---

Mr. Paul Marsden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McNulty: I shall not, given the time constraints.

The environment is a serious matter. The environment is taken seriously throughout the White Paper and the balance between the environment and the

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1710

growth of aviation is mentioned constantly and clearly throughout it. However, the way in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham developed his case was so flawed, simplistic and empty-headed in all regards that it is not worth debating at all. [Interruption.] Well, here is the real nub of it. The hon. Gentleman cited serious organisations that we hold in high regard and with which we work closely, but he misquoted them. He then made simplistic extrapolations from their cases in such a fundamentally flawed way as to harm and undermine the environmentalist case. He made probably the weakest and most flawed contribution to the debate, which is a shame because the debate was otherwise useful.

I did not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said—I am sorry about the other night's Porto result, but that is by the by. There is a goal called sustainable aviation towards which we can work. We must mitigate impact, even though that cannot be totally absent, but the goal is worth pursuing. I agree about the need to open up skies more readily for some of our regional airports—that is clearly set out in the White Paper—and I shall happily meet him to talk about Pakistan International Airlines, fifth freedoms, Manchester airport and everything else.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) bewails the EU—well, the EU full stop. I was sorry that he bewailed the EU air service agreements. We are moving toward a stage at which there will be a massive break up of the national carriers—a national carrier is the model of the past. I do not agree with what he said about sovereignty. Given that there are now trans-national and trans-European families of airlines rather than individual families, it must be right to move towards EU designation while retaining the bilaterals until that comes into play. I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his constituency capacity. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also made such points. As he kindly said, there is an ongoing ménage à quatre—me and the "Three Johns from Hillingdon"—in which we discuss Heathrow at length.

The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made some interesting points about Southend airport. Happily, or otherwise, I was on top of Southend town hall the other week to have a look at Southend airport, among other things. I know that Freddie Laker ran flights from the airport to the Channel Islands back in the 1960s. I flew on one of the last Laker flights to America, but then the company went bust, so I could not fly back by Laker—that is by the by. His point about the further development of maintenance and other refurbishment facilities, which are the strength of Southend, was well made.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on judicial review—that also goes back to what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said. He asked whether we had spoken to anyone and how many reviews were ongoing. With the greatest of respect, I will not go there in any way, shape or form. People are fully entitled to put forward cases for review. They need to be taken seriously, but I say "No comment", and move on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) has already made good points about Coventry airport that need pursuing. In

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1711

the first instance, the points are matters for the planning authority, but if we need to discuss the situation further with him and other hon. Members, we will. Before the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) starts flapping about, I am still happy to meet him and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) to talk about East Midlands airport and the way forward on capacity and a new voluntary local network, and the options for full designation such as that of the airports in London and the south-east.

Mr. Garnier rose—

Mr. McNulty: I will not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman; I said that to obviate giving way to him at all.

David Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McNulty: I will not, with the greatest of respect, but having said that, I will—briefly—because I will then sit down.

David Taylor: When the Secretary of State for Transport launched the White Paper several months ago, he used the phrase

"stringent noise and environmental controls"

on several occasions in the context of growth at regional airports. Is the Minister now able to tell us what shape those stringent controls will take? Will they be based on a national framework, or will they emerge from the fog of some Dutch auction with airports and planning authorities underbidding each other to ensure that the greatest growth takes place in their areas?

Mr. McNulty: It is very rare that I regret giving way to a colleague, but I do on this occasion, as my hon. Friend's question was far too long. It is a question of balance—we must consider whether we are satisfied with voluntary noise restrictions at East Midlands airport, whether we are happy with arrangements if it expands and whether we need to legislate for noise within a national framework, as has been suggested. Those are all in the mix, but it is only two or three months since the first real White Paper—other documents have been called White Papers, but they are not—which strives to achieve a balance between the interests of business, the community, the aviation sector and, crucially, the environment, and goes far beyond the Mickey Mouse suggestions of the Liberal Democrats. We want a substantive package at national, European and international levels so that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said, the goal of sustainable aviation over the next three years is achievable and the country can go forward with a proud aviation record.

Debate concluded, pursuant to Resolution [3 March].

Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) and Order [29 October 2002], until 6 pm.

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1712

Biofuels

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

[Relevant Documents: Seventeenth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Biofuels, HC (2002–03) 929–I, and the Government's response thereto, HC (2003–04) 270; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5919.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That further resources, not exceeding £1,251,750,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £613,478,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.—[Joan Ryan.]

3.50 pm

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to open our debate on biofuels. The motion deals with an estimate of expenditure for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Minister for the Environment, who will reply to our debate, could deal with all outstanding issues on biofuels if the £1.25 billion mentioned in the motion, or at least part of it, could be veered towards biofuels. It is a substantial sum, and I would love to have a debate on everything that that expenditure covers. However, if a small amount could be spared for biofuels, everyone would leave the Chamber feeling even happier.

It is always a pleasure to learn that events are moving in the right direction, as was demonstrated by the front page of the business section of The Daily Telegraph. Most of the newspaper is printed in black and white, but there is a pink section in the middle covering business, where a headline said, "Whitehall warms to 'fuel from crops' initiative". I took that as an omen of a positive debate, as we consider the biofuels report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is cited as a relevant document. The Order Paper says that the estimate is

"to be considered in so far as it relates to biofuels"

and I am delighted by that close link.

May I put on record my appreciation of everyone who contributed to the production of the report? The subject of biofuels attracted a great deal of interest from people in the fields of agriculture and fuel, the general public, and people with environmental interests, many of whom kindly gave evidence. None of our reports could be produced without the hard work of the Clerks and others who support us, and I thank in particular our specialist, Kate Trumper, for her contribution. I am delighted that the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) are in the Chamber this afternoon, as they serve on the Committee and take a particular interest in the subject, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She was a member of the Committee when the report was produced, and has since been a leading player in subsequent debates on the subject in the House. She serves her constituency and East Anglia well in continuing to advance the cause of biofuel, as does my hon. Friend the Member for South-East

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1713

Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and other Select Committee members who have worked hard on the issue.

The timing of our debate is propitious, because it is just a week before the Budget. We live in hope that the Chancellor is prepared even now to say something about further encouraging the use of biofuels. Far from holding out the begging bowl to the Treasury, I want to set out an alternative strategy for developing a genuine biofuels industry in Britain. As I shall outline, the transformation of oilseed rape—raw material which is indigenous to the United Kingdom—into biodiesel is sadly almost non-existent. Production plants currently in operation use the residues of cooking oil to produce biofuels. It is good that some biofuels are produced, but given that British agriculture would benefit from a revolution in fuel production, we appear not to be taking advantage of opportunities to produce and develop a facility for biofuels in this country.

The first comment in our report is that biofuels

"are the only source of renewable power currently suitable for road transport".

Given the Government's understandable commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we would say that the two naturally go together. In a moment I shall review what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says by way of justifying further activity in this area.

I remind the House of a second and crucial conclusion that arose from our report. We pointed out that

"the Government's biofuels policy, to the extent that it has one, appears muddled and unfocused."

It is important to see what the Government said in reply to our Select Committee report. They did not address the issue, apart from disagreeing with us in the nicest way. They stated:

"The Government does not accept that its policy is muddled and unfocused",

yet one has only to consider the number of Departments with a finger in the pie—the Department for Transport, the Treasury, DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry. There appears to be no champion of biofuels. Perhaps when the Minister replies, he will put on the champion's hat and tell us how he intends to translate his Department's very positive view of biofuels into a UK biofuels industry.

When Lord Whitty came to give evidence to the Committee, he made it clear, with his usual remarkable candour, that his Department was not only in favour of biofuels, but frustrated at the barriers to developing an indigenous industry that were being put in place by the Treasury.

DEFRA, together with Peter Clery of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, have produced an excellent little leaflet, which begins by reminding us that biofuels

"can cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by 50–60 per cent. compared to fossil fuels and so can contribute to meeting UK targets for alleviating climate change."

The document goes on:

"The production of biofuels from arable crops would provide a useful new market for rural Britain".

Well, we are cheering, and we have only got to page 3. Then we come to some more telling analysis. Under the heading "Are they available?", the document reports:

11 Mar 2004 : Column 1714

"About 700,000 litres (around 600 tonnes) of biodiesel are currently sold each month"—

then comes the let-down—

"produced mainly from recycled cooking oils and available as a 5 per cent. blend from around 100 filling stations. No bioethanol is yet available commercially."

In the same document is a beautiful picture, probably taken in a field in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, of a sugar beet harvesting machine, giving the impression that that is the way forward, but sadly there is no facility to take that harvest of sugar beet and turn it, in this case, into bioethanol.

On the following page the document continues:

"Producing biofuels costs (pre-tax) about twice as much as fossil fuels, depending on the cost of feedstock and crude oil."

DEFRA recognised the need for help, but as our report pointed out, a 20p duty derogation was all the help that came. We put that to the Treasury Minister, the Economic Secretary, who came to speak to the Committee. That number was selected—it was not worked out. I received a parliamentary answer that said that it was chosen—it was selected. The figure could have been 19 or 21, but the Treasury selected 20 because it wanted to give some encouragement, but not to encourage a biofuel import industry.

I am a simple man, and I looked at the logic of that. If there is no indigenous industry, where will biofuel come from as the country moves towards meeting its EU obligations? By definition, it will be imported. Can we not make a virtue out of the necessity of the DEFRA analysis, and start to find ways of producing an industry at home? The document goes on to say:

"In the wider context, the EU has adopted legislation which will require the UK and other European countries to set indicative targets for the use of biofuels. The EU's reference targets are 2 per cent. by 2005 and 5.75 per cent. by 2010."

It is not long until 2005. The Department for Transport, which is in charge of the consultation exercise on the targets for biofuels, knew last May that such an exercise would be held, but nothing has been produced.

---