In contrast, Shelter says that in 2002–03 and 2003–04, 6,000 households in Birmingham were accepted as being both unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Perhaps there has been a dramatic change in the behaviour of homeless families in Birmingham in just one year. I doubt it.

Commenting on the council's new home options scheme, for example, Shelter says it is

"concerned that the new scheme is resulting in increased 'gatekeeping'—preventing people making a formal homelessness application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996."

As someone from the South Birmingham young homeless project in my constituency put it recently:

"The government has set targets to reduce the number of homeless applications made to Local Authorities. I am sure there are other ways to meet these than blocking applications."

My conclusion is that Birmingham has a problem of hidden homelessness that the council is hiding even more. Presiding over all of this is Councillor John Lines, the man who publicly claimed that he had been told by the Government to force people into unnecessary court action. He has produced no evidence to back that up other than claims that somebody may have heard something on a training course. If he is prepared to change something as fundamental as the way he defines homelessness on the basis of being told that someone said something informally on a training course, I seriously doubt his fitness to hold such a responsible office as cabinet member for housing in England's largest local authority. If he is trying to make Birmingham's record on homelessness look different from what it really is while knowingly trying to shift the blame to the Government for a policy that his administration introduced, such deception is more serious still.

Only Councillor Lines knows whether he simply was not paying attention or whether he has been deliberately trying to mislead people. Either failing is unacceptable for someone in his position. There has been enough delay. If Councillor Lines is not able to produce the instructions that he publicly alleged Birmingham had received from the Government on court proceedings and how Birmingham should regard them, it is time for him to consider his position and resign. If he is not prepared to do so, the Conservative leader of the council, Councillor Whitby, must address the issue, and the Liberal Democrats, who are the Conservatives' coalition partners on Birmingham council, must decide whether they will stand by their new Tory friends in the administration, or the homeless families and responsible landlords in Birmingham. It is clear that they cannot do both. Real people—those threatened with homelessness and responsible landlords—are being let down by the council. Councillor Lines's career is in his hands, but, whatever happens, Birmingham city council's policy must change.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr. Hancock. I am sure that we all wish to be associated with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) about the events in Birmingham in recent days.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate about homelessness in Birmingham. He has made some direct personal criticisms, to which I shall not be able to respond, but he also raised some genuine and general concerns, which I will deal with in a moment.

First, I would like to remind hon. Members of the Government's good track record in tackling homelessness. The number of new cases of homelessness has decreased since 2003 as a direct result of our policies and our investment in homelessness prevention. On top of that, the numbers of those sleeping rough are at an all-time low, and we have ended the scandal of families with children having to spend long periods in bed and breakfast accommodation. We have achieved that by investing £200 million during the past three years in services to prevent homelessness, such as rent deposit schemes to enable households to find good accommodation in the private sector, and mediation services to resolve family relationship breakdowns and to enable young people to remain in the family home.

However, there is more to do. That is why in March the Government published a strategy setting out plans for halving the use of temporary accommodation by 2010. It will involve continued partnership working at national, regional and local levels, and working across Whitehall to ensure that we tackle the widest causes of homelessness and provide solutions.

The strategy for tackling homelessness is set in the wider context of the Government's work since 1997 to address the shortage of affordable housing. In 1997, we inherited decades of decline in house building, which led to a serious problem. The building of enough affordable homes is at the top of the agenda of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Since 1997, we have made it a priority to address the £19-billion backlog of dealing with the 2 million homes below the decency threshold. We have doubled the investment in affordable housing for rent or purchase. Over the three years leading up to 2006, £5 billion will be spent. That investment will support the delivery of our new range of simpler, more affordable, more accessible home ownership schemes.

In the short term, through our new homebuy schemes, we will help more than 100,000 households to own their own home by 2010. Homebuy schemes will provide a flexible shared equity-based product that will increase access to home ownership for those currently priced out of the market. It will also provide opportunities for social tenants to buy a share in their homes. Homebuy will reinforce the long-term strategy by increasing home ownership opportunities for key workers. To address the need for affordable housing in the west midlands over the next two years, £198 million has been allocated to the housing corporation—an 11 per cent. increase on the figure for the past two years.

In the case of Birmingham, my hon. Friend has cited examples from his constituents who advise him that they have been told by the city council to stay put in their homes until the bailiffs arrive—examples which add up to bad practice. I share his objectives of wanting to tackle bad practice; that is why officials are working closely with local authorities to improve their understanding of the causes of homelessness and the successful solutions they can put in place to address them.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on the individual cases he mentioned, but our policies and guidance for local authorities on how they should be tackling and preventing homelessness are clear. Local authorities should provide people with support to prevent homelessness at the earliest possible opportunity. This may involve helping tenants to continue to live in their current accommodation where possible or helping them to find alternative accommodation. It is not good practice simply to advise homeless applicants to remain in a property until eviction and we advise against that. For example, authorities could consult landlords to come to a mutual agreement which could allow a tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period—and continue to pay rent—until the authority is able to help to find alternative accommodation. Hopefully, in this way the need for a possession order can be avoided and there will be a solution that meets the needs of all parties.

My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we have been assured by Birmingham city council that it is adopting the good practice we advocate in these circumstances. As part of the ODPM's support for local authorities, specialist advisers ran a homelessness workshop for officers in Birmingham city council in June. Our officials are due to meet senior officials from the council next week to discuss the policies being pursued by the authority and to provide guidance if needed.

I am glad that the Government frown on this deplorable practice of Birmingham city council, which also affects my constituents. The presence of other hon. Members from Birmingham shows that the problem is widespread. Councillor Lines wrote to me, saying:

"I am sure you will appreciate the need for Birmingham city council to reduce the number of homeless applications to the authority to ensure the demand can in some way match the available supply of social housing."

Is that not the crux of the matter? The supply of social housing is simply not sufficient to meet the demand in Birmingham due to large-scale demolition, right-to-buy sales and insufficient new capacity and new house building.

My hon. Friend made similar points in the Chamber yesterday evening when we were discussing socially affordable homes in the west midlands during a separate Adjournment debate. I accept that much of what she is saying is absolutely true. We have had decades of under-investment in house building and a lack of socially affordable homes for people to rent at prices they can afford. The Government are doing as much as they believe they can at the moment. House building is at the top of the ODPM's agenda.

We began the process in 1997 by making it a priority to bring 2 million homes up to the decency threshold—we are well on the way to meeting that target. I know that for those constituents of my hon. Friends who are in this predicament, it is all too little and too late, but we are spending billions of pounds trying to address the problem and find solutions to one of the most serious issues of concern for the Government.

One of the problems is that Birmingham city council's only means of meeting the decent homes target is to demolish thousands of homes that do not meet that target. That is the crux of the matter. Birmingham needs 3,000 new homes a year; it is getting fewer than a third of them. There must be more investment in new homes and in ensuring that we do not have to demolish existing ones.

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's main point, which is that we need more investment in house building and socially affordable homes. That is exactly what the Government are doing in their programme.

Although there are more people in temporary accommodation now, it is important to remember that these are people who have been helped and rehoused as a result of our stronger homelessness legislation. The vast majority—about 84 per cent.—are housed in self-contained homes in the private or social sector, but we accept that the figure reflects a shortage of suitable homes and we are determined to tackle that too. That is why our priority for action over the next three years is to increase the number of social rented homes. Together, investment in prevention and in new supply will turn around homelessness.

I hear exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield has said in relation to the problems faced by his constituents. As I said, officials from the ODPM are going to Birmingham next week. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep a close eye on developments.

Believe it or not, this is the first parliamentary debate held at Westminster about the south Caucasus. I have no doubt that there have been debates that have covered individual republics in the wider region, but this is the first debate that has been held on the south Caucasus in its own right. I declare an interest in that I was the founder of the all-party group on the south Caucasus during the last Parliament. I am also closely associated with conflict resolution efforts in the region. Those efforts appear in the House Register of Members' Interests.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital to learn the lesson of history. As an example, I cite the infamous quote from a former UK Prime Minister, who talked about a conflict

"in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."

It is funny how perceptions shift. Sixty short years later, the country in question—the Czech Republic—is now at the heart of the European Union and does not seem far away from us, and we are quite rightly debating Turkey's possible membership of the European Union. All that means that within a few short years the European Union could be bordering the region containing Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the three republics that make up the south Caucasus.

Increasingly, that region is not one far away, about which we know nothing. It is increasingly well known in western Europe, and in Scotland the Minister and I share in a growing awareness of those three republics. In cultural terms, we all know of Armenia as the world's oldest Christian country, but it is also famed through the work of composer Aram Katchachurian, whose music is regularly heard during the Edinburgh festival. People from the republics are also well known in the sporting arena; for example, the Georgian footballers Shota Arveladze and Zurab Khizanishvili, who play in the Scottish premier league, to name but two.

In the world of business and trade, Scots regularly commute to Baku. When I fly down from Aberdeen, often the biggest single group at the airport waiting for a connecting flight is flying to Azerbaijan. We have increasing links with that part of the world.

There are other reasons why we know the region: the south Caucasus is going through a difficult transition, as everyone would concede, from communism to democracy. It is important to understand how difficult some of that transition has been and how current it is. Four large-scale violent conflicts occurred in the region during and following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, resulting in a situation of neither peace nor war, leaving populations throughout the region with an uncertain future and undermining political reform and economic development.

The political context across the south Caucasus is volatile, to say the least. In autumn 2003 came the beginning of a series of dramatic political events that have changed the region and the conflict contexts. The death of President Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaijan and the rose revolution in Georgia, which resulted in the departure of Eduard Shevardnadze after nearly 30 years of rule, changed political relationships and redefined assumptions across the region.

The new Georgian President, with a broad political mandate, has launched a massive anti-corruption campaign and made the re-establishment of Georgian control over Abkhazia and south Ossetia a test of the new regime. In Abkhazia, disputes over the results of the de facto presidential elections in October 2004 demonstrated that political processes in that disputed territory are much less predictable than had been previously assumed in the region and by the international community, and that both civil society and some de facto institutions have a real capacity to influence events.

In summer 2004, hostilities resumed between Georgia and south Ossetia, seriously undermining the formal settlement process and harming unofficial relationships built up over the past 10 years between the sides. Elsewhere in the south Caucasus, there is fraught rhetoric but little political development in the frozen conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the territory of Nagorno Karabakh, and economic insecurity is widespread.

The severe economic situation in the south Caucasus is both a cause and a symptom of its conflicts. Oil extraction in Azerbaijan and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline have an important geopolitical influence on the region and thus on its conflicts. The pipeline is important for global oil supply and for narrow interests, given that BP has a 30 per cent. stake in the $3.6 billion project.

We all know that the substantial transit fees will accrue to Georgia and Turkey. They are expected to produce for Georgia about 1.5 per cent. of national income; Azerbaijan expects its own economy to grow by a staggering 18 per cent. as a result of the pipeline. All that could help the region progress to economic stability and success—we hope that it will—or it could bankroll unilateral efforts to right perceived wrongs and lead to massive destabilisation in the region.

That is what is happening specifically in the three republics, but there is a wider geopolitical context. The south Caucasus is the meeting place of Russia, Iran and Turkey, which all have substantial interests in the region. The three large neighbours have also been the subject of considerable diplomatic efforts by the UK Government for one reason or another. That is why is it has been entirely right and proper for the Foreign Office to show the appropriate interest in the region and to play a constructive role, and I think that it has done so. That role has been most keenly felt through the efforts of non-governmental organisations, which have been able to work across disputed boundaries and borders. That would be impossible for state actors.

I will briefly discuss the role of NGOs. What is beyond doubt is that they—not states or members of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—have been at the forefront of conciliation, confidence building and peace-supporting efforts. That is not a surprise when one considers that state actors and multilateral organisations such as the OSCE have found it difficult to make significant progress through the likes of the Minsk process to resolve vexed questions in the region.

It is also particularly challenging to work as a Government in disputed regions, because of issues of recognition and legitimacy, but it is a task that many NGOs have been doing with great skill. They have made significant progress on the ground. At present, quite a number of UK-based NGOs are playing a vital role in the development of the south Caucasus. I have seen many of them in action on the ground and I have heard the feedback from local partners and programme participants. They make a big difference.

The project that I know best is the south Caucasus parliamentary initiative, which regularly brings together parliamentarians from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. For those who understand the dynamics of the region, that fact alone is recognised as a major achievement. I have seen the initiative in action and it is extremely impressive. Three years ago, parliamentarians from the three republics met in my constituency, Moray, in the first peace and reconciliation talks of modern times to be held in Scotland. Since then, I have met the participants in their home republics and, a few months ago at a SCPI meeting in Dublin.

That is the only working forum in the region which brings together decision makers to build trust, find ways forward, reduce tension and, hopefully, to move forward to lasting solutions. It is also a project, like others in the south Caucasus, which has been funded by the UK Government. That support has been significant; it has been constructive and it is money well spent.

However, and here is the rub, over recent months it has become apparent that funding is being squeezed: the UK government are reducing their commitment to peace and reconciliation work in the south Caucasus and elsewhere. Those cuts are happening not because the projects have been completed, because conflict has come to an end or because democracy is on a firm footing, but because the mire of Iraq is seeing resources switched and budgets elsewhere cut.

According to the House of Commons Library, funding from the global conflict prevention pool to the area including the south Caucasus has been halved during the last year from £12.5 million to £6.5 million. Just to remind the Minister, that funding cut decision was made just after a revolution, political violence, a military stand-off between two states and the ongoing threat of full-scale wars owing to frozen conflicts.

There are also significant cuts to the strategy budget allocations of the global conflict prevention pool. They relate to the following: the Balkans; Belize and Guatemala; central and eastern Europe; India, Pakistan and Kashmir; Indonesia and East Timor; middle and north Africa; Nepal; Sri Lanka; and the United Nations. Even Iraq project funding through this pool has been depleted. Even if the case were being made that things are improving in the south Caucasus, surely they are not in all those other parts of the world as well.

According the data provided by the Library, £21 million has been cut from the fund, which amounts to a 20 per cent. drop. I asked the Library to confirm when the Government announced those cuts, and I also asked the whereabouts of the updated glossy brochure that extols the virtues of the conflict prevention strategy. We had that before, when things were going full steam ahead. It was a significant document that outlined all the areas in the world where a difference was being made— something that I and my party, and Members in all parts of the House, support. However, there has not been an update, unsurprisingly perhaps. There has not been an announcement to the House, in either written or oral form, about those developments. There is no updated strategy, or an explanation of reduced commitments.

Instead of focusing on conflict prevention, it would appear that the UK Government are shifting resources to a conflict they started in Iraq, and important projects in the world which are genuinely dealing with conflict prevention are being left to suffer. We should be under no illusion about the impact of the cuts. As an NGO official said to me,

"this will have negative implications for the democratic transformations in the region. Work cannot be carried out with gaps in time; there should be continuity and an ongoing flow of activities that build on past strengths and existing experiences".

Another official mentioned having

"to tap core support and cut back in projects"

and said that there are

"obviously other pressures on government spending, but nothing has been made clear as to why the money is gone".

Why is this happening? Is it the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assessment that the south Caucasus will be less volatile in the years ahead? Is this happening because the UK is downgrading its engagement in the region, despite the key direct economic and political interests that exist there, as well as the strategic connections with the wider region and neighbours? Or is it happening simply because the costs of Iraq—and, perhaps, of Afghanistan as well—are sucking resources away?

Who is responsible for this? Page 25, paragraph 64 of a recent report with the FCO stamp on it, entitled "Evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools: Portfolio Review", states:

"The central unifying element in the CPPs is at Cabinet level, where a sub-committee on Conflict Prevention sets broad priorities, approves all spending in gross amounts . . . For matters to do with the GCPP"—

the fund that covers the south Caucasus—

"the Sub-Committee . . . is chaired by the Secretary for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs."

Paragraph 65 states:

"Other members of the Sub-Committee . . . include Ministers or junior Ministers from the portfolios concerned: FCO, MOD, DFID and HMT"—

the Treasury.

Please can the Minister explain the decision-making dynamics? Are these cuts FCO led or Treasury led? Who made the decision? Was the Foreign Secretary in the chair at that meeting, or was it another Minister? What impact assessment has been made of reduced GCPP spending in the south Caucasus—and in other regions, for that matter? Can the Minister confirm that many NGO projects will have to be wound down or discontinued? Are plans in place to secure bridging finance or other funding sources? What will future GCPP funding be for the south Caucasus? How much will the former Soviet Union budget line be in 2006–07? Why has this matter not been explained fully to the House? The Minister now has an opportunity to do that.

The easiest solution to many of these problems would be to restore funding levels. However, I concede that there are others, and we should look at them, too. For example, the European Union has an emerging new neighbourhood policy which could help to provide an economic and political framework for regional co-operation, but, as everyone in the know knows, its timetable is slipping. Therefore, there is a cut in funding from the UK, and the EU timetable is slipping away, so there will be a problematic gap. What will the FCO do to support new funding partners? In accepting that they are downgrading UK support, will Ministers take up this matter with the Commission and other EU member states to try to secure resources to plug the gap?

In conclusion, the GCPP and NGOs have been a force for good in recent years. I can testify to their work, and I commend the Foreign Office for playing an active and positive role. However, it is deeply ironic that the UK Government are raiding the conflict resolution budgets to fund the gaps in Iraq—and, perhaps, in Afghanistan as well. The south Caucasus is a region that I know better than the others that will be affected by the cuts. I can tell the Minister that the effects will be significant and that the cuts will cause problems for conciliation and peace-building efforts.

The cuts are the result of nothing more than bean counting and penny pinching. When we consider existing and pending Government spending commitments, the cuts are shown in a bad light. This Parliament is expected to vote on a projected replacement cost for the Trident nuclear missile programme of £20 billion. I have been discussing a shortfall of £20 million in the global conflict prevention pool, cast against £20 billion. The priorities are wrong.

I hope that the Minister has listened closely. He may not agree with everything that I said, but I hope that he will fight the corner of NGOs that have been doing such an important job, and I hope that budget lines for the next financial year will be restored to the appropriate level.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on securing this debate. As the founder of the all-party group on the south Caucasus, he has a particular interest in the region. Notwithstanding what I would charge was a somewhat partial account of the events under discussion, I pay tribute to his efforts in recent years on behalf of the south Caucasus, which is of considerable strategic importance for international security and stability, bordering as it does on Russia, Iran and Turkey.

Let me begin by placing an emphasis on the European Union, which the hon. Gentleman came to only at the end of his speech. To have dealt with it earlier might have got in the way of some of the points that he was keen to make at the beginning of his remarks.

As part of the near neighbourhood of the European Union, the three countries in the region—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia—have been invited to enter the European neighbourhood policy. The ENP is a key instrument for the EU in developing relationships with our nearest neighbours on the basis of shared common values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms. The ENP action plans will offer the three countries a closer relationship with the EU in return for progress on internal reform. They will also encourage greater regional and cross-border co-operation and, most importantly in the context of this debate, progress on conflict prevention and resolution.

The UK and European interests in the region include the security of energy supplies. The Caspian basin resources are a vital source of supply for western markets. BP's largest overseas investment, some $22 billion, is in Azerbaijan.

The south Caucasus states have undergone considerable reform during the 15 years since the turbulent collapse of the Soviet Union, but they still face major challenges. As we heard, the "frozen conflicts" over the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and south Ossetia, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh are a serious impediment to regional stability and economic development.

I remind the House that the global conflict prevention pool, which featured prominently in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, was established precisely to help countries such as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve the conflicts that are holding back their development. GCPP funds are invested in projects that we hope will help to prevent conflict and to promote peace and stability by improving governance, expanding democracy and increasing regional and economic co-operation.

The GCPP was set up in 2001 to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of the Government's international conflict prevention work. Teams from the three Departments that jointly fund the pool—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—closely work together to achieve a more strategic and cost-effective approach to conflict prevention.

The GCPP has a unique funding arrangement specifically voted by Parliament. For 2005–06, the figure for the global pool is £74 million, which is shared among 15 regional and thematic strategies including Iraq, Afghanistan and Afghan counter-narcotics. The Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States GCPP strategy received £6.5 million, or almost 9 per cent. of the total GCPP budget, this financial year. The south Caucasus region is a top priority of the strategy.

One of the initiatives funded by the Russia-CIS strategy was the appointment in 2002 of Sir Brian Fall, a former British ambassador to Moscow, as the UK special representative to Georgia. I met that gentleman only recently. In 2003, his remit was extended to cover the whole of the south Caucasus. I assure the House that the region is of continuing interest and importance to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Government.

Sir Brian's work in the region gives the Government added diplomatic weight in international attempts to resolve the region's "frozen conflicts". He is the UK's senior representative in the UN Secretary-General's Group of Friends, which is working with the Government of Georgia and Abkhaz leaders to try to resolve the Abkhazia dispute.

"The Friends", as they are called, met for a fourth round of talks in Geneva earlier this year where some progress was made. They restated their commitment to finding a peaceful settlement to the dispute. They also welcomed an offer of a UN conference on economic confidence-building measures, and agreed in principle on a strategic paper presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the problem of internally displaced people in the region.

The situation in south Ossetia is more volatile. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, in the summer of 2004, some 30 to 40 people were killed in an outbreak of hostilities in the region. South Ossetia remains tense following recent kidnappings, shootings and general lawlessness, which included the shelling of a south Ossetian village earlier this month. We are monitoring the situation closely through our embassies and through the regular dialogue we and Sir Brian Fall have with the parties to the dispute.

I am, however, particularly encouraged by signs that the Georgia-Russia relationship is improving. The agreement earlier this year on Russian base withdrawal from Georgian territory was a positive step. I discussed the conflicts with the then Foreign Minister, Mrs. Zourabishvili, in London on 11 October, and I encouraged the Georgian Government to continue to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in south Ossetia and Abkhazia.

I mentioned the ongoing conflict over Nagorno Karabakh. The UK strongly supports the work of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Minsk group, which was mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and the framework for facilitating negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh. Although not a member of the group, Sir Brian Fall remains in close contact with the co-chairmen from the United States, France and Russia. There are clear signs of progress there, too.

The Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers have met on several occasions this year and their Presidents met in Warsaw in May and again at the CIS summit in Kazan, Russia in August. The Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, Mr. Mammadyarov, was optimistic about the possibility of progress when I discussed it with him in September in the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. Encouraging greater democracy is vital to long-term efforts to promote peace and stability in conflict-ridden countries.

Through the GCPP, we are funding an OSCE election observation mission for the Azerbaijan parliamentary elections on 6 November. The UK is providing 50 short-term and three long-term observers, making us one of the largest contributors to the mission. The GCPP is also supporting other south Caucasus OSCE missions and leading NGOs that are working to resolve conflict and to build trust and understanding between divided communities in the region. It is important to place those observations on record to balance other observations that we heard recently.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the SCPI— "skippy", as it is commonly pronounced. That project was launched by British NGO LINKS—the London Information Network on Conflicts and State Building—in 2001. The project forms part of a wider regional project called the consortium initiative. The consortium initiative is a coalition of four NGOs and it has been funded from the Russia-CIS GCPP strategy over three years to the tune of £2 million.

SCPI provides a framework for dialogue, contacts, exchange of views and joint analysis between the Parliaments of the three south Caucasus countries. The objective of the project is to improve prospects for a permanent settlement to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict by encouraging dialogue at political, parliamentary, media and grass-roots levels.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his important and excellent work in chairing the first half-yearly plenary assembly of SCPI in Scotland at the end of 2003, and for his active involvement and interest in the initiative subsequently. As he knows, the GCPP funding arrangement for SCPI ended in June of this year. However, I am glad to say that the UK Government have contributed a further £65,000 from other budgets to enable the SCPI project to continue to the end of this year. That should be sufficient to keep the secretariat of SCPI open, and to hold a plenary session in the south Caucasus at the end of the year. The work of SCPI has been greatly valued not only by the British Government, but by other bilateral and multilateral donors, including the EU.

The British Government hope that, from next year, other donors will step in to support the initiative and that the south Caucasus Governments themselves will start to take more ownership of the initiative. We have been lobbying the European Commission to provide financial support for SCPI. It was also at the United Kingdom's instigation that the first drafts of the south Caucasus country action plans made specific reference to the importance of co-operation within the parliamentary sphere, in the context of enhanced regional co-operation.

The Government are keen that SCPI should continue for as long as there is a need. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has been able to support the successful initiative in its first three years. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific queries about funding, a distinction must be drawn between the sources of funding for a specific initiative and who should rightfully bear the burden of responsibility for continuing that funding in future, and broader questions about the British Government's commitment to the south Caucasus. It is right and reasonable that we should look to the European Commission and to the Governments of the nations in question to take responsibility after what has rightfully been acknowledged as a successful British initiative.

May I have the chance to confirm some facts? Funding for the former Soviet Union budget line has been cut by 50 per cent. last year to this year and funding in the global conflict prevention pool strategy budget allocation has been cut by 20 per cent. last year to this year. Where is that money going?

It is the case that we assess where the global conflict prevention fund resources should be allocated, according to the circumstances at the time. It seems a curious argument to say that, because funding was previously allocated to one area, that should be the base line for funding for all time and in perpetuity. If that were the hon. Gentleman's approach to public expenditure, I would be intrigued because it would not sit comfortably with the claim of the Scottish National party in other circumstances that different priorities should secure funding.

I have some understanding of the hon. Gentleman's argument, not least on the basis of his personal interest in the south Caucasus, but it is neither the right nor responsible approach of the Government to say that, in all circumstances, when a level of allocation of funding is agreed, it should continue for all time. It is the case that there have been changes in light of the continuing pressures facing the Foreign Office, whether in relation to Afghanistan, Iraq or other conflicts in Africa. It therefore ill behoves others who criticise us for our judgments not to recognise that the responsible course is to allocate resources on the basis of where we judge they can be most effectively deployed.

If the hon. Gentleman is maintaining that the benchmark in perpetuity should be the level of funding that was previously allocated, I shall give him the opportunity to confirm that. However, does he accept my argument that we should be able to review where resources, which will necessarily always be limited depending on the broader fiscal pressures that the Government face, should be allocated on the basis of changing circumstances?

Is the Minister confirming that the 50 per cent. cut from the former Soviet Union budget line has gone to Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa?

I note with interest that the hon. Gentleman has resisted answering my question. What does he recommend? The fundamental question is whether the Foreign Office should retain the right to allocate resources according to what it judges to be pressing priorities depending on the inherently changing nature of foreign affairs. Given the hon. Gentleman's strong and understandable attachment to the south Caucasus, does he believe that any requirement on the part of the Government to review how expenditure is allocated should give way to an historic commitment to previous budget lines? I disagree with him on the basis of that approach.

We hope and wish that other EU partners will now come in behind the efforts being made by the British Government to enable the Governments and Parliaments of the three south Caucasus countries to build on what has been achieved. However, that is the responsibility not solely of the British Government, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's deliberations with the representatives of those countries has reflected, but of the international community and the countries themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.