Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mark Spencer

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I am not aware of any investigation into magnetic fields by the independent panel. It is certainly something I can feed back to our friends at CEFAS, who are the experts in this. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who started this work as Secretary of State. With the progress we have made so far, frustrating as it is, we are more informed than we were.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the devastating effect this issue has had on fishing communities in the north-east. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said, it is also potentially having an effect on tourism, after many years of cleaning up that coast to be an attractive tourist destination. Algal bloom was the first argument as to why this might have occurred. In his statement, the Minister said:

“I am considering carefully whether…the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science can ascertain conclusively the cause of this unusual mortality.”

To echo the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), what next, Minister?

[Mark Spencer]

It is about taking advice from those scientists and working with them so that they can establish the facts behind what caused this disease. As much as the House and I want to find the actual cause of this die-off, we have to face the scientific fact that if that event does not repeat itself—I sincerely hope it does not—we may never find its cause. If it is repeated, those scientists are ready to jump into action at great speed to try to establish the facts.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mark Spencer

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I join my right hon. Friend in declaring my interest, and I pay tribute to him for his work as Chair of the Select Committee and the scrutiny that he brings to this area of government. He is right to highlight the uplands. In these schemes, we have something for everyone. Whether someone is a small livestock farmer in the uplands or a huge arable farmer in the lowlands, there is something that they can engage with to improve their business and improve the biodiversity and environmental output of their farm. Of course, some of the SFI criteria we have put in place—particularly those regarding improved grassland and low-input grassland—are aimed specifically at sheep farmers to ensure that there is something they can participate in. I do not underestimate the economic value of the food they produce, or the impact they have on the tourism industry and on the mental health of people visiting that part of Yorkshire to unwind and enjoy the great landscapes that those farmers have created.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the intentions of this policy. He said that the scheme would be open to all farms of all shapes and sizes. In County Durham we have a lot of tenanted smaller farms. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) just said, a lot of them are struggling at the moment with diesel and fertiliser costs, and other things. Some of these decisions will need investment up front. Will there be any incentives or help for smaller farmers to make that investment? They will also need guidance; big agriculture businesses will have that already, but smaller farmers will need specific help.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have taken a number of things into account. Under the SFI, we have introduced a management payment of an extra £20 per hectare on the first 50 hectares, which will help smaller farmers who do not have the capacity in their business to employ a land agent, so that they have time to go into the agreement and are rewarded for doing so. That is very important.

The flexibility in the SFI scheme also helps tenant farmers. If they enter a scheme and, for some reason, they lose control of their land—if they are removed by their landlord or want to give it up, for example—they will not be penalised for leaving the scheme; they will have the flexibility to come in and out. I hope that helps tenants. We have engaged extensively with the Tenant Farmers Association, and the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the Kate Rock review, which looked specifically at the needs and desires of tenants. We have taken on board lots of those recommendations and built them into the scheme.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mark Spencer

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Absolutely.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I shall try to resist the urge to go off the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is a very experienced Member of Parliament and when he started his political career the world was a different place from what it is today. Does he recognise the necessity of having a much more flexible military system to deal with the threats that are evolving and changing in the world today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think I might be able to help here. The hon. Gentleman might have been referring to the civil war as regards Kevan Jones, as he has been around for a long time, but we are not going to open up a debate about when he first got here and how the armed forces have changed.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mark Spencer

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.

On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.

I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.

A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.

Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that defending our nation includes defending our Head of State?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but what I am talking about does not relate to security. I am talking about equerries and other people who play a vital role in running the royal household and who are important in Her Majesty’s representational role. In the previous debate people tried to conflate the two issues, but I am talking about ceremonial duties that are being paid for from the defence budget.