I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide education on personal money management; to make provision about advice centres on personal finance; to impose conditions on the activities of money-lending companies; and for connected purposes.

Debt has always been a problem for some, but we live in an increasingly materialistic society and that is fuelling a growing debt crisis. Yesterday we heard from the Children’s Society about the increasing materialism shown by children and the pressure that that can cause. Children are keen to conform, and that is a particular problem in the teenage years. A separate survey of 14 to 18-year-olds revealed that more than half of them are in some sort of debt by the age of 17 and a further 26 per cent. saw credit cards and overdrafts as a way of increasing their spending power.

Last year, 106,645 people were declared insolvent or bankrupt. That is 272 people every day. Many others are wondering whether they will be next, but the problems start building up early in life. Quite simply, many 18-year-olds today start their adult life in debt. A student loan, topped up by tempting deals on credit cards and store cards, causes the problem. Faced with the offer of 10 per cent. off if a person signs up for a store card today, many teenagers and young adults are ill equipped to consider fully the long-term cost of so much cheap credit. A survey by the Nationwide building society revealed that 75 per cent. of people in the UK do not understand the monetary value that a 1 per cent. difference in mortgage rates can make. It is probably safe to assume that that lack of knowledge can be extended to credit card repayments.

In the UK, personal debt as a proportion of income is the highest it has ever been and the highest in the developed world. We are, quite simply, the debtor of Europe. If the problem is not to deteriorate further, we need to take action at a number of levels. First, we need to get people while they are young. Currently, the teaching of personal financial management is not compulsory in schools, although there are opportunities for pupils to learn about managing their money through personal, social and health education, citizenship and maths lessons. However, the reality is that PSHE lessons are not always taken as seriously as they should be and there is no monitoring of what is taught. Some schools have found it difficult to teach financial literacy: some staff do not feel confident about teaching it, and that is combined with the difficulty of fitting the lessons into an already crowded timetable. Above all, however, education should equip people for life, so the subject deserves to be taught in its own right.

Financial education will be part of the national curriculum from 2008, but that will cover only the role of business and financial services. What children really need are lessons in budgeting and money management, as they will help them understand the implications of any simple financial decisions that they make and, hence, help them to avoid future debt.

Given the Government’s desire for individuals to take more personal responsibility for their long-term financial well-being, the only real surprise is that that education need has not been addressed already. For many adults, however, debt is a problem that already exists. People in debt simply do not know how to climb out of the debt trap, and in many cases some simple advice and support can help people to turn their lives around.

Yet the problem is growing. Since 1997, total British household debt has risen 170 per cent. The average interest paid on debt by each household per year has risen to approximately £3,800—an increase of £500 over the past year alone. According to Credit Action debt statistics, 80 per cent. of Britons regularly admit to overspending.

One tool for decreasing the problem is to ensure that people have access to free independent advice and assistance. The Thoreson review is currently looking into the matter, but Otto Thoreson has stated recently that providing a national, generic financial advice service would improve financial capability across the UK, and that the benefits would outweigh the costs by about three and a half to one. He has already identified the cohort of the population most in need of the advice, and calculated that there are 19 million or so people with significant needs. That represents nearly half the UK adult population.

Some advice is available already, but the organisations offering it face an increased burden. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux received 434,592 requests for help in November last year. That is 30,000 more than in the whole of the 1996-97 accounting year, which shows how the problem has grown.

The Government should be working actively with the financial services industry to achieve a national roll-out of independent advice centres that would provide financial health checks. Currently, NACAB provides a valuable service but it usually offers help only once people have got themselves into considerable financial difficulty. It has recently trialled a new initiative called Moneyplan, whose aim is to find a way to meet the advice gap that has been identified in the provision of generic financial advice.

The main findings so far suggest a great deal of unmet demand. The project does not deal with crisis management, but it often has to deal with explaining financial documents that the individual simply does not understand. Also, the Resolution Foundation has investigated the feasibility of establishing a new national financial advice resource, funded by a public-private partnership, to provide financial advice targeted at people on low incomes. The foundation makes the point that a significant proportion of that group are currently making poor financial choices. I suggest that making poor financial choices is not restricted to people on low incomes.

The Resolution Foundation report also concludes that, by drawing on technology and harnessing learning from existing services, the financial advice needed could be provided at high volumes and at a reasonable cost. The time has come for Government to take a lead on the problem, rather than wait for some third-party organisation to try to get people together.

My Bill would provide a mechanism for achieving a national roll-out of independent advice centres that provide financial health checks. A network that provides genuinely independent advice would be in the best interests of the financial industry. It would be in the industry’s interests to finance the scheme collectively, as it would help to restore battered confidence by providing advice of a high professional standard that is not linked to any particular product.

However, it is no good having improved financial literacy if lending practices are confusing to the consumer. There is a need for greater transparency in a number of areas. Young people often collect store cards and, despite recent changes, some of the charging remains complex and fairly opaque. We need to have a simpler mechanism for explaining to people what their average monthly repayments will be for each £100 that they borrow—both in the initial phases of the loan, and once any offer period has expired. The current concept of APR—the annual percentage rate—is meaningless to most people.

There is also a need for tighter guidelines by the Financial Services Authority over non-income verified mortgages. We do not want to return to the days when the self-employed found it hard to obtain loans, but the recent growth in the number of unverified mortgages suggests an eagerness to promote competitive lending. Lenders should have more responsibility for ensuring that a mortgage is granted only if it is proven that the suggested repayments are feasible. The issue is hugely topical. Only this morning on the “Today” programme, Hector Sants, head of the Financial Services Authority, acknowledged the need to return to a rather more old-fashioned world in which banks lent money, kept risks themselves, and had to make rather fuller judgments about the people to whom they lent.

The aforementioned measures can only go so far, and there is a pressing need to find ways in which to put the brakes on irresponsible financial behaviour. One way of doing that would be to adopt greater debt-inflation pooling, in order to prevent irresponsible lending and borrowing. At present, about 60 per cent. of debt data are pooled; the 40 per cent. that are not includes student debt, and figures show that more than 59,000 graduates are in arrears of student loan payments by more than six months. Clearly that information needs to be part of the bigger picture, so that young adults are not allowed to get further into debt and lenders have the greatest possible amount of information on the people to whom they are lending.

This is very much a 21st-century problem. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has done much to highlight the issues in the past. The Bill is a modest contribution to tackling the problem, and I hope that the Government will support its aims.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sandra Gidley, Rosie Cooper, John Bercow, Peter Luff, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Vincent Cable and Lorely Burt.

Personal Debt (advice and Regulation)

Sandra Gidley accordingly presented a Bill to require schools to provide education on personal money management; to make provision about advice centres on personal finance; to impose conditions on the activities of money-lending companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed [Bill 77].

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you considered the instruction on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), and will you be selecting it?

I understand that the matter does not arise today, so the question is rather hypothetical.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry about this—

As I have said in the House before, the cares of tomorrow are for a day still to come.

I am very aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I am keen that none of us should have this care tomorrow or the day after, which is why I am raising it today.

On the issue of Standing Order No. 66 and instructions, may I ask your advice on whether you might be able to help us in two ways, Mr. Speaker? I think I am right in saying that, under the present arrangements, when an instruction is issued there is no early indication of its selection like the indication through your office of the selection of amendments, for instance, or other selection in the Lobby. Will you consider whether it would be possible for you to indicate selection or non-selection of instructions with some notice, so that the House as a whole knows in advance whether an instruction has been selected? That is my first question.

I cannot possibly give an answer just now, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is question No. 1 out of the way. As an engineer, I like to do one thing at a time. Now let me deal with the next question.

You have been very helpful, Mr. Speaker. I have one more request, to which I hope you will be equally sympathetic.

There are some instructions which it seems to me may not be necessary—although they are perfectly legitimate as instructions on the Order Paper—because the legislation to be debated could include the business that is the subject of the instruction. I have been present—as you have, Sir—on occasions when instructions have been issued and it has been accepted that the matter in question is one with which the Bill could deal: Crossrail is one example. Will you, Mr. Speaker, give consideration to whether I might be spared the need to have to raise such an issue in future because you are able to rule that a Bill covers the matters dealt with by an instruction so we do not have to put it on the Order Paper?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that I deal with the business of the day, and I therefore cannot give hypothetical rulings.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

I beg to move,

That this House approves the Government’s policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the opportunity to debate the part that Europe should play in tackling dangerous climate change. Leadership on this most important task facing our planet is exactly what we need Europe for, and in providing that lead Europe is building on the environmental foundations it has created since its early days. It was in 1987 that environmental protection was first brought into the treaty of Rome, with the signing of the Single European Act. In 1993, the Maastricht treaty established the environment as an activity of the EU. The treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 included balanced and sustainable development as a new objective of the European Union. There was a declaration by member states alongside the treaty of Nice in 2001, which expressed determination that the EU play a leading role in promoting environmental protection both in the EU and globally. Finally, the Lisbon treaty specifically recognises combating climate change as an important strategic objective of EU policy.

Regardless of what we think of the nature of the protests that have taken place today on the roof of Parliament and a few days ago at Heathrow, they point to a major contradiction in EU policy. On the one hand, the approval of the open skies treaty between the United States of America and the EU could lead to 25 million tonnes of carbon being released into the atmosphere, while on the other we have this debate today about climate change. Will the Secretary of State press for the treaty’s provisions on climate change to trump the other things that are pushing to make matters worse?

I shall address aviation later in my speech. Interestingly, although the abandoned constitution did not contain a specific reference to climate change, the Lisbon treaty specifically recognises the need to combat climate change as a strategic objective of the EU. I hope my hon. Friend acknowledges that. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe says, it is an improvement. That is because it recognises the changes in politics, in science and in understanding and awareness. If I may say so, that makes the Opposition amendment look pretty strange. I am looking forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), because what on earth would the rest of the world make of us if, having put that into the Lisbon treaty—for reasons that many Members have advanced—we were to take it out? What message would that send to the world about how serious Europe is?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who are concerned about the precise, detailed wording of the Lisbon treaty, lest it should lead to uncovenanted results, ought to be particularly keen on the introduction of these words, because the results to which they will lead will be covenanted? They will mean that the European Union makes this a much more central issue than it would otherwise be.

The right hon. Gentleman absolutely makes the case. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over many years to advance the cause of environmental understanding in the UK and in Europe. That is absolutely the argument. Bluntly, it would look really odd if, having gone into this recognising that we all understand the problem, we were then to argue that it should not be in the treaty and that we should take it out. What sort of message would the House be sending out if that were to happen?

Does the Secretary of State accept that adding six words to the Lisbon treaty is hardly going to transform the centrality of climate change to European policy making? As he has set out in his speech, the EU already has the powers and the established position to take action on this matter. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whose point I take on board, might not the practical effect of the measure be that international treaties on climate change would need the approval of the European Parliament, which could put a brake on action on climate change, rather than leading to an improvement?

Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. Yes, this measure will institutionalise what the European Union has already been doing—I will say more about that in a moment—but that is not an argument for not putting it in the treaty. If we recognise, as we all do—I am sure that that goes for the hon. Gentleman as well—that climate change is one of the two greatest threats that the world is facing, why would we not want to put in the treaty a reference to dealing with the dangerous consequences of climate change as a strategic objective of the European Union, given the opportunity and given what Europe has done up to now? I have to say, in all honesty, that I really do not get the hon. Gentleman’s argument, which is why his speech on the subject will be very interesting to listen to.

Is it not clear that the suggestion in the Conservatives’ amendment that

“the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change”

is completely absurd? Is it not also clear that their attempt to set the purpose and policy of the European Union against the processes of the European Union is also based on a false dichotomy? Without streamlined processes, the European Union would not be able to advance its policies.

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Indeed, part of the purpose of the Lisbon treaty is to enable Europe effectively to address the challenges that the world faces, and today we are discussing climate change, which is one of the greatest of them all.

The Secretary of State has warned the Opposition about the danger of sending baffling messages on climate change. May I put it to him that actions speak a great deal louder than words, and that the decision to expand Heathrow is utterly baffling to my constituents, and to people all around the world? I really must ask him to reconsider it.

I will come to the emissions trading scheme and aviation later. The hon. Gentleman will know that a consultation is taking place, and that, in the context of the much lower total of carbon emissions that we will be able to emit if we are to achieve our international objectives, society has a choice about where it decides to make those emissions. It is because of Europe that aviation will now have to make a contribution; it did not have to do so in the past. Aviation has a particular set of characteristics, along with shipping, including the fact that it is international, and we will need to agree on a system for divvying up responsibility for coping with the consequences of those emissions. We now have a vehicle for doing something about that, but only because the European Union has acted.

I am following what the Secretary of State is saying, but is it not the case that, although aviation will come into phase 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme, there will be an opt-out for industries in competition with businesses in countries without comparable carbon restraints? Does not that mean that international flights from the EU to the United States or the far east, which do not have carbon restraints comparable to those of the ETS, will not be included in the scheme? Will not the scheme therefore affect only flights within the EU?

The EU has competence in relation to flights that come in and out of the Union. Frankly, if the International Civil Aviation Organisation were doing its job properly, it would be addressing this issue, because ultimately we need an international solution, as we do in the fight against climate change. That is not an argument for Europe not trying, however, and the significance of the agreement that we reached at the Environment Council in December was that member states said, “Yes, we wish to see aviation included.” Britain would have liked aviation to come into the scheme earlier than 2012. It looks as though that is when it will happen; it now depends on negotiations with the Parliament. The cap that will be applied, subject to those negotiations, will be based on 2004-06 emissions. That means that any rise in emissions above that level will have to be compensated for by emission reductions elsewhere.

That example, and the inclusion of climate change in the Lisbon treaty, demonstrate that the development of the EU’s policy on the environment reflects our evolution of understanding as to why the environment—and now climate change—matter so much. Why did this happen? Very simply, it did so because the countries of Europe realised pretty early on that what we could achieve by working together would be much greater than what we could hope to achieve by going our separate ways. We know that environmental pollution does not respect national borders. It is a statement of the obvious, but there is no means by which we could say, “Okay, we’ll look after the UK’s emissions and you can look after yours.” By definition, this is a problem of interdependence. It is a global problem that requires action at international level, and the EU is giving the lead.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about aviation, would he agree that an equal, if not stronger, case needs to be made for shipping? Everything has been concentrated on aviation, and it is now vital to press through the International Maritime Organisation for a proper carbon regime for shipping. That can best be done through the EU.

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. As she will know, the challenge is even more complex in relation to shipping. It is not simply a question of divvying up the emissions according to which port a ship leaves and which one it arrives in. We need to address the question of fuel bunkering; if that happens in international waters, who is responsible for the emissions? We also need to deal with the question of flags of convenience, because if the trading were arranged on that basis, some countries might suddenly find that they had to take responsibility for a lot of emissions. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be dealt with on an international basis.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people throughout the world, not just those who live in the EU, look to the EU to provide a lead on climate change? In November, the UK branch Commonwealth Parliamentary Association held a conference here in London that was attended by 85 parliamentarians from Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries. The conference called for a new international treaty, and for the promotion of the creation of durable carbon markets. The majority of the people there were from non-EU countries, and they look to the EU to provide a lead because our carbon emissions trading scheme is the best and strongest so far developed in the world, and because they see the EU as the most likely base on which to build an international agreement on these matters.

I agree with my hon. Friend completely. This is about providing leadership in the world. If we all wait for someone else to act, “After you” will do for all of us. That is the truth. I congratulate those who took the initiative to call that conference together. Parliamentarians are part of the process by which this change will take place, because we, too, represent the change in awareness and the growth in understanding. As I shall illustrate in relation to Bali, Europe’s leadership is hugely significant in this regard, and gives encouragement to others around the world.

The Secretary of State has just mentioned the subject of my question. On the international situation, does he not agree that the impact of the Conservatives’ amendment would be to undermine the strategic direction that Europe took in Bali, which was so vital to the success of those negotiations in bringing pressure to bear on countries such as the United States to come on board and join the international consensus?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. In truth, people will look at that amendment and think, “What? What is that all about?” It makes no sense whatever. Let us debate the substance of what we need to do. To focus a lot of attention on saying, “Can you please remove the words ‘climate change’ from the EU treaty?” would be greeted with a lot of perplexed looks and exasperation around the globe.

The Secretary of State is being very generous in giving way and he is making his case most eloquently. He has repeatedly referred to what the EU will do, to the EU’s actions and to what it is enabled to do. Will he tell us, simply, whether there is any new power in the treaty that was not provided for already?

No, there is not. The treaty does not change the shared competence and qualified majority voting applies. However—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this, on reflection—it institutionalises the point that the EU, as it moves forward, recognises that tackling climate change will be an important part of what it will need to do.

Does that not underline how confusing the Opposition amendment is? Surely, if climate change is important, which we all accept, it should be institutionalised. The debate should be about shifting resources from agricultural subsidies to fighting climate change. To do that, the policy should be part of the institutions of the EU.

Of course it should. Given the strength of the argument against the Opposition amendment, maybe some on the Opposition Benches will see the error of their ways.

I am sorry that Labour Members appear to be confused by the amendment, as it is very straightforward. I am also sorry that the Secretary of State says that the amendment would also remove reference to climate change from the Lisbon treaty. It would do nothing of the kind. The point made by the Opposition’s amendment is that

“the Government’s priority on climate change in the European context should not be institutional change but the strengthening of measures to drive down greenhouse gas emissions”—

there should be actions, not words.

I have read those words very carefully. I have also read the amendment that will be debated later, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that indeed seeks to remove the words.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is a Back-Bench amendment? Yes or no?

I do recognise that; if Opposition Front Benchers are saying that they will not support it, that is fine. [Interruption.] Good, I am pleased to hear that.

Will they be supporting it?

I think that those on the Opposition Front Bench have indicated that they will not. It would not make any sense. I do not understand why they are carping about the inclusion of those words which they say make no difference. My argument is that they do make a difference. Since the Opposition are not arguing in favour of the treaty they will, in the end, be understood by the position that they take.

Every one of us has an interest in a healthy and natural environment. We all recognise the improvements that have been made as a result of the efforts of the EU. Pollution control is a good example. Air quality legislation has been in place since the 1980s and has been responsible for dramatic improvements in air quality across Europe. Sulphur dioxide emissions, which are one thing about which we should be concerned, are down by 68 per cent. compared with 2004. Nitrogen oxides are down 32 per cent. Volatile organic compounds are down 43 per cent. and ammonia is down 22 per cent. That is one example of European action making a difference.

A second example is the quality of bathing water. In 1976, EU legislation protected bathers from health risks. What has that meant for people in the UK? Significant improvements have been made to the quality of our bathing waters. As a result, nearly all coastal bathing sites consistently meet the European standard. Seven in 10 waters now achieve the tougher guideline standards. Those are two examples of Europe acting to improve our environment. They both represent real progress.

Some of us heard an interesting speaker from Surfers Against Sewage last night, not far from this House. The speaker pointed out that if it had not been for European regulation, Surfers Against Sewage would never have achieved what it has as a successful pressure group that has changed the quality of sea water around our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that every environmental group that I talk to believes that nothing would have happened in this country without leadership from Europe?

That is entirely the case. Europe has been a force for good in improving the quality of our environment. That is the truth. Those who carp at the EU and do not wish it to have those responsibilities and powers must then accept the consequence of the lack of action that would have happened if Europe had not taken the lead. That is precisely the reason that we need Europe to act on climate change. I would describe the Lisbon treaty as a further step in the journey in protecting the environment for us all.

The Prime Minister said in November last year that our membership of the EU

“gives us and 26 other countries the unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges”.

We all know that dangerous climate change is all three of those challenges and more. One has only to think for a moment about the possible consequences of reduced water availability in the world. What will we do when human beings start to fight each other about water? How will we cope with the consequences for crop yields of increased temperature? What will we do as a world when large numbers of people begin to move around the globe in pursuit of a safe place to live, because they cannot live where they lived previously as dangerous climate change has rendered their homes uninhabitable? I and other hon. Members have seen with our own eyes people who are experiencing that precise situation in the developing world.

The truth is that the world has come a long way since 1988, when the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At that point, few people were aware of what was going on, and in the years since things have changed dramatically. The science is no longer in doubt. Climate change is happening, and it is happening fast. Time is short and the world must act now.

The UK Government have played an important part in leading that debate in the EU and internationally. After all, in 1998 the UK Government, during our presidency, led the EU in pushing for the historic Kyoto agreement. The EU emissions trading scheme is based on the UK’s domestic scheme, which started three years earlier. We were the first country in the world to do that. The EU picked it up and, as has been said, it is now the bedrock of the EU’s efforts to reduce emissions by putting a price on carbon. The emissions trading scheme is the largest scheme of its kind in the world and covers the largest emitters, who produce almost half the EU’s CO₂ emissions. We want other sectors to be included in the scheme, which is precisely why we pressed for aviation to be included. That was agreed at the Environment Council in December.

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, who is as generous as ever in giving way. The six words—almost an aside—in the Lisbon treaty that refer to climate change are:

“and in particular combating climate change.”

Of all the strands in the comprehensive treaty, which covers so many areas of law and activity in the EU, that must be the slightest reference to any subject. Today is being spent trying to deflect attention away from the failure to provide the people of this country with a say on the Lisbon treaty by dressing it up as an important step in climate change. I put it to the Secretary of State, who is known for his honesty in this House, that that is nothing more than a charade. It is not giving a genuine impression.

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in preparing for the debate and standing at the Dispatch Box today I am not taking part in a charade, whatever he is doing. I do not accept the argument. However, maybe he is arguing that there should be a bigger reference to climate change in the Lisbon treaty. Is he?

I would have thought that as we are devoting a day to considering the Lisbon treaty as it relates to climate change, it would deserve a much bigger entry if it was felt to be important. We have already said that we do not think that it needs such an entry. Why are the Government spending this time on discussing six words? The EU has the powers. The point that we Conservatives will be making today is that it is action that counts. Our frustration and annoyance is caused by the lack of action and the Government’s desire to play politics by using climate change as a cover.

I am not trying to use climate change as a cover for anything at all. I was in the middle of pointing out that the EU is already getting on with it, hence why argue with the words in the treaty? We were the first country to put climate change at the heart of a G8 presidency and to argue that there should be a debate on climate change in the Security Council. We were the first country in the world, as a member of the European Union, to put together a Climate Change Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Climate Change Bill, which is being considered in the other place, is an historic piece of legislation that will make us the first country in the world to provide for a legally binding, long-term framework to cut CO₂ emissions. That UK commitment reflects Europe’s commitment. EU member states, as well as other countries throughout the world, are watching what we are doing in the United Kingdom with great interest.

Given that the Climate Change Bill was the product of Opposition pressure and Government willingness, and is thus a commonly supported Bill, does the Secretary of State agree that we are setting an important example throughout the world and that that ought to be the way in which we proceed on all these matters?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman absolutely. All our thinking has evolved. That is reflected in the politics of all the parties of which we are proud to be members and the campaigns of non-governmental organisations—Friends of the Earth has worked particularly hard. The truth is that whoever is in government in any country in the world, they will have to deal with this threat, so we all have a shared interest in ensuring that we have the right framework, the right politics and, above all, the right action to get emissions down.

Brevity is not necessarily an indication of substance. The phrase

“all men shall be free”

underpinned the anti-slavery movement, which shows that even five words can achieve a great deal. To return to the substance of the debate, another phrase is “commerce always outbids conservation”, and it bothers me that aviation is being grandfathered. All other sectors in the ETS have a baseline of 1990, so why should aviation have 14 years’ growth grandfathered? Surely all other sectors in the ETS should be unhappy with that decision.

The straight answer to my hon. Friend’s point is that that was what the Council of Ministers was able to reach agreement on in the end. However, I am not sure that I agree that commerce will always trump conservation. In the development of our understanding of dangerous climate change, it is striking that the business community gets it, too. Even in the relatively short time that I have been in this job, I have seen the CBI taskforce report and listened to business people from around the world, especially from the UK and Europe. I pay tribute to Nick Stern, because if one was to put a finger on one bit of work that has done more than any other to change attitudes in the business community and broader society, it would be his fantastic report. He said very simply, “If you don’t get the moral case and you’re not wholly persuaded by the science, just have a look at the numbers.” People who understand numbers for a living can see that a case is being made when someone says, “Given a choice between a low cost and a much higher one, which do you fancy pursuing?”

Does the Secretary of State agree that Conservative Members would be able to make a more valid contribution if they focused on other aspects of the treaty relating to climate change more than on the six words that have presumably been crayoned on to their briefing notes for them? The Lisbon treaty clearly talks about the sustainable development of Europe, energy efficiency and new agreements on renewable forms of energy. Are they not crucial factors in tackling climate change?

They certainly are. If hon. Members read article 191 in the consolidated texts, they will find all those points. As we have come to learn, we need to see all these things in the round.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I want to make a little more progress because many hon. Members wish to speak and I want to give them as much time as possible.

President Barroso himself has acknowledged the growing public recognition of the dangers posed by climate change. He says:

“It therefore deserves and demands to be seen as one of the new cornerstones of the EU’s raison d’être.”

I could not agree more, and that is what the treaty will achieve. That is reflected by the fact that, last spring, the European Council agreed an ambitious set of targets on carbon emissions, renewable energy and biofuels to push forwards the transition. Germany, as G8 president, played a role in getting agreement at Heiligendamm on the need for cuts in emissions, which was an example of European leadership.

In December, Europe’s united front in support of an agreement at the climate change negotiations in Bali played an important part in achieving a breakthrough. Something was achieved at Bali that had not seemed possible before, namely that all countries in the world—from the United States of America to developing countries—recognised the science and the need to make deep cuts in emissions, and agreed that we needed to negotiate a new climate deal over the next two years. On 23 January, the European Commission published legislative proposals in the climate and energy package that will put the emissions trading scheme at the heart of EU policy. An EU-wide central cap is being established for the first time precisely because Europe is learning from the experience of phase 1 of the ETS that if the cap is not right, progress will not be made.

Given that, according to the House of Commons Library, per capita CO₂ emissions in the United Kingdom have increased this century, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what articles 191 and 192 will do to assist us to adapt to climate change, on which Stern was particularly strong? There is a need not only to deal with the causes, important though that is—it has been a major focus of my right hon. Friend’s speech—but to say something about the inevitable consequences that he realises are already happening and that will get worse in the future.

The last point in article 191.1 refers to

“promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems”.

Such problems are not just those relating to combating climate change, but those that will flow from climate change, such as the availability of water, crop yields and diseases that will spread to parts of the world in which they have not been found before. There must be adaptation now, because whatever we agree on mitigation, we will have to adapt to the changes that are irrevocably in the system.

The EU has set ambitious targets on renewables for member states. By demonstrating its leadership, it has said that if there is a global deal, the EU will increase its commitment further and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent. by 2020.

I agree with many of the general points that the Secretary of State is making. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I have had a quick look at article 174 in the previous treaty, which seems to include an almost identical provision to that to which the Secretary of State referred in article 191, except for the words to do with climate change. Is that the case?

What is new is the inclusion of the strategic objective of addressing climate change, which we should all welcome.

Europe is providing leadership, and its 27 voices are giving the same message to citizens, businesses and our global partners. Europe, this country and the world need to concentrate on five things if we are to deal with the problem. First, now that we have the deal at Bali, we need to agree on a goal.

That would be a start.

Well, Europe has made a start because it has a goal—a temperature target. There is a question of what temperature increase the world thinks that we can live with and what we must avoid. Europe’s target is no more than 2°C, which will require at least a 50 per cent. reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels across the world. We must get agreement, because once there is agreement on a goal, we can look at all the commitments from around the world that are on the table. We can then add them up and decide whether they will be sufficient. We know that they are not sufficient to deal with the task at the moment.

Secondly, we need bigger and more ambitious commitments from developed countries. That is why Europe’s commitment is important and why we need all the rich developed nations, including the largest economy in the world, to make binding commitments. Thirdly, we need a strong global carbon market, because putting a price on what is bad for the climate will encourage people to invest in what is better for the climate. We have to open up those markets to all countries, and the fact that the EU ETS is the largest of all the markets puts Europe in a strong position to ensure that that happens. As other trading schemes emerge in other parts of the globe, one of our tasks is to enable them all to fit together, so that we do not end up with—if I can put it this way—a VHS trading scheme in one place and a Betamax trading scheme in another, or different currencies; we need to be able to connect the schemes together.

Fourthly, we need a deal that is fair. This is fundamentally a matter of global social justice. We now learn that we have a finite resource that the world can cope with: CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions. The world can only take so much, so the question is how we divide that up fairly and equitably, both to save the planet and to lift every citizen out of poverty in the same century. That is why we need measurable contributions from developed countries, but we also have to show that those countries are willing to provide financial support, help with technology, assistance to avoid deforestation and support for adaptation to developing countries. Fifthly and finally, we need an agreement that covers all countries and all emissions and does enough to solve the problem.

That, in summary, is the task that the negotiations between now and Copenhagen have to achieve. The truth is that Europe alone cannot ensure that we get that deal in Copenhagen; it depends on many other countries, too. But with the Lisbon treaty acknowledging Europe’s role—that is what it does, and so it should—we now have a firm basis on which to proceed. What the Lisbon treaty has to say on climate change recognises reality and embraces practical politics, and I think that the House should support it.

I beg to move, To leave out from ‘House’ to end and add

‘notes that the Treaty of Lisbon makes no substantive changes to EU competence on climate change; agrees with the Foreign Secretary that climate change agreements already reached by the EU “have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering”; believes that the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change; and concludes that the Government’s priority on climate change in the European context should not be institutional change but the strengthening of measures to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.’.

Conservatives always welcome the opportunity to speak in this House on the vital importance of tackling climate change. As the debates on the Lisbon treaty are demonstrating, we also welcome opportunities to speak on the role and influence of the European Union in the political and daily life of this country. Indeed, some hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to show an insatiable appetite for debating matters European. We are happy to debate climate change and our relationship with the European Union.

The other place has happily been debating the Climate Change Bill in recent weeks, and I am pleased to note how the Opposition have succeeded in persuading the Government to toughen up some key provisions of that Bill. We look forward to its arrival in this House in the near future. If we end up with a robust Climate Change Bill—one that really changes the mindset in Whitehall and in Westminster—it will be a great example of what a national Parliament can achieve.

There will be plenty of opportunities to debate climate change in the weeks ahead, and that is a good thing, given that climate change is the greatest threat we face. It would be surprising indeed if we were not debating it. I sense that, despite the fact that the science is still disputed by some, there is a real hunger for clarity and leadership on climate change, which affects all of us, whatever our job, wherever we live, whatever our income and whatever our faith. It demands a new politics.

Does my hon. Friend share my anger and concern that in the past few days, despite sensible opposition by Her Majesty’s Government, the European Union has decreed that from 2011 all motor cars will have to have daytime running lights? Is he aware that, in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), revealed that that will result in an increase in fuel consumption of about 5 per cent.? Is not that a good example of what is rotten in the European Union—the blanket, one-size-must-fit-all approach, which in this instance will lead to an unnecessary imposition on the British motorist and will increase emissions?

Order. That was more like a speech than an intervention.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, but he makes a good point. I shall later make some positive remarks about the role that the EU can play in combating environmental challenges and climate change, but producing a directive requiring all cars to keep their headlights on at all times is precisely the sort of thing that gets under people’s skin and annoys them about the EU. I know that Ministers have resisted that measure. The EU maintains that it will increase fuel use and carbon emissions by only 0.3 per cent., but the Government’s position is that it will increase them by 5 per cent. That is wholly unacceptable and counter-productive, and an example of what could go wrong if we do not persuade Europe to engage in the new politics that I just mentioned.

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need for a new politics and consensus on climate change. Can he explain why this week Conservative peers voted against having a target of an 80 per cent. cut in CO₂ emissions?

My understanding is that Conservative peers abstained on that vote. However, I am pleased by the co-operation that has been taking place between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the other place. The first key task set out by the Secretary of State was to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2° C. I shall be interested to hear the Minister who sums up this debate explain why Government peers voted against Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers on making that task a primary purpose of the Climate Change Bill.

In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative amendment was all about adding substance and not flitting about with a few airy-fairy words. In terms of substance, therefore, will he tell us how the Conservatives would raise the price of carbon in the emissions trading scheme to a level that might deter people from flying?

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will hear me discuss the ETS later in my speech.

Just before the previous interventions, the hon. Gentleman said that climate change affects us all, but does he agree that it does not affect us all equally? It will have the greatest impact on the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world. In that sense, climate change is not only an environmental issue, but a social justice issue.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the House will allow me to make progress, I am about to touch on that very point.

We need a new politics in the face of an unprecedented challenge. Our approach must not be tactical or short term, geared toward electoral advantage; it must be long term. We do not need insular and self-interested policies; we must be global and generous. As the hon. Gentleman said, climate change is not just an environmental or economic challenge. It is about our economy and the world’s, our society and some of the most vulnerable societies in the world. Ultimately, it is very possibly about our ability to survive at all.

Climate change needs to be debated but, above all, it needs action. So far, the Government have been long on words but desperately short on effective action: the rhetoric and the reality are far removed. This country’s climate change emissions have increased since 1997, and now key environmental projects are threatened by the latest consequences of DEFRA’s financial difficulties. Given the absence of dispute between the main political parties on the seriousness of the threat of climate change, it is astonishing that so little progress has been made towards dealing with the problem.

What I have been struggling to understand is why we have been invited to discuss climate change here and now, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The Lisbon treaty matters, too. It might not literally be a matter of life and death, which is what irreversible climate change might ultimately become, but it does go to the heart of how we are governed, our democratic values and our right to determine our own future in years to come. It is uncomfortable to say this, but I really think that the fact that the Government have devoted so much time to the issue of climate change in debates on the Lisbon treaty betrays a serious misjudgement of the importance of both issues. It may betray something worse: a cynical willingness to use the issue of climate change as a decoy, a means of avoiding more thorough debate about the constitutional implications of the Lisbon treaty.

We have already heard how many words in the Lisbon treaty are devoted to the issue of climate change: six. [Interruption.] When I say six, I mean literally that there are no more than six words in the whole treaty devoted to the issue of climate change, and I shall quote them:

“and in particular combating climate change.”

It is hardly groundbreaking stuff. There is nothing in those six words or anywhere else in the treaty that will help our collective efforts— [Interruption.]

Order. We cannot have hon. Members waving documents about in the Chamber.

What has happened is that the Government have dedicated three and a half hours today to discussing those six words. That is 35 minutes a word, or just over five minutes a letter. I suppose that I should be grateful that in this long series of debates, I am probably unique among Conservative spokesmen in not having to complain about any new powers arising from the treaty of Lisbon, but I must ask whether this is the most productive use of the House’s time.

Do the Government think that focusing on a thematic issue such as climate change, which they identify correctly as something that the public care about, enables them to avoid a more technical debate on the parts of the treaty that actually make important changes to our political relationship within Europe? Why have they arranged this particular debate on this subject?

rose—

I will give way to any hon. Gentleman from the Labour party who can answer that question.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that actions speak louder than words. Are not the important vehicles for environmental change—measures providing for clean water, how we look after our landscape, how we dispose of our waste, climate change—being driven by Europe? We ought to be supporting them rather than carping about today’s debate.

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to some of those issues and some of the positive things that Europe has done to encourage a better environment for all of us.

rose—

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but then I must make progress.

Is my hon. Friend not being rather kind to the Government? The truth is that it would be perfectly proper to have a whole day’s debate on climate change under the Lisbon treaty—it really is a very important addition—if we had had a proper debate on defence or a whole range of other matters in the Lisbon treaty. What worries me is that it is not the Secretary of State’s fault. The fault lies in the Government’s unwillingness to arrange for proper line-by-line debate on the treaty. Those of us who are deeply opposed to referendums should be most concerned that we ought to have had that debate.

My right hon. Friend makes a compelling and important point. I understand that none of the amendments dealing with defence was debated at all, which is a disgrace. I suggest to him that there may be another and rather more scurrilous plan at work: I suspect that somebody in some Government office thought it might be a cunning wheeze to table the motion that we are debating in order to paint the Conservatives’ considered opposition to the Lisbon treaty as being incompatible with support for collective EU action on climate change. If so, that is not only cynical but ignorant.

The question is whether the Conservative party speaks with one voice. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said how important it was for the EU to have a competence in climate change. Amendment No. 121 to the European Union (Amendment) Bill, tabled by some very senior Conservatives—including a former party leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and a former Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—says that the EU should have no say at all on climate change. Does that not show that the hon. Gentleman’s party is deeply divided and unable to provide leadership on Europe?

The evidence of these debates has been that the divisions are all on the other side of the House. I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.

The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the EU already has a competence in climate change; that is exactly my point. The provisions of the Lisbon treaty are about the distribution of power between the EU and its member states, and how the EU is organised. The treaty has been deliberately designed, some would say, to be as hard as possible to understand, which is presumably why the Government hope that they can renege on their pledge to hold a referendum, although I remind the Secretary of State that people notice when politicians fail to keep their election promises.

However, when the EU does useful things, it can play an important role, not least in tackling climate change. Again, it is about actions and not words:

“if the European Union is to show itself to be useful, it need not reform its institutions or become obsessed with institutional reform; rather, it needs to get on with tackling the big issues that people recognise cannot be addressed at national level.”

Those are the words of the Foreign Secretary.

If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the provisions in the treaty relating to the reform of institutions, and if he argues that reform is irrelevant to the issue of climate change, surely he should be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and explain how a six-month rotating presidency shared among 27 member states can possibly advance climate change policy more effectively than the provisions in the treaty.

It does not need a treaty to take effective action on climate change. I refer the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect greatly and whose knowledge of environmental matters is impressive, to the further remarks of his own Foreign Secretary in December:

“People sometimes say, ‘You can't address those issues unless you reform the institutions,’ but to take the topical example of climate change…if you look at the conclusions of the March 2006 European Council, which offer a genuine leadership role for Europe on climate change issues and international negotiations, you will realise that they have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering.”

That is exactly the point that I am making. I am at one with the Foreign Secretary on the matter.

The hon. Gentleman has just made the extraordinary statement that it does not need a treaty to take action on climate change. Does he seriously think that something as complex as the emissions trading scheme could possibly have been established among 27 member states without the offices of the European Union, which the treaty will reinforce?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I should have said “a new treaty”, as the existing provisions on climate change are, of course, undertaken through the treaty of Rome, and will not be changed by the Lisbon treaty.

I agree completely with the Foreign Secretary. We do not need more institutional meddling to deal with climate change; we need better policies and greater political will. The Foreign Secretary’s remarks serve only to emphasise how irrelevant today’s motion is. It is a distraction not only from the substantive issue of how to meet our carbon emissions reduction targets but from the issues of real relevance to the Lisbon treaty, such as defence and foreign policy.

The EU already has the power to tackle climate change. For instance, article 175 of the treaty establishing the European Community has already been used as a basis for the Community to pass many measures relating to climate change, which we have supported. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol at the European Community level did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a binding decision on implementing the Kyoto protocol in the EU did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a directive setting up the emissions trading scheme did not need the Lisbon treaty. Adopting a directive setting up a minimum target of 5.75 per cent. for vehicle fuel from biofuels by the end of 2010—I might have more to say about that in a moment—did not need the Lisbon treaty. So what is the Lisbon treaty offering us that will further enhance our collective European ability to tackle climate change?

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has been patient, so I shall give way.

I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s presentation for some time. If he does not think that the six words on climate change in the Lisbon treaty are at all relevant, does it mean that the 15 words on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the words on sustainability in article 3, are not relevant? Would he excise all of them from the new treaty as, by his logic, none of them makes any difference?

Almost all the words to which the hon. Gentleman refers are imported from other treaties. My point is that the matters are not taken forward by the Lisbon treaty. I can only refer him back to the comments made by the Foreign Secretary.

rose—

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I really will make progress.