MPs criticise government over CO2

The government has made "very poor progress" on reaching its own carbon emissions-cutting targets, MPs say.

Ministers want departments and agencies to reduce emissions by 12.5% by 2010/11 compared with 1999/2000 levels - and to be carbon-neutral by 2012.

But the influential environment audit committee said a cut of just 4% had been achieved by 2006/07.

Chairman Tim Yeo said this damaged the government's "moral authority" on environmental issues.

'Degree of confusion'

The committee said it was "extremely disappointed" that only 0.0004% of all electricity consumed by the government was generated on Crown property using renewable energy sources such as wind, solar or biomass power plants.

"The government is fully committed to protecting the environment...in particular within our own estate and across our operations"
Government spokesman

Ministers were relying "too heavily" on buying offsets to help achieve carbon neutrality, the report - Making Government Operations More Sustainable - said.

There was a "degree of confusion" about how the targets would be met and these "essential issues" should be worked out urgently, the committee added.

Mr Yeo, a Conservative former minister, said: "Until the government shows that it is living up to its commitments it will find it hard to maintain the moral authority to influence the rest of us."

But a government spokesman said it was "fully committed to protecting the environment" and limiting the effects of climate change by reducing carbon emissions and waste across its own estate and operations.

"Government is already excelling in some areas, notably the procurement of renewable energy," he said.

'Significant progress'

"However, we recognise that much more needs to be done to achieve our goal of being a leader in the EU in this area.

"The Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell is accordingly giving this work his personal leadership."

The spokesman added that data used in the committee's report was for 2006/7. "Since then further significant progress has been made," he said.

In its report, the committee also expressed concern over the reliability of emission figures.

Members criticised the Ministry of Defence for claiming a big cut in emissions after it sold the defence agency QinetiQ.

In reality, the committee said, the government was simply moving these emissions "off-balance sheet" to the private sector.

A committee spokesman said: "The government has now stopped claiming this as a cut in emissions, but the committee warns it not to make similar claims in the future."

The Office of Government Commerce should annually publish details of the amount the Government expected to spend on offsetting emissions, it was added.

Warning over phone calls database

A central database holding details of everyone's phone calls and emails could be a "step too far for the British way of life", ministers have been warned.

Plans for such a database are rumoured to be in the Communications Data Bill.

But Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said "lines must be drawn" to defend "fundamental liberties".

The government says the growth of the internet means changes must be made to the way communications are intercepted in order to combat terrorism and crime.

In his annual report, Mr Thomas addressed speculation about plans for a government-run database holding details of telephone and internet communications of the entire British population.

'Full transparency'

He warned that while "targeted and duly authorised" interception of terrorist and other suspects' communications could be "invaluable" - there should be a full public debate on the justification for such a wide-ranging database.

"Do we really want the police, security services and other organs of the state to have access to more and more aspects of our private lives?" he said in the report.

FROM THE WORLD AT ONE
More from The World at One

Later he told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I think there should be absolute full transparency."

He said it may make the work of the police simpler, but added: "We do have to stand up and say these are our fundamental liberties and our freedoms and lines have to be drawn somewhere, and there should be a full democratic debate about where exactly the lines should be drawn."

He told the BBC he was not aware of such a database in any other democracy and said there had not been enough debate on other methods of collecting personal details - like the expanded DNA database.

Internet revolution

Speculation that the government is considering collecting the information - including numbers dialled, websites visited and location of mobile phones being used - has increased because it has talked about "modifying procedures for acquiring communications data" in its proposed Communications Data Bill.

Currently police and intelligence agencies can ask telecommunication providers for information on phone calls made, texts sent and internet sites visited.

The provider can query the request, which might then go to the interception commissioner and another watchdog - but under the new proposals, that right would be removed.

"The changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data"
Home Office

In a statement the Home Office, which did not deny plans for a database, said: "The changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and investigation of crime purpose - and use it to protect the public."

It added that as a result there could be "serious consequences" for police and intelligence gathering.

"To ensure that the agencies can continue to use this valuable tool, the government is planning to bring forward the Communications Data Bill."

It said a draft bill would be published later this year "allowing for full engagement with Parliament and the public".

'Orwellian step'

But the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said previous examples of people's personal information being lost, showed the government could not be trusted with it.

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve, said the government's record on protecting data was "appalling" adding: "Putting all this data into the hands of the government will threaten our security, not make it better."

Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the database would be "an Orwellian step too far".

"Ministers have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted with sensitive data. There is no reason to think they will be any less slapdash with our phone and internet records," he said.

Elsewhere in his report, Mr Thomas notes that he is serving two enforcement notices against HM Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence after "recent high-profile data breaches".

They will have to give progress reports on what they are doing to "improve data protection compliance".

He also points out that 11 people and organisations have been prosecuted by his office in the past 12 months.

Brown defends fuel duty decision

Gordon Brown has defended a decision to postpone a 2p rise in fuel duty after David Cameron suggested it was timed to coincide with next week's by-election.

The increase has been put off from October until at least next March.

In the Commons, the Tory leader asked if this had "anything to do with the Glasgow East by-election".

But the prime minister said the move, coming just before MPs' summer break and amid rising oil prices, would help people facing high food and fuel bills.

Pressure

The increase in fuel duty - originally planned for last March - had already been postponed until this October.

But the government says it will now not make any changes until the Budget next March at the earliest.

The price of unleaded petrol has risen 25% over the past year and pressure has been mounting for duty to be cut.

"Can you tell us whether this decision had anything to do with the Glasgow East by-election?"
David Cameron
Tory leader

LIVE: Prime Minister's questions

The announcement of a further delay to the planned rise was made by Chancellor Alistair Darling ahead of a Conservative-called debate on fuel duty now taking place in the Commons.

At prime minister's question time, Mr Cameron said: "The government announced today that after months of dithering it is scrapping the 2p tax rise on fuel.

"Can you tell us whether this decision had anything to do with the Glasgow East by-election?"

Mr Brown replied: "It is right to announce, as we have done previously, a decision before the House rises (for the summer break)."

He said the government would "continue to help hard-pressed families who are facing high fuel bills and high food prices because of what is happening in every country in the world....

"And in recognition of the problems that people face with petrol, we are freezing the duty of petrol for the full year. And we will bring forward further measures to help families in due course."

'Winter of discontent'

The prime minister's spokesman said there were "lots of precedents" for announcements on fuel duty to be made before the parliamentary summer recess.

He said Mr Darling had "decided to do it now because he wanted to end any uncertainty".

But Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg warned a "winter of discontent" was "just around the corner" with jobs at risk and families coping with rising food and energy prices.

"You promised to abolish boom and bust. But now we've got both - inflation's booming, the economy's bust," he told the prime minister.

Mr Brown said employment was at its "highest level ever" according to labour force statistics published on Wednesday and inflation was lower than the rest of Europe and the US.

"We are taking action to help people through these difficult circumstances," he said and urged Mr Clegg to "see the economy in its proper context".

The RAC welcomed Mr Darling's announcement, but said: "It does not go far enough. We would like to see the chancellor not just postpone future rises but actually cut fuel duty."

"I'll look again at the matter again in the budget but I think that this is the right thing to do to help motorists and to help businesses"
Alistair Darling
Chancellor

AA president Edmund King said: "We are delighted that the chancellor has seen common sense. Many motorists have endured months of misery and this is a welcome piece of good news for them."

Kate Gibbs, of the Road Haulage Association, said anything that helped the transport industry was "good news" although the postponement of the fuel duty rise represented "quite a small drop in the ocean".

But Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable said: "There's absolutely no reason why the chancellor should have been stampeded into making this decision and we have no indication how it's going to be paid for."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates the latest fuel duty decision leaves the Exchequer £550m worse off, and brings the total cost of freezing it this year to £1.1bn.

The decision to postpone the rise was disclosed in a response to a parliamentary question tabled by a Labour backbencher.

Budget consideration

Mr Darling told the BBC News Channel it was clear that oil prices were going to remain "high for some time yet"

"So I've reached the view that it's right now, before the House of Commons goes away for the summer recess, to say that we're going to postpone the increase that was due in October," he said.

"I'll look again at the matter again in the budget but I think that this is the right thing to do to help motorists and to help businesses."

The decision follows a series of demonstrations by lorry drivers demanding cheaper diesel. Figures show petrol prices have risen nearly a quarter during the past year, and diesel 36%.

AA figures suggest the cost of a litre of unleaded petrol averaged 119.5p across the UK on Tuesday, with diesel averaging out at 133p.

Fuel duty increases have been postponed a number of times over recent years when oil prices have been high.

---

Readers have been writing to the BBC News website with their reaction to the fuel duty postponement:

I fail to see how this helps people out. The chancellor is only postponing a rise in duty. Not cutting duty. So essentially they've done nothing for us. And Vince Cable wonders where the shortfall of £1.1bn will be made up? How about the windfall tax the chancellor has collected due to rising oil prices?!
Col, Milton Keynes

I think it's obviously a good thing, but fuel duty needs massive cuts, to bring the price of unleaded and diesel to around the 80p a litre mark. That would be a reasonable amount to pay.
Sam Middleton, Yarm, Teesside

Far too little, far too late.
Paul, Ashford, Kent

What David Cameron should be asking, is why a cut to the tax should not be imminent. Postponing a rise is laughably weak. With the recent increases in oil prices has come a proportionate rise in the income from fuel duty. A huge extra windfall for the Treasury at our expense. Cutting the tax rate to maintain the Treasury's income and offset the effect on the taxpayer would be the response of a government with an interest in the welfare of the British people. The opposition should be making this point very clearly.
Michael, London

Inevitable. But why is there so little mention of the EXTRA revenue as a result of fuel duty being a percentage of fuel cost - so the higher the cost of petrol, the more duty is paid?
Pat Bell, Worksop, Notts

The extra revenue from the planned fuel duty escalator rise is built into the Chancellor's spending plans. But at what oil price was the expected extra revenue calculated? It's a safe bet that it wasn't at $140 a barrel or more. Therefore, how much "bonus" extra VAT revenue is he raking in from us at the pumps due to the high price of oil? I'm sure that it's a lot more than 2p/litre, meaning he'll have more money in the pot than he would have got from the proposed duty rise. In which case, shouldn't he be able to really help us by CUTTING duty and still balance his books?
Anthony Dixon, Lincoln

So we are now supposed to feel over the moon and that the government is really fighting for us because it chose to postpone a further tax increase. Do you honestly think the public are that stupid Mr Brown?
Steve, Wellingborough

Of course this is timed to coincide nicely with the by-election. Is there anything that Brown and his cronies do that isn't 100% politically motivated? If there is, I have yet to see it.
Kier, Reading

How about a reduction and get back to 86p a litre like year ago.
Pete Graham, Birmingham

Well it's a start but so much more needs to be done to help the hard working people who need their car as the only reasonable means of transport to work.
Caroline, County Durham

It had to happen! Why did it take so long for the government to announce. Britain is the highest priced for fuel in Europe, at a time when the Government are reaping the benefit of high fuel costs with their own windfall through their high taxation. 67 pence (including VAT) in the pound goes to the government coffers, it's disgusting the way the government are letting the normal person in the street suffer through their taxation.
Peter Davis, Inverness, Scotland

Everyone is forgetting that each time the price of fuel at the pump goes up, the government gets 17.5% VAT on the increase. The 2p per litre increase which has been postponed will not cost the Chancellor anything, he's still gaining. If the oil price drops he will lose out on the VAT. Every time it goes up he gains. Why are we so blind?
John Bowtell, Ipswich

I have been firmly of the opinion that the government would be in a position to give ground on duty once the crude oil price inflation tax windfall started to bite into the budget deficit. Is this the first tangible proof that this is happening?
Thomas Wedd, West Linton, Scotland

At a time when people are having to cope with the increased cost of living this decision should be welcomed. My only complaint is that why is fuel duty not being reduced as rising food prices are directly linked to the price of fuel?
Mr A R Gandhi, Wembley

I think it is too little. A drop in fuel costs is only going to help lower costs all round, which has to be good for the economy! Cheaper transport is going to give us cheaper goods and help get the country running again.
Roy, Essex

Fuel has gone up between 25% and 36% in the last year and the PM is offering to "postpone" another 2p rise - Wow! Thanks! Can I have jam on it? Why doesn't he instead levy a windfall tax on Shell and BP of say somewhere between 25% and 36% of their profits this year and give us all a tax cut?
Hugh Janus, London

Big deal, it still won't stop garages profiteering by hiking up the price three times a week. The tax needs reducing not delaying. Most people now are running round with cars full with petrol, and just keep topping it up. It is not only dangerous in hot weather but also catastrophic in the event of a smash.
Steve Devine, Derby England

This announcement has been made to make the government appear generous, but in reality they have had that 2p rise several times over in the past year. Every 13.5p rise in fuel to the consumer contains 2p in extra VAT revenue!
Richard, Yeovil, Somerset