| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Loughton: Is my hon. Friend not disappointed that the energy tax is a downstream tax, and is not a carbon tax, whereby the more heavily polluting producers of electricity would be hit, rather than industrial users?
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter and raises another important issue relating to green taxes. I hope that the Minister will use his influence in Government to redress any imbalances and problems. I understand that he was at the forefront in advising and influencing the Chancellor on the measures announced in the Budget statement.
I expect that all hon. Members present could speak far longer on such an important report. Although this short debate is welcome, it would have been better if we could have had a longer debate, reinforcing--I say this for a third time--the importance of an annual environment debate.
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough):
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee on securing it.
The debate and the existence of the Committee, of which I am a member, testify to how far we have come. Twenty years ago, the consideration of the environment
at the heart of government would have been inconceivable. That we now debate how to address environmental concerns, not whether they should be addressed, is no small achievement.
I take this opportunity to welcome the Government's commitment to high-level political leadership on sustainable development. The process of greening government stretches from putting the Government's house in order to integrating environmental consideration into every area of policy. That is so small task, and it will not be possible unless it is led from the very top, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is doing. I look forward to seeing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attaching the same importance to the issue.
The Cabinet Committee--the Ministerial Committee on the Environment--should be central to such high-level lead taking; yet, as we noted in our report, we were disappointed to find that it has no proactive role. The Government's action to rectify that, by expanding the remit of the Committee to
The Committee still meets only to resolve disputes between Departments that disagree on the need for or method of greening government measures. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment told us that the fact that the Committee had met so rarely should be seen as evidence of the consensus in Whitehall on the need for environmental considerations to be at the heart of policy formation. Perhaps I am a cynic, but I am of the opinion that a lack of disagreement between Departments means that little is being changed. Complete agreement in Whitehall means business as usual.
With those points in mind, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider again the need for the Committee to be more proactive in championing the greening government initiative.
The continuation of the Green Ministers by the present Administration, and the formation of the Green Ministers Committee was a welcome example of the Government's commitment to strong leadership on the issue. The Government's response to our recommendations was encouraging, and clarified and enhanced the role of that Committee.
However, I was disappointed to note that meetings of the GMC were often attended by officials, not Ministers. Although we all understand the pressure of time on Ministers, Green Ministers must prioritise that important role. Equally, it was a great disappointment that the Government rejected our recommendation that the GMC be chaired sometimes by the Deputy Prime Minister. That seemed to be an excellent opportunity for the Government to reinforce their pledge of strong leadership, and at the same time, dare I say, to boost attendance.
By making Green Ministers report twice a year to the Ministerial Committee on the Environment, the Government have exceeded our recommendation of an
annual report, but that will be significant only if the reports are considered by the Cabinet Committee. The first report from the Green Ministers was due at the end of last year. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the report was submitted and whether the Cabinet Committee met to consider it?
I shall draw my remarks to a close, as I know that we are all eager to hear my right hon. Friend's response to the debate. Our report was intended to be an in-depth and positive look at progress in the greening government initiative, and to serve as a catalyst to further action where that was needed. It is encouraging that the Government response accepted many of our points, and many of our recommendations had already been actioned. However, there is still a long way to go.
When the Environmental Audit Committee was set up, the Deputy Prime Minister said, as we have heard again today, that he intended it to be
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher):
We have had an excellent debate in the best House of Commons style--pretty critical, but in a positive and cross-party manner, which I welcome. I, like others, warmly thank the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) as the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee and other members of that Committee, and all those who have spoken, for a lively debate on greening government.
I recognise that the Committee has already produced eight reports--which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is a pretty good hit rate--and a valuable report on the greening government initiative. I look forward to the Committee's next report on the subject, which is due later in the year. If it is anything like the first, it will be full of genuinely constructive proposals, many of which the Government have acted on.
The hon. Gentleman had the good grace to recognise that the Budget was a turning point. It would not be an exaggeration to say that there has been a significant change, with the Budget underpinning the Red Book. There are 22 measures on the environment and they certainly are not bolted on, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) opined. The Budget is clearly about taxing bads and benefiting goods, and it is revenue neutral because of the offset on employers' national insurance contributions, which is as green taxes should be.
In answer to the point made from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), high-energy users are in a special category and, inevitably, are likely to be penalised by that tax. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said specifically that they could be given a lower rate to take account of their special requirement--the inevitable use of carbon for many of their processes--provided they could produce an adequate energy-efficiency package, to the satisfaction of my Department.
The Budget is not just about the climate change levy, which will raise nearly £2 billion and save 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year--about 5 per cent. of our target
under the Kyoto protocol. It concerns the landfill tax escalator, quarrying taxes, pesticides tax and transport measures, which will lead to major environmental sensitivity in that important area.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Orpington concerned the sustainable development strategy, and I can assure him that we intend to publish it shortly, perhaps in May. He said that the strategy should be capable of being audited. We absolutely agree, which is precisely why we have introduced 13 headline indicators. If my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister can talk about the Environmental Audit Committee being a terrier to bite the Government's ankles, I can regard the indicators as a rod to beat our own back. We will have to keep the trend line moving in the right direction or we will be heavily criticised. I welcome the fact that the strategy will be very capable of being audited.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific points, which were endorsed by almost every speaker, and said that there should be a sustainable development debate. The Government have given a response, but the loud and clear message from this debate, on both sides--
Mr. Meacher:
The message from all three sides is that the Government should reconsider their response, and I certainly undertake to raise that issue with the business managers.
The hon. Member for Orpington said that there had been a failure to provide sufficient environmental appraisals, and that point was repeated a number of times, but, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) correctly said, all Cabinet papers now have to set out whether new policies would have any significant costs or benefits to the environment. That applies to the Local Government Bill, which was mentioned, and to the question of a duty to meet social and environmental objectives in a local area, which we looked at extremely closely during preparation of the report.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was about the comprehensive spending review. I take his point; as he said, public service agreements--including, among other things, an element of environmental appraisal--are associated with the CSR. I accept that that element is not as strong as it should be, but I want to make it considerably stronger and we have a foot in the door.
The hon. Member for Lewes encouraged me to name and shame other Departments. That is not the normal practice in British Government--not publicly, at least; the practice is to persuade, to cajole and to press other Departments. As I have made clear, I welcome the work of the Environmental Audit Committee in assisting me with that process as I work with my colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman also made the perfectly fair point that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, given his weight and importance within the Government, could, very helpfully, be more closely associated with Green Ministers. My right hon. Friend will be attending the debate next week, as will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, so it is perfectly clear that he is keeping a careful eye not only on Green Ministers, but on other Departments and their commitment to our overriding objective.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) that the Green Ministers' report will go to the Cabinet Committee on the Environment and Green Ministers will have a full debate next week on the sustainable development strategy. I thank him for what he said about the posse and my putative role and I hope, as I am sure he does, that my colleagues will read his strictures.
I have tried to deal with what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said about structures and machinery. He also mentioned an annual debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made the point, with which we all agree, that policies on the environment should be integral to and co-ordinated throughout government. He also said that the involvement of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the sustainable development strategy was important in sending that message. All I can say at this moment is that I note the strong views that have been expressed in the Chamber, particularly by my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford raised a couple of points, and I shall deal with them briefly. First, he mentioned a strategic environmental appraisal, but, of course, we already carry one out. We discussed such an appraisal and whether to regard it as one of the main issues on which to make progress in our presidency of the European Union, but we decided against that on the ground of priorities. However, we accept that an appraisal has an important role to play, so long as it does not further bureaucratise and elongate a planning process that is sometimes too lengthy.
Secondly, there is no question of there being a cop-out on environmental management systems for all Departments--quite the reverse. The sustainable development unit in my Department has provided a help desk and a call-off consultancy contract for Departments and their agencies and for non-departmental public bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) said that the Government did not get their cross-departmental act together adequately on the multilateral agreement on investment. That is a charge to which I would plead guilty. The whole process was undertaken rather secretively, internationally and in other ways, but that is a lesson that we have learned. I would never accuse her of being a cynic--perish the thought--but she underestimates the effectiveness of Green Ministers. We meet only three times a year, but there are other ways of getting that message across.
The Government have tried to listen to the Environmental Audit Committee, which we believe to be extremely worth while, and we have taken action in a number of areas specifically as a result of its recommendations. The remit of the Cabinet Committee on the Environment has been extended to include the co-ordination of policies on sustainable development. Green Ministers meet three times a year, but I emphasise that they report directly to the Cabinet Committe on the Environment twice a year--a point queried by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford.
The Committee's first published report is due this summer, and it will not be air-brushed. I would never be involved in the air-brushing of that or of any report. It will concentrate not only on some of the good things that
we have done--I am not complacent and would be the first to say that they are not enough--but on the weaknesses. I shall be looking for support, around the Chamber and around the Government, to deal with those issues.
Thirdly, Departments are reviewing the scope for including sustainable development in their objectives and those of the public bodies that they sponsor. That is exactly what we will be discussing next week.
The Environmental Audit Committee is unquestionably an important part of that framework.
"consider environmental policies and co-ordinate those on sustainable development",
fails to address the problem. The Committee still has no explicit commitment to examine the impact of non-environmental policies. The shortcomings of that approach were underlined when the Committee did not even meet to consider the multilateral agreement on investment, an issue which, as we are all aware, had far-reaching environmental consequences.
"a terrier to snap at the heels of Government or bite".
My colleagues and I on the Committee have made admirable terriers, and the House can be assured that we will continue to snap and bite. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister and the House have no interest in poodles.
10.48 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |