| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Browning: I am sorry, but no.
One important element of the Florence agreement is that all parties agreed that, in future, steps towards lifting the ban would be taken
Mrs. Browning:
No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
So we now have a clear framework for lifting the ban. That is most welcome, and shows the way ahead to achieving the objective of lifting the ban, which I am sure is supported by everyone in the House. There are various
steps that we must achieve before the ban is removed, and we are working flat out to deliver them. Their successful operation will then be demonstrated to the Commission, which in turn will produce proposals to relax successive elements of the ban. We look to other member states then to fulfil their Florence commitments. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the House. It is important that other states keep their side of the bargain.
There are five main elements in the move towards lifting the ban. The first two constitute the removal of the ban on the export first of beef from certain certified herds, and secondly of calves born after a certain date. We regret that there has been a delay in introducing the certified herds and mature beef scheme, but I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer. SEAC has asked to consider certain aspects of the scheme, and we hope to hear the results before the week is out. When we get the green light from the committee, we shall be ready to go with the scheme as quickly as possible.
We hope to be in a position to tell the Commission that we have met the necessary conditions on those elements by October. We have completed public consultation on the beef assurance scheme, and we shall introduce it as soon as possible. We also need to clear the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-months-plus scheme, and to start the accelerated slaughter of cattle especially at risk of developing BSE. We are well advanced with both. By the end of this week, more than 200,000 animals will have come through the 30-months-plus scheme, and we shall issue a paper today beginning a seven-day consultation on the accelerated slaughter scheme.
Removal of the ban in those first two areas would reopen an export market worth initially about £100 million a year, and the value should increase rapidly thereafter as the certified herd scheme gains momentum. Also by October, we look to the Commission to come forward with proposals for relaxing the ban on the export of embryos, subject to the advice of the Standing Veterinary Committee.
The fourth and most significant element is the removal of the ban on the export of meat from all animals under the age of 30 months. That is, of course, the beef that we
most readily and enjoyably eat here in Britain. We should be in a position to meet the necessary conditions to lift that element of the ban by November.
It is evident that there are many countries, not only in Europe but all over the world--my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned South Africa--with which we have enjoyed good trading relationships and to which we have exported our excellent beef, sometimes in large amounts, in the past. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has brought to the House tangible evidence of other countries' determination to reinstate their imports of British beef.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of the other Heads of Government that the Commission should be required to consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. We know that not only South Africa but other countries want to do that. In particular, we have been discussing with the South African Government the conditions that would satisfy them so that they would allow British beef to be sold there.
I assure my hon. Friend that the order that he has brought to the attention of the House will immediately become part of the subject matter of those discussions. We shall not rest until we have given the South African Government all the further help they need to reassure them about any elements on which they require further information. I hope that this order will be one of many from countries seeking to re-establish their market with the United Kingdom.
Restoring the beef trade is extremely important, but I cannot give the House assurances about compensation for those people who have had stocks returned from abroad. They will know that Coopers and Lybrand's second report has been published. We are helping those concerned with the disposal of such stocks but, regrettably, I cannot offer compensation in terms of reimbursement.
It is important that we re-establish the sale of British beef, both domestically and abroad. We are doing well in the sale of hindquarters in the UK, and we are pressing on with policies to try to promote the sale of forequarters at home. Equally important is the issue of third-country exports, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for bringing this important information and order to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East):
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's energy conservation programme--the second time I have raised this topic on the Adjournment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), replied to a similar debate in February 1995.
I am raising the matter again to review the various Government schemes, to point out apparent shortfalls and to seek assurances from the Minister that the Government are still committed to those policies and will continue to work towards achieving their objectives. Last February, the Under-Secretary's reply did not address the figures that I presented, showing shortfalls in most of the Government's targets. Indeed, Peter Smith--the chairman of the Royal Institute of British Architects energy and environment committee--wrote to me to say that he wished that the quality of the questions had been matched by the quality of answers. I am pleased to see the Minister of State in his place, and that gives me more confidence that the issue will be addressed properly this year.
I am also pleased at the timing that I have achieved. For once, I have got it right. The debate is being held on the day the United Kingdom report comes out, and the comments of the Secretary of State have been widely reported in the press. I have provided the Minister with a summary of the points that I intend to make and the questions that I intend to raise, and I look forward to his answers.
First, I wish to examine the progress that has been made in each of the schemes in the climate change programme. No discussion of this programme could proceed without mentioning the Energy Saving Trust. Last year, I pointed out that only 10 per cent. of the trust's originally projected funding was likely to be available, and it expected to make only 10 per cent. of the energy savings--and hence carbon dioxide reductions--that it originally intended to deliver. I tabled parliamentary questions on the matter earlier this year and, sadly, the story has not changed. The trust is underfunded, and is expected to save only 0.3 million tonnes of carbon--a reduction from the original target of 2.5 million tonnes.
This year's figures show that no progress has been made on last year's figures, despite an assurance given in last year's debate that the Government's new powers to contribute to the trust's running costs represented
Last year, I stated that I was pleased that VAT was not raised to 17.5 per cent., as the Government had intended. Apart from breaking their election promises, I felt that the increased fuel poverty that that would bring was totally unacceptable. However, as I said last year, the Government must address the hole that their defeat on VAT has left in the carbon dioxide programme. In addition, how are the promised reductions in prices that the Government are using to sweeten the planned nuclear sell-off expected to affect carbon dioxide emissions? The DTI's annual report on energy states specifically that a
10 per cent. drop in fuel prices tends to lead to an increase in consumption of between 2 and 3 per cent. Do the Government have any programmes to address that?
These two policies were originally intended to provide 40 per cent. of the climate change programme, yet they have not been implemented in full. Consequently, the Government's commitment to energy saving has to be questioned. Energy Paper 65 may claim that we will reach our carbon dioxide targets despite this--something that I still doubt and will address later--but the Government's two main policies to reduce energy usage have not worked. I would like the Minister to admit that, and accept that, if both policies have failed, new ones must be implemented in their place.
It is not just those two policies that have failed. The Government have long said that the public sector should lead the way with energy savings and should demonstrate what can be achieved. Government Departments and health authorities were set a target of reducing energy usage by 15 per cent. in the five years up to 1995-96. Last year, I pointed out that--after four years of the project--things were not looking good.
At that stage, health authorities had delivered only 7.9 per cent. of the savings, and some Departments were not even producing figures. One year on, my prediction that the NHS would fail to meet its target has been borne out. According to a parliamentary answer on 9 January, the 7.9 per cent. savings figure that I quoted last year has been revised to 6.5 per cent. The Minister for Health himself has said that, by 1996, savings are expected to be 8.3 per cent.
Other Departments are not doing much better. By 1993-94--three years into the programme--Departments had achieved only 6 per cent. savings on average. Again, that falls far short of the target. Some Departments have not shown a serious commitment to the targets and, if they are supposed to be setting an example, they are leaving a lot to be desired. It is simply not good enough, and it is not just a case of the public sector setting an example. Energy efficiency measures save money. Why should we be cutting services to reduce Government spending when we could be cutting energy use in the public sector? I hope that the Minister will tell us how he plans to improve performance, and will give an assurance that Departments will take the new targets of 20 per cent. savings between 1990 and 2000 a little more seriously than they took the previous ones.
Last year, I used figures from parliamentary questions to show that progress towards the target of 1,500 MW of new renewable generating capacity was falling behind. The figures showed that 74 MW of new capacity was coming on line each year, against a target of 150 MW. Updated information has shown that this trend has continued. Between the end of 1993 and the end of 1995--the most recent figures available--the rate slowed further, to only 45 MW of new capacity each year. I have been assured that contracts are in place to enable the targets to be reached, and that the rate of new renewable capacity coming on line is increasing. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, and I hope that he will reconfirm the Government's commitment to those targets.
For combined heat and power plant, the target required an average of 300 MW of new capacity each year. Last year, I calculated that the rate so far had been 200 MW. I am pleased to say that, one year on, the situation is
improving. Last year, 400 MW of combined heat and power came on line, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the rate of growth of CHP will continue and that the Government are still committed to the target of 5,000 MW by 2000. The rate will need to increase further if the shortfall from earlier years is to be overcome. I will be delighted if the Minister will confirm that that will happen.
Another policy set out in the climate change programme was the improvement in the building regulations, which came in a year late but is now in force. The regulations do not yet apply in Scotland. I know that this is beyond the remit of the Minister, but if he is aware of any plans to extend the regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope that he will tell us in his reply.
The original climate change programme also claimed that new standards would be introduced for improving the efficiency of domestic appliances by 10 per cent. by 1997 and 40 per cent. by 2000. I have tabled several parliamentary questions on that statement, but have never received an assurance that the 40 per cent. target still exists. I understand that the standards being adopted for fridges and freezers will give a 15 per cent. saving. Further measures are under discussion. Reading between the lines, it appears that the 40 per cent. target has been abandoned. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government's present thinking on that. If the target is now considered impossible, what energy saving does he expect to be delivered? I look forward to his reply.
I am fully aware that, according to Energy Paper 65, the United Kingdom will manage to achieve the carbon dioxide targets. Last year's debate took place before publication of that paper, and I commented then on the likelihood of it making that claim. The Government increased the prediction of how many gas-fired and nuclear power stations would be on stream by 2000. Those predictions are very optimistic, with a great reliance on elderly Magnox stations and gas-fired stations that have only recently passed the first stage of planning permission.
I am not the only one who sees problems ahead. DRI McGraw-Hill calculated that the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions would increase up to 2000. More recently, stories in the press have shown discrepancies between European Union predictions of emissions in 2000 and those of the International Energy Agency. Interestingly, none of the independent studies casts the United Kingdom's emissions in quite the same light as Energy Paper 65. Predictably, EP65 is far more optimistic than any of the independent reports.
Such discrepancies lead me to believe that our carbon dioxide emissions should be monitored independently, with reports presented in the House. Although I am happy to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate every year, scrutiny should be more rigorous and Ministers should be more accountable for the programme. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
I also hope that the Minister will accept that the climate change programme set out to meet the Rio targets should still be carried out. The energy-saving measures that it set out are an important step towards improving energy efficiency. They should be not abandoned, but expanded.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government remain committed to the targets set out in the climate change programme.
Having run through a review of the Government's policies, I will suggest how energy efficiency could be promoted. I am firmly of the opinion that our carbon dioxide targets will not be met, so I hope the Minister will take these suggestions seriously. I hope that he will ensure that the Government reduce the rate of value added tax on energy-saving materials. The Paymaster General promised to consider ways to do so on Third Reading of the Finance Bill. The Government narrowly won the vote, but in a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), they seemed to be backing away from that promise. That one measure would kick-start sales of energy-saving products, giving the market a much-needed boost. It would also remove the anomaly that was pointed out by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), that energy saving was taxed at a far higher rate than energy use.
I also welcome the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which is now in force. The Minister can do two things to strengthen that Act. First, I hope that he will ensure the speedy passage of the Energy Conservation Bill, which sensibly extends the Act. Secondly, I hope that he will consider local authorities' concerns that the £3 million given to them this year under the new burdens procedure has not been confirmed for future years. That money was to assist local authorities with the preparation of reports under the Act, and its withdrawal will make life difficult for councils. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that extra money will be forthcoming, as I have heard rumblings that the Department of the Environment is trying to withdraw it--rumblings that I hope the Minister will squash in his reply.
"only and exclusively on the basis of the public health and objective scientific criteria"
and of the judgment of the Commission. So we now have--
1.30 pm
"an important first step in establishing funding for the trust and the schemes that it brings forward."--[Official Report, 17 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 1314.]
I hope that the Minister can tell us more about some of the schemes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |