The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): This year, we have received approximately 50,000 representations from members of the public, stakeholders and others on the Climate Change Bill. Most representations are campaign based, offering support for the Bill and encouraging the Government to strengthen it.
I am grateful for that reply. The Government grabbed the headlines by stating that they would cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. That is an interesting date, because there will probably have been a general election by then, and the Secretary of State will not be in post to be accountable on those figures. Therefore, could I ask him to give the House an update
before 2010 on the progress on meeting those targets? Does he agree that it is not just a matter of having long-term objectives? To keep the Government accountable, it is appropriate to have interim targets as well.
Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentlemandespite the somewhat unkind premise of his questionthat it is important to measure progress, but the 2010 target was always very ambitious. On the basis of current trends, it seems likely that we will achieve about a 16 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. As he will know, however, the United Kingdom will be one of the few countries to meet the Kyoto commitment; indeed, we will probably almost double it.
As for interim targets, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment had to say when he introduced the Climate Change Bill on Monday. I greatly regret that I could not be present on that occasion. We will set out an indicative range so that we can measure our progress year by year, bearing in mind that five-year budgets are sensible.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) (Lab): It has been well flagged up that the Climate Change Bill will include a clause relating to the banning or restricting of plastic bags. Before the Government embark on that route, if indeed they are planning to do so, will my right hon. Friend listen to representations from the packaging and film manufacturers? Having banned plastic bags, we do not want to turn to far more damaging materials, including imported materials such as jute and hemp.
Hilary Benn: Of course we will always listen to representations. We propose to take a power requiring those who issue single-use bags to charge for them. Let me be frank: environmental impact is an issue, but 13 billion of these things are distributed every year, and they are a symbol of a throwaway society. Public attitudes are changing. One big supermarket, Marks and Spencer, has recently reintroduced charges. We should not forget that 20 or 25 years ago most supermarkets charged for plastic bags. This is an important symbolic step. We hope that the industry will be able to demonstrate progress itself, but we will have that power, and if we do not see that progress we will use it.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): The Departments responsibility is enabling us all to live within our environmental means. I am pleased to report that as of yesterday, under the single payments scheme, the Rural Payments Agency had paid £1.396 billion to farmers. That equates to 96.27 per cent. of the estimated total fund, and means that the agency has met all its payment targets for the 2007 scheme. I congratulate the agencys staff on their efforts. I can reassure the House that they will continue to work hard to ensure that all outstanding payments are made as quickly as possible.
Andrew Gwynne: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. Given that the most important issue facing him as Secretary of State, us as Members of Parliament and society as a whole is climate change, and given that the United Kingdom is leading the way with the Climate Change Bill, what recent discussions has he had with his counterparts around the globe to ensure that other countries are doing their bit as well?
Hilary Benn: I have recently visited the United States of America, attended the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan, been to South Korea, and had discussions with the Indian Science Minister, Mr. Sibal, who leads on climate change. I can summarise those discussions very simply by saying that there is a growing recognition of the need to act. How we construct a deal between now and Copenhagen so that enough contributions can be put on the table to enable us to make progress, in return for finance to help the developing and emerging economies pay for low-carbon development, is the central question that we face in our negotiations, and we all have a part to play in that regard.
T2.  Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not mind my expressing my disappointment to the Secretary of State that no Minister or official from his Department attended the world food summit in Rome to make a DEFRA contribution to the agenda. Some three and a half months ago, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced its report on managing bovine TB. The Secretary of State wrote to me asking whether he could have a little more time than the usual two months in which to reply to the report, so that a comprehensive policy could be developed and subsequently published. Has that work been completed, and will the Secretary of State assure me that it will be published shortly? Will he also make certain that the Select Committee has sight of his reply first, and that the contents are not leaked into the public domain?
Hilary Benn: I am very happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have taken the Select Committee reportand, indeed, this problemvery seriously, and we will publish our response shortly. On the right hon. Gentlemans first point, as I am sure he is aware, the Government were represented at that conference by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
T4.  Mrs. Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op): Many of my constituents are worried by stories they are being told that their families could face huge bills for rubbish collection. What plans do the Government have for allowing local councils to charge for waste collection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Joan Ruddock):
I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friends constituents have been worried about the possibility of huge charges. There have been scare stories in the tabloid pressfuelled, I am sorry to say, by a spokesperson from the Conservative partythat there could be charges as high as £1,000 a year. There is absolutely no truth in those stories. The
Government plan to allow up to five local authorities to pilot incentive schemes next year. They would allow local councils to establish rebates for those who recycle most and to impose charges on those who recycle least. From the continental experience, we know that the right level for an incentive to influence behaviour would be about £50 a year. Any money
Joan Ruddock: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not akin to a tax; it is technically a tax, but actually any money [Interruption.] No, he should listen carefully. It does not behave like a tax. Any money that the local authority collects is returned to the residents. There is no revenue for the local authority. There is no revenue for the council in these schemes. They are revenue-neutral. Local authoritiesprimarily Conservative oneshave sought these schemes, and in polls the public say that they would be fair.
T3.  Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): In what year did the Government begin consulting on their proposed national noise strategy and, so as to get a topical answer, when will the national noise strategy be published?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jonathan Shaw): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He and I were founder members of the all-party group on noise reduction, and I am sure he will wish to join me in paying tribute to Val Weedon, who recently stepped down from her post at the UK Noise Association, where she did a lot of good work.
Since I was appointed to my post, I and my officials have been looking into the matter the hon. Gentleman raises. He will be aware that we published the noise maps, on which the Department did a huge amount of work. That was one of the largest IT projects ever undertaken, and it was successfully achieved. I was the Minister responsible, and it worked; it all went very well. We must concentrate on the noise strategy, and I hope that I will be able to bring it forward within the year.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): May I return the Houses attention to something that not only looks like a tax, but acts like a tax? Can the Secretary of State confirm that under the Chancellors planned changes to vehicle excise duty the increase on a small car such as a Nissan Micra will be larger than on a Hummer? Does he think that that is green or socially just? We all know that the changes in vehicle excise duty will raise more than £1 billion to fill the black hole left by the Governments incompetent handling of the economy, but will he remind us of the Treasurys forecast of the cut in vehicle emissions resulting from the changes?
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas): As ever, the hon. Gentleman presents only part of the story. He fails to point out that since the fuel duty escalator was abolished in 1999, revenue from transport taxes has fallen by 13 per cent. in real terms. I hope he agrees.
Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister is obviously incapable of telling the House what estimate the Treasury has made of the carbon reduction benefit of this new tax. I can tell him that it is less than 0.5 per cent. of all emissions from road transport. When he next meets the Chancellor, will he remind him that the most environmentally unfriendly thing that can be done is to dress up stealth taxes as green taxes and hope to get away with it, because the people of Britain are not stupid? We want to see changes in the publics attitude and behaviour, so will he tell the Chancellor that the only way in which attitudes change when the Government dress up stealth taxes as green taxes is that people dislike the Government even more than they do already?
Mr. Woolas: What this exchange shows is that the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to his own question, and that exposes the fact that his motive in asking the question was to score political points, not to elicit information from us. I shall ask him a question in response: whatever happened to his policy that the polluter pays?
T5.  Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): Will the Minister reassure those of us who live on the Thames estuary about the integrity of the flood barriers and the capacity of those communities to withstand a possible surge from the North sea? There is growing concern that there does not seem to be an initiative to have a new Thames barrier to the east of London.
Mr. Woolas: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In the studies of the Thames barrier, and flood and tidal protection for the Thames basin, we are actively working on that 70 to 100-year plan to ensure that the defences are in place. That includes consideration of a second barrier.
T6.  Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I do not doubt the Secretary of States green credentials, but is he concerned that the closure of so many driving test centres across the country and the centralisation of such facilities into a few centres will create millions of additional and unnecessary car journeys, thus increasing CO2 emissions? Was it not unfortunate that the Government did not get a derogation from the European Union on this matter, as other countries did?
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman asks a very reasonable question. Of course, a reconfiguration of centres and depots can create extra journeys, but what one finds on other occasionsour Department studies these traffic patterns, along with the Department for Transportis that over time they even out. For example, the M4 bus corridor, which was opposed at the time by Conservative Members, has proved to be a success. However, we will have to examine the point that he has made.
T9.  Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab):
Since the big flood in York eight years ago, the Government have improved the flood defences for Rawcliffe, and Aquabarrier Systems Ltd has designed a flood barrier for Clementhorpe, which it has given to the city. When will the Environment Agency start work on improving the flood defences for Leeman road? When the water rose, 1,000 people and 700 soldiers toiled through the
night to build a sandbag wall that was 1 km long. It protected 1,000 homes from flooding, but a permanent flood defence is now long overdue.
Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. As he knows, the Environment Agency uses a risk-based approach to developing flood-risk projects, and, as a result, other work in his constituency has gone ahead before work in the Leeman road area. Many hon. Members will be familiar with that area, which is next to York station. A study of the flood risk in that specific area is being carried out, and the Environment Agency aims to report back in July. That will identify the options for flood-risk reduction, and the agency has set aside an allocation of £314,000 in its budget to progress any work identified.
T7.  Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): The EUs proposals for recording individual sheep movements are completely impractical on hill farms. Recording each individual sheep movement is not necessary for disease control or food safety purposes, and recording batch movement would provide equally good results. Will the Government assure the House that they will do all they can to get the EU proposals amended so that they will be practical to implement on hill farms, which might have hundreds of sheepperhaps even more than 1,000?
Jonathan Shaw: We know that sheep hill farmers are an important part of their communities. They help to ensure that we have the wonderful grazed landscapes that we all enjoy, but we need to ensure that the regulations do not have a disproportionate effect on our country, given that we have more sheep than most of the other European countries put together. We are working hard on that issue and when we are able to make an announcement, we will obviously do so.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Further to the remarks by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about the new vehicle excise duty proposals, is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents appreciate the potentially positive impact that the proposals could have on the environment? However, is he also aware that many of my constituents are anxious about the retrospective nature of the proposals, in that a family might have bought a large but cheap second-hand car and will find that it will cost them a great deal of money?
Mr. Woolas: My hon. Friends point is well understood. Some of my constituentsand I am sure that it is the same for hershave been worried that the word retrospective implies that they will have to back-pay. I know that she understands that point, but I just wish to clarify it. It is not unusual for taxes to be retrospective in the sense that she describes, but the Chancellor is well aware of the point that she makes.
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con):
The Secretary of State referred to the excellent report published earlier this week from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the nitrates directive. Does he recognise that the directive will place a significant financial burden on livestock and dairy farmers, and does he agree with
the Committee and the Environment Agency that English farmers need similar financial assistance for the construction of slurry stores as is provided to farmers in Wales and Scotland?
To tell the truth about the nitrates directive, if we were starting afresh it probably would not look as it does now, but it was agreed a long time ago and I am not going to take responsibility for it I was not around at the time. Having said that, we
have consulted on what we need to do, because we must make progress. I am very conscious of the pressures that it will place on farmers, and that is why we will respond in due course to the Committees report. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has been looking carefully at the issue so that we can try to minimise the impact while at the same time ensuring that we honour the requirements that Europe has placed on us. I have been keen to push anaerobic digestion, because that might be a way to provide some assistance.
Tuesday 17 JuneOpposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on the Governments plans for polyclinics followed by a debate on sentencing policy and the early release of offenders. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Monday 23 JuneIt is expected that there will be a statement on the European Council. Opposition day [11th allotted day] [second part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Sale of Student Loans Bill.
Tuesday 24 JuneOpposition day [unallotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) Order 2008.
I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House that it is my intention that the subject for the topical debate on 3 July will be Zimbabwe. It may also be helpful to Members if I inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen will open the new Session of Parliament on Wednesday 3 December.
Mrs. May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and I probably share the feelings of the entire House in thanking her for the debate on Zimbabwe. I am sorry that it is only a one-and-a-half hour topical debate, but it is good that we will be having a debate on Zimbabwe in the House.
Last weekend, the number of troops killed in Afghanistan reached 100 and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said that he was willing to keep the House informed. When will we have this statement?